Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 Detroit becoming to suburbanized? Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Super_d
Member
Username: Super_d

Post Number: 640
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 69.241.247.137
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:29 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry ya'll got to fuss....

Taking advantage of the areas unusual January weather, I took a nice long bike ride thru the city, including downtown and along Jefferson. Needless to say, my pertness was quickly deflated and sharply reversed to disappointment in some of the development that I saw taking shape.

I notice new developement in many neighborhoods and downtown areas that reminded me of surburbia american. I notice several condominium style developements and housing that was just short of having white picket fences that could fit the scene of Dearborn Hts, Farmington Hills, Southfield, Wayne, Warren, Chesterfield, and many other suburbian areas__ I even saw a white guy running with three dogs that looked like show dogs thru downtown! To my suprise many of these stodgy 'erect-o-set' condo's and cribs were priced at 200 to 300 thousand dollars.

One guy was brave enough to let me take a peep inside his newly 'erect-o-set' urban dive. I was deeply disappointed__ it reminded me of a friends house that resides in the Stoney Ridge/bridge Condo's in Southfield. The guy went on to tell me,like the sybarite he is, you pay for the 'high tech' amendities__ oooh well do tell! I can't imagine paying that much for a space to look like every other space in the complex across the area. Post war housing was constructed that way to cut on cost and offer affordability for war veterans and their families.

Riding along the back of E.Jefferson, which once was home of the Rivetown Cafe, Soup Kitchen and many other unique establishments, is now going to be the future home of a State Park. All the history of the Detroit River Front is being stripped away in the form of a State Park. Many of the old style warehousing is being destroyed for a Park. Thank god for Rivertown complex and GM for keeping some of the integrity to the area.


We are slowly losing the integrity of our industrial image with prosaic and unimaginitive development__ call it gentrification, call it urbanization or whatever__ but the dynamics and history of this great city is slowy being flushed down in a maelstrom of 'neo-urbanization' and 'sub-urbia schadenfreude'.

Long Live City Life-atcha


super d(motordetroit)
Top of pageBottom of page

Chris_rohn
Member
Username: Chris_rohn

Post Number: 170
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 68.77.160.147
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is what eventually gets built after you TEAR THAT SCHITT DOWN for new development. ;)

I'm still waiting for that double-drive-thru Taco Bell on the Statler site in the tool & garden shed district.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sharmaal
Member
Username: Sharmaal

Post Number: 626
Registered: 09-2004
Posted From: 136.2.1.153
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:42 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Taco Bell? Where?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1199
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Super d, I'm not sure if I entirely understand all of your post. Are you trying to state that things like white people running with dogs, new condos, homes priced at $200k-$300k, high tech amenities, and the like should be the exclusive domain of suburbs? I always thought the strength of a city was that it retains a diverse environment.

Now, if your beef is more with the architecture of these new condos and such, then you probably have grounds to be upset.
Top of pageBottom of page

Southwestmap
Member
Username: Southwestmap

Post Number: 356
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 64.79.90.206
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My theory is that urban African-Americans believe that a suburban look reflects "moving up." Victoria Park looks like a subdivision in Troy. The urban grid is destroyed to create big lots, big garages and big (ticky-tacky)homes. I agree that the suburbanization (not neo-urbanization, which is a distinctly urban look and feel)of Detroit is a sad phenomenom.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3101
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Super d, I'd venture to say that most here agree with you, and it's been discussed quite a few times. Most of Detroit's new development is very "suburban" in apperance, and often in function, even within the boundaries of the "old" city (Grand Blvd. Loop) which is a major bone of contention with me. It would be great to see this type of development almost anywhere else in the city BUT where most of it is being built. Stil, there I've noticed an increased interest in blending these new developments with their respective neighborhoods. Some good examples include:

1. Centurion Place - http://www.centurionplace.com/

2. Garden Lofts at Woodward Place -
http://www.crosswindsus.com/mi chigan/detroit_garden_lofts_wo odward_place/garden.htm

And even the Ellington is looking nice. Hopefully, this is the trend the city will continue to see within the old city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 5465
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 70.236.198.22
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm with you, Super_d, wouldn't you say we have to take some of the bad with the good?

I mean, how will people learn more to value the old unless they have some crappy rendition of new to compare it with?! (not to say ALL new is bad, of course)

Damn shame you had to witness that guy with the foo-foo dogs, dog. That just ain't right.

On the one hand...drawing people downtown to live in these new construcion beauties is an overall GOOD thing, because their tax and spend dollars will all eventually help fuel this city's continuance.

MOST of the old has been torn down...even my dear, old Rivertown Saloon. That area is one I avoid like the plague now, too much nasty comparison to my fond memories of the neighborhood.

We are in the midst of an age-old urban development dilemma...you wouldn't care if you didn't so much appreciate and love the existing stuff.


Now it's time for NDavies and a few others to chime in defending modern building economic practises...we've had this discussion before.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3103
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:59 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There really is such thing as good-looking, modern infill. Heck, you can even look to Houston for that. But, I have a really good feeling that the infill I posted above is the direction things are going, which is a good thing. We sometimes forget that Detroit's revitalization is pretty recent compared to many other cities that had their first batch of bad infill housing, but has senses evolved.

Yes, even places like Chicago, Milwaukee...had to deal with their first batch of bad infill.
Top of pageBottom of page

Treez4brkfst
Member
Username: Treez4brkfst

Post Number: 97
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.79.119.249
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:40 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As a resident of Jefferson Village and our "cookie cutter" homes, I can say that I am very satisfied with my home and community. Not only am I surrounded by a largely black middle class community I also dont have to worry about crosses burning in my yard or nigger spray painted on my "suburban style" home. Additionally, my affinity for entertaining myself in downtown Detroit or Gross Pointe has increased exponentially. Sure it would be great to have a home like my great grand mother in Boston Edison or Indian Village (which happens to be 1/4 mile away). All I know is, prior to the availability of Jefferson Village I was going to move to Belleville/Ypsilanti Twp just to get a new home. So with that said and by the 400 deep waiting list to purchase here, dont be too offended because many are not. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Matt_the_deuce
Member
Username: Matt_the_deuce

Post Number: 461
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.14.248.252
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When looking at all the variables, I don't have anything against Jefferson Village. It's far enough away from Downtown, or outside the "old city" Grand Blvd loop, as Lmich pointed out. Much better than no development at all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1421
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.212.231.238
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:28 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jefferson Village is, unfortunately, the epitome of "suburban cookie-cutter" housing. Sorry, Treez, but I can't move into a housing development that can't give me a backyard to fence in. Just because I am getting a wider lot shouldn't mean I can't get a decent backyard.

Now, how is it that there are new in-fill housing developements for the poor in Brightmoor and on the eastside at Lillibridge and Canfield that can still give me a nice chain-link fence to encircle a nice size backyard, yet for $250,000+ I've got to share my yard with my Jefferson Village neighbors? That sucks. It's just too "suburban" for me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 231
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.43.81.191
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"...I also dont have to worry about crosses burning in my yard or nigger spray painted on my "suburban style" home."

Riiight, because a number of isolated incidents that I can count on one hand committed against just a handful of the 200,000 or so black suburbanites by just a handful of the +2 million white people living in the burbs is a real cause of concern when considering whether or not to move to the suburbs. Isn't that the same logic that some suburbanites use to paint the entire city of Detroit as crime-infested based on the murder rate and justify their decision never to go Downtown? I guess it's easier to paint when you use such a broad brush.
Top of pageBottom of page

Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft

Post Number: 750
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 71.144.85.254
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:43 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit neighborhoods have always had more of a "suburban look" than most eastern cities, or Chicago.

It is what it is. You didn't find rowhouses here or lots of towers with apartments, you found single family homes on leafy, residential streets. That's the beauty of older Detroit neighborhoods.

Do you want to replace that with some hipster designer vision of what a city "should" look like?
Top of pageBottom of page

Sharmaal
Member
Username: Sharmaal

Post Number: 628
Registered: 09-2004
Posted From: 69.14.76.187
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Waaaaaaaannnnhhhhhh, Waaaaaaaahhh.

Quit your crying. This is the last of our problems.

"Tear dat schitt down". Be careful what you wish for.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3105
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Pffft, most everyone gets that most of Detroit is rather low-density compared to many eastern cities, but we're talking about areas being made even MORE low-density than what was there before, taking out street grids and putting in cul-de-sacs and the like.

Once again, within the historically dense Grand Boulevard Loop we shouldn't be seeing decreases in the built density all for what some call "progress." As someone else said, Jefferson Village is far enough away from downtown not to garner any criticism.

Warriorfan, as usual, there is SO much more to talk about and you so predictably take something totally irrelevant and harp on it. You do protest to much, I think.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 232
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.43.81.191
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What else is there to talk about? The "Detroit becoming too suburbanized" discussion has been held about 800 times already (example: the thread about the new FBI building). It's just rehashing what everyone else has reiterated time and time again, with the general consensus being that 99.9% of the people don't like the look of suburban architecture in Detroit's urban setting.

And it's funny how you take the time to harp on me and yet you don't seem to mind the completely irrelevant threads masquarading as excuses to unjustifiably bash the suburbs, examples being the Birmingham schools thread and the Troy downtown development plan thread. As if the people in Birmingham are somehow evil or hurting Detroit if they decide to vote for a bond issue to improve their schools using their own money, or Troy is somehow trying to ursurp Detroit by trying to create a downtown of their own (similar to Pontiac and Royal Oak having "Downtowns", they aren't meant to compete with Detroit in terms of scale or importance).

I'm sorry, but as someone who has friends and family who live in the suburbs, I take offense to the insinuation that any time a black person steps foot outside of the city of Detroit, there are a group of suburbanites in white hoods waiting with rope in hand. That is the image that seems to be tossed around by the majority of forum members and it's uncalled for, especially seeing how people in here so rabidly defend this city when it is unfairly stereotyped in the national media, seems kind of hypocritical to me. Hate crimes are no more the norm in the suburbs than murder is in Detroit. The quote I referenced specifically linked the suburbs with a "hate crime" atmosphere, I simply pointed out that hate crimes in the suburbs are so rare that they become headline news on the few occasions they do occur, specifically because they are so rare. I'm sorry if my facts bother you so much, please resume your baseless stereotyping.
Top of pageBottom of page

Treez4brkfst
Member
Username: Treez4brkfst

Post Number: 98
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.79.119.249
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:08 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Im not stereotyping. My mom lives in Farmington. My sister in Canton. So my beef is not with suburban residents. I kick it with cats every weekend who come to the bars downtown and I have made many friends. However, it would be totally neglient to pretend that this area is not segregated and that Michigan wasn't rated with the 3rd most hate crimes in the nation, I believe. Just because there aren't any bodies hanging from them nooses its still intimidation and highly effective.

Moreover Royce, im paying 2 fiddy to not have freakin gates. I hate em and believe the lack thereof can promote community and togetherness. None of that this is "my" property, dont cross this line/gate. Howabout let take care of "our" yard. Figuratively speaking.

Lastly, can anyone name me a builder that's building urban/historical style homes nowadays??
Top of pageBottom of page

Shave
Member
Username: Shave

Post Number: 1001
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 172.162.232.20
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 1:47 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What is up with Detroiters complaining about safe, updated, lead-free, housing that retains some of its middle-class residents? Talk about a city of contradictions. Good grief!
Top of pageBottom of page

Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized

Post Number: 180
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.245.75.239
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 3:57 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I'm sorry, but as someone who has friends and family who live in the suburbs, I take offense to the insinuation that any time a black person steps foot outside of the city of Detroit, there are a group of suburbanites in white hoods waiting with rope in hand."

Not that I believe that or anything, but rants from people such as yourself certainly don't clear that up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 3666
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 207.74.110.167
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit becoming suburbanized is one the urban symptoms that White folks are laying their claims to take back their once pride and joy neigborhoods. Slowly sweeping black folks from out of their hiding places and moving them out the suburbs or any other U.S. cities. Keep some Detroit ghettohoods black for a long time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1422
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.212.231.238
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:49 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, Treez, I like dogs and I'd like them to have an area to run around in. I shouldn't have to pay some service to have an "invisible fence." If I had children, I'd like to feel safe knowing that they are fenced in by a real fence.

A chain-link fence, an iron fence, or a picket fence still allow for neighborly interaction(those white vinyl fences, however, are awful). A fence, IMHO, protects the kids and pets from outside dangers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 903
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.142.86.133
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 4:48 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Most of the "classic" houses you see around detroit were all cookie-cutter back in their day.

Things are moving in the right direction.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3110
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:47 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Looks like a whole bunch of posts were removed from this thread. I had a very relevant post here that disappeared. What's the deal?

Also, there is a different between the "classic" old, whatever you want to call them, development of the past and much of the stuff being built today in inner city of Detroit. Apart from aesthetics/looks, it is the function that bothers me. Most of Detroit's old, inner-city neighborhoods where built prior to the automobile, but the new stuff being built in the core (a good chunk of it) seems to be auto-centered.

Forget about the looks, they are not equally replacing what was there before in terms of function. Suburban means MUCH more than simply the exterior design of the structures.

Really, it is not that much to ask simply for auto-centric designed housing to be developed outside of the old city where most of it is already auto-centric. The city just doesn't seem to have the vision, patience, or will to ask for what they deserve.

(Message edited by lmichigan on January 28, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1425
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.212.231.238
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 9:02 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lmichigan, the auto rules here in Michigan, and as a result new homes are going to accommodate this fact. The attached garage is what you get with most of these new housing developments, whether it's homes for 250k or 80k. People nowadays, whether they live in the city or the suburbs, want the safety and convenience of an attached garage. Unless a part of the city is designated as historical and as a result new housing must look like the old with detached garages in the back( I don't know), most of the new homes that we'll see constructed, even in the inner ring, will have an attached garage.

In my opinion, the thing that makes new housing in the city look even more suburban than the attached garage and the inevitable driveway is the fact that very few of these new housing developments are planting trees between the sidewalk and the curb of the street. In places like Virginia Park and Victoria Park, there's simply not enough lawn between the sidewalk and the curb. In older Detroit neighborhoods you can almost guarantee a nice large tree in front of every home. This, however, is not happening in new housing developments, and as a result, places like Virginia Park and Victoria Park look bland all year round. No tree to offer shade and no tree to change colors with the seasons. Booooooooooooring.
Top of pageBottom of page

Xd_brklyn
Member
Username: Xd_brklyn

Post Number: 100
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.199.85.107
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:56 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point Royce. Even in the suburbs of Ferndale, Mad Heights or Royal Oak you still had that sidewalk/lawn & tree/street lineup. Their lots are a bit wider but they feel like a natural extension of Detroit.

But to go back to the anti auto-centric argument, a city is supposed to offer choices and the bigger the city the better the offerings. Making the automobile a given necessity is just another limitation. Personally, I think the calls for SE Michigan to get mass transit and a diversified economy go hand and hand. A healthy sign for a city is to look for more options.

Just a thought, but doesn't Detroit have City Planning? Shouldn't this question of city & suburban planning be laid out in some sort of zoning map. It's kind of crazy not to have something so basic, but then again, not having a plan keeps every little build an interesting development.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3111
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 4:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The planning department seems to be mediocre at best, and pretty bad for a northern city of it's size and history. Then again, after the city exploded in population, planning went out the window, and that was back in the 20's. It's sad considering how well the city had been planned up until the invention of the mass-produced automobile.
Top of pageBottom of page

Futurecity
Member
Username: Futurecity

Post Number: 214
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 68.248.32.46
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 4:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Car-heads worked to kill the city. Car-heads work to keep it down.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1374
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 68.255.247.65
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 10:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LMichigan,

I would disagree with that. Detroit planning was largely state of the art in the 50s and 60s. The problem is that state of the art planning them killed cities.

From what I've seen, they do a pretty good job considering they are short staffed and operate in a difficult political climate. (There are actually 2 planning departments. One works for the mayor, and one for Planning Commission/City Council.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3112
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 4:32 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I disagree. If you consider sprawling the city all the way to 8 Mile and beyound up until the 50's then I guess you could say the planning "worked." I don't. They pretty much gave up on downtown after that time putting all their power towards not trying to steer the sprawl within the city limits back towards itself, but away. As long as Detroit bringing in the families nothing much seemed to matter. If even half of what was built outside of the inner city would have been steered back toward the inner city Detroit would be a very different city today, I predict, and one that would have been easier to rebuild and recover (i.e. most Eastern cities).

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