Observations of Detroit after a visit

[Bham1982]

If you at all believe in the "broken windows" theory of crime prevention, removing or renovating abandoned, dilapidated properties is vital.

I don't see what Broken Windows theory has to do with eliminating real estate in Detroit.

Crime is very highly localized in NYC, and NYC was really the test case for Broken Windows. I have never heard anyone advocate for demolishing buildings in NYC as a remedy for crime, as if the buildings caused the crime.

Broken Windows is a theory that you go after the small stuff [[fare-beating, vandalism, petty drug use, etc.) and you prevent a lot of the big stuff.

[nain rouge]

Bham1982: You're taking a very literal view of the broken windows theory. According to Wikipedia, "The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior."

Sorry, but blocks of abandoned or mostly abandoned houses are severe examples of urban disorder and set very poor norms.

[ghettopalmetto]

If a metro area sprawls at a significantly faster rate than its growing in population, and newer properties are generally viewed as superior, it only stands to reason that the core would eventually rot away. To get mad at Detroit for doing the cleanup work is extremely shortsighted. But it's so convenient to blame Detroit for everything, and its corruption makes it all the more easier.

And there it is.

Here's the problem I have: There are neighborhoods in the City of Detroit [[believe it or not) that would be appealing to investors. You know, ambitious folks who would love to get a house on the cheap and fix it up. But I don't see these kinds of people willing to invest in a neighborhood where the City is about to tear down half the block Just Because. That's not appealing to anyone.

And if you read the NY Times article from May, I don't understand what the City expects to receive for spending $2 billion on demolitions. Blight is not a contagious disease that can't be addressed. But hey, when you turn your economic development department over to a Professional Loan Shark, you aren't all that concerned about building neighborhoods, are you?

But typical Detroit--always addressing the symptoms, chasing the dragon, instead of actually fixing the illness.

[nain rouge]

But I don't see these kinds of people willing to invest in a neighborhood where the City is about to tear down half the block Just Because. That's not appealing to anyone.

See, I kinda disagree with you there. I believe there is a lot more deterring investors than just the threat of bulldozers. Such as, for example, a lack of adequate services; crime; legacy costs; an environment littered with brownfields, as opposed to suburban greenfields.

[ghettopalmetto]

See, I kinda disagree with you there. I believe there is a lot more deterring investors than just the threat of bulldozers. Such as, for example, a lack of adequate services; crime; legacy costs; an environment littered with brownfields, as opposed to suburban greenfields. [/COLOR]

I'm not going to argue that services in Detroit are adequate. They are not. But do you think for a moment that gentrified/gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, DC, and even Cleveland all had virgin greenfield land with stellar services before people decided to move in?

Maybe I'm taking a longer-term view of things here. I believe that the focus should be on, "How do we make these areas attractive to people so they can reinhabit these neighborhoods?" instead of pre-emptively euthanizing them. Part [[but only part) of the reason Detroit is in bankruptcy is because it keeps spending millions of dollars on things that don't generate new revenue. $2 BILLION? To get absolutely NOTHING in return? Where the hell do I sign up for that amazing deal?

So really, this cycle feeds itself.

[Bham1982]

B
Sorry, but blocks of abandoned or mostly abandoned houses are severe examples of urban disorder and set very poor norms.

True, and blocks of vacant lots are also severe examples of urban disorder and also set very poor norms.

So if you really had some wildly expanded real estate-oriented view of Broken Windows, you would rehab buildings, and have them occupied. You wouldn't replace one disorder with another one.

But this is all nonsense. Crime originates from occupied homes, not vacant homes or vacant lots. The highest crime neighborhood in Detroit is far NE Detroit, which, until recently, had very little abandonment. If you really want to take a real-estate oriented view of tracking high crime, just look for occupied communities that are poor and full of the 16-to-25 age male cohort. That's where you'll find the crime. The bombed out areas are much safer, and have few teenagers/young men.

Broken Windows is useless in a city like Detroit anyways. If you can't cover the major crimes, you don't waste time with fare beating and graffiti.

[nain rouge]

Bham, abandoned, dilapidated homes - at the least - are fire hazards, encourage neighborhood rodent/pest infestations, and lower property values. Even in a crime free community, I would say that's almost always true.

Beyond that, abandoned homes may house irresponsible squatters/drug dealers, serve as a place to engage in illicit activity, and demoralize a community. You can argue that isn't the case, but we all know those things do happen.

Ask yourself a question: would you live on a block littered with abandoned, structurally unsound homes? And if so, do you really believe that you'd resist demolition? After, say, watching your kids play in front of an abandoned house as rats or mice scurry about? Or knowing that teenagers occasionally burn down abandoned homes for "fun"?

I agree that the bombed out communities are, in a sense, safer than some of Detroit's more notorious highly populated neighborhood. But only because there are less people. Everyone moved out to get away from the abandoned homes, seeking a more a stable neighborhood. Unfortunately, however, some don't have enough money to keep up with sprawl.

But do you think for a moment that gentrified/gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, DC, and even Cleveland all had virgin greenfield land with stellar services before people decided to move in?

None of those cities were as bad as Detroit is. There exists, eventually, a point of no return for certain neighborhoods.

And Cleveland has yet to bottom out. While viable neighborhoods will be saved, it too has doomed neighborhoods.

[nain rouge]

Let's face it, we had our big city and we blew it with urban sprawl. We sprawled until we broke the camel's back, and then we blamed black people for everything. End of story.

[Bham1982]

B
Ask yourself a question: would you live on a block littered with abandoned, structurally unsound homes? And if so, do you really believe that you'd resist demolition?

If my only options are urban prairie or abandoned homes, I would take abandoned homes every time. Obviously either option is bad, but urban prairie means the neighborhood is guaranteed doomed, while blighted housing means the neighborhood is possibly [[in the case of Detroit probably) doomed.

[nain rouge]

If you say so, Bham, but I still think you're taking an outsider's perspective. When the "long game" is 30-50 years and running in some cases, I think eventually you'd wear down.

[iheartthed]

If you say so, Bham, but I still think you're taking an outsider's perspective. When the "long game" is 30-50 years and running in some cases, I think eventually you'd wear down.

It's a macro view. From a "what's in the best interest of Detroit" perspective, large scale demolition is not a good idea.

[Honky Tonk]

It's a macro view. From a "what's in the best interest of Detroit" perspective, large scale demolition is not a good idea.

Half-burnt structures with "GASM" painted on the side don't seem to be a hot seller either.

[jackie5275]

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against the demo of these homes, I'm just saying it isn't a revitalization tool, isn't going to cut crime, and isn't going to do all these magical promised things. It's basically eliminating neighborhoods bit by bit, that's all.

I would say that areas that have homes that should be demo'ed aren't really neighborhoods anymore. You have a few, scattered people actually living in a house surrounded by abandoned homes, abandoned structures [[homes that are so far gone there's no hope of repair or rehab), and urban prairie. What kind of a neighborhood is that? How do you even call it a neighborhood? Drive on Mt. Elliott from Vernor north to I-94 to get an idea of what kind of "neighborhood" I'm talking about.

[jackie5275]

Beyond that, abandoned homes may house irresponsible squatters/drug dealers, serve as a place to engage in illicit activity, and demoralize a community. You can argue that isn't the case, but we all know those things do happen.

They sure do. I have a friend in Warrendale who regularly tells me about the comings & goings of questionable folks in the vacant houses on her block.

[Honky Tonk]

They sure do. I have a friend in Warrendale who regularly tells me about the comings & goings of questionable folks in the vacant houses on her block.

There'a a duplex, empty but in good shape, near where I live. For the last month or so, I started noticing guys "hanging out" in the backyard part, when I drove by. The yard has now become seriously littered. So far the structure looks secure. I'm guessing by Fall it'll have occupants.

[nain rouge]

One last point I'd like to make is that, in some sense, Detroit is a victim of its own unsustainable development trends. When you build huge neighborhoods of relatively low density housing [[in comparison to a true, historically urban community) all at the same time, one after another - decade after decade - you've almost sowed the seeds of the earlier neighborhood's demise from the very start.

In 50 years, how attractive is that generic neighborhood with low housing density going to look when judged against the new generic neighborhoods with low housing density? Because the old neighborhood is almost as low in density as the new neighborhood, it can't really offer superior urban services. So what can it offer, besides increased maintenance cost?

Hamtramck has survived, somewhat, because it has significantly higher housing density than just about anywhere else in the metro area. Even today, most of the central neighborhoods in Hamtramck have population densities of over 15,000 people per square mile. You can do relatively well there without a car. That's a big advantage you can't find almost anywhere else in Metro Detroit. Downtown Royal Oak, Ferndale, and etc. barely cut it [[if at all) as places to live without a car, as the immediate businesses are geared more for pleasure, not practical day-to-day living.

Neighborhoods in Detroit that can offer an environment like Hamtramck should've been zealously guarded [[Midtown, for example). But the relatively low density neighborhoods that populate the rest of Detroit were basically dead on arrival and don't have a competitive advantage.

That's why you can't compare the types of low density neighborhoods we're mostly talking about in Detroit to Brooklyn, DC, Chicago, Philly, and etc. It's apples to oranges.

[nain rouge]

I will say I'm against demolitions in Downtown, Midtown, Mexicantown, and other neighborhoods that had relatively high historic density [[although in Downtown's case, it was retail and office density, not population).

[ghettopalmetto]

I will say I'm against demolitions in Downtown, Midtown, Mexicantown, and other neighborhoods that had relatively high historic density [[although in Downtown's case, it was retail and office density, not population).

You don't really define what you mean by "high density" or "low density", so it's kinda hard to gauge what you're trying to say.

A former colleague once remarked that, "Richmond [[VA) has a great supply of historic housing stock, because they never had the money to demolish any of it." It boggles my mind that a city in bankruptcy suddenly has $400 million for value-destroying demolitions...and seeks to find another $1.6 billion to get rid of every building that just happens to be vacant *at this one moment in time*.

Demolishing portions of Detroit and making them even lower density seems to contradict what you've stated in support of demolition, nain rouge.

I would be more at ease if there were an established, objective procedure for determining whether demolitions are necessary. And I certainly would feel better if the fascist City of Detroit government didn't have the ever-altruistic Dan Gilbert leading the charge on this plan.

I mean, what's next? Mike Ilitch becomes head of the Parking Department? George Jackson rises to Chief of Historic Preservation? Brooks Patterson appointed Zoning Commissioner?

[loveDetroit]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction? Sure, not everyone can afford to build from the ground up, but a desirable location with vacant land has possibilities. A pile of bricks with broken concrete and a collapsed roof requires removal, not renovation.

Viable houses are for sale all over the city. Removing blight doesn't change that. Should the house on the left be saved? Do YOU want to move into the house on the right with the lovely neighbor on your left waiting for renovation?

[Honky Tonk]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction? Sure, not everyone can afford to build from the ground up, but a desirable location with vacant land has possibilities. A pile of bricks with broken concrete and a collapsed roof requires removal, not renovation.

Viable houses are for sale all over the city. Removing blight doesn't change that. Should the house on the left be saved? Do YOU want to move into the house on the right with the lovely neighbor on your left waiting for renovation?

Great photo and good post. I get the idea from reading some of these replies that people are posting who either never set foot in Detroit, or have an unrealistic idea of what it would actually take to rehab the house on the left. Most of the blighted homes are like the one on the left. 40's, quickly and cheaply built, to satisfy the growing need for housing during the boom years. Very costly to maintain and heat these days.

[Bham1982]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction?

There's nothing preventing new construction when there's already a building sitting on the lot.

And the more homes you remove from a neighborhood, the lower the chances anyone will do urban infill, because there's no longer any "urban" and nothing to "infill".

[Honky Tonk]

There's nothing preventing new construction when there's already a building sitting on the lot.

Then answer this, why aren't the homes @ Morgan Waterfront Estates selling? Nothing prevented those homes from being built and sold. I mean other then being built next to a coal powered electric plant, and assorted coal piles. Technically, yes, you can build new homes next to standing blighted houses. Realistically, it's going to be a hard sell.

[Bham1982]

Then answer this, why aren't the homes @ Morgan Waterfront Estates selling?

What do you want me to answer? I never said I have confidence in the Detroit housing market, I just said that demolishing stuff does not spur construction or economic growth. If you want to demolish, fine, but don't expect anything but the world's crappiest exurb.

[ghettopalmetto]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction? Sure, not everyone can afford to build from the ground up, but a desirable location with vacant land has possibilities. A pile of bricks with broken concrete and a collapsed roof requires removal, not renovation.

Viable houses are for sale all over the city. Removing blight doesn't change that. Should the house on the left be saved? Do YOU want to move into the house on the right with the lovely neighbor on your left waiting for renovation?

A few comments:

1. The house to the left of the photo is certainly far gone. IF one runs the numbers, it probably doesn't make sense to demo and rebuild the second floor and roof.

2. Do we know that ALL of the 40,000+ [[or whatever number it is today) vacant homes in the City of Detroit look like this? What's the cataloging process? Given the cost of demolition, are there reasonable efforts to determine if any of the houses are worth saving? Or do we just have George Jackson walking down the street declaring every vacant house "obsolete" and "structurally unsound"?

3. How is it the City's responsibility to tear this house down? The owner didn't maintain it, it burned, and there was no property insurance? Not the City's fault now, is it? But they'll spend $10,000 of your money to tear it down, because the owner was too cheap to buy property insurance.

4. Demolition does not necessarily result in new construction. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay to excavate an existing basement on an "empty" lot. Given the amount of prairie visible in the photo, it's only a matter of time before the house on the right is abandoned and ends up looking like the house on the left. The dragon chasing continues.

[loveDetroit]

Thanks Tonk. I can't lay claim to the pic. I pulled it from a Freep article about TARP funds freed up by the Feds for blight removal. $100 million for 5 MI cities. Here's the article for those who would like to educate themselves about where the money is coming from:

http://www.freep.com/article/2013060...t-land-detroit

There's nothing preventing new construction when there's already a building sitting on the lot.

Of course not, but let's dream a bit here and say for the sake of argument that a developer wants to build a "neighborhood" [[subdivision, in suburban terms). Don't you think he might prefer the prairie? An individual looking to build new would more likely desire a neighborhood that has well kept houses and a single or double lot or teardown.

The infrastructure [[gas, water, sewer, possibly power lines and road) are still there. Do you think the city sprang from the ground fully formed? It was built up from wilderness over time. It can happen again or go back to nature. In the mean time, why bitch about the people who are trying to do SOMETHING?