WSJ: Detroit's Smaller Reality

[LMich]

The proposal still wouldn't make any sense since most municipalities are currently struggling in the region. Why would any municipality in the region want to stretch its police and fire services, among other things, to service non-contiguous land far within the reaches of Detroit? This is not to mention that the city has been practically trying to give away this land to buys, anyway, with ridiculously huge tax cuts and renaissance zones...so the land is basically free, anyway, and the city still can't even give it away. It doesn't make any sense. The problem with the land is now far beyond the entity that services it. The problem is the regional economy.

I think the best way to deal with this land in the short term is to get Detroit's land bank up and running to clear titles to vacant parcels, hold onto them, and wait out the economy. It's really unfortunate it's taken Detroit so long to get its land bank off the ground.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Exodus

Let's be honest, the three major reasons of why Detroit is in such a poor condition is because of mismanagement, high taxes, and a bad reputation. In a nutshell, most people do not want anything to do with Detroit. Now, if those areas were to become sub municipalities of successful cities, there might be a slight chance that people will want to actually move into those areas, and take advantage of affordable property, yet with lower taxes, and better services. Detroit like I've already said has such a damaging name that the city of east detroit renamed itself east point, remember that anyone ?

Lease itself out to what successful city? Chicago? Atlanta? This doesn't even make sense. The economy and real estate market for the entire metro area is in the crapper. Detroit doesn't exist is a bubble of under-achievement surrounded by an ocean of success.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Lease itself out to what successful city? Chicago?

LOL!

seriously, what an absurd proposition. i think chicago has enough of its own neighborhood abandonment issues to worry about first.



washington park, chicago:


source: bing

[The North One]

They should lease detroit out to the U.K., look what they did to hong kong!

[Exodus]

Well, hense the term "radical", just throwing out a proposal. But I WAS actually thinking of something a little more radical than leasing it to regional cities, I was thinking of places like Atlanta, Phoenix, and so forth. Again, it was a radical thought. Still some honesty is warrented, because detroit was already in the crapper before the recession.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by LMich

There has been a smattering of maps posted in this and the other thread. Hell, the ones I've posted above show vacant housing and vacant lots, and the stat has been given over and over for both figures. Anyway, the interactive map shows both vacant structures and empty lots. That's why the option on the map reads: "single-family homes, multi-unit dwellings up to four units and vacant parcels".

Vacant GOVERNMENT owned parcels. Those maps are missing data as far as total vacancy. There are many bank owned properties that are more likely to see demolition. Not to mention I only got the specifics on one area of the interactive map.

And btw, I'm not trying to flaunt the fact I have access to data (or shall I say *once* since much of it has recently gone out of date). I'm just using it to support my argument that there are contiguous city blocks of complete vacancy, and that can be determined by individual street addresses.

Finally, the story about the elderly gentleman is good example of how many of the few homes left on the block will be vacant in a couple of years. Let me say this, a downsizing plan will take many years. But if you plan ahead, you can redistribute population growth to the best areas and leave the worst to dry up. For the very few that stick it out to the end, you may need a different strategy.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Vacant GOVERNMENT owned parcels.

And where did you see that distinction made? The maps were compiled using the technique of visually surveying the land. There has now been two surveys, each relatively comprehensive and scientific. The observation of 31,000 vacant residential properties, and 91,000 vacant parcels were a visual survey. We're not dealing with gross inaccuracy or guesstimations, anymore. You're acting as if the 31,000 and 91,000 numbers are gross undercounts of vacancy. Maybe, they are. I need to see where (I need you to show me where) the Detroit Residential Parcel Survey, a visual count of vacant land and residential properties, looked at all the city's properties and then only compiled the ones owned by a government.

[Rizzo]

You're missing the point. Your numbers are CORRECT, and the maps and visuals presented are vague and general for public presentation. I'm not debating the accuracy of the findings at all. You are trying to sidetrack the issue here. I came into this thread to make a point that there are completely empty areas...that has nothing to do with citywide vacancy. The maps you presented do assist in determining on a broad level where high vacancy is, but they aren't specific enough to tell me where I can shut down a street, turn off some lights, or close a desolate park. Where's the home addresses on each parcel? Bank owned? City owned? County owned? Housing condition schedule?

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Hayward

You're missing the point. Your numbers are CORRECT, and the maps and visuals presented are vague and general for public presentation. I'm not debating the accuracy of the findings at all. You are trying to sidetrack the issue here. I came into this thread to make a point that there are completely empty areas...that has nothing to do with citywide vacancy. The maps you presented do assist in determining on a broad level where high vacancy is, but they aren't specific enough to tell me where I can shut down a street, turn off some lights, or close a desolate park. Where's the home addresses on each parcel? Bank owned? City owned? County owned? Housing condition schedule?

Dude, you specifically tried to correct me by saying that the map showed only government-owned vacant parcels when the data was compiled using a visual survey of ALL vacant parcels and properties. I wasn't the one that got this sidetracked. Don't start getting it twisted; take credit where credit is due for the derailment.

BTW, why don't you try actually going to the Detroit Residential Parcel Survey website to see if the information you're looking for may be over there? The irony in all of this is that I think we're on the exact same as to the need for rightsizing.

[EastSideHBG]

Published: Tuesday, 9 Mar 2010 | 1:35 PM ET

By: Cindy Perman
Writer

Have you ever wondered what will become of Detroit?

Will the auto industry bounce back in enough time to save the real-estate market? Will artists flock to the cheap real estate and colonize the city? Or, will it go the way of that luxury condo building in downtown Orlando that's overwhelmed by vultures?

Well, Detroit’s mayor has an idea: Bulldoze it.

Mayor Dave Bing is apparently working on a radical plan that would bulldoze a quarter of the city — some of the most desolate areas — and return it to farmland, the way it was before the automobile. Any residents still there would be relocated to stronger neighborhoods.

This isn't a new idea — Detroit has been kicking it around since the 1990s, and some people suggest dozens of U.S. cities hard-hit by the recession may have to be bulldozed.

One of those people is Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint, Michigan.

Kildee told London's Telegraph that we need to get over the American mindset that "big is good."

“The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there’s an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they’re shrinking, they’re failing,” he said.

When this talk of bulldozing cities resurfaced last summer, some people said there was no evidence that the government had such plans in the works.

But with Detroit taking the idea seriously, one professor says it may be time that we dared to dream — in a way we've never dared before.

“Things that were unthinkable are now becoming thinkable,” James W. Hughes, dean of the School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, told the AP. “There is now a realization that past glories are never going to be recaptured. Some people probably don’t accept that but that is the reality,” he said.

Welcome to the future. Why does it look so much like 1910 instead of 2010?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35780958/site/14081545

[ue]

Oh my god not another one. Can we have a dedicated sticky for all these articles?

[Centropolis]

I cringe when i hear people say "just bulldoze it." 2010 Detroit is a little different than 1950s St. Louis, though.

[Rizzo]

Merge it with the WSJ one.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by EastSideHBG

Mayor Dave Bing is apparently working on a radical plan that would bulldoze a quarter of the city — some of the most desolate areas — and return it to farmland, the way it was before the automobile.

If you want it the way it was before the automobile why dont you return the streetcars and the inner city density in the central neigbhorhoods while you are at it? Why do people assume that all there was before the automobile was farmlands? Dear God sometimes I wish all of america would return to what it was before the automobile or rather the suburban automania culture we have today.

Also what he said about americans percieving all growth as good and non growth as a sign a place if failing and how that needs to change is right on. Sure massive decline like there was in Detroit and many other rustbelt cities is never good but modest growth is a very good sign for cities in contemporary america. Massive growth in this country almost always means sprawl and I would choose a stable urban city with stagnant growth any day over massive growth and craptacular sprawl.

In Detroit where there has been such a massive population decline it might make sense to densify the core neighborhoods and turn the desemated neighborhoods into farmland or some kind of parkland maybe. Then maybe someday in the distant future they can be redeveloped in the right way. In the meantime the city can actually have more pleasant usable open space than the suburbs. The stressfull chaos of the suburbs vs. the city with its vibrant core neighborhoods and relaxing open space.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Is there anything "on paper" on this plan, ie online?

Im curious what neighborhoods they are going to decomission and what their end state vision looks like (maps, renderings, aeriel views, etc).

This is remarkable. Its a lot more aggressive than whats being proposed for Youngstown.

I think they should leave one or two ruins in each neighborhood as landscape features, sort of like follys.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Merge it with the WSJ one.

Done

[LMich]

It's here:

Crews to start tearing down derelict buildings in Detroit

By CECIL ANGEL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

April 1, 2010

Demolition crews will begin Thursday tearing down 3,000 derelict buildings that the City of Detroit deems dangerous.

The city’s plan is to have the 3,000 structures all torn down by the end of the year. City officials have obtained federal grants to fund the demolition project which is the first leg of a larger four-year project to rid the city of 10,000 blighted buildings.

...

City of Detroit Demolition Map

List of Residential Addresses to be Demolished

The scale is just amazing in the terrible sense of the word.

[Chase Unperson]

I have mentioned this before, but it is worth mentioning again.

I saw this presentation called "Deconstructing Detroit" and it had this academic argument Detroit is the most modern city in the world in that its creation was solely for capitalism and manufacturing and now that role is over, that it is now deconstructing itself.

It used data like increasing empty land and the fact that Detroit is the only city in the world with its population where the average heights of its buildings is decreasing every decade.

It was a pretty interesting concept but not useful to the people living there.

[UglymanCometh]

lol@ all the non-Detroiters with grand plans for Detroit... seriously, it's getting out of hand (like, not-so-ironically, the city of Detroit itself)

[10023]

Originally Posted by The Agonist

I saw this presentation called "Deconstructing Detroit" and it had this academic argument Detroit is the most modern city in the world in that its creation was solely for capitalism and manufacturing and now that role is over, that it is now deconstructing itself.

Hmm, maybe there's a Nuance I'm missing but that could apply to numerous cities.

First, Detroit was a trading center before there was any manufacturing. Second, "created solely for capitalism" applies to numerous American cities, potentially most of them.

DC was built for government, most California cities were built around missions, places like Providence and Boston were founded by Puritan religious leaders.

But New York? What was it built for aside from capitalism? Chicago? St. Louis?