  Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1579 Registered: 11-2003 |
Does zoning exist in Detroit? I know it is not enforced hardly at all, but are there areas it is enforced? A friend and I were online looking at google maps of the city and it's really an orgy of zoning and it maps no sense at all. Anyone have any current zoning maps to share- I want to see what supposedly is zoned. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2082 Registered: 07-2004 |
Zoning exists. You can check city maps to see how things are zoned. Some are mixed, but I recall seeing three classes of RESIDENTIAL, R1, R2 and R3, and varying levels of INDUSTRIAL and COMMERCIAL. Sorta like Sim City.  | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4527 Registered: 02-2005 |
http://www.detroitmi.gov/legis lative/BoardsCommissions/CityP lanningCommission/docs%20for%2 0posting/Ch%2061%20Dec%202006% 20updated%2024%20jul%2007.pdf Enjoy. Once you find your way to the details of building codes i.e. setbacks, there's a wealth of info-- much of it is disturbing. We have a lot of empty land to rebuild, and unfortunately a lot of it is zoned to be less dense than before, especially in terms of the pretty universal 30' setback. Let's hope that variances are given liberally. Rsa can address this better than I can. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1510 Registered: 01-2004 |
How come the zoning is such Mish Mosh around the new center area? If you were to stand at the Fisher building, and walk in 1 mile in any direction, it doesn't seem like the area really knows what it wants to be. Is it low density residential, an uptown, commercial, or industrial district? | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4530 Registered: 02-2005 |
Agreed. Well, it has been historically, because in the 1920s it was re-built to be a miniature downtown, but nearby areas were replete with large single-family homes which remain until today. There are some newer developments/projects nearby that are very low density, and I don't really understand that. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 1867 Registered: 09-2007 |
"Well, it has been historically, because in the 1920s it was re-built to be a miniature downtown, but nearby areas were replete with large single-family homes which remain until today. There are some newer developments/projects nearby that are very low density, and I don't really understand that." The few gentrifiers in the city of Detroit are suburbanites. The people that came here during the 1700s-early 1900s were straight from a Europe, and things are built more densely there. That says it all. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2085 Registered: 07-2004 |
Maybe your point has merit, Detroitrise. Indeed, some of the people from the suburbs are moving into the city, but I'm not convinced they move to the city because they want to live suburban-style. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 1869 Registered: 09-2007 |
Detriotnerd, I agree. However, why would someone build low-density single family housing in a mid-high density city neighborhood? | ||
Lo_to_d Member Username: Lo_to_d Post Number: 62 Registered: 07-2007 |
Mixed zoning is what makes great cities. The set-backs, lot coverage, and FAR are what really f* up many Detroit areas. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2086 Registered: 07-2004 |
I can think of a few reasons. One: We have design inertia. Or, you could call it complete and final slavery to building codes and die-cut architecture. Things that people are questioning elsewhere (cul-de-sacs, McMansions, concrete and lawns, etc.) are being built here. But, IMHO, it's not because it's what people want, but because that's what investors THINK people want. Two: It's the most profitable kind of housing to sell, built to last 30 years and be replaced by another big job. Build it, sell it, head for the hills. Three: When it comes to design-build, that's all the expertise we have left in the area. Young people who really like urban living go to actual cities. That's where they have multi-story residential buildings with mixed-use storefronts where you can shop on foot. We can't build that here because so few people have lived like that here in 30 or 40 years. They just don't have the knowledge. | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 40 Registered: 02-2006 |
D-nerd, your comment "...complete and final slavery to building codes and die-cut architecture" struck a nerve with me. The history of building codes (Code of Hammurabi) is to protect life and property, NOT punitively and arbitrarily restrict development. As a graphic example, I am fairly confident the people who escaped the twin tower collapse were grateful for building codes that allowed the buildings to stand for 1 to 1 1/2 hours before collapse. I agree that building codes can seem to restrict creative design process but understanding the intent of the codes may make it easier to swallow them. Yes, you guessed it... I'm a Building Official. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2087 Registered: 07-2004 |
Oh, god. Quibble with the building codes and all of a sudden you want to kill 100,000 people in a day. Geez, I must be a horrible person. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4082 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Before World War II, local building codes had nice little pictures that illustrated proper spatial relationships and geometries. Those were done away with when our nation decide to mechanize everything and become a society of number crunchers. Just because the Code of Hammurabi only concerned itself with protecting life and property does not mean that all future building codes must be limited to this scope. Who's talking about "restricting development" anyway? As if the "freedom" to build strip malls in the middle of a city is somehow beneficial. As a building official, you would know that existing codes are *incredibly restrictive*, mandating segregated zoning, setbacks, minimum parking requirements, floor area ratios, and even restricting the percentage of the lot that can be occupied. | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 41 Registered: 02-2006 |
Not at all, I just used a specific example to illustrate my point. I deal with the "slavery" mentality frequently and just wanted to illustrate the other side of the coin. Please apply thick skin, lol! | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 42 Registered: 02-2006 |
My last post was directed to D-nerd. Danindc, you are confusing building codes with zoning codes. What type of business you want to construct on your property is what is allowed by the codes. There is always an option to apply for variances to the code and the building codes do allow for alternate methods and materials of construction. Once again, the reason for these "restrictions" is to protect life and property (sound of broken record playing). | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2088 Registered: 07-2004 |
Just do a Web search for "building codes" and "tyranny" and you'll hit all the counter arguments. I like them a lot. I read them all the time and never got accused of wanting to aid terrorists. "Clearly the main objective for building codes is not primarily to protect the safety of the neighborhood because this robs people of the ability to control their property and that of the neighborhood, the safety standards have to be judged by the people who live close together not by some regulatory agency motivated by the insurance lobby or control freak politicians. The purpose of many building codes are to seize control of people's property and make it public property so they can regulate it and force people to buy unnecessary products. Many of these codes have been put in place by the construction industry and manufacturers to use threats and extortion to force customers to buy products they don't want, to keep up with constantly changing manufacturing standards. This power also gives bureaucrats the authority to regulate other activities on and in private homes and businesses. ... " | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 43 Registered: 02-2006 |
Just do a Web search for "building codes" and "safety" and you'll hit all the counter arguments. See how that works? I never personally accused you of being a terrorist, D-nerd. Cut and paste is a wonderful invention. No reference to your quote - very safe. Quite a sweeping statement to embrace without questioning it's source. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2089 Registered: 07-2004 |
Oh, get over yourself Kahnman. We love arguments here. We even borrow whole passages from argument and post them to show that -- um, the things we're discussing are subject to wide debate. You never accused me of being a terrorist. You just sort of wound up lumping in critics of building codes (often reasonable, experienced people) with terrorists. And I really doubt people who, instead of giving you a garden variety answer (Actually, without building codes, there might not be a grounded outlet in your basement laundry, which aggravates the chance you might get a lethal shock if you touch a malfunctioning washing machine.), they start talking about 9/11 and shit like that. Guess what, Kahnman? I was in New York when it went down. And I'm not grateful at all. About anything. Next subject. ... | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 44 Registered: 02-2006 |
Nothing to get over here, D-nerd. I can take reasonable debate. Why did you think I responded in the first place? I know all about the arguments here,lol! I just choose to post when a topic interests me. I also now know why my twin towers reference struck a personal nerve with you. My apology to you if you were offended. I still stand by my original statements and I respect your opinions. Chalk this one up to "agree to disagree agreeably". | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2090 Registered: 07-2004 |
Aw, no worries, Kahn. I'm just saying there is a debate over building codes, ranging from the people who write the codes to the people who oppose them. Just because I post a bit of the debate to show that it is being debated doesn't mean I stand behind the "sweeping arguments." Just trying to show that not everybody feels the same way. The old axiom goes: "If everybody agrees, then somebody's not thinking." | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 45 Registered: 02-2006 |
Agreed. I'm the first to admit that even though I have to enforce the codes, there are aspects that other code officials and myself just shake our heads over. Every three years a new code is adopted and then we have to tell contractors that the way they have been doing a specific requirement for the past 3 years now has to be done differently - aarrgghh! | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1581 Registered: 11-2003 |
I think the city does need to enforce zoning laws,but many areas need to be rezoned for the betterment of the neighborhood. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1582 Registered: 11-2003 |
I think the city does need to enforce zoning laws,but many areas need to be rezoned for the betterment of the neighborhood. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 94 Registered: 10-2006 |
Building codes and changes to the code are for the most part the result of a special interest group trying to promote a specific product or construction method (TRADE UNION) and a means to sell books. The most comprehensive code of modern times was the 1987 BOCA. The State of Michigan has renamed the ICC Code the Michigan Code. My question has always been and never answered is why the Michigan Code has wind, earthquake, and snow load references to Alaska and all other states in the Union, just another example of trying to sell code books. If we are going to have a Michigan Building Code then why not write one, instead of this feeble attempt at a State Code that we have now. This extra expense for out of state designers and engineers to do work here by the purchase of these books is unreasonable. They are not available online. Cool City anyone? | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 846 Registered: 07-2004 |
Sometimes it is better to remove almost all zoning. Toronto had to decaying old industrial areas located to the east and west of the CBD downtown. Old warehouse buildings were sitting empty as industry left for the suburbs, etc. Zoning prevented anything but industry, etc. What did the city do? They started the Two Kings project(which stands for King-Spadina, and King-Parliament, the two sides of the old industrial areas). They removed almost all zoning, and said "do whatever you want with these buildings. Mix commercial, residential, light industry, art, etc. Do whatever". And it has worked. The two areas have flourished back to life, and are some of the hottest areas to live in now. It is amazing the transformation. One old warehouse was turned into a whole artists complexe, and it is just amazing. So a lot of time as my planning professor says, we have to stop saying "no" with zoning(zoning tends to tell you more of what you can't do then do), and start saying "yes" do what you want. The results can be amazing, as long as the no zoning does not go to far. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1512 Registered: 01-2004 |
I'm not saying that this is the entire problem with parts of the D, but I think many districts have a problem thriving because it's not clear exactly what they are. In the case of New Center it seems like it tried to grow in too many directions at once, with no clear vision. The end result is that none of them are thriving today. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1583 Registered: 11-2003 |
If Detroit had density I would not have a problem with the Toronto 2 Kings Idea, but we need to have some sort of theme in the city. Some areas are fine but the mainly culprit I see is too much industrial thrown into random neighborhood and those properties are now vacant and very tacky. Take Lyndon ave- pretty much anywhere in Detroit, or Wyoming, Livernois, Meyers all near Lyndon. Take Conant, Mt. Elliot south of 6 mile.... there are so many bastard areas in Detroit it makes look horrible. | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 72 Registered: 03-2006 |
Kahn Man, you work at AKA? | ||
Detx Member Username: Detx Post Number: 136 Registered: 07-2007 |
I agree with Miketoronto. We need to try something different in Detroit. The zoning laws we have now are from an earlier age and are too prohibitive. Take those laws off the books and development will come. | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 46 Registered: 02-2006 |
Pmardo, I actually moved from Michigan to western Washington state in 1986. I'm not familiar with your AKA acronym. You think YOU have it bad code-wise, try living in one of the greenest of the green states! We have the IBC, IRC, IFC, IPC, WSEC, NREC, and VIAQ just to name a handful. Not to mention we are in a major seismic zone AND FEMA flood zone areas. Gene; true, there are many special interest groups promoting code revisions. Take a metal connector manufacturer for example. The code body may mandate a more rigid requirement for seismic hold-downs. You can bet the manufacturer will be at the code change cycle meetings trying to promote the more stringent requirement because they will have been designing a connector for it. Do they have a vested interest in it? Sure they do! Even though the requirement is to protect life and property, they stand to profit. Capitalism at work. The reason put forth on the combination of the 3 model building codes in the US was to streamline the process of designing and inspecting buildings wherever they were being built across the country. Architects and contractors were complaining about regional differences in code applications and enforcement and it was decided to make a "uniform" code that code be applied everywhere. That explains the inclusion of code sections that have no application to your region. As far as the prohibitive cost of code books, I agree. What most people don't realize is that all jurisdictions are required to have current code books available for public reference and my jurisdiction allows per page copy prices. Most public libraries also have them available for reference and the ability to copy as well. The county I live in has even compiled a free reference manual for constructing single family residences that include 99% of the code requirements that any layman can follow. Many jurisdictions offer pdf pages for download that outline code requirements for free. Just check your city's website for information or google other local jurisdictions. Most residential builders can use this codecheck book for $40 for constructing a home and meet code requirements without having to purchase the whole raft of ICC code books. http://store.taunton.com/onlin estore/item/070930.html And no, I am not affiliated with anyone related to this book, I just like to provide builders with something they can use and understand to build a safer structure. It has lots of pictures - essential for explaining many code requirements. Sorry I de-railed this zoning thread,lol. As far as zoning goes, we have a "cluster-community" concept that seems to be attracting people. In reality, it's the old "neighborhood services" being re-packaged. Have a 10 acre parcel with a mid scale grocery store anchor store along with a few service-related storefronts, a couple of diverse restaurants and on the peripheral, mixed residential units. The residents can walk to the stores, and the center also caters to outside customers that are drawn to the restaurants, etc. We all know that Detroit has the space to try some of these, especially in the urban prairie areas. I'll be back to the old stomping grounds in June, looking forward to some good old faygo and coney dogs! | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 174 Registered: 08-2006 |
Kahnman brings up the useful safety aspect of building codes. Unenforced safety codes lead to buildings collapsing in places like Mexico City. However, zoning has been a goldmine for those rich enough to go through the process of getting land rezoned. Monied interests, politicians, and attorneys should like zoning tor this reason alone. Rezone a parcel from, say, residential to commercial and voila! it is worth more. The Kelo vs. New London case expanded the definintion of 'public purpose' to the point that developers colluding with local governments may now seize property - especially if the government has an economic development plan. The developer makes a quick buck, the municipality gets more taxes, while the former property receive no benefits from this elaborate zoning/planning fraud. |
