Bing to "defrag" the city.

[Django]

Please forgive me, I'm not big on politics and not very knowledgeable but this idea of shrinking the city sounds interesting. What do you all think?

A greenbelt that would swath through the uninhabited areas?

Displacing those who wont want to move out of the homes they have lived in for decades?

Creating more populated areas instead of spread out prairies and spotty neighborhoods?

Or is Bing just talking figuratively?

Literally seems like an interesting idea.

[English]

Here's a little information about it:

http://detnews.com/article/20100225/...to-shrink-city

BTW, I love the way you've put it -- haven't had to "defrag" my hard drive in about 5 years! Oh, the days before YouTube...

[LodgeDodger]

Django, the idea makes perfect sense. Detroit is no longer the city it once was. With some smart folks at the helm, Detroit could be smaller and better.

[Stosh]

Please forgive me, I'm not big on politics and not very knowledgeable but this idea of shrinking the city sounds interesting. What do you all think?

A greenbelt that would swath through the uninhabited areas?

Displacing those who wont want to move out of the homes they have lived in for decades?

Creating more populated areas instead of spread out prairies and spotty neighborhoods?

Or is Bing just talking figuratively?

Literally seems like an interesting idea.

Interesting, sure. But your neighborhood would likely be a victim to this plan.

[Django]

Interesting, sure. But your neighborhood would likely be a victim to this plan.

Stosh, Im sure anywhere near the incinerator would be first of the bunch to go. I personally don't have a prob with relocating. I'm sure many others would though. There has to be someplace for the poor and homeless to go and that would be a big prob. They are not likely to go so smoothly, many live in barely functional houses that they grew up in.

[Django]

Thanks English, I just saw a pretty sketchy channel 4 news story on it and reacted. The link you provided http://detnews.com/article/20100225/...to-shrink-city gave a lot more info.

What will all the empty land be used for though. I like the idea of parks and trees. Maybe I'm being too idealistic.

I keep imagining a map of Detroit and what it could look like, with a lot more green in it.

I'm looking forward to pessimists views so I could get a real handle on the idea of this.

[313WX]

http://detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=4753

[rb336]

So far it seems like Detroit purchasing is up to the same old tricks. Bing promised to reform the bidding practices, but the demolition contract bid is out to bid now -- and there was a pre-bid meeting Monday. None of this was advertised in the freep/news or the MI Chronicle, or any of the usual places. It wasn't on their website last Friday, even though it is listed as having been released March 17. More BS as usual

[canuck]

Just acknowledging the problem on that level is a step in the right direction. He is willing to redesign the city and is in unknown territory, but I wish he had some help from the burbs. Mass transit and all other services would be better served in a unified Metro Detroit. Will that ver happen without Michigan forcing a merged Metro?

[KENSINGTONY]

Forgive my rambling[[these ideas are just popping into my head as I type this) but here goes-
While green belts would be nice wouldn't they be counterproductive in that the city would have to maintain them?Better maybe that the land is used to make regional shopping areas like the city had in the 50s and 60s?Or let the suburbs annex the vacant land near their respective borders?

[Hermod]

Just acknowledging the problem on that level is a step in the right direction. He is willing to redesign the city and is in unknown territory, but I wish he had some help from the burbs. Mass transit and all other services would be better served in a unified Metro Detroit. Will that ver happen without Michigan forcing a merged Metro?

The answer is race. The metro area will not agree to a merged school system because the federal government could then demand forced busing for integration. The counties dodged a bullet thirty years ago when the courts wanted to order regional consolidation and busing which was overturned by a higher court. By the same token, regional political consolidation would take political power out of the hands of the Detroit city politicians. Detroit would be badly outvoted by the burbs.

[gazhekwe]

I saw an article [[Freep?) that suggested farming for the vacant lands. Some of them, anyway.

[East Detroit]

What if we just close all the roads North of 20 Mile and East of I-275 and have any tract housing there moved to the empty lots in Detroit?

[Scottathew]

Detroit needs to shrink before it can grow.

Defragging is the PERFECT analogy.

Imagine you have 2 city blocks that used to have 50 homes on them, they now only have let's say, 10 [[and that's generous for some areas).

You still have to provide the same road, water, sewage, snow removal, etc... services to that area, you still have the same amount of water main and sewer main to maintain, but there's only 10 houses instead of 50.

The city needs to "de-frag". I agree with the concept.

Good luck Detroit! Suburbanites want the best for you.

[Detroitnerd]

Haha. Seriously, folks. I applaud new thinking and good ideas, but this is BS.

First off, we need real regional solutions to our problems. Bulldozing Detroit into greenspace and courting developers to build industrial parks over the dense network of old streets isn't a regional solution.

The real problem is that the whole metro needs to work together to make a livable city center and to gradually let the less sustainable areas [[mostly the exurbs) go back to being productive farmland.

We need to look less like a donut with a hole in the center and more like ... Essex County. We should have a tight city center surrounded by productive farmland. What this plan does is the opposite.

The idea that our governments are prepared to use money to destroy an organic layout of old streets perfect for dense development and then to use stimulus funds to expand Hall Road is a joke. We are plunging down the road to unsustainability, and forfeiting another chance for regional thinking.

Plus, this is a huge giveaway to demolition contractors, with the hopes of some sweetheart political kickbacks if any industrial-park developers want a chunk of that "greenspace." What are we really talking about here? We're talking about mass demolition of an environment we can't even legally build anymore in this country. Since 1915, nobody has built these sorts of environments with narrow streets, small lots and alleys. Construction codes, zoning codes and other legal fictions have made building this impossible. Why are we in such a hurry to rip it all up? Who will profit from this? What will it make impossible in the future?

All this is is a savvy way to co-opt well-meaning new urbanists with jive talk about "defragging" and "density" while paying demolition contractors to demolish more and more of our city center, the only place where you can really re-establish density without hordes of lawyers and inspectors saying, "You can't do that."

Same old shoddy ideas, only now they have figured a way to get well-meaning people behind them. "We had to destroy the city to save it."

[JBMcB]

The real problem is that the whole metro needs to work together to make a livable city center and to gradually let the less sustainable areas [[mostly the exurbs) go back to being productive farmland.

That's great. How do you propose to do this, exactly? Detroit is broke. Many of the suburbs are broke as well. To get people to move to Detroit, you first need to fix it's rotted infrastructure. Where is this money going to come from?

Downsizing is the right move. People aren't going to start flooding back to Detroit in droves anytime soon. At least, until it can get it's act together and provide a decent level of service to it's citizens. And until it ramps up it's tax base, it's not going to have enough money to fix it's infrastructure problems.

[Detroitnerd]

That's great. How do you propose to do this, exactly? Detroit is broke. Many of the suburbs are broke as well. To get people to move to Detroit, you first need to fix it's rotted infrastructure. Where is this money going to come from?

In some previous threads, I've argued that we need a serious package of federal aid to reorganize the way we develop our cities, a complete re-examination of zoning laws and building codes, and a way to simplify regulations and reduce taxes for mom-and-pop business owners. Absent that, there is still a great deal of wealth in the area that could be used much more intelligently than by building new superhighways and subsidizing sprawl. We could treat our neighborhoods the way New Orleans treats its French Quarter. Instead, we are to keep showering demolition contractors with money? That's been our strategy for more than 50 years.

Anyway, this "where will the money come from" thing isn't very convincing. We're in, what, two wars? Where's the money coming from for those? We're handing over more than a trillion dollars to incompetent or criminal bankers who have helped crash the economy? Where's that money going to come from?

Fact is, money gets borrowed to build the world of the future. Unless you do that, you're never going to see a return. It's strange to me that businesspeople say, "You've got to spend money to make money," then demand that government do the exact opposite.

Downsizing is the right move. People aren't going to start flooding back to Detroit in droves anytime soon. At least, until it can get it's act together and provide a decent level of service to it's citizens. And until it ramps up it's tax base, it's not going to have enough money to fix it's infrastructure problems.

The demand that Detroit "get its act together" is nothing more than a PC way of saying, "I don't care, and I am not going to get involved in helping. They can do it themselves." And it's the antithesis of regionalism. If we want to save our metropolitan area, we need to work together as a region to have a working city, desirable suburbs and plenty of farmland. Unless we do that, we can descend into a kind of new Dark Ages; all that will remain intact will be everybody's smug sense of superiority.

[Hermod]

The real problem is that the whole metro needs to work together to make a livable city center and to gradually let the less sustainable areas [[mostly the exurbs) go back to being productive farmland.

We need to look less like a donut with a hole in the center and more like ... Essex County. We should have a tight city center surrounded by productive farmland. What this plan does is the opposite

And why should the city center of "Greater Detroit" be at its southern boundary? Why shouldn't the "city center" of "Greater Detroit" be in the geographic center, say Troy or Birmingham?

[JBMcB]

In some previous threads, I've argued that we need a serious package of federal aid to reorganize the way we develop our cities

Realistically, that probably won't happen. We can't count on anyone else helping us out.

complete re-examination of zoning laws and building codes, and a way to simplify regulations and reduce taxes for mom-and-pop business owners.

I agree 100%. The entire city needs to be an incubator for businesses of all kinds. Relax every restriction you can and get business moving.

Absent that, there is still a great deal of wealth in the area that could be used much more intelligently than by building new superhighways and subsidizing sprawl.

I agree that we shouldn't be funding any new construction, but we need to, at least, maintain what we have, even if it's in the boonies.

Where's that money going to come from?

Us, and our children, and their children. Which is why we can't rely on the federal government to step in on this. Even ending all the wars, there are a dozen other priorities the fed will spend money on before they get to revitalizing dying cities [[welfare, health care, social security, etc...)

It's strange to me that businesspeople say, "You've got to spend money to make money," then demand that government do the exact opposite.

The difference is that the government doesn't make money. The government doesn't produce anything, or create wealth. It helps individuals create wealth, but rarely and, usually, in the most inefficient manner possible.

The demand that Detroit "get its act together" is nothing more than a PC way of saying, "I don't care, and I am not going to get involved in helping.

Um, no. Detroit really needs to get it's act together. With the current level of corruption and incompetence, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the problem, it isn't going to get better.

If we want to save our metropolitan area, we need to work together as a region to have a working city, desirable suburbs and plenty of farmland.

That's fantastic. What exactly do you mean by working together? Because if you mean the suburbs dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the City of Detroit in it's current situation:

1 - It ain't gonna happen
2 - Even if it did, it wouldn't fix anything, except some Detroit official's distinct lack of German luxury vehicles.

[Det_ard]

I was going to deconstruct that in a similar manner but I'm glad JBMcB did it because parsing all the quotes and responses gets to be a pain.

DNerd, you've been around long enough that I'm surprised that by now you haven't traded most of your idealistic naivete in for a harsh dose of reality with a dollop of cynicism. Two things stand in the way of your vision.

One, there are no Obamabucks coming our way for any significant urbanization initiatives. Not for the CoD, not for DPS and not for regionalism. Urban agenda issues weren't a major part of his campaign and clearly haven't been a priority for his presidency. The fact that there's not even a whiff of the kind of funding you think we need from the federal government ought to put to rest any hope that we're going to get bailed out by the feds.

All our stars have aligned right now. Detroit is recognized, via the auto industry crisis, the foreclosure crisis and the DPS crisis as being in crisis. We have perfect Democratic party alignment from the most local Detroit political office all the way up to the White House. Mayor is a D, council is D [[OK, city pols are "nonpartisan", but in the D that means D), House Rep is a D, both Senators are D's, the Gov is a D, the House overall is controlled by the D's, the same for the Senate, and of course the President is a D. The biggest, blackest city in the country needs help, and for the first time the President is black too. What more could you ask for? Yet no help is forthcoming under perfect political circumstances. This is reality. Is it realistic to expect that the money will start flowing to Detroit if a bunch of D's change to R's in the next few years? No. Your dream of the feds bailing out the city is dead.

Two, even if billions magically appeared, we as a region are nowhere near endorsing density as a positive thing, as you and many urbanists do. Most people don't want higher density for themselves and aren't about to pay extra to help create it for others. If the oft envisioned crisis emerges and suburbanites can't afford to buy gas or fix their roads, first they'll sell their possessions to raise money, then their children, and only then will they "trade down", in their view, to a smaller, closer-in abode. High density, to many, is for those who can't afford low density.

[mwilbert]

You don't need "most people" to want higher density. You just need enough to fill up some areas. I haven't seen a survey in the Detroit area, but nationally surveys seem to indicate maybe 30% of people would like to live in walkable areas. That is way more than currently exists in the Detroit area, so I expect there is room for more of it here. No sensible person believes that this is going to attract everyone, and most people realize it is only going to attract a minority. That's OK.

[Huggybear]

First off, we need real regional solutions to our problems. Bulldozing Detroit into greenspace and courting developers to build industrial parks over the dense network of old streets isn't a regional solution.

Romanticism. The "dense network of old streets" [[and water lines and sewage pipes) is part of an infrastructure designed to pack the maximum number of single-family homes into a square mile. It went in during an expansion phase when the city's infrastructure maintenance was well funded. And at no point since World War II [[and probably since the Depression) has the city been fully capable of carrying that maintenance load. It's easy to build, not so easy to maintain.

Our present infrastructure has something like 3,000-4,000 miles of roads fragmented into tens of thousands of blocks. Many of those blocks have nothing on them. In some cases, you would even need a surveyor to find the street itself. Yet most of these - made of asphalt - need to be repaved about every 10 years. In the old days, the city even plowed those streets. Water mains running along those streets periodically break, requiring maintenance. And every inhabited street needs to be policed, whether there is one house on it or 100. I don't know if you are aware of this, but residential properties also tend to consume services that exceed by a big margin [[25%) the tax revenue they generate.

And yes, the solution is removing some of this infrastructure to make way for industrial installations that provide meaningful numbers of jobs [[not 2-3 at a time), take land from city rolls, take care of their own maintenance, and do not require more than one water and sewer connection. In fact, the same can and should be done with housing - and Lafayette Park [[Rivard to Orleans, Larned to Gratiot) makes an excellent model of how to mix high-density-per-block housing with green space to get a walkable, economically sustainable environment.

[DetroitDad]

And why should the city center of "Greater Detroit" be at its southern boundary? Why shouldn't the "city center" of "Greater Detroit" be in the geographic center, say Troy or Birmingham?

I think it might be because it's a river/port city on an international border. The infrastructure in Downtown Detroit is also superior to some the geographic center suburbs. Moving our geographic center would require freeway and transit reconfiguration, and adding streets. I'm not sure we have the resources to make another "New Center" super project.

This is all unless you are talking about making it an auto centric downtown. Actually, several suburbs already are that. We have had problems in the past, with putting too many eggs in one basket, as well as the talk that there are large amounts of educated youngsters who want walkable cities and transit, and are choosing jobs in cities that have it, leaving Michigan. Rent prices in many of our nation's well maintained walkable towns and cities are incredibly high, maybe pointing to high demand, and not enough supply. It's worth noting that enough of the youngsters who are leaving, are willing to pay much more for that kind of lifestyle.

[Hermod]

You don't need "most people" to want higher density. You just need enough to fill up some areas. I haven't seen a survey in the Detroit area, but nationally surveys seem to indicate maybe 30% of people would like to live in walkable areas. That is way more than currently exists in the Detroit area, so I expect there is room for more of it here. No sensible person believes that this is going to attract everyone, and most people realize it is only going to attract a minority. That's OK.

It will then occur naturally. All those thousands of people looking to live in walkable areas will leap at the chance to buy up cheap houses or cheap vacant lots in Detroit. Nobody has to do anything. It will happen all by itself.

[Hermod]

I think it might be because it's a river/port city on an international border. The infrastructure in Downtown Detroit is also superior to some the geographic center suburbs. Moving our geographic center would require freeway and transit reconfiguration, and adding streets. I'm not sure we have the resources to make another "New Center" super project.

This is all unless you are talking about making it an auto centric downtown. Actually, several suburbs already are that. We have had problems in the past, with putting too many eggs in one basket, as well as the talk that there are large amounts of educated youngsters who want walkable cities and transit, and are choosing jobs in cities that have it, leaving Michigan. Rent prices in many of our nation's well maintained walkable towns and cities are incredibly high, maybe pointing to high demand, and not enough supply. It's worth noting that enough of the youngsters who are leaving, are willing to pay much more for that kind of lifestyle.

"Port city"?? How many containers get transshipped across the massive piers and docks there by the RenCen? There is no real "port" anchoring the downtown.

Educated youngsters do not move to a place because it is a "walkable" city. They move to a place because it has a job for them. If the job is in a central city, then and only then do they make the decision to live in the central city and walk or live in the burbs and commute. The "central city" of Detroit is sadly deficient in jobs. In case you hadn't noticed, most of the office buildings in downtown are empty or nearly so.