 
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2118
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:16 pm: |    |
^It's easier to blame it on the murder rate in Detroit. |
Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 1976
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:20 pm: | |
Does anyone know of smart-growth-related organizations in Metro Detroit that would be interested in fighting these infrastructure sprawling initiatives? I know there's the Michigan Land Use Institute, but they're mostly based in western & northern Michigan. I know some other groups such as TRU might be interested but that's not their primary agenda. I'm looking for contacts. Help! |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 3464
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:20 pm: | |
This sprawl has nothing to do with crime. It has nothing to do with the city of Detroit. It has everything to do with overdevelopment of the areas people once moved to in order to "get away" from overdevelopment. Continuiously fleeing from civilization. Not from crime. The options are NOT ONLY develop in North Oakland County, or develop in Detroit. What about REDEVELOPING all the empty strip malls that obviously aren't serving their intended purpose? There are about 7 strip malls on Cooley Lake Rd. that are over half empty. Meanwhile they build new strip malls a few miles Northeast.
TJ, form your argument without using the word "Detroit", because that word is no longer relevant in the new era of sprawl. |
Track75
Member
Username: Track75
Post Number: 2663
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:22 pm: | |
quote:IS that why per SEMCOG these communities have also lost population since 2000: Surely part of the reason is the economy but I wonder if some is due to the ongoing trend of smaller household sizes. The built-out suburbs will lose population due to this even if the number of households stays level. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4937
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:24 pm: | |
quote{This sprawl has nothing to do with crime.}
I guess you haven't spoken with too many suburban people, otherwise you would know that you are incorrect John. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:25 pm: | |
It's amazing that people are still blind to the cycle of suburbia.
1. Family gets tired of the city life
2. Family moves to recently platted subdivision in the middle of a field/woods
3. 10,000 other families do the same thing--new township begins to resemble previous city
4. Family gets tired of the city life
5. Repeat, until reaching Flint.
Rural life is okay. For some reason, people seem to confuse rural with suburban. You want rural? There's plenty of it. But building tract housing and a new Wal-Mart in a cornfield is not rural life. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 399
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:27 pm: | |
JT (& others) - you're right re: the cost of new infrastructure and the burden this places upon that which already exists. However...
...taking away the right of individuals to choose where they live, and by extension how they will live, will drive some (many?) people away from an area & state. No doubt a hungry person who has just landed a job will live next to a dump if that's what it takes to keep the job, but what about retirees, e-commuters, etc. who can relocate at will? If my only choice for a community was some place that I didn't like AND I had the freedom to locate to another area I would fly away. Me, I agree, but markets don't lie because people vote with pocket books & feet. |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 3090
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:28 pm: | |
"Fury - I agree the rural lifestyle can be appealing. The issue with this development is that it appears that it will once again take the rural environment you want and turn it into suburbia... In this state if you truly want rural I would recommend moving at least 50-75 miles outside of SE Michigan."
Unfortunately, Jt1, you're probably right. The problem is the location of jobs: they're mostly in the metro area; not so many in Flint or Lapeer. I'm looking at a 70- to 90-minute commute to downtown Detroit if I live in Springfield or Rose township. That truly sucks, but I'm willing to put up with it to achieve my desired lifestyle (eventually having a kennel of 30-40 dogs on 10+ acres). If I move 75 miles out of SE Michigan, a commute to the metro area becomes unreasonable. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 3465
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:31 pm: | |
PG: So people are moving out of Commerce Township and heading to North Oakland county, or Brighton because of crime? I don't think so.
Craig: Everybody has the right to live where they want to live. I agree, and I would never take away that right. HOWEVER, having an honest an open discussion about the effects of mass sprawl is important. Who knows, people might even decide to move somewhere else, based on learning some of the negative effects of sprawl. Maybe they won't. Either way, it is a discussion worth having. Perhaps there are extremists on this issue who think people should be legislated out of having the ability to move out to the fringes. I am not one of those people. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10713
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:33 pm: | |
Craig - I am not advocating taking away options. My concer is with more development (no population growth) that resembles many, many options that are already available.
This is not a new option, just a new development that resembles existing options. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10714
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:35 pm: | |
Fury - Have you considered some of more rural areas more downriver but away from the river?
Might be a good opportunity. Of course that may work is going north keeps you closer to family and friends. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 480
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:41 pm: | |
We're truly on our way to the largest 3rd World MetroPlex on Earth. |
Eric_c
Member
Username: Eric_c
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:42 pm: | |
Everyone has a right to go out into the woods, buy a plot of land, cut down trees, build a home and dig a well. Everyone has a right to home-school their kids.
Have at it! |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5692
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:51 pm: | |
A couple of things...
1) Who are the folks moving to NW Oakland County going to sell their existing homes to?
2) Anyone with half a brain (and has actually looked at a Michigan map) will see that the "boring grid system" goes from the Ohio/Indiana border up until the state and national forests north of Midland. How can anyone be so naive as to think that they are getting away from the mile road grid system in northern Oakland County? |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2659
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 12:54 pm: | |
Jt1:
Let me know when you decide to get back on topic, because you've been off it for about your last 5 posts. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10715
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:05 pm: | |
quote:Let me know when you decide to get back on topic, because you've been off it for about your last 5 posts.
For someone that claims to be so intelligent you certainly are slow on following the point that many cities, beyond Detroit are seeing losses in population and this will have an effect on many cities beside Detroit.
I would assume that a legal ace such as yourself would be able to follow the logic. Seems you are just deflecting because your attempt to make this a Detroit issue failed miserably. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2660
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:06 pm: | |
My point is that if a market exists that leads to the development of vacant land, then we can either develop on the outskirts of the suburbs or on the vacant land in the cities.
But you're saying that people shouldn't be moving in the first place. Great, you're probably right. However, given that they are moving and land is going to be developed, that's totally irrelevant to this conversation.
I'm basically saying, "Given X, then do we prefer Y or Z?" but your reply is, "But it shouldn't be X in the first place".
And I really don't know what you were trying to point out by posting stats of cities that have lost population. I think everyone knows the region has lost population lately due to a poor local economy. Now, if you're curious as to why all the new development occurs on the outskirts of the suburbs instead of on the vacant land within the city limits, then you need only look to the behavior of the people within the city limits as a force driving all new development away.
(Message edited by thejesus on November 08, 2007) |
Redvetred
Member
Username: Redvetred
Post Number: 107
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:08 pm: | |
I hated to see the article on NW Oakland County because I already live there and don't want everyone to know there really is a rural portion of Oakland County. Davisburg doesn't have a bar or even an operating gas station. Springfield Township has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres to keep density down and hundreds of acres are already tied up with conservation easements never to allow any development. Gravel/dirt roads also deter "city folk". Anyone who is looking for 10+ acres will now have to act fast because I've been looking for a nice parcel for more than six years and haven't found any reasonably priced. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 485
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:10 pm: | |
"For someone that claims to be so intelligent you certainly are slow on following the point that many cities, beyond Detroit are seeing losses in population and this will have an effect on many cities beside Detroit."
The difference is, their losses aren't as bad as the losses that SE Michigan is experiencing. So it's an irrelevant point.
"My point is that if a market exists that leads to the development of vacant land, then we can either develop on the outskirts of the suburbs or on the vacant land in the cities."
So you're saying it's all or nothing? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3715
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:10 pm: | |
quote:However, given that they are moving and land is going to be developed, that's totally irrelevant to this conversation.
See what I wrote above about self-fulfilling prophecies and Manifest Destiny.
quote:Now, if your curious as to why all the new development occurs on the outskirts of the suburbs instead of on the vacant land within the city limits, then you need only look to the behavior of the people within the city limits as a force driving all new development away.
So what's the excuse for other cities outside of Michigan? I mean, you couldn't possibly be overgeneralizing based on little more than your own personal biases. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 486
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:12 pm: | |
"Now, if your curious as to why all the new development occurs on the outskirts of the suburbs instead of on the vacant land within the city limits, then you need only look to the behavior of the people within the city limits as a force driving all new development away.
I don't like the behavior of people in the suburbs, so should I drive the development away from them? |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10716
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:14 pm: | |
quote:My point is that if a market exists that leads to the development of vacant land, then we can either develop on the outskirts of the suburbs or on the vacant land in the cities.
And my point is that this region has not seen enough population growth to keep up with the existing housing market. There are vacancies everyone so this is not a Detroit issue which you keep reverting to. This is a regionally issue and we have ample housing options and housing stock.
Building more will just result in more empty housing across the region and continue to drive down real estate costs. We have been building non stop for the better part of 20 years but have not had the population growth to maintain it.
quote:I'm basically saying, "Given X, then do we prefer Y or Z?" but your reply is, "But it shouldn't be X in the first place".
That is incorrect. You are ignoring the long term ramifications to the region, cost of maintaining infrastrcuture, etc. You are saying "Given X, then do we prefer Y or Z." I am saying that we already have X, Y and Z and do not need to recreate X, Y, Z more and more.
quote:And I really don't know what you were trying to point out by posting stats of cities that have lost population. I think everyone knows the region has lost population lately due to a poor local economy.
If we all know that then why is it so diccicult for 'all' to understand that development growth during potential population decline is a disaster.
quote:Now, if your curious as to why all the new development occurs on the outskirts of the suburbs instead of on the vacant land within the city limits, then you need only look to the behavior of the people within the city limits as a force driving all new development away.
I have never stated that dsevelopment should occur inside the city limits as opposed to this. I have stated all along that this will have a greater negative impact on existing suburbs and little on the city. I have stated that about 5-6 times. Maybe it will sink in this time.
You are trying to make this a Detroit - suburb issue when Detroit is not nearly a major factor in my argument.
This is development at the cost of the region and existing suburbs, not the city |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2661
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:14 pm: | |
"So what's the excuse for other cities outside of Michigan? I mean, you couldn't possibly be overgeneralizing based on little more than your own personal biases."
If we're speaking of downtowns, which I assume you must be, the difference is most downtowns in major cities outside of Michigan were never abandoned by civilized people and overrun with crime and decay in the first place.
And the few that were that have come back from the dead did it in large part by combating the crime problem; See Cleveland. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2663
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:17 pm: | |
JT1:
Again, you're still way off point. At no time in this thread have I argued on behalf of more housing development in SE MI. I think it's a bad idea.
Now that you're aware of this (you should have been already)go back and read my posts again. I think you'll have a different reaction.
(Message edited by thejesus on November 08, 2007) |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 591
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hundreds of thousands of people are moving to Northern Oakland county, to get away from all the people.
Haha, Johnlodge. Maybe they'll put in that light rail route right along side the widened I-75? What a pathetic state of affairs. |
Futurecity
Member
Username: Futurecity
Post Number: 682
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:29 pm: | |
The people of DumbFuckistan need to live somewhere. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10717
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 1:33 pm: | |
quote:JT1:
Again, you're still way off point. At no time in this thread have I argued on behalf of more housing development in SE MI. I think it's a bad idea.
Now that you're aware of this (you should have been already)go back and read my posts again. I think you'll have a different reaction.
You are also aware that you have been arguing that Detroit needs to improve itself if people want this development there. Very few, if any posters on this thread have made this a Detroit issue but you keep reverting to that.
You are really missing the point that many are arguing how it will hurt the region and the options already exist.
I think this quote of yours illustrates how you are completely missing the point:
quote:Option 1 is that vacant land on the outskirts of suburbia can be developed (sprawl), and Option 2 is that we can develop the vast amount of vacant land scattered all over Detroit (infill).
You are trying to make it a Detroit issue.
You also posted:
quote:As long as Detroiters continue to behave as if they are living in a third world country, then they can expect the same substandard living conditions many of them have experienced all their lives.
There is simply no way they can continue murdering people and vandalizing the city and expect anything to ever improve. It just won't happen.
If you see another way, I'm all ears. If you can find a solution that allows the level of criminal activity in the city to continue while the city's overall situation improves, by all means, share it with the rest of us.
trying to make it a Detroit crime issue. You have stated that Detroit is suffering because of crime (true). That is why I have shown which other communities are suffering population loss.
We agree that new development is bad. On every other point you are all over the place in your argument. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2666
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 2:18 pm: | |
Alright, I can see you're not going to address my point and want to just keep arguing how more residential development will hurt the region (which I agree with)
I guess we'll end our conversation here. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 2:19 pm: | |
What was your point? That Detroit has crime? |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2668
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 2:27 pm: | |
^If that's what you think then I'm afraid there's no hope for you even if I were to explain it (again) |