Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 Disappeared Detroit Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Drm
Member
Username: Drm

Post Number: 772
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.248.33.59
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 4:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.lostmag.com/issue2/ detroit.php

My apologies if this article has been previously posted here.
Top of pageBottom of page

Drm
Member
Username: Drm

Post Number: 775
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.77.163.2
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 1:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Since some folks like to compare Detroit to NYC:


quote:

Prior to Detroit's woes, no city knew urban erasure like New York .... In 1976, for instance, New York City began "thinking the unthinkable" when its top housing official, Roger Starr, urged all sensible Americans to get hip to the thought of "planned shrinkage." The city already had pockets of dwindling population namely the South Bronx and Brooklyn's Brownsville neighborhood and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Public policy would accelerate that shrinkage, so that blighted areas could be scratched off the list of neighborhoods needing expensive city services. No doubt about it, Starr said. "The stretches of empty blocks may then be knocked down, services can be stopped, subway stations closed, and the land left to lie fallow until a change in economic and demographic assumptions makes the land useful once again." It was strong medicine for an American dream obsessed with building up and growing ever bigger, as Starr himself acknowledged. "I surely cannot underestimate the fears engendered by this notion of growing smaller," he said, "in a social milieu in which growing bigger has been the hope of those who have not had a fair share."


Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1495
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.136
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 1:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am surprised more forumers have not commented.Thanks for the article Drm.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 9705
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 64.118.137.228
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 2:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm waiting for the Cliff notes version. Either that, or for Rasputin to cut-n-paste it, underlining and using bold text for the important parts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1120
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 4:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very interesting article that I just got around to. The "de-densifying" of Detroit neighborhoods is very concerning. Not just in the act of demolition of old houses and buildings, but even, quite often, when new developers come in and make very suburban-style homes and condos and strip-malls. We need to hang on to our precious few areas where a complete urban context is still there, just as some wise people decided that it would be best to hold Merchant's Row together and preserve the great urban style, adapting it to new use. And then you have neighborhoods like West Village which are so beautifully urban. Let's hope the east riverfront does get any less urban; let's hope all of the vacant land being sold to developers will be developed with the best possible modern take on urban living.

Witold Rybcinski always has insightful things to say, and was featured in this article. I recommend his "City Life" book.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw

Post Number: 77
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 67.149.141.170
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 4:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree that closing parts of the city is a good idea. But the areas that are mostly intact should have somewhat strict ordinances keeping the historical and urban feel. It would be a good cultural investment too, and I believe that cultural exports and cultural reputation are important to a citys sucsess.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1393
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.213.204.219
Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 4:56 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This discussion ties in well with "The most barren areas of the city" thread.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2959
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 5:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sure does. In fact, it's being discussed (or was) in that thread by a few of us. You know, the question of whether the city should still feel bound and obligated to service all 139 square miles (land) of the city considering regardless of how wipped clean some areas currently are.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1122
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 11:32 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Closing," correct me if I'm wrong, would imply chosing a few blocks that are very low-density and forcing out whomever still lives there, and then keeping possible developers and real estate developers out (because the city would assume control of the properties there). I don't see how this would save much on city services (because to cut off police coverage of an area would be foolish: it would cause crime to rise in an area, or perhaps anarchy, and because what is there to cut? The neighborhood snowplowing that only goes into effect twice a year?). This would be government overreach. I think the best thing to do would be to re-zone abandoned areas to entice different types of development, whether it be industrial, farming, or high-density residential.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8009
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 64.228.198.222
Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 3:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Deroit should have been doing this throughout the '90s. Compact the entire city! Why service one or two homes in the middle of what can be considered fields. I am sure it would save the city money that is evidently needed for other services and may in fact improve those services elsewhere.
Detroit could then let those fields become naturalized areas. Teh city would have so many nature areas it could achieve a few things.
1) more greenspace=less pollution.
2) places for camping or hunting=more $$$ for Detroit.
3)beautification of the city. Instead of dereliction there would be forests, animals and hiking trails.
4)If in the future those empty fields are needed they could be rebuilt.

Thanks for the article DRM. Very interesting that NY had though of this as well. I wonder how many other cities have thought of this?

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.