From the Economist: How to shrink a city

[BankruptcyGuy]

http://www.economist.com/news/leader...-it-how-shrink

Looks like Detroit's plight is shared worldwide.

[BankruptcyGuy]

And it's interesting that their suggestion is not to fight it, but to manage it.

[emu steve]

This is something, as indicated, folks across America should worry about [[not just Detroit).

Easy to look at Detroit or maybe the 'older suburbs' which ring Detroit and suggest problems with stagnant or declining employment bases, poor schools, crime, etc. Folks complain about the weather.

Yet, when I see that population growth has stopped in some of the most desirable areas I know in the D.C. area I know that smaller families are taking its toll. It isn't simply 'rust belt' or cities decaying because of... [[fill in the blank with crime, bad schools, etc.).

Arlington County, Fairfax County, etc. have some of the best public school systems [[very low crime, too) in the U.S. yet those two counties have virtually stopped growing.

The rate of natural population growth [[births minus deaths) is a problem for this country. A lot of areas are faced with significant migration of retired boomers to the sun belt areas.

Shrinking cities are not a good thing. I doubt any mayor thinks losing say 10% population is a good thing even if in a suburban city.

Don't suburban school districts close schools? Churches in the 'burbs have to merge too.

[Detroitnerd]

It's dynamite to talk about "shrinking" our cities.

What we're really trying to discuss, I think, is "retrenchment." Our development patterns have far outstripped what they needed to be. What we should be doing is furnishing a smaller footprint with services, amenities, and infrastructure, and letting much of the overexuberant development revert to agriculture, open space, and recreational land.

Imagine a metro region in, say, 2111, that is centered along main spoke thoroughfares, reaching out like the fingers of a hand with farms, parks, and natural beauty in between; that's something we could realistically achieve in a century.

But it won't happen while developers -- and their cronies in the legislature and our various, 100-plus city halls -- are in the driver's seat when it comes to regional planning.

[BankruptcyGuy]

It's dynamite to talk about "shrinking" our cities.

What we're really trying to discuss, I think, is "retrenchment." Our development patterns have far outstripped what they needed to be. What we should be doing is furnishing a smaller footprint with services, amenities, and infrastructure, and letting much of the overexuberant development revert to agriculture, open space, and recreational land.

Imagine a metro region in, say, 2111, that is centered along main spoke thoroughfares, reaching out like the fingers of a hand with farms, parks, and natural beauty in between; that's something we could realistically achieve in a century.

But it won't happen while developers -- and their cronies in the legislature and our various, 100-plus city halls -- are in the driver's seat when it comes to regional planning.

That's an interesting perspective. I wonder, though, if there isn't more than a little bit of "build it and they will come" in that concept. Or put another way, don't you think that, especially post-2008, land development plans reflect underlying demand, rather than creating underlying demand?

[Detroitnerd]

That's an interesting perspective. I wonder, though, if there isn't more than a little bit of "build it and they will come" in that concept. Or put another way, don't you think that, especially post-2008, land development plans reflect underlying demand, rather than creating underlying demand?

A lot of it boils down to transportation policy, and the other hows and whys of the way public money is spent. We spent a ton of public money on expanding the footprint of a flat population. Now the challenge is to spend public money more wisely to furnish a decent, smallish city with what residents need.

I'll say it again: Transportation policy IS development policy. It's the only way to lead developers by the nose and make them do what they should do.

[BankruptcyGuy]

A lot of it boils down to transportation policy, and the other hows and whys of the way public money is spent. We spent a ton of public money on expanding the footprint of a flat population. Now the challenge is to spend public money more wisely to furnish a decent, smallish city with what residents need.

I'll say it again: Transportation policy IS development policy. It's the only way to lead developers by the nose and make them do what they should do.

I don't know of many developments, in this day and age, that are predicated on the construction of new roads BEFORE they are developed. I think the normal pattern is development, accumulation of residents, and then residents clamoring for new or wider roads.

Put a different way, if any particular city said "no newly paved or widened roads, but build what you want," I don't think that would slow down developers one bit.

I don't necessarily believe that this the best long-term urban planning policy, but I don't think that roads or lack thereof drive development. I am open to evidence that I am wrong, though.

[iheartthed]

It's dynamite to talk about "shrinking" our cities.

What we're really trying to discuss, I think, is "retrenchment." Our development patterns have far outstripped what they needed to be. What we should be doing is furnishing a smaller footprint with services, amenities, and infrastructure, and letting much of the overexuberant development revert to agriculture, open space, and recreational land.

Imagine a metro region in, say, 2111, that is centered along main spoke thoroughfares, reaching out like the fingers of a hand with farms, parks, and natural beauty in between; that's something we could realistically achieve in a century.

But it won't happen while developers -- and their cronies in the legislature and our various, 100-plus city halls -- are in the driver's seat when it comes to regional planning.

IAWTC

Metro Detroit has been underperforming in population growth for quite a while, but much of the decay in Detroit and inner ring suburbs is due to bad [[or non-existent) land use and infrastructure policies. There isn't really much reason for Metro Detroit to cover the land area it does, since a significant amount of it was built after the region reached its population plateau in 1970.

[emu steve]

BTW, if anyone doesn't appreciate what the effect of small families have had on population, look at Dearborn, what was [[is?) a rock solid suburb:

Significant population losses in the 60s, 70, and 80s and now at 1970s population levels...

If my math is correct, from 4/1/1960 to 4/1/1990, Dearborn lost about 20% [[89K/ 112K).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn,_Michigan

[Bham1982]

BTW, if anyone doesn't appreciate what the effect of small families have had on population, look at Dearborn, what was [[is?) a rock solid suburb:

Significant population losses in the 60s, 70, and 80s and now at 1970s population levels...

If my math is correct, from 4/1/1960 to 4/1/1990, Dearborn lost about 20% [[89K/ 112K).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn,_Michigan

Smaller household sizes aren't really relevant to a discussion of inner-city population loss. Cities have always had smaller household sizes throughout the world, and the issues specifically facing Detroit are related to fundamental lack of demand, not changes to household structure.

[emu steve]

Smaller household sizes aren't really relevant to a discussion of inner-city population loss. Cities have always had smaller household sizes throughout the world, and the issues specifically facing Detroit are related to fundamental lack of demand, not changes to household structure.

I understand the point you are making, but any MCD, e.g., Detroit or an older suburb will experience [[or will have experienced) population loss even if number of housing units remain constant.

So Dearborn might have lost 20% [[since 1960). Detroit lost say over 50% [[since 1960).

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

[iheartthed]

I understand the point you are making, but any MCD, e.g., Detroit or an older suburb will experience [[or will have experienced) population loss even if number of housing units remain constant.

So Dearborn might have lost 20% [[since 1960). Detroit lost say over 50% [[since 1960).

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

Smaller household sizes aren't relevant to the Detroit discussion because Detroit's actual household count has declined dramatically [[hence all of the abandoned houses).

[Canadian Visitor]

A clarification request; do municipalities in Michigan not impose the cost of development [[roads/schools/sewers etc.) on developers?

That's the norm in Ontario.

https://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20...01,%202015.pdf

For a new single-family detached unit, the charges are just over $30,000 for a 1 bdrm condo about $13,000

[Bham1982]

A clarification request; do municipalities in Michigan not impose the cost of development [[roads/schools/sewers etc.) on developers?

Yes, it's the same in Michigan. The new residents in the development pay off the assessment. When you move into a new development you will have a considerable assessment bill for a period of time.

The idea that Detroit taxpayers are paying for new sewer lines in Macomb Twp. is pure fantasy.

[Canadian Visitor]

When you move into a new development you will have a considerable assessment bill for a period of time.

Hmm, I think is somewhat different from how it works in Ontario. Here the developer pays most charges up front, and recoups them in the price of the house/unit when sold. There is the odd charge that's tacked onto the sale price, though even there its paid in full upfront by the buyer.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Hmm, I think is somewhat different from how it works in Ontario. Here the developer pays most charges up front, and recoups them in the price of the house/unit when sold. There is the odd charge that's tacked onto the sale price, though even there its paid in full upfront by the buyer.

It's always informative to hear how other cities and countries handle these sorts of things.

In Michigan, developer contributions to infrastructure runs the gamut from improvements paid for by the municipality [[street widening, traffic lights) to taxpayer recapture [[SADs, as mentioned, which can fund road paying or sewer lines) to outright fees [[tap-in fees for sewer, e.g.). It has always been something left to the negotiation between the municipality and the developer. The outcome of those negotiations depends on how valuable the use is perceived. Oddly [[or maybe not), the gold standard is a factory, with jobs and people who spend money but no residents that require services. Building of residences is somewhere well down the ladder, as cities realize that they actually will need more police/fire, etc. for those residents. God forbid if those residents are low-income. They are near the bottom with nuclear power plants and landfills. [[I jest, but not entirely.)

What about in Ontario?

[Canadian Visitor]

It's always informative to hear how other cities and countries handle these sorts of things.

What about in Ontario?

If you click on the link in post a while back, you'll see the non-residential development charges are underneath.

Instead of a charge per unit, its per square meter [[roughly 10sqft)

So the default rate for a commercial [[non-residential) development would be $168 or so per square meter, or $16.80 per sq ft.

So a supermarket at 50,000 sq ft would be about $800,000'ish in charges if my math is right.

There are separate programs to relieve some charges for highly desirable industrial type development and for low-income housing.

****

Overall Toronto, of course, does not want to forestall growth, but currently experiencing a boom that is taxing infrastructure faster than the gov't can keep up and encroaching on some of the world's best farm land daily, there is little pressure to restrain fees [[except by developers) and more pressure to curtain the un-ending sprawl.

We also have a 'Greenbelt' which restricts rezoning from farm/open space much beyond what's currently built out [[though there's probably a 20 yr supply of 'greenfield' land already approved)

And new developments in the Greater Toronto Area are required to adhere to minimum densities of people + jobs per hectare [[2.5 acres) of 150 for suburban areas, 200 for suburban nodes, and 400 anywhere close to downtown Toronto.

***

As for what the fees cover:

Spadina Subway Extension

Transit [[balance)

Parks and Recreation

Library

Subsidized Housing
Police

Fire

Emergency Medical Services

Civic Improvements

Child Care

Health

Pedestrian Infrastructure

Roads and Related
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Water Management


+ The Toronto Green Standard [[think green roof, LEEDs development standards etc)

+ Education charges [[Ranges widely based on school capacity issues, but typically maybe $500 per unit)

[Bham1982]

Hmm, I think is somewhat different from how it works in Ontario. Here the developer pays most charges up front, and recoups them in the price of the house/unit when sold. There is the odd charge that's tacked onto the sale price, though even there its paid in full upfront by the buyer.

Are we talking the bond payment? It sounds the same to me. A revenue bond is issued [[so basically paid up front) and then the developer [[and eventually, the homeowners) pay the money back, with interest.

Or are you saying that no bonds are issued, and the improvement is just paid for in cash up-front?

[Canadian Visitor]

Or are you saying that no bonds are issued, and the improvement is just paid for in cash up-front?

Correct. No Bonds, Cash upfront.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I'm sorry if my message came through in a confused form. In a residentially zoned area, if you can't build a single-family home of some sort, there is a regulatory taking. It is certainly the case that if you have property zoned industrial or commercial, you can't necessarily build a home there. You can, however, build some small building that meets those requirements. It could be a 5'x5' newspaper stand, but the rule can't be that you can build nothing. Sorry if I wasn't clear.