What if a proposal to downsize Detroit happens?

[Danny]

If Detroit goes through bankruptcy and the Emergency Financial Manager takes absolute power in Detroit businesses and politics. One of its proposals on its budget to downsize and close certian Detroit neighborhoods that are now brownfields [[ urban praries):
In Detroit's East side:

1. Manistique St. from E. Jefferson Ave. to Scripps St.

2. Phillip St. from E. Jefferson Ave. to Korte St.

THE AREAS FROM CONNER ST. TO ALTER RD FROM E. JEFFERSON AVE TO E. WARREN AVE:

1. Gray

2. Lenox

3. Drexel to E. Canfield St.

4. Coplin to E. Canfield St.

5 Lakeview to E. Canfield St.

6.Eastlawn to E. Canfield St.

7. Newport to E. Canfield St.

8.Marlborough St. North of E. Mack St. to E. Forest St.

9.The areas from Phillp St to Ashland St North of E. Jefferson Ave. to E. Forest St.

10. Dickerson, Chalmers and Alter Rd. will remain open.

11.The areas from Malcolm to Barrett St. from Olga to Edsel Ford FWY.

12. The areas of Phillip and Marlborough Streets to Linville Rd.

THE AREAS EAST OF GRATIOT AVE FROM E.7 MILE RD TO HOUSTON WHITTIER STREETS.

Those streets will remain open for future housing development. Thoses that are foreclosed will not be re-sold, but either torn down to fixed up by housing voluteer groups to those who had execellent credit score, decent job and income. Those with lottery winnings are eligble. Those new homes with mixed in with existing homes will not be for Section 8. ADC cash assistance. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list. Landlords who brought homes in those areas can only be rented to those with excellent income and credit score. Homes in those areas will be sold at co-option to buy basis as long as the home owner has a decent job and individual supplemental income and credit score.

THE AREAS WEST OF GRATIOT AVE TO MCNICHOLS TO DRESDEN ST WILL BE CLOSED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:

1. Joann St.

2. Gitre St.

3. Racine St. from McNichols to Nashville St.

4. Strasburg St.

The areas East of Gratiot Ave, From Flanders St to Houston/Whittier streets will remain open for future housing development. Thoses that are foreclosed will not be re-sold, but either torn down to fixed up by housing voluteer groups to those who had execellent credit score, decent job and income. Those with lottery winnings are eligble. Those new homes with mixed in with existing homes will not be for Section 8. ADC cash assistance. Landlords who brought homes in those areas can only be rented to those with excellent income and credit score.Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list. Homes in those areas will be sold at co-option to buy basis as long as the home owner has a decent job and individual supplemental income and credit score.

THE AREAS EAST OF GRATIOT AVE FROM EDSEL FORD FWY TO HARPER STREETS FROM ST AUBIN to E. JEFFERSON Streets: Those streets will remian open for future development for low-income and section 8 housing. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list, obtain a decent job and supplemental income even with ADC and SSI, SSDI cash assistances. Landlords who support section housing will get a random inspection from EFM's workers. Any such violations will result of numerous fines, 90 day evictions for tenents or possible 2 to 5 year imprisonment from criminal acts.

THE AREAS FROM NORTH OF GRATIOT AVE. TO EDSEL FORD FWY. WILL BE CLOSED! [[ Detroit's Lowe East Side)

1. Medbury

2. Hendrie

3. E. Palmer

4. E. Kirby

5. Fredrick

6. Fransworth

7. Theodore

8. E. Hancock

9. Garfield

10. E. Canfield

11. E. Willis

12. Superior

13. E Alexandrine

14. Leland

15. Illinois St.

16. St Joseph

17. Hale

18. Scott

19. Pierce

20. Erskine

21. Watson

22. Wilkins

23. Alfred

24. DuBois

25. Grandy

26. Joseph Compau

27. Michell

28. Elmwood

29. Moran

30. Ellery

31. Weitzel

32. Thompson Ct.

34. Platt Ct.

35. E. Kirby, Farnsworth and Fredrick Streets from Moran St to Mt. Elliott St. will remain open and will be added in with low-income/ Section 8 housing.

THE AREAS SOUTH OF GRATIOT AVE TO MT ELLIOT ST TO E VERNER HWY.

Those streets will remian open for future development for low-income and section 8 housing. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list, obtain a decent job and supplemental income even with ADC and SSI, SSDI cash assistances. Landlords who support section housing will get a random inspection from EFM's workers. Any such violations will result of numerous fines, 90 day evictions for tenents or possible 2 to 5 year imprisonment from criminal acts.

THE AREAS NORTH OF E, JEFFERSON AVE TO EAST VILLAGE:

Those streets will remain open for future housing development. Thoses that are foreclosed will not be re-sold, but either torn down to fixed up by housing voluteer groups to those who had execellent credit score, decent job and income. Those with lottery winnings are eligble. Those new homes with mixed in with existing homes will not be for Section 8. ADC cash assistance. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list. Landlords who brought homes in those areas can only be rented to those with excellent income and credit score. Homes in those areas will be sold at co-option to buy basis as long as the home owner has a decent job and individual supplemental income and credit score.



THE AREAS NORTH OF HARPER ST TO HUBER ST. AND FROM MT ELLOITT ST TO VAN DYKE AVE :

1. Domine to Edwin St will be open for low-income and section 8 development.

2. Foster to St Cyril St north of Miller St. will remain closed until future developement.

3. Maywood to Georgia St will remain open for low-income and section 8 development.

4. Badger to Grinnell Streets will remain open for low-income and section 8 development.

5.Guthrie to Grinnell St west of Van Dyke St. will be closed until future developement.

6.

THE AREAS FROM DEQUINDRE ST TO DAVISON FWY TO RD. LAWLEY AND GALLAGHER STREETS:

Those streets will remain open for future housing development. Thoses that are foreclosed will not be re-sold, but either torn down to fixed up by housing voluteer groups to those who had execellent credit score, decent job and income. Those with lottery winnings are eligble. Those new homes with mixed in with existing homes will not be for Section 8. ADC cash assistance. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list. Landlords who brought homes in those areas can only be rented to those with excellent income and credit score. Homes in those areas will be sold at co-option to buy basis as long as the home owner has a decent job and individual supplemental income and credit score.

THE AREAS NORTH OF E. DAVISION FWY AND RD TO MCNICHOLS:

Those streets will remain open for future housing development. Thoses that are foreclosed will not be re-sold, but either torn down to fixed up by housing voluteer groups to those who had execellent credit score, decent job and income. Those with lottery winnings are eligble. Those new homes with mixed in with existing homes will not be for Section 8. ADC cash assistance. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list. Landlords who brought homes in those areas can only be rented to those with excellent income and credit score. Homes in those areas will be sold at co-option to buy basis as long as the home owner has a decent job and individual supplemental income and credit score.

THE AREAS EAST OF CHRSYLER FWY FROM NEVADA TO DEQUINDRE!

Those streets will remain open for future housing development. Thoses that are foreclosed will not be re-sold, but either torn down to fixed up by housing voluteer groups to those who had execellent credit score, decent job and income. Those with lottery winnings are eligble. Those new homes with mixed in with existing homes will not be for Section 8. ADC cash assistance. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list. Landlords who brought homes in those areas can only be rented to those with excellent income and credit score. Homes in those areas will be sold at co-option to buy basis as long as the home owner has a decent job and individual supplemental income and credit score.

THE AREAS SOUTH OF E. MCNICHOLS AND EAST OF VAN DYKE RD. TO FRENCH RD NORTH OF LYNCH ST. [[ near the Detroit City Airport) These streets will be closed:

1. Tumey

2. Nuremburg

3. Doyle

4. Dobel

5. Darwin

6. Mt Olivet

7. Forestlawn

8. Almont

9. dubay

10. Wisner.

11. Elgin

12. Montlieu

13. Kenney

14. Leander

15. Lyford.

Molena St will remain open.


THE AREAS ALONG E 7 MILE RD AND VAN DYKE RD will remain open for low-income and Section 8 housing development.

THE AREAS NORTH OF ALONG E. 7 MILE RD. FROM JOHN RD TO E. 8 MILE RD. will remain open for future development.

THE AREAS NORTH OF MCNICHOLS TO STATE FAIR RD. EAST OF JOHN R TO CHRYSLER FWY:

1. Robinwood St from Woodward St. to John R Rd. will be closed until future developement.

2. Edgevale St.

3. Arizona St.

4. Dakota

5.E. Parkhurst

6. E. Longwood

7. Louisiana St.

8. Minnesota St.

9. Brush St.

10. Cameron

11. Hawthorne

12. Cardoni

E. Montana, E. Nevada and E. Savannah Streets will remain open.

MORE TO COME.

[Mr. Houdini]

Sounds like a good plan. Downsize Detroit.

[Vic01]

Regardless of which "plan" or "who" is behind it... It's already happening. You can figure out how to make it work... or keep on paying the "price" for not getting on board. Do it now, or someone will pick up the pieces 10 yrs from now and it'll happen anyway...

[Pontiac6000]

Sell Hamtramck everything north of Mt. Elliott and Conant, west on Charles to Conant, then north to the Davison, and back south along I-75. If it could be done skirting around the Nortown neighborhood group in that area, it would generate the city dollars and pass the buck of demo and refab to them or the state. They would have room to grow and the city [[the D) could then work on N of Harper from Mt Elliott to French Rd, create a greenbelt? to Conner and make the Conner Creek greenway a larger entity linking Jayne Playfield to Outer Drive between the [[former) Industrial area, the closed 6 Mile, and ?fenceless Outer Drive or Conner [[bike trail?) , [[created streams or lakes?) between or around the cemeteries.

[JTistle1]

Sell Hamtramck everything north of Mt. Elliott and Conant, west on Charles to Conant, then north to the Davison, and back south along I-75. .

Why would Hamtramck buy that area?

[Pontiac6000]

Expansion for their population, industrial base, parkland [[the old buffalo projects) and easier link to mound rd and north to warren [[MI)

[313WX]

Danny, could you provide the link to where you found all of your information?

[JTistle1]

Expansion for their population, industrial base, parkland [[the old buffalo projects) and easier link to mound rd and north to warren [[MI)

Perhaps I am naive, but if it's not viable for one city, what makes it anymore viable for another that also has it's own financial struggles?

[Detroitnerd]

We should instead gradually start opening up parts of the counties and repopulating the city.

[Vox]

We should instead gradually start opening up parts of the counties and repopulating the city.

This makes no sense at all. Elaborate.

[Vox]

Danny, could you provide the link to where you found all of your information?

You may as well ask the wall that. It's all conjecture, but potentially accurate in some respects.

[Detroitnerd]

This makes no sense at all. Elaborate.

The future for the exurbs is grim. Given rising fuel costs and heating costs, as well as changing tastes among the young, these areas simply will not be able to sustain themselves. Whereas cities are very durable. Detroit may look like hell now, but let's not forget that the population of Rome went from 1.5 million to about 15,000. But look at Rome today. It survives today. But suburbanization has been a 100-year experiment at a time of cheap fuel and roads. We should be intelligently retrenching and rebuilding the city, not making last-ditch efforts to preserve exurban communities.

But don't take my word for it. There are plenty of people on the forum putting forth that argument.

[Danny]

In Detroit's West side:

THE AREAS FROM MICHIGAN AVE TO W. GRAND BOULEVARD FROM THE JEFFERIES FWY TO LODGE FWY:

1. Lawton

2. Humbouldt

3. 18th

4.17th

5.16th

7.15th

8. Walbash

9. Vermont St.

Those streets will remian open for future development for low-income and section 8 housing. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list, obtain a decent job and supplemental income even with ADC and SSI, SSDI cash assistances. Landlords who support section housing will get a random inspection from EFM's workers. Any such violations will result of numerous fines, 90 day evictions for tenents or possible 2 to 5 year imprisonment from criminal acts.

THE AREAS SOUTH OF EDSEL FORD FWY. TO MAGNOLIA STREETS: ANd=D FROM EAST OF W. GRAND BLVD TO JEFFERIES FWY.

These streets will be closed:

1. Vinewood [[ south of W. Warren Ave.)

2.McKinley

3. 25th

4. 24th

5. 23rd.

6. Tilman

7. W. Kirby

8. Biddle

9. Merrick

10. W. Hancock

11. Lanman

12. Nall

13. Poplar

14. Selden

THE AREAS WEST OF W. GRAND BLVD SOUTH OF EDSEL FORD FWY NORTH OF MICHIGAN AVE:

Those streets will remain open for future housing development. Thoses that are foreclosed will not be re-sold, but either torn down to fixed up by housing voluteer groups to those who had execellent credit score, decent job and income. Those with lottery winnings are eligble. Those new homes with mixed in with existing homes will not be for Section 8. ADC cash assistance. Home-owners must not have a history of credit defaults or accidental or on purpose house fires no criminal record or on the child sex-offender list. Landlords who brought homes in those areas can only be rented to those with excellent income and credit score. Homes in those areas will be sold at co-option to buy basis as long as the home owner has a decent job and individual supplemental income and credit score.

IN SOUTHWEST DETROIT. THE AREAS IN DEL-REY STREETS WILL BE CLOSED! AND BE TURNED IN THE AN INDUSTRIAL PARK:

1. S. Morrell.

2. S. Cambell

3.. S Cavalry

4. S. Millitary

5. S Dragoon

6. S. Crawford

7. S Reid

8. S. Rademacher

9. S. Schroeder

10. S. Post

11. S. Harrington

12. S. Scotten

13. S. Solvay

14. S Crossley

15. cary

16. S Sloan

17. Thaddeus

18. Keller

19. Lyon'

20. Melville

21 Colbalt

22. S Fortune

23. South St.

24. Vanderbilt

25. Dill Pl.

26. Bacon

27.Erie

28. Gould

29. Holly

MORE TO COME...

[Vox]

The future for the exurbs is grim. Given rising fuel costs and heating costs, as well as changing tastes among the young, these areas simply will not be able to sustain themselves. Whereas cities are very durable. Detroit may look like hell now, but let's not forget that the population of Rome went from 1.5 million to about 15,000. But look at Rome today. It survives today. But suburbanization has been a 100-year experiment at a time of cheap fuel and roads. We should be intelligently retrenching and rebuilding the city, not making last-ditch efforts to preserve exurban communities.

But don't take my word for it. There are plenty of people on the forum putting forth that argument.

Cities only make sense when there is a purpose for them.

When Detroit can define a purpose, then I can imagine justifying it's existence for years afterward. As it is right now, it hasn't done so for the 21st century world. It's got to do so quick, or be consigned to the dustbin of history. Just because you wish it to be the center of the region, doesn't make it the most logical one.

[Detroitnerd]

Cities only make sense when there is a purpose for them.

When Detroit can define a purpose, then I can imagine justifying it's existence for years afterward. As it is right now, it hasn't done so for the 21st century world. It's got to do so quick, or be consigned to the dustbin of history. Just because you wish it to be the center of the region, doesn't make it the most logical one.

Haha. Nice, smug tone.

What is Detroit's purpose? It has changed over the 310 years it has been in existence. It was a frontier outpost. It was a fur-trading spot. It was a military fort. It was an early industrial town. It became the Motor City just 100 years ago. It is situated on a narrow strait, over which most of the trade between Canada and the United States goes. It has the longest history, the largest stock of office space, the greatest population of any city in Michigan. It is home to almost all our sports teams. It is the center of metro Detroit, hell, it's even part of its name.

Now, what is the purpose of, say, Commerce Township? What sense of place does it have? Will it outlive Detroit? Does its story eclipse Detroit's? Will it even be there in 100 years? Why?

It's fun to be smug and arrogant online. Unfortunately, you have to have ideas to back that up.

[Det_ard]

The future for the exurbs is grim. Given rising fuel costs and heating costs, as well as changing tastes among the young, these areas simply will not be able to sustain themselves. Whereas cities are very durable. Detroit may look like hell now, but let's not forget that the population of Rome went from 1.5 million to about 15,000. But look at Rome today. It survives today. But suburbanization has been a 100-year experiment at a time of cheap fuel and roads. We should be intelligently retrenching and rebuilding the city, not making last-ditch efforts to preserve exurban communities.

But don't take my word for it. There are plenty of people on the forum putting forth that argument.

Yes there are. You're in swell company.

Counterpoints to your "grim exurbs" scenario:

Rising fuel costs - efficiency gains counteract, at least partially, rising costs. Possibility of technology breakthrough yielding radically lower costs. Mass transit network enabling exurban types to live way out but only have to drive to the train station, like in east coast cities.

Rising heating costs - large natural gas deposits in North America. Recent home construction techniques [[exurbs) more efficient than older housing stock. Large lots sizes more economical for ground loop heat pump installation. Financial ability of exurban types to pay for energy efficiency improvements to their homes.

Changing tastes among young - Young singles and couples have always gravitated toward cities. More so today? Perhaps, but the "get married, have kids, move out to the burbs" pattern is alive and well today even among the latest crop of city-dwellers. And the 30-something that moves from the city to Royal Oak may be buying the house of the 50-something that wants to move to the peace and quiet of Romeo. Probably even if it costs him more.

A revitalized city would be great, but assuming that the suburbs/exurbs are going to shrivel up and die and therefore we must rebuild the city now is part wishful thinking, and part doomsday scenario that doesn't acknowledge plausible alternate futures.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes there are. You're in swell company.
Counterpoints to your "grim exurbs" scenario:

First of all, this is a slight straw man on my argument. My argument is that we should consider scaling back the city intentionally from the outskirts and rebuilding the center. I want to see this happen intentionally, not as a long, drawn-out disaster encompassing the suburbs. I still see promise for inner ring suburbs and second-ring suburbs. But for the exurbs, I think the forecast is truly gloomy.

Rising fuel costs - efficiency gains counteract, at least partially, rising costs. Possibility of technology breakthrough yielding radically lower costs. Mass transit network enabling exurban types to live way out but only have to drive to the train station, like in east coast cities.

It's possible to have technological breakthroughs in cars to make them more energy efficient. Unfortunately, the younger generation, millenials in particular, don't really care to own cars in the same way their parents and grandparents did. And no matter what the fuel cost, they don't want to spend a lot of time driving. What's more the vehicles you're talking about are much more expensive than typical gas cars. And the costs of roads and materials are still up. So are the costs of labor to maintain them. And if you have fewer people living per square mile, it will become quite expensive to build all that road. And don't forget, those East Coast cities where you drive to a train station and park -- such cities as, say, Ossining and Croton-on-Hudson -- are not exurban. They are tightly developed suburbs with Victorian homes and their own sense of history and heritage. They are not filled with big-box stores, massive mile-road intersections and mile-deep subs. In short, they are still places that are desirable to live for most people, and especially young people.

Rising heating costs - large natural gas deposits in North America. Recent home construction techniques [[exurbs) more efficient than older housing stock. Large lots sizes more economical for ground loop heat pump installation. Financial ability of exurban types to pay for energy efficiency improvements to their homes.

Recent home construction techniques have been cheaper, tackier and more disposable than ever. I have known people who bought homes in Macomb Township a little more than 10 years ago that have to do major rebuilds, let alone do fancy insulation and geothermal stuff. Are you telling me that in a place that's snowbound for months it's fine to add some gizmos but not utterly stupid to have an atrium where heat collects? That you don't burn up lots of energy simply by not building close together? Oh, but that's OK because we're going to have microfiber insulation and geotherms to lower bills. As for those massive deposits of natural gas, we are burning gas like never before. We get 15 percent of our natural gas from Canada, but it's HALF their supply. And with new methods of getting gas, they have to frack it to get to it, and that pollutes groundwater in Pennsylvania. But that's OK, right? Furthermore, millenials don't want large houses and want to be within walking distance of entertainment and restaurants. The exurbs absolutely do not provide this.

Changing tastes among young - Young singles and couples have always gravitated toward cities. More so today? Perhaps, but the "get married, have kids, move out to the burbs" pattern is alive and well today even among the latest crop of city-dwellers. And the 30-something that moves from the city to Royal Oak may be buying the house of the 50-something that wants to move to the peace and quiet of Romeo. Probably even if it costs him more.

Young singles and couples have always gravitated toward cities? Not in 1945, Detard. Not in 1955. Not in 1965. Not for a long time. Only now are we starting to see young singles interested in moving into cities. And it's a trend that is growing. But we here have an oversupply of housing in the exurbs and suburbs. If we were to start to equalize our market here intelligently, we could let some of the more overexhuberant real estate developments revert to nature, and help repopulate the city center. Like it or not, the places that are seeing lots of development are doing it by redeveloping their core, not by slapping up subs where there should be farmland or parks. Which is not to say there won't [[or shouldn't) be people living in Troy or Farmington in 50 years, but that that lifestyle is much more expensive to provide for, and we should reward people who want to repopulate the center because cities represent the best, most elegant, safest solution to the scarcity problems we'll face in the future.

A revitalized city would be great, but assuming that the suburbs/exurbs are going to shrivel up and die and therefore we must rebuild the city now is part wishful thinking, and part doomsday scenario that doesn't acknowledge plausible alternate futures.

See, now that's a straw man. Go ahead, Detard, rip it down. Ooooh! Such powerful arguments you must have!

[Vox]

Haha. Nice, smug tone.

What is Detroit's purpose? It has changed over the 310 years it has been in existence. It was a frontier outpost. It was a fur-trading spot. It was a military fort. It was an early industrial town. It became the Motor City just 100 years ago. It is situated on a narrow strait, over which most of the trade between Canada and the United States goes. It has the longest history, the largest stock of office space, the greatest population of any city in Michigan. It is home to almost all our sports teams. It is the center of metro Detroit, hell, it's even part of its name.

Right...
A) Shipping no longer has much of a purpose here, since we no longer make or consume anything that is shipped by boat. A relic of the past, and hanging your hat on it shows me that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
B) The longest history, strictly by military importance in the 1700's.
C) The largest stock of OBSOLETE office space, perhaps. Filling the office space with what, or better yet WHO? Bringing me back to what the purpose of Detroit is.
D) So now we are defined by having sposts teams? Who cares? Ask the Pistons?

Now, what is the purpose of, say, Commerce Township? What sense of place does it have? Will it outlive Detroit? Does its story eclipse Detroit's? Will it even be there in 100 years? Why?

What does it matter? Commerce is safer by far, isn't it? That's the bottom line.

It's fun to be smug and arrogant online. Unfortunately, you have to have ideas to back that up.

I guess that one can always use this quote in terms of self examination. It seems to me that is all you post.

Define Detroit, please.

[Augustiner]

What does it matter? Commerce is safer by far, isn't it? That's the bottom line.

Why is "safe" the bottom line? Safety isn't an attribute of geography or built environment. If you want safety, you either work to solve the underlying social problems, or you wall yourself off from them and fuck everyone else. Commerce isn't safe because it was built on land with natural crime-repellent properties, or because its police are some kind of superhuman crime-stopping machines, it's safe because Detroit is there to contain all the poor people at a safe distance.

[Det_ard]

It's possible to have technological breakthroughs in cars to make them more energy efficient. Unfortunately, the younger generation, millenials in particular, don't really care to own cars in the same way their parents and grandparents did. And no matter what the fuel cost, they don't want to spend a lot of time driving.

From the Pew survey on Millenials:

As we launch this exercise in generational profiling, we offer one overarching note of caution. Generational differences can be the product of three different but overlapping processes, and it is often difficult to disentangle each from the others.


One is the life cycle effect. The biological impact of aging and the changing roles that people play as they grow older typically produce changes in attitudes and social behaviors over time. In short, young people may be different from older people today, but they may well become more like them tomorrow, once they themselves age.

What you seem to see as permanent changes in preferences may be transitory. In fact, experience has shown that to often be the case as people move through life stages. Those who believe "it's different this time" are usually young singles and childless couples who lack the experience base to see that it's not that different this time.


That said, I wouldn't be surprised if what you say come true to a degree, but to a far smaller degree than what it seems you perceive.

What's more the vehicles you're talking about are much more expensive than typical gas cars. And the costs of roads and materials are still up. So are the costs of labor to maintain them. And if you have fewer people living per square mile, it will become quite expensive to build all that road. And don't forget, those East Coast cities where you drive to a train station and park -- such cities as, say, Ossining and Croton-on-Hudson -- are not exurban. They are tightly developed suburbs with Victorian homes and their own sense of history and heritage. They are not filled with big-box stores, massive mile-road intersections and mile-deep subs. In short, they are still places that are desirable to live for most people, and especially young people.

Actually the rail lines in the east coast cities where I've lived do go out to exurban areas. It makes it practical to live even farther out than if you had to drive all the way to work. Mass transit is a double-edged sword if you're motivated by densification.

Recent home construction techniques have been cheaper, tackier and more disposable than ever. I have known people who bought homes in Macomb Township a little more than 10 years ago that have to do major rebuilds, let alone do fancy insulation and geothermal stuff. Are you telling me that in a place that's snowbound for months it's fine to add some gizmos but not utterly stupid to have an atrium where heat collects? That you don't burn up lots of energy simply by not building close together? Oh, but that's OK because we're going to have microfiber insulation and geotherms to lower bills.

While I love old homes, it's cliche to talk about crappy new houses and how well-built the old ones were. A modern home has 10X - 15X the insulation value of an old home. It has building wrap and modern HVAC equipment. It has double paned low-e windows. It has adequate attic ventilation. It doesn't have lead paint, vermiculite insulation or asbestos pipe wrap. It doesn't have 2x4 sagging roof rafters or severely undersized floor joists and beams. It's engineered to heat 3000 sqft with the same BTU furnace needed in an old house that's 1/2 or 1/3 as large.

Some modern homes weren't built well. Plenty of old homes were built like crap too, but their crappy initial quality was repaired a long time ago so your friends can't complain about it to you today. Building science has come a long way as have modern materials and construction techniques.

Furthermore, millenials don't want large houses and want to be within walking distance of entertainment and restaurants. The exurbs absolutely do not provide this.

Most millenials and other younger people eventually grow up and their needs and wants change. Not everyone's priorities remain 1)go to bar, 2) meet other single people, 3) be entertained.

Young singles and couples have always gravitated toward cities? Not in 1945, Detard. Not in 1955. Not in 1965. Not for a long time. Only now are we starting to see young singles interested in moving into cities.

Bull. I graduated from college in the 80's and those that could afford it moved downtown in what ever region they moved to. As did I, in four different cities included Detroit in Coleman's last term. Nothing new there. I know millenials [[and everyone else) wants to be seen as unique and special but it's the same old pattern, with a little bit of variation, not some paradigm shift.

[Detroitnerd]

I wouldn't be surprised if what you say come true to a degree, but to a far smaller degree than what it seems you perceive.

Everybody wants a crystal ball. The people most interested in owning one are the marketers. And this is what the market research suggests. I'd say we have every reason to believe they're telling the truth.

Actually the rail lines in the east coast cities where I've lived do go out to exurban areas. It makes it practical to live even farther out than if you had to drive all the way to work. Mass transit is a double-edged sword if you're motivated by densification.

Regional commuter rail is but one part of a serious mass transit system. But exurban settings do not seem a good fit for it. In most cities along the Hudson River line to Manhattan, it can be as little as a 15 minute walk to the train station. If you're driving to the station, how smartly designed is the city for commuter rail in the first place. Anyway, I'll bite. Provide some examples and I'll do some aerial views.

While I love old homes, it's cliche to talk about crappy new houses and how well-built the old ones were. A modern home has 10X - 15X the insulation value of an old home. It has building wrap and modern HVAC equipment. It has double paned low-e windows. It has adequate attic ventilation. It doesn't have lead paint, vermiculite insulation or asbestos pipe wrap. It doesn't have 2x4 sagging roof rafters or severely undersized floor joists and beams. It's engineered to heat 3000 sqft with the same BTU furnace needed in an old house that's 1/2 or 1/3 as large.

Is it "cliche" or true? These massive homes for shrinking families are designed with architectural features that negate any gains in insulation. Huge, heat-sucking atriums, massive garage doors that sweep out all house-warmed air, little to no thought given to wind direction, sun direction, shared walls, and, heck, no trees to provide shade or wind protection. What's more, older homes are built better and are ALREADY BUILT, which means that retrofitting and refurbishing use less energy because the energy has already gone into the construction. Some of these homes are built with wood that can no longer be harvested anywhere. There are things to say in defense of old homes, and many valid complaints against new ones. To call them "cliches" is a rhetorical sidestep in the face of a host of real criticisms.

Most millenials and other younger people eventually grow up and their needs and wants change. Not everyone's priorities remain 1)go to bar, 2) meet other single people, 3) be entertained.

That is a caricature of the lifestyle. I am sure it serves your rhetorical purposes well to try to reduce the facts to this caricature, but it does not promote a healthy discussion.

Bull. I graduated from college in the 80's and those that could afford it moved downtown in what ever region they moved to. As did I, in four different cities included Detroit in Coleman's last term. Nothing new there. I know millenials [[and everyone else) wants to be seen as unique and special but it's the same old pattern, with a little bit of variation, not some paradigm shift.

So, you argue that singles and couples were flocking to cities since 1945? And this has continued since then? That is preposterous.

[Det_ard]

Regional commuter rail is but one part of a serious mass transit system. But exurban settings do not seem a good fit for it. In most cities along the Hudson River line to Manhattan, it can be as little as a 15 minute walk to the train station. If you're driving to the station, how smartly designed is the city for commuter rail in the first place. Anyway, I'll bite. Provide some examples and I'll do some aerial views. {Boston, Philly. Just google their transit maps. MTA and SEPTA.}

Is it "cliche" or true? These massive homes for shrinking families are designed with architectural features that negate any gains in insulation. {Simply not so, I've owned both old and new homes, and done extensive work on the olds, I heat my current house for roughly half the cost of one of my smaller older homes that I now rent out} Huge, heat-sucking atriums, massive garage doors that sweep out all house-warmed air, little to no thought given to wind direction, sun direction, shared walls, and, heck, no trees to provide shade or wind protection. {older homes gave even less thought to energy efficiency, i.e. none} What's more, older homes are built better {totally untrue} and are ALREADY BUILT {as is every McMansion in the suburbs/exburbs} , which means that retrofitting and refurbishing use less energy because the energy has already gone into the construction. Some of these homes are built with wood that can no longer be harvested anywhere. There are things to say in defense of old homes, and many valid complaints against new ones. To call them "cliches" is a rhetorical sidestep in the face of a host of real criticisms. {I like old houses. Actually, I like some old houses. Palmer Woods, etc. Most old houses, cookie-cutter middle/lower class types and nothing special aesthetically, often lacking practical features and modern amenities, and are huge energy hogs unless extensively retrofitted. Don't have to do that to a modern house. Maybe the modern house is actually more sustainable than the old house. Doesn't mean you can't still love old houses, but it might be in spite of all their faults.}


That is a caricature of the lifestyle. I am sure it serves your rhetorical purposes well to try to reduce the facts to this caricature, but it does not promote a healthy discussion.

{You said Millenials "want to be within walking distance of entertainment and restaurants." If its a caricature, it's based off what you wrote and what we all know. And spare me the false concern over "healthy discussion". You can have civil discussions but you often sabotage decent discussion with unnecessarily inflammatory statements.}

So, you argue that singles and couples were flocking to cities since 1945? And this has continued since then? That is preposterous. {there's your strawman. I said 80's, you say I'm referring to 1945? I was clear.}

sssssssssssssss

[coracle]

As a smug and arrogant Commerce Township inhabitant my city serves me as a safe place to live with more than ample shopping easily available, good schools, and within easy reach of the services I want. If it doesn't stand the test of time i will move to a similar location but in the meantime I'll do my very best to make it successful. Everybody has to live some place. If I wanted to live in a large city my choices would be NY or Boston or San Fransisco [[maybe Chicago). Detroit would not be high on my list. Cities, big or small, are the reflection of the people that populate them and when 25% leave a city in 10 years there's something going on that hasn't happened in Commerce Township yet.

[Bham1982]

It has the longest history, the largest stock of office space, the greatest population of any city in Michigan.

Southfield actually has the largest office stock in Michigan. It has quite a bit more space than Detroit [[I think 25%-30% more).

As for oldest city, Sault Ste. Marie isn;t just the oldest city in Michigan, but in the entire Midwest.

Now, what is the purpose of, say, Commerce Township? What sense of place does it have?

From my perspective, Commerce Township has a pretty clear purpose. It's a desirable bedroom community, built around attractive lakes and good schools. It benefits from a strategic location near highways that connect business and commercial centers like Southfield and Novi.

Now there's certainly no sense of place in Commerce, but no one looking for a sense of place would choose such such a community.

To be fair, I don't think too many folks choosing 6 Mile and Conant are looking for a sense of place. In most cases, they just don't have the resources to live somewhere else.

[Bham1982]

But we here have an oversupply of housing in the exurbs and suburbs. If we were to start to equalize our market here intelligently, we could let some of the more overexhuberant real estate developments revert to nature, and help repopulate the city center.

This seems to be the popular consensus on DYes, but I disagree.

If you look at actual home sales, the oversupply of housing in Metro Detroit appears to be in the older, established neighborhoods, not in the sprawling exurbs.

And I actually prefer the older neighborhoods. In terms of housing stock, I love the University District and Grosse Pointe Park, and can't stand Novi. But, if you look at comparable sales prices in 2011, Novi is a more expensive [[and hence desirable) place than even GP Park [[and absolutely no comparison with University District).

So, yeah, maybe those McMansions out past Twelve Oaks are cheap, ugly, wasteful, etc. The fact is that [[with a few exceptions, like Bloomfield-Birmingham, GP Shores, and a few other places) they sell at much higher price points than established neighborhoods with beautiful, older homes.