Observations of Detroit after a visit

[animatedmartian]

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?

Brooklyn [[or rather a good portion of NYC in general) is actually on the other end of the spectrum where too much of it is preserved leaving very little room for new housing/development driving up prices. Also, I'm pretty sure many parts of Brooklyn have been razed and rebuilt with public housing developments. The area where the youngins are moving to is a relatively small area.

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.

It seems to me people pretend that Detroit is the only city to ever demolish historical buildings.

[canuck]

Heck, I believe almost every disused industrial building that isnt heavenly contaminated in my section of Montreal has been rehabbed to loft spaces. What hasn't been is still prime and the new stuff being built is often times styled like industrial stuff of yore. Condos sell better than houses in Canadian cities right now and are a little over the median value of a house.

I think that Detroit's municipality could probably profit from a rehab program in the industrial as well as the house market if the numbers are right. Of course, as Ghettopalmetto mentions, the possibility that a 10,000$ demo exceeds the value of a house needs some serious number crunching on the part of the city and developers to make it work. There is a need for demolition if the structures are left disused for too long, but I also think that preservation of the most relevant houses and factories is important because people need to connect with the history of the city.

[animatedmartian]

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.

And propping up demand isn't so pie-in-the-sky? Demolition reduces supply. Also is there any evidence that crime even moves after a house is demolished? Criminals are human too. They aren't going to bother doing the same thing over again if it becomes a hassle.

[ghettopalmetto]

Brooklyn [[or rather a good portion of NYC in general) is actually on the other end of the spectrum where too much of it is preserved leaving very little room for new housing/development driving up prices.

Uh, what? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Housing prices in Brooklyn [[as one example) are high because *people want to live there*. They want to live there, in part, because it's not a freaking open prairie.

I don't think Detroit has to worry about housing prices being too high in the future. And you seem to imply that new construction is absolutely necessary, when in fact, it is not. The majority of single-family homes in Philadelphia, for example, were constructed in the 1930s or earlier. But I suppose Philly would have been better off demolishing half the city at great public expense, correct?

The sad thing is, Detroit will spend hundreds of millions of dollars literally destroying its property value, while the State of Michigan will find money to build more freeways and more schools out in the orchards to continue the outward sprawl that has emptied out Detroit over the decades. You're paying twice to get less. What a bargain.

[Bham1982]

Brooklyn [[or rather a good portion of NYC in general) is actually on the other end of the spectrum where too much of it is preserved leaving very little room for new housing/development driving up prices. Also, I'm pretty sure many parts of Brooklyn have been razed and rebuilt with public housing developments. The area where the youngins are moving to is a relatively small area.

Oh, boy. Someone needs to visit Brooklyn.

The fact is that Brooklyn has a massive amount of intact building stock, and that is a major reason for its resurgence.

And intact building stock does not "leave very little room for new housing/development". That makes no sense. Brooklyn has massive construction right now.

Hong Kong and Manhattan are crazy dense, with almost no vacant lots, yet have tons of housing construction. Detroit and Cleveland are absurdly empty, with tens of thousands of vacant lots, yet almost no housing construction.

What am I missing here? Why would an intact housing stock discourage new development? And why would a gap-toothed, denuded housing stock encourage new development?

[Bham1982]

And propping up demand isn't so pie-in-the-sky? Demolition reduces supply.

Demolition reduces supply and demand.

Also is there any evidence that crime even moves after a house is demolished? Criminals are human too. They aren't going to bother doing the same thing over again if it becomes a hassle.

Really? So you believe that criminals only commit crimes because of the current stock of abandoned buildings, and if we give them a new stock of abandoned buildings, they'll figure the move across the street is "too much hassle"?

When does this theory kick in exactly, because Detroit has been tearing down "ghetto" housing nonstop since about 1950.

[ghettopalmetto]

Hong Kong and Manhattan are crazy dense, with almost no vacant lots, yet have tons of housing construction. Detroit and Cleveland are absurdly empty, with tens of thousands of vacant lots, yet almost no housing construction.

Easy, killer. Cleveland has a buttload of residential construction at the moment. Interestingly, almost all of it is happening in neighborhoods that haven't been bulldozed to smithereens.

[animatedmartian]

Oh, boy. Someone needs to visit Brooklyn.

The fact is that Brooklyn has a massive amount of intact building stock, and that is a major reason for its resurgence.

And intact building stock does not "leave very little room for new housing/development". That makes no sense. Brooklyn has massive construction right now.

Hong Kong and Manhattan are crazy dense, with almost no vacant lots, yet have tons of housing construction. Detroit and Cleveland are absurdly empty, with tens of thousands of vacant lots, yet almost no housing construction.

What am I missing here? Why would an intact housing stock discourage new development? And why would a gap-toothed, denuded housing stock encourage new development?

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you? What do you think use to occupy all that new development? Older development that was demolished to make way for new development. Whether it was a prairie or not doesn't make a difference.

[Bham1982]

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you?

Of course you can. You demolish and rebuild.

Almost nothing you see in Manhattan or Hong Kong is the original structure. Usually you're on the 3rd, 4th or 5th iteration at this point. Probably someplace really old, like a Rome, is on Version 8 or something.

There are many supertalls going up in Midtown Manhattan right now, and I don't think even one is being built on vacant land or other "soft site" [[parking garage, taxpayer buildings, etc.) They're assemblages, where a developer patiently buys existing buildings and gathers development rights over time. Then he slowly clears the buildings of tenants, demolishes, and builds the new structure.

There's a 40-50 floor hotel directly on Central Park South, dating from the 70's, I think. The new owners bought it strictly for the site, as a development play. They plan to demolish and rebuild taller and better. This is "normal" behavior when property values are high, and can be seen on a much smaller scale in our region, with the teardowns you see everywhere in Birmingham and increasingly in Royal Oak.

[animatedmartian]

Uh, what? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Housing prices in Brooklyn [[as one example) are high because *people want to live there*. They want to live there, in part, because it's not a freaking open prairie.

I don't think Detroit has to worry about housing prices being too high in the future. And you seem to imply that new construction is absolutely necessary, when in fact, it is not. The majority of single-family homes in Philadelphia, for example, were constructed in the 1930s or earlier. But I suppose Philly would have been better off demolishing half the city at great public expense, correct?

If you read what I said, then you'd know I wasn't implying that.

The sad thing is, Detroit will spend hundreds of millions of dollars literally destroying its property value, while the State of Michigan will find money to build more freeways and more schools out in the orchards to continue the outward sprawl that has emptied out Detroit over the decades. You're paying twice to get less. What a bargain.

It's kind of hard to have property value when it's already as low as it can possibly be.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you? What do you think use to occupy all that new development? Older development that was demolished to make way for new development. Whether it was a prairie or not doesn't make a difference.

I think you're confusing cause-and-effect. New development doesn't happen in New York City because something old was bulldozed. In fact, things are only bulldozed in order to facilitate new development. I think you make the [[horribly false) assumption, though, that new development is even necessary. Many of the greatest neighborhoods in the nation consist of old houses that had been rescued from a decrepit state of repair.

And whether something is a prairie or not *does* make a difference. People want to live in a neighborhood--somewhere with eyes on the street, and where they can walk to the neighborhood retail strip, public transit, etc. In other words: safety and convenience. If people want to live in a rural area, they can live Up North and not have to pay City of Detroit taxes.

[animatedmartian]

Of course you can. You demolish and rebuild.

Almost nothing you see in Manhattan or Hong Kong is the original structure. Usually you're on the 3rd, 4th or 5th iteration at this point. Probably someplace really old, like a Rome, is on Version 8 or something.

There are many supertalls going up in Midtown Manhattan right now, and I don't think even one is being built on vacant land or other "soft site" [[parking garage, taxpayer buildings, etc.) They're assemblages, where a developer patiently buys existing buildings and gathers development rights over time. Then he slowly clears the buildings of tenants, demolishes, and builds the new structure.

Right, so how is that different than if Detroit demolishes its buildings? It's not a guarantee that it will be redeveloped in any certain time frame, but I'm very sure NYC has lost historical buildings that otherwise would have been unique and well liked by the community of current residents. However, I don't think the loss of such buildings has in anyway contributed to a decline or given less appeal to NYC.

[animatedmartian]

I think you're confusing cause-and-effect. New development doesn't happen in New York City because something old was bulldozed. In fact, things are only bulldozed in order to facilitate new development. I think you make the [[horribly false) assumption, though, that new development is even necessary. Many of the greatest neighborhoods in the nation consist of old houses that had been rescued from a decrepit state of repair.

I make the assumption that new development is necessary when demand calls for it. Likewise, I still believe that demolition is necessary when demand calls for it. If there is no demand and too much supply, demolition should trim that supply. If there's very high demand and a short supply, then obviously demolition will be used in this case to make room for new supply.

And whether something is a prairie or not *does* make a difference. People want to live in a neighborhood--somewhere with eyes on the street, and where they can walk to the neighborhood retail strip, public transit, etc. In other words: safety and convenience. If people want to live in a rural area, they can live Up North and not have to pay City of Detroit taxes.

That's why developers build those things.

[Bham1982]

Right, so how is that different than if Detroit demolishes its buildings? It's not a guarantee that it will be redeveloped in any certain time frame, but I'm very sure NYC has lost historical buildings that otherwise would have been unique and well liked by the community of current residents. However, I don't think the loss of such buildings has in anyway contributed to a decline or given less appeal to NYC.

I don't know what you're arguing, as there is no demolition effort whatsoever in NYC. No one demos a building without something of value replacing it.

I never said that no building should ever be demolished. I said that Detroit's policy of widespread demolition is not a solution to really anything. It's just demolishing stuff because we don't know what else to do.

And I have no problem with demolition; I have a problem with demolition without a replacement. If people were demoing left and right in Detroit to put up new homes, I would be thrilled. But demoing just to create a ghetto countryside isn't really helping things.

[iheartthed]

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you? What do you think use to occupy all that new development? Older development that was demolished to make way for new development. Whether it was a prairie or not doesn't make a difference.

The difference is that developers are deciding to demolish and rebuild on a land parcel. Developers are making a business decision to acquire a building, demolish it and construct a new building. That's completely different from the government deciding that the solution to its blight problem is to demolish all of the abandoned structures.

[Shai_Hulud]

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.

It's not remove the venue, it's remove the target of the crime. If there is a rash of car thefts, you make sure to put the car in the garage. Clearly, this primarily applies to arson, scrapping and vandalism because only in those crimes is the empty house the target. Fortunately for us, occupied structures are largely ignored.

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.

Tell my Aunt on Garland between Mack and Canfield that burned out shells aren't targets for drug activity. There was such a structure two doors down from her that was filled with passed out smoke heads for most of the 90's. No, the criminal enterprise wasn't being ran out of the house. But it was incentive for the dope man and his customers to stay nearby, which they did until it most of the rest of the block was demolished.

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.

I'm in support of both. You aren't repopulating Brightmoor in our lifetime. I'd like to see a key swap. Knock on the door, offer a comparable house in a better neighborhood, or cash if necessary. Then flatten everything.

[ghettopalmetto]

I make the assumption that new development is necessary when demand calls for it. Likewise, I still believe that demolition is necessary when demand calls for it. If there is no demand and too much supply, demolition should trim that supply. If there's very high demand and a short supply, then obviously demolition will be used in this case to make room for new supply.


That's why developers build those things.

I'm going to be honest. I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

I think you're trying to apply short-term economic principles to buildings that last over 100 years. The construction business can't provide instantaneous response to the slightest tick in economic indicators. Changes in construction are, for all intents and purposes, intended to be permanent. It takes years for a new project to go from idea to completion. So, no matter how much you believe the wild-ass theory that demolition *right now* is *absolutely necessary* to "trim supply" [[for some reason known only to God and you), that doesn't make it true.

Hell, look at downtown. We were told that Hudson's *needed* to be demolished because:
1) It had been vacant for 15 years
2) It was so big, that there was too much supply of space and
3) It was getting in the way of redevelopment.

Do any of those sound familiar to you?

Now, I think it's rather interesting that one of the major projects downtown right now is a complete renovation of the David Whitney Building. The Hudson's site sits vacant 16 years later, save for an underground parking garage that was built by the City of Detroit. So, now explain to us how there is any evidence in the world to support the validity of your crackpot theory?

[animatedmartian]

I'm going to be honest. I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

I think you're trying to apply short-term economic principles to buildings that last over 100 years. The construction business can't provide instantaneous response to the slightest tick in economic indicators. Changes in construction are, for all intents and purposes, intended to be permanent. It takes years for a new project to go from idea to completion. So, no matter how much you believe the wild-ass theory that demolition *right now* is *absolutely necessary* to "trim supply" [[for some reason known only to God and you), that doesn't make it true.

I've repeatedly told you the reason and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Hell, look at downtown. We were told that Hudson's *needed* to be demolished because:
1) It had been vacant for 15 years
2) It was so big, that there was too much supply of space and
3) It was getting in the way of redevelopment.

Do any of those sound familiar to you?

Now, I think it's rather interesting that one of the major projects downtown right now is a complete renovation of the David Whitney Building. The Hudson's site sits vacant 16 years later, save for an underground parking garage that was built by the City of Detroit. So, now explain to us how there is any evidence in the world to support the validity of your crackpot theory?

The David Whitney Building is many times smaller than the Hudson's building was. How is that an equivalent comparison?

[animatedmartian]

I don't know what you're arguing, as there is no demolition effort whatsoever in NYC. No one demos a building without something of value replacing it.

I never said that no building should ever be demolished. I said that Detroit's policy of widespread demolition is not a solution to really anything. It's just demolishing stuff because we don't know what else to do.

And I have no problem with demolition; I have a problem with demolition without a replacement. If people were demoing left and right in Detroit to put up new homes, I would be thrilled. But demoing just to create a ghetto countryside isn't really helping things.

I agree with your last sentence. Only I'm not upset that there's no replacement to these demolitions. I believe it's still the lesser of two evils instead of trying to preserve buildings that just as equally have an uncertain future as would a prairie field.

For example, Lee Plaza is still quite hollowed out and vacant yet is right next door to an operating high school. While I would be glad to hear of it getting renovated and reused, I'm not going to be upset at the powers at be for demolishing it if it meant protecting the next door high school students from falling debris. As others have mention, why not the city enforce building codes? Well, then the owner could just as equally demolish the building himself to avoid such infractions, and that makes it a historical loss either way. Another option is for the owner to sell the property, but chances are pretty low that he'll make a profit from the sale and most people try to avoid taking a monetary loss. In that case, the owner then tries to put the monetary loss on the City by having the city seize it and deal with the building or demolishing it outright. But of course, in either case, taxpayer money is going to be used and I don't think Detroit residents would wholly support taxpayer funded renovations.

[Chicago48]

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.

This makes a lot of sense. Especially if you're trying to attract people to the city and to invest. If you've got a load of dilapidated houses, it attracts vagrants, it attracts criminal activity,it's an eye sore.

Anywho, the neighbor told me that the city told her they were going to buy her house. There are only 2 houses on the block, the east side of Detroit, that are inhabited. The others are dilapidated and unoccupied.
If it costs the city $5000 to buy a house, then that eliminates taxes, but what if the neighbor decides it's not worth it to keep the house and moves, thereby vacating it? Then you've got an eyesore and attraction for crime. Which is the more cost efficient? Buy it, demolish it, or abandon it and let it stand?

I'm interested in anyone who has a "grand plan" by the city for demolishing the properties and a timeline.

[Chicago48]

Would anyone have a reference where I can get more info about the impending demolitions, esp. the timeline and possibly "where" it will be? Does the city have an ordinance we can read?

[animatedmartian]

Would anyone have a reference where I can get more info about the impending demolitions, esp. the timeline and possibly "where" it will be? Does the city have an ordinance we can read?

http://www.detroitmi.gov/DepartmentsandAgencies/BuildingsSafetyEngineeringEnvironmental/Divisions/DemolitionDivision.aspx

I don't know if it's just me that it's not working for, but the above link is supposed to show an interactive map of the city. The ordinances aren't available online.

[ghettopalmetto]

I've repeatedly told you the reason and you refuse to acknowledge it.


The David Whitney Building is many times smaller than the Hudson's building was. How is that an equivalent comparison?

Okay, so pick your favorite demolished building. The Lafayette. The Madison-Lenox. The Tuller Hotel. Tiger Stadium. Motown Building. Any redevelopment on those sites yet?

The truth is, if the lack of open fields was inhibiting development, then you wouldn't see *anyone* renovating existing buildings. So maybe demolition isn't so necessary for redevelopment to take place, is it?

[animatedmartian]

Okay, so pick your favorite demolished building. The Lafayette. The Madison-Lenox. The Tuller Hotel. Tiger Stadium. Motown Building. Any redevelopment on those sites yet?

The truth is, if the lack of open fields was inhibiting development, then you wouldn't see *anyone* renovating existing buildings. So maybe demolition isn't so necessary for redevelopment to take place, is it?

Demolition is necessary for redevelopment when there is demand for it. I never said there was demand for redevelopment in Detroit. In fact quite the opposite. There's a lack of demand for development in Detroit. Which just as equally means there's a need for demolition because so many properties aren't in use.

What about 13226 Dexter Ave? Or 17110 3rd Ave? Is the city really going to feel the loss of having these two properties demolished?

[Richard]

This makes a lot of sense. Especially if you're trying to attract people to the city and to invest. If you've got a load of dilapidated houses, it attracts vagrants, it attracts criminal activity,it's an eye sore.

Some see a dilapidated house as an opportunity and would use that as a reason to move to the city,but instead of using that dilapidated house to create the opportunity it gets demolished,taking the opportunity away and eliminating the potential tax base for a much longer time.

The city is using the 500 mil,which can be used in more positive ways to rebuild through incentives verses destroy.

Mr. Gilbert is on the demo panel.

Everything seems to be based on today and because we see it that way today it will be like that tomorrow,the city is supposed to be setting and preserving today the foundations for tomorrow,long term.

The demolition panel was going to inspect each house and determine the feasibility of the structures and if they were rehab worthy before the finial order of demolition.Are they doing that?

Short term is it feasible to rehab a structure or is it looked at long term,or is it today it is not feasible so it goes.

To me the largest deterrent in the city is the totally whacked out thought process of the property tax structure,change that.

They could take $100 million of the $500 million and create a 30 block incentive zone and have a payback for generations to come.As it is once the $100 million is spent,it is gone, no more but the interest payments left for generations to come.Where is the taxpayer return?

No where does it say that the $500 mil must be used for demolitions only,it is for what ever needs to be done to re-establish the neighborhoods hardest hit by the crack years.

It is whack-a-mole with no end game.