Demolition-only urban policy leads to economic and social isolation

[gvidas]

Here's a post summarizing a scholarly article about our demolition scene:


http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/201...ial-isolation/

By way of further summary, here's the abstract of the article:

Demolition has long been a component of urban policy in the United States and elsewhere. Until recently, however, demolition was seen as a mere component of a wider policy—e.g. the first step to build an affordable housing complex, or a revived commercial strip. Recently some have suggested that demolition can have stand-alone regenerative effects—that is, if blighted housing is demolished, surrounding markets and neighborhoods will heal and regenerate without further intervention. This article challenges this logic by examining neighborhoods in the American Rust Belt where ad hoc demolition has been the predominant urban policy in the past 40 years. In total, there are 269 neighborhoods in 49 cities that have lost more than 50% of their housing since 1970. In aggregate, these activities have led to more housing loss, and affected more land area than even the urban renewal period, yet have not led to market rebound or a decrease in social marginality.

What are we gonna do with all this empty land?

[313WX]

Here's a post summarizing a scholarly article about our demolition scene:


http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/201...ial-isolation/

By way of further summary, here's the abstract of the article:




What are we gonna do with all this empty land?

Unfortunately, either farming or nothing.

What other solution is there?

First off, most of the housing in Detroit and other rust belt cities [[minus Chicago) was of the single family 2-family variety and built separately, whereas once the single or 2 families abandoned the housing unit, there was no reason to maintain the property. Meanwhile, in east coast cities and parts of Chicago, you had numerous families living in a tenement or row home which were all interconnected [[which means you couldn't maintain a portion of the property without maintaining the entire property.

Second, unlike the east coast cities and Chicago, Detroit will never see 1 million people again, let alone 2 million. The economic opportunities that existed at one point in time to sustain that population size no longer exist and, in an increasingly globalized and automated world, won't be returning.

[mwilbert]

Unfortunately, either farming or nothing.

What other solution is there?

First off, most of the housing in Detroit and other rust belt cities [[minus Chicago) was of the single family 2-family variety and built separately, whereas once the single or 2 families abandoned the housing unit, there was no reason to maintain the property. Meanwhile, in east coast cities and parts of Chicago, you had numerous families living in a tenement or row home which were all interconnected [[which means you couldn't maintain a portion of the property without maintaining the entire property.

Second, unlike the east coast cities and Chicago, Detroit will never see 1 million people again, let alone 2 million. The economic opportunities that existed at one point in time to sustain that population size no longer exist and, in an increasingly globalized and automated world, won't be returning.

1) I suggest looking at Detroit Future City to see various land use ideas.

2) Detroit is very unlikely to have a million people in it for the next couple of decades, but I wouldn't be confident about predicting how many people will live in the city in 30 or 40 years. The world will be very different. The Detroit area in particular is especially unpredictable because by that time you will have mostly or all electric, self-driving cars, and that is likely to cause some radical changes in the car industry, and on the economics of the metro area.

[313WX]

1) I suggest looking at Detroit Future City to see various land use ideas.

2) Detroit is very unlikely to have a million people in it for the next couple of decades, but I wouldn't be confident about predicting how many people will live in the city in 30 or 40 years. The world will be very different. The Detroit area in particular is especially unpredictable because by that time you will have mostly or all electric, self-driving cars, and that is likely to cause some radical changes in the car industry, and on the economics of the metro area.

Detroit Future City [[which I think is a boondangle in itself, as that type of top-down planning has only added insult to the city's injuries) is exactly what I was thinking of when typing my response.

From an urban planning perspective, there isn't much of a difference between agriculture, parks, etc. It's all different types of green space when you get right down to it.

As far as what to expect in 30 to 40 years, while no one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, people can make very educated guesses about what's more likely to happen than not. The city is diversifying its economic base at a virtual snail's pace. Meanwhile, the city's principal industry [[which will need fewer and fewer people with time to build and design its products) continues to increasingly branch out its operations from Michigan and subsequently lose market share to foreign-based competition. Never mind the other socio-economic issues that disproportionately plague the city / region that will take generations to fix [[crumbling infrastructure, 1/3 of the population being stuck in poverty and undereducated, etc.) assuming no further degradation of the wealth necessary to fix these problems, which will tend to turn off prospective residents / businesses. None of these factors bode well for a population "boom" any time soon, and would actually even suggest continued slow / steady population decline.

[renf]

Quite apart from the city of Detroit, Michigan is now a low-fertility, high mortality state that continues to lose in the exchange of migrants with other states. And, with the exception of highly educated Asians, Michigan attracts few immigrants from abroad. It is difficult to predict future employment trends in the auto industry but there certainly will not be any great increase in the traditional blue collar assembly line jobs.

I wonder if can safely predict that self-driving vehicles will put bus drivers, taxi drivers and truck drivers out of work? I recall back in the late 1940s when there seemed to be consensus that nuclear power was the clean, efficient, low-cost energy source that would quickly replace most other types of energy. There were serious incidents near Harrisburg and in the Ukraine and, since then, almost now new nuclear plants have been built. I do not think either of our presidential candidates in now endorsing nuclear. Is there a similarity with self-driving vehicles? Maybe so, maybe not.

[Junjie]

Detroit Future City [[which I think is a boondangle in itself, as that type of top-down planning has only added insult to the city's injuries) is exactly what I was thinking of when typing my response.

From an urban planning perspective, there isn't much of a difference between agriculture, parks, etc. It's all different types of green space when you get right down to it.

As far as what to expect in 30 to 40 years, while no one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, people can make very educated guesses about what's more likely to happen than not. The city is diversifying its economic base at a virtual snail's pace. Meanwhile, the city's principal industry [[which will need fewer and fewer people with time to build and design its products) continues to increasingly branch out its operations from Michigan and subsequently lose market share to foreign-based competition. Never mind the other socio-economic issues that disproportionately plague the city / region that will take generations to fix [[crumbling infrastructure, 1/3 of the population being stuck in poverty and undereducated, etc.) assuming no further degradation of the wealth necessary to fix these problems, which will tend to turn off prospective residents / businesses. None of these factors bode well for a population "boom" any time soon, and would actually even suggest continued slow / steady population decline.

All fair points. But how many people in 1890 would have predicted the city would go from 200,000 to 1.6 million in the next 40 years? How many in 1950 would have foreseen the city dropping from 1.9 million to 1 million in the next 40 years? It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

[belleislerunner]

His article provides no viable options. He laments that an abandoned home is not a vacant lot - that hasn't been developed yet. The contrast is driving around Detroit circle 2010 when the city was full of burned out/homes/structures.

No one would ever move/invest next to one of those. The only hope is tearing down the old and either hoping the remaining homes regain stability or waiting another 5-10 years for those too to go through the auction block and get demolished. Then with huge swaths of vacant land - nothing is scary or a bad investment. A developer can buy entire blocks from the Land Bank and build new Palmer Woods, Sherwood Forest or the 2020 equivalent housing option.

That investment won't happen until the entire blocks are leveled - no one want to build a new house next to three vacant fields and 2 ghetto homes. You have to ensure your investment will yield dividends.

[Gistok]

Never say never..... just look at the population of Rome.... it went from over 1 1/2 million down to about 25,000.... and remained that low for over 1000 years before increasing back into the millions.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...on_of_Rome.png

[emu steve]

Never say never..... just look at the population of Rome.... it went from over 1 1/2 million down to about 25,000.... and remained that low for over 1000 years before increasing back into the millions.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...on_of_Rome.png

Gistok, I'll take the bait. Lol.

I'll predict that Detroit will hit 1.5M in the year 2500.

[mwilbert]

Detroit Future City [[which I think is a boondangle in itself, as that type of top-down planning has only added insult to the city's injuries) is exactly what I was thinking of when typing my response.

From an urban planning perspective, there isn't much of a difference between agriculture, parks, etc. It's all different types of green space when you get right down to it.

As far as what to expect in 30 to 40 years, while no one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, people can make very educated guesses about what's more likely to happen than not. The city is diversifying its economic base at a virtual snail's pace. Meanwhile, the city's principal industry [[which will need fewer and fewer people with time to build and design its products) continues to increasingly branch out its operations from Michigan and subsequently lose market share to foreign-based competition. Never mind the other socio-economic issues that disproportionately plague the city / region that will take generations to fix [[crumbling infrastructure, 1/3 of the population being stuck in poverty and undereducated, etc.) assuming no further degradation of the wealth necessary to fix these problems, which will tend to turn off prospective residents / businesses. None of these factors bode well for a population "boom" any time soon, and would actually even suggest continued slow / steady population decline.

You don't need a boom to get to a million people in 40 years. Less than 1% growth per year would do it. I'm not saying that will happen, but it isn't like it would require something unheard of.

[royce]

Unfortunately, either farming or nothing.

What other solution is there?

First off, most of the housing in Detroit and other rust belt cities [[minus Chicago) was of the single family 2-family variety and built separately, whereas once the single or 2 families abandoned the housing unit, there was no reason to maintain the property. Meanwhile, in east coast cities and parts of Chicago, you had numerous families living in a tenement or row home which were all interconnected [[which means you couldn't maintain a portion of the property without maintaining the entire property.

Second, unlike the east coast cities and Chicago, Detroit will never see 1 million people again, let alone 2 million. The economic opportunities that existed at one point in time to sustain that population size no longer exist and, in an increasingly globalized and automated world, won't be returning.

I totally agree. Here are a few options that I've come up with for using up the land. First, a Cedar Pointe-amusement park deal could take up vast amounts of vacant land. Second, turn land into cemeteries. Third, turn Detroit into the prison capital of the U.S. with a number of new jails. Fourth, turn vacant land into man-made lakes. Fifth, create a hunting area where bow-hunters can hunt deer. Sixth, build a bigger city airport.

[1953]

Thank you for posting this. The demo fans in city hall have far too long ruled the day. Its time to reinvest in place, not bulldoze it.

1953

[dtowncitylover]

I totally agree. Here are a few options that I've come up with for using up the land. First, a Cedar Pointe-amusement park deal could take up vast amounts of vacant land. Second, turn land into cemeteries. Third, turn Detroit into the prison capital of the U.S. with a number of new jails. Fourth, turn vacant land into man-made lakes. Fifth, create a hunting area where bow-hunters can hunt deer. Sixth, build a bigger city airport.

1) So we can compete with Cedar Point, one of America's most prestigious and well attended parks that Michiganders and other midwesterners have such an affinity for, despite being in Ohio?

2) Well, I could agree considering all the baby boomers times are coming soon LOL

3) Yeah no thanks, we should be trying to build a society of less jails than creating more Florence, Colorados.

4) No, we are surrounded by 5 great ones and have all in the inland ones to enjoy.

5) No.

6) Yes. It would be nice to have a commuter airport with flights to Chicago, New York, Atlanta, etc and not have to travel to the ends of the metro area.

But I know you were being creative, this is a very complex issue. I think it's been said before somewhere that really we just need to close off parts of the city. Perhaps create a city department that would oversee maintenance of land or use the P&R dept. The land should also be cleared and sanitized. Clear out all waste, inspect the grounds for contaminants clear those out and them sit. And when development comes and housing and infrastructure is needed, re-open it back up.

I still don't believe in large scale farming in cities. They are still surrounded by a metropolitan area, meaning the air and soil is not healthy as it would be out in the country. Urban farming is a nice sentiment for long term urban thinking, I just don't see it.

[Junjie]

But I know you were being creative, this is a very complex issue. I think it's been said before somewhere that really we just need to close off parts of the city. Perhaps create a city department that would oversee maintenance of land or use the P&R dept. The land should also be cleared and sanitized. Clear out all waste, inspect the grounds for contaminants clear those out and them sit. And when development comes and housing and infrastructure is needed, re-open it back up.

I still don't believe in large scale farming in cities. They are still surrounded by a metropolitan area, meaning the air and soil is not healthy as it would be out in the country. Urban farming is a nice sentiment for long term urban thinking, I just don't see it.

If we stop to think about it, the idea of spreading 1.3 million people who used to live in a major city across farmland and then deciding to plant farms inside the city where they used to live is deeply bizarre. It also helps explain why we don't have enough money for infrastructure any more.

[royce]

If we stop to think about it, the idea of spreading 1.3 million people who used to live in a major city across farmland and then deciding to plant farms inside the city where they used to live is deeply bizarre. It also helps explain why we don't have enough money for infrastructure any more.

I strongly agree. We have been paying for sprawl for quite some time now and the bill is way past due. MDOT freeway projects will never find enough funding to adequately pay for all the repairs that are needed in my opinion. Remember when Hall Road/M-59 was just a two lane highway? Now MDOT or Macomb/Oakland counties have to pay more money to get the additional lanes repaved. That money could have gone to a Detroit street or a street in an inner-ring suburb. Also, adding those two extra lanes to I-75 in Oakland County is going to cost more when it comes to time to resurface those lanes.

Now, most of us know the history behind Detroit area sprawl so I'm not going to get into it here. However, just imagine if Metro Detroit's population all lived in Detroit. We would be the second or third largest city in the United States. There wouldn't be a need for much demolition if the city was full of residents.

The writer of the article has some valid points. The vacant land rarely attracts investors to want to build anew. However, as someone pointed out earlier, what other options are available to Detroit besides demolition. I've lived in Detroit all of my life. I would much rather see vacant lots or fields where houses once stood than to see those same dilapidated homes dotting the landscape. In most cases the homes have been stripped of essential mechanics and have been left open to the elements for years. Demolition is the logical choice. I made some suggestions on how to use the vacant land in my previous post. Some weren't meant to be taken seriously, but short of urban farms, what other uses can the city get out of its vacant land?

[BankruptcyGuy]

Nice thread. Here are a few thoughts:

1. I think someone posted that Chicago has tenement style housing. It does not. Virtually all housing in Chicago is small flats of various sizes. The Great Fire took care of that.

2. Why are houses demolished? Because with a dilapidated house on a standard lot in Detroit, the collective whole has a negative value. The cost to renovate some of these homes is greater than what the house will be worth when renovated. Thus, they have a negative value. No person in their economically-right mind would undertake that task. There is, however, plenty of precedent for this--a very similar situation is in place for environmentally-contaminated properties.

3. The best example city for Detroit is probably Vienna [[heard that from Al Taubman, so have to give him the credit). In 1910, the population was over 2 million. As of 1990, the population was 1.5 million--an 80-year steady decline. Over the last 25 years, the population has increased by 350,000 people, which is remarkable considering that most of Europe is in a population decline. How are they doing it?

"As of 2012, an official report from Statistics Austria showed that more than 660,000 [[38.8%) of the Viennese population have full or partial migrant background, mostly from Ex-Yugoslavia, Turkey, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Romania and Hungary."

Food for thought.

[Wesley Mouch]

Thank you for posting this. The demo fans in city hall have far too long ruled the day. Its time to reinvest in place, not bulldoze it.

1953

False dichotomy in the article.

Demo and reinvestment are both components -- neither is exclusionary to the other.

You can save some structures -- demo others. Invest here, and not there. Some of this, and some of that.

To say that there was no 'follow-up' plan may have some validity, but so what? If you were to ask the remaining residents in some of the hardest hit neighborhoods whether we should hold 'develop follow-up plans' or 'demolish the abandoned, burned-out buildings', I don't think the answer would be a shock.

The ability of Detroit to have follow-up plans was undermined by decades of wishful thinking by folks this this blogger. Great at criticism. Great at tell us what we did wrong yesterday. Thanks, but no thanks for your intellectual post. In the meantime, I think demo is a fine first step -- and this guy can step-up and buy properties if he thinks they should be preserved. I hope nobody gets in his way.

[Richard]

When it comes to housing and other buildings it is hard to look at them and say it would cost more to fix them then they are worth.

Today it may seem like that but cities are in it for the long term so a negitive investment into a neighborhood today becomes a positive one for the future.

It is not hard to see or even needs to reinvent the wheel,look at other cities that have been there done that,mass clearing leaves a neighborhood just that,a massive clearing for a long time.

It does cost more to revitalize an existing neighborhood but the character is preserved in the vintage housing stock,if one likes the city to resemble the suburbs what are you offering that cannot be found elsewhere?

If you have a neighborhood that only has a couple of dilapidated houses left,fix them and move them as infill to an more established neighborhood,it is done all of the time.

If one looks only at the numbers aspect,what has more value to the city as a whole and long term,a couple of dilapidated houses demolished or a couple of houses moved to make a borderline neighborhood more stronger and desirable.

No matter how horrible a house looks if it has good bones it is worth the investment long term in the bigger picture.

[masterblaster]

It does cost more to revitalize an existing neighborhood but the character is preserved in the vintage housing stock,if one likes the city to resemble the suburbs what are you offering that cannot be found elsewhere?

If you have a neighborhood that only has a couple of dilapidated houses left,fix them and move them as infill to an more established neighborhood,it is done all of the time.

If one looks only at the numbers aspect,what has more value to the city as a whole and long term,a couple of dilapidated houses demolished or a couple of houses moved to make a borderline neighborhood more stronger and desirable.

No matter how horrible a house looks if it has good bones it is worth the investment long term in the bigger picture.

I 100% AGREE WITH THIS IDEA.

This could be done in neighborhoods with many intact blocks and many non-intact blocks, like the North End and Dexter-Davison areas. You won't find housing found in those neighborhoods in the suburbs. Demolish burnt out structures. But move the remaining well-built structures on blocks with only a few structures left, to blocks that are mostly intact, thus [[1) preserving the look and feel of the old neighborhoods, [[2) freeing up a whole block for developers to building new housing on the completely vacated blocks once the demand materializes.

[Wesley Mouch]

...No matter how horrible a house looks if it has good bones it is worth the investment long term in the bigger picture.

Just don't forget that they didn't become dilapidated for no reason. Something happened. Unless you solve that problem, the money you invest in the house is probably 100% wasted.

How many times do you suggest we renovate these homes? Annually? I guess that would help unemployment rate.

[belleislerunner]

Aesthetically the West Village complex looks like HUD but given it will at least add residents to a neighborhood, I'll accept crap over nothing.

Like voting for president =)

[ABetterDetroit]

If we stop to think about it, the idea of spreading 1.3 million people who used to live in a major city across farmland and then deciding to plant farms inside the city where they used to live is deeply bizarre. It also helps explain why we don't have enough money for infrastructure any more.

Very bizarre and correctly assessed as expensive. Even with huge amounts of federal money in a attempt to clean up the mess left behind it is never enough, more problems are constantly created.