Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint
low-density sprawl is not legally or physically restricted in the region
|
However, it is restricted to an extent. Unlike typical suburbs in most metros, Michigan's city boundaries are pretty much limited to their current state. Annexation is rare and, even moreso in Metro Detroit, cities are unlikely to consolidate with other cities. So while the overall region increases with sprawl, the municipal cities themselves can only capture a limited area of tax revenue from that sprawl. It's been this way since about the 1930s.
Therefore, land is systematically finite and as such every suburb developed post-1930s has this factor in mind. Once a city has sprawled to its edges and developed whatever open space it can, the only other option is increased density and/or gentrification (other options typically include NIMBY developments). This is why Royal Oak, Birmingham, Troy, and Southfield essentially are the way they are. These cities have zoned for denser development more out of a need for tax growth while at the same time keeping taxes low and the cities desirable. Add to the fact that household sizes are decreasing and it's quickly apparent that these cities need to add density if they want to sustain themselves.
It's not a simple case of transit and walkability generating density but an actual limitation on space. However, it's also true that much of the urban planning during the middle of the century did focus on car usage. Although, it should also be noted that in the first half of the century, most transit around Metro Detroit was privately operated. When transit shifted to the responsibility of the public sector, it fell by the wayside in favor of keeping taxes low. However, development still focused on localized density as a means to maximize the potential tax base within pretty finite city limits.