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

[DetroitPlanner]

This is about the silliest tangent I have ever read.

A metropolitan area is an ecological system. Something that is done to improve it helps everywhere no matter where it is located. Is it better to redevelop existing areas instead of sprawl? Of course it is. However, what we have now is seriously unbalanced. You cannot look at the disinvestment in areas without asking why. We should be focusing on how to reduce the unbalance instead of comparing a 1950 Detroit and Philly. It is pointless in trying to move this City forward. Those cities no longer exist and they won't exist ever again. Technology has changed and this means our lives are fundamentally arranged differently. Strawbridges and Hudsons are gone; and its not just the anchor store; they have been wiped off the map and the stock exchange. They have been replaced by big boxes and the internet.

[nain rouge]

Also, the last bit of facts I'll bring into this discussion relate to the importance of historic density and population levels in older metropolitan areas. A rather dry but important paper was published on this subject decades ago: Differential Patterns of City and Suburban Growth In the United States.

The pertinent findings by the authors are that in older urban cities, the actual core was done in leading growth in many big cities by as early as 1890. From then on out, the majority of population growth occurred in annexed areas. Certainly, annexation is what fueled Detroit's meteoric population growth.

Continuing from that understanding, it was also found by the authors that population growth almost invariably happened in new rings that had gradually smaller maximum population densities than what existed before. As a result, densities decreased in a fine gradient from the core. It was case of people's desire of spacious lawns and big houses grappling with demand for real estate.

Why does that matter in Detroit? Well, Detroit initially had a very dense core, which then set a relatively dense growth pattern that took a long time to decrease to modern suburban levels. Generally, it wasn't until we got out to cities like Troy that maximum densities hit only a few thousand people per square mile. Many of the inner ring suburbs still had max densities of 7,000 to 9,000 people per square mile.

Southern cities like Houston, in contrast, had relatively minor density levels in urban cores when urban development patterns were still prevalent [[the peak was around 1900). As a result, the subsequent rings of growth were able to reach the lower density levels preferred by the market faster. Consequently, Houston doesn't have a built legacy of high density to deal with nowadays, and can get away with sprawl, sprawl, sprawl.

To have healthy cities, however, areas like Metro Detroit have to deal with the legacy of higher density. You can't wish it away. If you try to, the result is massive decay and fiscal crises.

That, my friends, is why Detroit isn't like Houston, and why population levels as early as 1890 are important when evaluating modern American cities. We don't exist in a vacuum.

[nain rouge]

This is about the silliest tangent I have ever read.

It's somewhat important when you consider that we have national media outlets reporting that in order to understand Detroit's problems, you have to realize that San Fran, Boston, and Manhattan could all fit within the geographic boundaries of Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

The debate on regional planning has been carefully controlled and framed in such a way to suggest that the areas that are the most resource-sucking -- the exurbs -- are a success story and the areas that are growing in popularity and denser -- the inner city -- must be bulldozed. I like Galster's contribution to the discussion, because the powers that be keep behaving as if it's 1960. It isn't.

Rebuild the core. End subsidies to the fringe. Let the market take care of the rest.

[DetroitPlanner]

The debate on regional planning has been carefully controlled and framed in such a way to suggest that the areas that are the most resource-sucking -- the exurbs -- are a success story and the areas that are growing in popularity and denser -- the inner city -- must be bulldozed. I like Galster's contribution to the discussion, because the powers that be keep behaving as if it's 1960. It isn't.

Rebuild the core. End subsidies to the fringe. Let the market take care of the rest.

You're never going to have that until Detroit can get its act together in terms of police, schools, and parks. These [[along with the higher taxes [[both income and property)) are keeping people away. This is then answer to the 'why' I stated in #126. Density should not be measured strictly by population over square miles; particularly on a large City. Detroit is an industrial city, very few people live in industrial areas and those that do have a horrible quality of life. Big Parks like Belle Isle or Rouge are an asset yet no one live in them [[unless you want to count the deer). Some parts of a City are very dense in terms of population; others not so much. However, the areas that may not be dense may have huge assets to the community.

[Detroitnerd]

You're never going to have that until Detroit can get its act together in terms of police, schools, and parks. These [[along with the higher taxes [[both income and property)) are keeping people away.

This is the same circular flow chart that lots of people who don't care about Detroit offer.

1) Detroit continues to lose people because of high taxes and low services.

2) Since taxes can't go up and services can't be improved, city needs money to be rebuilt.

3) Conventional wisdom says city isn't getting an extra penny until it gets its act together.

4) Detroit suffers. Go to No. 1. Repeat ad infinitum.

If this region is satisfied with Detroit being its dumping ground for social and urban problems, there's no way Detroit can "bootstrap" its way out. And I think the people arguing that Detroit should fix itself know this, and quietly chortle all the way back home.

And I have another tidbit. As long as this problem is not addressed, seriously addressed, that "blight" will continue to creep through Oakland County like a quiet cancer. What do they say? That 10 Mile is the new Six Mile? Outside the Woodward Corridor, it most certainly is.

What's the plan? To relocate Oakland County to Lapeer County?

There is no plan. And so the blight keeps creeping outward.

I hope I live a long time. I want to be satisfied. I can't wait to see what kind of shithole Oakland County is 30 years from now. It will amuse me to hear people at 23 Mile Road blaming "Detroit" for their problems.

[ghettopalmetto]

You're never going to have that until Detroit can get its act together in terms of police, schools, and parks. These [[along with the higher taxes [[both income and property)) are keeping people away. This is then answer to the 'why' I stated in #126. Density should not be measured strictly by population over square miles; particularly on a large City. Detroit is an industrial city, very few people live in industrial areas and those that do have a horrible quality of life. Big Parks like Belle Isle or Rouge are an asset yet no one live in them [[unless you want to count the deer). Some parts of a City are very dense in terms of population; others not so much. However, the areas that may not be dense may have huge assets to the community.

Oh, BULL. SHIT. No other city in the United States is sitting on its ass, waiting for the schools and parks and boogeyman thugs to "fix themselves".

Yeah. Detroit is completely uninhabitable until the schools are "fixed"--despite 75% of households not having ANY school-age children. And Detroit's taxes aren't any worse than other large cities. That's a fucking excuse, and you know it.

[Bham1982]

The debate on regional planning has been carefully controlled and framed in such a way to suggest that the areas that are the most resource-sucking -- the exurbs -- are a success story and the areas that are growing in popularity and denser -- the inner city -- must be bulldozed.

In the case of Michigan, it's the inner city that is most resource-sucking, and the exurbs that are providing most of the cash to keep the inner city breathing. Until you understand this, you won't have a clue on how to develop a more sustainable metro area.

A true "free market" solution would be to just end subsidies to Detroit and just let re-ruralization take due course. I'm not advocating for this policy, but it's why people on this thread are so confused. They still think Dexter Davison is paying for Novi, when the entire tax base in Detroit is basically meaningless as a % of regional tax base.

[ghettopalmetto]

In the case of Michigan, it's the inner city that is most resource-sucking, and the exurbs that are providing most of the cash to keep the inner city breathing. Until you understand this, you won't have a clue on how to develop a more sustainable metro area.

A true "free market" solution would be to just end subsidies to Detroit and just let re-ruralization take due course. I'm not advocating for this policy, but it's why people on this thread are so confused. They still think Dexter Davison is paying for Novi, when the entire tax base in Detroit is basically meaningless as a % of regional tax base.

Let's see your "free market" utopia prosper without any MDOT roads.

Honestly, I'm tired of your self-serving crap. Blaming the poorest, the least able, for the condition of the Detroit that YOUR parents and grandparents abandoned. Get bent, and take some responsibility for the society in which you live, kid.

Did you ever stop to think that a resident of Detroit who works two jobs, and struggles to pay the rent and put food on the table, might find your pompous drivel just a BIT callous and naive? "Oh, I just have to try harder? Is that all? That sounds so easy!"

If you have it all figured out, it makes me wonder why you even bother spending time here. What--you think you're going to teach the rest of us lazy bastards who aren't smart enough to live in Birmingham, Buttfuck, Michigan?

There is no way on God's Green Earth that a region whose population hasn't changed in 40 years needs to construct 10,000 new houses a year. Fin.

[Honky Tonk]

Oh, BULL. SHIT. No other city in the United States is sitting on its ass, waiting for the schools and parks and boogeyman thugs to "fix themselves".

Yeah. Detroit is completely uninhabitable until the schools are "fixed"--despite 75% of households not having ANY school-age children. And Detroit's taxes aren't any worse than other large cities. That's a fucking excuse, and you know it.

That 75% number seems to appear in a lot of places. One place happens to be the drop out rate of Detroit Public Schools.

[Detroitnerd]

In the case of Michigan, it's the inner city that is most resource-sucking, and the exurbs that are providing most of the cash to keep the inner city breathing. Until you understand this, you won't have a clue on how to develop a more sustainable metro area.

You have it backward. But at least now I understand why you're wrong about everything else.

[DetroitPlanner]

Oh, BULL. SHIT. No other city in the United States is sitting on its ass, waiting for the schools and parks and boogeyman thugs to "fix themselves".

Yeah. Detroit is completely uninhabitable until the schools are "fixed"--despite 75% of households not having ANY school-age children. And Detroit's taxes aren't any worse than other large cities. That's a fucking excuse, and you know it.

What did I say that was contradictory to what you said? The reason why the population is so low is due to households that used to have 4-5 people in them [[kids) have all moved to where the kids can be safer, have better educations, and a place to play. If the taxes in Detroit are double the taxes in the burbs, people will live in the burbs. It don't matter what the taxes are like in New York or LA if they have a job in metro Detroit, they will live here. They will also locate to where they can get the best quality of life for their dollar. People have different goals they will move to where they can best meet them within their budget.

[ghettopalmetto]

What did I say that was contradictory to what you said? The reason why the population is so low is due to households that used to have 4-5 people in them [[kids) have all moved to where the kids can be safer, have better educations, and a place to play. If the taxes in Detroit are double the taxes in the burbs, people will live in the burbs. It don't matter what the taxes are like in New York or LA if they have a job in metro Detroit, they will live here.

Yawn, whatever. The hallowed "schools" argument doesn't explain why people started leaving in the 1940s and 1950s--WHEN THE SCHOOLS WERE FREAKING TERRIFIC. What--after a tragic Afterschool Special, suddenly ALL the big-city school districts in the nation simultaneously went to hell in a handbasket, FORCING all the white folks to make Bataan Death Marches to the Holy Suburbs? Bull. Fucking. Shit. I've heard more plausible stories at campfires.

And maybe crusty Frank Rizzo thinks cheap taxes are the end-all be-all ever-loving shit of the earth, but that still doesn't explain why places like Chicago, New York, DC, Philly--whose taxes are HIGHER THAN DETROIT--have people banging down the door to move in.

So maybe you want to think about "consistency with reality" when you do your little planning exercises.

[nain rouge]

Two problems I see:

1. Returning Detroit to a rural environment is both unprecedented and costly. Detroit has been a financial drain for decades as a result of continued depopulation, and has now potentially hurt state finances by filing for bankruptcy. Plus, Detroit's problems won't magically vanish with the city. The problems will continue to move to the inner ring suburbs.
2. Most arguments surrounding Detroit's development patterns ignore the major racial disharmony and segregation in the area. Detroit, perhaps, is worst in the nation in that regard. And as a result, we've made a lot of development decisions not out of sound, rational logic, but emotionally based racial bigotry.

[coracle]

Easing up on Suburban development would result in people leaving the area for new areas that wouldn't include The City and the City blight would spread into the Suburbs. There is no magic solution to repopulation of the City because it all revolves around race and that isn't going to change any time soon from either side.

[Detroitnerd]

Easing up on Suburban development would result in people leaving the area for new areas that wouldn't include The City and the City blight would spread into the Suburbs. There is no magic solution to repopulation of the City because it all revolves around race and that isn't going to change any time soon from either side.

You heard it here first: Both suburban development and lack of suburban development will spread blight into the suburbs.

[ghettopalmetto]

Easing up on Suburban development would result in people leaving the area for new areas that wouldn't include The City and the City blight would spread into the Suburbs. There is no magic solution to repopulation of the City because it all revolves around race and that isn't going to change any time soon from either side.

Of course, we all know Blight has one of those ankle bracelets that forbids it from going beyond 8 Mile Road.

Stop being so absurd. I'd say the biggest impediment to Detroit is people with their heads up their asses.

[coracle]

You heard it here first: Both suburban development and lack of suburban development will spread blight into the suburbs.

It must be very pleasing for you to know that. It fits your agenda perfectly. Obviously blight originates at the core and spreads as people try to get away from it.

[FbO Vorcha]

Hilariously bad idea, and totally disregards any concept of Econ 101.

You have an area that is inherently undersirable, with property values approaching zero. You have peripheral areas that are extremely desirable, with high property values. The idea that you make the crappy area nicer by making the nice areas crappier is absurd.

Obviously people will not abandon the idea of good schools, safe streets, reliable services, and nice housing, they will just move to beyond the growth boundary. The sprawl would grow worse, it would just be separated from older communities by a greenbelt, rather than being contiguous.

The state has been providing quite an incentive to continue the suburban sprawl that has been occurring. Every time a suburb decides to expand, they build a crappy road, the state eventually provides funds for road expansions because of 'increased traffic flow' which causes even more expansion. Rinse and repeat, and you've got your devastated inner core. Stop improving roads in response to people moving out there, make them absorb the true cost of expansion, and they'll stop doing it. They moved out to 'The Country' let them try to drive on country roads. The resultant hideously long commutes will stop all this bullshit pretty quick, or if they expand the roads on their dime, the high cost of living out there will have the same effect.

[FbO Vorcha]

That sounds like most of the bombed-out neighborhoods of inner city Detroit. Brightmoor is a perfect example for smart growth advocates.

I'm not aware any newer suburbs that have one-acre minimums. Generally speaking, older suburbs have much larger lots than newer suburbs. Brand new subdivisions tend to have tiny lots compared to those from the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Just compare a 60's era Pulte development to one being built now.

I think the perceived difference is in the big footprint houses that are being built now. They'll put a three or four thousand square foot house on a lot that is only marginally smaller [[if that) than the lots built on in the 50's [[when 1500 square feet was much more common) making the lots look postage stamp sized.

[FbO Vorcha]

Well I don't agree, at all. The blight in Detroit is due to lack of demand, not due to developers building 600k homes in Novi. If you stop developers from building new subdivisions in Novi, it won't do a thing for anyone in Dexter Davison, you will just be giving a gift to Livingston County and other outer counties, as the development spreads further out.

Stop using tax dollars to support expansion, and that expansion will stop.

[FbO Vorcha]

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.

Except that the cities and township apply for state and federal monies to expand, widen, rebuild to handle heavier traffic flow, improve all the 'commons' [[you know roads, sewers, police, fire) that the increased population now require. The state and feds provide that money, taking it out of the pockets of the taxpayers who didn't move to BFE Michigan therefore making them subsidize the new occupants improved neighborhoods.

[FbO Vorcha]

This is selective history. Inner-city Detroit was tremendously dense. The density of some neighborhoods, such as old Hastings Street, rivaled that of any Eastern city. Inner-city Detroit remains quite dense, denser than the suburbs. Hamtramck, an urban area within Detroit, is the densest city in Michigan.

Yes, much of Detroit is lower-density housing stock built after the war, but you go too far, gnome.

Detroit did have a proud history of single family home ownership that all the other urban areas mentioned do not have. And while I'm thinking about it, how many ways are there into New York City? Every time they build more housing off of that island do they build more bridges or tunnels to help the commuters get into town?

[coracle]

Of course, we all know Blight has one of those ankle bracelets that forbids it from going beyond 8 Mile Road.

Stop being so absurd. I'd say the biggest impediment to Detroit is people with their heads up their asses.

Couldn't agree more. Why don't you take it out? [[or can't you find your bracelet?)

[FbO Vorcha]

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

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

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