Explanation for all the decay?

[Wintersmommy]

Pulled this from the Freep...

I have never heard this explination before. Is it valid?
Awesomely empty

The second reason for Detroit's striking emptiness today is the quality of the city's housing stock.
Detroiters boasted for generations of having the highest percentage of homeownership of any big city. The ability for working-class families to buy their own homes -- and even to buy a fishing boat or a cottage Up North -- remained Detroit's proudest achievement throughout its Auto Century.
But vast numbers of those working-class and middle-class houses sprang up so quickly that there wasn't time or space for the painstaking construction and deliberate planning we see in, say, the neighboring Grosse Pointe communities.
Detroit, too, is a relatively humid place, nestled as it is alongside the Great Lakes, and the humidity is not kind to houses with wooden siding, especially when they don't get the upkeep they should.
Detroiters also say the city has a high water table, meaning you can dig down just a couple of feet in many places to strike water.
To be more precise, the glaciers that came through thousands of years ago left a dense layer of clay a couple of feet below the soil, so that rain and snowmelt doesn't percolate down easily. The water perches atop the surface of the clay, trapped there, so it's no surprise that wet basements are a problem throughout the city.
Combine the hasty wooden construction with a humid environment, then layer on poverty rates among the nation's worst, and the result is a city that loses many houses to decay. Metal strippers and arsonists worsen the problem many times over, but Detroit would be suffering a deteriorating housing stock even without them.
Without meaning to, civic leaders have contributed to the city's wide-open spaces by ambitiously demolishing many vacant structures in the expectation of new development, much of which never happens.


Read more: Being big led to big vacant prairies | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/2010091...#ixzz106spoVn2

[gazhekwe]

Like all generalizations, there is some truth to it, but of course, there is much that doesn't fit the description of cheaply constructed small houses that melt with lack of maintenance. Many houses were built well, and yet deteriorated or were destroyed just the same when abandoned to the elements. You can find many neighborhoods where well built houses still stand, yet there are no buyers for these places. It isn't necessarily poverty that drives the emptiness.

We can't ignore fashion. We seem to be fashion mad. Not so long ago, Farmington was the fashionable place to move. Then West Bloomfield. Clinton Township. Novi. After a few years, fashion moves to the next place with NEW houses, NEW stores, NEW everything, and the fashionable people pick up and move to the newest fashion mecca.

Until we find a way to make moving to Detroit fashionable, we won't attract large numbers of people craving the latest.

[Ray1936]

ANY house needs regular maintenance. That includes scraping, painting, replacing rotted wood, upkeeping plumbing and electric lines, regular cleaning of HVAC units, whatever form they may take. There are 300 year old homes in New England [[with a climate and water table as bad as SE Michigan) that are positively immaculate today.

Don't blame nature. Blame lazy or uneducated homeownere [[uneducated in home maintenance needs, that is, not academia).

[Wintersmommy]

ANY house needs regular maintenance. That includes scraping, painting, replacing rotted wood, upkeeping plumbing and electric lines, regular cleaning of HVAC units, whatever form they may take. There are 300 year old homes in New England [[with a climate and water table as bad as SE Michigan) that are positively immaculate today.

Don't blame nature. Blame lazy or uneducated homeownere [[uneducated in home maintenance needs, that is, not academia).

True but...I have had some conversations with my mom about buying olders homes since I would like to purchase one. Mom made a comment to the effect well you dont want an older home, too much maintence and too much money. And she said at the same time said its such a shame that people just left those homes to go to waste. But her and her family moved out [[as I assume others did) from these older, larger homes due in part to upkeep [[being that they moved to New homes in the burbs), and expected the population that came behind to do more with less...I dont know but seems to me money [[or lack of it) trumps everthing in most cases.

[gazhekwe]

Our first house was built in 1927. That house is solid as a rock. Beautiful plaster walls and ceilings, deep basement that was home to a monstrous gas gravity furnace that heated the place for a third the price of other homes. The house is still standing near Grand River and Greenfield, having survived a fire in one of the second floor bedrooms. There was nothing cheap about it or any of the houses in the neighborhood, yet we did have one that fell apart under the onslaught of a family of unruly kids with apparently absent parents.

As Ray said, ALL homes need maintenance. If you buy a brand new home, within five years you will be working on things that need repair and replacement.

[EastSider]

Your mom is oversimplifying things, mommy. The primary benefit to a newer home over an older home is a matter of where you are in the life cycle of the house's systems; talk to anybody in Macomb Township with a house that's 15 years old.

Too many people think new houses are maintenance-free.

[Ray1936]

Too many people think new houses are maintenance-free.

Yup. Had mine built in 2006, but after the two-year warranty [[for minor stuff) ran out, it's me and my toolbox to keep up with it. Change furnace filters regularly; touch up on paint here 'n there, already changed out a toilet flapper, and added sealer to the tile floor grout after cleaning. I'll not be stuck with any heavy stuff for some time, but the nickel and dime shit is always there to be done. So do it.

[Magnatomicflux]

Yup. Had mine built in 2006, but after the two-year warranty [[for minor stuff) ran out, it's me and my toolbox to keep up with it. Change furnace filters regularly; touch up on paint here 'n there, already changed out a toilet flapper, and added sealer to the tile floor grout after cleaning. I'll not be stuck with any heavy stuff for some time, but the nickel and dime shit is always there to be done. So do it.

Exactly Ray. I honestly wouldn't mind throwing a coat of paint on my old wood porch [[if I had one)or replacing wood here or there. If you don't get all pissed off about it and take your time, it can be pretty relaxing. That's life with an old home...any home, you love her, that's why you bought her. Now nurture that lady so she keeps you warm and dry. I think, people refusing to live in a house longer than 4 years might have something to do with it as well.
Problem with new places is they're poorly built. Contractors slap'em up, cut corners, ignore code, jack up prices. I just don't trust most newer contractors.

[Hamtragedy]

I don't buy it. Brush Park had hundreds of brick homes [[even stone ones), much like Philadelphia's, built in the Richardsonian and Victorian styles from 1870's to 1900's. Detroit's Richardsonian collection of residences I believe can be counted on one hand, while in Philadelphia there remain many, and Detroit's Victorian representation, outside of Corktown [[many of which are wood frame), is left scattered in portions of the SW side and a handful of sparse beauties on the lower east side.

A drive down Bewick, St. Clair, Garland, or Cadillac [[hell, Lakewood, Newport, Eastlawn) has a few brick beauties left, many abandoned, from what were blocks upon blocks of superior craftsmanship, with mahogany trim, oak panelling, coved ceilings, fancy leaded windows and doors.

Sure, there are lots of wooden bungalows from the teens and 20's that are still in the suburbs, standing proudly, usually more expensive than their 40s and 50s counterparts, whereas in Detroit, they are slowly dying a block at a time.

I think the commentator [[an op-ed piece) could have easily shifted his concern from the moist /damp environs to the shitty up-keep of both slumlords [[owners who couldn't sell their houses when every body and business split), to the slum tenants who don't give a rat's ass.

[wolverine]

The fact that so many homes are built out of wood in big cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and some parts of Southside and Westside Chicago are a real problem in a place where the seasons can be extreme. I'll see two houses lined up side by side, one all load bearing brick and the other wood...both abandoned for 20 years. The wood one is practically ready to collapse where the brick one looks like it's been vacated only a year ago.

Depending on how a wood home is clad, you might be able to reduce alot of maintenance. For example covering the wood siding with something longer lasting helps. I've seen some people completely rebuild their porches with synthetic materials as well. However, in the end, masonry buildings are going to require a lot less maintenance and cleaning. I've noticed 99% of new single family home construction in Chicago is conrete, brick, and steel. Occassionally I'll see some wood roof trusses, but the floors are all concrete precast hollowcore.....the stuff you see in highrise buildings. These buildings are going to be around a very long time, no matter how bad the neglect.

[Hamtragedy]

Most of Chicago's housing stock is brick, and has been, since they had a small fire there in 1879.

[Wintersmommy]

Most of Chicago's housing stock is brick, and has been, since they had a small fire there in 1879.

Anyone know if most of Detroits housing stock is/was wood or brick?

[Bearinabox]

I think the real problem is that houses here have so little value. Where's the incentive to sink money into a worthless house in a declining neighborhood? Unless you have some sentimental attachment to the place, or have reason to believe that the low housing prices are temporary and the neighborhood will eventually rebound, there's probably a point at which it makes more rational sense to let the house go than to keep maintaining it. Detroit looks the way it does because more houses have reached that point here than in other places.

A well-built house will likely decay more slowly once abandoned, but that only matters if the housing market in the neighborhood improves at some point after it's abandoned. Otherwise, a house that wasn't economical to keep up in 1995 will be even less economical to rehab after 15 years of abandonment, even if it's still perfectly salvageable.

[DetroitDad]

I think the real problem is that houses here have so little value. Where's the incentive to sink money into a worthless house in a declining neighborhood? Unless you have some sentimental attachment to the place, or have reason to believe that the low housing prices are temporary and the neighborhood will eventually rebound, there's probably a point at which it makes more rational sense to let the house go than to keep maintaining it. Detroit looks the way it does because more houses have reached that point here than in other places.

A well-built house will likely decay more slowly once abandoned, but that only matters if the housing market in the neighborhood improves at some point after it's abandoned. Otherwise, a house that wasn't economical to keep up in 1995 will be even less economical to rehab after 15 years of abandonment, even if it's still perfectly salvageable.

This is a great point.

As I see it, the problems with Detroit had to do with the type of, and reason for development beyond the central city, once the auto industry began to take flight. Detroit faced several big challenges in the past. Some of those challenges that Detroit faced included;

• The attitudes held by enough of the people who inhabited them [[homes viewed as investments).
• Issues of human nature, and how fragile the veneer of society is.
• A lack of culture and heritage. Many new residents still felt connected with their old homes, at the time.
• The fact that opportunity is mobile.
• The cost of maintaining old grand structures; it was cheaper to build new than to renovate.
• Population erosion in the face of overcrowded and industrial urban environments plagued by related problems.

[wolverine]

Most of Chicago's housing stock is brick, and has been, since they had a small fire there in 1879.

Much of it is, but in many areas there are just as many wood houses as there are brick. Many of these cities, now neighborhoods carried on wood construction after the fire until they were annexed by Chicago. This is why 99.99% of the housing in the historic core are masonry and construction types become more diverse as you move out. Coincidentally, the highest concentrations of the city's wood housing stock is in the poorest neighborhoods. In many cases where abandonment is excessive, the brick multi-family 2 and 3 flats are left standing and occupied while the wood structures have long been demolished.

As far as how much brick housing stock is in Detroit, I'd add that what appears to be all brick may for the most part be wood. Many of the craftsman style houses are not load bearing brick like you'll find prevalent in other Midwest and eastern cities. The brick only acts as an veneer. Sometimes in neglect, you'll see it has fallen away from the structure in abandoned houses in Detroit.

While a wood frame structure with a brick exterior will probably outlast a home that is covered in wood siding, if water gets to the wood structure, the brick will do nothing to hold the house up as further damage is done.

Brick is susceptible to water damage as well, but it takes much longer for problems to become severe, and is unlikely to attract other problems like mold or insect infestations.


I remember doing a housing survey in the fringe areas of Detroit way back. At times, it was difficult to determine whether a brick home was abandoned or not. They had survived the years without maintenance well. The wood sided houses were a dead giveaway though.

[sumas]

Our first home was a lovely brick Colonial built in 1938 near Denby. We lived there 10 years. Put a lot of time and money into it. Moved when a job transfer came through.

I've driven past it twice only, in the past 25 years. The 1st time, the trim was painted hot pink. The second time, the privacy fence we installed was gone, the new garage we had built was gone, the landscaping we installed was gone! I shuddered to think what the interior must look like.

[sumas]

Our current home in Detroit is 102 years old. We inherited this home from a friend. I remember sitting on the porch with our now deceased friend when a large van pulled up filled with people that sat and stared at us. Turned out it was three generations of folk and the grandparents in the car said that the house was built by the wife's grandparents. She had such lively memories of the old home. We let them into the house for a tour. She cried with joy to see how lovely the home still was.

The old girl is a money pit but we love it so much. New roof, new furnace, updated plumbing etc cost a fortune. The style and fascade are hard to describe. Kind of a cross between Art & Crafts and Victorian. The wood trim on the house needs painting now and the garage should be replaced. We hope to get that done next year.

A home's value is location, location, location. This sweet old home is in Detroit. However, I am an impractical person. We will never get our money out of it but than we don't plan to sell.

As mentioned in other threads about 1/3rd of the block is urban praire. I am saddened that other stately old homes rotted away due to financials.

[selfmademax]

I agree with magnatomicflux - I wouldn't trade my 1924 house for anything built in the last 15 years, despite my endless weekend maintenance/upkeep projects. The "slap it up-contract to the lowest bidder" houses in the burbs [[any burbs in the US) are their own special kind of nightmare. And from my understanding - it doesn't matter if the house is brick or wood - once the roof goes, the house deterioration rate is accelerated exponentially . Can't build a roof with brick.

[Hermod]

There is more to it than an "older house equals good, newer house equals crap".

Some years back, I was reading a book about home construction and it said there were cycles. I don't remember the exact dates [[I read it some years ago), but it was something like 1920-1925 were good houses while 1926 to 1929 were crap houses and the cycle just went on like that where periods of building solid houses alternate with "boom" periods of just slapping up anything to sell.

[rb336]

Anyone know if most of Detroits housing stock is/was wood or brick?

most of the lower-end homes are wood frame. some don't even have concrete foundations. as you go upscale, there is more woodframe/brick construction.

Same is mostly true with Chicago SF units

[Dave70]

Most of the decay is neglect!

I love the old style craftsman, victorians, etc. There's probably thousands of 'em rotting away unfortunately.

Look at Grosse Pointe or Royal Oak for example, there's a lot of those awesome older homes in great shape. Those cities just had residents who cared and could afford to keep them maintained.

I wonder if one could get a house built these days in the old styles? I think most are much prettier than the newer things I've seen, ha!

[Bearinabox]

Look at Grosse Pointe or Royal Oak for example, there's a lot of those awesome older homes in great shape. Those cities just had residents who cared and could afford to keep them maintained.

Or housing values in those places have continued to justify putting money into repairs.

I wonder if one could get a house built these days in the old styles? I think most are much prettier than the newer things I've seen, ha!

Why not just buy an old house, if that's what you want? There's no reason anyone should be getting houses built anywhere in SE Michigan right now, we've got way too many of the damn things already.

[blackmath]

Anything would beat the massive garage taking up 91 percent of the front of the house look that has infested new home building for the past few decades. Also, in this climate NEVER EVER EVER build with stucco. It should be outlawed here. We do not live in Arizona and pastels suck.

[Magnatomicflux]

There is more to it than an "older house equals good, newer house equals crap".

Some years back, I was reading a book about home construction and it said there were cycles. I don't remember the exact dates [[I read it some years ago), but it was something like 1920-1925 were good houses while 1926 to 1929 were crap houses and the cycle just went on like that where periods of building solid houses alternate with "boom" periods of just slapping up anything to sell.

That makes sense.

I laughed one time reading an old book about Windsor. There was an article about a stately old home at Park and Ouellette being torn down in the mid 20's, with a group of old timers watching it's demise. They had noted how the demo crew was having a tough time tearing the old beams apart and whatnot. One of the old timers says something like "those boys will be at that house for a while yet. They just don't build houses like they used to" !!!!!!!!!!

That's the 1920's! Today...what is it that we say? " they don't build houses like they used to" !

A cycle indeed.

blackmath.....I like your thinking. Exactly how i feel.

Another thing that bothers me is people don't have front porches anymore. Who's your neighbour? I don't know.....I just get in my car in the garage and drive away since theres no sidewalk here in my burb. The I come home, straight into the garage and into my 12' high fenced backyard.

[Pingu]

I think the real problem is that houses here have so little value. Where's the incentive to sink money into a worthless house in a declining neighborhood? Unless you have some sentimental attachment to the place, or have reason to believe that the low housing prices are temporary and the neighborhood will eventually rebound, there's probably a point at which it makes more rational sense to let the house go than to keep maintaining it. Detroit looks the way it does because more houses have reached that point here than in other places.

A well-built house will likely decay more slowly once abandoned, but that only matters if the housing market in the neighborhood improves at some point after it's abandoned. Otherwise, a house that wasn't economical to keep up in 1995 will be even less economical to rehab after 15 years of abandonment, even if it's still perfectly salvageable.

Yes, it's not the house, it's stuff other than the house, jeeze I'd give my eye teeth to have my kids grow up in the same kind of house my parents did, and believe-you-me I'd find plenty of time and money to keep things up, not a problem.

But as a parent, you can only control so many things, and the rest you have to suck up. So I'll keep my house up, till the point where that just isn't enough anymore, then I'm bailin'