Troy council turns down higher density

[bibs]

Lived in Troy for about ten years. Enjoyed all the wonderful ethnic food in the area and multiculturalism. Miss it immensely. Moved ten hours away to Edwardsville, IL for employment after being laid off. Think Royal Oak surrounded by cornfields. I'm about 30 minutes from St Louis. What I notice when I return is the negativity and cut throat mentality. Remember the former mayor of Troy, Janice Daniels who made national headlines and was recalled in 2012. Love thy neighbor isn't being practiced but screw your neighbor is being practiced in Troy. Then everyone wonders why people leave the state. That's why the gentleman moved to Cincinnati. He will have to deal with people who smile, are courteous, patient, polite and will help you in an emergency! Gracious people! There will still be negative people but less of them!

[dtowncitylover]

Somerset has a waiting list of luxury retailers fighting to get space.


Sounds like armchair urban planners who don't understand the first thing about how cities work.

Residential density will increase [[or decrease) based on demographic trends, not based on whether or not the city builds an apartment building in sprawl. People don't have babies or pass away because of local zoning decisions.

I love how people think they're urban planning experts because they moved from Macomb Township to some transient hipster neighborhood in Detroit or Chicago, and after three whole years, they're ready to write a dissertation on urban economics.

I mean, when you're in the two worst performing cities in the entire U.S., you've learned everything there is to know, I guess.

Pretel, where is your dissertation on urban economics? Oh wait...

What sort of demographic trends need to happen for urban density? Urban density has everything to do with zoning laws and while it doesn't make people have babies or make them pass away, it has a huge play in how cities work as a society. And that's where we failed in Detroit. We sprawled too much, we destroyed neighborhoods for freeways, we destroyed transit, and we segregated ourselves. Thus, when little projects like this come up people get pissy.

I would say, when you live in Detroit and its environs you learn how not to plan a city. And Jane Jacobs would agree with that.

[Scottathew]

One thing to note is that even in that neighborhood Troy is getting denser than what it was, with the conversion of 6 lots to the 16 lots of Sachin Way.

Troy residents don't seem to mind more density, but perhaps want the density to be more appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood.

Big Beaver will never be a "downtown" unless DRASTIC changes are made on it. Big Beaver is designed for cars. Between the road and its neighborhoods are sprawling and uninviting parking lots. Standing in the way between the shoulder-to-shoulder buildings that are needed are towering buildings that will stand for decades and decades to come.

There is movement in the direction of a walkable Big Beaver with buildings that are closer together, with the parking BEHIND them.

For example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5621...7i13312!8i6656

But, this is but one example of kind of doing a downtown-style among ACRES and ACRES of parking lots.

[Bham1982]

Pretel, where is your dissertation on urban economics? Oh wait...

I actually have schooling and business experience on the matter, not that it's relevant. I do very well advising firms on these types of matters.

And I'm not the one making broad proclamations of urban theory or "what Troy needs to do".

What sort of demographic trends need to happen for urban density? Urban density has everything to do with zoning laws and while it doesn't make people have babies or make them pass away, it has a huge play in how cities work as a society.

Ridiculous. Urban density has basically nothing to do with density laws. You could change Detroit's density laws to those of Hong Kong, and it wouldn't mean a thing. You could change Hong Kong's density laws to those of Detroit, and it wouldn't mean a thing.

What would happen if Detroit were zoned as Hong Kong? Nothing. The zoning would be incompatible, people would still be born and die, and nothing would be built, except from variances.

What would happen in Hong Kong were zoned as Detroit? Nothing. The zoning would be incompatible, people would still be born and die, families would stuff further into existing housing, and nothing would be built except through corrupt ruling class machinations.

And that's where we failed in Detroit. We sprawled too much, we destroyed neighborhoods for freeways, we destroyed transit, and we segregated ourselves. Thus, when little projects like this come up people get pissy.

The failures in Detroit have nothing to do with zoning. The idea that Detroit would be a thriving city if only it were zoned "correctly" in 1950 is hilarious at face-value.

Apparently all the Trump-voting yokels in Macomb would still be living at McNichols and John R today if only Detroit were zoned to allow 60 floor towers with no parking, HK or Manhattan-style.

[dtowncitylover]

I actually have schooling and business experience on the matter, not that it's relevant. I do very well advising firms on these types of matters.

And I'm not the one making broad proclamations of urban theory or "what Troy needs to do".

Ridiculous. Urban density has basically nothing to do with density laws. You could change Detroit's density laws to those of Hong Kong, and it wouldn't mean a thing. You could change Hong Kong's density laws to those of Detroit, and it wouldn't mean a thing.

What would happen if Detroit were zoned as Hong Kong? Nothing. The zoning would be incompatible, people would still be born and die, and nothing would be built, except from variances.

What would happen in Hong Kong were zoned as Detroit? Nothing. The zoning would be incompatible, people would still be born and die, families would stuff further into existing housing, and nothing would be built except through corrupt ruling class machinations.

The failures in Detroit have nothing to do with zoning. The idea that Detroit would be a thriving city if only it were zoned "correctly" in 1950 is hilarious at face-value.

Apparently all the Trump-voting yokels in Macomb would still be living at McNichols and John R today if only Detroit were zoned to allow 60 floor towers with no parking, HK or Manhattan-style.

Are you this big of a condescending "know-it-all" with your clients?

A huge population shift would need to happen in order for Detroit to repopulate, but you can model zoning in order to make the city a more attractive place to live so that people do want to come and live and have babies and die in the city.

"The failures in Detroit have nothing to do with zoning. The idea that Detroit would be a thriving city if only it were zoned "correctly" in 1950 is hilarious at face-value"

The failure of Detroit in part has to do with the leaders then thinking the freeways, suburbia, and project housing was going to solve our city's problems when they only intensified the decline of Detroit. This could've been solved if transit, reinforcement of neighborhood services, and clear well-thought out regional planning had been done. 375 should have never been built. What if city government had invested in Black Bottom instead of destroy it?

Instead a carte-blanche land rush on suburban development was given and cities and townships started building whenever/wherever with no forethought on sustainability. So we ended up with a stretched out region, a hallowed inner core, and people believing the way we do things is normal. It's not.

I'm saying that we could've had a city in which people could be living in Midtown in 60-storey highrises as well as people living out in Macomb Township. But because we didn't invest in ourselves and instead in farmland, this is what we got.

Of course, I'm not saying anything about Troy either because I agree mostly with the homeowners.