Foundations, city at brink of plan to shrink Detroit

[iheartthed]

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?

One thing that Detroit [[the region) lacks, which draws immigrants en masse to cities like NYC and Chicago, is service sector jobs.

[EastsideAl]

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 because those areas are near the water that they're so underpopulated. Because of their proximity to water-borne transportation, and later to railroads, much of those areas were given over to industrial uses for well over a century now. Now you have, along with a few still-operating concerns, a whole lot of dead industry along W. Jefferson and Fort St., and south of E. Jefferson. Of course, the emptying out of the Rivertown entertainment district for casinos that were never built didn't help much either.

In any city or area with real vision these areas would be being cleared out or converted for new housing, businesses, and transportation. But Detroit isn't like NYC or Boston or Chicago. Hell, in this respect Detroit can't even manage to be like Baltimore.

[Fury13]

...the market just isn't there anymore to build block after endless block of 30 x 120 lot single family homes.

Good point. Three old lots could be combined into one new lot for 90 feet of frontage/width.

[Novine]

Detroit needs a viability map, not a density map. Some of the low density areas have that designation due to parks, industry, non-residential uses like hospitals, higher. ed., and so on. Some of those have obsolete industrial areas but that's not true across the board. Density will often match viability but Detroit needs to prioritize those areas which can be revived or maintained with the least amount of resources first. Then you can move onto the more difficult areas.

[Hermod]

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

Compare Santo Domingo and Haiti. Same island. Same African origins. Same number of US invasions and US propped up dictators [[Duvalier/Trujillo).

One is making it and the other is a basket case [[before the quake).

.

[Hermod]

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.

Maybe in the older section of the city laid out by the French. I would think that a 44' wide lot would be more prevalent in the newer sections of the city.

[Long Lake]

Compare Santo Domingo and Haiti. Same island. Same African origins. Same number of US invasions and US propped up dictators [[Duvalier/Trujillo).

One is making it and the other is a basket case [[before the quake).

.

I get your point, but Dominican Republic is Latino, not black [[though many Dominicans have some African blood).

And the DR isn't really "making it". It's one of the poorest countries in the Americas, and has no real industry outside of tourism and remittances from relatives now living in the New York area and Florida.

[Hermod]

I get your point, but Dominican Republic is Latino, not black [[though many Dominicans have some African blood).

And the DR isn't really "making it". It's one of the poorest countries in the Americas, and has no real industry outside of tourism and remittances from relatives now living in the New York area and Florida.

Except for Trinidad [[oil and tar), most of the Caribbean is dependent on tourism. Some countries there do better than others and Haiti is at the bottom of the barrel.

Some of the most successful islands are the former Dutch possessions.

.

[urbanpioneer]

In the debate over reducing the size of the city, folks are missing the obvious reduction areas. The plan, as I've been told, would involve things such as having grosse pointe park [[I hope I got the right pointe right) take over East English Village; palmer woods to ferndale etc ... how else would it be done? It would be done at the edges. The "forced" moving of population, by offering existing home owners property in the areas targeted for growth, is nearly impossible to do, especially since condemnation for economic development reasons can no longer be done in Michigan. I believe there are ways the city could force a population shift by literally targeting areas they want to unpopulate with enforcement of existing city code, but the reality is the city doesn't have the will to do that.

[EL Jimbo]

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?

woah...you are putting words into my mouth. I never said there isn't a market for it. I'm just saying that in a rebuild, Detroit needs a greater variety of housing options than what existed in the past.

[ghettopalmetto]

woah...you are putting words into my mouth. I never said there isn't a market for it. I'm just saying that in a rebuild, Detroit needs a greater variety of housing options than what existed in the past.

However, the market just isn't there anymore to build block after endless block of 30 x 120 lot single family homes.

Apparently, I misunderstood you, El Jimbo.

[Lowell]

Here is a 'pie-in-the-sky' sketch book drawing of mine from the 80's. How nice, I thought, if declining areas of quality housing could have the surviving houses moved and re-concentrated into solid blocks while the vacated parks were returned to nature and parklands. The idea came to mind from the roof of a friend's studio where the medical center Veterans Hospital now sits. Some well-kept gorgeous 19th Century houses were being demolished.

[EastsideAl]

In the debate over reducing the size of the city, folks are missing the obvious reduction areas. The plan, as I've been told, would involve things such as having grosse pointe park [[I hope I got the right pointe right) take over East English Village; palmer woods to ferndale etc

Wouldn't that just make the situation worse? Having the city give up much of its most relatively healthy, populated, and tax-paying areas to surrounding municipalities? I certainly don't see that happening.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

The problem, as I see it, with "shrinking the city" is that such an idea is a treatment of a symptom, not the underlying disease. It is not that shrinking the city will be bad- it may have some benefits- but if high taxes, almost comically bad schools, and high crime are not dealt with, the new, smaller city will further wither. Detroit needs to face crime seriously, embrace entrepreneurs within the city [[as well as encourage more to locate here), and allow students to attend any school they can get into, via a voucher system. Then, and only then, will the city thrive and grow. "Right-sizing" the city will not stop drive by shootings, make parents check their kids' homework, or prevent someone from defaulting on their mortgage.

[ghettopalmetto]

"Right-sizing" the city will not stop drive by shootings, make parents check their kids' homework, or prevent someone from defaulting on their mortgage.

No amount of government can remediate derelict behavior on the part of individuals. I don't know why anyone would think that fixing systematic problems of the City, which is well within it purview, can be expected to changer personal behavior.

I guess Detroit should just give up then, right? God knows that Detroit is the only place on earth where there are drive-by shootings, parents not checking their kids' homework, and people defaulting on mortgages.

[jt1]

No amount of government can remediate derelict behavior on the part of individuals. I don't know why anyone would think that fixing systematic problems of the City, which is well within it purview, can be expected to changer personal behavior.

I guess Detroit should just give up then, right? God knows that Detroit is the only place on earth where there are drive-by shootings, parents not checking their kids' homework, and people defaulting on mortgages.

Agreed with GP and would like to add:

Better management of services/land use would result in a city that is more sound fiscally. This would allow an ability to hire more police, offer more services and ultimately bring in more jobs.

Jobs lead to opporunity which is very important in changing behaviors.

[EL Jimbo]

Apparently, I misunderstood you, El Jimbo.

It's ok. I could have been more clear. I tried to when I put in the "block after endless block" phrase. I think the problem was that Detroit grew so big, so fast the first time around that not a lot of thought was put into how to build it long term. We just threw up a bunch of homes that were of similar size, similar style, and on similar lot sizes. This worked at the time since housing was of such dire need to fuel the growth of the auto industry, however it wasn't resistant to the effects of time and the diversity of desires in housing type that the public wants.

There will always be a market for homes like that, but clearly more suburban style homes have a market as well as more dense developments such as brownstones, condos, and apartments. Therefore, if a total and complete abandonment and redevelopment of large parts of the city is to be undertaken with the idea of building with a greater diversity in housing options, why should we tie ourselves to a streetgrid that was designed almost exclusively for only 1 type of housing?

[EL Jimbo]

Agreed with GP and would like to add:

Better management of services/land use would result in a city that is more sound fiscally. This would allow an ability to hire more police, offer more services and ultimately bring in more jobs.

Jobs lead to opporunity which is very important in changing behaviors.

Exactly. You won't be able to do much about the parents, but when the police and fire have less ground to cover response times should increase and hopefully crime will go down as well. Also, condensing student populations into fewer schools [[assuming class sizes are at reasonable levels) will allow DPS to focus on making a few full schools very good than a lot of partly filled schools mediocre to poor.

[Hermod]

As noted above, the neighborhoods favored by the "urbanistas" as the centerpieces of their renaissance are not the neighborhoods where people currently live in the greatest density.

For the least amount of disruption to people's lives, the lowest density neighborhoods should have the population enticed out, be bulldozed, and converted to greenfields.

[Detroitnerd]

As noted above, the neighborhoods favored by the "urbanistas" as the centerpieces of their renaissance are not the neighborhoods where people currently live in the greatest density.

For the least amount of disruption to people's lives, the lowest density neighborhoods should have the population enticed out, be bulldozed, and converted to greenfields.

But who would do the hard work of taking the top two or three feet of soil, putting them in railcars down to Aiken, S.C., then laying out fresh soil? The government? Who would benefit most? It's a little trickier than saying that it should happen.

The worst example is what happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Poor neighborhoods "blighted areas" were bulldozed, they were shuffled off to crime-ready scattered-site developments, and then had the courthouse where they were arraigned built on the land they used to live on. With so many bad examples like this in the past, I'd want to be very careful about any kind of "urban renewal" that involves the bulldozer. Too often it has been "Negro removal."

[ghettopalmetto]

But who would do the hard work of taking the top two or three feet of soil, putting them in railcars down to Aiken, S.C., then laying out fresh soil?

Hey, you keep your own contaminated soil! Aiken is a really nice little town!

At least ship it somewhere that nobody cares about, like New Jersey.

[EL Jimbo]

But who would do the hard work of taking the top two or three feet of soil, putting them in railcars down to Aiken, S.C., then laying out fresh soil? The government? Who would benefit most? It's a little trickier than saying that it should happen.

How much of this would really be contaminated soil? Most of the abandoned area was residential. The contamination levels should be pretty low.

[Hermod]

The worst example is what happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Poor neighborhoods "blighted areas" were bulldozed, they were shuffled off to crime-ready scattered-site developments, and then had the courthouse where they were arraigned built on the land they used to live on. With so many bad examples like this in the past, I'd want to be very careful about any kind of "urban renewal" that involves the bulldozer. Too often it has been "Negro removal."

Any forced/enticed/encouraged movement of the populace in downsizing Detroit will be pretty much "negro removal" since a large majority of Detroit's population is currently black.

Many of the preceding posts seemed to want to concentrate the residents in a "center city" for efficiency while the current population distribution map shows that most people tend to live on the periphery [[like the far east side).

If you "reconcentrate" the city, what will you do with the emptied out areas? Will you just leave the vacant homes standing? Will you bulldoze everything down into a pile of rubble? Will you clear out the rubble and plant grass or trees? What is the vision?

[Detroitnerd]

Any forced/enticed/encouraged movement of the populace in downsizing Detroit will be pretty much "negro removal" since a large majority of Detroit's population is currently black.

Many of the preceding posts seemed to want to concentrate the residents in a "center city" for efficiency while the current population distribution map shows that most people tend to live on the periphery [[like the far east side).

If you "reconcentrate" the city, what will you do with the emptied out areas? Will you just leave the vacant homes standing? Will you bulldoze everything down into a pile of rubble? Will you clear out the rubble and plant grass or trees? What is the vision?

I'm a little leery of the whole "prepare it and they will come" philosophy, [[a variant on our "demolish it and they will come" approach) which involves taking the city and turning it into something like the beet fields of Troy in the 1950s. Conceivably, you could spend hundreds of millions of dollars to little effect or avail. Or is that the point?

I should say that I'm not that interested in the plan to turn large areas of Detroit into dead zones without any infrastructure. I'd rather spend the money trying to provide [[or restore) services neighborhood-by-neighborhood and concentrate the metro within the city and its periphery.

[Detroitnerd]

Hey, you keep your own contaminated soil! Aiken is a really nice little town!

At least ship it somewhere that nobody cares about, like New Jersey.

Ha. OK then. We'll send it to Anniston, Ala.