  Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3716 Registered: 04-2006 |
A New York Times writer has written two blog entries entitled "What will save the suburbs?" It is basically a brainstorm of ideas on what to do with land from suburban and exurban as they become obsolete. I know that in Detroit the creation of suburbs is heralded as the greatest thing to happen since the assembly line, but I thought this would be an interesting mix to the discussion of what a 21st century Metro Detroit might look like. The article doesn't specifically mention Detroit at all, but I think we all will find the discussion to be familiar: quote: I thought that the next excerpt was pretty interesting. During a previous discussion on this forum I suggested splitting up some of the empty houses in Boston Edison as a way to save that neighborhood. quote: Certainly, if this can work for Victorian mansions in San Francisco, and even McMansions in a random suburb, then this could be made to work in B-E. This particular discovery was truly shocking: quote: No further comment on that, I'll just let it marinate. An idea: quote: But to do that you would have to prove to suburbia that there is indeed a problem. I believe that there is a problem with suburbia, and it is a problem that runs deeper than crime rates, or budget woes -- it is a flaw in the design concept. It is an artificially created, and unsustainable, pattern of development and consumption that will eventually run out of steam. Many of the discussions about the future of Detroit are approached from the premise that the city is geographically too large (such as this Freep article published today: http://freep.com/article/20090 204/COL04/902040352/1081/Defra gging+Detroit+a+tall+order), and thus under-inhabited. While there are plenty of counter-examples of functioning cities with densities much less than that of Detroit, the bigger point to be made is that Detroit hasn't grown one square inch since the 1920s. It isn't Detroit that changed, but it is the living patterns of the inhabitants of the region that changed. After this is understood, the question then becomes not whether Detroit is too large, but whether those living patterns can be sustained. And if they cannot be sustained, because I don't think that they can, then what will happen to the suburbs? Since the suburbs, geographically speaking, are the only area of metro Detroit to have grown since 1926. This is why there will always be a place for Detroit in the future of southeast Michigan, and the post-mortems of the city are being written a entirely too early, IMO. Entry 1: http://arieff.blogs.nytimes.co m/2009/01/11/what-will-save-th e-suburbs/ Entry 2: http://arieff.blogs.nytimes.co m/2009/02/03/saving-the-suburb s-part-2/ | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 15 Registered: 02-2009 |
I absolutely agree. You cannot sustain Suburban sprawl, it's inefficient, ugly, tasteless and much more costly than to sustain a city setting. Not to mention it's unhealthy. It's a known fact that scientists have connected suburban sprawl with obesity (not to say suburban sprawl is the ONLY reason for obesity). | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6104 Registered: 08-2004 |
I would like to hear from some of our commercial property owners... I wonder how much commercial property depreciation tax writeoffs have played a role in our "tear it down" mentality for commercial property. Would changing the commercial property tax and depreciation laws improve the situation? | ||
Shorthook Member Username: Shorthook Post Number: 10 Registered: 10-2008 |
Suburbs were and are just what the word describes... sub-urban. Without the urban, all you have is the sub...which is housing that surrounds no city, or central place. No matter the core's present condition, no smaller entity will survive without the origin, unless it moves it's locale... and everything that creates and generates wealth would have to go with it. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 898 Registered: 04-2008 |
Funny stuff! "Let's feel better about ourselves by pretending that others have problems that don't exist." Very clever. For those of you that are unfamiliar with the concepts of capitalism: Companies are formed, and companies can go out of business. Companies build buildings, and companies change location. This is normal. A small number of vacant buildings is normal and, in fact, healthy, because it provides ready-to-use space for others. | ||
Homer734 Member Username: Homer734 Post Number: 1 Registered: 01-2008 |
De-lurking to point out... Lurking is less enjoyable lately, because Retroit's tired act is polluting virtually every thread. | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 293 Registered: 12-2003 |
I think it is also misguided (although the premise is also mentioned in the article) to think that all suburbs and subdivisions are created equal and inherently bad since they do not exist within the city limits of the metro core. Beyond the Mt. Clemens, Birmingham and Ferndales of the world which have relatively older "suburban city centers", there ARE some well planned out suburbs with master plans that balance green space, commercial and industrial to good effect. Planning such as this makes it so that a suburb CAN exist to some extent without the need to rely too heavily on a regional neighbor for it's viability. When that "neighbor leaning" becomes too dominant is when some suburbs have problems. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2173 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: The working portion of their living pattern is what changed, not so much the type of residential buildings and population densities. Detroit's city limits are the same today as they were in 1930, when Detroit's population was about 1.5 million. Back then, it wasn't as if Detroit was surrounded by nothing but sparsely-populated farmland, since there were already half a million people living outside the City of Detroit in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties. Much of the land Detroit had annexed in the 1920's had not yet been fully developed by the time the Depression hit. During the 1930s, much of the residential land on Detroit's north and northwest perimeter resembled Rio Vista's "Hearth and Home at Liberty", zoned for residential with streets in place and scattered homes but not much else. When the auto manufacturers and the US Government needed to quickly build large new factories in the late 1930's and early 40's, Detroit had no greenfield industrial land of sufficient size so the manufacturers had to leapfrog Detroit's partially-developed residential areas on the perimeter and build them instead in places like Warren Twp. and Willow Run. Because of the war-time building restrictions, Federally-funded defense housing was just about the only new residential housing that got built, not just in Detroit but also near those new plants located just outside of Detroit. After the war ended, all the vacant residential land on Detroit's perimeter was quickly built out, but so were the areas just across from the city limits. In short, the people followed the jobs and they lived much as their Detroit counterparts - close to their place of work. In my opinion, the only way to reverse the direction of this pattern is for the City of Detroit to become the center of new job creation and job growth in SE Michigan. | ||
Townonenorth Member Username: Townonenorth Post Number: 765 Registered: 10-2007 |
I'd agree with MikeG's estimation on creation of jobs. Bringing jobs to the central city is a key to continued success. But with taxes being what they are within city limits, what can be done to attract new businesses? And better yet, what businesses? | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 295 Registered: 12-2003 |
MikeG's point is one that is often missed when people are chastised for living in the suburbs. Many people (myself included) chose to live nearby to where they work. I also enjoy the benefits of having a nice newer home but deal with the fact that I do not live in the (or any) city as I do enjoy that lifestyle. It is not always choice that defines and provokes the decisions that people make but also necessity. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3717 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: But the .5 million people living outside of Detroit probably didn't live in places like Canton Township or Lake Orion. They were mostly in places like Mount Clemens, Pontiac and Dearborn. ETA: I do agree with your sentiment about employment centers. (Message edited by iheartthed on February 04, 2009) | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 2567 Registered: 09-2005 |
Retroit: "A small number of vacant buildings is normal and, in fact, healthy, because it provides ready-to-use space for others." First, have you traveled in any of the suburbs lately? If by "small number", you mean every fifth commercial building, then yeah, there are a "small number" of vacancies. Secondly, one of the main points of the thread is that vacant buildings, especially big-box stores, DON'T get reused. There are countless 25-year-old strip malls that are 1/3 or 1/2 vacant while a whole new stip mall is being built 1/2 mile farther north. "This use it once and then throw it away" Kleenex mentality about suburban development has less to do with capitalism and more to do with tax incentives for new developments versus refurbishing. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2175 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: .... and in portions of Warren Twp., Center Line, Royal Oak, Royal Oak Twp., Southfield Twp., Redford Twp. and the other areas of what are now known as "inner ring" suburbs which were already thriving in the 1920s. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3719 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Yeah, but my point is that the residents in the tri-county region pre-1950s who did not live in Detroit proper were mainly residents of dense towns in sparsely populated counties. And as someone pointed out in another thread a few days back, many of the older population centers of Michigan like Mt. Clemens, Pontiac, Detroit, and even Royal Oak at one point, have gone through periods of significant decay and population decline. Today southeast Michigan has transformed from densely populated hubs to a big sprawl. Five hundred thousand people lived in the tri-county outside of the city in 1930, but 3.5 million live there now. That means the non-Detroit population of the metropolitan area increased 7 fold since 1930, while the population of the metro area altogether only doubled. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1079 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Planning such as this makes it so that a suburb CAN exist to some extent without the need to rely too heavily on a regional neighbor for it's viability." Examples please. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1080 Registered: 07-2007 |
The Urbanophile posted about this recently: http://theurbanophile.blogspot .com/2009/01/building-suburbs- that-last-1-strategy.html One item not mentioned yet is the deed restrictions in many newer subdivisions and how they'll greatly limit any efforts to change those areas. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3446 Registered: 07-2004 |
Or zoning and construction laws, or city requirements about lot and home sizes, parking, etc. We need a total teardown of lots of these codes before we can start doing things differently -- without doing them illegally. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 183 Registered: 10-2006 |
Quote: "I absolutely agree. You cannot sustain Suburban sprawl, it's inefficient, ugly, tasteless and much more costly than to sustain a city setting. Not to mention it's unhealthy. It's a known fact that scientists have connected suburban sprawl with obesity (not to say suburban sprawl is the ONLY reason for obesity)." Have you been to Detroit recently? Whats left is some of the most ugly, tasteless, and inefficient urban setting known to man, not to mention some of the fattest asses on the planet. Zoning and planning concepts such as overlay districts,contract zoning, form based zoning,and PUD's typically are in the best interest of the developer by making development easier and less expensive, with too many trade offs. In zoning and planning what was an old and dated concept will be reinvented and renamed as the latest and greatest, an example is the buzz word "mixed use" development or building. Every Detroit neighborhood contained some mixed uses, the corner store with the owner living above. Zoning or an anti-suburb sediment is not the answer; responsible inhabitants, and honest,responsible governments make lifestyle choices successful. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 716 Registered: 04-2006 |
The majority vote of NO nest August 2010 to defeat the SMART property tax in all three counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb means NO more sprawl and NO more large freeways until the Michigan Department of Transportation restores full funding to SMART. A vote YES means more sprawl and more urban decay. See all the facts in the Trainman's save the.. in DETROIT LINKS Remember a vote of NO does not hurt SMART because the millage can only be capped under existing laws. Please do not believe the scare tacics of SMART shutting down without your YES vote. This is false propaganda, illegal and is morally corrupt. It is against the law to cut any funding for the handicapped. | ||
Urbanophile Member Username: Urbanophile Post Number: 21 Registered: 11-2008 |
Thanks for the link. I also posted the most in depth review I've seen of "Retrofitting Suburbia", available at: http://theurbanophile.blogspot .com/2009/01/review-retrofitti ng-suburbia.html | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 569 Registered: 06-2004 |
Every night I go to bed and pray "Please God, let me live long enough to see the collapse of American suburbia. I had high hopes when gas hit $5.00 gallon. I don't really know what will kill off this awful, destructive and irresponsible lifestyle known as suburbia. Most people love it. It's like a national mental illness. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 923 Registered: 04-2008 |
Every night I go to bed and pray "Please God, save Detroit." But then again, I'm one of those "evil, white, billionaire suburbanites." | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 924 Registered: 04-2008 |
^Oops, forgot to add "racist". | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3724 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Billionaire... Heh, you wish. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 568 Registered: 02-2006 |
Ray, You have to realize that pretty much all of Detroit is sprawl. Anything out of the central business district is sprawl. Detroit is a huge city. It's neighborhoods are the model for early suburbs. So, if it were up to you we would all be living downtown in skyscrapers? | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 927 Registered: 04-2008 |
Verticalists vs. Horizontalists? | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1197 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:You're not wrong, exactly, but I think you're missing the point. Even the most far-flung of Detroit neighborhoods (except maybe the Telegraph corridor) were designed at a pedestrian scale, with commercial strips within walking distance of every house, and shops built right up to the street instead of set back behind acres of parking. City streets have a logical direction, so you can walk out of your neighborhood without taking a huge detour because of the curvature of the streets. There is public transit service on most major streets. Detroit's neighborhoods may technically be "the model for early suburbs" (although not technically "sprawl," since those neighborhoods were built to accommodate a growing population, not to allow a stagnant one to move further and further from the core), but they are very different from the suburbs that came after them. For a very clear visual example of what I'm talking about, go to 7 Mile and Meyers and look at the Home Depot. That Home Depot is a true suburban development built in a relatively high-density neighborhood, and the contrast between it and the surrounding area is striking. Next time you're out that way, try to calculate how many homes and businesses, built to the typical scale of that neighborhood, would fit into the Home Depot parking lot. That is the difference between Detroit's "suburban" neighborhoods, and the far-flung reaches of northern Oakland and Macomb and western Wayne counties. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 570 Registered: 02-2006 |
Bear, I work down the street from that Home Depot. A lot of houses similar to those surrounding it would fit in that area. The problem is that today most people don't want to live with their kitchen window 15 feet from their neighbors kitchen window. People need a little space. I hate the look of Macomb, Twp., Canton, and Novi as much as most people here do. However, if that what people today want then Detroit needs to adjust and give it up. The city has plenty of vacant land and could easily adjust lot sizes for new development. I think true "sprawl" in the area are places relatively north of M-59, and West of 275. Detroit at it's peak was about 2mil and i think there are about 4 mil in the metro now. So you can't call all suburbs sprawl. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1200 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:I think most people who move to places like that do so because they can get a lot of house for their money there, and have low taxes, good schools, and not much crime. Denser areas with high concentrations of wealth, like Birmingham and the Grosse Pointes, don't seem to have any trouble attracting residents (or at least they didn't until the bottom dropped out of the housing market and everything went to hell). If you built up Detroit with a bunch of low-density, Macomb Township-style subdivisions, it wouldn't really attract anyone new here, because you can get the same house in Macomb Township along with lower taxes, better schools, etc. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 571 Registered: 02-2006 |
i know all of the other problems associated with living in detroit. my point was when they do build new in the city they use the same old narrow lots and build houses on top of one another. it's just stupid. i don't think taxes would be an issue of you get high quality services and schools in return. anyway, i think this thread is sort of useless. the fact is, no matter where people live now they will use it up and move on. we are parasites on the land. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1201 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:Because the government makes it financially prudent for us to do so. Development patterns are not random or accidental. We have a lot of influence over what gets built where, and we choose to apply that influence toward building places like Novi and Canton. | ||
Reddog289 Member Username: Reddog289 Post Number: 893 Registered: 08-2007 |
My biggest problem with both the city and the burbs is the waste of land. Sure I too would like more land But I also like my 3 car garage located in an older burb that has seen better days yet I can walk to work, To the Kroger, Family Dollar and to the Auto parts store if need be.When the Best Buy in Westland moved into the old Handy Andy/Forest City that was a good example of reuse , But bad that the building it moved out of sits empty after all these years.Going back to the old 7/Evergreen neighborhood like many other shopping areas in the city that too has taken the look of any other major intersection in metro Detroit, Walgreens, fast food and the strip mall with the beauty supply and nails with the tobacco store. The more I look at it some times it,s hard to tell where I,m at anymore. |
