Creating Density in Downtown

[Bearinabox]

While I don't have numbers handy I think if you looked at the proportion of people in most major city regions that live in the urban part versus the proportion that live in the suburban part you'd see a pattern in which Detroit is not a significant outlier. That's my impression from living/working in a half-dozen US major metros. I think Detroit's proportion is tweaked toward suburban given the issues in our CDB but I think it would only move the numbers a bit.

...and yet everyone who comes here comments on how bombed-out everything looks. Why are other cities less bombed-out, if they're just as depopulated as Detroit?

[Detroitnerd]

...and yet everyone who comes here comments on how bombed-out everything looks. Why are other cities less bombed-out, if they're just as depopulated as Detroit?

You can't second-guess data you don't have, I suppose.

[Retroit]

Interesting discussion. Many good economic reasons have been made for a dense downtown, but I don't see anyone addressing the real reasons why people are not moving into the city. Those reasons have little to do with economics and have much to do with the social problems. Until those problems are solved, this discussion is all rather theoretical and academic. And once those problems are solved, we won't need ardent urbanists like Detroitnerd to convince people to move to Detroit; people will want to move there.

If Detroit were clean, safe, had good schools and government, etc., I think many suburbanites would be willing to consider moving there. Much of Detroit is like much of the suburbs. The way some of you urbanists talk, you'd think everyone in Detroit lives in a high-rise and everyone in the suburbs lives in a McMansion on 5 acres. This is not the case; the major difference is the social factor [[crime, cleanliness, parental responsibility, home maintenance, education, etc.). When are these issues going to be addressed? That is when Detroit will start its recovery.

[Detroitnerd]

Interesting discussion. Many good economic reasons have been made for a dense downtown, but I don't see anyone addressing the real reasons why people are not moving into the city. Those reasons have little to do with economics and have much to do with the social problems. Until those problems are solved, this discussion is all rather theoretical and academic.

We did touch on that. See my post 959 on the usual merry-go-round we go through. It ends with a vision that could transform Detroit, but would require a federal commitment to rebuilding our cities and tightening our development patterns.

[iheartthed]

...and yet everyone who comes here comments on how bombed-out everything looks. Why are other cities less bombed-out, if they're just as depopulated as Detroit?

I believe he's generally right. Detroit proper's percentage of the metropolitan area population is not out of the norm for the U.S. But that's including both old rust belt/industrial cities, and newer Sun Belt cities that began to grow after the start of de-industrialization/suburban boom era.

The difference, though, is that many other industrial cities were able to maintain their inner-city population densities better than Detroit and other midwest cities [[Cleveland, St. Louis, etc). The density of Detroit proper was similar to the densities of Chicago, Philly, D.C., S.F., etc., in 1950, but now Detroit's is a fraction of those other cities densities.

Yet, Detroit is still a fairly dense city when you add the Sun Belters into the mix. But there was no way to maintain the type of density that it once had without a good mass transit system.

[Hermod]

We did touch on that. See my post 959 on the usual merry-go-round we go through. It ends with a vision that could transform Detroit, but would require a federal commitment to rebuilding our cities and tightening our development patterns.

Demographics and the fact that we have to do something about public health care pretty much guarantee that the bulk of the fed budget will go to pensions and medical in the future swallowing up any "peace dividend" thatr worldwide kumbayah will bring.. The fed won't be bailing out inner cities in the future.

[Hermod]

I believe he's generally right. Detroit proper's percentage of the metropolitan area population is not out of the norm for the U.S. But that's including both old rust belt/industrial cities, and newer Sun Belt cities that began to grow after the start of de-industrialization/suburban boom era.

The difference, though, is that many other industrial cities were able to maintain their inner-city population densities better than Detroit and other midwest cities [[Cleveland, St. Louis, etc). The density of Detroit proper was similar to the densities of Chicago, Philly, D.C., S.F., etc., in 1950, but now Detroit's is a fraction of those other cities densities.

Yet, Detroit is still a fairly dense city when you add the Sun Belters into the mix. But there was no way to maintain the type of density that it once had without a good mass transit system.

Cleveland kept their suburban rail transit system long after Detroit lost theirs. Cleveland is also a port and a major rail center. St Louis is a major rail center, a river port, and has the most anti-social element of their population isolated out in East St Louis.

Detroit quit being a river port years ago and just waves at the ships as they go by. Detroit was an important point of origin and destination for rail traffic, but was mostly a stub end terminal off of the major national trunk rail lines even in the hey day of railroads.

[Retroit]

The most I see federal dollars accomplishing in the near future is tearing down the uninhabitable homes and buildings in Detroit, of which I would be in favor. If large enough areas are cleared, eventually I would support some type of federal funding for new housing, although I would hope they would not be "housing projects", but rather suburban-type housing. I really don't see any other federal program to lure people into the cities, like the post-WWII G.I Bill type programs that led them to the suburbs. People have to want to live somewhere before federal incentives can make any significant difference.

[Detroitnerd]

Demographics and the fact that we have to do something about public health care pretty much guarantee that the bulk of the fed budget will go to pensions and medical in the future swallowing up any "peace dividend" thatr worldwide kumbayah will bring.. The fed won't be bailing out inner cities in the future.

Nationalize health care, cut out the insurance companies and go to a single-payer program, negotiate harder with pharma companies, and you can have a great health care system for a fraction of the cost.

What's with the reductive taunting and straw-manning, Hermod? Are you saying that Eisenhower is too far left for you or something?

[iheartthed]

Cleveland kept their suburban rail transit system long after Detroit lost theirs. Cleveland is also a port and a major rail center. St Louis is a major rail center, a river port, and has the most anti-social element of their population isolated out in East St Louis.

Detroit quit being a river port years ago and just waves at the ships as they go by. Detroit was an important point of origin and destination for rail traffic, but was mostly a stub end terminal off of the major national trunk rail lines even in the hey day of railroads.

Not sure I get your point. Cleveland and St. Louis had more significant population drops than Detroit.

[Bearinabox]

Are you saying that Eisenhower is too far left for you or something?

Eisenhower is too far left for most folks these days, it seems.

[Detroitnerd]

The most I see federal dollars accomplishing in the near future is tearing down the uninhabitable homes and buildings in Detroit, of which I would be in favor. If large enough areas are cleared, eventually I would support some type of federal funding for new housing, although I would hope they would not be "housing projects", but rather suburban-type housing. I really don't see any other federal program to lure people into the cities, like the post-WWII G.I Bill type programs that led them to the suburbs. People have to want to live somewhere before federal incentives can make any significant difference.

I'd add that most of the stuff that's being torn down in the city at large is suburban-type housing. Why would new suburban housing fare any better? Anyway, I thought we agreed it was the social conditions and lack of amenities that make Detroit unattractive, not the type of housing. It just seems so much like cargo-cult urban planning to say that people like suburbs, so we should try to turn Detroit into another suburb. Besides, it ignores what makes cities special and important.

Why did people move out of the city into the country in the first place? Sure, Americans have always romanticized country life. But it was the government that smoothed the way and made it practical. They helped by building the roads, subsidizing the home loans, building the schools and hospitals out there. Why not use federal policy to stem the sprawl and rebuild our inner cities, to ease the resettlement and provide amenities?

Anyway, my point is, people moved to the suburbs in such large quantities because the deal was sweetened by the gubment. So which is it? People have to want to live somewhere before federal incentives make any difference? Or people are drawn by federal incentives? The post-World War II migration pattern would suggest that there's a bit of truth to both arguments, don't you think?

[313WX]

Not sure I get your point. Cleveland and St. Louis had more significant population drops than Detroit.

It's all relative. St. Louis & Cleveland were never as big as Detroit [[now or even in their heyday) and I don't believe it's possible for them to experience a popluation drop of 1 million [[unless they become complete ghost towns) and still rank as one of America's bigger cities.

[Zacha341]

LOL! It does seem to be a cyclical discussion... indeed!

...Go back to debating points one through four. Rinse. Repeat.

[wolverine]

Now I know that right now, we have a hard enough time filling the current buildings that exist downtown, but I also know that our auto-centric focus on transportation and our lack of quality transit options poses another real issue for the downtown area.

I recently came across an article written about a proposal for Portland, Oregon where they were trying to find ways to create an automobile free downtown by 2050. There proposal was to build several massive parking structures that had direct access to freeways. From there, commuters could link to mass transit options or walk to their destinations. The idea is that he availability of parking at these structures would alleviate the need for other parking space and would increase demand for more buildings.

Anyway, I thought it was cool and possibly applicable to Detroit since we already have one parking structure on the periphery of downtown with direct access to the freeway.

http://hugeasscity.com/2010/01/14/th...ark-ride-ever/

Even in an already high density city this would be an excellent idea. I don't own a car anymore particularly because I walk to every place I need to get to, and parking in my area is $325 / month. If I could just park my car 3 miles away from downtown in a mega-garage and get it only when I need to leave the city that would be perfect.

But first, you need some more big business downtown that will encourage more residents and other small businesses with it.

Then you have to change some people's mindsets. Commutes with multi-modal transfers is normal day to day task for most people in large cities. Driving to a parking garage, hopping on a train, then walking a couple blocks to a final destination really isn't all that bad or inconvenient. It sounds a lot worse than it actually is.

[Hermod]

Nationalize health care, cut out the insurance companies and go to a single-payer program, negotiate harder with pharma companies, and you can have a great health care system for a fraction of the cost.

What's with the reductive taunting and straw-manning, Hermod? Are you saying that Eisenhower is too far left for you or something?

No, it is just with birth control and people choosing family sizes, the population in both Europe and the US is aging. I was reading one of the doomsday type books that said that most developed countries national budgets were going to be eaten up with pension and medical costs.

For the record, i have reluctantly come around to the idea of Medicare for all so long as it is "fee for service" and not an HMO type of arrangement. Years of military health care [[yeah, you get a free eye exam, we can see you in eight months) sort of have me leery of the idea of a national health service.

Medicare does seem to work quite well.

As for a "peace dividend", I am not one of the "if only we didn't buy bombers we could afford a computer in our school" logic. I was on the inside looking out when we wound down after Vietnam. The peace dividend was eaten up by inflation and by the need to do 15 years of catchup in R&D and modernization.

I am a conservative in that I believe that localities should fund schools, states should maintain roads and bridges, and the national government should defend the place.

I also believe that social security, other national retirement plans, and national health care should be "off budget".

[Hermod]

I'd add that most of the stuff that's being torn down in the city at large is suburban-type housing. Why would new suburban housing fare any better? Anyway, I thought we agreed it was the social conditions and lack of amenities that make Detroit unattractive, not the type of housing. It just seems so much like cargo-cult urban planning to say that people like suburbs, so we should try to turn Detroit into another suburb. Besides, it ignores what makes cities special and important.

DN: Let me try to tackle these one idea at a time, coming from the perspective of being an immature observer of the suburbanization of Detroit.

Just before my father went off to the Pacific for four years, he bought a one and one-half story bungalow on the far east side [[10681 Nottingham) with two small bedrooms, one bath, living room, dining room, pullman kitchen, basement, and unfinished attic. It was comparable to most of the houses on the street and being that it was the forties, I visited in most of the houses on the street. Ours had a small kitchen though. During the war, my mother and i had one BR and my brother and grandmother had the other.

When my father came home, my mother immediately became pregnant with my sister and my father used his mustering out pay to finish off the attic into two bedrooms for my grandmother to have one and my brother and I the other That left my sister in one BR downstairs, later joined by another sister, and my folks in the other room. Sunday morning was crowded trying to use one bathroom. My father often took a mirror down into the basement and shaved in the laundry tub.

We were actually quite fortunate as many folks lived in flats and small homes or had more people in them and so were more crowded than we were with seven people. My father worked down on Milwaukee and Russell and either commuted down Harper to work or took the Harper bus when my mother wanted the car.

In 1952, the factory [[made bolts for GM and Chrysler) moved out to Centerline and my folks began thinking about moving to somewhere we could get a house that actually had one and a half baths!! Plus we were doing well enough that my father got a beater to get to work with and my mother could have the car every day.

That kind of life won't wash any more. Somewhere in the sixties they passed a constitutional amendment that each child was entitled to a bedroom all their own. Then along came such innovations as a "master suite" where the parents had their own private bathroom, a small "den" as a luxury morphed into the "family room". You can then add the other things up, two or three car attached garage, home office, dedicated main floor laundry room, "mud room", walk in closets, media room, etc.

Sit down sometime with a young girl who has been married a couple of years. Her husband has a job as the number two man on the lube rack at Moe's Garage and she waits the breakfast counter at Denny's. Ask her about the house she wants. She will describe a McMansion, not the little bungalow that I grew up in.

The number of folks that want to live [[and raise kids) in a high rise is a very small percentage of the population.

. .

[Bearinabox]

That kind of life won't wash any more. Somewhere in the sixties they passed a constitutional amendment that each child was entitled to a bedroom all their own. Then along came such innovations as a "master suite" where the parents had their own private bathroom, a small "den" as a luxury morphed into the "family room". You can then add the other things up, two or three car attached garage, home office, dedicated main floor laundry room, "mud room", walk in closets, media room, etc.

Sit down sometime with a young girl who has been married a couple of years. Her husband has a job as the number two man on the lube rack at Moe's Garage and she waits the breakfast counter at Denny's. Ask her about the house she wants. She will describe a McMansion, not the little bungalow that I grew up in.

Sometimes I feel like people in some parts of the metro area are living in a completely different world than I am. I'm at least two generations younger than you, grew up in a small bungalow built in 1940 in a neighborhood of comparable houses, and I and all my friends turned out fine. None of us, as far as I'm aware, ever missed having a master suite or a family room or a three-car garage or a dedicated main floor laundry room. I believe you that the people you describe exist, but I haven't had occasion to interact with very many of them, and I think it's worth pointing out that there are an awful lot of us who don't think in those terms.

[Fury13]

Sometimes I feel like people in some parts of the metro area are living in a completely different world than I am. I'm at least two generations younger than you, grew up in a small bungalow built in 1940 in a neighborhood of comparable houses, and I and all my friends turned out fine. None of us, as far as I'm aware, ever missed having a master suite or a family room or a three-car garage or a dedicated main floor laundry room. I believe you that the people you describe exist, but I haven't had occasion to interact with very many of them, and I think it's worth pointing out that there are an awful lot of us who don't think in those terms.

Everyone has their own world, Bear... everyone moves within their own circles, so it's what they know, and it's their template.

I hate to say it, but the paradigm that Hermod is describing represents the majority-think in metro Detroit. Your example is in the minority.

[Bearinabox]

Everyone has their own world, Bear... everyone moves within their own circles, so it's what they know, and it's their template.

I hate to say it, but the paradigm that Hermod is describing represents the majority-think in metro Detroit. Your example is in the minority.

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm responding to Hermod's statement that "that kind of life won't wash any more." Oh. It won't. I guess I don't exist then, and neither do any of the people I grew up with.

[Det_ard]

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm responding to Hermod's statement that "that kind of life won't wash any more." Oh. It won't. I guess I don't exist then, and neither do any of the people I grew up with.

Hey Bear, lots of people grew up in fairly small [[by today's standards) houses. Sure, we all came out fine. We could do it again if need be. What we truly NEED is a small fraction of what we typically want. I think Hermod is accurately talking about what people today want, not what the minimum standard for acceptable living is.

The average house size has more than doubled since the 50's. You might not want and certainly don't need a 2400 ft^2 house, but might that be because your family unit size is one [[just guessing since you wrote you're 2 generations younger than Hermod)? Perspectives change when thinking about a family of 5 or 6.



Something else that's changed is that today lots of people can afford larger homes. Going larger than absolutely necessary is a discretionary purchase that people have chosen to make over time. I'd expect that to reverse a bit given the economy and housing crash but I'd be surprised if it reverted to 1970 sizes -- 1500 ft^2.

[ghettopalmetto]

Sit down sometime with a young girl who has been married a couple of years. Her husband has a job as the number two man on the lube rack at Moe's Garage and she waits the breakfast counter at Denny's. Ask her about the house she wants. She will describe a McMansion, not the little bungalow that I grew up in.

The number of folks that want to live [[and raise kids) in a high rise is a very small percentage of the population.

So it's McMansion or High Rise, huh? There aren't any other housing styles? If what people really want is what's available in suburban Detroit, then why are the real estate prices so damned cheap compared to rowhouses in cities on the East Coast?

I just returned from a work trip to Atlanta, the embodiment of the "American Dream" that your generation has advertised for decades as the ideal. You'd have to kill me before I'd live in a soulless, placeless piece of shit like that. Nothing but endless strip malls and office towers randomly fallen out of the sky, with six lanes of parking lot in each direction every rush hour. I'd rather be spending time with my family instead of living in my car. But hey, knock yourself out.

[Hermod]

I just returned from a work trip to Atlanta, the embodiment of the "American Dream" that your generation has advertised for decades as the ideal. You'd have to kill me before I'd live in a soulless, placeless piece of shit like that. Nothing but endless strip malls and office towers randomly fallen out of the sky, with six lanes of parking lot in each direction every rush hour. I'd rather be spending time with my family instead of living in my car. But hey, knock yourself out.

I am 70 yrs old now. I have lived in many different places over the years. The longest commute I ever had [[in terms of time and frustration) was when I lived around 7-mile and Schoennherr and drove down Gratiot to the Water Board Building downtown. Sometimes it took three light cycles to get past Gratiot and Connor [[in 1961 when folks still lived and worked in the city).

[Bearinabox]

You might not want and certainly don't need a 2400 ft^2 house, but might that be because your family unit size is one [[just guessing since you wrote you're 2 generations younger than Hermod)?

Well, right now I'm living in an apartment about the size of your average McMansion broom closet. Obviously if I had a family I would move. What I'm saying is, my parents did a perfectly fine job raising two of us in a house somewhere shy of 1100 square feet, and it wasn't all that long ago. I never felt like I needed a bigger house than that, and I will probably look for a similarly-sized house if and when I find myself raising two kids.

[Trumpeteer]

I just returned from a work trip to Atlanta, the embodiment of the "American Dream" that your generation has advertised for decades as the ideal. You'd have to kill me before I'd live in a soulless, placeless piece of shit like that.

So don't go back, I'm sure someone can be found to flip fries in your place.