Detroit's plan gets national endorsement

[iheartthed]

Iheartthed, yes, I think a weed filled lot is more attractive than a lot with an unsalvageable house on it. And I think that a well maintained lot is better than a weed filled lot. And I think a well maintained vacant house is better than a non-maintained vacant house.

What criteria are you using to judge whether a house is unsalvageable?

[Retroit]

What criteria are you using to judge whether a house is unsalvageable?

A house that has neither:

• Significant historical value, nor
• Significant architectural value

And has either:

• Significant structural problems
• Extensive smoke/fire damage
• Extensive damage due to being open to the elements, i.e. water damage
• Extensive damage due to scrapping/destruction of the interior, or
• Extensive damage due to pests/animals

Who determines what is "significant" of "extensive"? Someone who has the job of evaluating the tens of thousands of empty structures in Detroit and makes a list of the those that are least likely to be saved. Questionable houses could be put on the bottom of the list. It is not like this would be a difficult heart-wrenching task. Anyone who has spent an hour driving around Detroit could easily compile a list of thousands of homes that are beyond saving.

[MichMatters]

I was going to echo most of what Retroit already said. I can't believe anyone with even a halfway understanding of the situation of the city could truly believe that there aren't literally thousands of homes in the city worthy of demolition because of their physical state and negligent prospects of being redeveloped in the next five to ten years, even. And the "who's going to judge this" is probably one of the silliest red herrings or strawmen I've seen in awhile. This is not rocket science by a long shot. If you can't look around the city and see the hundreds of homes being overtaken by nature, itself, then I'm really not even sure what to say.

[iheartthed]

A house that has neither:

• Significant historical value, nor
• Significant architectural value

And has either:

• Significant structural problems
• Extensive smoke/fire damage
• Extensive damage due to being open to the elements, i.e. water damage
• Extensive damage due to scrapping/destruction of the interior, or
• Extensive damage due to pests/animals

Who determines what is "significant" of "extensive"? Someone who has the job of evaluating the tens of thousands of empty structures in Detroit and makes a list of the those that are least likely to be saved. Questionable houses could be put on the bottom of the list. It is not like this would be a difficult heart-wrenching task. Anyone who has spent an hour driving around Detroit could easily compile a list of thousands of homes that are beyond saving.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. But I've seen a lot of revived neighborhoods in cities across this country, and never once have I seen one be gentrified from empty lots.

So, I must respectfully disagree with you that Detroit should be in the business of demolishing old houses. I also must disagree that Detroit should be in the business of determining which houses are worthy of salvaging and which ones aren't. I'll go as far as to say that the only time the city should be demo'ing structures is if they are a proven public safety hazard [[i.e. in danger of collapse).

If the purpose is to revive the city, then I have a long list of issues for which the city's resources are better spent.

[DetroitDad]

This fits in with the village plan; consolidate people and businesses into small but dense centers and turn the area around them into hinterlands and parks. Detroit will not and should not try to be what it was in the 1950s. The landscape of our city needs to take reality into account. We can live dispersed in a scene of abandonment and blight, or we can work together and have something a little nicer.

[Retroit]

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. But I've seen a lot of revived neighborhoods in cities across this country, and never once have I seen one be gentrified from empty lots.

So, I must respectfully disagree with you that Detroit should be in the business of demolishing old houses. I also must disagree that Detroit should be in the business of determining which houses are worthy of salvaging and which ones aren't. I'll go as far as to say that the only time the city should be demo'ing structures is if they are a proven public safety hazard [[i.e. in danger of collapse).

If the purpose is to revive the city, then I have a long list of issues for which the city's resources are better spent.

You always provide an interesting perspective, iheartthead. But it makes me wonder how acquainted you are with the city. Perhaps you are assuming that the abandoned home situation in Detroit is like that of say...New York? There is a difference between a street with one or two abandoned houses and all the other homes occupied [[like you might find in NY) and a street with 1/3 of the homes abandoned, 1/3 occupied, and 1/3 of the homes long since demolished [[like you might find in Detroit).

If you knew someone who has never been to Detroit before and you took them on a one hour drive around the city [[excluding downtown and the Indian Village - Palmer Woods type neighborhoods) and you asked them what, if anything, would prevent them from moving here, I'd bet they would say "all the abandoned homes and buildings". Without even knowing about the school, crime, or political situations, people who are not accustomed to the abandonment are instinctively turned off by it.

[iheartthed]

You always provide an interesting perspective, iheartthead. But it makes me wonder how acquainted you are with the city. Perhaps you are assuming that the abandoned home situation in Detroit is like that of say...New York?

Yeah, I forgot... 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in Detroit. Nothing that has worked anywhere else will ever work in Detroit.

We all know that nobody has ever bothered before to renovate houses in Detroit neighborhoods that were virtually abandoned... Nope, not in Brush Park, not in Woodbridge, not in Corktown, not anywhere in Detroit.

I don't understand how anyone could just so blindly sign on to this unprecedented plan when it has such an enormous downside. No city that has successfully revived itself has ever done anything like it. Why has no other city done so? Because you cannot say for certain today what neighborhoods will and won't be viable. Nor can you say what it is that might make certain neighborhoods viable again. Detroit is once again trying to play God with its neighborhoods.

The more that I think about this plan, the more I'm convinced at how fucking silly it is.

[Retroit]

Yeah, I forgot... 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in Detroit. Nothing that has worked anywhere else will ever work in Detroit.

We all know that nobody has ever bothered before to renovate houses in Detroit neighborhoods that were virtually abandoned... Nope, not in Brush Park, not in Woodbridge, not in Corktown, not anywhere in Detroit.

I don't understand how anyone could just so blindly sign on to this unprecedented plan when it has such an enormous downside. No city that has successfully revived itself has ever done anything like it. Why has no other city done so? Because you cannot say for certain today what neighborhoods will and won't be viable. Nor can you say what it is that might make certain neighborhoods viable again. Detroit is once again trying to play God with its neighborhoods.

The more that I think about this plan, the more I'm convinced at how fucking silly it is.

What "other city" has had to face the wide-scale abandonment that Detroit has? Sure, there are a few isolated neighborhoods that are hanging on, like Woodbridge and Corktown. [[I don't know about Brush Park - its mostly dead except for a few new apartments along Woodward. Very few of the original houses remain.)

Iheartthed, it sounds like you think that there are one-size-fits-all solutions for every city and every neighborhood's problems. I don't think you realize the extent to which Detroit over-all has declined. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-bombed, no one suggested that they try to preserve them. Instead, they went through and bulldozed what was left and rebuilt very modern and vibrant cities [[both of which put Detroit to shame.) Yes, preservation is good to a point; but beyond that, you have to take more drastic measures.

[ghettopalmetto]

What "other city" has had to face the wide-scale abandonment that Detroit has?

Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Youngstown, Toledo, and Richmond, for starters.

[Retroit]

Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Youngstown, Toledo, and Richmond, for starters.

Chicago???

[MichMatters]

Retroit,

I think I'll emend your question to:

What "other city" has had to face the wide-scale abandonment that Detroit has on the same scale?

Plenty of cities have sections that are as cleared out as Detroit, but no large city has nearly 30% of its land [[at last count) lost to abandonment and clearing. Anyone that wants to argue that that doesn't make a difference in how you approach this is straight-up fooling themselves...and no one else.

If folks want to fix up the remaining one or two blocks of abandonded dime-a-dozen bungalows on a once-city block, and think they'll get people to come and live in them, more power to these loons. It's time for Detroit to pull itself, together, literally, and that means pulling itself closer to its resources. Everything else is a silly waste of resources and time the city doesn't have, and it's actually counterproductive. If you want to spread yourselves into oblivion in 138 square miles, so be it. You'll be more and more alone by the year as the city continues to shrink haphazardly because resources aren't being centralized for those that still live in the places lived in.

[Retroit]

I stand emended. However you want to put it, yes, it is the "scale" of the abandonment that is the problem. Detroiters [[including ex-Detroiters) don't have a strong tradition of preserving neighborhoods. I think it stems from the auto culture, which is constantly changing to suit the yearly changes in taste. Not saying this is good, but it is a factor to consider.

People are not going to build in Detroit as long as it has large areas of vacant homes. They are going to continue to build out on the "edge of town". So, I think the goal should be to make Detroit the "edge of town", i.e. make it suitable for new housing development by clearing out as much as possible [[examples: Victoria Park, Herman Gardens)

[ghettopalmetto]

I stand emended. However you want to put it, yes, it is the "scale" of the abandonment that is the problem. Detroiters [[including ex-Detroiters) don't have a strong tradition of preserving neighborhoods. I think it stems from the auto culture, which is constantly changing to suit the yearly changes in taste. Not saying this is good, but it is a factor to consider.

People are not going to build in Detroit as long as it has large areas of vacant homes. They are going to continue to build out on the "edge of town". So, I think the goal should be to make Detroit the "edge of town", i.e. make it suitable for new housing development by clearing out as much as possible [[examples: Victoria Park, Herman Gardens)

Right. And fill it all in with vinyl-sided claptrap and strip malls. Then Detroit will be *really* successful!

[Brainiac]

Right. And fill it all in with vinyl-sided claptrap and strip malls. Then Detroit will be *really* successful!

You're opposed to strip malls and in favor of leaving blight all around?

Duh - get rid of the crime magnets and unsightly abandoned houses that bring everyone's standards down - with whatever means possible!!

I can't believe this is something to argue about.

[ghettopalmetto]

Sure. Why argue about something so silly? Demolishing buildings is free.

[Brainiac]

Sure. Why argue about something so silly? Demolishing buildings is free.

Wasn't the idea that it was federal money, with its typical idiodic strings attached, and there has to be a case made for lasting value? Turning around the crime stats in one of the nation's worst cities seems like a great value, and crack house tear down is part of that job.

[Retroit]

Right. And fill it all in with vinyl-sided claptrap and strip malls. Then Detroit will be *really* successful!

"Vinyl-sided claptrap"? Is this as opposed to wood- or aluminum-sided claptraps like most houses in Detroit? Or are you referring to the far more superior asphalt- or asbestos-sided variety?

"Strip malls"? Are these the closely spaced stores that *used to* exist along much of the main roads in Detroit? Or are you referring to the gentlemen's clubs on the Detroit side of 8 Mile Rd?

[MichMatters]

People are not going to build in Detroit as long as it has large areas of vacant homes. They are going to continue to build out on the "edge of town". So, I think the goal should be to make Detroit the "edge of town", i.e. make it suitable for new housing development by clearing out as much as possible [[examples: Victoria Park, Herman Gardens)

I guess we do differ in this regard. The pattern of vacancy and abandonment is uneven. So, it's not about making the edge of town where the city is, rather, about making interconnected "village" centers throughout the 138 square miles. Place like North Corktown, Poletown, and the Far Eastside aren't next to each other. Eventually, these vast lands will be filled back in, but until that day comes, those houses literally falling apart in these areas don't need to be left standing for a myriad of good reasons.

[iheartthed]

Boy you Detroiters sure are insular. "No city has ever had it as bad as me!" Somebody call a fucking waah-mbulance.

St. Louis is farther off it's peak population than Detroit.

Newark, NJ is 40% off it's peak population, and is projected to have grown this decade -- first time since 1950, which is also the same year that Detroit stopped growing. They didn't do that by tearing down neighborhoods!

Cleveland?

Pittsburgh?

Philadelphia?

Baltimore?

Hell, New Orleans?!

Harlem, NY was 57% off of it's peak population by the year 1990, and it has done almost a complete 180 degree turnaround over 20 years. [[Harlem, like most urban densely populated urban areas in the U.S., also reached its previous peak in the 1950s).

Now I'm not saying that we need to designate every house as a historic structure to preserve it. My only point is that the city of Detroit should not be in the demolition business. The city should not be demolishing neighborhoods. If an individual wants to purchase a house and demolish the house and re-build on that lot then that is his/her business. But the city of Detroit is not a development company nor is it a demolition contractor.

[ghettopalmetto]

Now I'm not saying that we need to designate every house as a historic structure to preserve it. My only point is that the city of Detroit should not be in the demolition business. The city should not be demolishing neighborhoods. If an individual wants to purchase a house and demolish the house and re-build on that lot then that is his/her business. But the city of Detroit is not a development company nor is it a demolition contractor.

I would be more optimistic about Detroit's demolition "plan" if it were part of a larger, concerted effort to consolidate and concentrate its population into more serviceable areas, not unlike what Youngstown is doing. Of course, this is just another Shoot First, Ask Questions Later effort brought to you by the City of Detroit. Thinking ahead of time is just too hard.

[LeannaM]

How does tearing down buildings create revenue? Don't a lot of cities have too much parking as it is?

I don't see the hurry in demolishing so many buildings. Demolish some, renovate some.

Soulard in St. Louis was a disaster in the 1970s. Today it is a vibrant, urban neighborhood. Downtown St. Louis had dozens of abandoned buildings Downtown 10 years ago. Today, maybe a dozen are vacant, though some large ones are still unrenovated. Most have renovation plans. Anyway, I don't see the rush to demolish entire neighborhoods. They did that in most cities the 1970s. Didn't really seem to help.

St. Louis City is much smaller [[62 sq. miles) than Detroit. But St. Louis population peaked at 856,796 and is now 354,361, up 1.8% from 348,189 in 2000. So the bleeding seems to have stopped. The North Side has some decent neighborhoods, a lot of empty land, and some not-so-great neighborhoods.

Most cities have not seen the level of neglect that Detroit has, but many have seen significant neglect since the 1960s.

[ghettopalmetto]

Most cities have not seen the level of neglect that Detroit has, but many have seen significant neglect since the 1960s.

I think the more appropriate question is, how much of Detroit's physical decline is due to the well-documented national policies and cultural phenomenon that affected all large, industrial cities in the North, and how much of the physical decline is due specifically to policies enacted at the local level?

[ordinary]

Now I'm not saying that we need to designate every house as a historic structure to preserve it. My only point is that the city of Detroit should not be in the demolition business. The city should not be demolishing neighborhoods. If an individual wants to purchase a house and demolish the house and re-build on that lot then that is his/her business. But the city of Detroit is not a development company nor is it a demolition contractor.

Why didn't you say this in the first place?

[iheartthed]

Why didn't you say this in the first place?

Because this was meant to be a discussion.

[Retroit]

It's not a matter of population, it's a matter of whether or not the houses are occupied. A population that is cut in half could mean that only half the homes are occupied or it could mean that the number of occupants of each house has been cut in half.

I think the discussion is getting convoluted. We're not talking about downtown areas. We're not talking about homes that are abandoned but in otherwise good condition. We're not talking about intact neighborhoods, but rather a sprinkling of dilapidated houses spread out across the prairie.

At least that's what I'm talking about.

I don't think having "villages" isolated by prairies is a solution for Detroit. I think a continuous expanse of housing is the way to go. The best place for new large-scale housing developments are in the most abandoned [[and cleared out) areas, not next to the few "villages".