  Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 7187 Registered: 10-2003 |
In 40 years, Youngstown has lost more than half its population. Those people aren’t coming back. But shrinking doesn’t have to mean dying. http://www.governing.com/artic les/11cities.htm | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 952 Registered: 01-2005 |
Looks like Detroit without litter. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1098 Registered: 12-2005 |
When? Where? Instead of politicians promising growth that can't be delivered, they're suggesting leaders deliver the best of what can be delivered to those citizens who remain. This seems very wise. | ||
Ordinary Member Username: Ordinary Post Number: 70 Registered: 06-2006 |
That article made a lot of sense. We just can't "grow" our way out of problems anymore; especially in the suburbs. I especially liked the part where he said that the boss was gone and that they didn't have to ask permission anymore. We need some fresh thinking in the city. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 937 Registered: 01-2004 |
Supposed to be at MOCAD | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1100 Registered: 12-2005 |
Thanks! http://www.mocadetroit.org/upc omingevents.html Scroll to the bottom of the page. | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 37 Registered: 03-2006 |
When thinking about Detroit in relation to this article it is important to recognize that turning "grey into green" in Detroit would be very different than in Youngstown: Youngstown has little sprawl surrounding it and thus the region would look like a city surrounded by former brownfields turned green and then surrounded by genuine green space. In Detroit it would be downtown and other dense areas mostly within the boulevard surrounded by swaths of "gray turned green" surrounded by more development (the suburbs). So it would be very different in Detroit. Not sure if it would function as effectively... But I think the lesson that can be applied to Detroit is concentrating resources and services and existing areas ("Learning to say no"). Nonetheless, how cool would it be to have a heavily abandoned area such as the state fair neighborhood or parts of the far eastside become a nature preserve or our next metro park? Could that work? | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2006 |
BRILLIANT! | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 119 Registered: 05-2006 |
I agree that this is one of the smartest articles I have seen here. The problem is that something like this was suggested by the Planning Dept. a few years ago and they were handed their asses for even suggesting it. All theories on city planning are for development. We have no theories for how to "right size" a city and we need to think of a few instead of just waiting for the phoenix to rise out of the ashes. Green space can also be turned back into housing and retail if and when Detroit recovers. Doing something smart with the city until then will not prevent development in the future. | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 54 Registered: 07-2006 |
Itsjeff, thanks so much for posting that link to the article. It is quite interesting. Your post also gives me a heads-up for the exhibit, which will be in NY starting this week. I am hoping to see the exhibit and attend an event or two. I will report back to the forum with my impressions as a preview for those of you who will be seeing the exhibit in Detroit. | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 61 Registered: 11-2006 |
Since the sprawl of the city has been mentioned so many times, how about dividing Detroit up and make each area it's own city, like the Grosse Pointes. How crazy would that be? Detroit Park Detroit City Detroit Farms Detroit Woods Detroit Shores All would have their own police and fire departments, etc. Just easier to manage when smaller is my thought. Would it be possible? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 679 Registered: 02-2006 |
Duplication of services is already out of control in this region. Splitting Detroit into separate cities would worsen the problem, not help it. | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 48 Registered: 10-2006 |
Besides, think of all the turf wars. <shudder> | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1463 Registered: 11-2003 |
Also, nearly everyone who would be in favor of dividing up the city has already moved out of the city, so that idea is a non-starter. A more realistic approach to getting better accountability in different areas of the city would be to elect council members by district. | ||
Tkshreve Member Username: Tkshreve Post Number: 53 Registered: 07-2006 |
Turn the Far East into Parks. It is as exactly as it says in the article. Blocks and blocks of area with sparse housing and abandoned properties. It does have a lot of full blocks, especially below Jefferson, but right above it would be a great place to turn the Gray into green. In all honesty, I can't seem to find one of these blocks that have been built on, so to defend the city planning board, I assume someone is saying NO. But on the other hand, a several block area was finally cleared about 3 years or so ago and developed near Mack and Alter. The houses look good, but something doesn't chime about the value of them. They are all dupers and vacancy does not seem to be a problem. Personally, I really would have wanted to see the city develop this property into a park as a trial for all the other area. As for the rest of the area, there are still people hanging on to their homes on these next to abandoned blocks. Does anyone know the legalities of the people who are living on these next to vacant blocks? Can the city force them out, buy them out, or do the citizens have the upper hand? | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1192 Registered: 12-2004 |
Good cities don't lose people, which is why smart decline is an oxy moron. If a place is attractive, it will grow. True, a great city in Alaska might still lose people, as its in the arctic, but Detroit is not in the arctic. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 656 Registered: 09-2005 |
Eventually even prosperous, lively cities will see a decline in population. Population growth in Europe is stagnating and absent dramatic levels of new immigration (the French and the Germans have to be excited about that!) even the most prosperous cities will start to contract. | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 905 Registered: 11-2003 |
Whatever happened to the petition to get the council by districts on a ballot? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 7193 Registered: 10-2003 |
1953 claims that "Good cities don't lose people." Is Chicago a good city? It must not be. It;s losing population. http://www.topix.net/content/t rb/176876614224826216363608622 9890065445734 Tkshreve proposes parks. But parks are the wrongG idea. Parks cost money to build, program and maintain and generate no taxes. Youngstown has gone well past the facile "park" concept and is exploring wetlands development. No cost to the city to build, program or maintain and more importantly developers will PAY the City to be able to construct wetlands there. Wetlands are wild and natural spaces with little to no human interaction and very little costs to the city (illegal dumping cleanup would eb about it). This is a pretty radical move. The most radical thought in the whole piece is this: Similarly, Williams has put a moratorium on the construction of homes financed with low-income housing tax credits. Over the past decade, nonprofits have built new homes in Oak Hill and other declining neighborhoods, using federal tax credits and other state and local subsidies. The new vinyl-sided homes are respectable enough, but Williams believes that they, too, represent a wasted investment. “We didn’t have a plan and they popped up in areas that just didn’t make sense,” Williams says. “A brand-new house constructed between two houses that need to be demolished — we’re not doing anybody a favor. It’s not that we don’t need decent quality housing for low-income individuals, but where we house them in the city has to be well thought out.” Is anyone on City Council willing to tell a local community group that the ten houses they want to build in a complete wasteland are a waste of resources, that in effect their neighborhood is too far gone to save? | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2459 Registered: 10-2003 |
That's a very good point. If the approach is to allocate scarce resources within the city only in higher potential areas and not fritter them away in other areas then those non-profits that are dedicated to the other areas will see this as a direct threat to their existence. I wonder if this approach is a whole lot easier in a small city like Youngstown. Imagine the kind of leadership necessary to pull this off here. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4829 Registered: 10-2003 |
Itsjeff, don't just think Chicago, think Detroit. It didn't just magically get bad, one day, and everyone started to move out. The decentralization was the catalyst for the decline, not the other way around, and it amazes me that people trick themselves into believing that it was the latter of the two. | ||
Tkshreve Member Username: Tkshreve Post Number: 54 Registered: 07-2006 |
Itsjeff- BTW ....... good article. I guess I was more thinking about those low populated blocks being dozed and left as grassy fields. Not turned into parks as I stated. **** "No cost to the city to build, program or maintain and more importantly developers will PAY the City to be able to construct wetlands there" **** Why would developers pay the city? do you mean they would pay to get contracts to do the work? I have to imagine that developing wetlands entails local govt. spending in some fashion. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1193 Registered: 12-2004 |
Chicago sucks. | ||
Salvadordelmundo Member Username: Salvadordelmundo Post Number: 84 Registered: 04-2006 |
"Why would developers pay the city? do you mean they would pay to get contracts to do the work? I have to imagine that developing wetlands entails local govt. spending in some fashion." I believe in Ohio there is a law that if a developer eliminates a wetland during the course of a development, that same acreage of wetland has to be recreated somewhere else in Ohio. Youngstown is trying to offer those wetland development rights. | ||
Sticks Member Username: Sticks Post Number: 151 Registered: 08-2005 |
The whole article just seemed to remind me of a supposed principle of New Urbanism. One of density. Detroit has 900k people living in about 135 square miles. Imagine if all those 900k people were given incentives to live within, say, the 85mi^2 closest miles to the CBD/Midtown/Straits of Detroit/Southwest. Imagine what Grand River or Gratiot or Woodward would look like. One way streets would be given a purpose again. Store fronts filled. And much less ground to cover for police patrols. I think thats basically what they're trying to do in Youngstown, giving people a reason to move closer towards their downtown or to a completely new town. Until recently, that aid has been distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, going right down a waiting list, regardless of the condition of the neighborhood. Now, the Community Development Agency skips homes in far-gone areas. It’s also looking at dangling rehab dollars as a carrot for people to move into more stable neighborhoods. It seems like they're withholding dollars from the poor folk on the fringe while giving benefits to outsiders who might wish to move into Youngstown. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 286 Registered: 04-2006 |
The city of Livonia is the best example of this. The SMART opt-out is the real McCoy of gross incompetence because the vast majority of us want good public bus service. If transit officials at SMART don't return and give the voters another chance then they should be fired before the next vote in 2010. | ||
Digitaldom Member Username: Digitaldom Post Number: 544 Registered: 08-2004 |
I don't think you all understood the article that much.. all that they are proposing makes ALOT of sense.. problem is.. who is going to pay to allow that one house or 2 houses on the block to relocate when they (the people living there)don't have the money to do so.. It makes soo much sense.. sorry but it's true.. that the old timers thinking of.. well I am still on this block YET I HAVE NO neighbors.. what the hell is that.. Get on the bus.. Detroit needs to get rid of the slum lords.. and force those slum lords to relocate all the properties and including the non-profits to locate in viable areas.. I mean REAL city planning.. We need to vacate these areas.. we NEED to have a real plan to consolidate those folks homes to an area where business, housing and even churches all have a real community.. that in turn will drive the need for mass transit.. the way the sits today.. not going to happen... This block by block detroit can't work.. until half of those neighborhoods are raized.. and turned into smaller viable communities.. One reason we have so much crime in Detroit.. NO community.. and that goes for the metro area as well.. But really MANY will agrue my point there.. BUT if there was a real community.. you would NOT have the crime rate you.. because the community would step in and help those people who commit these crimes and NOT HELP them by ignoring them.. they would have a great voice..and more people that support driving these terrorist of the urban world out? Am I so extreme to call them terrorist? NO I am not.. Think about it? They are terrorising there communities because the community is too scared and does not have enough people to stand up to these criminals.. so what would I do in that situation.. Keep my damn mouth shut.. and allow the police to handle it.. Problem is the police can not do there job without REAL community involvement.. this us versus them needs to stop.. or Detroit will become even worse.. We can all talk renaissance.. but it's NOT happening in the neighborhoods.. And consolidating these neighborhoods to better managible centers would help detroit as a whole.. Doubt that will EVER happen in Detroit.. people are too god damn stubborn to realize COMMUNITY and a CITY means living NEXT TO a real person.. not a vacant lot.. and you need to contribute to your community not duck your head.. I understand some of the issues.. what are the solutions... Demo every vacant home.. if it means MILES of vacant land so be it.. CLEAR the titles.. ONLY allow new construction under a WELL defined city plan that will create communities.. NOT pockets of prosperity.. As has been happening in Detroit for several years.. The non-profits do a great job OK? BUT Detroit needs to force these non-profits to create real communities NOT a block of new houses.. it's called coming together and creating a REAL community of not just one block.. BUT several.. I mean 6 to 7 blocks of new homes.. with new businesses.. THAT folks will make Detroit become a real city.. from that.. Other developments will occur.. one block does NOTHING to the community.. GOOD planning it what we need! |
