why metro detroit will never achieve regional cooperation

[hybridy]

clearly this isn't news, but how can he continue to run the show up there?

http://www.oakgov.com/exec/brooks/sprawl.html - scary

what lbc doesn't recognize is that detroit is very suburban in nature...always has been. someone should let him in on a little secret.


sprawl doesn't work...

• High car dependence.
• Inadequate facilities e.g.: cultural, emergency, health, etc.
• Higher per-person infrastructure costs.
• Inefficient street layouts.
• Low diversity of housing and business types.
• Higher per-capita use of energy, land, and water.
• Perceived low aesthetic value.

[lincoln8740]

Absolutely love everything about that essay/post every time I read it.

I think this part describes a majority of posters on detroityes perfectly:

"Today, if a company pulls up stakes, abandons a suburban location and moves into the central city [[often doubling or tripling the commute time for its employees), the anti-American Dream doom-and- gloomers call it "economic revitalization," and they praise it.
But if a company, a residential builder, or a family moves out into the suburbs, it's condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad." They demand new laws be imposed turning local control over to state government planners charged with discouraging, containing, shutting down, stopping and reversing growth outside central cities."


oh and brooksie is still in charge there because the population that he represents elects him to keep on doing on what he has done---AAA bond rating, budgeting several years out etc

[BrushStart]

HOLY S**T!!!!! When in the hell did that NUT CASE publish this?!!! I live in the city, am I ANTI-AMERICAN?!!!! Am I not chasing the American Dream?!!! Is the only acceptable American Dream living in Oakland County's SPRAWL? Tell that to 8 million New Yorkers and 3 million Chicagoans!!! Am I trying to "purge myself of the perceived sin of abandonment"???!!!!! WTF!!!! This guy is seriously a psychopath!

[lincoln8740]

HOLY S**T!!!!! When in the hell did that NUT CASE publish this?!!! I live in the city, am I ANTI-AMERICAN?!!!! Am I not chasing the American Dream?!!! Is the only acceptable American Dream living in Oakland County's SPRAWL? Tell that to 8 million New Yorkers and 3 million Chicagoans!!! Am I trying to "purge myself of the perceived sin of abandonment"???!!!!! WTF!!!! This guy is seriously a psychopath!

I will grant you that--especially if your version of the American Dream is to live in a two bedroom apartment and drive a small car--then yes a yard, four bedrooms and a car that can drive in snow is pretty stupid.

[BrushStart]

I will grant you that--especially if your version of the American Dream is to live in a two bedroom apartment and drive a small car--then yes a yard, four bedrooms and a car that can drive in snow is pretty stupid.

I take it that you're being sarcastic or that you volunteered your post to be fodder. I don't need a 4-bedroom house nor do I want a 4-bedroom house. I live with my girlfriend in a beautiful apartment overlooking the Detroit River. I have a full gym and swimming pool at my immediate disposal. My commute to work is 5 minutes by foot. I never sit in traffic nor do I put much gas in my Ford SUV. I have 3 pro sports teams that play in my backyard [[if you include the Lions). I walk to bars, restaurants, music venues, and the best performances in the state. Did I say I have an amazing view? And when I get tired of that, I jump in my car and drive up to my family's lakehouse as a weekend getaway to truly be in nature, not some wannabe rural location that has all of the problems of the city with none of the true benefits of the country aka suburbia. HTH.

[Hermod]

sprawl doesn't work...

High car dependence--I will grant you that though up till now it hasn't bothered most people.

Inadequate facilities e.g.: cultural, emergency, health, etc.--Gosh, Oakland County has numerous institutions of higher learning, Rochester and Birmingham have concert venues, there are plenty of hospitals and the average OC resident is healthier than the average Detroiter [[a lot less lead poisoning as well), and fire, EMS, and police response times are better in the sprawl than in the D.

Higher per-person infrastructure costs.--OC seems to have been able to afford these higher costs [[maybe they save some money by being more efficient and having less loss through theft and graft).

Inefficient street layouts.--The traffic there seems to keep moving.

Low diversity of housing and business types--I sure saw plenty of diversity of housing types when I lived in Rochester, though granted there are quite a few cookie cutter development in OC. Quite a diversity of business types. I even saw some supermarkets in OC. How many in the D?

Higher per-capita use of energy, land, and water--Granted, though not so out of scale with Detroit.

Perceived low aesthetic value. Only by those who don't live there.

[Hermod]

And when I get tired of that, I jump in my car and drive up to my family's lakehouse as a weekend getaway to truly be in nature, not some wannabe rural location that has all of the problems of the city with none of the true benefits of the country aka suburbia. HTH.

One of those "trust fund babies" Lincoln

[BrushStart]

One of those "trust fund babies" Lincoln

Not quite, my friend. In fact, I'm quite far from it. My dad worked hard his whole life to afford a place waaay up north and bought in before it got too expensive. The place is probably worth a lot now, but wasn't worth squat when they bought it. I work hard to pay for my place downtown. No silver spoon here, so you should watch what you say.

[R8RBOB]

L. Brooks Patterson can love sprawl all he wants and if Oakland County has the money to generate sprawl then let them. I do believe that for sprawl to be a success you need residents to move into your county and that ain't happening in Metro Detroit. Oakland County like the other counties are losing residents not gaining them. Well, let me correct myself. OC is gaining residents formerly of Detroit but not enough to return OC to the good old days. Sprawl is now just a pipe dream and Brooks just wanted something to post about.

[DetroitPole]

No matter how one feels about his message, Brooks is simply saying, "Let's keep doing what we've been doing."

Well, we've seen where that has gotten us. Michigan, including glorious Oakland County, is in the fucking toilet. Oakland County has been losing money and population as well. People are not flocking to his paradise.

So the question then remains, should we jump on with Brooks and keep doing what we've been doing and getting the same results, or focus on something like making sure we have intelligent, planned growth and vibrant major urban areas in Michigan?

His paranoia is possibly most disturbing. What is all this about anti-American Dream boogey men? Who are these fabricated enemies?? It becomes clear they are those who do not fit in his narrow view of what an American [[implicitly you are anti-American if you are against the American Dream) is and what the American Dream constitutes. His strange post-war fabrication of what EXACTLY that is [[which was denied to many, mostly based on race) flies in the face of the freedom we enjoy to pursue our happiness and "dreams" individually.

For those like Brooks and lincoln who for some reason think all city living is some kind of black ghetto or 19th century tenement slum, I invite them to look at real estate prices in New York, Chicago, London, Paris, or Washington DC. Then look at Oakland County and try not to laugh. This is a good capitalist illustration of supply and demand. Obviously tens of millions of people can do without a McMansion on a cul-de-sac. I would be interested in seeing some figures that "green grass on a safe, well maintained street, a quality neighborhood school that actually educated their children, a good job, nearby parks and recreational spaces, and a local government that actually delivers the services their taxes paid for" and urban environments are mutually exclusive.

I would also like a citation for: "Cities declined because they squandered their assets." What does that even mean?

I would like to see him make that pathetic argument to the mayor of any global alpha city. They would laugh his stupid, fat, drunk podunk ass out of the room. Only in SE Michigan does this kind of archaic bullshit still fly- but it is rapidly becoming extinct, and he's on the defensive. Keep the bottle and the car keys away from him.

[R8RBOB]

Absolutely love everything about that essay/post every time I read it.

I think this part describes a majority of posters on detroityes perfectly:

"Today, if a company pulls up stakes, abandons a suburban location and moves into the central city [[often doubling or tripling the commute time for its employees), the anti-American Dream doom-and- gloomers call it "economic revitalization," and they praise it.
But if a company, a residential builder, or a family moves out into the suburbs, it's condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad." They demand new laws be imposed turning local control over to state government planners charged with discouraging, containing, shutting down, stopping and reversing growth outside central cities."


oh and brooksie is still in charge there because the population that he represents elects him to keep on doing on what he has done---AAA bond rating, budgeting several years out etc

You really believe this hogwash? Of course you do, that's why you copy and pasted it. I lived in the Bay Area for four years. I lived in the suburban cites for the four years I was there because I couldn't afford to live in the Big Three. [[San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose) It was cheaper to live in the suburbs. You have people born in SF and can't live there because the cost is too great. No one condemns living in the suburbs except here because in Metro Detroit it was sold that the suburbs were so great and Detroit was so bad. Sorry, but Brooks is doing a selling job here for his base. Not buying.

[R8RBOB]

sprawl doesn't work...

High car dependence--I will grant you that though up till now it hasn't bothered most people.

Inadequate facilities e.g.: cultural, emergency, health, etc.--Gosh, Oakland County has numerous institutions of higher learning, Rochester and Birmingham have concert venues, there are plenty of hospitals and the average OC resident is healthier than the average Detroiter [[a lot less lead poisoning as well), and fire, EMS, and police response times are better in the sprawl than in the D.

Higher per-person infrastructure costs.--OC seems to have been able to afford these higher costs [[maybe they save some money by being more efficient and having less loss through theft and graft).

Inefficient street layouts.--The traffic there seems to keep moving.

Low diversity of housing and business types--I sure saw plenty of diversity of housing types when I lived in Rochester, though granted there are quite a few cookie cutter development in OC. Quite a diversity of business types. I even saw some supermarkets in OC. How many in the D?

Higher per-capita use of energy, land, and water--Granted, though not so out of scale with Detroit.

Perceived low aesthetic value. Only by those who don't live there.

Funny how you compare a county with many municipalities with a city that has only...one municipality. I know it's Detroit but it is an unfair advantage when you list a couple of the wealthier cities [[Rochester and Birmingham) as proof that Oakland County is a great place to live. Why not list Royal Oak Township and Wixom? Do residents of Pontiac get those benefits you posted on? It is the seat of Oakland Co. Do they get that love? One has to ask.

[mwilbert]

LBP isn't an idiot. His thinking simply reflects what worked [[or was thought to work) for his constituents in the past. I don't believe it is working so well now, and I don't believe it is going to work well going forward, but neither he nor a large number of his constituents recognize that yet, largely because to the vast bulk of them, not being in Detroit is one of the best things about wherever they are, and not being in Detroit mostly means being in suburbia, and mostly in sprawl. And of course things in most of Oakland County aren't so bad. Yet.

A key thing to understand is that the dysfunctionality of Detroit is vital the the maintenance of this narrow viewpoint. If Oakland County were outside a normal city, there would be a lot of people [[not all, probably not most, but many) who would be living in Oakland County because they couldn't afford to live in the city, and even people who liked the suburbs they would be in regular contact with people who prefer urban living. They would see the increasing number of people who prefer a more urban lifestyle, more entertainment options, less driving, less house maintenance, etc. But because the central city is Detroit, there is basically no one living in Oakland County because they can't afford to live in the city, and the specific issues involved with Detroit life allow them to dismiss anyone who actually lives in Detroit by choice as an eccentric.

Eventually population loss, the aging-out of the people who actually fled the city originally, and the bad long-term economics of Oakland County style development will cause a change in attitude, and probably more cooperation with the City of Detroit, but I doubt it will change while LBP is still around. Also, I wouldn't want to blame all uncooperativeness on LBP and Oakland County--it isn't as if Detroit and its representatives had a really positive outlook toward the suburbs either. Elected officials who were looking at something other than appealing to their constituents' prejudices would be a refreshing change.

[EastsideAl]

OK, reading that screed made me hate the old racist school-door-blocking bastard even more. What a bunch of backwards-looking BS. Suburban sprawl may have been the "American dream" of some folks in the '50s, '60s, and '70s [[although it was definitely never mine, or that of my family, and we're sure as hell every bit as American as that old doddering fool), but it is quickly becoming the American nightmare - chewing up arable land, wasting tons of resources, reinforcing income, class, and race disparities, choking off central cities, creating large populated areas that are wholly car-centric, lengthening commute times, and wasting tons of resources.

[EastsideAl]

However, what mwilbert said is actually perceptive [[unlike LBP's crap), and I certainly agree with much of it.

[Don K]

Yeah, Brooks is an a**hole, but to a majority of Oaklandites [[not me - I never voted for the guy) he's our a**hole so he's okay. He's made a career out of city bashing since he first came to prominence during the '72 busing controversy, and he's not about to stop now. I don't know what it would take to arrange a ceasefire across the 8 Mile and Telegraph lines [[and there's plenty of blame to be spread among Detroit politicians as well as suburban politicians), but I wish it would happen. I had hopes during the Archer years, but that was too short.

I'm a suburbanite born and raised [[South Jersey originally, SE MI for 32 years now), and unless the city can offer me something I want that I can't find here, I'm not gonna move there. My partner is in a wheelchair, so high-rise living or even 2-story living is out of the question, unless the high-rise has enough of a generator to keep the elevators running in the event of a power outage. He has numerous doctor's appointments because of his conditions, and public transport [[such as it is here) ain't gonna do it for that. There's the paratransit that's available door-to-door, but for that you have to guess how long the appointment is going to take. When you make the reservation for the service, you have to specify a pick-up time at your destination, and if you're not there waiting, they leave without you. Then good luck getting a second pickup that day. Just yesterday a visit to the ophthamologist that I would have guessed would take an hour lasted 3 1/2 hours [[and no, that wasn't waiting for the doctor, that was actual exam time).

Let's see, what's in the city? Eating out? Got that out here. Movies? Got that too. Sports? Can't afford the tickets [[well, could afford a couple of times a year, but it's not that important for me). Theater? Nothing but the same Broadway retreads year after year. I can get better for less a few miles down Lone Pine Road at St Dunstan's. Symphony? You got me there.

A friend I've known since elementary school lives in a West Philly rowhouse now, and under different circumstances that would be an okay option for me. He and his wife are a short subway ride from Center City and a reasonable walk to the Penn/Drexel University District, and that would be pretty cool. For someone in a wheelchair, though, it just wouldn't work. The house has four steps up directly from the sidewalk to the porch, with not enough room for a ramp [[not enough width to the lot unless you arrange an easement with your neighbors). One bathroom, upstairs, accessed by stairs that turn a corner [[talking expensive lift here).

One aspect of the Detroit area that is in some respects an advantage, but works against the city now, is the international border. For better or worse, downtown Detroit is at the edge of the Metro area rather than the center, and geography [[hills and lakes) has tugged people towards the north and west, rather than concentrically around downtown [[see http://www.flickr.com/photos/walking...n/photostream/ and note how quickly the population thins out to the south and west). Like it or not, Detroit is just one of many centers in the area, and the center of population probably is somewhere in Southfield by now.

If you want people to care about the city, they have to know people who live there. And for that, first, the schools have to improve. In the 2008-2009 school year, DPS had over $7,200 to spend on instructional programs [[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...9_319752_7.pdf), which ranks 42nd in the state, and better than any district in Wayne County other than Grosse Pointe [[including Northville, Livonia, and Plymouth-Canton). Second, make some progress at fixing the crime problem. So long as people have the feeling that if they live in the neighborhoods they're putting themselves and their families at risk they won't live there voluntarily.

[iheartthed]

Lady doth protest too much.

[R8RBOB]

For years, suburban leaders sold the population on the idea that living in the suburbs, doing business in the suburbs was great. Why go to the bad, dirty city when you can have it great here in the land of sprawl? L. Brooks Patterson is fighting the life of his county so yes I understand his rant about suburban living. For years, Brooks sold everyone on Oakland County as being this oasis where taxes were cheap, jobs were plentiful and life was good. Well, that life cost and guess what? Brooks put that way of life on the credit card and the card is maxed out. He and his supporters can blow the horns on triple A credit all they want but it won't be enough to bring businesses and residents to this county

[bailey]

if detroit were a functional city that attracted people to it, would we notice the sprawl? Is there any city in the U.S. that ISN'T surrounded by sprawl?

[jt1]

I think this part describes a majority of posters on detroityes perfectly:

But if a company, a residential builder, or a family moves out into the suburbs, it's condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad." They demand new laws be imposed turning local control over to state government planners charged with discouraging, containing, shutting down, stopping and reversing growth outside central cities."

I think that you misunderstand many people here. Myself [[and likely most) do not think suburbs are bad. Suburbs offer a lifestyle that many people seek and enjoy.

The issue is building more and more subdivisions, more suburbs, more schools districts, more libraries, more PDs, more FDs when the population of the region has been flat for 20-30 years.

There is a difference between suburbs and unsustainable growth. LBP [[and apparently you) support growing the region to an unsustainable land mass.

OC and LBP have been succesful simply because they bordered a dysfunctional city that sent them business by the thousand and resident by the tens of thousands. As LBP would say, the growth of OC is due ot 'poaching'.

Let's maintain a reasonable region to maintain. If you want to live at 40 mile road that is your right but it shouldn't be the reponsibility of the region to support the cost for new roads, infrastrcuture, etc.

[jt1]

if detroit were a functional city that attracted people to it, would we notice the sprawl? Is there any city in the U.S. that ISN'T surrounded by sprawl?

Depends what you consider sprawl. I wouldn't consider much of SE Michigan sprawl since they developed due to population growth. I would consider areas like Oakland Township and Macomb Township sprawl since those areas were developed when there was no need, no growth in population, no shortage of housing, etc in the area.

[ghettopalmetto]

if detroit were a functional city that attracted people to it, would we notice the sprawl? Is there any city in the U.S. that ISN'T surrounded by sprawl?

There you go again, excusing your own paradigm, and pinning the blame for regional problems squarely on Detroit City.

Sure, there is sprawl in just about every American metropolis, but only because sprawl is the de jure pattern of development. In 95% of the nation, it is outright ILLEGAL to build anything BUT automobile-oriented development with segregated land usage. The sheer amount of resources required to sustain the necessary infrastructure also mandates that instead of brick and mortar, buildings are constructed of particleboard and EIFS. We're too damned broke after building freeways in order to build anything that looks respectable enough for human occupancy.

Mr. Patterson equates, in his mind, that "sprawl" = "economic growth". And, as we have written our laws, policies, and zoning ordinances, he isn't incorrect. The problem, of course, becomes, "What the hell does Oakland County do to 'grow' after it paves every last square inch of land with asphalt?"

If Detroit *were* a functional, attractive city, you'd still notice the sprawl. Take, for example, Washington, DC. The city is relatively healthy, enjoying population and income growth, regentrification of old neighborhoods, and a return of retailing. Currently, a $5 billion subway line is being constructed into low-density, automobile-oriented neither-regions of vinyl-sided subdivisions in Virginia. That $5 billion isn't free--half of it is federal money. And for what? They're going to add 23-miles of high-capacity transit line for rush-hour-only commuters to a network that is already deteriorating and nearing capacity in the urban core of the system. They can't afford to fix escalators used by tens of thousands of people a day, but they sure as hell can build massive parking garages at $25,000 per space so that Joe Suburbanite, Esq. can park his assault vehicle at the subway station for a below-market-rate fee.

I would argue, "yes", you would notice the sprawl, because as the sprawl gains population, money, and thus political clout, it tends to shift regional priorities--fixing perceived problems in Pleasantville while ignoring long-term problems in the urban core. Which is why you have I-696, and yet transit service in a city where 30% of households don't have a car is virtually nonexistent.

[bailey]

There you go again, excusing your own paradigm, and pinning the blame for regional problems squarely on Detroit City.

Sure, there is sprawl in just about every American metropolis, but only because sprawl is the de jure pattern of development. In 95% of the nation, it is outright ILLEGAL to build anything BUT automobile-oriented development with segregated land usage. The sheer amount of resources required to sustain the necessary infrastructure also mandates that instead of brick and mortar, buildings are constructed of particleboard and EIFS. We're too damned broke after building freeways in order to build anything that looks respectable enough for human occupancy.

Mr. Patterson equates, in his mind, that "sprawl" = "economic growth". And, as we have written our laws, policies, and zoning ordinances, he isn't incorrect. The problem, of course, becomes, "What the hell does Oakland County do to 'grow' after it paves every last square inch of land with asphalt?"

If Detroit *were* a functional, attractive city, you'd still notice the sprawl. Take, for example, Washington, DC. The city is relatively healthy, enjoying population and income growth, regentrification of old neighborhoods, and a return of retailing. Currently, a $5 billion subway line is being constructed into low-density, automobile-oriented neither-regions of vinyl-sided subdivisions in Virginia. That $5 billion isn't free--half of it is federal money. And for what? They're going to add 23-miles of high-capacity transit line for rush-hour-only commuters to a network that is already deteriorating and nearing capacity in the urban core of the system. They can't afford to fix escalators used by tens of thousands of people a day, but they sure as hell can build massive parking garages at $25,000 per space so that Joe Suburbanite can park his assault vehicle at the subway station for a below-market-rate fee.

I would argue, "yes", you would notice the sprawl, because as the sprawl gains population, money, and thus political clout, it tends to shift regional priorities--fixing perceived problems in Pleasantville while ignoring long-term problems in the urban core. Which is why you have I-696, and yet transit service in a city where 30% of households don't have a car is virtually nonexistent.

So... basically...we're agreed? /sarcasm

So, your answer is no one is ever allowed to live in a stand alone home unless said home is within walking distance of a designated "central business district"?

Is a suburb EVER allowed in your view of the world? must everyone live in a central city?

and before you slap the "defending the paradigm" crap on me... understand that I do not support LBP's view of sprawl. Acknowledging its presence and supporting it are two different things.

[R8RBOB]

I would argue, "yes", you would notice the sprawl, because as the sprawl gains population, money, and thus political clout, it tends to shift regional priorities--fixing perceived problems in Pleasantville while ignoring long-term problems in the urban core. Which is why you have I-696, and yet transit service in a city where 30% of households don't have a car is virtually nonexistent.

Agreed 100% but you forget M-59, I-75, M-10, M-1, M-53 and M-24. All built to cater to those outside of Detroit.

[ghettopalmetto]

So... basically...we're agreed? /sarcasm

So, your answer is no one is ever allowed to live in a stand alone home unless said home is within walking distance of a designated "central business district"?

Is a suburb EVER allowed in your view of the world? must everyone live in a central city?

and before you slap the "defending the paradigm" crap on me... understand that I do not support LBP's view of sprawl. Acknowledging its presence and supporting it are two different things.

Rather than take the extreme polar opposite position of L. Brooks Patterson, maybe you could do a little studying.

No one is trying to recreate Calcutta here. Cities were built in a certain manner for thousands of years of civilization. You can see the remnants of this in places like Boston, Philadelphia, and in Europe. I ask you, is it necessarily a *bad* thing for people to have *amenities* in their own neighborhood, within a short walk of their home? Must we drive drive drive 10 miles for every loaf of bread?

The problem is, sprawl encompasses the extremes of one idealized set of notions. It makes no accommodation whatsoever for anything other than cars and segregated land usage. It leaves no room for alternatives whatsoever.

If people want to live in the "country", I can appreciate that. If people want to live in the suburbs, that's fine too--but acknowledge that the folks in the city don't OWE you a freeway that allows you to commute 30 miles each way to work in 6 minutes flat. They don't OWE you new school buildings. They don't OWE you city water and sewer service.

Get the idea?