Discuss Detroit Ľ Archives - Beginning January 2006 Ľ How can Detroit limit further sprawl? ę Previous Next Ľ
Top of pageBottom of page

Urbanoutdoors
Member
Username: Urbanoutdoors

Post Number: 23
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:31 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit is one of the most sprawled out cities in the country and that has happened because of a multitude of reasons. I just want to know how can michigan in general limit further sprawl?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 1912
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.81.155
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:36 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit could slow it a little.... by refusing to hook up any more exurbia folks to the city's water and sewage systems. The infrastructure needs to be replaced. Like the state moratorium on further road constructions, the city needs to deal with the infrastructure it already has, without dealing with new additions to it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Urbanoutdoors
Member
Username: Urbanoutdoors

Post Number: 25
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:41 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That is my exact thought The city water system needs to concentrate on what it has and not expand because expansion is just making it harder and harder to sustain itself. With no significant population growth and but significant land expansion it just doesn't make environmental economic or aesthetic sense to keep expanding.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3404
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:42 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And that's about it, short of giving away free land, and making it tax free for life. lol The laws are set up currently to encourage sprawl at both the state and national level, and until that changes, a central city can do very little to on its own to discourage sprawl. Sprawl has been sold as a lifestyle, really the only thing keeping the American economy going as fast as it is (even within the recession).
Top of pageBottom of page

Urbanoutdoors
Member
Username: Urbanoutdoors

Post Number: 26
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:45 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Isn't the concept of a throw away society wonderful........
Top of pageBottom of page

Futurecity
Member
Username: Futurecity

Post Number: 244
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.212.210.6
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:47 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, there are many reasons for sprawl. Likewise, there are many ways to limit it.

However, there is no political will to do so.

In this region, Sprawlers and Carheads rule.
Top of pageBottom of page

Urbanoutdoors
Member
Username: Urbanoutdoors

Post Number: 27
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:50 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its crazy to me to see that from 1853 when the water system roster was started the city only suplied water to itself for 47 years and since 1900 has expanded to at least 126 other cities or townships in south east michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mbr
Member
Username: Mbr

Post Number: 51
Registered: 03-2005
Posted From: 69.136.139.235
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:04 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Natural barriers have proven to be most effective. Unfortunately we have none.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 1913
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.81.155
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:07 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, Detroit should have done what Los Angeles did..... you want to hook up to the city system, then you have to be part of the city. That's why LA is something like 430 sq. miles today.

Of course, we're surrounded by water, so that kinda negates that argument.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 378
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 35.11.210.161
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:08 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit can't do this alone it's going to take people in inner ring burbs to realize they have more in common with Detroit. It's slowly happening with groups like the Suburbs Alliance. Unfortunately, too many still people see no benefit supporting thing like transit or no subsidizing roads and water in sprawlburbs
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 176
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.255.244.214
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:05 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i would take it one step further. i would extrapolate sustainable density over the current system's extent, i.e. NO pumping through vacant lots. Anything beyond would get no water. Shut it down.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3405
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:16 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's if DWSD really wanted to give up all of the money they bring in. At the end of the day, even the city of Detroit doesn't truly support stopping sprawl when it comes down to the almighty dollar. They'd have to boost rates in the city and inner-ring to an amount no one would support. In the short term, limiting pipes to the outer-ring sprawl, would be limiting the amount of potential customers, and I don't think DSWD wants to think long term at the moment.

Or, maybe I've got it all wrong. Wouldn't be the first or the last time. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Tomoh
Member
Username: Tomoh

Post Number: 102
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.40.205.183
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:17 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If the city and inner ring suburbs had a lot of money they could buy up all the undeveloped land left in Oakland and Macomb counties and keep it undeveloped.

Michigan could raise the gas tax by two cents a month and promise to keep doing so for at least 5 years. That would make people start planning to live closer to where they work.

Michigan could change its constitution to allow regional taxing thereby allowing regional cooperation.

Michigan could give tax breaks to people who live within a certain distance of their employers since they will use a lesser proportion of the state's roads thereby decreasing the need for the state to spend money building, widening, and maintaining roads. The state could encourage insurance companies to also offer discounts. In fact, we could do what I believe Oregon is doing by making people pay for a portion of insurance at the pump since the more you drive the more risk you create. The paradigm of unlimited driving for the same price (of insurance) distorts the true cost of driving.

I guess to learn how to really fight sprawl you should take some of those courses UofM is offering this spring. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw

Post Number: 136
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 148.61.248.170
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:26 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't some cities have some kind of weird city/county thing set up, where the metro is basicly turned into a single city? I think that has been working in the other cities, and could work here too.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3407
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:33 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It works were only where township governments are either non-existent or weak, unlike Michigan's setup which includes strong, chartered townships around cities. It also works where other small cities and villages in the suburbs are relatively small and fractured. Municipal consolidation is wishful thinking in Michigan. Michigan's modern constitution (1963) pretty much killed that idea with giving townships the right to charter themselves to make them stronger (i.e. less susceptible to annexation by cities/villages) than regular townships. It effectively placed charter townships on nearly the same level as cities/villages.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 129
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 7:50 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ya know, not everyone WANTS to live in a city proper, some of us prefer some open land and less people and less cement. Yet your plan is to punish these people, there is so much REVERSE discrimination around here it aint funny!
Top of pageBottom of page

Gildas
Member
Username: Gildas

Post Number: 485
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 147.240.236.9
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:18 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If Detroit and the inner rings offered lower taxes, decent city services and a education system (mostly Detroit here) that could produce a high school graduate that could actually read, that might go a long way in reducing sprawl by people CHOOSING to move into the city and inner rings.

It's all about choice and people don't choose to live with the tax burden and services that Detroit offers. Make it better and folks might move back.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1310
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.32
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:29 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Miss Cleo,

We're not out to punish folks who want to live on "open" land. We just don't want to subsidize their choice to do so. If you want to live in the "country", fine but be prepared to pay the true cost for doing so. Don't expect me to subsidize the cost of improving your roads, running sewer and water to your house, pay to deal with the congestion caused by so many folks wanting to live on "the farm".

And no, this is not a joke or a facetious post.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gildas
Member
Username: Gildas

Post Number: 488
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 147.240.236.9
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:00 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bvos,

You actually think that Detroit is self-sufficient regarding its infrastructure? Services? Who is facing recievership? I think many in the state are subsidizing Detroit, the suburbs make up 70-80% of water customers, many people in the suburbs pay the Detroit city income tax and don't live in the city.

When is comes to entitlements, Detroit is in no position to point fingers at anyone.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 737
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 209.104.146.146
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:09 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Urban Service Boundaries.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 177
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.255.244.214
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:16 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's not about finger pointing. It's pretty clear Detroit dug it's own hole wrt to facilitating development through the sale of water. It's more about the insanity of maintaining infrastructure and pumping water through 30,000 vacant lots so that a new housing start can work in a negligible growth region... I say, no new development until Detroit is repopulated! Until and unless it is, systematic shut down should occur. Feikens be damned! We live in a vortex of stupidity... like frogs in slowly heating water.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gildas
Member
Username: Gildas

Post Number: 490
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 147.240.236.9
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:25 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detour,

Sounds alittle fascists to me. "your going to live in Detroit because I think it's a good choice for all!!"

As we goose-step to the burbs to police up people and relocate them to "better, safer quarters" (or a vacant lot as you posted) in our great city?

How about no, I think free choice is the issue here and we in Detroit have done a shitty job holding our elected officials accountable and making the city a desireable place to live. That seems to be changing (I hope anyway) but only having a functioning city with a reasonable tax burden and good services will bring people back.

The development in the burbs happened because people wanted it to. All the vacant land in Detroit at one time had a home, with people. They apparently don't want to be there anyone. Detroit would hurt itself by shutting water off to vacant areas, or areas with only one or two homes on a street, as all the "dead space" is in Detroit, not in the burbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 130
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:28 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lol, ok, lets also have systematic shut down of suburban funds, people and product going INTO the city.....how about we build that wall on 8 miles Colemen wanted and be done with it? You stay out of the burbs and I will stay out of the city(not that its ahard thing to do).......oh, and way up in Boyne City, I wll no longer have to hear you babies whine about water and stuff. lol
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 46
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 209.220.229.254
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:26 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You talk so much about Boyne City, why aren't you there already? Any why is someone who is (apparently) seconds away from moving to Boyne City so terribly concerned with her "right" to live in Detroit's exurbs, free of economic penalty?
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 847
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:38 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't look to the state for help, they want anything built anywhere that will bring in tax money. It is the crappy goverment set-up (state and federal) that says growth equals building new and eating up land. Rural governments see increasing tax dollars, so they don't want to stop it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1324
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.34
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:45 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The discussion of suburban subsidies is to make it known that the suburbs are subsidized to a great deal, likely to the same amount that we subsidize the city if one looks at the life-span of infrastructure and social costs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 379
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 35.11.210.161
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:14 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gildas

Yes, there is a lot Detroit could do to make it more competitve with other cities. However, it's not all about choice do you really think that state polices have no effect? They also put the city at competitive disadtage when developer. You don't think charging impact fee on developers for the cost new infrastructure would give Detroit or older cities with exisiting infrastructure an advantage?
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 114
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:21 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

The development in the burbs happened because people wanted it to.




and because the federal government subsidized roads and highways as a way to provide jobs after the depression and WWII

and because federal tax code gives people credit for owning a detached single-family home as opposed to renting

and because FHA lending rules discriminated against "those people" so it made it easier to segregate in the sticks than it was in the city

and because when new development is built, the tax impact is spread out over both the new recipients of the improvement and those who are part of the existing system, as opposed to charging impact fees to developers
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 178
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:42 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Suburb = Subsidy
City = Civilization
Top of pageBottom of page

Bongman
Member
Username: Bongman

Post Number: 974
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 198.111.56.128
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:02 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Boyne City...June thru September = FUN

Boyne City...October thru May = BORING !!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7054
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.251.24
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:05 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Back to the question:


quote:

How can Detroit limit further sprawl?




I say we bring in as may black immigrants and place them in fringe communities at the outer edge of sprawl. The white folks that continue to sprawl won't know what to do because they would have to move into a black meighborhood. Mass confusion would ensue as they would be blocked from sprawling further out.

I kid.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 251
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 198.103.184.76
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:11 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1: isn't that way Danny is predicting will happen anyway?

:-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7056
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.251.24
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:16 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes but his numbers on ethic breakdowns totaled 127% so I'm not sure were the extra 27% will be lost.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 525
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 68.2.191.57
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:28 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This sounds suspiciously similar to the design of the first atom bomb. The reverse shock waves might converge, forcing the CBD to reach critical mass, then....

Let's rethink this idea? :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Spaceman_spiff
Member
Username: Spaceman_spiff

Post Number: 13
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 24.56.252.143
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:47 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Shouldn't urban sprawl eventually reach a carrying capacity? The value of suburbs to me is their proximity to the amenities of city life combined with their access to rural recreational areas. Well, as the "wave" of sprawl spreads outwards, the new suburbs have a longer commute, the older suburbs have less access to rural open spaces, thereby decreasing the value of both. On the other hand, urban living should stay fairly consitant in value. For example, urban sprawl shouldn't continue at its current pace; when a person who works in the city has over an hour commute to work, the cost in both time and money makes the arrangement less profitable.

I think one way to approach the situation is to give people what they like in the suburbs (exburbs?) in the city. This greening of Detroit conference, for example, on Belle Isle next week. If people move seeking open spaces, give them open spaces in the city.

I know that these "solutions" are simplistic at best and idealistic at worst, but I figured I'd toss in my two cents.

-Spiff
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1357
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:53 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I think one way to approach the situation is to give people what they like in the suburbs (exburbs?) in the city.




Yikes!
Top of pageBottom of page

Leidio
Member
Username: Leidio

Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 128.103.173.160
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:54 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Toss out townships. Townships are the agents of sprawl. It's the only way they can get revenue. They are, in places like SE Michigan, nihilistic entities.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 52
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 209.220.229.254
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:57 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Shouldn't urban sprawl eventually reach a carrying capacity? The value of suburbs to me is their proximity to the amenities of city life combined with their access to rural recreational areas. Well, as the "wave" of sprawl spreads outwards, the new suburbs have a longer commute, the older suburbs have less access to rural open spaces, thereby decreasing the value of both.



That's fine, only you see how that's worked so far in Detroit by looking at Auburn Hills, etc. As the people moved to the suburbs, so did the jobs. Congestion grew, people moved to the exurbs to get away. The jobs will continue to follow, as people have an impossible dream of both living near their jobs, and living in the country.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 38
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 5:12 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Make urban revitalization immensly profitable. That'll solve it all real quick. It's all about the benjamins. That's why sprawl is built.

Really though subsidies in the form of roads, water and infrastructure have to stop. Granholm's fix it first policy is a start.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3409
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 5:35 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Focus got it. Sprawl has no carrying capacity in this region because jobs follow residential sprawl (or the other way around sometime). Not only that, but then you get so far out that you're now other cities in their own right (Flint, Ann Arbor, Lansing...)

I agree, Eastsidedog. IMO, Granholm did more for cities in her first two years (even with the combative Republican-controlled Michigan congress), than Engler did in his entire 90's reign. I can't even imagine how much further we'd be if we have a more responsive Democratic-controlled Michigan Congress. She also, back a few years ago, demanded that if a state office/department is going to move that it first consider urban areas before building anew further outside of town. These aren't genius ideas, just plain, old common sense.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 43
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 5:48 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agreed Lmichigan, she has done a ton for cities. I remember hearing about Granholm requiring state buildings to be located in urban areas. She actually said in the announcement something to the effect of "they should be located in the neighborhoods they serve not in far away isolated industrial parks." That was when I knew I really liked Granholm. I think she genuinely understands the value of cities, and not just Detroit, but all urban areas in Michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3413
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 6:01 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree, especially when she has inherited an economy that has been imploding since the 1980's. I can think of few other states where urban areas will be so incredibly value in rebuilding and diversifying our destroyed economy. I can't think of any other states where our cities mean so much for our future. Sprawl can not, and will not sustain our economy.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 65
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 68.166.44.44
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 6:19 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Pleeeease, Granholm is like every other politician, she says what her constituency wants to hear. Her statement that state offices should be located in urban areas really should read, "my voters live in urban areas, so I am saying we should build state office buildings there".

The Republicans are no different; all politicos pander for votes.

Sprawl is a fact of American life UNLESS the urban area develops the life style and benefits the exurbs want. Take a look at Vancouver, BC or even Chicago. While the sprawl continues, the urban center thrives. One does not exclude the other. And the pandering politicians just make it harder for both to be successful.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1358
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 6:24 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Prepare for the shitstorm, River Rat.

(you just might learn something)
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 46
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 6:24 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River Rat, Vancouver and Chicago have population growth. Detroit does not. Therefore sprawl is merely spreading us out.

I call it the Exodus Industry.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 47
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 6:26 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River rat, damn straight she is pandering to me, she better. The day politicians stop pandering for votes is the day we find ourselves in a dictatorship.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 66
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 68.166.44.44
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 6:29 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc,

As jjaba said, river rat be deep inside the beltway. I've already been splattered on other threads. I even changed my member name and have become kinder and gentler. Still I expect the spletter to come.


river rat
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3420
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:24 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River Rat, your last post just struck me as interesting. Who were you formerly? Don't you think that this deception is cowardly? Can you not take the heat? I hate to pull us off subject, how is coming back under another name anything but deception?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 532
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 68.2.191.57
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:26 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Didn't Lowell expose him already?
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 13
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 71.227.26.9
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:48 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the folks in Detroit should quit blaming the suburbs for all of their problems. Many people donít prefer urban areas even if they are decent, but you canít blame people for wanting to live in a safe neighborhood with good schools and where you get decent appreciation on your property. When Detroit offers those core advantages, people will come.

Cutting off water to the suburbs? I have lived in the Lakes area for 25 years in 2 apartments and 3 houses and have never used city water, we have things called wells out here. I grew up in Southfield and watched that city change into an urban wasteland with tons of offices, traffic and increasing crime, basically an annex of Detroit. I made up my mind to move out of the area as a child, when I witnessed the 1967 riots and the aftermath. That had an enormous impact on me and people in my age group, right or wrong. Decades of mismanagement by Coleman Young just made things worse, yet he is hailed as a great man today.

I would love to see Detroit recover because it would be great for all of us, but this adversarial relationship that exists between the suburbs and the city seems to be insurmountable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3422
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:15 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jimaz, where? I'm very intrigued to say the least.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 535
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 68.2.191.57
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:22 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'd have to search. Maybe Lowell will chime in -- or maybe not. (I don't really care.) I definitely recall the startling revelation though.

(Message edited by Jimaz on March 23, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 537
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 68.2.191.57
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:03 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I may have confused it with:

quote:

Lowell:
DRM, please stop citing facts, they are confusing Irish Mafia and the 'economist' formerly known as MrJoshua.


If so, my apologies, although I'm not sure and still don't care. LOL.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1330
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 64.148.226.17
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:28 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, DC, despite its incredible revitalization, is still sprawling like crazy. It appears that "market forces" have not stopped sprawl there:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03 /16/AR2006031602160.html
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3425
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:31 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But, DC's sprawl isn't much a direct detriment to the city, whereas in a place like Detroit, its sprawl is literally bleeding the city dry. I think people will be surprised to find out how little outside investment we'll see by decades end. This is more a game of "musical chairs" than ever before, in Metro Detroit. Resources are being moved around, but little it being added from the outside and much is leaving, and that's not real growth, at all. In this case, any new sprawl is more destructive than in a metro area that has maintained its center.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 945
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.142.86.133
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:17 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You want the end all, be all answer to sprawl?

High oil prices.

Yup. That's right. Forget subsidized roads, loans, etc. High costs to commute would quickly change everything. If it costs you $50 to get to and from work, you'd better bet your ass the demand to live close to work, with minimal driving required would increase exponentially.

In fact, as much as I LOVE to drive (I love taking the trains too), I worry that the US economy is so dependent on freeways and the auto that any big time oil spike could seriously cripple the economy. Other industrialized nations will be better able to absorb such a shock. Europe, Japan, China are all far more urban with excellent secondary transportation systems that could pad an oil shock. In the US, most places would be completely F'd if the cost of oil went up dramatically. People couldn't afford to get to work. How wonderful would that be?

I'm not asking for a quick shock, but a steady increase in commuting costs would take care of it quickly. Its all about the $$$. Look at how quickly Katrina changed people's demand for fuel efficiency. Far more effective, one event, than any sort of fuel economy legislation over the past 20 years. Its because it affects most people directly in the pocketbook. Thats when you'll see change.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 851
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 8:59 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The question we all need to be asking is IF you don't like Granholm's policies about sprawl, or don't think she has done enough, what will DeVos do for sprawl? Not really sure because he has been a huge supporter of Downtown Grand Rapids, but his former company is in the suburbs. We need to ask very pointed questions from him and demand answers. I suspect he will be pro-sprawl, because to him it will equal growth.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 67
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 207.195.241.66
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:15 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lmichigan and Jimaz,

Lowell has never made any revelation about my former incarnation. My new name is anything but cowardly. Many on the forum do not like to hear views inconsistant with their own. Thought I would start over. River rat never uses profanity nor personal slurs - only the facts as seen by the rat. Often unpopular.

Back to the thread. Sprawl will stop when Detroit becomes a safe city with a reliable and safe transportation system. Earlier in the thread Jerome1 said Detroit would be well served by higher fuel prices. Gasoline prices at or over $3.25 a gallon will be a terminal blow to Detroit (if it hasn't already been delivered). Whatever is left of the auto industry and profits from GM and F will be gone and they will be in bankruptcy sooner than later. Think about what the effect will be on those least able to afford it. Detroit residents. Those in the burbs can afford higher fuel costs; the city can not.

river rat the gentle person
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 54
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 209.220.229.254
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:38 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Well, DC, despite its incredible revitalization, is still sprawling like crazy. It appears that "market forces" have not stopped sprawl there



DC will continue to sprawl because it cannot build up, only out. I don't know how many vacant parcels exist in the district proper, but assuming there aren't many, DC cannoy build up like Chicago did to meet demand.
Top of pageBottom of page

Futurecity
Member
Username: Futurecity

Post Number: 247
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 68.255.232.183
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:44 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nothing will take the steam out of Carhheads and Sprawlers like $5-a-gallon gas.

We can only hope...
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1359
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:04 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let's get one thing straight here. There is growth, and then there is sprawl.

DC has definitely been hurt by sprawl. Remember the good ole days when Marion Barry was mayor? The cesspool that existed back then (and still exists, in parts) was created in the vacuum left behind as sprawl took over suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia. The District itself is rebounding in spite of sprawl, especially in horrendous NoVa. There are plenty of pockets inside the Beltway that can accommodate development.

The argument that sprawl is inevitable in a place that has height limits is preposterous. Paris has over 2 million people in an area about 2/3 the size of DC (or less than 1/4 the area of Detroit), yet is predominated by 8 story buildings. If the entire District were built-out to height limits with solid neighborhoods from border-to-border-to-border, I might be able to see the need to development beyond the Beltway. As it is, though, there are plenty of areas inside the Beltway that have been devastated by disinvestment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 58
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:17 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc, good points about disinvestment in DC. But the DC region does have population growth unlike Detroit which has only added 100,000 residents since 1970 for a total of approx. 4.8 million for the Metro Detroit region. That's near stagnation in population growth. Not a good arguement for new housing, schools, hospitals, office space, etc. It's a cycle of complete abandonment of all that is old, with few exceptions.

Really, I think Detroiters have an obsession with newness. Shiny new Cadillac's, houses, subdivisions, office buildings. Consumer taste in Detroit is new obesessed, it's less the case out east where there are old well-functioning healthy cities.

In Detroit, moving up is moving not into the ritzy penthouse but out to the exclusive gated community.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1360
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:31 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eastsidedog, I don't disagree. When land area gets developed at a faster pace than the population is growing, though, that's a problem, because it spreads fiscal resources thinner and thinner. We know it's a problem in Detroit, where approximately zero population growth means that all the new development is nothing but displacement. It's also a huge problem in growing places like Northern Virginia, too.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 62
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:47 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc, That's the difference between sprawl and growth.

Maybe the Detroit region just needs population growth to offset the effects of new development? That's probably the most reasonable solution. But still development (even if it's a result of growth) shouldn't be subsidized by government. Or should it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Publicmsu
Member
Username: Publicmsu

Post Number: 613
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 129.188.33.221
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:54 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Urge citizens to move to other states by not providing jobs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 64
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:58 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Publicmsu, It is not the purpose of government to provide jobs, or companies or anyone else.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wcpo_intern
Member
Username: Wcpo_intern

Post Number: 1869
Registered: 04-2004
Posted From: 71.227.58.187
Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 5:53 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What makes you guys believe Townships are encouraging sprawl? I go to five or six township/village planning commission/board meetings a month, and the the constant thing I hear is residents in opposition to further development. Then the developers walk into those meetings, state their demands, level their threats, paint their pictures of doom, and hand the rest over to their army of lawyers.

I couldn't agree more that its time for the legislature to step in and help the communities stand up to the litigious developers. God knows the courts haven't slowed the relentless hammering of anyone that dares to tell these guys No. Novi is lucky the courts didn't force them into bankruptcy because they dared to think that the I-96 parking lot was a sign that they should stop a few McMansion supercomplexes.

When I talk to planning consultants and smart growth groups, they all seem to think Grand Rapids has done a wonderful job controlling sprawl. Grand Rapids isn't an example of uncontrolled problematic development, aka sprawl, its a model of smart growth. Has anyone noticed that their public transportation system is about a thousand times better than anything in Metro-Detroit, their crime rate is relatively low, and their residents and community leaders don't spit venomeous hatred at neighboring communities?

Its funny. At work, if a manager does a great job, they implement his ideas in other parts of the plant, and very often promote him so he can implement improvements in the areas that aren't doing as well. They always assume that he'll continue to take pride in his work and want to use his new position to improve his new area. Some people here assume that if you expand the area of responsibility, the guy will just see it as an opportunity to improve on his old job performance regardless of how much it degradates his current job performance. Its sad to see that our supposed leaders have created an environment where people in this region are so deeply convinced that the only way one group can succeed is to make the other group fail. I sure feel grateful that I have exposure to real leaders rather than folks like Kwame, McPhail, and Patterson.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3431
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 11:56 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Townships encourage sprawl by their zoning practices, regarldess of whether or not the township residents realize that. For instance, here in Meridian Township in suburban Lansing, the current zoning limitations allow for NO storefront retail with residential above. That is set to keep density at a minimal. On top of that, this township has repeatedly made developers reduce the density of residential projects. Meridian Township is not the only one to do this, I can assure you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rotation_slim
Member
Username: Rotation_slim

Post Number: 37
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.73.206.24
Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:57 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why limit sprawl. For every negative you can come up with for allowing sprawl.. I can come up with a negative from people living in close proximity to each other.

Some people simply want to live with big yards. If they want to do that, and they are willing to pay the price, why not let them. Is that not what America is about. If you choose to live in an Urban setting, no one is stopping you, why should you be stopping me from moving to the xburbs.

Having said that, no one should be subsidizing the move, and real costs of extending services should be figured, and charged to builders/residents.

Drive anywhere in the state outside the metro area and you can reach no other conclusion then there is plenty of land out there... why not allow those who want to pay for it to live there?

And just as importantly if you limit growth and essentially force people back to the city, then Detroit will have not incentive to improve. Detroit competing for residents is a great situation, it will bring about positive change in the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1366
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 11:45 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No one is arguing to limit growth. Physical growth is far different from economic growth or population growth, however. What population or economic growth justifies the ever-sprawling nature of Metropolitan Detroit?

The key point you hit upon, slim, is that sprawl is acceptable IF one is willing to pay for it. Even mention the concept of impact fees on developers, though, and people start to piss and moan. It is well documented among urban scholars that sprawl is both fiscally and environmentally unsustainable, due to the massive amounts of subsidy it requires to survive.

No one is forcing you to move to Calcutta.

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