  Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 692 Registered: 11-2003 |
First, the freep article: http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20080405/NEWS06/ 804050364 Second, some thoughts. This actually supports a lot of what I was saying in another thread... that 696 is the new 8 mile, and that there is going to be a continuing boom in outer suburbs as people continue to flee from the south of Oakland County (I mentioned Wixom, this talks about Novi, and also Warren losing it's #3 place to Sterling Heights). Glad to see there is a little bit of a slowdown with Detroit's loss, as well. Sad to see that everyone's pretty sure that sprawl is going to continue, virtually unfettered. | ||
Gaz Member Username: Gaz Post Number: 7 Registered: 04-2008 |
The slurbs are getting out of control everywhere! | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4562 Registered: 02-2005 |
If you treat sprawl like a foregone conclusion, it will probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I like how our official (and really, only) regional cooperation organization is simply planning on more sprawl. How 'bout instead of doing this, they release plans for regional transit and do us all a favor by the time its 2035 and we are looking at dwindling oil supplies. Of course, their predictions might still be right on. I'm beginning to fear the worst for metro Detroit. I think that we will hold on to car culture and the dream of exurban living until the very end of the fossil fuel era; a marginal amount of people will adjust for high fuel prices and live in the inner ring or in the city in walkable places where you can do things without a car, and an additional quantity of people will acquire a taste for urban living (but only small benefits will be realized by the City, because many of these people will move to other major cities, or move to the metro suburbs that reinvent themselves to be more "urban"), but plenty of people will still demand an acre and a mcmansion behind a two car garage (and meanwhile, complain about fuel prices the whole time). Then, new technology that makes driving hundreds of times cheaper and cleaner will hit, and everyone will be able to live whereever they want. The cities that are great places to live (with or without a car) will live on and do well, but other metro areas that lack great, dynamic places to live in their core cities will become suburbanized ad nauseum. Let's hope Detroit can make itself into one of those cities that's worth preserving and living in for all time. | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 394 Registered: 06-2007 |
I drove through Lyon Twp (s. Lyon) the other day and was disgusted. New subdivisions EVERYWHERE, in what were the last few rural areas of Oakland County. Theres a new sub going up on 12 mile near Milford rd, in what was not so long ago a very rural area. Lots of development along Spaulding Rd. as well. I like taking drives out to the country, and its now taking longer and longer to get there.But it dawned on me. These Townships WANT that. More people=more taxpayers. The people who run these townships have the power to stop sprawl with stricter zoning. But they won't.They want the tax base. The only thing I fear we can do is demand stricter zoning- such as, density control. Limit the number of large commercial or industrial buildings,for one. Sadly, it seems those in charge are pushing for the opposite. | ||
Gertrude Member Username: Gertrude Post Number: 70 Registered: 05-2005 |
I think that since the Federal Highway Administration/Federal Housing Administration fueled the sprawl of the last 60 years, nationally, a similar federal type intervention is required. All regions over a certain population size will be required to submit a regional development plan that includes a growth boundary and a certain population density across the region. Like CAFE standards but for people. Then give $ for transit and other infrastructure/improvement needs to allow for that kind of development. Live past the growth boundary? Tough. You can pay for your own sewers and roads and then pay a user fee to benefit from the urban area. In Michigan, we'd have to do away with Headlee and amend Prop A, but I think it will be the only way to contain sprawl and stave off the coming environmental/energy crisis. In any case, big changes are needed but I don't see anyone with the guts to do much at any level of government until it will be too late. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4563 Registered: 02-2005 |
Gertrude, that is a great post. I think hands-off government is normally best, but when the social and economic benefits will outweigh the implementation and administration costs, and when the cause is as important as this one (facing up to the environmental consequences of our actions and redeveloping cities), it is worth it. Your ideas are good ones. | ||
Marauderkev Member Username: Marauderkev Post Number: 14 Registered: 03-2008 |
These changes could only come about IF implemented by government. Excellent idea! | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 693 Registered: 11-2003 |
There needs to be a PAC to start playing these regional leader's game. Bottom line (no pun intended) is that you need to speak their speak... and that means writing campaign checks to the leaders who take a pledge (at any office level) to seriously implementing regional cooperation and transit, and hold the feet to the fire of those who don't. Even if it's $10, $50 or $100 at a time, even just on this forum there could be enough to get our anti-sprawl voice heard across party lines (I know lots of people on the other side of the aisle who have Gertrude's sentiments about the outburbs). Not to mention, that way anyone who lives in the U.S. could contribute so one could tie into other efforts across the country. It could be a really beautiful thing to pull people together on both sides on an issue that benefits us all. | ||
Johnnny5 Member Username: Johnnny5 Post Number: 728 Registered: 06-2005 |
"The people who run these townships have the power to stop sprawl with stricter zoning. But they won't." This is not true in many cases. Milford Township Highland and Novi have objected to many residential and commercial developments. The problem is the developers often take legal action or threaten annexation if the townships do not cooperate. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 610 Registered: 12-2007 |
By the time we reach 2035, and gas will be up near 15-20+ a gallon...people will be living closer to the regional center, and by then, all the idiots that are against mass transit might be gone...we might see the complete opposite of this... | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 1914 Registered: 09-2007 |
Yeah D_mcc, I'm sure Oakland county, our "center" will fair well through this situation we're experiencing presently. (Message edited by detroitrise on April 05, 2008) | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 72 Registered: 03-2007 |
D_mcc - "By the time we reach 2035, and gas will be up near 15-20+ a gallon...people will be living closer to the regional center, and by then, all the idiots that are against mass transit might be gone...we might see the complete opposite of this..." D_mcc, this might be true but by the time this happens the regional center might be Southfield or somewhere else in Oakland county... Downtown Detroit is already starting to lose its claim to regional center with the rise of all the office space in Oakland County. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 612 Registered: 12-2007 |
There will at least be some form of Transit by then...wait, thats logical...this is south eastern michigan...nevermind...GO SPRAWL! I can't wait untill I'm living in Dearborn, and Commuting to my job in Bay City! | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 694 Registered: 11-2003 |
Sparty06, Sorry to say, but Downtown has not been the center for a couple decades; Oakland county is now the center, at least of the economy, hands down. It's statistics alone rival or best some small U.S. states. We have no center now... we have a few gathering spots (Troy, Southfield, Dearborn, Detroit) and then everything else is strewn everywhere from the river to 23 mile road. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 614 Registered: 12-2007 |
We're turning into a Megalopolis...consolodate those into one massive city like New York...and Detroit becomes the seat of power in the midwest | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 180 Registered: 11-2007 |
I just read the report, and I have no confidence in it whatsoever. They know there will be job and population losses over the next few years, so they model that with small population losses until 2016 or so, but then they start increasing again until 2035. They rely on international immigration to account for a big chunk of what population growth occurs between now and 2035, which is possible, but of course something will need to actually attract immigrants, assuming there aren't significant restrictions on immigration. They seem to be assuming that lots of old people are going to want to live alone in exurbs. The words "energy", "warming", and "climate" do not appear in the document. The word "water" appears once, but not in a substantive way. As best as I can see, they are assuming that everyone is going to basically act they way they have for the past 40 years, but the jobs and people left in Detroit are less likely to leave than the people who already left were, so the rate of population loss will slow, but otherwise things are just going to keep doing what they have been doing, but more so. I think they are significantly underestimating the likely population loss over the next few years--for instance they say that 47000 people left the region in 2007, but they only expect an average of 25000 people to leave over the next six years. Why? Who can say. But the big problem is that I don't believe their employment forecasts, which come from a private forecasting firm and for which there is no backup. It is clear from the results that these people are operating from massively different assumptions about what the world (not Detroit in particular, but the whole economic environment) is going to look like in ten or thirty years than I am. Here's my relatively short term prediction. SEMCOG predicts that the 2010 regional population will be 4.859 million people, which would be a gain of 26,000 people from the 2000 census. I predict that there will have been a loss since the 2000 census, and probably of the same magnitude. I expect the discrepancy will grow by 2015, but I will have forgotten about this by then. I might still remember when the 2010 numbers are released. | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 15 Registered: 01-2008 |
The this prediction assumes our economic/cultural/political landscape will continue on the current trajectory. The same old business cycle. I think our current economic model will fail to meet the demand climate change warrants. How do our markets take into account external costs? The price of living in suburbia is often affordable, with good schools, safe communities, etc. But it being suburban in nature is not why these communities are desirable. Although the classic arguments for living in suburbia may hold true, the overwhelming cause is the low price of suburban sprawl for consumers, which provides incentive to move to suburbia. These prices are low to consumers, and highly profitable to producers. This seems terrific, on the surface. The invisible hand does it's work well, we say. If only this was true, and limits did not exist. Not limits based on law, but rather by nature. No economy can grow to unlimited size, and there are real ecological limits. Suburban living has a huge impact on our environment. Gross destruction of land, on an unprecedented scale. Our consumption of land has far outpaced the density of that land. Suburbia is less efficient, more car dependent, and therefore more wasteful and dirty. Most importantly, the suburban lifestyle is driving the climate crisis. With a convergence of the climate crisis, economic instability, wars abroad, failing education and health care, I think we will see change. There will be change, but what that change will be is up to us. We can let others decide our future, or we escape the cynicism that holds us back, and take back control of our destiny. We need hope, a vision, and a movement for a better future. SMECOG's "prediction" is not a prediction at all, rather a vision. Why don't they have a vision of vibrant cities, with increased density, quality of life, and prosperity? With strong and dense core cities, where people want to live, work, eat, and play. Urban areas can be as appealing, if not more appealing than suburban areas, not to mention more sustainable, an ecological friendly. We just need a vision, and provide more economic and cultural incentives for people to live there. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4569 Registered: 02-2005 |
Great post, W_Chicago. I'm glad you're on the forum. (Message edited by mackinaw on April 06, 2008) |
