Observations of Detroit after a visit

[Chicago48]

I was only there 24 hours. It's my birth place. Went to the eastside and noticed several "city of Detroit demolition" yellow stickers on houses. A neighbor friend said the city came to her block [[only 2 houses on the block) and told them they would be bought out and the vacant houses would be demolished.

First question -- how long will this take for the city to finish demolishing houses? Seems that would take years.
Second -- does the yellow sticker on a house means it's in a DB and will be among the first to go?
Third -- does the city have the money to buy the owner's out?

This seems to pie-in-the-sky to me. I welcome it, because the blocks I visited were hideous. The trees and shrubs and weeds had grown so high there was no sidewalk. People were walking in the streets -- like it was the rural south!

Then I went over to the New Center on Blvd. and it was a different, although not bright, scene. Once you got out of NC and went further up the Blvd., more delapidated properties. People are not living in.

I just don't think this is going to be accomplished in Duggan's 4 years.

[Bham1982]

First question -- how long will this take for the city to finish demolishing houses? Seems that would take years.

There is no such thing.

The city has a couple thousand homes abandoned annually, so even if you were to somehow "catch up" and have 100% of empty homes demolished, you would have to keep the bulldozers going nonstop until the end of time until there's a population turnaround.

This is, in part, why I don't understand the demolition mania. I'm sure I would want homes demolished if I lived on a street with these eyesores, but it doesn't really do a thing for the city at large. The problems are just displaced into other homes and neighborhoods, and the homes, once gone, are usually gone for good.

So you're basically dissembling a city, not revitalizing it.

[gazhekwe]

There may be other solutions to demolition, but all would be at least as costly and few,if any, would result in long term residency. Urban homesteading is an idea I like, which is somewhat being implemented. There are problems with it, though.

1) There is a very high standard for occupancy, including such cosmetic items as having a completely uncracked driveway and sidewalk, making repairs to occupy a home more costly.
2) City interactions with residents remain complex and difficult.
3) Enforcement of code standards is lax on existing homes, which can result in a continuing downward spiral. Also see 2).
4) Infrastructure has been neglected in some areas making use of some utilities problematic. This is one reason for the demo program, cheaper to empty it out until there is at least the beginning of a viable tax base.
5) Urban farming also can be difficult with the city rules, though there are some who have managed to get 'er done.

[ghettopalmetto]

There is no such thing.

The city has a couple thousand homes abandoned annually, so even if you were to somehow "catch up" and have 100% of empty homes demolished, you would have to keep the bulldozers going nonstop until the end of time until there's a population turnaround.

This is, in part, why I don't understand the demolition mania. I'm sure I would want homes demolished if I lived on a street with these eyesores, but it doesn't really do a thing for the city at large. The problems are just displaced into other homes and neighborhoods, and the homes, once gone, are usually gone for good.

So you're basically dissembling a city, not revitalizing it.

The past couple decades in Detroit show, on the part of the City, a belief that redevelopment cannot happen without demolition. So they keep demolishing and *hoping* that magical things will happen. As you said, the only thing the City is doing is destroying real estate value. I wouldn't buy a house in a neighborhood where the City is conducting large-scale demolition, lest they try to demolish my house too. Never mind that, with the City's very visible lack of confidence in certain neighborhoods, one can only question what level of services they would provide.

That's not to say demolition is never appropriate, but it's usually a very selective procedure...I've never seen a city that conducts wholesale demolition of entire neighborhoods. In many cases, the City is spending more on demolition [[$10,000 or so) than the house is worth. How does that even make sense???

In many other cities, there are land banks that have a standard evaluation process for vacant properties. A land bank will first try to put vacant properties into the hands of owners who will repair and occupy them. If a structure is beyond repair, only then is it demolished. Needless to say, that's usually the option of last resort. In Detroit, however, it's Demolish First, Ask Questions Later.

[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.

[Shai_Hulud]

This is, in part, why I don't understand the demolition mania. I'm sure I would want homes demolished if I lived on a street with these eyesores, but it doesn't really do a thing for the city at large. The problems are just displaced into other homes and neighborhoods, and the homes, once gone, are usually gone for good.

So you're basically dissembling a city, not revitalizing it.

Seriously, there is no benefit for the city at large in removing arson targets when the city has 9000 fires a year? Removing opportunity for scrappers, drug dealers, prostitutes, slum lords, wasted money on the tax auction?

Demo is not the ideal solution but we're not in an ideal situation. Yes, in neighborhoods were the housing stock is stable we should be avoiding demolition. If 80% of the original houses are standing we should be investing in the neighborhood even if only 50% of those are occupied.

Other ares that have been dying for 30 years, Brightmoor, City Airport, Westwood need to be flattened. We don't have the population to fill them and the houses are wooden shoe boxes anyway.

I would love to hear that the city was buying people out in these neighborhoods, because I think it's exactly what needs to be done.

[Bham1982]

Seriously, there is no benefit for the city at large in removing arson targets when the city has 9000 fires a year? Removing opportunity for scrappers, drug dealers, prostitutes, slum lords, wasted money on the tax auction?

From a macro perspective, I don't think so, no.

There aren't going to be fewer drug dealers or scrappers or arsonists. Obviously if you demolish a bunch of drug houses, the activity will just go to other houses. There will always be empty houses, or houses in tax arrears, or normally occupied houses where such activities can occur.

The problem, as always in Detroit, is confusing the symptoms with the sickness. You can demolish every last abandoned house in the city, and you won't have done much.

[Kevgoblue]

The past couple decades in Detroit show, on the part of the City, a belief that redevelopment cannot happen without demolition. So they keep demolishing and *hoping* that magical things will happen. As you said, the only thing the City is doing is destroying real estate value. I wouldn't buy a house in a neighborhood where the City is conducting large-scale demolition, lest they try to demolish my house too. Never mind that, with the City's very visible lack of confidence in certain neighborhoods, one can only question what level of services they would provide.

The level of services is a legitmate issue. Not sure I agree with your position on home demolition though. I would prefer the empty homes be demolished if I were thinking about buying property. Most likely the empty homes have been scrapped and are effectively useless [[from an economic perspective). Thus all they're going to attract are more scrappers, dope dealers, squatters, hookers and crack heads.

Let the city knock down the homes and sell the property in multiple parcel increments. Times have changed. As well as people's expectations. Can't imagine many folks open to the idea of buying property to build / rebuild a home where the neighbor's property line is 1 arm's length from your bedroom window.

[animatedmartian]

It makes no sense to have 500,000 residential properties but only 300,000 households [[not saying those are exact numbers). It's very normal in most cities to demolish housing when the city's population is shrinking. Otherwise the housing wouldn't need to be demolished. It's called supply and demand. Detroit has a large oversupply of housing that people aren't moving into. The cost to renovate most properties at this point far exceeds the market value of them. That's reality.

[iheartthed]

It makes no sense to have 500,000 residential properties but only 300,000 households [[not saying those are exact numbers). It's very normal in most cities to demolish housing when the city's population is shrinking. Otherwise the housing wouldn't need to be demolished. It's called supply and demand. Detroit has a large oversupply of housing that people aren't moving into. The cost to renovate most properties at this point far exceeds the market value of them. That's reality.

There are also plenty of cities that were shrinking and did not go through large scale demolitions. Instead they focused on issues affecting the population losses.

[animatedmartian]

There are also plenty of cities that were shrinking and did not go through large scale demolitions. Instead they focused on issues affecting the population losses.

What do you mean by large scale? Every major city has at least a huge area directly adjacent to the downtown area that is either all parking lot or vacant lots. Now most of those lots are being built with infill development. Chicago's south and west side look just as vacant as Detroit if only cleaner.

[Shai_Hulud]

From a macro perspective, I don't think so, no.

There aren't going to be fewer drug dealers or scrappers or arsonists. Obviously if you demolish a bunch of drug houses, the activity will just go to other houses. There will always be empty houses, or houses in tax arrears, or normally occupied houses where such activities can occur.

The problem, as always in Detroit, is confusing the symptoms with the sickness. You can demolish every last abandoned house in the city, and you won't have done much.

Basic crime/law enforcement theory says otherwise. Have you ever been to Detroit?

There is a difference between a normal level of available housing stock that is maintained, surveilled and policed and an abandoned, open to the elements house in a neighborhood that is 50% abandoned, open to the elements houses that the police don't bother with.

An abandoned house provides a target for crime [[arson, scrapping, vandalism), a means to commit the crime, [[arson, scrapping, vandalism, prostitution, drugs), a barrier to visibility and surveillance [[an incentive to all crime), a high payoff for all of the above criminals because now they can take their sweet time, and most importantly, a very low chance of getting caught.

Remove the abandoned house and you have removed all of the above. Now, criminals cannot operate with impunity and some will effectively be deterred from committing crimes. For those that don't the entire city, or at least large swaths of it, is a much harder target. Now, we have a snow ball's chance in hell of catching criminals when they commit crimes.

Pie in the sky stuff, I know.

[Detroitnerd]

The people who say they want to save Detroit treat it like a cancer patient, trying to cut it apart one piece at a time. The demolition contractors are very happy with this strategy, so don't expect this "conventional wisdom" to be challenged anytime soon.

Who needs history? The employees of Adamo need some new trucks with roomy crew cabs to park in their McMansion driveways, dude! That's the kind of prosperity we're driving! Let's roll!

[iheartthed]

What do you mean by large scale? Every major city has at least a huge area directly adjacent to the downtown area that is either all parking lot or vacant lots. Now most of those lots are being built with infill development. Chicago's south and west side look just as vacant as Detroit if only cleaner.

That might be true in the midwest but it's not true of every major city.

Detroit's problem is not blight [[Chicago's either, for that matter). Detroit's issue is that the underlying fundamentals of the market has made land in the city worthless. That is the problem that needs to be fixed and demolitions will not fix it.

[Dan Wesson]

Hmmmmm... how many lots can a "next door owner" buy at $100? Is it possible to get a whole city block? Or two?

[313WX]

Hmmmmm... how many lots can a "next door owner" buy at $100? Is it possible to get a whole city block? Or two?

It's not convincing the "next door owner" to buy the lots, but convincing them to upkeep the lots and pay taxes on them that's the problem, let along build something on those lots.

[Bham1982]

Basic crime/law enforcement theory says otherwise. Have you ever been to Detroit?

Really? Can you point me to this "basic crime/law enforcement theory" that says you reduce illegal activities by demolishing the venues where these activities take place? We fight meth abuse by demolishing trailer parks?

That makes no sense whatsover, as you'll just be playing crime wack-a-mole.

An abandoned house provides a target for crime [[arson, scrapping, vandalism), a means to commit the crime, [[arson, scrapping, vandalism, prostitution, drugs), a barrier to visibility and surveillance [[an incentive to all crime), a high payoff for all of the above criminals because now they can take their sweet time, and most importantly, a very low chance of getting caught.

I don't think this makes any sense, and I don't think you "get" the neighborhood-level problems in Detroit. It isn't abandoned houses that are the big targets for crime, it's occupied houses, as criminals generally need the presence of people and/or "stuff", not a burnt out shell.

The homes being demolished aren't crack houses. They're burned-out, scrapped-out shells. Drug dealers set up in homes that are, for all intensive purposes, occupied, even if they are sometimes technically abandoned or in some nebulous situation. Scrappers target recently [[or currently) occupied homes with "stuff", obviously not burnt-out shells.

Basically, if you drive down the street, and notice a house is obviously "abandoned", then you don't have to worry too much about the local crack kingpin setting up shop. He likely wants heat, electricity, running water, furniture, and an intact roof. The problem homes usually look like "normal" occupied homes.

If your theory were correct [[stop crime by demolishing venues where crime occurs) I would imagine the city would have to reverse course and start tearing down occupied homes in good shape, rather than tearing down abandoned wrecks.

[Bham1982]

That might be true in the midwest but it's not true of every major city.

Detroit's problem is not blight [[Chicago's either, for that matter). Detroit's issue is that the underlying fundamentals of the market has made land in the city worthless. That is the problem that needs to be fixed and demolitions will not fix it.

Yes, exactly. Abandonment is not the problem in Detroit. Low land valuations [[caused by low demand for residential) is the problem, and you aren't going to fix the low land valuations by eviscerating the neighborhoods.

Granted, I'm not really against the demolitions, as I don't have a better answer. But I also don't think the demolitions are doing much good [[or really any good), at least not on a citywide level. It won't do a thing to stop the cycle of abandonment.

[animatedmartian]

Yes, exactly. Abandonment is not the problem in Detroit. Low land valuations [[caused by low demand for residential) is the problem, and you aren't going to fix the low land valuations by eviscerating the neighborhoods.

Granted, I'm not really against the demolitions, as I don't have a better answer. But I also don't think the demolitions are doing much good [[or really any good), at least not on a citywide level. It won't do a thing to stop the cycle of abandonment.

I don't understand how you can say abandonment is not a problem. Having lived in a neighborhood that saw many homes go abandoned had a huge influence on my living conditions. While there were certainly other factors that contributed to my move, not wanting to live next to vacant property certainly was one of them. I shouldn't have to worry about my house catching on fire or some drug deal gone bad because no one is taking care of the house next to me.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't understand how you can say abandonment is not a problem. Having lived in a neighborhood that saw many homes go abandoned had a huge influence on my living conditions. While there were certainly other factors that contributed to my move, not wanting to live next to vacant property certainly was one of them. I shouldn't have to worry about my house catching on fire or some drug deal gone bad because no one is taking care of the house next to me.

Abandonment, while troubling, is not the *cause*, but the result.

My concern is this: The story of the past decade or so is young, educated people moving into inner cities and renovating old houses and properties. If Detroit destroys all those existing houses and buildings, then there is nothing left to renovate, yes? I mean, who is going to move into a neighborhood that has been completely destroyed [[and with public dollars, no less). Does anyone think Brooklyn [[to use one example) would have seen an influx of residents if all the rowhouses and apartment buildings had been bulldozed in favor of open prairie?

I've seen cities where houses have sat abandoned for decades. If that leads to crime [[as some suggest), then that's a policing problem, not an abandoned house problem. It's ironic, though, that the City of Detroit will exercise completely lackluster building code enforcement, then let derelict property owners off the hook by paying for a demolition. I didn't realize Detroit was so flush with cash!

Funny enough, though, even though many of these houses have been vacant and falling apart for years, if not decades, the Detroit Land Bank gives new owners a whopping six months to bring a house up to Code. That's a completely unreasonable time frame for the vast majority of would-be homeowners.

Once again, though, Detroit has to pretend that it's the only city to have ever fallen on hard times.

[Bham1982]

I don't understand how you can say abandonment is not a problem. Having lived in a neighborhood that saw many homes go abandoned had a huge influence on my living conditions. While there were certainly other factors that contributed to my move, not wanting to live next to vacant property certainly was one of them. I shouldn't have to worry about my house catching on fire or some drug deal gone bad because no one is taking care of the house next to me.

Yes, but why is the property vacant? Do you think you can fix the vacancies by tearing down every building that goes vacant? The end-game is no more city, because vacancies occur because of lack of demand.

[animatedmartian]

Yes, but why is the property vacant? Do you think you can fix the vacancies by tearing down every building that goes vacant? The end-game is no more city, because vacancies occur because of lack of demand.

If there's a lack of demand, then what's the point of holding on to supply? Obviously if there was screaming demand for these housing, it would be cost-effective to renovate and reuse them. But even if city services and everything that the city government did was perfect, that doesn't guarantee any amount of demand. Demolitions is a means at reducing supply.

[Bham1982]

If there's a lack of demand, then what's the point of holding on to supply? Obviously if there was screaming demand for these housing, it would be cost-effective to renovate and reuse them. But even if city services and everything that the city government did was perfect, that doesn't guarantee any amount of demand. Demolitions is a means at reducing supply.

I don't disagree with most of this, but I also don't understand why it's a justification for widespread demolition.

The city's problem is on the demand side, so you fix that. Eviscerating neighborhoods does nothing postitive in the macro sense. The "bad stuff" will just go on to the next house, and the cycle repeats.