  Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1217 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.238.170.39 |
It appears that all the promise of building on green space until we reach Lake Michigan has hit a snag: a stagnant economy and high gas prices. The author talks about how edge communities have their lowest number of building permits in years, but doesn't mention that Detroit, Ferndale and other communities are having the highest number of building permits in years. It appears folks are realizing 1 hour, one-way commutes to live in "the country" ain't the American Dream after all. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20060306/METRO /603060311/1003 | ||
Brandon48202 Member Username: Brandon48202 Post Number: 71 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.221.78.226 |
If only people could have realized this in the '70s! | ||
Jfre66_77 Member Username: Jfre66_77 Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 12.15.1.161 |
While I believe that the stagnant economy is probably the major factor in the slowing growth of these communities, something that the article doesn't really mention is the fact that the explosive growth of many of these communities took place without a corresponding growth of infrastructure. Although there are many road expansion projects currently going on, the traffic in Macomb Township has been horrendous for the past 8+ years. There have been thousands (probably tens of thousands) of new homes built since the early 90's, and the system of two lane rural roads (other than M-59) in the area can not handle all of the traffic. For that matter, M-59 is a parking lot during any rush hour. | ||
Kgrimmwsu Member Username: Kgrimmwsu Post Number: 84 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.180.0.161 |
When I was growing up in Hamburg Township I saw the huge boom come during the 90's, but recently it seems there are alot less projects going on in the township. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 68.62.19.247 |
It's about time. An hour in the car especally on the way home sucks. It may not seem like a bad idea at the beginning but it adds up. I hope the people in charge of Detroit and the inner ring suburbs read this article and ask themselves what can their city do to attract/keep residents. With all the vacant land in Detroit you would think that some developer would have the brillant idea to build homes on decent sized lots like in the outer burbs. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2838 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
321brian HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST any taint of "SURBANITY" come to our fair City? Don't you understand?! It should only be DENSE, URBAN, & WALKABLE otherwise we'll just keep our vacant lots. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1317 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Jams, I get the sense you don't realize how tilted the playing field is in favor of suburbs over the city. If you build Troy within the City of Detroit, why not just live in Troy? You think young people are moving to places like Chicago because of the fabulous subdivisions and strip malls in that city? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3279 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Has sprawl really stalled? Is this the tipping point? Or is it simply lying dormant for a few years until the economy picks back up? I must say, I'm very wary of the idea that this is the tipping point back towards the inner ring and central city. State laws are still in place that tilt development heavily in favor of the suburbs and exurbs. Dan is right, the city can never win when trying to build the suburbs within the city. As has always been the case who can do the city better than the city, and the suburbs than the suburbs? People come to cities as a direct alternative to suburban living or vice versa. Sure, you'll get a few that want their cake and eat it, too, but if you provide a safe environment with good schools (and in Detroit's case changing an only half-true perception) you're going to attract families, regardless of the size of lots. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2841 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
No, my guess there are jobs available there, that are not available in Detroit. You keep trying to force me into being something that I'm not.
Why would people choose that? At least traffic moves on East Jefferson. There are quite a few homes in my neighborhood, Historic Indian Village and West Village, that have been up for sale for a year or two. Wonder why? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1318 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Yes, and you are aware that employers locate where there is a supply of employable people. Businesses follow the labor, and if the labor goes, so goes business. Cleveland has been learning this one the hard way, and no Wal Mart downtown (their brainstorm) is going to change that. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2842 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
and vice versa. Labour came to Detroit, Detroit didn't go to labour. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2843 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
Springhill, TN had a pool of labour prior to Saturn? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1319 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Yes, Jams, but it hasn't been the 1940s for over 60 years. Time for Detroit and SE Michigan to get with the program! | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2846 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
Agreed, so why do you argue so strongly for a "vision" that doesn't necessarily fit today's society. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1321 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Well, my "vision" has worked in cities all over the world for thousands of years. It seems that Detroit is the only place where it doesn't work, but no one has been able to explain why just yet. Jams, it seems that you, among others, think that Detroit is doing just fine the way it is. How can you not believe that the old ways of doing things just don't work in Detroit anymore? Isn't the evidence pretty clear? | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1469 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
I would argue that Detroit's (SE Michigan's) vision is the one that doesn't fit today's society, since so many of the up and coming parts of our society are leaving for places more like Danindc's vision. It might be more complicated here than Danindc can appreciate, in general, he is correct IMO (which is informed by my education, and my experiences, local and otherwise). | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 502 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 209.240.205.61 |
Don't be fooled, as soon as any hint of the economy getting back on track here in SE Michigan appears, sprawl and it's associated development will return stronger than ever. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2850 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
I don't think Detroit is doing fine the way it is by any means. But when the Hell are you ever going to see that our society has chosen a "Suburban" lifestyle. Yes, a few of us have given up the auto, but quite frankly at times it's a bitch. Walking a mile or two or waiting for a bus in a cold wet snow SUCKS, but it is my reality. I see very few who choose it. You seem to refuse to see any other lifestyle as acceptable, that's where you and I are different. I understand there are many choices in life and all are valid. I've lived in a town of 400 people, off the beach in Rhode Island, in the suburbs and in the City and I've been content, if not, happy in each of those situations. I'm assuming you're young and have not experienced that the world is made up by millions of individuals, most of whom see the world only through their own eyes. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1323 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I don't believe that our society has chosen a suburban lifestyle so much as our society has subsidized a suburban lifestyle. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars in subsidy have made the suburban "American Dream" the only realistic decision for many people, which is exactly why Detroit will never be competitive if it builds on a suburban model. I know there are different people, which is why I agree that people should be able to have options for their living environment, including suburban, urban, small town, and rural. As current policies stand, only one of those options is economically realistic, at least until the price of oil skyrockets. It is my opinion that you simply haven't spoken to anyone in their 20s lately. As the first generation almost entirely raised in suburbia, many of the people my age, especially those who are educated, want something very different than what our parents and grandparents bought into. Assuming that everyone wants suburban sprawl development is short-sighted, and will certainly not do anything to stem the flow of young professionals out of Michigan. | ||
Adamjab19 Member Username: Adamjab19 Post Number: 630 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.192.148.148 |
I ask myself the same question on my 45 min. to hour long commutes in the morning and afternoon. For me the answer is simple, free rent with the parents. But for others who chose to live in the new Pulte subs and drive south every monring I can question why, but also know why they chose to live where they do. First off perception is HUGE! While we all agree that this is wrong, people in the suburbs think Detroit is an inadequate, shithole, which, can you blame them sometimes? They don't go looking to see the three street historical district of unique and eclectic homes because they have to drive through another dump of a neighborhood. You go to a brand new McMansion, Pulte sub and it's got three nice streets, but it is surrounded but another nice neighborhood and so on and so on. The people who want eceltic homes are living in them currently and the ones who want to know how to find them but alot of people just want an all around nice area to live in. Which brings me to my next point. People are comfortable with what causes these traffic snarls in the suburbs. Lakeside Mall, all the other shit on Hall Rd., as well as all of the other stirp malls with endless amounts of businesses. I have yet to see that in Detroit. Yeah there is Eastern Market, some stores in Ren. Cen., and others Downtown, but it is still not convient enough for the person with the "suburban convienent" convience. Even if that means waiting for some traffic to clear. Peoples' biggest concern when shopping in the suburbs is getting the closest parking spot. Thirdly, there just seems to be flat out apathy in Detroit. It seems, to outsiders, that Detroit residents don't care that they have to have bars on their windows, clubs on every car, plate glass windows to order food through, and in general just dumpy ass neighborhoods that face major roadways that lead possible home owners into Detroit. I was at 8 mile and Livernoise/Wyoming area today and stopped in at the LA Coney Island to get a coffee. I had to order it through a fucking inch thick plate of plexi glass! I couldn't believe it. I was embarrased waiting for my coffee to go through a turnstyle. Sure maybe it's not the best negihtborhood, I don't know and I don't care. Aren't the people in this neighborhood embarrassed as well? Or do they just not care and think this is everday life. Maybe it is for some. Who knows. But the more I drive around Detroit, and I have been driving around through many neighborhoods I haven't already, and it just seems people don't care about basic stuff that does look fine in and works well in the suburbs. Plus there are the general crimes and school issues that also may not be true, but are believed, possibly through bad perception, to be true by outsiders. Do you see how easy it is for outsiders to not want to look for the good neighborhoods in Detroit? Now I am not saying that all areas of Detroit are shit, but I hope you can see where most suburbanites get most of their perceptions from. Sorry about the length. I talk highly of Detroit alot and their is alot of nice stuff too talk about, but there is this bigger cloud that is over the city that only it's current residents can fix. (Message edited by adamjab19 on March 06, 2006) (Message edited by adamjab19 on March 06, 2006) | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2851 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
Quite frankly I do speak to twenty-somethings on a regular basis. That is irrelevant. I'm one of those "Evil Baby Boomers and when I was your age, I said very much the same things as in your quote. As I became older, I was amazed about how much I didn't know. "Urban" living is great, but I've been divorced, no children, for quite a while. Add in a wife and a child or two, just ponder that situation. | ||
Adamjab19 Member Username: Adamjab19 Post Number: 631 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.192.148.148 |
Jams- Thats the thing the 20's want to have a family AND live in an urban environment. Urban environment doesn't need to be only bachelor or DINKS. That's why Royal Oak has turned every viable corner into a loft development. They have the schools, shopping, convienve of suburbia in an urban setting. Detroit is starting to have more to offer as far as urban environment, but not the family or total convience part just yet. (Message edited by adamjab19 on March 06, 2006) | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2854 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
Want to bet? | ||
Adamjab19 Member Username: Adamjab19 Post Number: 632 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.192.148.148 |
Sure. Whatcha got? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2855 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.124.161 |
Why does everyone bring up Royal Oak as an example of "Urban" living? As far as I'm concerned that is "faux-Urban". I've watched from my vantage point living and working in Detroit at least 4 waves of 20-somethings come and go after "experiencing" the "Urban" lifestyle. A couple of break-ins, a new wife who wants a house for her kids, waking up in the morning, and the car is gone, etc. etc...Buh-Bye. Despite my misgivings, I'll invoke Skipper's Rule and I've out-lasted him here and he tried his damndest. Prove us wrong. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 11 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 68.62.19.247 |
What everyone forgets about Detroit is that it was never about living "Downtown". It has always been about the neighborhoods. That's why trying to get the downtown area back on its feet while ignoring the neighborhoods is counterproductive. Offer nice, affordable ($150,000ish+) houses and people will buy them. If the ever happens Downtown growth would follow. Sure having a shining downtown is great and looks good on TV but the neighborhoods is where Detroits heart lies. Why not build the type of neighborhoods that people actually want to live in? Maybe even attract a few grocery stores. Detroit must remember one thing when it complains about sprawl and that is they asked for it by hooking up all the burbs' to city water. One last thing for JAMS. Who the fuck in Detroit spells labor with a U? LABOUR? Go back to Windsor! I thought your post after mine was supposed to be sarcastic. | ||
Adamjab19 Member Username: Adamjab19 Post Number: 634 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.192.148.148 |
I bring up Royal Oak because it is urban living. Urban living to me is abundant shopping and other services and businesses located in relative closeness with high density of people living in the area. Hell, if it was up to my definition Detroit should be faux urban living because all that is "truly" urban in Detroit under my definition would be that they offer new lofts in old buildings with the potential to have high density and some shopping. But I see way up above that this is not your idea of urban area needs to have or has to be, so I don't think we'll ever agree on this point!  However, whatever type of urban living you are living in it doesn't need to involve crime(high levels of it at least) or tolerance of such crime. Urban living should be, like I said above, high density of people living in an area with mulitple businesses and services available for said people. Downtown Detroit as well as other areas in Detroit do not offer that in an effecient manner yet. If a car was stolen in front of my house up here in Utica I don't think I would be moving out, but if I heard of other burglaries in my neighborhood, cars stolen etc. I would think seriously about moving out when if it happend to me because that would be the straw that broke the camel's back. Right now a family can not live in Detroit in the "urban" environment it provides. So they go to the suburbs(even if it is for the urban environement that is wrapped around strip malls along Hall rd.) or Royal Oak. This is maybe something Detroit should work on, the urban environment ok for kids and families to grow up in... ) (Message edited by adamjab19 on March 06, 2006) | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 326 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.2.191.57 |
Utica crime. An oxymoron. lol | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6911 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.19.16.76 |
High density you say: Detroit - 900K & 139 sq miles = 6,475/sq mi Royal Oak - 60K & 11.8 sq. miles = 5085/sq mi So you want to take back the part of RO being more urban because of its high density of people? | ||
Barebain Member Username: Barebain Post Number: 7 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 68.249.241.226 |
The thing to remember about suburbs, and 'growing up', and moving to the suburbs after you 'grow up' is that this migration happens everywhere in this country, even in cities that we would all classify as 'urban' (i.e. public transport, density, etc.) NYC is a municipality of 7 million or so... the surrounding suburbs hold another 10 million people and cover three states! Chicago? 3 million in the city... 4 million or more in the burbs. I won't even talk about LA. Detroit may have a smaller percentage of city/suburb than those places, but the way of life is similar. Spend your 20's in the city, get out to the suburbs when your time comes, maybe move back after the kids are gone. The schools suck. (would you send your kids to NYC public schools?) The streets are tough, and you never know what could happen when you send your kid out into the big bad world. You all saw 'Kids', right? There are options for people who chose to raise their kids in Detroit, and I know people who are doing it. But those options usually include charter elementaries, private primary schools, magnet high schools, and finding a neighborhood where kids can't get into too much trouble - the same difficult choices that confront people who choose to raise their families in other big cities. Detroit only differs because of the magnitude of its condition. (Message edited by barebain on March 06, 2006) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3285 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
But, that is the thing. The magnitude of the problem is ridiculously larger than it should be for a city the size of Detroit. It has been show time and time again that Detroit is one of the (if not the) most decentralized big city in the country. That actually means something, with far-reaching implications for the future. Unlike Chicago or NYC, Detroit can't even pull in the working class immigrants that are reviving cities like NYC and Chicago, to offset the population loss of the central city. | ||
Barebain Member Username: Barebain Post Number: 8 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 66.208.220.242 |
Detroit is one of the (and not the) most decentralized cities in the US. If you're looking at population vs. land area, look no further than Phoenix, Jacksonville , or Houston for true decentralization. (Phoenix - 1,300,000 people / 470 sq. mi... Jacksonville - 800,000 people / 841 sq. mi... Houston - 2,000,000 / 607 sq. mi.) However, if you're looking to economic decentralization, i.e. lots of jobs in the suburbs, then Los Angeles is the cream of the crop followed again by places like Phoenix and even the SF Bay area to a certain extent. (btw - if you want to see a truly anaemic downtown, go to Phoenix. You will realize that we actually have it pretty good here) Sprawl is everywhere, that much is sure, and there seems to be very little correlation between where jobs are and where sprawl is. Houston spreads over half of southern Texas, and yet everybody wants to be a part of it. Seattle is wedged in between a bunch of hills and lakes and has dense old neighborhoods largely spared from the wrath of 60's and 70's urban renewal, and yet everybody wants to be there too. Add to that the fact that tons of people want to be in Phoenix, despite itself, and one has to ask why? The answer, in short, is the weather. Houston's warm, Phoenix's warm, Jacksonville's warm, and while Seattle doesn't exactly have a great reputation for its annual days of rainfall, the summers are absolutely beautiful, and it doesn't snow much at all in the winter. It also happens to have one of the truly welcoming and diverse cityscapes I have ever seen. The answer, in short is that is has chutzpah. Detroit also has chutzpah, but has yet to translate it into interesting city neighborhoods, and if we want to compete with these sprawling sun belt locales, we have to make a very concerted effort to distinguish ourselves from them. Urban renewal desroyed our city in the 60's and 70's, and we've yet to recover. We have to give people reason to come here again. Our beatiful old skyscrapers, and truly unique downtown have given a few people reason enough, but we need to do more, not only for our city neighborhoods, but also for the inner ring suburbs. (have you seen the number of houses for sale in GP recently?) Other post-industrial cities like Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Baltimore have begun this transformation by fostering a sort of civic pride through creative urban projects. Detroit needs to do something similar, and we need to get on that boat now. Lord knows they're not gonna come here for the weather. | ||
Chris_rohn Member Username: Chris_rohn Post Number: 206 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 68.73.199.142 |
 The difference between "urban" and "suburban" style development in the form of an MS Paint drawing. I guess my point is that it doesn't matter where things are built, it's the way its built that makes it "urban." There are new suburban style developments in Detroit just as there are new urban style developments in places like Canton. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 117 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 67.107.47.65 |
from Wikipedia: In Hebrew chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has outstepped the boundaries of accepted polite behaviour for selfish reasons, while in English chutzpah can be spoken in admiration of non-conformist but gutsy audacity. Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish defines chutzpah as "gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible 'guts', presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to." Can you explain how this word applies to Seattle? (I don't get how it describes any city really.) | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2857 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.126.14 |
Chris_rohn, I agree with you and others about Detroit being a decentralized city with mixed styles. I have no problems with continuing that type of building. I think many of the misunderstandings in threads such as this one, is the definition of "Urban"has become so broad it can be used to describe total opposites, yet both fit the definition. Your use of "Urban-style" helps in understanding exactly what you mean. | ||
Barebain Member Username: Barebain Post Number: 9 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 66.208.220.242 |
One example is the neighborhood called Fremont in Seattle. The chutzpah I speak of is signified by a large statue of Vladimir Lenin, leader of the communist revolution, right in the town's central square. Fremont has long been known as a leftist enclave within the city, and its presentation of Lenin as an emblem of that political bent is about as 'brazen' a statement as I can imagine. It is also the kind of playful detail that draws people to that particular part of the country. Detroit on the other hand has as long a history of outspoken 'guts' as any in America. Be it the Fist or Kid Rock, The Guardian Building or Coleman A. Young, Detroit has plenty of 'presumptive and arrogant' figures that it should be proud to call its own. Jacksonville?... Phoenix?... I just don't see it. The MC5, the Nation of Islam, and Cadillacs?... Detroit born and bred. I think that people can wrap their minds around that kind of stuff. My friends from around the country think Detroit is an interesting place precisely becuase of that stuff. Of course, they haven't moved here yet, because so much more needs to be done. But maybe its the idea of those things, things so unique to this city, that can be used to heal it? We need to be more playful, and less sensitive about our fragile city. If we're gonna make it, we all agree that cooperation is essential. But in order to achieve cooperation, there has to be some kind of collective goal. I think that this very evocative idea of 'Detroit' is the thing that can do it. This is the chutzpah that I speak of. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 118 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 67.107.47.65 |
Yes I saw Vlad when I was out there last year: http://www.roadsideamerica.com /attract/WASEAlenin.html I think I liked the Fremont Troll better. Seattle does have many interesting neighborhoods but it also has ugly suburban sprawl too. (See Bellevue for one example.) | ||
Adamjab19 Member Username: Adamjab19 Post Number: 635 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 141.217.19.95 |
Ok I'll take it back, but it's only a difference of 1,300. How old are those numbers? By the looks of it RO looks a hell of alot more dense than most areas in Detroit especially with all of the HUGE loft developements. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6915 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
ONly 1300/sq mile? Hey, its only 20%. Actually if you must know those RO #s are from 2000 and RO has lost population since then. I did not use the 2000 numbers for Detroit since we know it has dropped from 960K. Should I pull the most current SEMCOG numbers. What are 'most' areas of Detroit and what are 'most' areas of RO? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6916 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
Estimates for Feb 2006 from SEMCOG: RO - 56540 (a drop of 3522 people or 5.87%) Detroit - 887082 ( a drop of 64188 or 6.74%) Sooooo with the new numbers: Detroit - 887082K & 139 sq miles = 6,382/sq mi Royal Oak - 56540K & 11.8 sq. miles = 4792/sq mi So Detroit (with the current population regardless if larger poorer cities are undercounted) is over 1590/sq mile more dense than RO. With the most recent SEMCOG numbers Detroit's differential in density actually increased against RO. Maybe you don't know Detroit that well or are falling into some traps of what you consider to be Detroit. Facts are a bitch sometimes but the numbers show that Detroit's differential in density to RO is even greater now than in 2000. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 23 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 209.220.229.254 |
It's just like LA. LA appears exceedingly spread out, but the population density is actually rather high, comparatively. The difference with Detroit and Royal Oak is that RO's density is affected by the fact that it is actually rather large in land size, and the northern reaches, and areas farther from downtown, are quite a bit more suburban than what we think of when we think "Royal Oak" By comparison, Hamtramck's appears quite dense, and it is compared to the region. But it is not compared to other cities and their "urban" areas. Hamtramck: 10,941/mi. (Message edited by focusonthed on March 07, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1326 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
You're also averaging Detroit's population over an enormous land area. Certainly, there are areas much more densely populated than that average, and areas far less densely populated than that average. Royal Oak, as a whole, will have a tendency to not vary as much simply because it is smaller. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6917 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
Great point Dan - The problem is that people often see the vacant areas as Detroit and the more dense areas or the nicer areas as not being the 'real Detroit' Let's also look at the amount of space that freeways take and take that out of the equation and Detroit gains a bigger advantage. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3286 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
If I recall correctly, the densest part of the city is actually somewhere half-way up Gratiot on the Eastside. Not surprisingly, this is also the highest crime rated part of the city. BTW, I never get the comparing, physically, Detroit and Royal Oak. Royal Oak is the size of a large Detroit neighborhood, or a few groups of neighborhoods. Though, I could see comparing Royal Oak to Detroit's older central core (Grand Boulevard Loop) since Royal Oak is to its surroundings as Downtown Detroit is to inner-city Detroit. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6918 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
I don't get it either but I get frustrated with the 'nobody lives in Detroit' or RO is more dense bullshit. It seems some people choose to ignore some neighborhoods or people altogether. Detroit is still a fairly dense city so I question where people get their opinions on other places being so dense and Detroit being so vacant. I wonder if that is just based upon impressions of driving down the arterial roads and seeing the empty storefronts. It just isn't reality adn it seems to ignore many, many people in a very dismissive manner. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1474 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
I'm very certain that is wrong. I believe some of the highest density areas are in SW Detroit and various parts with high rises (downtown, near eastside urban renewal, Jefferson). Many of the midtown neighborhoods are also quite dense. That area around Gratiot is relatively dense considering that it is mostly single family homes though. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3288 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
I'm talking population density, and by census tract, at that. I'll try and find it on the Census wesbite, tonight. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1475 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
I was too. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6919 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
SW will be negatively affected because that is one area that is severely undercounted due to illegal immigrants, people unable to read English (not being counted), families not reporting everyone in the house, etc. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1476 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
True....except that not knowing english will not usually prevent somebody from being counted. But that is a community that is largely fearful of the feds. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6920 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
I was thinking about people that did not fill out the census form. Not a huge percentage but definitely there. I know people that live there, some are citizens some are not. They are a great comunity but I highly doubt that even 25% of them would be counted in the census when the time comes. | ||
Spaceboykelly Member Username: Spaceboykelly Post Number: 129 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.246.30.248 |
With all due respect, Adamjab, it is foolish to say [and I am paraphrasing]: Royal Oak is urban and Detroit is not. While places like Royal Oak and Birmingham have been successful in appearing urban, they are not and will NEVER truly be urban cities. They are suburbs plain and simple. Sure they aren't the typical model of suburbia [Southfield, or Troy]. They do not have the infrastructure, or the neighborhoods that Detroit [or any other city] has. Even though their downtown's have a better record of having a larger percentage of their buildings inhabited... that does not make them "more urban," however I think that's what you're referring to. Simply put, these suburbs are built with the "subdivision" model. Subdivisions are not neighborhoods. These cities exist [in the form that they are currently in] due to their locations in relation to Detroit. Yes, Birmingham was a town a long time ago, but it would still be a podunk town if it were not 15 minutes from Detroit, and along its main road. So please, never say something like Royal Oak is "more urban" or anything like that. Read Jane Jacob's book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Lastly, it would be incredibly stupid for Detroit to build large subdivisions. Anyone suggesting Detroit should do so has no knowledge of urban planning. This city is already optimized more than it should be for the automobile... that has been one of Detroit's biggest problems, and has been the leading cause of its hemmoraging. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1327 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
In line with my post above, is it fair to say that Detroit has some areas that are not urban, and some of the suburbs have areas that are urban? I know plenty of suburbs that are actually fairly urban, or have an urban vibe, at least in part: Arlington, VA; Cambridge, MA; Bethesda, MD; Cleveland Heights and Lakewood, OH; Evanston, IL; and yes, Royal Oak, MI. Those are just a few I thought of first-hand. I'm sure others know more. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3290 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Of course that is a fair questions. Actually that applies to MANY American cities. BTW, the highest I've heard that Southwest Detroit (particularly the Mexicantown area) was undercounted was by 50%, maybe. I wouldn't believe much more. And this is coming from the mouths of those in Mexicantown themselves. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1227 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.238.170.51 |
Here's a typical right-wing conservative reaction from the Snews editorial staff to the downturn in building permits: http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20060308/OPINI ON01/603080306/1007 | ||
Barebain Member Username: Barebain Post Number: 14 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 66.208.220.242 |
Thanks for the link. Once again, a typically well-researched and thorough article by the local papers, topping out at a whopping 230 words. An 8th grader could write a more detailed report on economic development. | ||
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear Post Number: 170 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 192.217.12.254 |
Count the DirecTV antennas if you want to see just how packed those houses are. I saw one with eight. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1328 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The Snooze editorial was crap. All it takes is a quick look to see that it is only the continuation of development that supposedly pays the bills. Once building slows or stops, the party's over, as Macomb Township apparently is finding out. To me, that's a red flag that says "unsustainable". I also take serious issue with their claim that "sprawl" is a pejorative term for "growth". I would argue that "growth" is a euphemism for "sprawl". | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 87 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
DaninDC--Don't forget "progress" i.e. "you can't stand in the way of progress" which is a euphemism for "contract awarding", "kick backs" and "construction industry jobs bill" | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 413 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.135.238.29 |
From the News editorial: I'm not quite sure of the point of the editorial, but this quote raises a red flag about the News' grasp of the problem of unsustainable or harmful suburban development. Please excuse the preaching, but there are many who believe that the strict separation of uses mandated by those supposedly logical "longstanding zoning rules" is precisely the cause in this country of why the amount of developed land is increasing at a rate many times faster than the increase in population. The "Euclidian" zoning model adopted as gospel by this country just before WWII and maintained to the present makes it illegal to build compact communities that are not dominated by the automobile. Between the zoning obstacles and the political bias toward subsidizing road construction rather than transit, it is almost impossible for suburban development to occur on anything other than a "sprawl" model. In the Detroit area, where you have to tack on the baggage of racial stereotyping from both sides of Eight Mile, undesireable suburban sprawl is encouraged even more. P.S. I'm not opposed to suburban development. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1329 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Yes, because having to drive 15 minutes each way for a loaf of bread is perfectly logical when the world is running out of oil. |
