Detroit's measuring stick.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd, I am puzzled by your slightly hostile response. If you reread my previous message, I clarified what I had initially said - that by the 1970s and 1980s, New York had a "well-developed" transit system, which is true. Even in the worst of times, millions of people used the subway every year. I completely agree with you that the subway system itself operated poorly until the 1990s, so I am not sure why you are getting so exercised about this issue and claiming that I know nothing about New York.

Why are you puzzled? You said New York had a great subway system in the 1980s. You believe that New York City's transportation system was built in response to its density. Those two things are kinda ... ludicrous? And then chiding me on my criticism because you vaguely remember, from when you were a little kid, that the system was great then. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, pal.

I will defend my point, however, that the city's subway system was initially developed in response to the fact that the city needed a means to move around millions of people. Was the city as big as it would become? No, but the city still had 4.5 million + people before the subway lines were really developed. Did the subway system allow for and promote greater growth? Of course it did. The point is that urban growth is caused by a multitude of factors. Pointing solely to one or two factors does not explain New York's vitality.

Dear, cman: Manhattan was populated a long time ago. Gradually, it grew up from around lower Manhattan [[the joke goes that they never decorated the north wall of City Hall because they never saw the city expanding very far north) then grew up all the way until Manhattan was developed top to bottom.

Now, look at a map of Manhattan. Manhattan is a strip of barely concealed bedrock about 13 and a half miles long, seldom wider than two miles. How do you get people around Manhattan? The streetcars were slow. Since Manhattan's street grid had been designed to bring goods in from the ships along the many streets to avenue markets, the island never had a good north-south system of roads, and traffic was horrible. How do you get a person 13-1/2 miles in all this?

Bear in mind that when construction started on the subway, there were some dense pockets in Manhattan. You do know what those were, right? They weren't glittering skyscrapers: They were the worst, most densely packed slums in the world. Normally, in this day and age, density is a function of a carefully designed built environment that will accommodate people by stacking them one on top of another. This was a den of filth and disease, with firetrap buildings and whole families sleeping in one room. There's your "density."

Only when you have the subway built, especially with its tubes crossing under the rivers and reaching Brooklyn, Queens, New Jersey and the Bronx, do you start to have subway stations in the city where more than 100,000 people can pour off at one stop in an hour. That's why they built Rockefeller Center there, or the Empire State Building, or the World Trade Center. You didn't have this kind of planned density until you had a subway to serve it. And that's why I have to say point of view isn't in line with history.

So why all the passion, cman? It's because this is a Detroit forum, and people in Detroit don't have much experience with mass transit. So when people start bandying about "their" ideas of how transit works, some of us on this forum can get pretty passionate about it. The idea that you need density before you implement transit is totally backwards, yes. But what makes it especially dangerous is that it just plays into people's lazy thinking here: "We don't have density; why bother building transit?" When actually, the thinking should go: "We need more density; let's build transit."

Anyway, sounds like we're both stepping on each other's toes. The above is as clear a way to spell out the history of how the subways and development grew hand-in-hand in New York. Cheers.

[cman710]

Why are you puzzled? You said New York had a great subway system in the 1980s. You believe that New York City's transportation system was built in response to its density. Those two things are kinda ... ludicrous? And then chiding me on my criticism because you vaguely remember, from when you were a little kid, that the system was great then. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, pal.

I am puzzled because I write on this forum because of my deep interest in Detroit, and because I was surprised by the intensity [[and in my opinion, snarkiness) of your response.

What I did say is that NYC had a "great public transportation system." First, I clarified later that I was speaking in a macro-system level sense. Viewed from a macro-level and compared to most other cities at the time, New York City did have a well-developed, very useful public transportation system. If you include the metro-region rather than New York City proper, this is even more true, as people used MetroNorth, NJ Transit, PATH, and the LIRR to get to work in the 1980s, just as they do now. Second, I never stated that NYC had a great subway system in the 1980s. Please quote me if you can find that. What I said is that NYC had a great public transportation system, which is arguably true on a systematic level, especially as compared to other cities. While service was much lower quality, millions of people still relied on the city's public transportation during the 1980s.

While appreciated, your history of Manhattan is unnecessary. As you will see in a post I made above in response to another poster, I am well aware that the most dense areas prior to the implementation of the subway were tenement housing.

Clearly, the transportation system allowed Manhattan to grow more and more. I never disputed that. However, I do think that a certain level of density is required before public transportation can play that role.

That said, I do think the Detroit metro area has sufficient density to support public transportation and I am in favor of expanding the region's public transportation options.

Anyway, sounds like we're both stepping on each other's toes. The above is as clear a way to spell out the history of how the subways and development grew hand-in-hand in New York. Cheers.

I did not intend to agitate you and I do appreciate your input on this forum. Cheers to you as well.

[Detroitnerd]

I am puzzled because I write on this forum because of my deep interest in Detroit, and because I was surprised by the intensity [[and in my opinion, snarkiness) of your response.

Well then you don't understand why you're PISSING ME OFF. Maybe it's because ...

What I did say is that BLA BLA BLA for another 150 words ...

... you refuse to get the point! You said "during NY's dark years [[late 60's through the early '80s), NYC still had a great transportation system." Then you clarified that "great transportation system" to mean, well, yeah, it broke down a lot and the trains were covered in graffitti and, yeah, it was totally unsafe, and, umm, yeah, the communications systems didn't work and you'd spend a half hour in a dark train with no fan wondering how the hell you were going to get anywhere, but, you know, other than that. Truly a "great transportation system." You remind me of a whiny student who's staying after class to argue why he really deserves an 'A' for saying something totally ludicrous.

While appreciated, your history of Manhattan is unnecessary. As you will see in a post I made above in response to another poster, I am well aware that the most dense areas prior to the implementation of the subway were tenement housing.

Yeah, my history was unnecessary, because you're just going to go on believing what you always wanted to believe, disregarding evidence to the contrary, trying to behave like in that polite, thickheaded way.

Clearly, the transportation system allowed Manhattan to grow more and more. I never disputed that. However, I do think that a certain level of density is required before public transportation can play that role.

That statement is a bunch of lame pussyfooting around the fact that you said the density must come first and the transit must come later.

That said, I do think the Detroit metro area has sufficient density to support public transportation and I am in favor of expanding the region's public transportation options.

Nobody disputed that. You're just covering your tracks a little.

I did not intend to agitate you and I do appreciate your input on this forum. Cheers to you as well.

Go jump in the East River.

[cman710]

Detroitnerd, with your last post, I think this thread just jumped the shark.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd, with your last post, I think this thread just jumped the shark.

Don't blame me for how thick you are!

[lafayette]

Detroitnerd and cman710, I have an honest question, so don't jump on me here. There's no agenda. Just trying to understand your discussion. Does this debate boil down to a chicken and egg issue; does mass transit lead to density or does density lead to mass transit? Here's a hypothetical: if you think that mass transit can lead to density, then do you mean that a mass transit stop at a sleepy, tumbleweed nowhere will create retail/consumer stuff? Not arguing, trying to understand. Cuz if that hypothetical is true, then mass transit to a lot of empty places with retail/office potential in Detroit could actually justify mass transit for metro Detroit, if not at least Detroit proper, and bring so much of Detroit back to life and population density.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd and cman710, I have an honest question, so don't jump on me here. There's no agenda. Just trying to understand your discussion. Does this debate boil down to a chicken and egg issue; does mass transit lead to density or does density lead to mass transit? Here's a hypothetical: if you think that mass transit can lead to density, then do you mean that a mass transit stop at a sleepy, tumbleweed nowhere will create retail/consumer stuff? Not arguing, trying to understand. Cuz if that hypothetical is true, then mass transit to a lot of empty places with retail/office potential in Detroit could actually justify mass transit for metro Detroit, if not at least Detroit proper, and bring so much of Detroit back to life and population density.

Most of Detroit, up to 1915, was built around the streetcar lines. If you laid them down again, there's a good chance you'd see developers step in to build densely along them. And much of those original thoroughfares are still dense, no matter what people say about Detroit being "abandoned." Let's just say Detroit has "good bones."

[lafayette]

Right, I'm very familiar with Detroit history.

[Detroitnerd]

Strictly speaking, there is no way anybody can build the environment you see in Chicago, New York or Tokyo without mass transit there to serve it. You can have someplace that's dense in the sense that Calcutta is dense, but when we talk about "density" being desirable in an urban planning context, we are talking about the desirability of places that are built up, not out, and have plenty of shopping, entertainment and dining within walking distance, usually served [[or at least formed around) mass transit.

Yeah, if you build a subway under the desert, far away from people, nobody will use it. That means you need PEOPLE. Lots of PEOPLE. It has little to do with the initial density. Subways raise land values [[and density) because they can bring hundreds of thousands of people from all over the city into one spot in an hour. That's why Manhattan looks the way it does.

[cman710]

Detroitnerd and cman710, I have an honest question, so don't jump on me here. There's no agenda. Just trying to understand your discussion. Does this debate boil down to a chicken and egg issue; does mass transit lead to density or does density lead to mass transit? Here's a hypothetical: if you think that mass transit can lead to density, then do you mean that a mass transit stop at a sleepy, tumbleweed nowhere will create retail/consumer stuff? Not arguing, trying to understand. Cuz if that hypothetical is true, then mass transit to a lot of empty places with retail/office potential in Detroit could actually justify mass transit for metro Detroit, if not at least Detroit proper, and bring so much of Detroit back to life and population density.

Lafayette, I do not think the discussion was strictly a chicken and egg issue. I think it is a question of what the most important factors are relating to the growth of a city. In this way, I think the discussion relates squarely to Detroit's situation, as the answer to the question helps determine how one goes about trying to rejuvinate the city.

If we break things down to the most basic level, the major problem Detroit faces is that people do not have incentive to live in the city. These incentives come from perceptions [[and realities) regarding lack of jobs, high crime, high cost of doing business, and poor city services. Some people say that building transit will solve Detroit's problems and lead to population growth. While I think that building great transit will unquestionably make the city more attractive than it was before, I am not convinced that it, alone, would be the city's salvation. For example, Houston, TX has awful public transportation, yet it has experienced amazing growth during the past few decades. [[Houston does have a limited light rail system, but the system does not provide effective transportation for many people.) San Antonio and El Paso have had similar growth.

These cities are growing because of a favorable economic environment and cheap cost of living, in spite of having awful transit systems. People have incentive to move to Houston, just as they had incentive to move to Detroit in the first half of the twentieth century. People do not currently have strong incentives to move to Detroit.

Improved transit would help address the city's economic issues, as it would encourage more companies to locate in the CBD. However, that same transit would also make it easier for people in the suburbs to commute to the CBD. That is one reason why I think that improved transit alone will not be the answer. First and foremost, the city must address the reasons people are not living in the city - economic opportunity, crime, and the like.

[Detroitnerd]

Some people say that building transit will solve Detroit's problems and lead to population growth.

Straw man alert!

[mwilbert]

Building a rail system and hoping for growth is like buying a refridgerator and hoping it gets filled with food

My experience is that this actually works--if you put a refrigerator someplace, often people put food in it. The problem is getting them to clean it out.

[exmotowner]

." Let's just say Detroit has "good bones."

Yes it does, but the bones are broken and it needs someone to put them back together.

[canuck]

Downtown Detroit wouldn't be the poor cousin to suburban malls if a strong mass transit system had had a chance to evolve in metro D. If your only alternative to transit is using your car to go home to an outlying area even if in the city, them you will avoid the kind of friction that humans need to have in order to create a sense of city. I mean friction in a good sense like taking the time to ogle a nice pair of secretarial legs on the way home, a lot better done than sitting in your Caravan. Detroit's downtown doesnt retain people because of a wrong vision of development not a lack of vision just the wrong one. Henry Ford II's Renaissance center was designed as a fortress blocking access from the street. It emptied hotels and office buildings and did a lot to kill the street life. Wrong vision. Suburbanites didnt care as long as they felt catered to, protected. Inner city people with no business to do there felt alienated. Detroiters need a mass transit system and should do anything they can to rally behind a plan for major infrastructure in that area. The suburbs have to chip in, even if this means Michigan passing a decree. Detroit is succulent enough a bait for urban planners worldwide to get involved. It is not too late. You have the added advantage of wide avenues for streetcar and suburban rail. Detroit has beautiful architecture and it needs to preserve it. Dont let folks decide without getting involved. Montrealers have said no to a billion dollar development deal involving a new casino and entertainment district a couple of years ago because citizens in a working class neighborhood next to it [[Pointe St-Charles) fought and won. It might have been a boon economically for developers, but the sense was that it was another white elephant.[[TRU) Transportation Riders United has an online petition for detroiters who want better transit. Better transit is the lifeblood of all great cities. Anyone who cheers for a new stadium, skyscraper or casino and balks at a new plan for mass transit has vision alright, only the wrong kind. Respectfully.

[Michigan]

Of course, the ritzy neighborhoods could afford to keep up their integrity, but what rich person was going to ride the subway?

Well, just about every rich person in Manhattan rides the Subway, including its Mayor, the richest man in town.

Strictly speaking, there is no way anybody can build the environment you see in Chicago, New York or Tokyo without mass transit there to serve it.

That is wrong. Beijing did not have a rail line until the 70s. Are you telling me it was not densely populated? How about Johannesburg,? Its rail line does not serve the city center or the business district. Seoul didn't have a subway until 1974. Density comes first, not the other way around. I don't really get what everyone is jumping on this Cman guy for, he isn't saying anything outrageous.

Also, I thought Detroiters liked Graffiti, what's with all the dissing of NY subway graffiti?

[Michigan]

One more place- Miami.

[Hermod]

One more place- Miami.

Except for some parts of downtown Miami, the whole of southeast Florida [[Miami-Dade County, Ft Lauderdale-Broward County, and Palm Beach County) is Oakland and Macomb County on a larger scale. All kinds of little cities in a patchwork pattern. The architecture is pretty much the same with subdivisions of homes mixed with low rise industrial and commercial.

[R8RBOB]

Downtown Detroit wouldn't be the poor cousin to suburban malls if a strong mass transit system had had a chance to evolve in metro D. If your only alternative to transit is using your car to go home to an outlying area even if in the city, them you will avoid the kind of friction that humans need to have in order to create a sense of city. I mean friction in a good sense like taking the time to ogle a nice pair of secretarial legs on the way home, a lot better done than sitting in your Caravan. Detroit's downtown doesnt retain people because of a wrong vision of development not a lack of vision just the wrong one. Henry Ford II's Renaissance center was designed as a fortress blocking access from the street. It emptied hotels and office buildings and did a lot to kill the street life. Wrong vision. Suburbanites didnt care as long as they felt catered to, protected. Inner city people with no business to do there felt alienated. Detroiters need a mass transit system and should do anything they can to rally behind a plan for major infrastructure in that area. The suburbs have to chip in, even if this means Michigan passing a decree. Detroit is succulent enough a bait for urban planners worldwide to get involved. It is not too late. You have the added advantage of wide avenues for streetcar and suburban rail. Detroit has beautiful architecture and it needs to preserve it. Dont let folks decide without getting involved. Montrealers have said no to a billion dollar development deal involving a new casino and entertainment district a couple of years ago because citizens in a working class neighborhood next to it [[Pointe St-Charles) fought and won. It might have been a boon economically for developers, but the sense was that it was another white elephant.[[TRU) Transportation Riders United has an online petition for detroiters who want better transit. Better transit is the lifeblood of all great cities. Anyone who cheers for a new stadium, skyscraper or casino and balks at a new plan for mass transit has vision alright, only the wrong kind. Respectfully.

Lack of mass transit is the one thing that has choked the life out of Detroit. When buses are the only method of public transportation, it make visiting the city a drag if you are a visitor. Go to New York City or Chicago or Minneapolis or San Francisco and you will see the difference. In Detroit defense, Oakland County would always put up a roadblock to mass transit because they didn't Detroiters coming to their neighborhoods. I remember reading an article in which L. Brooks Patterson spoke openly about sprawl. He wanted more freeways built so the sprawl came to Oakland Co. He thought building a light-rail from Metro to Downtown Detroit was a waste. It's sad how a city like Detroit have no public access to a major airport unless you use Metro Cars or your own ride.


http://r8rbob.wordpress.com

[Hermod]

Lack of mass transit is the one thing that has choked the life out of Detroit. When buses are the only method of public transportation, it make visiting the city a drag if you are a visitor. Go to New York City or Chicago or Minneapolis or San Francisco and you will see the difference. In Detroit defense, Oakland County would always put up a roadblock to mass transit because they didn't Detroiters coming to their neighborhoods. I remember reading an article in which L. Brooks Patterson spoke openly about sprawl. He wanted more freeways built so the sprawl came to Oakland Co. He thought building a light-rail from Metro to Downtown Detroit was a waste. It's sad how a city like Detroit have no public access to a major airport unless you use Metro Cars or your own ride.
http://r8rbob.wordpress.com

From Patterson's point of view, it is better if corporate offices are located in mid-rises along Big Beaver than in high-rises in downtown Detroit. He and Troy get the taxes instead of Detroit and Wayne. Rapid transit from Pontiac to downtown Detroit is not in his [[or his constituents) interest.

Oakland County is sustainable without Detroit.

[slick]

To Hermod,
who wrote a few days back
Wayne State had nothing to do with Wayne County,
from their web site:

Wayne State University was begun as Detroit Medical College, which ultimately became Wayne State’s medical school, in 1868. Other colleges had their beginnings in similar programs in 1881 [[Education) and 1917 [[Liberal Arts). The institution became a four-year degree-granting institution in 1923. Graduate courses were added in 1930. Finally, all of the colleges were united under the same administration in 1933. The name Wayne State University was officially adopted in 1956.

[Hermod]

To Hermod,
who wrote a few days back
Wayne State had nothing to do with Wayne County,
from their web site:

Wayne State University was begun as Detroit Medical College, which ultimately became Wayne State’s medical school, in 1868. Other colleges had their beginnings in similar programs in 1881 [[Education) and 1917 [[Liberal Arts). The institution became a four-year degree-granting institution in 1923. Graduate courses were added in 1930. Finally, all of the colleges were united under the same administration in 1933. The name Wayne State University was officially adopted in 1956.

I never had much to do with Wayne [[though my Aunt and Uncle were graduates). All I can remember is that it was Wayne University then it became Wayne State University.

[iheartthed]

From Patterson's point of view, it is better if corporate offices are located in mid-rises along Big Beaver than in high-rises in downtown Detroit. He and Troy get the taxes instead of Detroit and Wayne. Rapid transit from Pontiac to downtown Detroit is not in his [[or his constituents) interest.

Oakland County is sustainable without Detroit.

Where will Oakland County get its new residents from when Detroit is empty? People sure aren't flocking there from other parts of the country...

[R8RBOB]

Where will Oakland County get its new residents from when Detroit is empty? People sure aren't flocking there from other parts of the country...

Good one....LOL

I commented some time back and stated that the suburbs will need Detroit for spillage.

Back in the good old 20th century, the suburbs grew because of spillage of people. People moving in, space was thin, the suburbs were wide open to develop. Now, no one is migrating here and if no one wants to come to Detroit to live you better believe they are not going to break their backs to move to Waterford.

[Hermod]

Good one....LOL

I commented some time back and stated that the suburbs will need Detroit for spillage.

Back in the good old 20th century, the suburbs grew because of spillage of people. People moving in, space was thin, the suburbs were wide open to develop. Now, no one is migrating here and if no one wants to come to Detroit to live you better believe they are not going to break their backs to move to Waterford.

They don't have to keep growing to be sustainable. If there is a return of industry [[heavy or light) to the area, it will be in Oakland or Macomb and not in Detroit. Consider workforce, taxes, and age of industrial structures. Detroit loses on every element to the counties.

[Michigan]

As housing costs state depressed in Wayne/Macomb more and more people will be drawn to the area. Simple economics.