Observations of Detroit after a visit

[JoeGeds]

To help answer your questions:
1) It will take years to demo all of the abandoned properties, but thousands will be done by spring next year.
2) Not sure exactly what yellow sticker you're referring to, but most homes that are being demolishd will have a sticker placed on the to alert the neighbors of the impending demo. they don't put them on to soon becasue they don't want people to start dumping houehold trash in the home as a way to get rid of garbage.
3) have not heard of the "buyout" program, but the state, and mostly Detroit, has been awarded over 500 million to date of "Hardest Hit" funds to demo these homes. It costs about $5000 to demo a home, more if they need to abate asbestos [[I think that can raise it another $5000 depending on the amount). Once the home is gone, and filled in, they are offering the lot to neighbors for $100. The city doesn't want them, and this is a way that the neighbor can by it and therefore, mow it and maintain it.
For those against the demolitions, it is a necessity to rebuild this city. these homes can never be lived in again because they are so far gone. They provide nothing good for the city, and in fact, provide hideouts for bad things to happen. the city is just too large, physically speaking. So many square miles and so few people. Remember: at it's population heigth, detroit had just under 1.9 million people in the 1950's. Today, less than 650,000 live here. They need to get rid of the homes that people left, and build new as people move in, IMO.

[ghettopalmetto]

3) have not heard of the "buyout" program, but the state, and mostly Detroit, has been awarded over 500 million to date of "Hardest Hit" funds to demo these homes. It costs about $5000 to demo a home, more if they need to abate asbestos [[I think that can raise it another $5000 depending on the amount). Once the home is gone, and filled in, they are offering the lot to neighbors for $100. The city doesn't want them, and this is a way that the neighbor can by it and therefore, mow it and maintain it.
For those against the demolitions, it is a necessity to rebuild this city. these homes can never be lived in again because they are so far gone. They provide nothing good for the city, and in fact, provide hideouts for bad things to happen. the city is just too large, physically speaking. So many square miles and so few people. Remember: at it's population heigth, detroit had just under 1.9 million people in the 1950's. Today, less than 650,000 live here. They need to get rid of the homes that people left, and build new as people move in, IMO.

What's the evaluation process to determine whether or not a home is demolished? Is this run by the City of Detroit, or some other body?

Second, does the City recognize that such widespread demolition reduces the desirability of entire neighborhoods, leading to more vacancies, and thus even more demolition? I mean, we're not talking about selective nuisance properties, here. Does anyone think for a moment that clearing all-but-two-or-three houses from a block is actually beneficial to the remaining residents?

It would be different, I suppose, if the City were assembling parcels for residential developers to build new housing. I just don't see how "demolish and pray" is any kind of strategy for repairing the affected neighborhoods.

[gvidas]

I'm pretty gung-ho for preservation. My sense of the demolition situation here is generally in line with what ghettopalmetto wrote above.

I recently bought a cute little old house. It burned down. I've been deconstructing it, to pull out as much of the wood as I can before hiring someone to excavate the foundation etc. Every few days I discover another thing that would have made renovating that house to the standard I had imagined pointless, difficult, or expensive. This weekend, I found a section of floor where someone had used a stack of paperback books to flatten things out before laying linoleum over it all. I tel this story to illustrate the fact that even if someone wants to renovate a house, and it looks by all appearances to be in pretty good shape, there will be countless little challenges.


I wonder how much the city could save on demo costs, in the long run, if there was a very quick and effective process for having a house boarded up. Imagine a situation where you can call the city's "open building" hotline and get a crew out to do a thorough board-up in the next 24-48 hours. I think a lot of the push for demo by people who aren't developers comes from a sense of helplessness about the building next door going to shit. Unless there's an actual visible crime being committed, you can't get much of an official response until the thing is on fire or ready to be torn down. I think this leads to frustration, a sense of that demolition is inevitable, and thus an emphasis on demolition as the answer.


I suppose, with the DLB auctions, the city is starting to do this -- it's their property, so they're protecting it. But maybe the pre-foreclosure triage option could involve boarding up and securing other people's property, before it goes to shit.