  Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 46 Registered: 06-2008 |
I have heard (I'm sure others here could fill me in), that Kwame has allocated a certain amount of money to demolish a number of buildings in Detroit. Would you rather use the money to demolish all the buildings on the list, or save a few and let nature knock down the others? The reason I ask this, is that rather than using all the money to demolish these buildings, which might make the city look less run-down, could the money be used to renovate some buildings for entertainment/residential/reta il? At least those would bring money back into the city. Demolishing a building doesn't really bring any money into the city, in my opinion. So, if you could save even a few Detroit buildings, which would you save and why? And what would you renovate them as? Or would you use the money to knock down abandoned buildings and just start over? Just curious. Thanks. | ||
Django Member Username: Django Post Number: 1724 Registered: 10-2003 |
How about the Packard as an example. Personally, Id rather see it slowly go by nature, scrappers included. I would much rather see that money go toward rebuilding something that could be saved rather than just tearing down something that cant, which would bring in some new $$$ for the city. Good thread 1989. Im gonna catch some shit for that though. | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 48 Registered: 06-2008 |
I tend to be more for renovating than demolishing if at all possible. But I'm not from Detroit, never been to Detroit (fascinating to read about and look at, though). But this quote from a comment on freep scares me a little bit: [quote]I want there to be more buildings knocked down that are eyesores in the city, neighborhoods as well as downtown.. especially the old Train Station. I want big-box retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and others in the neighborhoods; there need to be more services like laundromats, large-scale grocery, etc. in neighborhoods[/quote] I understand wanting more laundromats and grocery stores, but I would assume there's enough empty lots in Detroit to put that stuff up without tearing down a beautiful building. Hopefully the cost of Detroit Central Station is not too great to restore it. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1866 Registered: 07-2007 |
Django has a point. Why spend money you don't have and spend money on something worthwhile. Wow now that is brilliant. | ||
Django Member Username: Django Post Number: 1727 Registered: 10-2003 |
1989. The whole Wal-Mart, Target is a double edge sword for me. I hate those huge retailers and would prefer to shop at a Mom n Pop but damn I gotta say I get so much more out of my dollar by spending a few extra bucks in gas and going to Meijers in the burbs. Its a huge difference in my pocketbook. I get nearly twice the amount of food by shopping at Meijers rather than Marcus Market or University Foods. Like I said though, I hate giving my $$ to The Man. Oops, Wall Street is on, I gotta go. Serendipity. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10314 Registered: 10-2003 |
What store is going to build next door to an eyesore and potential crack den? | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1165 Registered: 11-2003 |
City should knock'em down so that PRIVATE investors can do the more expensive part of building. You won't get the investment without the buildings knocked down/cleared land. The city should not be in that business. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 2008 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: Really? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1850 Registered: 04-2006 |
My biggest concern is the safety factors in keeping building up. A friend's father was on the DFD when he received a call for a fire several stories up in the old Hudson's department store that was started by squatters. Could you imagine having to drag all that equipment up to make sure the fire was out? How about the homes that become crack dens or places for predators to take children and molest them? If I have to decide between the preservation of historic structures that will not have any use or the preservation of humans, I'm going to side with the humans. I am after all a human not a building. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4746 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yup, just plow everything over, and hope developers come in to build Wal Marts and subdivisions just like the suburbs. That'll bring people back to Detroit for sure. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3051 Registered: 07-2004 |
Dan: No satire tag?  | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10316 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yeah Dan. All we need is the feds to anty up the cash like they have done in D.C. and we wouldn't have to demo anything. Would you invest in a business next to a burned out monstrosity? Not every building needs to come down but the vast majority do. Pick your battles when talking about preservation. | ||
Wpitonya Member Username: Wpitonya Post Number: 82 Registered: 08-2005 |
Demolition does not mean progress. In some cases, demolition might be warranted, but certainly not all. In my opinion, having a properly sealed vacant building is better than a weed-choked lot. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5283 Registered: 02-2005 |
There are no benefits to more vacant land in Detroit. There is enough of it as it is, in every type of neighborhood. Downtown, near downtown, and in outer neighborhoods. It is not a commodity at this point, so do not provide more of it. Distinctive old apartment buildings such as the ones being torn down this year under KK's plan ARE, however, more of a commodity than vacant land. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3053 Registered: 07-2004 |
Well, Goat, a point worth making is that governments can't do everything, but they do wind up subsidizing businesses via their decisions. In the Detroit area, I have long heard that we have the largest concentration of demolition contractors in the United States. Not of home rebuilders, redesigners, repurposers, restorers, but of demolition contractors. What's their answer to an old building? "Knock it down," naturally. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And who will argue with them? Instead of places like Portland, New Orleans, or, heck, even Hoboken, N.J., which have cultivated small armies of people who fix up period homes, restore burnt-out buildings and repurpose industrial hulks, our answer is to knock stuff down and try to entice somebody to please put up something new. And, nine times out of ten, it isn't working. Remember when people said the Tuller was an obstacle to development on its site? They knocked it down. It's still a parking lot. Remember how the Hudson's building was an obstacle to development? They knocked it down. It's still a parking lot. Remember how they said the Madison-Lenox was an obstacle to development? It's a parking lot. Remember the Statler Hotel? Now a parking lot. So, we are filling Detroit with parking lots that nobody is building on. Why? The only thing I can think is that the system NEEDS CONSTANT DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING TO SURVIVE. The only way a region that's losing population and manufacturing jobs can survive is through the constant demolition and rebuilding of the environment. These buildings are often not eyesores. They are usually dusty assets, waiting to be shines up and redeveloped. And yet, the tired justification that they are "eyesores" or "obstacles to development" keeps being bandied around and used as an excuse. When something isn't working and you attempt to do the same thing on a grander scale with hopes of different results, that is the very definition of insanity. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10320 Registered: 10-2003 |
It is easier to sell a piece of real estate with no building than real estate with one that a person has to demolish. Read my post again. I said pick you battles when talking about preservation. The "dusty" assets would likely stay but the burned out structures, the buildings that have fallen into themselves should be levelled. Empty fields are one thing, streets lined with bombed out buildings are another. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1166 Registered: 11-2003 |
Mackinaw, have you had friends who's neighborhoods are plagued by crack dealers who use that "cool old apartment building" as their hangout, and you watch drug deals go down on their porch while their kids can't leave it to to play, and no amount of "securing" is going to stop them? Because it doesn't. Buildings DO get re-secured, and they break in again. Given the choice between safer streets for kids and "commodity potential" somewhere in the distant future (which the choice IS), I pick kids and safety. Every time. No question, unless you have dollars to make the project happen. This isn't some masters-degree theory course, this dealing with real people trying to make it. People taking a bus two hours each way, only to have the stuff they work so hard for stolen. People who go to a substandard school district where they don't have books, and little hope of it changing, as everyone who can leaves for Southfield or charter schools. Whether it's theorists or local crooks or the ineffective government, I'm sick of everyone forgetting about why we're here. The People. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5284 Registered: 02-2005 |
Goat: Okay, it's easier, fine. But we have that commodity-- too much of it. If somebody wants to develop the easy way, they have more than ample places where entire BLOCKS are leveled. Those blocks aren't going anywhere, nor are they being built on in any hurry. Look at Brush Park: both renovation and new building have occurred simultaneously. However, if it was 100 percent leveled, would things have gone any quicker? Probably not, because the neighborhood would have less redeeming value. Places need to have character to be marketable. That should be the difference between a 2-story townhouse condo in Rochester Hills and the same type of thing in Brush Park. Look at the successful rehabs of homes, townhouses, and even large-scale apartments that occurred because they were left in place. And some of those buildings were indeed practically piles of rubble. DV: more urban fields will not stop the drug trade or the gang activity. But when the time comes for a neighborhood to see new investment (if it does ever come-- let's hope), the renovated old building will command higher rents, create more land value, and yield higher taxes over the long-run to try to solve those problems that really have nothing to do with whether a building is preserved or not. Of course a bungalow on the far west side that's half-burnt, housing squatters, and sitting in a row of well-kept similar bungalows should be removed. That's one thing. Tearing down what we have very little of, such as the buildings on the mayor's list this year, is a different matter. (Message edited by mackinaw on August 25, 2008) | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 708 Registered: 07-2007 |
Let's see a side-by-side comparison of "knock that schitt down" to "renovate/restore" of major buildings in Detroit. What approach has worked? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10321 Registered: 10-2003 |
Brush Park was levelled for the most part. What you see today is just a very small fraction of what was once there. Even so, they levelled other houses to build what is there. Again, pick your battles! | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3055 Registered: 07-2004 |
I think preservationists are picking their battles, Goat. What evidence do you have that, say, organizations like Preservation Wayne have unrealistic or unusual preservation demands? Let's get a bit more specific, please. So far, it's just been the usual vigorous conjecture. (Of which I'm as guilty as anybody here.) | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 348 Registered: 11-2007 |
It looks to me as if some of the buildings on the KK hit list should be low priorities. But there are lots of buildings that really need to be knocked down. It isn't like the demo budget is so big that they are going to run out of appropriate buildings before they run out of money. The question I thought the OP was asking is, should the city knock down buildings at all, or spend the money on something more constructive? I guess I'd have to know what the more constructive thing was supposed to be, but in general I think there are a lot of buildings that are blighting their neighborhoods and need to go away. There is no point in restoring buildings if there is no demand for the space in the building--even if you fix it up, it will just decay again if it isn't maintained, and people don't maintain buildings without tenants. Detroit doesn't have a shortage of buildings or land. It has a shortage of demand for buildings and land. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 7228 Registered: 08-2004 |
WHen Goat says "pick your battles"... that's not just something that is his mantra alone, but also what the National Trust For Historic Preservation and even what Preservation Wayne consider prudent logic. Contrary to what would be considered a nice preservationist dream that we should try to save everything, the reality of the situation is that we can't. | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 50 Registered: 06-2008 |
Property values might go down if a place has a couple burntout buildings. It also might go down if you have a lot of urban prairie. As far as big buildings, especially with parking already around them, that would be worth fixing up, I think that might be a good investment. Let's say you could demolish most of the buildings on the Here Today, Gone Today list here, or fix up one great Detroit building (such as Michigan Central Station, or any other great building currently sitting empty). Would you knock down the eyesores to increase property value around them? Or would you restore that one historic building that you really love, which would probably increase property values around them? Seems like a lot of time in cities (not just Detroit) a building is knocked down and turned into a parking lot or urban prairie. If anything it might be turned into a park, which is nice, but probably doesn't bring a lot of revenue. Sometimes it brings in some revenue at some ugly new retail store. | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 461 Registered: 07-2006 |
I think that some commenters make a good point. The city's plan this year entails demolishing a large number of big structures, not single family or two-family burnt-out houses. I have several problems with this. 1. For the most part (there are exceptions), these buildings have more historical value and architectural significance than houses. They also have more potential to be lasting, permanent structures for people if they are fixed. 2. Burnt out houses are frequently more dangerous than vacant apartment buildings. Houses frequently become used by squatters, drug dealers, drug users, etc. They can also sometimes be booby-trapped by drug dealers, making them dangerous places for any city employees that come into contact with them (DFD, DPD, etc.). They are also comparatively pretty cheap to tear down. (I have seen quotes for single family homes being about $5,000, but let me know if this is unrealistic.) Detroit also has many more vacant houses than large apartment buildings, so it is a more pressing problem. I think a demolition budget adds value by demolishing beyond-repair structures, but I think the city does it wrong. If I had the power to do it my way, I would: 1. Tear down burnt out and unsavable houses as quickly as possible. I would develop a budget for this part of the plan, and do the most number of houses I could do per year, within budget. I would also use the city's legal department to pursue absentee landlords to the degree it was cost effective. I would also require property owners to seal their vacant buildings, or otherwise face stiff fines and penalties. I would also try to come up with creative legal ways to take properties away from property owners who do not seal their structures. (This would have to be accompanied by better police enforcement, so the going after landlord plan may not be initially feasible.) 2. Put money towards salvaging vacant apartment buildings. To do this, I would commission a study, to be done ASAP months, identifying the 50 most "saveable" largest vacant apartment buildings in the city. "Saveability" would be include factors such as location, size, potential costs of repair, and potential market for people to move in. I would then set a five year plan, and pick the top five or 10 or however many buildings could be done within budget (even if it was 1), and work to implement a plan to renovate and open the apartment building. The problem, of course, is making this feasible financially. This means that apartment buildings in areas that are more desirable (e.g, a few of the smaller ones in Brush Park) would probably go first. Remember, as the city, you only need to break even doing this, not make a profit. Then, once the thing is up and running, the city could even sell it to a private owner if it wished and make a small profit. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3057 Registered: 07-2004 |
I think there's a certain amount of question-begging going on here. Why are real estate values in Detroit depressed. Is it because of the vacant buildings? Or is it the crime? Or the lack of transportation choice? Or several other things. I find it interesting that we, a forum of self-appointed experts, can't even agree why Detroit is depressed, but these buildings must go because they're affecting land values? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10322 Registered: 10-2003 |
I never said those orgs didn't. What I am saying to the dreamers on this site is that the majority of vacant buildings (that means even the houses) in Detroit need to come down. You can't have a city that used to house 2 million people housing 895,000. Something has to give. Gistok is correct. Save the ones worth saving. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1168 Registered: 11-2003 |
It's all of the above, DN, plus more. Detroit, to use an overused cliche, is "The Perfect Storm" of depressed American urban areas. You can't fix it with any *one* of those addressed. I personally think if you address the foundational causes, the demand will take care of itself. The government in Detroit does things backwards - Government should be providing services, not be the investor - and sometimes, the private sector is providing the services. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 3050 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Neither approach has worked very well. Why? There is no inherent demand for the huge amount of abandoned property in the city. Without demand there will be no revival. How do you create demand? Fix the schools, Police, fire and other city services. Get the corruption out of the city government. Bring in Quality Jobs. Unfortunately you will have to do this while also reducing tax rates. No one is going to pay extra just to get the same services they take for granted in the suburbs. We started to see some improvement under Archer. He had worked on all the things I listed. Now that Kilpatrick has run city government into the ground, we are seeing a reversal of the progress. It's never about the buildings themselves. It's about the people and their ability to make a life for themselves in those buildings. You could have the greatest building in the world, But if people can't afford to live in the building it will never survive. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4747 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: These types of threads would be a lot better without you spreading misinformation, Goat. If you must know, the federal government is one of the biggest obstacles toward urban redevelopment in the District. But don't let reality get in the way of your facts.... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4748 Registered: 10-2003 |
Does the City of Detroit have any sort of process or program by which architects and engineers determine exactly which buildings are salvageable and which are not? This "demolition list" reeks of a seriously misguided wholesale scorched earth approach. | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 462 Registered: 07-2006 |
I agree with NDavies. While I do think the government should engage in some kind of investment (e.g., securing higher value vacant structures might be one), most of the effort must come from the private sector. My plan above was suggested as an alternative to demolishing the buildings, but in reality, the city should probably take that $13 million and invest it in policing and other services. The city could improve its situation if it started to actually provide people with city services, lowered taxes, and provided incentives for people to come to the city. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 709 Registered: 07-2007 |
According to SEMCOG, Detroit's demo'ed 21,708 housing units since 2000. Between 1990 and 2000, the city lost 34,931 housing units. That's 55,000 housing units lost in the last 17 years. Is the city better or worse for that? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3058 Registered: 07-2004 |
"According to SEMCOG, Detroit's demo'ed 21,708 housing units since 2000. Between 1990 and 2000, the city lost 34,931 housing units. That's 55,000 housing units lost in the last 17 years. Is the city better or worse for that?" That's why I say we're begging the question. As usual, Detroit's leaders try to go for impressive numbers. Demo contractors are happy. I'm sure some residents are at least pleased to see something is being done. It's certainly an opportunity for the city to send out another flurry of press faxes, touting this "achievement." Nobody is asking the bigger questions. Is all this demolition truly desirable? Could any of these edifices have been saved? Why? What is our overall plan and vision for Detroit? Until we sort out those questions, we're stuck shoveling money into demo contractors' pockets. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4753 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^Money the city doesn't have, that is. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4754 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Ever hear of any of these places: Chicago? Philadelphia? Cleveland? Baltimore? Washington, DC? Gary? St. Louis? Cincinnati? Pittsburgh? Boston? New York? Flint? Grand Rapids? Buffalo? Newark? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10328 Registered: 10-2003 |
Chicago suffered the same as Detroit? Surely you jest! Philly? Same demise as Detroit? Hard times yes but not as bad as Detroit. Cleveland, still a dump. Baltimore. Section 8 housing and the state did well to not fall into the trap of stadiums and arenas. They instead invested in schools and infrastructure. Washington. Local, State and Feds make up the gov't. A bit much to compare with other cities. But still a failure. Gary. Still a pit. St. Louis. Still a pit. Cincy. Still a pit. Pittsburgh. See Philly but not bustling my any means. Boston? Compared to Detroit's decline? Hardly. NY. See above. Flint. Still a pit. Grand Rapids. The furniture business went sour by the 1950's. Didn't have the issues that surround Detroit nor the high rate of poverty. Buffalo. Still a pit. Newark. Still a pit. Sure I could find small miracles in each city as I can in Detroit but other than current N. Orleans there is no city in N. America that has suffered the decline that Detroit has had to endure. Sure it is partly the city's fault themselves but to larger extents, race relations, hostile suburbs, dis-interest by state gov't or poor state policies, and of course high crime in Detroit itself has caused the demise. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3059 Registered: 07-2004 |
I think Dan is pointing out that Detroit's decline is mirrored in many other cities, that the decline of American cities has been a consistent phenomenon. And I think you've ably confirmed that Detroit is not alone -- lots of "pits" out there. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10330 Registered: 10-2003 |
Correct Detroitnerd. So as I have stated level what needs to be levelled but save the buildings that are WORTH saving and the one's that can. Could farming be Detroit's second highest employer? Why not. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 2422 Registered: 12-2005 |
Quote: Let's see a side-by-side comparison of "knock that schitt down" to "renovate/restore" of major buildings in Detroit. What approach has worked? One thing is for sure: the demolition industry is much bigger, and better able to market itself than the restoration business, which doesn't even size up to be considered an industry, more of a loose group of construction companies who understand the ins and outs of rebuilding (re-purposing) an existing building. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4759 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And who determines this? You? The Mayor? Recall what I posted above: quote: Such a program should not just assess structural condition, but historical significance, and architectural merit to the surrounding community. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 10331 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree Dan but I do not know if Detroit has such a program. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5285 Registered: 02-2005 |
Agreed, Dan. Of course, Detroit doesn't have such a program. I agree with Ndavies: it's all about the lack of demand. Then the question becomes, what might capture demand better over the course of future time? A city with distinctive landmarks and unique opportunities for living, or a city with lots of empty space and lots of banal new living opportunities that could be found in any other city? Shall we become one of those ultra-modern cities like Phoenix? I don't think we'd do too well if people are choosing between there and here, what with the climate and all. So let's preserve what's distinctive and worth keeping around Detroit. The half-burnt bungalow? Okay, tear it down to offer the neighborhood the safety and stability that it had before it went abandoned. But a unique gilded age apartment house-- ya better keep that, and find a way to get it occupied. Use incentives. Use some other genious tactics. As for the list of the cities from Dan, and the sweeping generalizations about each one from Goat, let's not forget that Detroit is in one of the most backward states and stagnant economies anywhere. It has been put at disadvantages (or, more accurately, kept down in a disadvantaged state) more than those other states (largely by its regional/state governance and attitudes towards it). It is subject to the fate of an economy which is not as dynamic as most of those other major cities. It is also not plugged into a dynamic corridor, like DC to Boston, where jobs are always being added, and living arrangements that appeal to all types of people can be found. Newark now has a growing population due to huge immigration inflow, and its comprehensive transit connections to all parts of its home state and to NYC, for example. Philly, though much larger, is also "plugged in" extremely well to a powerful corridor of mobility and money. These places all have more demand underlying their revivals. As for the question of preservation: basically none of those cities has seen the amount of destruction that Detroit has. It's strange, though, when you consider it closely. Detroit has lost 50 percent of its peak population. Newark had lost 40 percent. Philly had lost 25-30 percent. But this is not reflected in the amount of vacant land in those cities (whereas Detroit is indeed half-empty, literally). It is interesting to consider. It's probably more a matter of density than preservationist zeal. Perhaps since these cities had more attached house (or multitenant detached housing), more structures were preserved through the slumps (though not without a lot of wear/tear) because their owners were able to get by when they went from having 3-4 tenants to 1-2? And then they got rescued by various gentrifyers and/or immigrant families over the last 5-15 years? Those are just my theories. And any rate, Detroit has not seen comparable inflows and dynamics. The exception being parts of SW Detroit, which I'd say have had a history somewhat comparable to the cities I just mentioned, esp. in terms of immigration. But with all these cities being in much different regions and with different assets such as extensive transit, we cannot compare their trends on a general level to Detroits. We can learn a few things, though, as to what Detroit needs to grow/stabilize like they have (check previous sentence in re: growth of regional economy and transit). | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 606 Registered: 04-2004 |
Completely agree with your points Mackinaw. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1170 Registered: 11-2003 |
Do not underestimate the role race plays with lack of demand. Detroit's the only one of size that is majority black. Even Philadelphia is 45% african-american, nowhere near 82%. Having talked with property investors in other regions who've done rehab projects, it's much easier to turnaround a white area than a black area anywhere in this nation, as they couldn't get anywhere near the buyer interest for those projects in black neighborhoods, and Detroit has a lot more black areas. It's almost all black areas. Pittsburgh and many other successes are majority white cities or pluralities; in general, money comes from white people and they feel better investing in white areas. I firmly believe that if Detroit were poor and not majority black, it would be on par with those other cities' turnarounds if not ahead. I'm sorry to be so direct about it, but I know it's true from experience and the conversations I've had. It's the most stark difference between Detroit and other cities that have done a turnaround, and I think the hidden crux of the issue. Because you're right, Mackinaw, there are a lot of disparities, but this is a solid commonality that has been shown in many studies to have effects on buying and investing patterns. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5286 Registered: 02-2005 |
I think you're right to the extent that race masks (or, in many cases, comes with) the anti-city nature of our reason. And this ties into another fact: though our economy is slow-growing, and though we aren't on one of the coasts, this is still a powerful region. There are 3-4 million people and a ton of corporations. Most of these people like the region/state. Unfortunately, a much higher than average proportion of these people either don't like the City, or don't like it enough to want to live there (for a variety of reasons, often explained through analysis of modern history). The young people and immigrants who might otherwise flock to the City proper have to overcome prejudices that have been instilled in them, and the temptation to go elsewhere. And for some of them and for much of the older population here, race does come into play. I'm not going to say that it is responsible for lack of investment in any quantitative way, though. In the end, perhaps we shouldn't downplay the strengths of our region as much as I did. There's lots of people and money in the area, but it's just not being centered in the City like it has in other places. Focusing on race might be a bit of a distraction, but if you think about the barriers keeping this regional wealth out of the City-- explaining the lack of demand for property in the City-- and then think about what measures might correct this by creating incentives, we could get back on the right track. | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 51 Registered: 06-2008 |
Mackinaw - Just to add to that, St. Louis went from about 857k (1950) to 365k today, losing about 56% of its population. The city is finally growing again in the last decade. St. Louis saw a very steep decline: 1950 856,796 1960 750,026 -12.5% 1970 622,236 -17% 1980 452,801 -27.2% 1990 396,685 -12.4% 2000 348,189 -12.2% Est. 2006 353,837 +1.6% St. Louis lost a lot of buildings, particularly on the north side of the city. Some downtown buildings (such as the Century, which became, what else? a parking garage). But renovation has begun on some buildings. Partially, I think, because of historic tax credits, which create some incentive. St. Louis (or the state, not sure) also has a Register of Historic Places, so if a building on that list is going to be demolished or significantly changed, it has to be approved by the board. I'm not sure if Detroit has that or not. And if you want to build in a historic district, the building has to be sensitive historically or something like that. You also can't add ugly new additions to historic homes. I don't think some other cities have as much vacant land/buildings as Detroit seems to have, but other cities, like St. Louis, weren't as big to begin with. So there's less vacant land. And St. Louis City is small in land mass (62 sq. miles of land, 4 sq. miles of water). Detroit, by contrast is almost 139 sq. miles of land and 4 sq. miles of water. Chicago is 227 sq. miles of land. Philadelphia is 127.4 sq. miles. Baltimore 80.8 sq. miles. DC is 61.4 sq. miles. Boston is only 48.4 sq. miles of land. I think part of what saved some St. Louis buildings, at least downtown, is that there wasn't much interest in downtown for residential needs, so, usually, there wasn't any reason to tear them down. Unfortunately, the city has still lost a lot of nice buildings. Most of the time the land turns into something like an ugly new parking garage. If some of you are interested in things like tearing down buildings in St. Louis, this site is interesting: http://builtstlouis.net/ Not all St. Louis is like that, but it's interesting to see what's gone, what's vacant, and what's renovated. The site hasn't been updated in a while, though, so some buildings are on the crumbling list and the recalled to life list. And Washington Avenue hasn't been updated in a while. I would guess one reason Detroit seems so empty is that it was so big to begin with. According to Wiki, Gary, Indiana was at it's peak 178k people. It's now about 97k. So, it's lost about 46% of its population. But if it wasn't that big to begin with, it probably won't seem to have as much vacant land. And if a city is smaller than area, the land may seem less empty. From the air, empty buildings that are intact look less empty than vacant lots. If the building is empty, but still in relatively good shape, if you look at it from a satellite view or something similar it looks less empty than if you tore the building down. Then you have a big grassy lot or parking lot. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5287 Registered: 02-2005 |
Yeah, St. Louis is a good case study. Being in the midwest (and also without transit, right?), it does make for a close comparison. I def. think Detroit's physical expanse and preponderance of single-family homes explains a lot of what we see today. The type of development seen away from the Woodward and Jefferson corridor from the mid 20s to 1950 set us up for a lot of abandonment as soon as homes in the city became less attractive beginning in the late 50s and 60s. | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 52 Registered: 06-2008 |
St. Louis has light rail transit. It'll get you to most the tourist places downtown. But it's not very extensive, yet. Hopefully someday it'll be expanded. The Delmar Loop may get a $1.5 million streetcar/trolley system put in (it's only like a mile long). St. Louis (like many cities) used to have a pretty big streetcar system, but it's all gone now. In St. Louis it seems like most that left the city didn't go far. They just moved to St. Louis or St. Charles county. I guess that happened in pretty much every major city. Also it seems like starting in the 50s everyone wanted to demolish and replace any building over 50 years old. Seems like that didn't really change at least until the 80s. St. Louis still has a density of 5,716.3/sq mi in the city and the city has 353k in 62 sq. miles. Compare that to a place like Kansas City, which has city limits of 313.5 sq. miles, 447k in the city limits, and 1,406.6 /sq mi. Detroit's density is still even greater 6,856/sq mi (Message edited by leannam1989 on August 26, 2008) | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5288 Registered: 02-2005 |
Yeah it's amazing how even a half-empty Detroit still exceeds the density of some of the newer western cities. And the peak-population Detroit had, as we could mathematically figure out, over 12000/sq mile on average. Considering that huge swaths of the city (especially in its corners and fringes) had/still have density that was closer to that of the inner suburbs today (5000-6500/sq mile), that really is a testament to the concentration of people that we did have living in all these apartment buildings along Woodward, Jefferson etc. that we are now seeing demolished. Parts of what is now midtown once easily exceeded 30000/sq. mile. It goes to show all the 'bones' of the city that have been broken, or lost. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 712 Registered: 07-2007 |
Here's my working theory on the decline of Detroit as compared to other major Midwestern cities. It's based on my suburban viewpoint and feel free to correct any misinterpretations of city history that I've included. Unlike most midwestern cities, Detroit's growth for most of its history has been sprawl-like. Once you get past Corktown, Midtown or Mexicantown, the numbers of places that have their own identity within the city are few and far between. Ironically, two that have their own identity, Highland Park and Hamtramck lie within the city but are not part of the city proper. The areas between are largely unmitigated high-density sprawl: Major roads lined with commercial strips surrounded by cookie-cutter residential areas with an occasional school or park thrown in. Most of the development pattern in Detroit is no different than what you'll see along Orchard Lake Road or Southfield Road or any other example of suburban sprawl in southeast Michigan. This sprawling development has created a city that lacks places with identity within the city. I know that residents and advocates for different areas will tell us how this or that neighborhood is unique or different or special within Detroit. But for how many places is that true? How many of those places have an identity that even those outside the city know? This lack of identifiable places, areas within the city and part of the city but distinct enough to have their own identity has both accelerated the pace of decline and held back any kind of redevelopment in Detroit. Compare Detroit to places like Indianapolis or Chicago that match or exceed Detroit in population and/or size and suffer many of the same problems that Detroit does. But in these cities, the distinct places like "Broad Ripple Village" in Indy or "Lincoln Park" in Chicago have helped form the foundation for the resurgence of these cities. Even when those places suffered their own challenges, their distinct sense of place helped ensure that when the time came for redevelopment, there was a distinct sense of place to build around. In some cases, these places existed on their own before being absorbed into the city. In others, a town center, transit center or central park provides the focus and the basis for the development of a distinct identity for an area or neighborhood. Even a sports stadium, like Wrigley Field, can serve as the unique identifier of a place. These places, however they have developed, have helped hold together these cities, even as they have grown and expanded outward. Like Detroit, Indianapolis and Chicago are largely composed of residential areas that have grown up over the last 100 years. But within that sea of residential subdivisions, these unique places help create islands of character, places where people can gather and places that people can call their own even as they live within the larger place of Chicago or Indianapolis. When redevelopment comes, it's attracted to these places, where developers can attract new residents and new businesses to a location that has character and identity. By comparison, Detroit largely lacks those places. Unlike Chicago or Indianapolis, where quasi-towns and distinct places were absorbed into the city or new ones were created around parks or interurban stops, Detroit never had or developed those places. While a handful of exceptions exist (Rosedale Park for example), most of Detroit's landscape lacks the town center or the former village crossroads that can sustain an area. Instead, we have miles of subdivisions with many different names that blur together and now decay together. Without these unique places, there's nowhere for redevelopment to take root, no place for residents to call their own and nowhere to start the effort to undue 100 years of sprawl. The result is that most of the redevelopment efforts in Detroit focus on the downtown area while most neighborhoods suffer and decline. This flaw isn't unique to Detroit. Look around our region and you'll find many communities, new and old, that suffer from the same pattern of development. Subdivision upon subdivision, different in name but with no place to create a sense of identity. No downtowns, no town centers, no transit centers, no central park, nothing that makes those place unique, a place where people want to stay, where people come back or that even over time, maintain a sense of identity. Until we can create those places, the efforts to rebuild Detroit and to maintain our surrounding communities are going to be a constant struggle. Sorry about the length of this. Is there somethign to this or am I off track? I think this is an important discussion, not just for Detroit but for the long-term fortunes of all of our communities. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1172 Registered: 11-2003 |
There actually were quite a few "minitowns" within the city before white flight, even in the neighborhoods made of matchstick houses. The neighborhoods many times were ethnically held together - Belgians on the east side, Slovaks, Poles... Use things like old neighborhood theatres as a great indicator of their locations. The first reason people started leaving was the FHA and other governmental agencies wouldn't give loans to new housing in black areas, beginning in the 30's. I gotta get work done, but I dragged up this link very quickly. Lowell has the best tour of this but I can't find it. http://detroitchic.com/content /view/49/50/ Secondly, insurance companies would not reimburse those in the city for replacement value - only market value. So if you lost a fridge in a fire, and it was a few years old, it'd be say $200 you'd get. Well, today, insurance companies would cut a check for $1000, even if your fridge is 10 years old, because it's insured for replacement value. Market value insurance is almost worthless. Sure, there are a few neighborhoods on the very border of Detroit how you describe. But for instance, part of my family had roots over on Dickerson. There were plenty of local, walkable places and people didn't leave the neighborhood save to work. They didn't all leave, in fact, one of my relatives became a pro-Detroit activist and another stayed and after their passing happened to be have an exhibit about them at the Historical museum as they were one of the "30 Who Dared" and was next to Ossian Sweet, Hazen Pingree, Joseph Campau, and others. Other part of my family was on Harper and Van Dyke. Gorgeous local theaters, markets, churches and schools that tied the family and neighborhood together (in both cases). You'd be amazed how much sense of place a good school and a church give, how they are roots to strong communities. What you may not know, Novine, is a lot of people in the old neighborhood stay in touch and are still friends, even in the burbs because the sense of place was so strong. They all moved en masse from Detroit right around the time of the riots because their property values were dropping in half every year because the real estate agents were orchestrating fire sales of Detroit property to eager black folks who only recently could start buying homes outside of designated areas (making 6 percent) and then also whipping up fear in white folks, selling them more house than they could afford then (making 6 percent). Once that fear cycle was started, where there would be black mothers with baby carriages paid to walk up and down streets to show that there were more black families in a neighborhood than there were, playing on already held racial beliefs, and the fear cycle hasn't stopped years later. Real estate and insurance agents would go door-to-door in Detroit and then cut deal with suburban officials to keep their suburbs "lilly white" and increase their tax base. There are outer, western regions of the city that are virtually suburban that yes, you're right, there is some of that lack of place. The rest of the city definitely had it. But it wasn't about sense of place, just like the flight now isn't about sense of place for black folks (as we're in a giant period of black flight). Now, there is no sense of place as the investment (remember, white folks control the dollars still) has left; and so it's only a small part of why we have massive black flight. That's about taxes, crime and schools. And it's sorta sad that few on this forum understand that the city is 80% black and you should probably build developments and communities that they happen to want. Detroit doesn't take care of it's own enough, let alone trying to import folk. Real change will happen when you just stem the bleeding. That should be job one. You can't love anyone else until you love yourself. |
