Explanation for all the decay?

[Hamtragedy]

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

[Wintersmommy]

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

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

[rb336]

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

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

Same is mostly true with Chicago SF units

[Dave70]

Most of the decay is neglect!

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

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

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

[Bearinabox]

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

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

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

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

[jtf1972]

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

Well, there were many straw houses too. They were gone in a huff.

[wolverine]

Well, there were many straw houses too. They were gone in a huff.

LOL. Well, in all fairness he could also mean as opposed to stone. Detroit doesn't have those probably because it's such a 'new' city. By that I mean most of it's growth happened after many other American cities had become fairly built out. Stone and heavy brick construction was not the norm.

[kathy2trips]

LOL. Well, in all fairness he could also mean as opposed to stone. Detroit doesn't have those probably because it's such a 'new' city. By that I mean most of it's growth happened after many other American cities had become fairly built out. Stone and heavy brick construction was not the norm.

Wholeheartedly disagree. My dad was a bricklayer and stone mason in Detroit from the 30s to the 80s. There was always work, when the weather cooperated. Much of what you see south of 8 Mile was built by European trained craftsmen and the children who learned from them [[like my Dad). Some of the brickwork in even the most modest lower-middle-class homes takes my breath away. Of course, there's was a lot of rudimentary, clap-trap housing, too, mostly wood-sided houses. Just takes common-sense to see what's what.

There were many brick manufacturers in Detroit in the early 20th Century; Colonial, Koeing and Puritan were the bigger ones, with many smaller specialty operations, many using old-world, European techniques.

[Bearinabox]

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

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

[DetroitDad]

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

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

This is a great point.

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

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

[Pingu]

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

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

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

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

[iheartthed]

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

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

Yeah...

High homeownership rates are not indicative of a strong core city, nor can I find anything that suggests the two are positively related. However, there is some evidence that the two may be negatively related [[albeit probably loosely). If homeownership rates were indicative of a strong core, Detroit would be perhaps the greatest city in the country right now, since it has a very high homeownership rate among major cities.

According to the census bureau, these are the 2000 homeownership rates [[city only) for a few major cities that I selected semi-randomly [[median household income / median house value in parens):

New York - 30.2% [[$38,293 / $211,900)
Boston - 32.2% [[$38,625 / $132,400)
Miami* - 34.9% [[$23,483 / $120,100)
San Francisco - 35% [[$55,221 / $396,400)
Los Angeles - 38.6% [[$36,687 / $221,600)
Chicago - 43.8% [[$38,625 / $132,400)
Seattle - 48.4% [[$45,736 / $168,300)
Cleveland - 48.5% [[$25,928 / $72,100)
Pittsburgh - 52.1% [[$28,588 / $59,700)
Detroit - 54.9% [[$29,526 / $63,600)
Philadelphia - 59.3% [[$30,746 / $59,700)

Some points of note:

• Income varied far less than home price amongst these cities. The cheapest city price wise was 15% the most expensive city, yet the cheapest median income was 42% the highest income.
  
• Median income and median home price do appear to show a weak correlation, but the magnitude of change is much stronger among prices. For instance, NY and Boston both have similar median incomes and both are more expensive than Miami, but NY is over 40% more expensive than Miami while Boston is only 10% more expensive.
  
• High homeownership rates apparently correlate more with lower incomes. The four cities with the highest homeownership rates [[Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Philadelphia), were also among the cities with the lowest median incomes on this list.

[blackmath]

Goat I absolutely agree with you. I think [[now don't quote me on this) that on this side of the river the city has bylaws that dictate how a property should be kept up. I think it's just like it is in your scenario - if someone calls the city about a derelict property the owner of that property gets fined and ordered to straighten out the issue within 30 or 60 days depending on the severity and number of complaints, etc.

However, a lot of properties in certain parts of this town are still in pretty rough shape. I used to live in a cheapo apartment in an older section of town. My landlord did absolutely nothing to keep up the property, so I took it upon myself to go over to my parents house and borrow the lawnmower to go back to my apartment to cut the grass, pull the weeds and rake some leaves. No big deal to me. As soon as the neighbors saw me doing this they asked me if the landlord was giving me a break in the rent for all the work I was doing. She wasn't, and I never asked for it and never got it either. If I'm going to live somewhere, it's gotta look nice. It's just a rule I have I suppose...

But, my neighbors reaction to what I was doing was telling of the attitude of some of the renters out there. If I don't get paid to do some simple maintenance, then forget it I'll let the property go to crap. Luckily, people like that are in the minority and most people take pride in where they live.

[Hermod]

When I rented a single house, I always felt that lawn mowing and bush trimming was part of my responsibility. If something broke, I called the landlord and requested that he fix it. If I broke something, I had it fixed myself.

[wolverine]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[sumas]

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

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

[sumas]

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

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

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

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

[LeannaM]

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

Most of St. Louis' buildings were made of brick after the fire of 1849. The law said they had to be built of materials that were less susceptible to fire. On top of that, St. Louis was a major brick-making area. So it made sense. Unfortunately bricks are also valuable, and thieves [[mostly on the North Side) are stealing the buildings brick-by-brick. The brick buildings do usually hold up well, though.

[Magnatomicflux]

Windsor started building all our core buildings out of brick after our great fire as well. We lost nearly our entire buisness district, which didn't and still doesn't consist of much these days. Losing it twice I think would've killed Windsor.

[Danny]

Some the woodframe colonials is Windsor's neighborhood are compared to Detroit West and East side. But the residents are mostly white and well keep up. That what Detroit's neighborhoods should look like today.

[blackmath]

the residents are mostly white

Windsor is far from mostly white. We haven't been that way for a very long time, and it has benefited this city in innumerable ways. Where someone's parents come from has nothing to do with how people keep up a neighborhood or not and race has nothing to do with it.

Over here it comes down to who owned homes vs rented homes. Renters are by their nature less permanent than owners obviously, so a lot of them don't think its their "job" to keep up the house. At the same time, many people I know who rent do an amazing job at keeping up their house.