What if a proposal to downsize Detroit happens?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.