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

[iheartthed]

I wrote NYC, not NYC metro area.

The NYC metro area builds tons of housing too, though. There is no problem with lack of housing construction in the NYC metro, and, in any case, it isn't strongly linked with relative home prices.

Yeah, sure. So explain to me why buying a house in a New York City ghetto is more expensive than buying a house in Birmingham, Michigan?

http://www.trulia.com/property/10672...oklyn-NY-11207

http://www.trulia.com/property/10864...ngham-MI-48009

[Detroitnerd]

I always provide evidence. You just don't like the facts.

But go ahead, if you think Detroit used to look like the Lower East Side, but all the pesky McMansions scared away the millions of imaginary tenement residents, then be my guest.

This is just specious sophistry, of course. I never compared Detroit to the Lower East Side, which was the very densest part of the New World for a generation. I only said parts of Detroit "rivaled" the density of Eastern cities. I did not say that the average density of Detroit surpassed that of the high-watermark density of the Lower East Side on its most populous day.

But see what you do? You twist what people are saying until it's easy to disprove, then theatrically disprove what you've concocted. That you do such things over and over again without any apparent embarrassment is shocking enough. That you have to descend to such depths only shows how weak you must believe your arguments really are.


Inner-city Detroit wasn't dense? OK. Whatever. I'm due back on planet Earth right now.

[maverick1]

Southeast MI in general needs a plan for development that works for the cities and suburbs. The Detroit well of residents is almost dry. I don't think you can develop based on that anymore. No one from outside MI is moving here to stay in the suburbs either. From my experience in other areas [[top 10 metro areas) most people move to the suburbs because they can't afford to live in the city. More sprawl would be justified to pick up the trickle down from Detroit growing. As of right now that's not happening so to develop on the fringes while the core is still deteriorating doesn't make sense to me. Plus I don't think there is a shortage of housing for people with means in the area. There is a shortage of affordable housing[[renting not purchasing) for lower income people.

[Wesley Mouch]

NYC already builds far more housing than any other city in the U.S. How is that "very limited supply"?...

Bham -- you're right that it isn't exactly limited supply. But you are wrong that there isn't a supply problem.

NYC has a highly restricted market, with rent control, tight zoning, and more requirements than we can even imagine. Since its so difficult to find a location, navigate all the rules, and get anything done economically there --- the result is that only high-end housing is really being built in any volume.

If you follow NYC news, you'll hear about daily fights over who can develop what, for how much, when, and what color the wallpaper must be.

[nain rouge]

Detroit never had "tremendously dense" built density, ever. It was always been a rather low density, sprawling city.

Old Detroit was, generally, a collection of densely packed houses generously sprinkled with apartment buildings and various styles of duplexes. Some streets tended to be all or mostly single-family homes, while others were mostly apartments and duplexes. Some very tall hotels and apartment buildings were located just outside of downtown. Definitely nothing compared to Manhattan, but significantly denser and more urban than what followed. Many could walk to work. Imagine that now!

For the purpose of your own personal prejudices, you're trying to typecast the area by what was built after the Depression. You're right that Detroit's outer neighborhoods are almost identical to the suburbs, except that the lot sizes tended to be smaller in the city [[but not always). With most of "old Detroit" now in ruins, it's easy to forget history and point to what's left as proof that Detroit was a giant suburb, when really that's only half the story.

This is correct. If you see a new subdivision, the new occupants are paying for the improvements. No one in Detroit or Royal Oak or Warren is paying for a new sewer line in Milford Township.

As per usual, you're being disingenuous. We all know how the major roads are paid for around here, which is why you craftily referenced the sewer lines. Well done.

Others have already explained how exurbs benefit unfairly from existing infrastructure. The older neighborhoods shelled out the money that built the grids the exurbs are now hooked up to. The exurbs get all the benefits from that with few of the legacy costs.

[313WX]

Detroit never had "tremendously dense" built density, ever. It was always been a rather low density, sprawling city.

detroit is sprawl. Always has been. It ain't a city like Chicago, Boston or even SanFransisco. Much of detroit looks xactly like Redford, Warren, Harper Woods, East Pointe, Dearborn because it is.

False.

There's no way a city that was only SLIGHTLY smaller than Philadelphia in population but as big as Philadelphia in area wasn't extremely dense.

Below is a map of Detroit's population density in 1950. Notice how widespread the areas of 20,000-30,000 per sq. and 30,000+ sq. mi. were...

[nain rouge]

313WX, I'll answer for them. They're going to say that Detroit was overcrowded then, not densely built. You can provide all the visual evidence to the contrary, but they will refuse to believe it.

[Detroitnerd]

If I know bham, it still isn't enough. Nope. It has to be Manhattan's 10th ward in 1900, with 433,986 souls per square mile. Anything else is apples and oranges. Except when it isn't.

[aj3647]

Unless you're talking about the free will of developers to subsidize the costs of their racket onto unsuspecting townships, implementing sprawl control policies does not impede anyone's free will.

Ummm, isn't much of Detroit's recent development subsidized by the taxpayers?

[Detroitnerd]

Ummm, isn't much of Detroit's recent development subsidized by the taxpayers?

Only the big-ticket stuff downtown, via tax abatements, TIFF financing and sweetheart deals. But, again, it represents a transfer from the have-nots to the haves, from the poorest to the richest.

[DetroitPlanner]

Yeah, sure. So explain to me why buying a house in a New York City ghetto is more expensive than buying a house in Birmingham, Michigan?

http://www.trulia.com/property/10672...oklyn-NY-11207

http://www.trulia.com/property/10864...ngham-MI-48009

Nice try. Brooklyn is hardly a ghetto. The property you selected is a block from a rail transit station that leads to Manhattan. Not only that, the lot is large enough to park a couple of cars on it and a bus goes right by it. And good job cherry picking the only vynil house in Bham!

[Hermod]

Nope. No one in Detroit or Royal Oak is paying for the new sewer lines out at 32 Mile Road. This is true.

But in order to get water to 32 Mile Road they had to utilize the water lines in that first 31 miles. Oh yeah, and as 32 Mile keeps increasing, it requires the pressure back at 0 Mile [[which by the way is 100 year old infrastructure) to be increasingly higher to push it that far. That causes failures from 31 Mile back, at geometrically increasing rates. Failures that the people at 32 Mile Road don't feel any responsibility in supporting, financially.

1. Have you ever heard of pumping stations to restore head loss on a pipeline? There are other ways to maintain flow besides beefing up the pressure at the source.

2. The people in the counties pay their water bills which goes to subsidize the entire DWSD system to include that part used by all of the Detroiters who do not pay their water bills but who can't be cut off for "humanitarian reasons".

[iheartthed]

Nice try. Brooklyn is hardly a ghetto. The property you selected is a block from a rail transit station that leads to Manhattan. Not only that, the lot is large enough to park a couple of cars on it and a bus goes right by it. And good job cherry picking the only vynil house in Bham!

I live in Brooklyn and the location I showed you is absolutely in the ghetto. Brooklyn is a big place with 2.4 million residents.

ETA: A single family home of that size in a better area of Brooklyn would sell well into the seven figures.

http://www.trulia.com/property/31583...oklyn-NY-11220

[Dumpling]

As recent Detroit home auction experience shows, investors have a meaningful effect
on driving up house prices. I would guess that in New York, with its strong financial
industry relative to Detroit, there are more investors. I can't quantify their number
and effect though.

[Bham1982]

Yeah, sure. So explain to me why buying a house in a New York City ghetto is more expensive than buying a house in Birmingham, Michigan?

http://www.trulia.com/property/10672...oklyn-NY-11207

http://www.trulia.com/property/10864...ngham-MI-48009

First thing, that Brooklyn listing is not in the "ghetto". It's in a less-than-great area but hardly the "ghetto".

And that Birmingham listing is absurdly low priced. It must be built on an Indian burial ground or something. An average family-size home in Birmingham starts around 500k.

And, in any case, why would the suburb of a declining rust belt metropolis have higher prices than a core neighborhood in arguably the most important city on earth? That makes no sense.

Even an iffy neighborhood in NYC should generally have much higher per square foot prices than a nice neighborhood in Metro Detroit. If not something is really weird with the property.

[Bham1982]

False.

There's no way a city that was only SLIGHTLY smaller than Philadelphia in population but as big as Philadelphia in area wasn't extremely dense.

Below is a map of Detroit's population density in 1950. Notice how widespread the areas of 20,000-30,000 per sq. and 30,000+ sq. mi. were...

I'm not sure why you think a population density map is any way contradicting what I wrote. I was referring to built density, not population density.

And, in any case, Detroit never had Philly's population density, and even Philly has never had particularly high population density, so why would that be the standard? Philly is a rowhouse city, not an apartment city. Philly too has never been dense by global standards, yet Philly has always been denser than Detroit [[both built density and population density).

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm not sure why you think a population density map is any way contradicting what I wrote. I was referring to built density, not population density.

And, in any case, Detroit never had Philly's population density, and even Philly has never had particularly high population density, so why would that be the standard? Philly is a rowhouse city, not an apartment city. Philly too has never been dense by global standards, yet Philly has always been denser than Detroit [[both built density and population density).

Therefore, keep bulldozing the orchards and cornfields to build houses that aren't needed?

Having a hard time following your, um, "logic" there, Chief.

[313WX]

I'm not sure why you think a population density map is any way contradicting what I wrote. I was referring to built density, not population density.

And, in any case, Detroit never had Philly's population density, and even Philly has never had particularly high population density, so why would that be the standard? Philly is a rowhouse city, not an apartment city. Philly too has never been dense by global standards, yet Philly has always been denser than Detroit [[both built density and population density).

313WX, I'll answer for them. They're going to say that Detroit was overcrowded then, not densely built. You can provide all the visual evidence to the contrary, but they will refuse to believe it.

Good call nain rouge.

I guess Bham1982 wins the debate yet again...

[Bham1982]

Good call nain rouge.

I guess Bham1982 wins the debate yet again...

Please show us evidence that Detroit was densely built.

The only evidence given was a 1950 map that shows population density, not built density, and even the population density back in 1950 was lower than Philly, and Philly has always had low population density compared to most cities around the world.

U.S. cities, excepting NYC, are generally built very low density compared to cities elsewhere. Even denser U.S. cities are not particularly dense. And Detroit has never been dense, as it was always a city dominated by single family homes. Back when the economy was booming, and during the era of segregated housing, there were some neighborhoods with somewhat high population density, but that evaoprated as soon as blacks could move into decent neighborhoods.

Detroit in 1950 is like the LA of now. A low density single family home city with some packed-in neighborhoods.

[ghettopalmetto]

Please show us evidence that Detroit was densely built.

The only evidence given was a 1950 map that shows population density, not built density, and even the population density back in 1950 was lower than Philly, and Philly has always had low population density compared to most cities around the world.

U.S. cities, excepting NYC, are generally built very low density compared to cities elsewhere. Even denser U.S. cities are not particularly dense. And Detroit has never been dense, as it was always a city dominated by single family homes. Back when the economy was booming, and during the era of segregated housing, there were some neighborhoods with somewhat high population density, but that evaoprated as soon as blacks could move into decent neighborhoods.

Detroit in 1950 is like the LA of now. A low density single family home city with some packed-in neighborhoods.

Honestly, I don't see how any of that is even relevant. Maybe you just enjoy living in the past? I don't know.

Past development and population density do not negate the fact that extensive suburban sprawl is heavily taxing public resources and has contributed to massive disinvestment in the core of the region.

You can write nostalgic platitudes and make excuses for the status quo, but Detroit has quickly become uncompetitive with the rest of the country, let alone the world. No amount of head-burying is going to change that.

[iheartthed]

First thing, that Brooklyn listing is not in the "ghetto". It's in a less-than-great area but hardly the "ghetto".

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:

East New York is a notoriously rough residential neighborhood in the eastern section of the borough of Brooklyn in New York City, United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_New_York,_Brooklyn

[Bham1982]

Now you're trying to tell me that East New York is not the ghetto. That's hilarious.

I know that portion of ENY, and it's more like Canarsie/New Lots area. It's a working class black Carribean neighborhood. It's basically an immigrant hood. Nothing abandoned, no obvious signs of distress.

The rough parts of ENY are more around Livonia Avenue, but even there, I would expect home prices to be much higher than regular home prices in Metro Detroit, for obvious reasons. Why would anywhere in Brooklyn be relatively cheap compared to suburbs of Detroit?

[professorscott]

Past development and population density do not negate the fact that extensive suburban sprawl is heavily taxing public resources and has contributed to massive disinvestment in the core of the region.

You can write nostalgic platitudes and make excuses for the status quo, but Detroit has quickly become uncompetitive with the rest of the country, let alone the world. No amount of head-burying is going to change that.

I agree with you, Ghetto. The difficulty is there isn't anything anyone can do about it without a change to the State constitution. All of the tools that other regions use to mitigate sprawl aren't available to Michigan because the constitution's home rule provision forbids any kind of meaningful regional governance. So if a developer wants to build a bunch of new McMansions on acreage out in North Farmville Township out at Sixty-Seven Mile Road, and the township likes the idea, nobody else has any say in the matter. Then all of a sudden there's more traffic [[surprise!) and the township has to spend money to widen and pave roads, and so forth.

It's built into the structure of the State that it works this way. And changing this in the constitution would appear to be a non-starter. First of all, you have Mr. L. Brooks "I love sprawl" Patterson, who has many friends in Lansing, not to mention all the officials of townships and two-square-mile suburban cities who will absolutely insist that it is essential and not redundant that Detroit should have 120+ separate suburban communities, each fully in charge of its own destiny.

Without changing the constitution, which as I said, isn't going to happen, I don't see what we can do about this except to continue to despair about it. Detroit [[IMHO), and I mean the region here, can't be fixed if this can't be fixed; and this can't be fixed.

[Novine]

"Then all of a sudden there's more traffic [[surprise!) and the township has to spend money to widen and pave roads, and so forth."

Townships don't pay for roads.

[Novine]

"There is exactly zero evidence that new apartments in the City in any way replaced apartments in the townships surrounding Ann Arbor. And after the housing market recovered, single-family homes are still being built in and around the restricted belt buckle."

No one in Ann Arbor claimed that new apartments in the city replaced apartments in the Townships. All of the new high-rise development in the city has helped relieve pressure on the single-family residential areas in the city by shifting students out of houses and into apartments. This had led to some conversions of student housing back into single-family homes and allowing more people who want single-family homes in the city to get back into the city. Are new homes still going up in the Townships? Yes. But they are in more concentrated locations as the Greenbelt acquisitions of development rights has taken property out of consideration for development. The Greenbelt has been a boon for the Townships to direct growth to those areas of the Townships that can support it, as opposed to the normal pattern of sprawl where development occurs all over the Township. Your claim that the development wouldn't even have happened on these properties is contradicted by the numerous properties that had previously been planned for development in Ann Arbor, Superior, Pittsfield, Scio and Webster Townships which are now off-limits from development.