Foundations, city at brink of plan to shrink Detroit

[Detroitnerd]

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

Should be, but then there was a lot of lead paint. When I lived in Brooklyn, I dug up the yard for a garden and found lots of coal [[WTF?). And I think builders used to bury lots of waste in the yard. Don't forget: Before broad-brush zoning, a neighborhood might have a tannery or a paint factory in it.

That's why professionals look through old fire insurance maps, test soil, check paint chips, etc. These days, you'll pay a firm a pretty penny just to evaluate a parcel and suggest what, if any, remediation is needed.

[Hermod]

Should be, but then there was a lot of lead paint. When I lived in Brooklyn, I dug up the yard for a garden and found lots of coal [[WTF?). And I think builders used to bury lots of waste in the yard. Don't forget: Before broad-brush zoning, a neighborhood might have a tannery or a paint factory in it.

That's why professionals look through old fire insurance maps, test soil, check paint chips, etc. These days, you'll pay a firm a pretty penny just to evaluate a parcel and suggest what, if any, remediation is needed.

Did you find coal or cinders?? Most folks with coal furnaces used cinders on icy sidewalks and driveways to give traction.

It might have been someone's coal pile before they built a house there.

If you tear a house down and remove the building materials, there shouldn't be much lead paint in the soil.

[Detroitnerd]

Did you find coal or cinders?? Most folks with coal furnaces used cinders on icy sidewalks and driveways to give traction.

It might have been someone's coal pile before they built a house there.

If you tear a house down and remove the building materials, there shouldn't be much lead paint in the soil.

They were hard, stone-like and black, a little slippery, and tended to be long and thin, with irregular surfaces. Is that consistent with a cinder? I've often wondered what they were, but took them out of the garden in case they were toxic.

[Hermod]

They were hard, stone-like and black, a little slippery, and tended to be long and thin, with irregular surfaces. Is that consistent with a cinder? I've often wondered what they were, but took them out of the garden in case they were toxic.

Sounds like anthracite [[hard) coal. It is very hard coal and while it gives out less thermal energy, it also produces less smoke and "fly ash". It was commonly used for urban single home heating while factories, power plants, and steam locomotives used the more thermally efficient, but dirtier bituminous [[soft) coal.

.

[EL Jimbo]

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.

There isn't the money to do both. The point of this would not be a "prepare it and they will come" philosophy. The idea is that Detroit is a city that was designed for 2.5 million people and now only has closer to 700,000. With the current tax base, The city of Detroit can no longer afford to provide adequate city services over that large of an area to that low of a population. The idea is that by consolidating city residents into denser neighborhoods where city resources can be more efficiently distributed to the existing population.

By doing this, the theory is that city services would improve [[lower crime, better schools, etc). This will make Detroit more attractive to the business community and to outside residents as a place to invest, do business, and live in. That new investment can then be located in areas that were abandoned during the "consolidation period".

The result would be a better, denser Detroit that has growth potential, rather than a worse off, less dense Detroit dieing a slow death.

[Hermod]

They were hard, stone-like and black, a little slippery, and tended to be long and thin, with irregular surfaces. Is that consistent with a cinder? I've often wondered what they were, but took them out of the garden in case they were toxic.

Sounds like anthracite [[hard) coal. It is very hard coal and while it gives out less thermal energy, it also produces less smoke and "fly ash". It was commonly used for urban single home heating while factories, power plants, and steam locomotives used the more thermally efficient, but dirtier bituminous [[soft) coal.

.

[Detroitnerd]

DN: "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."

There isn't the money to do both. The point of this would not be a "prepare it and they will come" philosophy. The idea is that Detroit is a city that was designed for 2.5 million people and now only has closer to 700,000. With the current tax base, The city of Detroit can no longer afford to provide adequate city services over that large of an area to that low of a population. The idea is that by consolidating city residents into denser neighborhoods where city resources can be more efficiently distributed to the existing population.

By doing this, the theory is that city services would improve [[lower crime, better schools, etc). This will make Detroit more attractive to the business community and to outside residents as a place to invest, do business, and live in. That new investment can then be located in areas that were abandoned during the "consolidation period".

The result would be a better, denser Detroit that has growth potential, rather than a worse off, less dense Detroit dieing a slow death.

I'm thinking a little bigger than you are. I'm thinking that with the rise in the cost of fuel for driving and heating, we'd be better off with some sort of plan on the order of the post-WWII plan, but instead of encouraging people to leave cities by building freeways, expanding infrastructure and such, building light rail, subsidizing city services and trying to pull the regional population into the center city, where it is much more affordable for people who live there and businesses who locate there, easing commutes, promoting density, etc.

It's not that different from your plan, though. Instead of creating dead zones within the city, it would create dead zones in the exurbs.

[Detroitnerd]

Sounds like anthracite [[hard) coal. It is very hard coal and while it gives out less thermal energy, it also produces less smoke and "fly ash". It was commonly used for urban single home heating while factories, power plants, and steam locomotives used the more thermally efficient, but dirtier bituminous [[soft) coal.

Yeah, I think that rings a bell. It seemed "wet" to me. That probably plays into it producing less thermal energy, as it has to burn off the water as steam!

[Fury13]

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.

Watch it! I love Jersey.

My suggestion would be Texas.

[EL Jimbo]

I'm thinking a little bigger than you are. I'm thinking that with the rise in the cost of fuel for driving and heating, we'd be better off with some sort of plan on the order of the post-WWII plan, but instead of encouraging people to leave cities by building freeways, expanding infrastructure and such, building light rail, subsidizing city services and trying to pull the regional population into the center city, where it is much more affordable for people who live there and businesses who locate there, easing commutes, promoting density, etc.

It's not that different from your plan, though. Instead of creating dead zones within the city, it would create dead zones in the exurbs.

That may or may not happen. I think it eventually will.

That being said, Detroit can't simply sit around and wait for peak oil to come along in order to find "salvation". Detroit can take its own steps along the slow path to righting itself now. That way, if your scenario ever comes to fruition, Detroit will be in an attractive position to profit from it.

[Detroitnerd]

That may or may not happen. I think it eventually will.

That being said, Detroit can't simply sit around and wait for peak oil to come along in order to find "salvation". Detroit can take its own steps along the slow path to righting itself now. That way, if your scenario ever comes to fruition, Detroit will be in an attractive position to profit from it.

I'm not sure about that. Using scarce resources to create "dead zones" within the city is experimental. Who knows what will happen? Who knows what opportunities we're trading away to try it? [[There's always some excuse to try fixing Detroit with a bulldozer. None has worked yet.)

But using resources to promote density has been done and has been successful. It can be done and is not an experiment.

I wonder how long must we wait for the age of the bulldozer to end before this wonderful future ahead ...

[Hermod]

Yeah, I think that rings a bell. It seemed "wet" to me. That probably plays into it producing less thermal energy, as it has to burn off the water as steam!

Anthracite is very hard and has a shiny "wet" look on the plane faces.

Cinders are what is left over after coal burns.

[Fury13]

Anthracite is very hard and has a shiny "wet" look on the plane faces.

Cinders are what is left over after coal burns.

Sorry to thread-jack, but I always thought the leftovers from burned coal were called clinkers.

[MJCMEX]

This is big news.

Any idea of where they plan to shrink??

[Detroitnerd]

Sorry to thread-jack, but I always thought the leftovers from burned coal were called clinkers.

I've never seen one. Just read about it. [[And heard about it thanks to the Old Man screaming "CLINKER!" in A Christmas Story.)

[cman710]

Areas that are shrunk as part of this plan do not have to become "dead zones." There are at least two options:

1. These areas can become green zones, in which the infrastructure is removed and some sort of natural greenery is allowed to grow. This would ultimately save money, as it would reduce infrastructure needs. In a sense this is a "dead zone," but if the city ever rebounded, it would be empty space that could be sold to private developers. This could also be helpful in some cases involving certain environmental contamination, as planting certain kinds of plants can sometimes help with remediation.

2. These areas can be repackaged and sold to the private sector. In some areas, it might be best for the city to remove the street grid and to sell larger parcels of land to developers, perhaps for light manufacturing or other uses. The key here would be to only sell the land if a developer can follow through with some kind of development or use for the land [[e.g., commercial farming). Realistically, I do not see this being successful in more than a few cases, since there is not a huge demand for manufacturing space in the city. But it might be used to successfully develop a few parcels of land.

[Detroitnerd]

Areas that are shrunk as part of this plan do not have to become "dead zones." There are at least two options:

1. These areas can become green zones, in which the infrastructure is removed and some sort of natural greenery is allowed to grow. This would ultimately save money, as it would reduce infrastructure needs. In a sense this is a "dead zone," but if the city ever rebounded, it would be empty space that could be sold to private developers. This could also be helpful in some cases involving certain environmental contamination, as planting certain kinds of plants can sometimes help with remediation.

2. These areas can be repackaged and sold to the private sector. In some areas, it might be best for the city to remove the street grid and to sell larger parcels of land to developers, perhaps for light manufacturing or other uses. The key here would be to only sell the land if a developer can follow through with some kind of development or use for the land [[e.g., commercial farming). Realistically, I do not see this being successful in more than a few cases, since there is not a huge demand for manufacturing space in the city. But it might be used to successfully develop a few parcels of land.

Doesn't sound very appealing to me. Sounds like the government does all the hard work of remediation and pulling up all the streets, voiding deeds, replatting, and the "developers" get anything they want. No, that's sort of how we've been doing it in the past. Hasn't worked that well. And I see smaller street grids as a viable framework to grow a city upon. No doubt some would rather junk it up with suburban-style cul-de-sacs that have been proven to cause more accidents, more miles driven, and to provide the illusion of safety? No thanks.

[Hermod]

Sorry to thread-jack, but I always thought the leftovers from burned coal were called clinkers.

The "clinker" was a piece of hard residue from the burning of coal which caused a furnace to burn unevenly. You used your poker to break up the clinker and get it to drop through the grate..

Cinders were incompletely burned residue of coal that you shoveled out of the bottom of your furnace and disposed of.

Ashes were the completely burned residue.

[Detroitnerd]

The "clinker" was a piece of hard residue from the burning of coal which caused a furnace to burn unevenly. You used your poker to break up the clinker and get it to drop through the grate..

Cinders were incompletely burned residue of coal that you shoveled out of the bottom of your furnace and disposed of.

Ashes were the completely burned residue.

Thanks for sharing the "coal age" wisdom!

[Lombaowski]

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.

Excellent post

[mwilbert]

Since 20% unemployment indicates that the region hasn't even adjusted to the loss of jobs which has already occurred, much less that which is yet to occur, we should expect population losses in the metro area for at least the next 15 years. In that environment, the best we can expect in the city proper is to lose population more slowly than in the region, and even that is far from assured.

Consquently, in my view the only reasonable thing to do is to plan for a city with fewer people, most of them poor. If it turns out that more people want to live in Detroit, the problem of accomodating more people is one that is well-understood. The important thing to do is to make sure that those people have as livable a city as possible, which as a byproduct would make it more attractive to migrants. Resizing is part of that process.

The other thing that I think people are missing here is that it is only partly a question of "ripping out" infrastructure. The city grew rapidly in the 1910's and '20s, and much of the infrastructure that was built then is reaching the end of its life. Rebuilding it will be hugely expensive, and it isn't at all clear it is sensible to rebuild it in depopulated areas.

[Hermod]

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.

DPS = "knowledge-based" [[har-de-har-har)

They had to cancel their Christmas pageant, they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.

[royce]

Here is the other thread on downsizing Detroit.