Duh?: Only way to stop Detroit blight is to ease up on suburban development

[FbO Vorcha]

Now you're trying to tell me that East New York is not the ghetto. That's hilarious. The first sentence from the Wikipedia entry on East New York:

Maybe it's just not The Ghetto when you use the Detroit understanding of ghetto. I remember going through 'the ghetto' in Lansing and thinking this is nothing compared to Detroit, those houses were in what would be decent neighborhoods in Detroit.

[FbO Vorcha]

Pull up the ladder, Jack, I've got mine. Of course the people already there on their large lots do not want further development of cheaper houses on smaller lots. They enjoy looking at the great expanse of nothingness in their back yard.

Agreed, "I've got my piece of 'country' screw you guys, I'm going home to vote against letting you idjits in here."

They've seen how that country life quickly becomes just more strip malls and chain stores, and they've banded together to NIMBY it.

[FbO Vorcha]

Ok, then by your logic every city on earth is exactly the same, because with every city we can go back to a point somewhere in history where there is a similar built form. Rome was a tiny village at one point too, therefore Rome and Romeo are the same, I guess?


Every city on earth was "predominately urban" in 1910. There was no sprawl or auto-oriented development back then. What's your point? Tokyo is the same as Clarkston today because neither had sprawl in 1910?

Wait, are you just recycling examples now?

And why on earth would you compare two areas by looking back in 1910? That makes no sense whatsoever. You could argue that Novi was the same as Paris back then, as both areas had few cars and little sprawl, because obviously there were almost no cars or real sprawl back then.

[FbO Vorcha]

So a city with more than 220,000 residents than Detroit, in a smaller land area, has a "negligible" difference in population....

Who knew that a quarter million people were "negligible"? The entirety of downtown/midtown Detroit probably doesn't even have 10,000 people, yet everyone goes crazy for these areas, yet 25 times the population is a "negligible" population.

I have no idea why some people choose to resort to such weird twisting of history to come up with some crazy point that Detroit used to be this dense, transit-oriented utopia. If even at peak population, it was nowhere close in density to the other major U.S. cities, in a country that is the most sprawling on earth, then that's telling you something. Detroit was the sprawl king of cities in the sprawl king of countries.

That 220,000 is roughly 10 percent, that is a fairly negligible amount when you look at the numbers.

And stop using New York as your model for everything, I can't wait for that f*ck'n city to go underwater courtesy global warming. The world does not revolve around those ass-hats, regardless of what they think.

[Hermod]

I gotta agree here, we're destroying viable farmland to produce housing that's not really needed.

1. The farmland around Detroit wasn't all that valuable as farmland. Farming around Detroit was primarily dairy farms and truck farms.

2. Farmers getting too old to farm got a greater return selling the land to a developer than to a new farmer.

[ghettopalmetto]

1. The farmland around Detroit wasn't all that valuable as farmland. Farming around Detroit was primarily dairy farms and truck farms.

2. Farmers getting too old to farm got a greater return selling the land to a developer than to a new farmer.

Your land is bullshit. I'll give you cash if you let me pave it and build a Meijer, Applebees, and a CVS. And if you don't, I'll sue. Have a nice day.

Interesting that Hermod has such definitive [[and apparently universally applicable) conclusions without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. It must be that infallible Correctness of Opinion, huh?

[FbO Vorcha]

1. The farmland around Detroit wasn't all that valuable as farmland. Farming around Detroit was primarily dairy farms and truck farms.

2. Farmers getting too old to farm got a greater return selling the land to a developer than to a new farmer.

That greater return was a result of developers buying up land and the state taxing the surviving farmland at the value that the farmer would get if he sold it. Traverse City has had the same problem when developers started buying up land to build summer cottages and retirement houses for the previously city dwelling wealthy. That's one of the reasons that [[If I remember correctly) the Headley amendment changed how taxes were applied to property [[only revalued when sold to a new owner).

I hate to admit it, but I don't know what a 'truck farm' is. Is that where they grow GMC's and Freightliners, because I always thought those things were manufactured in great big buildings.

[nain rouge]

And stop using New York as your model for everything...

The best way to put it is, we want our big city [[or, at least, part of it) of 10,000-15,000 people per square mile back. If some people consider that a "dense suburb" rather than urban, fine. I want to live in a "dense suburb", then. Of course, Bham considers Detroit's peak density [[13,000 p/mi) a result of overcrowding. But even by 1970, Detroit still had about 11,000 p/mi. So I don't think 10,000+ p/mi is an unreasonable goal for parts of the city that are still in decent shape.

Birmingham might cut it for some people, but that city has a peak density of about 5,000 p/mi [[Ferndale, at about 7,800 p/mi peak density, is the only suburb with a downtown that could be somewhat close to Detroit levels). Considering he thinks a 10% population difference is HUGE, he has to appreciate what Birmingham lacks in density. But my personal hunch is that his true motive is to make it seem like he's not missing anything by living in a metropolitan area without a true big city. If he can convince himself that Detroit was no different from the suburbs, then his mind, nothing significant has been lost. I see that sort of reasoning a lot from suburbanites that don't like to imagine themselves as cookie-cutter khaki and polo types.

[Pickford-Bentler]

truck farm

noun : a farm where people grow vegetables that will be sold in markets



When I was a child, we used to drive out 7 Mile to get tomatoes, beets, onions from a farm that was about a mile west of where the Livonia Mall was. Some farmers even trolled the neighborhoods with a truck loaded with "produce".

[313WX]

The best way to put it is, we want our big city [[or, at least, part of it) of 10,000-15,000 people per square mile back. If some people consider that a "dense suburb" rather than urban, fine. I want to live in a "dense suburb", then. Of course, Bham considers Detroit's peak density [[13,000 p/mi) a result of overcrowding. But even by 1970, Detroit still had about 11,000 p/mi. So I don't think 10,000+ p/mi is an unreasonable goal for parts of the city that are still in decent shape.

Birmingham might cut it for some people, but that city has a peak density of about 5,000 p/mi [[Ferndale, at about 7,800 p/mi peak density, is the only suburb with a downtown that could be somewhat close to Detroit levels). Considering he thinks a 10% population difference is HUGE, he has to appreciate what Birmingham lacks in density. But my personal hunch is that his true motive is to make it seem like he's not missing anything by living in a metropolitan area without a true big city. If he can convince himself that Detroit was no different from the suburbs, then his mind, nothing significant has been lost. I see that sort of reasoning a lot from suburbanites that don't like to imagine themselves as cookie-cutter khaki and polo types.

Even many of the "suburban" parts of the city in the 90s [[before the lifting of the residency requirement and the real estate bubble) had density numbers of 10,000 to 15,000 per sq. mi.

Say what you will about Grand River/Greenfield and 7 Mile/Gratiot, but even into the 90s these areas were a lot more urban and walkable than Warren or Redford.

[DetroitPlanner]

1. The farmland around Detroit wasn't all that valuable as farmland. Farming around Detroit was primarily dairy farms and truck farms.

2. Farmers getting too old to farm got a greater return selling the land to a developer than to a new farmer.

Nice try. Dairy farms and truck veggies were located closest exactly on the fringe because of the bid/rent location as evidenced by economic geographer Von Thunen. https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/...vonthunen.html

Now with refigerated trucks these can be located out where it is cheap. As I have mentioned prior technology changes how we live and re-orders our geography.

[FbO Vorcha]

truck farm

noun : a farm where people grow vegetables that will be sold in markets



When I was a child, we used to drive out 7 Mile to get tomatoes, beets, onions from a farm that was about a mile west of where the Livonia Mall was. Some farmers even trolled the neighborhoods with a truck loaded with "produce".

Well, that's the perfect type of farm to operate just outside a metropolitan area, isn't it? The city could even operate, I don't know - some type of "Farmer's Market" where they could congregate in possibly rented space - 'stalls' perchance to sell their goods to residents of the urban area. They could establish different locations, say a 'Western' and maybe - IDK -say an 'Eastern Market' maybe.... You know, somebody should get to work on that right now.

Oh, you can still drive out to a farm - at least on the eastside, you just have to go out past 26 Mile Rd now.

[FbO Vorcha]

Nice try. Dairy farms and truck veggies were located closest exactly on the fringe because of the bid/rent location as evidenced by economic geographer Von Thunen. https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/...vonthunen.html

Now with refigerated trucks these can be located out where it is cheap. As I have mentioned prior technology changes how we live and re-orders our geography.

Very interesting, I'm going to have to more closely read Von Thunen's models. Reefer trucks and boxcars also allow produce to be shipped crazy distances, but then you have to pick the produce green and it never gets a chance to properly ripen, one of the beefs of the localvore movement.

[313WX]

Well, that's the perfect type of farm to operate just outside a metropolitan area, isn't it? The city could even operate, I don't know - some type of "Farmer's Market" where they could congregate in possibly rented space - 'stalls' perchance to sell their goods to residents of the urban area. They could establish different locations, say a 'Western' and maybe - IDK -say an 'Eastern Market' maybe.... You know, somebody should get to work on that right now.

Oh, you can still drive out to a farm - at least on the eastside, you just have to go out past 26 Mile Rd now.

With the powers that be now having their way [[see John Hantz's tree farm and the Detroit Works project), soon the farms will be set up ON the eastside...

[DetroitPlanner]

Very interesting, I'm going to have to more closely read Von Thunen's models. Reefer trucks and boxcars also allow produce to be shipped crazy distances, but then you have to pick the produce green and it never gets a chance to properly ripen, one of the beefs of the localvore movement.

Economically and physically [[physical environment) we just can't go back to the good old days. I am reminded of seeing pictures about how dirty the air was in the 1950's around here and how we had very little access to the river. Even if you could access it, you would not want to fish there. Things change over time. Some things get better, others get worse. We have been very negligent in accepting our shortfalls and blaming it on others. Want sprawl to be reduced? Well make the city an attractive place to live again, not just the few square miles surrounding downtown. That ain't going to do it. The big loss in tax value has been out where the houses are and where people used to be.

[Pickford-Bentler]

Well, that's the perfect type of farm to operate just outside a metropolitan area, isn't it? The city could even operate, I don't know - some type of "Farmer's Market" where they could congregate in possibly rented space - 'stalls' perchance to sell their goods to residents of the urban area. They could establish different locations, say a 'Western' and maybe - IDK -say an 'Eastern Market' maybe.... You know, somebody should get to work on that right now.

Oh, you can still drive out to a farm - at least on the eastside, you just have to go out past 26 Mile Rd now.

The little local grocery I worked at used to pick up its produce from the Eastern Market or the owner would drive out to one of those farms growing stuff on that "useless" land. Anyhow, we had a large number of customers who felt our onions, green peppers, tomatoes and apples were far better than the dyed to look "oh so good" stuff sold in supermarkets.

But hey, in the USA, larger and cheaper is always better, correct?

Just look at the ass and gut size of a typical American.

So I am not going to put up any argument.

[Bham1982]

That 220,000 is roughly 10 percent, that is a fairly negligible amount when you look at the numbers.

If 220,000 people is "a fairly negligible amount", and in a smaller area, no less, then you have no concept of numbers.

And stop using New York as your model for everything,

It's the only U.S. city that is not auto-oriented and is reasonably dense by global standards.

[mwilbert]

Want sprawl to be reduced? Well make the city an attractive place to live again, not just the few square miles surrounding downtown.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The people who want to live in sprawl or can't afford the living arrangements they want except in sprawl, are demographically and culturally different from the people who want to live in the city. If you want to fight sprawl, you have to fight sprawl. Making the city attractive is desirable for other reasons.

This might be of interest. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitol...houses-survey/

[ghettopalmetto]

Economically and physically [[physical environment) we just can't go back to the good old days. I am reminded of seeing pictures about how dirty the air was in the 1950's around here and how we had very little access to the river. Even if you could access it, you would not want to fish there. Things change over time. Some things get better, others get worse. We have been very negligent in accepting our shortfalls and blaming it on others. Want sprawl to be reduced? Well make the city an attractive place to live again, not just the few square miles surrounding downtown. That ain't going to do it. The big loss in tax value has been out where the houses are and where people used to be.

"Think you can, think you can't. Either way, you'll be correct." --Henry Ford.

[ghettopalmetto]

[[New York is) the only U.S. city that is not auto-oriented and is reasonably dense by global standards.

You've really never left Michigan, have you? This is a laugh riot, from Boston to San Francisco.

[FlyOnTheWall]

[QUOTE=FbO Vorcha;439708

I hate to admit it, but I don't know what a 'truck farm' is. Is that where they grow GMC's and Freightliners, because I always thought those things were manufactured in great big buildings.[/QUOTE]

Generally speaking a truck farm is a farm that grows fresh vegetables for market. Many times it is a smaller farm.

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The people who want to live in sprawl or can't afford the living arrangements they want except in sprawl, are demographically and culturally different from the people who want to live in the city. If you want to fight sprawl, you have to fight sprawl. Making the city attractive is desirable for other reasons.

This might be of interest. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitol...houses-survey/

You wont get a lib or rightie living in most of the city if that is what they want. In general the homes are small and it is not safe to walk. I think you are looking at aesthetics wwhen I say attractive. I mean much more than that: an area with good schools, a well run police/fire departments, and kept-up parks is attractive to those who want to buy a home.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-schools-first
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index....t_communi.html

Why are Ann Arbor's neighborhoods doing well against its burbs? [[Pittsfield, Superior, Scio, Ypsi). It is because they have the best schools, the best parks, and the best police out of the area. Note that I said neighborhoods as to separate the areas where people want to live from where they have to [[dorms, dumpy rentals) of the school population.

[Detroitnerd]

Why are Ann Arbor's neighborhoods doing well against its burbs? [[Pittsfield, Superior, Scio, Ypsi). It is because they have the best schools, the best parks, and the best police out of the area. Note that I said neighborhoods as to separate the areas where people want to live from where they have to [[dorms, dumpy rentals) of the school population.

What is Ann Arbor doing right? Simple. It has been the recipient of billions of dollars in aid and fees because of its university. But Detroit has to pull itself up by its bootstraps, yes?

This region is a joke, and you, DP, could be its court jester.

[FbO Vorcha]

The little local grocery I worked at used to pick up its produce from the Eastern Market or the owner would drive out to one of those farms growing stuff on that "useless" land. Anyhow, we had a large number of customers who felt our onions, green peppers, tomatoes and apples were far better than the dyed to look "oh so good" stuff sold in supermarkets.

But hey, in the USA, larger and cheaper is always better, correct?

Just look at the ass and gut size of a typical American.

So I am not going to put up any argument.

Fruit market I used to work at, the owner went down to the Eastern Market every morning to pick stuff up, so I know what you're talking about. I even remember [[barely) guys driving fruit and vegetable trucks down the street like ice cream trucks. Frighteningly, I also remember tinkerers going up and down the streets doing tool and knife sharpening, guess I'm getting old.

[FbO Vorcha]

What is Ann Arbor doing right? Simple. It has been the recipient of billions of dollars in aid and fees because of its university. But Detroit has to pull itself up by its bootstraps, yes?

This region is a joke, and you, DP, could be its court jester.

I gotta agree with the nerd, Lansing does better for the same reason, University and Government largess.