City living

[dtowncitylover]

Well population wise, I don't think any city had the density that Manhattan has had. But I think Detroit, as most cities pre-freeway building, did have the density in terms of neighborhood blocks, population denseness, and dense transit services.

[iheartthed]

I would be very surprised if this were true. Detroit was never built densely, and was developed much later than other cities in the eastern half of the U.S., concurrent with the auto boom. There were never any extensive areas of large apartment buildings, so I don't get how there would be density comparable to Manhattan [[or even apartment areas in Brooklyn/Bronx/Queens for that matter).

Two things here: 1) you don't need large apartment buildings to have high density neighborhoods, and 2) there was a lot of multi-family housing in Detroit that was lost to neglect and/or urban renewal demolition.

Anyway, here is the density heat map from 1950 which has been shared on this forum before:


As you can see, there were quite a few tracts in the center of the city that are in the 30K - 80K people per square mile range [[which is Manhattan territory), and even more in the 20K - 30K people per square mile [[which is fully comparable to any other dense east coast city). I don't think it's beyond imagination to say that at least half of Detroit's nearly 2 million residents in 1950 lived in a neighborhood with a population density of at least 20K people per square mile. Also, as you can see on the map, many of what were the city's most densely populated census tracts in 1950 now have freeways running through them.

[Mackinaw]

My parents were the ultimate example. They worked in midtown [[still do) and bought a house in the late 80s in the first block of Grosse Pointe [[still there). Reason for them: public schools. Can't blame them whatsoever. And as it turned out, that area turned out to be more dense and urban than across the way in East Side Detroit, which turned to half-prairie and offers no walkable commercial strips of value, whereas you can walk Kercheval, Mack, etc. in GP, and can get there via lanes of absolutely beautiful houses.

They often dreamed of buying in Indian Village especially when the market was so accessible and you could get absurd SF/$. But that meant paying for a private school-- not for any invidious reason, but solely because we had started off on the fast track with great teachers and resources in GP and would be derailed if inserted into DPP. The GP schools situation, with great resources in exchange for your tax dollars and a concerned/collaborative parent environment was truly ideal as far as they were concerned. When I have kids, I'll look for the same thing in a public school, though preferably with much more diversity [[hey, that is increasingly GP though).

I'm no expert on DPS as it stands today and would love to know more. I would go with DPS if I knew that there were at least a couple excellent primary schools that you can aim for, and a way to get your kids into them even if you don't live within the geographic zone [[is this a thing?). If Detroit can accomplish this much, and make it a well-known fact, then it will be on the right track to retaining families. I know it has some solid upper schools that you can aim for. Ideally, eventually, all of the schools get up to par, but even NYC hasn't figured that out-- in fact, this is one of the areas of the greatest stratification in NY [[which I'd love for Detroit to avoid long term), with clear winners and losers based on achievement tests.

[Bham1982]

Two things here: 1) you don't need large apartment buildings to have high density neighborhoods, and 2) there was a lot of multi-family housing in Detroit that was lost to neglect and/or urban renewal demolition.

Agreed with both points, but I don't think that means Detroit had remotely comparable density to Manhattan. It's a huge stretch to say that tons of apartment buildings were demolished [[true) and there was lots of overcrowding [[also true) therefore 1950-era Detroit was the same as 1950-era Manhattan. It was more like a 1950 version of present-day LA [[fairly dense, due to overcrowding, but not really structurally dense over large geographies).

Anyway, here is the density heat map from 1950 which has been shared on this forum before:

And note that the densest areas in Detroit back in 1950 [[which are small geographically) only have density above 30k. Manhattan's current average density is above 70k. 70 years ago it was closer to 100k, with neighborhood peak densities well above 200k.

Just to illustrate, the overall density in Brooklyn and the Bronx today match the peak densities shown in the 1950 Detroit map. And we're talking over 100 square miles compared to a few square miles in Detroit. Those boroughs were denser still back in 1950. Queens peak density tracts are even denser, though overall Queens density is lower.

So Detroit, at peak density, in the peak neighborhoods, only had density roughly comparable to average densities over huge geographies in the Outer Boroughs today. Fairly high density, but not really close to Manhattan density.

At a smaller neighborhood level, though, 1950-era Detroit didn't even match the present density of neighborhoods in NYC considered somewhat suburban. Bay Ridge, Brooklyn or Forest Hills, Queens, or Jamaica, Queens [[all far outer borough neighborhoods, nowhere near Manhattan, and considered semi-suburban) all have higher peak densities today than the peak densities in 1950-era Detroit.

[313WX]

Sorry That was a mistype. I meant to say even in the 50's, Detroit never had the density of Manhattan.

Actually, parts of Detroit [[specifically black bottom and the area known as Midtown today) did have density levels on par with parts of Manhanttan [[30,000 people per sq. mi.).

[313WX]

And that's an interesting update on James Robertson. It's also why I'm still not too bullish on the city coming back. How mwny more James Robertson are there stuck in the city who would leave in a second if they had the means? With the economy having recovered somewhat, they may finally be able to find that means to do so.

[iheartthed]

Agreed with both points, but I don't think that means Detroit had remotely comparable density to Manhattan. It's a huge stretch to say that tons of apartment buildings were demolished [[true) and there was lots of overcrowding [[also true) therefore 1950-era Detroit was the same as 1950-era Manhattan. It was more like a 1950 version of present-day LA [[fairly dense, due to overcrowding, but not really structurally dense over large geographies).

I did not say that all of Detroit was as dense as Manhattan. I said there were areas of mid-century Detroit which were as dense as Manhattan [[either today or in 1950, take your pick). I think I've made that point already.

And note that the densest areas in Detroit back in 1950 [[which are small geographically) only have density above 30k. Manhattan's current average density is above 70k. 70 years ago it was closer to 100k, with neighborhood peak densities well above 200k.

It gives a range of 30K - 80K. I don't have the time or the tools to map out the area of those census tracts right now. But for simplicity's sake, let's just take the area bounded by I-94/Lodge/Fisher Fwy/Chrysler Fwy. We know that's a roughly 2.5 miles by 1.5 miles area, and that the majority of the census tracts in that area are at least 30K/square mile, so let's assume that the entire density of that section is 30K/square mile. That would mean that just that tiny area of the city had at least 110,000 residents in 1950. Since I'm using the absolute base case scenario, there were likely far more people living in that area. If we assumed the high end that would mean 300,000 people lived in that tiny area of the city... The truth is somewhere in between.

[Mackinaw]

And that's an interesting update on James Robertson. It's also why I'm still not too bullish on the city coming back. How mwny more James Robertson are there stuck in the city who would leave in a second if they had the means? With the economy having recovered somewhat, they may finally be able to find that means to do so.

I stopped to think about this after reading the Freep's followup, and could only be mad at the employers who take jobs out past M-59. He's got jobs up there, and even with a car, I know I wouldn't want such a long commute. It would be one thing if he had a good living situation in the city, but by all accounts he did not, and he was not tied down with any family whatsoever. In fact he seems like a bit of a lone wolf. It seemed further complicated by the fact that he had a lot of acquaintances who didn't seem to be acting cool about his windfall.

What he did was sensible for him and I can't knock him. It's sad that people will make the inference that its an indictment on Detroit, but I don't think its so probative of that. If his job was downtown or elsewhere in the city, the story might be different.

[casscorridor]

Detroit was dense enough at its peak to support an extensive [[underground or elevated) rapid transit system. I think we still could build a line or two, but nothing compared to what could have been built. This would have ushered in increased densities, as development could have intensified along transportation routes. Detroit would be a much different place. But now it's hard to even call Detroit a "city." It functions more as a severely depressed inner-city suburb with greater Downtown-Midtown acting merely as an island within it.

[ndavies]

Detroit was dense enough at its peak to support an extensive [[underground or elevated) rapid transit system. I think we still could build a line or two, but nothing compared to what could have been built. This would have ushered in increased densities, as development could have intensified along transportation routes. Detroit would be a much different place. But now it's hard to even call Detroit a "city." It functions more as a severely depressed inner-city suburb with greater Downtown-Midtown acting merely as an island within it.

Why do you think this would be the case? Considering Detroit's sprawl before WWII came about due to it's great streetcar system. An improved transportation system always adds to sprawl along it's length. An improved transportation system actually spreads people out. The cities with the highest densities were either built before transportation improvements or have geographic features that limit sprawl.

[Bham1982]

The cities with the highest densities were either built before transportation improvements or have geographic features that limit sprawl.

Are we talking population density or built density?

In NYC, the areas with the highest population density follow transit improvements. The densest neighborhoods are all along rail lines. Examples would be Upper East Side, Queens Boulvard corridor, entire West Side from 59th Street practically to the northern border of the Bronx, Eastern Parkway, Ocean Parkway and Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, etc.

But the areas with the densest and tightest urban form often have lower population density, and their built forms generally predate the subway and other rail lines. They're less dense primarily because 1. They have more commercial space and 2. They're extremely wealthy, so large units [[examples would be Soho, Flatiron and the like).

[ndavies]

All I was saying is Detroit's lack of built and population density is directly tied to the Street car system that was growing while the city was built. Detroit was a city of single family homes due to the ever expanding streetcar system. Detroit didn't need denser multifamily housing since it had a great street car system and almost no limiting geographic features.

If the only method of transportation you have is walking, You get great density within a couple of miles. If the next dominant method of Transportation you have is streetcar, you get density along the streetcar lines, but it is spread further along the length of the line. If you have interstate freeway, you get sprawl along the length of the freeway. You will always have increased density at the intersection of transportation routes.

Detroit had a world leading transportation system pre WWII, It led to the lower density Detroit neighborhoods. It was cheaper to expand the streetcars into virgin farmland than it was to build up.

Yes, a new transportation route will pull density to it. But sprawl will occur along it's length if it is expanded into undeveloped areas. Exactly like when roads are expanded into undeveloped areas.

[ndavies]

Let's not forget Detroit had higher volume mass transit. We had the inter-urban trains that spanned the entire region. You could get to most of the neighboring suburbs by train. All of this died once the car became the predominant form of transportation in the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_United_Railway

[ronaldj]

Why do you think this would be the case? Considering Detroit's sprawl before WWII came about due to it's great streetcar system. An improved transportation system always adds to sprawl along it's length. An improved transportation system actually spreads people out. The cities with the highest densities were either built before transportation improvements or have geographic features that limit sprawl.

Manhattan is an island. Limit to Sprawl. Hong Kong is an island. Limit to sprawl.
Detroit: Lots of land, lots of land under starry skies above. Don't fence me in.

Concur that the interurban rail system contributed to the mindset of getting out of Dodge. Many threads have been dedicated to the nostalgia of riding the rails to Royal Oak, Pontiac and the baths and bars of Mt. Clemens on a day or night trip without reliance on the motor car.

I guess we would all like to have it both ways but...Alas.

It is kind of headache-producing that all coins have two sides.

[EASTSIDE CAT 67-83]

N has been around here a long while, i, and invested downtown way before it was cool. He can give you specifics for each of those listed complaints...and is being very generous by not elaborating. If there is a shortlist of D'Yes bona fides, he'd be near the top.

That said, I'm shocked nobody mentioned insurance costs [[geez, I missed DetBill's comments somehow). That is seems a surprise to some. Car insurance alone in the city is punishing...property coverage must be crazy, too.

Gannon
Your comment is spot on, my last remaining relatives that recently left the city. [[My Aunt and Uncle, she still works part time in GPP and he's a retired DFD Capt. 35+ yrs service) moved out of EEV last year after 37 years [[yes they watched the neighborhood decline and die a slow death) but getting back to Gannons comment about the insurance rates, when they moved to SCS [[15 mins away) it was like winning the lottery for "LIFE", I think their total net savings in reduced insurance premiums for home & auto was close to $900.00 bones per month. Not to mention they can safely walk at night not having to worry about crime of opportunity or accidently looking at someone the wrong way. If you dig the city life and can afford the associated costs...than more power to ya.

[Bham1982]

Manhattan is an island. Limit to Sprawl. Hong Kong is an island. Limit to sprawl.
Detroit: Lots of land, lots of land under starry skies above. Don't fence me in.

HK, I agree, but in the case of NYC, there are no real geographic constraints to sprawl. It's more about land use and concentration of jobs.

You will see that density in the West Bronx is about the same as in Manhattan, and the Bronx is on the mainland. The density isn't from physical constraints but from agglomeration of jobs.

Most of the time, physical constraints play little role in land use framework. It tends to be more regulatory, economic and cultural. Toronto has no constraints either, but looks and functions quite different from Detroit.

[Wesley Mouch]

...Toronto has no constraints either, but looks and functions quite different from Detroit.

Constraints do help keep density, but they are certainly not the biggest factor. Economic activity drives density.

If we want growth and density Detroit, we need to make the city a place where a reasonable person would want to conduct commerce. We've seen that there is a great demand for urban living. The question is whether the reality lives up to the expectations of those who have moved downtown. Or will they flee at the first chance.

[EastsideAl]

Except those parts of my life when I lived in an entirely different part of the country or the world, I have always lived in the City of Detroit. Although I did have jobs for a while that required commuting out to the suburbs. That was actually kind of fun in a way, as the traffic was never really too bad. But I've certainly never lived out there.

Except when the U.S. government compelled him to go elsewhere, my father has lived here on the east side for all of his 89 years. Although, as his mother always proudly told people: "He went to college over on the west side!" [[at Wayne). But he always worked downtown or on Jefferson [[at Chrysler or Hudson).

The problems with the city are mostly obvious. You have to like city living, and value that experience itself over the suburban experience, to make living here work. However, some things that were once truly scary, like crime, have gotten quite a bit better [[although certainly not as much better as they should be), and city services seem to be slowly improving post-bankruptcy. As others have said though, the ridiculously criminal cost of car insurance, combined with the lack of frequent, fast, and dependable public transit alternatives is perhaps the worst thing about living here now.

[sumas]

Criminal rates for insurance on cars is right For what it is worth, for those who qualify, [[fifty plus) AARP sponsored insurance is a huge savings, full coverage for our crossover is about 2100 for our Detroit address. Check into coverage with the same insurerer for our home [[reasonable) and they quoted 5500, I did a lot of laughing and gasping.

Congrats Eastside on your Dad's age, my Mom lived to 91, She had/has friends still alive @ up to 97 and still quite vibrant. Must be something works right on the eastside. Can't be all bad.

[313WX]

Just an obsevation, but to EastsideAl and sumas' mention about their older friends/family members never leaving the city, I've noticed it's the older folks who were lived their prime years during Detroit's golden years [[the 40s to 70s) that seem most relunctant to flee the city. Perhaps it's because they have more pleasant memories of life in Detroit?

Those who lived in Detroit and only remember the Kilpatrick/Bing administration, or during the crack/cocaine years under the Young administration want nothing to do with the city today.

[mwilbert]

Just an obsevation, but to EastsideAl and sumas' mention about their older friends/family members never leaving the city, I've noticed it's the older folks who were lived their prime years during Detroit's golden years [[the 40s to 70s) that seem most relunctant to flee the city. Perhaps it's because they have more pleasant memories of life in Detroit?

Those who lived in Detroit and only remember the Kilpatrick/Bing administration, or during the crack/cocaine years under the Young administration want nothing to do with the city today.

I think the explanation is different. I don't think that cohort was especially tied to the city, as hundreds of thousands of people who lived in Detroit between the 40s and the 70s left. However, they were mostly the ones most inclined to leave--most able to or most fearful or least fond of being in the city. The ones who didn't leave by 1990 probably weren't very likely to leave at all; the others had already been filtered out.

[NewportNic]

I put these in a slightly different order,

#1 - Property taxes
#2 - Schools
#3 - Auto insurance
#4 - Safety
#5 - Income tax

As to Detroit's future residential growth, if the property tax rate on single family homes can be addressed, it will not be as dense as it was in the past. There is so much currently unused property in the City that developers would probably create tracts that look more like the suburbs. Another block to this type of development has been a reluctance of the City to allow limited access development, I'm not talking gated, they pushed back against any break from the grid pattern that is just about everywhere. If you build a Multi-Family development you very likely can get a tax abatement, if you redevelop an historic building you can even get a grant, but a developer of single family homes faces the highest property tax rate in the state.

As for income tax, anyone know which is higher; gross receipts from residents, or from non-residents? With the talk around the State taking over collections my guess is non-residents [[but this may just be my suburban bias showing).

[Llama]

Re older people who never left, here's a question. How many of them were counting on selling their $100,000-or-so house to get money to buy elsewhere for retirement? Those houses went down to $10,000 and less, and might fetch $12,000 - $15,000 now.

They are stuck, is all.

[Dan Wesson]

Re older people who never left, here's a question. How many of them were counting on selling their $100,000-or-so house to get money to buy elsewhere for retirement? Those houses went down to $10,000 and less, and might fetch $12,000 - $15,000 now.

They are stuck, is all.

Bingo. Even without the "Great Recession" and the great sub-prime boondoggle there were and are lot's of folks stuck in sub standard neighborhoods. Hell they couldn't afford to buy at inflated prices housing went through in the burbs during the housing debt fueled bubble.

We are all victims of circumstance.

[Hermod]

Let's not forget Detroit had higher volume mass transit. We had the inter-urban trains that spanned the entire region. You could get to most of the neighboring suburbs by train. All of this died once the car became the predominant form of transportation in the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_United_Railway

The interurban "trains" were essentially long haul trolley cars. Usually they ran single car, but sometimes in a train of two cars. They moved people, but not in mass quantities. The interurbans ran to Port Huron, Flint, Pontiac, Farmington, Jackson, and Toledo.