Foundations, city at brink of plan to shrink Detroit

**Lowell** · January-24-10, 09:59 PM

Is the cherry-picking of the City of Detroit by the city itself in the works?
Snippet of an article from this week's Crain's

Foundations, city at brink of plan to shrink Detroit
Nancy Kaffer

In four to six months, Detroit could have the broad-brush outlines of a land use plan that encompasses the principles of shrinking the city by consolidating investment in key neighborhoods — if Detroit Mayor Dave Bing accepts an offer from a metro Detroit foundation to fund the creation of such a plan.

Bing told Crain's last August that resizing the city is one of his top priorities. Administration officials are engaged in preliminary discussions with the foundation community, said Edward Cardenas, Bing's press secretary, adding that the mayor had planned to begin studying land use issues in the first quarter of this year.

That the city must shrink is beyond debate, said Rip Rapson, president of the Troy-based Kresge Foundation, which has offered to fund the plan. And a land use plan is crucial to developing viable long-term strategies...

"consolidating investment" sound like a nice way of saying de-consolidating.

**Fury13** · January-25-10, 12:20 PM

Nice to see the Bing administration facing reality. Shrinking the city is a must. Detroit will never reach 1 million again, but stabilizing at 600,000, maybe even 700,000, is a possibility.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-25-10, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Fury13

Nice to see the Bing administration facing reality. Shrinking the city is a must. Detroit will never reach 1 million again, but stabilizing at 600,000, maybe even 700,000, is a possibility.

The only way to stabilize at a constant population is to continously add additional housing units. This is partly due to housing that wears out, and partly due to the trend over the last 50 years of smaller persons per unit.

If stabilizing population is a true goal, these will need to be two fundemental objectives to keep that goal.

**cman710** · January-25-10, 01:21 PM

Thanks for posting this, Lowell. I am very interested in studying these issues in the upcoming years, so I am eager to see whether this turns into a real attempt to develop a plan.

**RickBeall** · January-25-10, 02:29 PM

Will it be a positive thing or a negative, "cherry picking" thing?

I hope they do a good job with this! Something daring, compassionate, and creative. Done right it will have huge impact.

It could allow the city to concentrate police in certain areas so the response times become something we can brag about. Also imagine living in a nice home on the edge of a forest and prairie. Some lucky folks will.

**Tig3rzhark** · January-25-10, 03:00 PM

As long as I'm not forced to move from my home, I'm sure it will be a positive thing to rezone some areas.

**Detroitnerd** · January-25-10, 03:05 PM

As long as they call the reformed boundary "New Detroit" and the old, rejected lands "Old Detroit." Just like in Robocop.

**Funaho** · January-25-10, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

As long as they call the reformed boundary "New Detroit" and the old, rejected lands "Old Detroit." Just like in Robocop.

Wasn't the new area called Delta City?

**Detroitnerd** · January-25-10, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Funaho

Wasn't the new area called Delta City?

Delta City was a development in the "New Detroit." Guess I don't know how they moved the diegesis forward in sequels, but in the first one you get the sense that DC is just a part of ND.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-25-10, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

As long as I'm not forced to move from my home, I'm sure it will be a positive thing to rezone some areas.

the problem lies in that everyone will want this.

**Detroit Stylin** · January-25-10, 05:03 PM

I'm against it personally....

**Patrick** · January-25-10, 05:20 PM

Well, it is easier to shrink a city than to grow it, at least in Detroit's case.

**Detroit Stylin** · January-25-10, 05:33 PM

Yeah because to grow it means people will actually have to WORK.....

**RickBeall** · January-25-10, 05:45 PM

I was thinking of ways in which it could work. Suppose your house is in an area zoned as "forest". Detroit would offer you a current real estate price for the house [[probably low), or they would offer you a choice of of couple houses in an area designed to stay residential. If you saw a house you really liked in this other area, you might be motivated to trade for it fast, before someone else snaps it up. You might trade for a house with an extra room. You could also check out your new neighborhood. If you liked the people there, and liked the amenities, that might persuade you to move more than cash.

You will always get some hard cases who will refuse to move. As all the houses get torn down around them and their street slowly ages, I don't really know if the resale value of their house would go up or down. Or maybe the city could work it so you can live there as long as you want, but when you move, you have to sell to the city at the current real estate prices.

You will also get other people who will try and profit from the rezoning by holding out.

I'm not any sort of expert at this stuff. I am admittedly just making up some of this as I go along. But it seems like it could be done in a way where there were no losers.

I am also imagining this to be a long process, that could go on for decades.

The only exception would be Detroitnerd, we would move him into "Old Detroit". ;-)

**Patrick** · January-25-10, 08:40 PM

Yeah because to grow it means people will actually have to WORK

It is going to take a different style of "WORK" than what we are used to here in Detroit. It is going to take a smart, 21st century-styled strategy. Plus, how do we define growth? Is it in the population sense? Economic? You don't alaways have to be the biggest to be the best or strongest, especially in a potentially knowledge-based economy.

**6nois** · January-25-10, 08:42 PM

I image that if done right this will not be a problem. Shrinking is by no means a bad thing it is just realistic. Detroit is 140 some square miles and even it its peak time had a low population density because the city is largely made up of single family homes. Using this open space in productive ways is the trick to making the plan work, its not just that we shrink but we also must find creative ways to deal with our new found open space. I think to handle shrinking it may be best to just develop no growth zones, and if you live in that area that if fine, but no one can build new in that area, and when you sell you should be offered fair market value and the city should then take over the property. The issue is that we image that winners and losers must be present in shrinkage but that need not be the case.

**LeannaM** · January-25-10, 10:32 PM

Is there a map of Detroit density anywhere? Like one that gives an idea of what areas are most densely occupied?

Just wondering which areas are most likely to become green space.

**ASR89** · January-25-10, 10:52 PM

LeannaM,
http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/map...popdensity.pdf
http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/Map...ks-density.pdf
http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/Map...popdensity.pdf

**LeannaM** · January-25-10, 11:07 PM

Thanks.

Seems like this would be pretty difficult, seeing as some of the lesser populated areas are surround by more populated areas. Obviously if the lesser populated areas were mostly on the outside then it would be easier.

I'll be interested to see how they plan this. It will take some engineering obviously. The citizens also have to be willing to move if necessary.

Of course, I'm not saying anything that the rest of us don't know. I'm just making observations.

**RickBeall** · January-25-10, 11:08 PM

I like your thinking 6nois.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-25-10, 11:24 PM

The crazy thing is, looking at the 2000 Census population density map, it appears that neighborhoods you'd want to populate--the east riverfront and the Corktown area--are some of the least populated in the city.

It's going to be a challenge, but it needs to be done! Let's just hope the restructuring is done in a rational manner that is fair to those who need to be relocated, and takes advantage of existing [[and planned) infrastructure, like transit lines and job centers.

**Gistok** · January-25-10, 11:58 PM

I think that the most recent density map needs to be interpretated a little differently...

If you look at the far eastern tip of Detroit [[near St. John Hospital)... there are VERY VERY few houses torn down in that area... and yet it shows a lower density.

Hmmmm, I wonder if in that area... features such as Balduck Park, the Recreation center, Marquette School and large Nature Center, the current [[and closed) auto dealerships along Mack Ave., plus Finney HS, Cannon Rec center and the St. John Medical Center/Shopping Center and [[on former Austin High property) the St. John Nursing Home... plus all the wide boulevards [[Moross, Chandler Pk. Dr. & Outer Dr.) all cummulatively contribute to a lower housing density?

Today those far eastern Detroit enclaves of East English Village and Cornerstone Village have to be among the most densly populated [[thanks to few homes torn down) areas of Detroit.

**detroitsgwenivere** · January-26-10, 12:11 AM

Detroitplanner- the calm voice in the storm. The urban planners in the area need to get together and start brainstorming ideas for this coming transformation before developers start getting mutimillion contracts and tax abatements. If the Bing administration sees that Detroit's citizens are willing participants in the plan, but just want more say over what is being developed, we may have an opportunity to create very useful and eyecatching public spaces that we wouldn't have gotten in the past. Other cities are making the most of their available space with grand parks, transit amenities and clearing for the coming tide of redevelopment that is bound to take place once gas prices rise again.

Personally, I just hope the development isn't all duplexes and cheap ass condos, like we've seen for the past 15 years.

**cman710** · January-26-10, 09:08 AM

To work, this process needs to be not only a planning process, but also a political process. While some difficult decisions will need to be made by officials, it will be crucial to allow some kind of public voice to participate in the process. The worst result would be for some detached bureaucrats to be making decisions about where people will live without any input from those people. Of course, some people will have to move, but I think the most successful approach would be one that offers people strong incentives to move, rather than one that forces people to move.

**EL Jimbo** · January-26-10, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by LeannaM

Thanks.

Seems like this would be pretty difficult, seeing as some of the lesser populated areas are surround by more populated areas. Obviously if the lesser populated areas were mostly on the outside then it would be easier.

I'll be interested to see how they plan this. It will take some engineering obviously. The citizens also have to be willing to move if necessary.

Of course, I'm not saying anything that the rest of us don't know. I'm just making observations.

It depends on how you look at it. Another way of shrinking the city might not be to shrink it down into one single core surrounding downtown. Another solution could be that you have your "central city" area encompassing downtown, midtown, corktown, etc. However, in addition you have several other satellite "villages" within the city limits where more stable neighborhoods currently still exists. Those areas can also be areas where growth can spur from as well as downtown.