Foundations, city at brink of plan to shrink Detroit

[cman710]

ElJimbo, I think you are completely right. Given that all the most stable neighborhoods in the city are not located in one central area, any sensible plan would have to account for this fact. Whether these areas were called villages or just neighborhoods is less important than the fact that the city provide services to these areas in better ways than they can now.

To raise another point, I do not think that population density alone should be a consideration. We all have a tendency, I think, to think of dense neighborhoods as more healthy ones. But what about neighborhoods like that in which Cub lives, where has put in so much effort and time to make improvements? His neighborhood would not be among the more densely populated, but there are very good things happening there. In that light, I do not think it would be fair for the city to ask him to move. At the same time, some people will have to be asked to move, in some way or another. I think the city needs a process to navigate these issues, and as I mentioned earlier, this process definitely must include input from various communities.

[tahleel]

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.

If this happened, I'd cash out and run. Too bad I think they want to save the New Center area.

-Tahleel

[DetroitPlanner]

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.

There is a presentation at planning.org done by a local planning firm that gives recommendations for one such project in Brightmoor. Navigate your way to Tuesdays at APA and if you have an extra hour listen to it. They do a pretty good job of explaining how technology and competition have had an impact on the region's workforce. Flipping though the slides will give you some of the highlights in a shorter time-frame, but not many of the details.

[EL Jimbo]

I also think if the decentralized "villages" plan is adopted, the villages will be selected based also on efficiency in providing services as well as easy access to transportation and transit. I think that the cores of many of these neighborhoods would be centered around key intersections along the "spoke roads" branching out from downtown [[exp. Rosedale Park along Grand River Ave.). This will not only help facilitate stable growth from multiple areas, but it will also help coordinate transit services to allow for the highest quality of service.

[Danny]

Plan to shrink Detroit NO WAY!!! Do you know how much it will it cost and the bureaucratic paperwork will go through. Each community in Detroit [[ if they have a unicorporated city, village or township.) will have to pay off piece of the tax deficits. That plan will NEVER get through. Besides The State of Michigan will not lose its biggest regional city.

If the population of Detroit decreases to under 500,000 combining the city with the suburbs will be the final option.

[casscorridor]

First of all, we shouldn't have to accept that the city will be 600,000 or even 700,000. We should have the goal of never letting pop. drop below 800,000 and chart a path for population growth. Of course, those 800k people will have to be shuffled around a little bit, which brings us to a bigger problem... where to prioritize growth. [[quick note: if "Detroit" was considered the whole metro region, would the right-size advocated still call for moving people around? Like moving people from the worst sprawl to more dense neighborhoods? I think it has to happen, but I'm not going to go into detail on that).

The number one area of growth will be at the core -- Downtown, Midtown, New Center and surrounding neighborhoods. Other clusters of neighborhoods, as mentioned in other posts, would also be growth areas [[meaning population growth). Examples being the Villages, Grandmont-Rosedale and University Commons. Each cluster would have a center, and each neighborhood within that cluster would have its own smaller center. For example, in the Villages the center for that cluster of neighborhoods would be Jefferson Ave. Smaller centers would exist for each smaller neighborhood, such as West Village which is centered at Agnes and Van Dyke Street. This would restore the idea that each neighborhood should have its own center of activity, its own public sphere/street life. With this, neighborhoods would begin to form stronger identities and sense of ownership over place. Otherwise, people feel alienated, like their house is one among thousands of identical houses, and identical neighborhoods without names. More public places means more of sense of community, and having a real and meaningful role in that community gives a sense ownership in the community, which is essential.

Many new residents will have to move to these areas, some of them from other neighborhoods within the city limits, some of them from the metro region but outside the city limits. Some will come from out of the metro region entirely, from other cities in the U.S. but more importantly from other countries. Immigration has to be a key pillar of revival. What can be done at the local and state level to make immigration into the city as easy as possible? How can we support more immigration and the immigrant communities currently living in Detroit. Probably the most prominant example is in Southwest. New grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, bakerys, retail stores, apartments, houses, etc and one of the only places in the city with a growth in population. This example should be replicated in other areas of the city. In NorHam [[North Hamtramck) there is a growing Muslim community and an emerging Bangladesh town stratling the Hamtramck border. Detroit should open its doors to the world, we have hundreds of thousands of acres of empty land, empty buildings and houses waiting to be filled. We have direct access to fresh water and a relatively low cost of living. We are right across from Canada, could this fact not be used to our advantage as well? This is an international city, and rarely is that highlighted.

I am strongly against ripping out roads and infrastructure and clearing out and demolishing whole neighborhoods. How can this not be authoritarian? A better approach would be prioritizing development in certain areas, but not spending vast resources on ripping out infrastructure that could be used later. Not forcing people to move out. Let these neighborhoods develop organically. Why not have some neighborhoods continue at lower densities? Why do they have to be zero density? We shouldn't focus on tearing down neighborhoods, that is the same old thing we've been doing. Neighborhoods of Detroit will all be different. Some, like the Cass Corridor, will be high-density, vibrant and full of people and businesses. Others, such as Farnsworth Street or Georgia Street on the east side will go at a slower place, utilize the empty land to produce food, and slowly begin the process of rebuilding. We have to focus on building up neighborhoods, not tearing them down but most importantly we have to focus on building up people. Unless the people are included and have control over their destiny, then any plan will be a failure.

[EL Jimbo]

Plan to shrink Detroit NO WAY!!! Do you know how much it will it cost and the bureaucratic paperwork will go through. Each community in Detroit [[ if they have a unicorporated city, village or township.) will have to pay off piece of the tax deficits. That plan will NEVER get through. Besides The State of Michigan will not lose its biggest regional city.

If the population of Detroit decreases to under 500,000 combining the city with the suburbs will be the final option.

Personally, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad idea. We have too many chiefs and not enough indians in this region. To keep with the native american theme, we have broken ourselves up into too many competing tribes that we can't efficiently deal with the outside forces attacking us [[global economy, etc). If we are all part of the same tribe maybe we could all get on the same page.

[EL Jimbo]

I am strongly against ripping out roads and infrastructure and clearing out and demolishing whole neighborhoods. How can this not be authoritarian? A better approach would be prioritizing development in certain areas, but not spending vast resources on ripping out infrastructure that could be used later. Not forcing people to move out. Let these neighborhoods develop organically. Why not have some neighborhoods continue at lower densities? Why do they have to be zero density? We shouldn't focus on tearing down neighborhoods, that is the same old thing we've been doing. Neighborhoods of Detroit will all be different. Some, like the Cass Corridor, will be high-density, vibrant and full of people and businesses. Others, such as Farnsworth Street or Georgia Street on the east side will go at a slower place, utilize the empty land to produce food, and slowly begin the process of rebuilding. We have to focus on building up neighborhoods, not tearing them down but most importantly we have to focus on building up people. Unless the people are included and have control over their destiny, then any plan will be a failure.

Because this costs money. The whole point of condensing into the city into a greater density is because it makes for a more cost effective application of funds towards city services. One of the reasons that police, fire, schools, public works, etc has such a difficult time providing a quality level of service is because they are servicing an area designed for 2.5 million people with the resources of a city with closer to 700,000 people.

If you take those 700,000 people and consolidate them into denser neighborhoods, the overall quality of city services will improve because they have less ground to cover.

Your alternative of letting other neighborhoods grow naturally doesn't solve the problem. It only keeps the problem alive. Is a proposed shrinking of the city a bit authoritarian? Perhaps a little, but if it is in the best interest of the community at large, the city has a responsibility to act in that manner.

[Hermod]

Personally, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad idea. We have too many chiefs and not enough indians in this region. To keep with the native american theme, we have broken ourselves up into too many competing tribes that we can't efficiently deal with the outside forces attacking us [[global economy, etc). If we are all part of the same tribe maybe we could all get on the same page.

Never happen unless the courts order it.

1. Oakland, Macomb, and non-Detroit Wayne County do not want Detroit's expenses, population, or troubles.

2. The political class in Detroit do not want to give up power to 3.2 million metro area voters who would turn them out of office in a heartbeat.

[EL Jimbo]

Never happen unless the courts order it.

1. Oakland, Macomb, and non-Detroit Wayne County do not want Detroit's expenses, population, or troubles.

2. The political class in Detroit do not want to give up power to 3.2 million metro area voters who would turn them out of office in a heartbeat.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it WILL happen. I'm just saying it SHOULD happen.

[English]

Many new residents will have to move to these areas, some of them from other neighborhoods within the city limits, some of them from the metro region but outside the city limits. Some will come from out of the metro region entirely, from other cities in the U.S. but more importantly from other countries. Immigration has to be a key pillar of revival. What can be done at the local and state level to make immigration into the city as easy as possible? How can we support more immigration and the immigrant communities currently living in Detroit. Probably the most prominant example is in Southwest. New grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, bakerys, retail stores, apartments, houses, etc and one of the only places in the city with a growth in population. This example should be replicated in other areas of the city. In NorHam [[North Hamtramck) there is a growing Muslim community and an emerging Bangladesh town stratling the Hamtramck border. Detroit should open its doors to the world, we have hundreds of thousands of acres of empty land, empty buildings and houses waiting to be filled. We have direct access to fresh water and a relatively low cost of living. We are right across from Canada, could this fact not be used to our advantage as well? This is an international city, and rarely is that highlighted.

Amen, hallelujah, and praise the Lord. I've been saying this for the past 5 years. You could transform Detroit by 2020 if you offer immigrants a path to citizenship and tie it to setting up residences and businesses in Detroit.

[Hermod]

Amen, hallelujah, and praise the Lord. I've been saying this for the past 5 years. You could transform Detroit by 2020 if you offer immigrants a path to citizenship and tie it to setting up residences and businesses in Detroit.

You could probably get a million Haitians to move here pretty quick. That would bring the population back to the 1950 level. It just might not solve Detroit's problems though.

[casscorridor]

Because this costs money. The whole point of condensing into the city into a greater density is because it makes for a more cost effective application of funds towards city services. One of the reasons that police, fire, schools, public works, etc has such a difficult time providing a quality level of service is because they are servicing an area designed for 2.5 million people with the resources of a city with closer to 700,000 people.

If you take those 700,000 people and consolidate them into denser neighborhoods, the overall quality of city services will improve because they have less ground to cover.

Your alternative of letting other neighborhoods grow naturally doesn't solve the problem. It only keeps the problem alive. Is a proposed shrinking of the city a bit authoritarian? Perhaps a little, but if it is in the best interest of the community at large, the city has a responsibility to act in that manner.

But Detroit, at large, is still denser than most of the suburbs. The very low density areas in the city are usually not far from much higher density areas. Does keeping the pipes and streets running through those areas really cost more than removing them? Imagine the costs of digging up the ground and ripping apart streets and buildings. Thats millions, if not billions of dollars. Money that could be spent other places. Such as incentives to move to denser areas, rather than forced removal. And do you really think Police and Fire service should cut off to areas of the city that aren't on the list for development? When someone calls in from one of these neighborhoods do they just not come?

So if we follow the plan of removing infrastructure at great costs, wiping neighborhoods off the map and refocusing investment into a short list of neighborhoods, does that mean the same will be done for the suburbs? This really is what we need to be asking: why is Detroit such a target, while the suburbs are not? The fact is that the costs of maintaining suburbs FAR EXCEED of the costs in an urban area. Not just in terms of cost to the government, but also to society and the environment. Detroit, even with half the population, is still denser than the suburbs. So will the practice of cutting off some neighborhoods, and developing others be applied in the suburbs as well? Well... we'll see about that.

[Detroitnerd]

You could probably get a million Haitians to move here pretty quick. That would bring the population back to the 1950 level. It just might not solve Detroit's problems though.

Why? Do you perceive Haitans as being less intelligent or more bellicose?

[Hermod]

Why? Do you perceive Haitans as being less intelligent or more bellicose?

Biologically, no.

Culturally, yes.

We have a significant Haitian and Jamaican population here in South Florida. They are constantly at war with the American-born African-American population.

[Danny]

Never happen unless the courts order it.

1. Oakland, Macomb, and non-Detroit Wayne County do not want Detroit's expenses, population, or troubles.

2. The political class in Detroit do not want to give up power to 3.2 million metro area voters who would turn them out of office in a heartbeat.

Right on Hermod!

[Fury13]

You could transform Detroit by 2020 if you offer immigrants a path to citizenship and tie it to setting up residences and businesses in Detroit.

Agreed.... I've been saying the same thing. Immigrants are the reason the city boomed the first time around. Growth in NYC continues because of immigrants.

[Detroitnerd]

Biologically, no.

Culturally, yes.

We have a significant Haitian and Jamaican population here in South Florida. They are constantly at war with the American-born African-American population.

The finishing touch would be to say that we and our gubment had nothing to do with destroying their culture.

[EL Jimbo]

But Detroit, at large, is still denser than most of the suburbs. The very low density areas in the city are usually not far from much higher density areas. Does keeping the pipes and streets running through those areas really cost more than removing them? Imagine the costs of digging up the ground and ripping apart streets and buildings. Thats millions, if not billions of dollars. Money that could be spent other places. Such as incentives to move to denser areas, rather than forced removal. And do you really think Police and Fire service should cut off to areas of the city that aren't on the list for development? When someone calls in from one of these neighborhoods do they just not come?

So if we follow the plan of removing infrastructure at great costs, wiping neighborhoods off the map and refocusing investment into a short list of neighborhoods, does that mean the same will be done for the suburbs? This really is what we need to be asking: why is Detroit such a target, while the suburbs are not? The fact is that the costs of maintaining suburbs FAR EXCEED of the costs in an urban area. Not just in terms of cost to the government, but also to society and the environment. Detroit, even with half the population, is still denser than the suburbs. So will the practice of cutting off some neighborhoods, and developing others be applied in the suburbs as well? Well... we'll see about that.

You are comparing two different things. The suburbs are still operating at close to their designed population levels so their expenses are more in line with their revenues. If they start losing significant population then they will face the same problem.

In regards to your question about police and fire, the whole point of moving everyone into the denser areas is so they won't have to patrol out there as often. There won't be anyone out there to call them because no one will be living out there.

As far as removing infrastructure out of the abandoned areas, it isn't so much that you need to remove everything. Much of the piping can stay as it would be expensive to rip out and then replace. However, the streetscape could and should change dramatically as a total re-imagining is necessary. Why should we try to pigeonhole a 21st century city onto an early 20th century street grid? The days of the 30ft x 120ft lot is over. We've learned a lot about urban design in the past 100 years and in terms of the street grid I think it should be fair game in regards to redesigning it.

[EL Jimbo]

Agreed.... I've been saying the same thing. Immigrants are the reason the city boomed the first time around. Growth in NYC continues because of immigrants.

gotta give them something worth moving to. There aren't enough employment opportunities for the people here. What's going to draw large groups of immigrants here?

[Bearinabox]

However, the streetscape could and should change dramatically as a total re-imagining is necessary. Why should we try to pigeonhole a 21st century city onto an early 20th century street grid? The days of the 30ft x 120ft lot is over. We've learned a lot about urban design in the past 100 years and in terms of the street grid I think it should be fair game in regards to redesigning it.

What, in your mind, is a 21st-century street grid and lot size? I would argue that most of what we learned about urban design in the last 70-odd years turned out to be completely wrong.

[Fury13]

First of all, we shouldn't have to accept that the city will be 600,000 or even 700,000. We should have the goal of never letting pop. drop below 800,000 and chart a path for population growth.

I'm sorry, but I think you're living in a dream world. The whole region is losing population, and more losses are in the forecast for years to come. Detroit will be lucky if it stabilizes at 700,000.

...This would restore the idea that each neighborhood should have its own center of activity, its own public sphere/street life. With this, neighborhoods would begin to form stronger identities and sense of ownership over place... More public places means more of sense of community, and having a real and meaningful role in that community gives a sense ownership in the community, which is essential.

Well, that's how it was in Detroit of old. Neighborhoods had their own business centers [[examples: Old Redford, the Avenue of Fashion, 7 Mile/Gratiot). Neighborhoods had their own parks too, which, once upon a time, were maintained. It would take a lot of concerted effort -- and $$$, which we don't and won't have -- to create those kinds of thriving areas again.

Many new residents will have to move to these areas... some of them from the metro region but outside the city limits. Some will come from out of the metro region entirely...

Ummm... dream on. What makes you think a significant number of people from outside the city will move into Detroit? Are you talking about after visible, substantive improvements have been made in quality of life, services, and crime prevention? That will not happen for 20 to 30 years, at least.

Immigration has to be a key pillar of revival. What can be done at the local and state level to make immigration into the city as easy as possible? How can we support more immigration and the immigrant communities currently living in Detroit. Probably the most prominant example is in Southwest. New grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, bakerys, retail stores, apartments, houses, etc and one of the only places in the city with a growth in population. This example should be replicated in other areas of the city. In NorHam [[North Hamtramck) there is a growing Muslim community and an emerging Bangladesh town stratling the Hamtramck border. Detroit should open its doors to the world, we have hundreds of thousands of acres of empty land, empty buildings and houses waiting to be filled.

Yes. Agreed. But is the power structure in Detroit really interested in having the city repopulated by immigrants from other countries? How would that affect the control the handful of "movers and shakers" [[and that cast of characters doesn't change much from year to year) currently exerts?

[Fury13]

gotta give them something worth moving to. There aren't enough employment opportunities for the people here. What's going to draw large groups of immigrants here?

Again, the key is economic diversification. New industries, new jobs. Don't depend on the auto industry to come back, dominate the economy, and offer ready employment -- those days are over.

It's a given that it will take time -- maybe a long time -- to diversify.

[EL Jimbo]

What, in your mind, is a 21st-century street grid and lot size? I would argue that most of what we learned about urban design in the last 70-odd years turned out to be completely wrong.

I agree with this as well. However, the market just isn't there anymore to build block after endless block of 30 x 120 lot single family homes. Variety in housing [[and in commercial, retail, and industrial space) is needed. If we are truly to give Detroit a clean slate to work with then it better be just that. The old streetscape may no longer meet the current ideas so I see no point in being beholden to them. Let the brightest minds in urban planning, architecture, urban design, and landscape architecture have a fresh canvas to work with.

[ghettopalmetto]

I agree with this as well. However, the market just isn't there anymore to build block after endless block of 30 x 120 lot single family homes. Variety in housing [[and in commercial, retail, and industrial space) is needed. If we are truly to give Detroit a clean slate to work with then it better be just that. The old streetscape may no longer meet the current ideas so I see no point in being beholden to them. Let the brightest minds in urban planning, architecture, urban design, and landscape architecture have a fresh canvas to work with.

I agree that variety in housing types is needed, but to say that there is no market for homes on 30' x 120' lots is absurd. I've seen homes in other parts of the country on 0.02 acres [[one-quarter the size of the lot under consideration) that sell for upwards of $800,000.

It's foolish to think that land-hungry suburban planning principles are somehow going to save Detroit. Kinda defeats the purpose of consolidation, wouldn't you say?