Creating Density in Downtown

[Detroitnerd]

Hermod: Don't you find it ironic that you worked helping plan the city of Detroit but now you don't seem to care whether it has people in it or not? Certainly at some point you must have felt tied to the city and its welfare. What happened?

[Fury13]

A lot of arguments or visions for reviving Detroit are predicated on the city regaining population to the 1 million level or more. That will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER happen. Get used to the idea of Detroit "finding its water" at about 500,000 to 600,000 by 2030-2040. The infrastructure will have to adjust.

[Mikeg]

Cities are where they are and what they are for a reason. Detroit was once a river port. The happy accident that men who got rich in lumber from northern Michigan chose to settle in Detroit and had money to invest jump started the budding auto industry, a serendipitous coincidence that led to the growth of the great industrial hub.

Post war, there began a massive movement of factories from their cramped quarters in built out Detroit to the burbs along with the movement of their workers to the burbs. At first this didn't hurt Detroit because the guys moving to the burbs were depression-era doubled up in their parents homes.

Actually Detroit owes it role as a great manufacturing center to the successful entrepreneurs in the lumber, shipping, carriage making, iron smelting & casting and automobile industries who located in Detroit due to its strategic rail/water transportation access and they began and expanded their businesses using money borrowed from Boston bankers.

New factories were built outside of the Detroit city limits beginning around 1937 to provide additional production capacity in locations that could be supported by rail. This was necessary since there were no remaining large and vacant industrial parcels left in Detroit with rail access. This trend accelerated with the start of Lend-Lease and went into overdrive once the US entered WWII.

Construction materials were rationed during WWII and the large areas of partially-developed residential areas in Detroit that were platted prior to the Depression remained that way until after WWII. These areas were quickly built up in the late 1940s and early 1950s and then the new construction spilled over into the surrounding inner-ring suburbs.

[Detroitnerd]

A lot of arguments or visions for reviving Detroit are predicated on the city regaining population to the 1 million level or more. That will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER happen. Get used to the idea of Detroit "finding its water" at about 500,000 to 600,000 by 2030-2040. The infrastructure will have to adjust.

I don't have some arbitrary target for Detroit's population. But, with resources growing scarcer, I don't see how we can maintain the shrinking metro. How will we pay for 1,200 square miles of roads, sewers, water pipes and traffic signals for a population that's shrinking, regionally? The answer seems to be that we would want to concentrate what population we have in a tighter area, thereby saving on infrastructure and energy. We entice people to move and where we can actually provide infrastructure we can afford, get it?

[iheartthed]

I don't have some arbitrary target for Detroit's population. But, with resources growing scarcer, I don't see how we can maintain the shrinking metro. How will we pay for 1,200 square miles of roads, sewers, water pipes and traffic signals for a population that's shrinking, regionally? The answer seems to be that we would want to concentrate what population we have in a tighter area, thereby saving on infrastructure and energy. We entice people to move and where we can actually provide infrastructure we can afford, get it?

Yeah, the only way that Detroit would be a city of 500,000 is if Metro Detroit also severely shrank. There is absolutely no way that the region can keep physically expanding without adding on able bodies to pay for extended infrastructure.

[EL Jimbo]

So, why Detroit??

I guess that question depends on perspective. Does the country need the city of Detroit to thrive to be successful? Probably not.

But what about Michigan? Does Michigan need Detroit? What about the suburbs? Do they need Detroit? I think the answer to those questions would be much different than the national level question. What is one metropolitan area where the suburbs have survived on their own when the central city has failed so epically as Detroit has?

The part of the equation that some forget is that it is the central city and not the suburbs that define the "sense of place" that a region has. It's sense of identity is created by the central city. Metro Detroit, whether it be city or suburb, will continue to struggle competing in the global economy so long as Detroit is viewed as a failed urban wasteland. The Troys and Bloomfield Hills of the world can put as much spit and polish on themselves as they want, as long as Detroit's image is tarnished, theirs is as well.

The Metro Detroit area is VITAL to the well being of this entire state. Even today, Metro Detroit represents over 30% of the total state population. The vitality of a region representing that much of your state's population is crucial to the long term sustainability of your state. For Michigan, it is a domino effect. Detroit holds back Metro Detroit which holds back the state of Michigan.

For residents of Metro Detroit and the State of Michigan, the question is not "Why Detroit?". The question is "Why not?"

[Fury13]

How will we pay for 1,200 square miles of roads, sewers, water pipes and traffic signals for a population that's shrinking, regionally?

We won't. That's one reason that the City of Detroit is on the brink of economic collapase. There will be some sort of extreme crisis, partly as a result of escalating suburban sprawl/deserted city conditions, and there will be some sort of emergency action taken. The house of cards is about to tumble down. You think 2009 was bad in the Detroit area? Just wait. You haven't seen nothin' yet.

The answer seems to be that we would want to concentrate what population we have in a tighter area, thereby saving on infrastructure and energy. We entice people to move and where we can actually provide infrastructure we can afford, get it?

You can't force people to live where they don't want to. Hate to point this out, but for every "urban pioneer" who moves back into the city, there are at least 8 to 10 people who want to live in the suburbs or exurbs. This is not going to somehow magically change -- in other words, there is not going to be some cosmic spiritual transformation by which the public at large suddenly realizes the inherent "charm" or "goodness" of urban life.

Our infrastructure will continue to stretch, and those throngs of people who want to live further and further out [[and not in a desolate, crime-ridden city) will simply find a way to pay for it [[or get others to foot the bills). It will be worth it to them.

[Fury13]

What about the suburbs? Do they need Detroit?

The majority of suburbanites would say "no." Believe me, they barely give a thought to Detroit. I've personally heard people say that the city should be bulldozed so that it can start over.

The part of the equation that some forget is that it is the central city and not the suburbs that define the "sense of place" that a region has. It's sense of identity is created by the central city. Metro Detroit, whether it be city or suburb, will continue to struggle competing in the global economy so long as Detroit is viewed as a failed urban wasteland. The Troys and Bloomfield Hills of the world can put as much spit and polish on themselves as they want, as long as Detroit's image is tarnished, theirs is as well.

I'm sorry... this is ludicrous. This is what YOU'D like to think. But the fact is, metro Detroiters, suburbanites, have been doing without a vital city core for some time now. They've adjusted. Their orbits do not include Detroit, outside of an occasional exhibit at the DIA or a Tigers game or a show at the Opera House. And, you know what? It works for them.

Ask most suburbanites if their sense of identity is created by the central city. They'll laugh in your face. They don't WANT to be identified with Detroit anymore.

THIS is how far we've fallen as a region. Sad, but true.

[Hermod]

Hermod: Don't you find it ironic that you worked helping plan the city of Detroit but now you don't seem to care whether it has people in it or not? Certainly at some point you must have felt tied to the city and its welfare. What happened?

The city that my grandparents, parents, and I loved exists only in my memory and in its ruins.

I have lived in the Baltimore MD metro area, Washington DC metro area, the Richmond VA metro area, the Norfolk VA metro area, and in the Miami FL metro area since I left Michigan. I have tried to analyze why some cities are successful in maintaining a downtown, while others have not. I don't see the unifying threads which would cause Detroit to comeback. Even supposing that something happens in the auto industry and auto supply industry which causes a rejuvenation of SE Michigan, I can see Detroit continuing to decline.

[Bearinabox]

You can't force people to live where they don't want to. Hate to point this out, but for every "urban pioneer" who moves back into the city, there are at least 8 to 10 people who want to live in the suburbs or exurbs. This is not going to somehow magically change -- in other words, there is not going to be some cosmic spiritual transformation by which the public at large suddenly realizes the inherent "charm" or "goodness" of urban life.

How many of those people "want to live" in the suburbs because the suburbs are just that great, and how many only left the city because you have to put up with so much bullshit to live here these days? Normal cities have urban and suburban areas, and some people choose to live in one and others choose to live in the other, and there's enough of a balance there that the city doesn't entirely fall apart and the suburbs don't completely overextend themselves. We can't "force" anyone to do anything, but we should at least make the city a viable option for people who want it, and then throw in some additional incentive to account for the fact that city dwellers are helping restore the equilibrium and get the area to a point where it isn't completely falling apart.

[Detroitnerd]

You can't force people to live where they don't want to. Hate to point this out, but for every "urban pioneer" who moves back into the city, there are at least 8 to 10 people who want to live in the suburbs or exurbs. This is not going to somehow magically change -- in other words, there is not going to be some cosmic spiritual transformation by which the public at large suddenly realizes the inherent "charm" or "goodness" of urban life.

Our infrastructure will continue to stretch, and those throngs of people who want to live further and further out [[and not in a desolate, crime-ridden city) will simply find a way to pay for it [[or get others to foot the bills). It will be worth it to them.

Hey, I don't understand where coercion comes into it. I'm not proposing squads of black-clad military men rounding up suburbanites and busing them to their new homes in the Detroit People's Soviet. I'm talking about a big program to entice people into central cities by giving our central cities the support they need.

We've done this before. It was after the Second World War. No new housing of any decent quality had been built in 15 years. Our cities were surrounded by plenty of empty land. It sort of made sense to try it then, but nobody knew we'd end up with the massive sprawl we have today. And it will break the bank sooner or later to keep trying to lay down more infrastructure for a population that's flatlining or declining.

All I'm saying is we could do it again, but in reverse. We'd be able to let the exurbs revert mostly to farmland, much as our inner cities did, but with much fewer costs. Or, put another way, costs concentrated in one tighter area.

But it cannot happen without sensible and generous federal policy, on the order of Europe. No, I am not saying that hardy urban pioneers are going to save the city. I am saying that if we have a sensible urban policy and good services, we'll not only have residents of choice but be able to harness and retain the young people who are leaving the region in droves. Where are they going? They're going to cities that function properly. We could have them right here if our central city worked.

[Detroitnerd]

The city that my grandparents, parents, and I loved exists only in my memory and in its ruins. ... I don't see the unifying threads which would cause Detroit to comeback. Even supposing that something happens in the auto industry and auto supply industry which causes a rejuvenation of SE Michigan, I can see Detroit continuing to decline.

I appreciate your feedback, but I still don't get it. Are you saying you don't care about Detroit? Or that you think Detroit is hopeless and have given it up for dead? I know it's a deeply personal question, but I'm trying to understand.

[Retroit]

After spending 2 hours driving around the city of Detroit today, past thousands of empty homes, the discussion of increasing density in Detroit seems rather delusional. You can build all the parking garages and light rails you want downtown, but unless you have a somewhat dense surrounding residential area, that downtown area will not sustain itself.

If someone can convince the remaining Detroiters and their leaders to clean up their neighborhoods and reduce their criminal activity, it might have a fighting chance, but otherwise, I'm not very optimistic.

[Fury13]

How many of those people "want to live" in the suburbs because the suburbs are just that great, and how many only left the city because you have to put up with so much bullshit to live here these days?

Do you see the bullshit going away? I don't... not in my lifetime, anyway, which means another 40-50 years.

Normal cities have urban and suburban areas, and some people choose to live in one and others choose to live in the other, and there's enough of a balance there that the city doesn't entirely fall apart and the suburbs don't completely overextend themselves. We can't "force" anyone to do anything, but we should at least make the city a viable option for people who want it, and then throw in some additional incentive to account for the fact that city dwellers are helping restore the equilibrium and get the area to a point where it isn't completely falling apart.

What "equilibrium" needs to be restored? Metro Detroiters have long accepted the paradigm of a region with no real center. Make the city a "viable option"? How do you do that? Even if you can answer that question with reasonable recommendations, it will take decades to make Detroit an attractive place for people to relocate. The crime, poverty, substance abuse, education, infrastructure, health, and budget problems are nearly insurmountable for the forseeable future.

What I'm saying is that the majority of suburbanites -- while they would probably theoretically say, "sure, I'd like to see Detroit revive" -- will not be able to see any reason to live in Detroit or contribute financially to an improved Detroit. Many, in fact, would be OK with putting a fence around the city perimeter and hanging a "CLOSED" sign on it, while dead-ending all southbound avenues at Eight Mile.

[Fury13]

After spending 2 hours driving around the city of Detroit today, past thousands of empty homes, the discussion of increasing density in Detroit seems rather delusional. You can build all the parking garages and light rails you want downtown, but unless you have a somewhat dense surrounding residential area, that downtown area will not sustain itself.

If someone can convince the remaining Detroiters and their leaders to clean up their neighborhoods and reduce their criminal activity, it might have a fighting chance, but otherwise, I'm not very optimistic.

Exactly what I'm saying... in a nutshell.

[Detroitnerd]

After spending 2 hours driving around the city of Detroit today, past thousands of empty homes, the discussion of increasing density in Detroit seems rather delusional. You can build all the parking garages and light rails you want downtown, but unless you have a somewhat dense surrounding residential area, that downtown area will not sustain itself.

If someone can convince the remaining Detroiters and their leaders to clean up their neighborhoods and reduce their criminal activity, it might have a fighting chance, but otherwise, I'm not very optimistic.

But, then again, a person living in Detroit might have said the same thing about the sticks in the 1920s.

"You can build all the bungalows and highways you want out there, but unless you have some decent services, that barren area will not sustain itself. If someone can convince those hayseeds and their leaders to pull up their beet fields and build lots of roads and sewers, they might have a fighting chance, but otherwise, I'm not very optimistic."

That's sort of a gag, Retroit, but I think it helps make my point.

It strikes me as odd that we can enact a multibillion-dollar plan to have a pretty steady or modestly growing population spread out over almost 10 times the land area, even though it's frightfully expensive and seems doomed, but we can't put together a plan to rein that in and develop the center city.

[Fury13]

No, I am not saying that hardy urban pioneers are going to save the city. I am saying that if we have a sensible urban policy and good services, we'll not only have residents of choice but be able to harness and retain the young people who are leaving the region in droves. Where are they going? They're going to cities that function properly. We could have them right here if our central city worked.

You could have them, and more, right here if we could get the criminals off the streets. That's Job One. You can give people all the incentives you want to move into the city, but they're not going to want to live next to thieves or crackheads.

But seriously, good post. I think your proposal has some merit, at least in theory.

[EL Jimbo]

The majority of suburbanites would say "no." Believe me, they barely give a thought to Detroit. I've personally heard people say that the city should be bulldozed so that it can start over.

I have heard the same thing about the bulldozing. However, even in your own response, the answer is yes. You say they want to bulldoze it so the city can start over. Isn't that basically saying that we should invest in Detroit because it could and should be something better? It might be a different opinion of HOW to apply the investment but it is a yes answer none the less.

I'm sorry... this is ludicrous. This is what YOU'D like to think. But the fact is, metro Detroiters, suburbanites, have been doing without a vital city core for some time now. They've adjusted. Their orbits do not include Detroit, outside of an occasional exhibit at the DIA or a Tigers game or a show at the Opera House. And, you know what? It works for them.

Ask most suburbanites if their sense of identity is created by the central city. They'll laugh in your face. They don't WANT to be identified with Detroit anymore.

THIS is how far we've fallen as a region. Sad, but true.

I'm not talking about how suburbanites identify themselves or don't identify themselves. I'm talking about a national and international identity. if you are traveling around the country or around the world, how would you describe where you live? Do you say, "I'm from Troy" or "I'm from Livonia"? Of course not. Nobody would have a clue what you are talking about. You say, "I'm from Detroit or I'm from the Detroit area".

That's the point. The rest of the country and the world doesn't know about nor does it give a rat's ass about our petty little provincial disputes. In there eyes, there is no difference between city and suburb so if Detroit has a reputation [[rightfully earned) for being a cesspool, then the rest of the country and the world is going to lump the suburbs right in there with them. As long as Detroit continues to have the problems it does, businesses will always think twice about investing in the metropolitan area as a whole. This hurts both city and suburb because that investment would be beneficial to all.

This is the PRIMARY problem we are facing. In various forms we have divided ourselves into an ongoing "Us vs Them" fight. For decades we have been wasting time and energy fighting ourselves when we should have realized that we are all "Us" and the rest of the world is the "Them" we should be fighting and competing against.

If we stop protecting our petty little fiefdoms and start pooling our collective resources there is no doubt that this region has the skills and tools needed to compete in the global economy. However, we need to act now before it is too late.

[Detroitnerd]

You could have them, and more, right here if we could get the criminals off the streets. That's Job One. You can give people all the incentives you want to move into the city, but they're not going to want to live next to thieves or crackheads.

But seriously, good post. I think your proposal has some merit, at least in theory.

Thanks, Fury. Our region needs all the help it can get, and would be helped a great deal with a functioning center. One thing I do admire about the old days: They thought big. We'd do well to thing big too, even if the goal is something tighter and smaller.

[Bearinabox]

Do you see the bullshit going away? I don't... not in my lifetime, anyway, which means another 40-50 years.



What "equilibrium" needs to be restored? Metro Detroiters have long accepted the paradigm of a region with no real center. Make the city a "viable option"? How do you do that? Even if you can answer that question with reasonable recommendations, it will take decades to make Detroit an attractive place for people to relocate. The crime, poverty, substance abuse, education, infrastructure, health, and budget problems are nearly insurmountable for the forseeable future.

What I'm saying is that the majority of suburbanites -- while they would probably theoretically say, "sure, I'd like to see Detroit revive" -- will not be able to see any reason to live in Detroit or contribute financially to an improved Detroit. Many, in fact, would be OK with putting a fence around the city perimeter and hanging a "CLOSED" sign on it, while dead-ending all southbound avenues at Eight Mile.

They're people just like people anywhere else. They don't care about the city because there isn't much here. Put things here and they will care about it. Give it a generation and they won't know how they ever did without it. People have adapted to the paradigm of not having a center, for lack of any alternative, but I've met very few who actually prefer it that way.

[Fury13]

If you are traveling around the country or around the world, how would you describe where you live? Do you say, "I'm from Troy" or "I'm from Livonia"? Of course not. Nobody would have a clue what you are talking about. You say, "I'm from Detroit or I'm from the Detroit area".

Not necessarily. I hear more and more people say, "I'm from Birmingham" or "I'm from metropolitan Detroit" or "I'm from Westland, that's near Detroit."

In their eyes, there is no difference between city and suburb so if Detroit has a reputation [[rightfully earned) for being a cesspool, then the rest of the country and the world is going to lump the suburbs right in there with them.

So then, CLEAN the CESSPOOL. You see, for many of us, it's NOT a given that "we are all 'us.'" Excuse me: those thugs and robbers and rapists and whatnot are not included in "us." Wipe the pus from the oozing sore; then, and only then, maybe will it heal.

[Fury13]

They're people just like people anywhere else. They don't care about the city because there isn't much here. Put things here and they will care about it. Give it a generation and they won't know how they ever did without it. People have adapted to the paradigm of not having a center, for lack of any alternative, but I've met very few who actually prefer it that way.

Good point. But I think it will take much, much longer than one generation.

[tallboy66]

This again?
How many times can you re ask the same question?

I bet if Detroit stopped tearing down buildings and paving over rail lines...

10 years and counting.

[Detroitnerd]

This again?
How many times can you re ask the same question?

I bet if Detroit stopped tearing down buildings and paving over rail lines...

10 years and counting.

Haha. Reminds me of this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlTM4INe-5A

[Hermod]

I appreciate your feedback, but I still don't get it. Are you saying you don't care about Detroit? Or that you think Detroit is hopeless and have given it up for dead? I know it's a deeply personal question, but I'm trying to understand.

I care about the area. If it wasn't for my wife, I would leave Florida in a heartbeat and move back to the Detroit metro area. That is my roots. My extended family lives in an arc from Mt Clemens through Ann Arbor. I would love to boat again through Lake St Clair and the St Clair Flats.

Detroit itself, south of Eight Mile and east of Telegraph is pretty much dead to me. It is just a lot of memories from the forties and fifties that will never come back. I drove my grandkids back through my old home area [[Whittier between Harper and Kelly and it just made me want to cry.