Creating Density in Downtown

[Bearinabox]

A lot of people in the suburbs loved the city and felt that they were "driven out".

This is an interesting statement in the context of all the posts above about how people moved to the suburbs because they wanted to live that way. If you're right about this [[and I think you are, because I know a lot of people who feel this way), then that sort of goes against the idea expressed by several posters above that people around here would never live in the city again even if all the problems were fixed because they just plain prefer the suburbs.

[jtf1972]

I don't think it is a matter of not wanting the city to be rebuilt. It is more a matter of not wanting to pay to rebuild the city.

What money do you suppose built the suburbs? Was it exclusively suburban money? Detroit and other cities were forced to fund their own desolation. Even today, every dime that goes into suburban roads has a chunk of urban change in it.

Do you suppose suburban interests would like it if the playing field were completely leveled? I'm talking about not just requiring that all tax dollars be spent inside the cities of origin, but reversing the damage by figuring out the exact dollar amount that was taken out of various cities year by year & have financial restitution paid by the receiving communities to the cities of origin until the books are completely balanced.

[Hermod]

What money do you suppose built the suburbs? Was it exclusively suburban money? Detroit and other cities were forced to fund their own desolation. Even today, every dime that goes into suburban roads has a chunk of urban change in it.

Do you suppose suburban interests would like it if the playing field were completely leveled? I'm talking about not just requiring that all tax dollars be spent inside the cities of origin, but reversing the damage by figuring out the exact dollar amount that was taken out of various cities year by year & have financial restitution paid by the receiving communities to the cities of origin until the books are completely balanced.

It was a lot of individuals money that built the suburbs. A developer bought land. A builder built houses. Individual people bought houses [[assuming that the GI and FHA loan was paid back, no cost to the government). Water, sewer, and schools were paid for by the property taxes of the suburban community. The state and the federal government paid for most of the expressways and numbered state highways out of gas taxes [[if you don't drive, you don't pay for it). Oakland and Macomb counties paid for all of the unnumbered section line roads. The subdivision roads were paid for by the developer and subsequently by the home buyer.

What money [[other than their fuel taxes) did Detroiters spend on the suburbs?

[DetroitPlanner]

I just clicked on this... isn't the topic creating density downtown??? This is not about neighborhoods or political geography.

[Retroit]

I just clicked on this... isn't the topic creating density downtown??? This is not about neighborhoods or political geography.

A neighborhood composed of single family homes is less dense than a neighborhood of high-rise apartment buildings.

As for political geography, I totally agree, and that is the point I've been trying to get across, but apparently when someone wants to believe that the suburbs are totally at fault for Detroit's demise, any discussion to the contrary "doesn't make sense".

[Warrenite84]

If Metro residents overall support rebuilding Detroit and its Downtown, than incentivise those actions with improved transit, tax incentives, tax credits for home and business renovations, funding for a higher police presence, MUCH improved education graduation rates,[[however you do it), zero tolerance for poor home and business maintainance and lack of cleanliness on properties.

IF Metro residents overall agree with this ideal, they must have some skin in the game, [[money). For this money, they should be allowed representative control over the monies they put in. The ammount we all put in should be equal, not to hammer anyone just because WE think they can afford it. Equal contribution, equal representation, equal satisfaction that we restored Detroit TOGETHER, imho.

[Hermod]

If Metro residents overall support rebuilding Detroit and its Downtown, than incentivise those actions with improved transit, tax incentives, tax credits for home and business renovations, funding for a higher police presence, MUCH improved education graduation rates,[[however you do it), zero tolerance for poor home and business maintainance and lack of cleanliness on properties.

IF Metro residents overall agree with this ideal, they must have some skin in the game, [[money). For this money, they should be allowed representative control over the monies they put in. The ammount we all put in should be equal, not to hammer anyone just because WE think they can afford it. Equal contribution, equal representation, equal satisfaction that we restored Detroit TOGETHER, imho.

That will go big in Detroit city hall, allowing the 3.2 million folks in the burbs to dictate how the 0.8 million folks in the city get rebuilt.

[mikeg19]

I don't understand why people who like to live way out in the suburbs & want absolutely nothing to do with the city tend to have such a vile hatred for the city that they want absolutely nothing positive to occur in a place that they would never even have to see.

Why can't people see that there can be both city and suburb, and that a strong central city will actually benefit the suburban area as well?

I think that's a minority of people though. I live in Shelby Twp for instance, but I love the city. I only want positive things for the city of Detroit because I think that positive movements in the city render positive results for the suburbs as well. I'm only 23 and currently attend college, but someday I'd love to move downtown. I love the idea of living in the city. And I know many people my age that feel the same way.

[jtf1972]

It was a lot of individuals money that built the suburbs. A developer bought land. A builder built houses. Individual people bought houses [[assuming that the GI and FHA loan was paid back, no cost to the government). Water, sewer, and schools were paid for by the property taxes of the suburban community. The state and the federal government paid for most of the expressways and numbered state highways out of gas taxes [[if you don't drive, you don't pay for it). Oakland and Macomb counties paid for all of the unnumbered section line roads. The subdivision roads were paid for by the developer and subsequently by the home buyer.

What money [[other than their fuel taxes) did Detroiters spend on the suburbs?

Apparently you are further educated on the exact tax sources than I am. It's a relief to hear that no tax dollars from Detroit or other major American city have ever been used to build or support the suburban infrastructure.

[ghettopalmetto]

I just clicked on this... isn't the topic creating density downtown??? This is not about neighborhoods or political geography.

No, the topic is Suburbanites Forcing Their Lifestyle on Everyone.

[Hermod]

Apparently you are further educated on the exact tax sources than I am. It's a relief to hear that no tax dollars from Detroit or other major American city have ever been used to build or support the suburban infrastructure.

Since tax money is fungible, you can generalize that anyone paying taxes is "subsidizing" something for someone else. A guy in Boise, Idaho is paying fed income taxes, therefore if the federal government spends money in Detroit, he is "subsidizing" Detroit. If you pay US income tax, you are subsidizing my federal retirement check [[thank you, gracious citizen).

Any federal or state money spent in Oakland or Macomb is by that definition, a "subsidy" from everyone in the US or state, respectively. If the state repaves Gratiot Ave in Detroit, is that a "subsidy" from a county in the U.P.? If a road doesn't have an I, US, or M number on it, the road is paid for by a county or a city.

FHA and GI home loans are government "guarantees" that the loan will be repaid. The money for the loan comes from the banks. The federal government only has to pony up your tax money if the buyer defaults and the bank cannot sell the property for the outstanding balance on the mortgage. During the 1945 to 2005 heyday of fed guarantees of mortgages, that was not the case. Very little fed money had to be paid out. The main cost to the fed government was the salry of the bureaucrats that administered the system.

As far as roads and highways are concerned, every person who drives pays fed and state gas taxes. These are the main support for the construction and maintenance of interstate, US, and M highways. You can say that the citizens of Miami, FL subsidized I-75 in Oakland County just as much as the citizens of Detroit subsidized the freeway.

I worked as a surveyor for the City of Troy in 1959 when it was still mostly farmland with just a few pioneering subdivisions built with wells and septic tanks. One of the promises made by the backers of incorporating Troy Township as the City of Troy was city water and sewer. I spent a fair amount of time staking out water and sewer lines in the subs. Those were to be paid for directly by the City of Troy with their own taxes and hook-up assessments on the individual homeowners.

[ghettopalmetto]

As far as roads and highways are concerned, every person who drives pays fed and state gas taxes. These are the main support for the construction and maintenance of interstate, US, and M highways. You can say that the citizens of Miami, FL subsidized I-75 in Oakland County just as much as the citizens of Detroit subsidized the freeway.

So that's why the Federal Highway Trust Fund is nearly bankrupt--because gas taxes are sufficient to sustain it? The roadway system is in impeccable condition because the current funding source is sufficient?

You're smarter than that.

[Patrick]

Federal Highway Trust Fund is mentioned here....interesting read

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20095291/

[Hermod]

So that's why the Federal Highway Trust Fund is nearly bankrupt--because gas taxes are sufficient to sustain it? The roadway system is in impeccable condition because the current funding source is sufficient?

You're smarter than that.

The federal highway trust fund is not "bankrupt" it is just not large enough to cover all of the "needs" when the politicians in Washington dole it out based on sometimes their perception of the "need" and more often to their perception of "wants" of a constituency.

Michigan has a severe problem with "frost heaves" and heavy truck traffic destroying the federally subsidized roads and thus has much higher maintenance needs per mile of road than Florida. The bridges in Michigan deteriorate faster because of the high amount of salt dumped on them during the winter. Even though their contributions per capita to the highway tax may be comparable, Michigan's "needs" for money from the tax are greater.

The problem is that Michigan has two senators as does Florida. Michigan only gets
a certain amount of money to keep I-75 on life support while Florida gets comparable money to add another lane to I-75. Every member of the House of Representatives seeks to get the maximum amount of fed highway money for his district.

It would be nice if all of the pols in Washington operated on what was the greatest "need" but they all suboptimize on the basis of "what is in it for me?". For that reason, the committee chairman, Congressman Schmidlap from Bugtussle, Arkansas shuffles money which might go to Michigan in the annual highway construction and rehab bill to build a fed highway from his rural home to beautiful downtown Bugtussle. Both parties and all political persuasions do this.

[Bearinabox]

FHA and GI home loans are government "guarantees" that the loan will be repaid. The money for the loan comes from the banks. The federal government only has to pony up your tax money if the buyer defaults and the bank cannot sell the property for the outstanding balance on the mortgage. During the 1945 to 2005 heyday of fed guarantees of mortgages, that was not the case. Very little fed money had to be paid out. The main cost to the fed government was the salry of the bureaucrats that administered the system.

...and the main cost to the stability of mixed-race neighborhoods with pre-war housing stock was that the feds wouldn't guarantee loans to people that wanted to invest there, making it much easier to settle further out. Maybe not a direct cash-in-hand taxpayer subsidy, but you can't argue that the feds didn't have a role in picking the winners and losers.

[ghettopalmetto]

The federal highway trust fund is not "bankrupt" it is just not large enough to cover all of the "needs" when the politicians in Washington dole it out based on sometimes their perception of the "need" and more often to their perception of "wants" of a constituency.

And I'm sure you have well-documented these perceived "needs" that receive funding. Did you ever stop to think that Michigan might not have so many "needs" if MDOT weren't busy constantly building new freeways in cornfields?

From ASCE:

Second, it is clear that the current funding model for the Highway Trust Fund [[HTF) is failing. In fact, the latest projections by the U.S. Department of Treasury and Congressional Budget Office indicate that by the end of FY 2009, the HTF will have a negative balance of $4-5 billion if no corrective action is taken.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard....ct-sheet/roads

The same link also shows that Detroit is the 7th-most congested metropolitan area in the nation, contrary to what you have argued above.

[Retroit]

Question for ghettopalmetto, Bearinabox, or anyone else of similar thinking: What percentage of the metro Detroit population do you think would choose to live in each type of neighborhoods:

1. A neighborhood of single-family homes? x %
2. A neighborhood of high-rise apartment buildings? y %

Next question: What percentage of people do you think should be forced to live in a neighborhood that they don't want to, and why?

[ghettopalmetto]

Question for ghettopalmetto, Bearinabox, or anyone else of similar thinking: What percentage of the metro Detroit population do you think would choose to live in each type of neighborhoods:

1. A neighborhood of single-family homes? x %
2. A neighborhood of high-rise apartment buildings? y %

Next question: What percentage of people do you think should be forced to live in a neighborhood that they don't want to, and why?

Your question is flawed. It assumes that "density" is strictly equivalent to "high-rise apartment buildings", and that single-family homes are the exclusive domain of Suburbia.

With that said, you don't know if people have a preference for densely populated neighborhoods if the sprawling suburban option is the only real "choice" that you provide, just like Detroiters "choose" to drive their cars everywhere over walking and taking transit.

[Bearinabox]

Question for ghettopalmetto, Bearinabox, or anyone else of similar thinking: What percentage of the metro Detroit population do you think would choose to live in each type of neighborhoods:

1. A neighborhood of single-family homes? x %
2. A neighborhood of high-rise apartment buildings? y %

Next question: What percentage of people do you think should be forced to live in a neighborhood that they don't want to, and why?

I don't know where you got the impression that I advocate forcing people to live in high-rise apartment buildings. I'm pretty sure I explicitly addressed the "forcing people to do X" meme more than once on this thread, and I don't recall mentioning high-rise apartment buildings at all.

[Retroit]

Let me try again: What percentage of the metro Detroit population do you think would choose to live in each type of neighborhoods:

1. A low density neighborhood consisting primarily of single-family homes, but which may include small apartment buildings? x %
2. A high density neighborhood consisting primarily of larger apartment buildings? y %

Next question: What percentage of people do you think would willingly give up living in area 1 and move to area 2?

Please try to answer without using the words suburb, suburban, suburbanite, or suburbia. Thank you. I really am trying to understand where you are coming from.

[ghettopalmetto]

Let me try again: What percentage of the metro Detroit population do you think would choose to live in each type of neighborhoods:

1. A low density neighborhood consisting primarily of single-family homes, but which may include small apartment buildings? x %
2. A high density neighborhood consisting primarily of larger apartment buildings? y %

Next question: What percentage of people do you think would willingly give up living in area 1 and move to area 2?

Please try to answer without using the words suburb, suburban, suburbanite, or suburbia. Thank you. I really am trying to understand where you are coming from.

What about 3) a high density neighborhood consisting primarily of single family homes and some apartment buildings?

I can't speculate as far as percentages of people in the Detroit area that would prefer a certain type of housing. As it stands now, though, the choice is essentially "single-family home" or "single-family home". How can you posit the question as a "choice" when there really isn't any?

It's clear that people in Detroit are voting with their feet. I don't see anything stopping the young and educated, born and raised in Southeast Michigan, from running to Chicago or the East Coast as soon as they're out of school. It's not so much convincing people to give up their single-family homes and move into an apartment, as it is creating opportunities for those who have choices on where to locate.

Arlington, Virginia, in my opinion, has done an incredible job of balancing these needs. The densely-populated walkable mixed-use neighborhoods--with good transit service--are booming, yet this intense, focused development has allowed that county to preserve its existing neigborhoods of single-family homes without incurring development pressures in those neighborhoods. As a result, Arlington realizes about 90% of its property tax revenue from 10% of its land. When you only have neighborhoods of automobile-oriented single-family homes, this relationship becomes more linear in nature, and you constrain yourself to the land available for development for your revenue base.

On top of that, if you have a single-family home in the suburbs that looks the same as a single-family home in the City of Detroit, it's obvious that the City has no competitive advantage, for a myriad of reasons. Recreating [[and enhancing existing) high-density, walkable, urban neighborhoods is one method of leveraging a competitive edge for the City of Detroit, and making better use of existing and underutilized infrastructure.

Really, I think more than anything else, it's the all-or-nothing mentality that has hamstrung Michigan's economic development. If you choose to live in an apartment, condo, or rowhouse, or if you don't want to drive a car for every purpose, then Michigan simply has no desirable options for you. Give the people choices, and let *them* decide what is suitable for them.

[Retroit]

Okay, that makes some sense. Sounds like a medium-density compromise. When I hear "high-density", I'm thinking Manhattan or downtown Chicago. I've been to Arlington, and I would say it compares more with suburban Detroit than the city proper. Kind of ironic you would use what is basically a suburb of Washington, D.C. to corroborate your dislike of suburbs.

By the way, we do have apartments out here in the suburbs, but I'm not so sure that their occupancy rate is any higher than the single-family home occupancy rate. In other words, people do have a choice, and if more of them choose apartments, I'm sure they will be built.

But all sarcasm aside, at least I understand where you are coming from.

[ghettopalmetto]

When I hear "high-density", I'm thinking Manhattan or downtown Chicago. I've been to Arlington, and I would say it compares more with suburban Detroit than the city proper. Kind of ironic you would use what is basically a suburb of Washington, D.C. to corroborate your dislike of suburbs.

Arlington County actually has a higher population density than most large cities in the U.S., including Detroit--somewhere above 9000 persons per square mile.

[Hermod]

Multi-family choices:

1. High rise apartments either isolated or as a part of a multi-building complex.

2. Low rise apartment complex.

3. Town house complex

4. Rowhouse townhouses

5. Duplex, triplex, and quadplex buildings [[standalone or in a complex.

6. Income flats [[once very common in Detroit).

Single family houses:

1. Small lot condo type development.

2. 44 X 66 foot city lots with checkerboard streets

3. Half-acre and one acre lots.

4. five acre "estate" lots.

5. Minifarms and farms.

[Bearinabox]

Okay, that makes some sense. Sounds like a medium-density compromise. When I hear "high-density", I'm thinking Manhattan or downtown Chicago.

Detroit isn't like that, and likely never will be. Walkable urbanism doesn't always have to look like Manhattan. Paris is a wonderful, walkable city where most residential buildings are something like 5-7 stories. Actually, I personally prefer smaller, more human-scale residential buildings.

By the way, we do have apartments out here in the suburbs

Apartments vs. single-family has very little to do with urbanism. Hamtramck is one of the most urban, walkable parts of the metro, and consists almost completely of one- and two-family detached houses. A high-rise apartment building in Southfield or Troy surrounded by acres of parking, with nothing of interest within walking distance, is much less urban than a single-family house on a 30x100 lot in Mexicantown a block from the Vernor commercial strip. It's not productive to try to approach this in completely black-and-white, objective terms--you really have to have a feel for what is urban and what isn't. In my case, if I can spend more than an hour in a place without getting a migraine, it's most likely relatively urban.