Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2006 » Is Urban Sprawl a GOOD thing? I think I just puked a little bit... « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Arc312
Member
Username: Arc312

Post Number: 22
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 35.11.161.238
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 4:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Read it. I ought to smack the journalist who wrote this article.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/O PINION01/604200327/1007
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1409
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.39
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A journalist didn't write this screed, an editorial board did.

Typical crap from the Snews.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1016
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 198.208.159.20
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

the author must be trying to openly rationalize his move north of 40 mile
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 3
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 141.217.214.203
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think an important lesson is:

Suburbs = good
Sprawl = bad

I was getting annoyed by all the articles in the media today too. I think people really need to understand the difference between sprawl and suburbs. They aren't the same thing always. British suburbs are denser than some of our sunbelt cities!
Top of pageBottom of page

Psewick
Member
Username: Psewick

Post Number: 12
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 70.235.110.46
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Medium-sized mammals, which don't need broad territory to roaming for food, find places in the suburbs to feed and nest. An example is white-tailed deer, which are proliferating. Black bears, red-tailed hawks, peregrine falcons and beaver find niches in 'edge cities.'"

Yeah, I used to have black bears and white-tailed dear around my house all of the time when I lived in the suburbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 3995
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.235
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Urban sprawl is EVIL!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jfried
Member
Username: Jfried

Post Number: 818
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.190
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't believe I wasted my time reading that article.

the best part

"It creates a variety of landscapes and vegetation that attract animals better than the cropland they replace."

are you kidding? a few extra bunny-rabbits are better than crops that contribute to the local economy?
Top of pageBottom of page

Spacemonkey
Member
Username: Spacemonkey

Post Number: 16
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 63.102.87.27
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I lived in downtown Detroit for three and half years when I was in my 20's. I now live in Rochester Hills. Both have their benefits, but I do like Rochester better. Comfortable. Convenient. Less gunfire. And much more things to do for fun. But it's also much more expensive.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 8
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 141.217.214.203
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There's very little gunfire in downtown Detroit. In fact, I'd suspect it would be comprable to gunfire in any suburb. Downtown Detroit is among the nation's safest downtowns.

However, I won't back the city regarding break-ins and auto thefts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 257
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They have got to be kidding! lol! I just died laughing reading it! So people actually, seriously believe this tripe!

Humans have been living in cities and rural areas for thousands of years. It is the natural social state of humans that they live in cities, with the exception of farmers who have historically lived in the countryside outside the city. And yes suburbs have always existed. But to say that suburbia is the next big thing in civilization is insanity. Suburban sprawl are merely a temporary aberration in human behavior, due to subsidized sprawl and auto-obsession. In 90% of the world suburban sprawl is not the norm. Sprawl is unsustainable. The natural urban/rural relationship will persevere, after the cars and McMansions have long since rusted and crumbled away.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw

Post Number: 147
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 148.61.248.170
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"very little" is more than "none"

but anyway, that article is unbelievable! How on earth is that being published?

gahhhhh!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1632
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.perc.org/

The source about wildlife in suburbs
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 260
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 69.220.142.7
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Someone needs to talk about wildlife in the city. I got pheasants running all over the place!
Top of pageBottom of page

Bussey
Member
Username: Bussey

Post Number: 157
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 69.212.59.166
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

me too
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5

Post Number: 224
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 71.227.95.4
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"It creates a variety of landscapes and vegetation that attract animals better than the cropland they replace.

Residents create gardens and ponds, plant trees and set up bird-nesting boxes.

Medium-sized mammals, which don't need broad territory to roaming for food, find places in the suburbs to feed and nest. An example is white-tailed deer, which are proliferating."

Actually the above statement is correct. Modern farming practices often times completely eliminate wildlife habitat. Suburban landscapes with green belt regions are ideal habitat for many species such as deer, raccoons, squirrel, coyote and many others. Many wild animals thrive in such conditions and often are able to live better in such an environment than they could in a completely "wild" setting.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox

Post Number: 1
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 69.209.152.73
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is true that some animals survive better in suburbs than in the wild. Animals such as deer, squirrels, and raccoons thrive in the suburbs because their natural predators have been wiped out and they, unlike most animals, have the ability to live out of gardens and trash cans. Thus, the overall wildlife population may increase, but the DIVERSITY of the population is irreparably harmed. The majority of species don't thrive well in a suburban environment, so the few that do grow far out of proportion and become pests. These huge, unbalanced populations of deer and squirrels with nothing to keep them in check eventually grow to the point of unsustainability and begin to starve. The humans nearby also don't like animals tipping over their garbage cans and eating all their carefully cultivated plants. Biodiversity and balance in an ecosystem are far more important than raw numbers, and these can only be found in a true natural environment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Arc312
Member
Username: Arc312

Post Number: 23
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 35.11.161.238
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"It creates a variety of landscapes and vegetation that attract animals better than the cropland they replace.

Residents create gardens and ponds, plant trees and set up bird-nesting boxes.

Medium-sized mammals, which don't need broad territory to roaming for food, find places in the suburbs to feed and nest. An example is white-tailed deer, which are proliferating."

Ummmmmmmmmm...what about the land that was never farmland that becomes suburbia?

Are suburbs better in that case, too?

Give me a break. Smack a b%&$h.
Top of pageBottom of page

Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd

Post Number: 586
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.242.214.106
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 4:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Every discussion about the exurbs completely misses the point. Most people look at population trends and jump to the conclusion that high growth areas are the most desireable areas. This simplistic viewpoint misses the real reasons for heavy growth in the exurbs.

In reality, most people make housing choices based on simple economic factors. The style of development is a secondary concern to most people. The exurbs attract people with low taxes, cheap housing/land, brand new infrastructure, and less crime and poverty. The long commutes, ugly strip malls, and bland tract houses are the downside to exurban living. Anybody that thinks people move to these places because strip malls and tract housing are "more desireable" is crazy.

Using the same criteria, it becomes obvoius that Wal-Mart is much more desireable than Macy's or Nordstrom. The Honda Accord is the best selling car, so that must mean that people prefer it to a BMW, Lexus or Cadillac.

You would never confuse the best selling car with the most desireable car, but this concept totally missed when discussing the housing market.

If Grosse Pointe and Royal Oak offered the exact same new houses, with the same low taxes, as Canton or Macomb Twp, people would flock to these older urban-style areas in droves.

If the exurban environment was the most preferred, places like Grosse Pointe, Royal Oak, and Birmingham would be run down, low-rent areas. The fact that people PREFER urban style development is the only reason why people choose to pay much higher taxes, in addition to higher purchase prices, for older homes in urban style areas.

The high price of housing in Manhattan, San Fran, and Chicago is another example of this reality.

Ignorance of the real factors driving the housing market is causing a very warped view of what people really want.
Top of pageBottom of page

Psewick
Member
Username: Psewick

Post Number: 13
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 70.235.110.46
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When suburbs are built over farm land, aren't more forested areas cleared to replace the space needed for crops?

And don't parking lots and shopping malls cover a far greater area in suburbs than backyard ponds and shrubbery?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 3999
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.235
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Urban sprawl contributes to the disturbance of nature's habitat from deers to the wetlands where the water foul play.

Urban Sprawl contibutes to obesity, Lots of people will blow over $500.00 a month on gas so they can community to those big box stores, malls, pick up folks, and going and comming back home from work.

We don't more urban sprawl, move back to city, save money, take the bus to commute, don't worry about violent crime, you can stand up for yourself.
Top of pageBottom of page

Deputy_mayor_2026
Member
Username: Deputy_mayor_2026

Post Number: 6
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Spacemonkey, what is there to do in Farmington Hills that outshines the fun in Detroit?
Top of pageBottom of page

Erikto
Member
Username: Erikto

Post Number: 342
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.228.108.33
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"... where the water foul play..." -thanks, Danny! I wanted something to grin about before heading to work!
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 129
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Booming outlying areas grow by attracting diverse population" -- and then your "evidence" is to state that Southfield has Asian people? Yep, nail in the coffin - way to go! Which part of Southfield is "outlying" again?

It's this diversity that shows up in 96% white Livonia, and 93% white Warren...

Look at these diverse suburbs:

census map
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 130
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

the national average population is 75% white...the two greenest colors on this map would be above that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 261
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 12.47.224.8
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

If the exurban environment was the most preferred, places like Grosse Pointe, Royal Oak, and Birmingham would be run down, low-rent areas.




ErikD, I generally agree but over time they may become so if the exurban sprawl continues unabated. No one ever thought Detroit would find itself where it is today in 1950. I don't think anyone wants to see Birmingham become the Indian Village of the 21st century, surrounded by poverty. But it could happen.
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 1101
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

... last time i checked... white tailed deer was listed as the most dangerous road hazard in Michigan...

This person MUST be anti-auto safety...


Not to mention that Detroit is the most populated habitat for wild dogs and cats in the Nation...


Interesting that 3.1% asians in Southfield... (which is STILL LESS than the national average) makes this area diverse.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 471
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Many the Asians in Southfield could take care of the wild dog and cat problem...
Top of pageBottom of page

Cmubryan
Member
Username: Cmubryan

Post Number: 245
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 68.42.169.179
Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 10:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why didn't he also mention that Southfield went from being a virtually all white city 40 years ago to becoming white flight land and being about 70%+ black in 2010. Yea that sounds real great! We can't even live together-city or suburb!
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4004
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.173.154
Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cmubryan,

When most Black Detroiters follow the great Jewish exodus. The Jews usually pass their homes to them and this will be the result:




The light to dark green colors represent The growing black communities in Southfield.

(Message edited by danny on April 22, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4005
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.173.154
Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not just Southfield, but Oak Park.







Royal Oak TWP.



Lathrup Village



Pontiac






Most white-folks these day want to move out to some fake estate out in the middle of nowheresville so they get away from all the black and ethnic problems that all major American Cities have. So therefore urban sprawl exists because of RACE, then comes peace and quite, escape from violent crime, good schools, clean air, good community services, better jobs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 165
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 4:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

*sigh* maybe, just maybe, they prefer a more open country setting to live in. Why must you bring race into this? ITs not about race, its about not living on top of one another in the city........I am not leaving CLinton Township because of anyones race, a better job for my husband out of the auto industry is taking us north......race hasnt a damn thing to do with it. Cant you focus on the real reason people leave cities, like better jobs, better schools, better enviroment to raise the kids....none of that is race related at all!
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4019
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 198.111.165.162
Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 4:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh Yes it is Miss Cleo,

RACE plays a main factor for urban sprawl before jobs, security and better services. Go read some reports of the internet about early suburban sprawl and RACE.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 79
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.33.56.156
Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 6:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

hmmmmmmm---urban sprawl in Green Bay???---I guess they feel to close to the Black folks in Chicago??---race may have BEEN a factor for urban sprawl but lets live in 2006
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4022
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

More Black-folks are following the white crowd to those ex-urbs.

Take a look at Northville TWP.






Canton TWP.



Van Buren TWP.




Sumpter TWP.





Ysilanti TWP.

Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 268
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 12.47.224.8
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Many blacks have no problem living with whites as can be evidenced by current black middle class flight from the city to the suburbs (thanks Danny). But with almost perfect predictability, once blacks move in whites move out, particularly in the Detroit area. So really, the only way to solve integration is for whites to move into predominantly black areas and for whites to stay when black folks move in. It's really up to white folks to do their part towards acieving integration. Blacks have more than done their part over the years. White folks are really the ones who have a hard time getting along.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4024
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.235
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 5:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Becuase Eastsidedog,

White-folks still lived within the human psyche, their fears of what black-folks can do to white-folks, to themselves and to any other ethnic people. Of course black-folks did their part to live in the white communities. But the white-folks choose to live moslty within their own race in their own environment. What's history always history.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 130
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 209.220.229.254
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 6:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So when whites fled Detroit, it was "white flight" and it killed the city...but when blacks flee Detroit, they're searching for a better life and "doing their part"

Gotcha.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4027
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.235
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 6:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yep! Black-folks are not just following the Jews anymor.e They are following the white crowd.

So whatever the white-folks go the black-folks follow.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1036
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.222.11.226
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 7:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The editorial had one thing right. Many of the inner suburbs are more ethnically diverse than Detroit. Last time I checked the stats, Detroit was revealed as being pretty homogenous, to the tune of about 83 percent.

And I'm not making any judgment there -- that's just a fact. People move to, and away from, places for a variety of reasons. Yes, race is one of them. But it's not the only reason. Maintaining that fiction is simplistic and ignorant.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tayshaun22
Member
Username: Tayshaun22

Post Number: 91
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.14.101.116
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 8:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danny, what's your prediction for black migration to the Downriver area?

(Message edited by Tayshaun22 on April 24, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 677
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.42.220.37
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 3:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eastsidedog, your post above about suburbs as an abberation against thousands of years of culture was fantastic.

Living in cities for 15 years, I always just assumed that everyone hated the suburbs and that they were forced to live their by social and economic forces beyond their control. Imagine my horror and surprize to learn that in fact these people actually LIKE to live in the suburbs. I mean, at that point you have to throw up your hands in abject surrender, get a cheap plane ticket into Newark, and spend the weekend sulking at an outdoor cafe on the upper east side.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4028
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:23 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tayshaun22,

So far the black population in the downriver has been slow during the past 80 years. In the 1920s in the boomtown era. Lots in blacks had migrated from "Dixieland" to settle in the Del-Ray area along Jefferson from Military to the River Rouge. Since housing in Detroit was getting filled up due to influx of European immigrants. Black Bottom and Paradise Valley wasn't good enough for them, and segregation kept them out of premdominately white Detroit neighborhoods. By the 1950s, lots of black-folks from Del-ray started to move further downriver to Detroit's lower SW side and settle along S. Fort St. from S. Schaefer St. to Outer Drive near the Lincoln Park border. Restrictive covenents from other real estate companies kept Black Detroiters in the SW side from buying anymore housing in Lincoln Park, Ecorse, River Rouge, Melvindale and racially shift them to other acceptable black Detroit communties.

by the 1970s, the HUD crack down on illegal restrictive covenants of real estate companies and "THEY" let most black folks to buy houses in River Rouge and Ecorse. But secretly, the white-folks who lived on the other side of railroad tracks of River Rouge and Ecorse, don't want any more blacks buying their woodframe pre-victorian homes along the W. Jefferson Ave. So they started to demarcate the communties of River Rouge and Ecorse by the use of the railroad tracks. Today River Rouge and Ecorse is a demarcated mix communities of black and white seperated by the railraod tracks.

River Rouge








Ecorse



The Black population over there is 40.6% by 2020, the black population for River and Ecorse would reach over 50%.

In Lincoln Park, the black population is now 2% while the white population in 93%. The ethnic Hispanics are quickly buying those homes moslty along Fort St. from Outer Drive to Southfield Rd. boosting their population to 6%. some black-folks in Lincoln Park are scattered about in mostly white communities while most low-income blacks are living a either senior housing and suburban highrise projects that is provided by Lincoln Park Housing.

This map reprensent the white population of Lincoln Park.






This map reprensent the black population of Lincoln Park.






And This map reprensent the ethnic Hispanic population of Lincoln Park.







By the year 2020. the black population in Lincoln Park would reach up to 11% while the ethnic Hispanic population would reach up to 30%. The White population in Lincoln Park would continue to decrease to 50% but the city population would slow down to 25,000 and then increase to 40,000 by 2040. Due to the ethnic Hispanics, incomming ethnic Arabs and Blacks.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 168
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote: Living in cities for 15 years, I always just assumed that everyone hated the suburbs and that they were forced to live their by social and economic forces beyond their control. Imagine my horror and surprize to learn that in fact these people actually LIKE to live in the suburbs. I mean, at that point you have to throw up your hands in abject surrender, get a cheap plane ticket into Newark, and spend the weekend sulking at an outdoor cafe on the upper east side.


Ray gets it, its not racial, some people just PREFER to NOT live in the city. I dont know why thats so hard for some of you to comprehend. I can understand and appreciate your love of city living, but you cant seem to do the same for the country, shame really.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1422
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Then those people can PREFER to pay for their own redundant infrastructure instead of diverting resources away from existing cities.

Suburbia is NOT "the country"--sprawl destroys the country and cities alike, and leaves an amorphous ambiguous neither-region in between.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1038
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.222.11.226
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What I get from a lot of pro-urban folks (and I count myself as one of them, really) is that it’s great to live in the city and it’s kind of OK to live by yourself way, way out in the country… BUT, it’s NOT OK to live somewhere in between. You must be black or white (sorry, speaking metaphorically there), but nowhere in the grey area in between. THAT is fence-sitting, and THAT is a sin.

C’mon, face it. America is a nation of fence-sitters.

It’s also a nation with freedom of choice. Sheesh, let people make their choices. (And yes, everyone who makes choices should pay the appropriate costs for those choices.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jfried
Member
Username: Jfried

Post Number: 822
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.190
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

fury. it is also ok to live in houseboats and inner ring suburbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1423
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A lot of posters on this thread are failing to distinguish between "suburbs" and "sprawl". The former isn't necessarily negative. There are suburbs that enhance the central city, and help to bolster the economic competitiveness of the entire region. My favorite example is Arlington, Virginia.

With the sprawl development that has grown exponentially worse since World War II, the revenues of the sprawl development very rarely come close to covering the cost of said development. These sprawling suburbs have a parasitic relationship with the central city (witness SE Michigan).

Suburbs themselves aren't inherently bad, but when their creation demands the destruction of existing communities, you have to question the value of "choice".
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7224
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

The editorial had one thing right. Many of the inner suburbs are more ethnically diverse than Detroit. Last time I checked the stats, Detroit was revealed as being pretty homogenous, to the tune of about 83 percent.




Many?

Races in Berkley:

White Non-Hispanic (95.2%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
Hispanic (1.3%)
American Indian (0.8%)
Black (0.7%)

Races in Warren:

White Non-Hispanic (90.4%)
Black (2.7%)
Two or more races (2.2%)
Hispanic (1.4%)
American Indian (1.1%)
Other Asian (1.0%)
Asian Indian (0.7%)
Filipino (0.6%)

Races in Beverly Hills:

White Non-Hispanic (92.3%)
Black (3.0%)
Two or more races (1.4%)
Hispanic (1.4%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)
Chinese (0.6%)

Races in Center Line:

White Non-Hispanic (92.8%)
Black (3.1%)
Two or more races (1.6%)
Hispanic (1.5%)
American Indian (0.7%)

Races in Clawson:

White Non-Hispanic (95.2%)
Two or more races (1.2%)
Hispanic (1.1%)
Black (0.8%)
American Indian (0.8%)

Races in Dearborn:

White Non-Hispanic (84.8%)
Two or more races (9.4%)
Hispanic (3.0%)
Black (1.3%)
Other race (0.7%)
American Indian (0.6%)
Asian Indian (0.5%)

Races in Eastpointe:

White Non-Hispanic (91.2%)
Black (4.7%)
Two or more races (1.6%)
Hispanic (1.3%)
American Indian (1.2%)

Races in Ecorse:

White Non-Hispanic (47.3%)
Black (40.6%)
Hispanic (8.9%)
Other race (3.4%)
Two or more races (3.0%)
American Indian (1.8%)

Races in Farmington:

White Non-Hispanic (84.8%)
Asian Indian (7.7%)
Black (2.7%)
Hispanic (1.2%)
Two or more races (1.0%)
Chinese (0.7%)
Other Asian (0.7%)

Races in Farmington Hills:

White Non-Hispanic (81.9%)
Black (6.9%)
Asian Indian (4.1%)
Two or more races (1.9%)
Hispanic (1.5%)
Chinese (1.1%)
Japanese (0.7%)
Korean (0.6%)
American Indian (0.6%)

Races in Ferndale:

White Non-Hispanic (90.3%)
Black (3.4%)
Two or more races (2.6%)
Hispanic (1.8%)
American Indian (1.6%)
Other race (0.6%)

Races in Fraser:

White Non-Hispanic (95.6%)
Hispanic (1.3%)
Two or more races (1.0%)
Black (0.9%)
American Indian (0.7%)

Races in Garden City:

White Non-Hispanic (94.6%)
Hispanic (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.3%)
Black (1.1%)
American Indian (0.9%)

Races in Grosse Pointe Farms:

White Non-Hispanic (96.6%)
Hispanic (1.1%)
Black (0.6%)

Races in Grosse Pointe Park:

White Non-Hispanic (91.2%)
Black (2.9%)
Two or more races (2.0%)
Hispanic (1.7%)
American Indian (0.7%)

Races in Grosse Pointe Woods:

White Non-Hispanic (95.5%)
Hispanic (1.0%)
Asian Indian (0.9%)
Two or more races (0.8%)
Black (0.6%)

Races in Hamtramck:

White Non-Hispanic (60.4%)
Black (15.1%)
Two or more races (11.9%)
Asian Indian (5.4%)
Other Asian (4.4%)
Hispanic (1.3%)
Other race (1.1%)
American Indian (1.1%)

Races in Harper Woods:

White Non-Hispanic (84.9%)
Black (10.2%)
Hispanic (1.6%)
Two or more races (1.4%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Filipino (0.7%)

Races in Hazel Park:

White Non-Hispanic (90.4%)
Two or more races (3.4%)
American Indian (2.4%)
Hispanic (2.1%)
Black (1.6%)
Other Asian (0.8%)
Other race (0.6%)

Races in Highland Park:

Black (93.4%)
White Non-Hispanic (4.0%)
Two or more races (1.7%)
American Indian (1.1%)
Hispanic (0.6%)

Races in Huntington Woods:

White Non-Hispanic (96.3%)
Hispanic (0.9%)
Black (0.7%)
Two or more races (0.6%)

Races in Inkster:

Black (67.5%)
White Non-Hispanic (24.5%)
Two or more races (2.8%)
Asian Indian (2.6%)
Hispanic (1.6%)
American Indian (1.4%)
Other race (0.7%)

Races in Lincoln Park:

White Non-Hispanic (89.2%)
Hispanic (6.4%)
Black (2.1%)
Other race (1.8%)
Two or more races (1.8%)
American Indian (1.3%)

Races in Livonia:

White Non-Hispanic (94.1%)
Hispanic (1.7%)
Two or more races (1.1%)
Black (0.9%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)
American Indian (0.6%)
Chinese (0.5%)

Races in Madison Heights:

White Non-Hispanic (88.5%)
Two or more races (2.7%)
Black (1.8%)
Hispanic (1.6%)
Asian Indian (1.5%)
Chinese (1.4%)
American Indian (1.1%)
Filipino (0.8%)
Other Asian (0.5%)

Races in Melvindale:

White Non-Hispanic (81.7%)
Hispanic (8.9%)
Black (5.3%)
Two or more races (2.9%)
Other race (2.4%)
American Indian (1.8%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)

Races in Northville:

White Non-Hispanic (95.1%)
Hispanic (1.6%)
Two or more races (0.8%)
Chinese (0.6%)
Other race (0.6%)

Races in Novi:

White Non-Hispanic (86.1%)
Asian Indian (2.7%)
Japanese (2.3%)
Chinese (2.1%)
Black (1.9%)
Hispanic (1.8%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
Korean (0.7%)
American Indian (0.5%)

Races in Oak Park:

White Non-Hispanic (46.4%)
Black (46.0%)
Two or more races (4.1%)
Hispanic (1.3%)
American Indian (0.8%)
Filipino (0.7%)
Other race (0.6%)
Vietnamese (0.6%)

Races in Redford:

White Non-Hispanic (86.7%)
Black (8.5%)
Hispanic (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.7%)
American Indian (1.0%)
Other race (0.6%)

Races in Romulus:

White Non-Hispanic (64.3%)
Black (30.0%)
Two or more races (2.6%)
Hispanic (2.0%)
American Indian (1.5%)
Other race (0.8%)

Races in Roseville:

White Non-Hispanic (92.4%)
Black (2.6%)
Two or more races (1.6%)
Hispanic (1.5%)
American Indian (1.1%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)

Races in Royal Oak:

White Non-Hispanic (93.9%)
Black (1.5%)
Two or more races (1.4%)
Hispanic (1.3%)
American Indian (0.7%)

Races in Southfield:

Black (54.2%)
White Non-Hispanic (38.3%)
Two or more races (3.0%)
Asian Indian (1.4%)
Hispanic (1.2%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Other race (0.6%)
Chinese (0.5%)

Races in St. Clair Shores:

White Non-Hispanic (96.0%)
Hispanic (1.2%)
Two or more races (1.1%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Black (0.7%)

Races in Sterling Heights:

White Non-Hispanic (89.8%)
Two or more races (2.5%)
Asian Indian (1.9%)
Hispanic (1.3%)
Black (1.3%)
Filipino (1.1%)
Chinese (0.7%)
American Indian (0.6%)

Races in Taylor:

White Non-Hispanic (84.0%)
Black (8.7%)
Hispanic (3.2%)
Two or more races (2.0%)
American Indian (1.5%)
Other race (0.7%)
Asian Indian (0.7%)

Races in Troy:

White Non-Hispanic (81.3%)
Asian Indian (5.7%)
Chinese (3.8%)
Black (2.1%)
Two or more races (1.8%)
Korean (1.5%)
Hispanic (1.5%)
Filipino (1.0%)
Other Asian (0.7%)

Races in Wayne:

White Non-Hispanic (83.0%)
Black (11.3%)
Hispanic (1.9%)
Two or more races (1.8%)
American Indian (1.3%)
Asian Indian (0.5%)
Korean (0.5%)

Races in Warren:

White Non-Hispanic (90.4%)
Black (2.7%)
Two or more races (2.2%)
Hispanic (1.4%)
American Indian (1.1%)
Other Asian (1.0%)
Asian Indian (0.7%)
Filipino (0.6%)



Those that have less than an 83% majority are Ecorse, Farmington Hills, Hamtramck (enclave), Inkster, Oak Park, Romulus, Southfield (which is becoming more one race by the day) and Troy.

So the claim of many may be exagerrated. In addition we often hear 'they don't want us there' when white peopel discuss Detroit (and that is true for some Detroiters) and that is acceptable. Is it just as acceptable for black people to state that 'they just don't want us there' about most of the inner rings. Why is one acceptable and one seen as people just playing the race card.

Bottom line is Detroit has more diversity than most suburbs but is consistently painted as a city that only wants black people.

Kind of interesting on the parallels but the complete hypocrisy in attitudes.

(Message edited by jt1 on April 25, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7225
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PS - I am sure I missed some inner rings but I'm an east sider so that is what I know best. Let me know fi there are others you would like to see.

Data is from city-data.com

39 suburbs listed (Warren listed twice but counted once). Of 39 there are 8 that are more diverse than having an 83% majority. Now the data show Detroit as:

Races in Detroit:

Black (81.6%)
White Non-Hispanic (10.5%)
Hispanic (5.0%)
Other race (2.5%)
Two or more races (2.3%)
American Indian (0.9%)

Based upon that number FH would drop off leaving 8 of 39 more diverse than Detroit.

** - Melvindale was missed above but when considering 83% as the baseline but still has a higher majority than Detroit.

Hypocrisy in attitude in this region. I would say so. I am also not claiming that all Detroiters are accepting of others just as not all suburbanites are not. Just passing on the numbers and the fact that Detroit is more diverse than most inner rings but surely is not seen in that light.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 279
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 12.47.224.7
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

So when whites fled Detroit, it was "white flight" and it killed the city...but when blacks flee Detroit, they're searching for a better life and "doing their part"

Gotcha.




FocusontheD, I never said that Black flight was good for the city. It is very bad for the city, only because the black middle class is not being replaced by other middle class families. But black flight to the suburbs is good for racial integration of the region, provided whites do not leave their neighborhoods, which they likely will. History tends to repeat itself.


quote:

Eastsidedog, your post above about suburbs as an abberation against thousands of years of culture was fantastic.




Thanks Ray. I see what you're saying about people saying they like living in the suburbs. But they are lying to themselves. What they are really saying is they DON'T LIKE LIVING IN CITIES THAT DON'T WORK. Most older American's (I'm a gen Xer) remember when most people lived in big cities and the big cities largely worked. Yes, they had their issues, no they weren't utopias, but they used to be great places to live, enjoyed by all the classes rich, poor and those in the middle. But now we've strictly segregated the classes by municipality and of course that's bound to cause major, major problems.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 170
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

no, what some of us are REALLY saying is that we like open land, not living on top of eachother, acerage instead of cement........I dont care how well a city is run, I dont want to live in one.

oh, and I believe the 12 acre parcel I am moving to can be defined as country
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1427
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why would you live on top of someone? I only let people on me if they're attractive and female....

Cut all the grass you want--I have better things to do with my time. Just don't expect me to subsidize your American Dream.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tayshaun22
Member
Username: Tayshaun22

Post Number: 95
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.14.101.116
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 3:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danny, that sure is interesting info. Maybe you should create a website that showcases all that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1415
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

12 acres is a bit much.

I think sprawl is irresponsbile. I like cities and I like nature, therefore new suburbs, which consume crass amounts of land and have extremely low population densities, are something I detest quite a bit.

Population density is absolutely everything to me.

NYC: 27,228/sq. mile
Chicago: 12,750.3/sq. mile
Detroit: 6,885/sq. mile
Grosse Pointe Park: 5,773/sq. mile
St. Claire Shores: 5,472.3/sq. mile
Grosse Pointe City: 5,298/sq. mile
Warren: 4,031.8/sq. mile
Dearborn: 4,013.2/sq. mile
Ann Arbor: 4,221.1/sq. mile (would probably be higher than Detroit's if you add students and delete A2's sprawling edges)
---------
Canton: 2,121.5/sq. mile
Macomb Township: 1,391.7/sq. mile
Oakland Township: 358.8/sq. mile

Sprawl=inefficient, defenseless, disgusting


it only gets worse when you look at housing density numbers:

Detroit: 2,703/sq. mile
Grosse Pointe Park: 2,339.6/sq. mile
Warren: 1,669.6/sq. mile
---
Canton: 789.8/sq. mile
Macomb Twp: 494.1/sq. mile
Ontonagon, MI: 237.7/sq. mile
Oakland Twp: 124.3/sq. mile

YES, that is right, Ontonagon, MI in the far western UP has more dense housing than Oakland Twp.

wikipedia.org is very enlightening
Top of pageBottom of page

Trufan
Member
Username: Trufan

Post Number: 2
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 138.28.212.237
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SUBSIDIZED SUBURBS, thats the real problem. Suburbs aren't the problem, but most of the suburbs today are heavily subsidized. It costs gas companies, electric companies, and water companies conciderably less to provide these resources to residents in cities than sprawl, yet they charge the same rate no matter where you live, meaning that those who live in sprawl are paying less than the true cost of providing the services. This means that if you are living in Livonia, and you are connected to the grid, your utilities are being subsidized by poor people in Detroit, how is that fair? New Subdivisions almost never have to pay for the extension of utilities or the construction of new roads, which means that they are subsidized. Cheap taxes, cheap housing, and cheap utilities in the suburbs are all subsidized by our government and utility companies. If it wasn't subsidized very few people would want to live in sprawl, because it would cost more than living in cities. Cities were built to reduce the cost of transporting goods, people, ideas, services, supplies, and everything else. As soon as cities lost their natural ability to reduce the costs of services because of subsidies to sprawl, they lost their natural ability to compete.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1416
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Transportation (roads) for the 'burbs are also heavily subsidized by the state...Michigan Land Use Institute had a good report on this over a year ago.

Good points.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 171
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wont be living in a 'burb, I will have well and spetic, couldnt pay me to live in a subdivision. By living on top of eachother, I mean apartments or these homes the they build where you can reach out your window and touch your neighbors house. I live on 1/2 an acre now and I can still hear my neighbors loud radios and noise and cars going down the street and noisy people ........ugh, I dont want to hear anything but nature and wildlife. I am not and never will be a city girl
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 63
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 66.174.93.100
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Government services overwhelmingly tend to protect property more than life. Therefore, those with more property should pay more.

Trufan, great summary. Couldn't agree with you more. For a great recitation of how the DETROIT WATER DEPARTMENT CREATED THE SUBURBS, click on the following editorial from the Metro Times in 2002.

http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=4268

Now the suburbs believe they are entitled to an OWNERSHIP INTEREST in the DWD merely because they have PAID FOR A PRODUCT for many years. That is like me saying that I am entitled to an ownership interest in Ford because I have purchased three Ford vehicles. The logic is beyond astounding.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4030
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.235
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

About the WATER BILL!!! "The latest effort is House Bill 5788. Introduced by state Rep. Leon Drolet (R-Clinton Township), it is touted as merely giving more suburban say in operating the Detroit Department of Water and Sewerage. Much more is in the bill."

"If passed into law, HB 5788 would require taking title of all Detroit Water & Sewerage Department (DWSD) treatment plants, booster stations and transmission mains from Detroit."

The suburbantopians want that bill to pass right away so they could get their greedy hands on the water and give Detroiters a "BUM STEER" of raising rates.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4031
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.235
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1,

The editorial quoted that the suburbs are more diverse than Detroit. When you inserted the population of every suburbs in the metro-Detroit area. You see that there are MORE WHITE-FOLKS living in the suburbs than blacks and any ethnic races. There are just a MINORITY! Execept for Southfield, Highland Park, Pontiac, Inkster, Which are Majority Black. The areas that are TRUELY ethnic diverse is Oak Park and Hamtramck.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 135
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1 - if only someone had posted a blurry map that summarized your giant data posting...

Trufan and Danindc pretty much have everything useful covered, inre: cities subsidizing sprawl. However, Trufan, I take exception to you using Livonia as your example...where I am, Livonia is an inner-ring suburb. My 52-year-old ranch has probably paid its fair share of infrastructure costs. Those douches out in NW Livonia, however...
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 281
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 12.47.224.7
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 6:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Miss Cleo, that's perfectly fine if you want to live in the country. People always have and people always will (although usually they are farmers, are you a farmer?). But there was a time in this country when most the people who now live in suburbs lived in the big cities. There has been a tremendous geographic shift in the past 50 years due to too many factors to count. But in the end the extensive sprawling and suburbanization of America is an aberration and will collapse on itself sooner or later. A civilization based on everyone living on 1/2 acre lots (or bigger) with three cars is just way too inefficient to be sustained in the long term.

I firmly believe that if cities were transfomed into the well run appealing places to live that they were in generations past, that people would flock to them asking themselves "what were we ever thinking!"

Without question, Americans LOVE to visit healthy functioning cities around the world when on vacation. I can't even begin to count how many times people have said to me "Why can't our cities be like ______." I think this is evidence that in their hearts Americans want to build and live in big healthy cities though they are constantly dissuaded by the distorted crime-obsessed media, racism, skewed perceptions of status, and the seeming hopelessness and grinding poverty of many big american cities. But I believe we can get past the distortion, coercion and stereotypes and rebuild the cities, to be close to other humans and live together is the way we are meant to live.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 63
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 6:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wouldn't live in a large city if it was the best-run place in the world. Traffic, noise, endless expanses of pavement, everyone living on top of each other, -no thanks. I like trees, grass, lakes, fresh air and quiet. Most people consider New York and Chicago “well-run” but they have large suburban areas as well, so clearly people are making the choice to live outside the city.

Having said that, it is not the "crime-obsessed media" that does harm to Detroit, it is the abundance of criminal activity. The crime index in Detroit is 3 times the national average, and almost 6 times that of Novi. The schools in Detroit are inferior as are the public services and infrastructure. These are undisputed facts and not the result of "bad press" or stereotypes.

Yes, more people would live in the city if it was "well-run," but many prefer suburban or small-town living to a large metropolis either way. The settlements around Detroit were there all along, going back to the 1920’s, albeit not as large as they are now.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7229
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 4.229.99.88
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 7:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So if that is the case why are you posting and reading on here?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1419
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 8:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfectgentleman, I believe that you deal in generalities. Also, I believe that you are afraid of cities. Your post was so out of this world, it got one of our long-running and more dignified posters to question just where your interest in Detroit and this site comes from.

Be that as it may, I would love to talk about the issue you brought up. You make a valid point that most Americans like to visit cities or look at them from afar, but they have no interest in living in them. This is quite a shift from pre-1950. But cities aren't any more unsafe or any less alluring than they were 50 years ago. I guess you can't argue taste, but I just wonder why people are so obsessed with possesing certain things, like "acreage" and "breathing room," and I wonder why they are willing to trade in the advantages of living close to work/entertainment/culture, the advantages of living in diverse and historic settings, and advantage of living in a house or apartment with CHARACTER, in order that they may have this "breathing room." I don't see how one can be happier in Auburn Hills than downtown Detroit. I don't know why everyone thinks they need everything in their own backyard. In the city you are not depraved of nature, you just need to go to a park or a walkway or to a waterfront, and we have plenty of that. You can live in an urban setting in Detroit but walk several miles of waterfront, or go to one of the largest urban parks anywhere. You can live in an urban setting in Ann Arbor and escape all that "pavement" and "noise" in the Arboretum. I don't think I even need to mention Central Park. You see, people are living in a dream world. They think that they will be closer to nature or have more abililty to enjoy life if they move out to the suburbs, but in reality, they can't take a walk because they don't have any freaking sidewalks and there is a 10-lane road at the edge of the subdivision...and they don't have time to enjoy their one-acre backyard because it takes them an hour to drive to work and they work OT to pay for the mortgage that sprung them from that awful city they used to live. Sigh. But isn't life in exurbs great???

And what are we left with, an inefficient pattern of low-density townships chock-full of unbeautiful, repetitive homes that springs outward into areas which were once truly natural. Do you feel good about this??? Are you happy that real woodlands or pastures were ruined so you could live in your dreamworld of "open spaces?" Lemme tell ya, when I take a walk in whatever city I live in, I breathe the same air and look up at the same sky you do, and it ain't that bad. What's more, since I have sidewalks and a well-organized urban plan where I live, I probably get to walk/bike/run more than you. ...but oh, I forgot, when you live in a recently-constructed home in a gated, recently-constructed community at least 30 miles from the city center, it's absolutely impossible for anything bad to happen to you...all crime is random right? You wouldn't want to live in the city, your odds of dying are clearly much much higher.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 173
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 8:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You wouldn't want to live in the city, your odds of dying are clearly much much higher.


you make my point, you are right, with the traffic and the stress and crime rate that comes with living in the city, your odds of dying definetely go up.

My husband is now be 10 minutes from work vrs the 35-40 he was at his old job.

Charlevoix is a historic City with tons of art festivals and music and fine dining and Lake Michigan, and sking and all the hunting and fishing my husband can take......I guess its just a lifestyle that you embrace or dont. I love Detroit, but I couldnt live there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1421
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 8:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Charlevoix technically has an urban core (in addition to sprawl); if you are living in downtown Charlevoix and taking advantage of the fact that recreational opportunities are very much at your fingertips nonetheless, then basically you're doing what I said is possible in my post. It's like Chicago shrunk down a thousand times.

But beyond that, I see you didn't catch on to my sarcasm. Do some research, like I did last year for one of my classes. Credible medicial journals are finding that SUBURBS are the most unhealthy places to be. We're not talking the inner-city, or "up north" type settings, but areas like the majority of metro Detroit. In the SUBURBS is where the stress is...the long, traffic filled commute, and air pollution from heavy traffic (this is straight out of the report, which I will try to find for you to city), and due to the sedantary lifestyle which usually coems with suburban life, overall occurances of heart problems are higher there.

The odds of being murdered in a city (if you live there year round 24/7), for most cities including Detroit, is near or well below the odds of dying in a highway car crash...now let's make a connection--a highway is generally what you need to take to get to a suburb.

Again, do some research.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1598
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.162.199
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 9:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sprawl is bad and we are paying for it now. Repairing roads at 26 mile and 32 mile roads instead of five mile road is ludicrous. When SE Michigan learns of its mistake, it may be too late. Oh, I'm sorry, it may already be too late.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5

Post Number: 227
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 71.227.95.4
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Do you feel good about this??? Are you happy that real woodlands or pastures were ruined so you could live in your dreamworld of "open spaces?"
What the heck do you think Detroit was before it was developed?

The town I live in was founded in 1832 so it is not exactly a new suburb of Detroit. Within a 5 minute drive (or a 15 minute bike ride) are 4 large grocery stores, at least 2 dozen restaurants, a small movie theatre, a newly opened YMCA, and many other amenities. I can also look out my back door and see 1500+ acres of forested state lands with trails for horses, hiking and cycling. No noise from passing cars, very low crime rates (I don't even lock the doors)and I know almost all my neighbors by first name. I would not trade where I live to move into any major city, ever.

That being said I do enjoy Detroit; I have attended classes at Wayne State and have spent countless weekends downtown, but would never call it home. It's just personal preference, some people like to live in the city, others don't. I does not mean that either choice is right or wrong.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 64
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 71.227.26.9
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 9:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mackinaw -

If everything you say is true, then why is Detroit shrinking and the suburbs growing? Are people paying more money for housing and high property taxes for the hell of it? Your argument does not stand up to the actual trend. YOU may prefer the city and that is great, for YOU.

I grew up in Southfield and even that was too built up for me. I couldn't wait to get out of there and out to the lakes area. Even IT is getting too built up, I will probably move again! I am not a city person, nor are the 100's of thousands of people that live in the suburbs.

Most of the jobs are in the suburbs too, so your point about long commutes is false. Your point about air pollution is pure speculation as is the notion that people in the suburbs lead a more sedentary lifestyle. I see quite a few people outside every day cutting their lawns and doing yard work out here! The suburban people may have more sedentary JOBS, as many are white-collar workers.

As for your assertion that you are more likely to be killed in a traffic accident then be murdered in Detroit, there were 1283 traffic deaths on Michigan raods in 2003 for the ENTIRE state, including Detroit, which is about 13 deaths per 100,000. Actually the out-state number is lower, as Detroit is included in this number, but I digress. In the city of Detroit for 2003, there were 366 murders, which is 38.5 per 100,000, about 3 times the amount killed in car wrecks. There were also 814 rapes, 11,727 assaults, 5817 robberies, 14,100 burglaries and 25,356 auto thefts in Detroit the same year.

In Novi, as an example of a suburban city you would despise, there were 2 murders, 7 rapes, 21 assaults, 15 robberies, 200 burglaries and 85 auto thefts. This is a pretty good-sized suburb with over 50,000 people. 94% of the people of Novi have a high school degree compared to 49% for Detroit, while 49% have college degrees compared to 11% for Detroit. Unemployment in Detroit for that year was 13.8% as compared to 2.2% for Novi.

I could go on and on but it would be cruel. I don’t want to beat up on Detroit, but when you make assertions that do not stand up to scrutiny then they need to be challenged. Detroit is clearly in crisis and has been for years, in terms of efficiency, if anything Detroit is the city that should be consolidating neighborhoods and population because it finds itself in a position to be unable to provide services for all of its residents.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1422
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If the tax base hadn't flown out of Detroit purely because people no longer had a "taste" for urban living (btw this wasn't the case--they no longer had a taste for dealing with the challenge of getting along with different types of people), then we would not be dealing with relatively high crime statistics.

But I still think that you are AFRAID of the city. Just say it. It won't make you less of a man, I mean, gentleman. I say that your fears are unfounded. Most crime is not random. You aren't in a gang are you? You don't have a tendency of pissing people off do you? You don't plan on moving into neighborhoods that have active drug houses, do you? With a little diligence and research, I'm sure you could find someplace safe to live in any city, Detroit definitly included.

Try, say, Downtown Detroit, where the crime rate is below the metro Detroit average and even the state average. Hmmmm, wierd, a "built up" urban space with low crime.

And, if Southfield is your idea of built up, then you definitly have issues with urban living. America is just sooo spread out and we are so conditioned to wide open spaces. We are so self-righteous in thinking that we deserve we should have whatever we have a taste for, so how bout we go fill in some wetlands so we can have "room to breathe." It's pretty counterproductive, though, because as soon as you move out to your wide open space, the trend of sprawl makes it built up all of a sudden. You might as well move to the backwoods of the upper Peninsula.

Johnny, that's a lame arguement. Detroit was founded by missionaries. It boomed and as it grew, with a clear urban plan in mind; Detroit was built to be pretty dense. No NYC, but it was pretty compact when it held nearly 2 million people. The expansion of our metro area has clearly been by choice and not neccesity. Our inefficiencies are absolutely gratuitous.

I don't know where you live but I totally believe you. Just about everything has some point of origin. Sure Macomb Twp. or Romeo was founded in the 19th century--but what were they then? Probably under one square mile. A few frame buildings around a corner, surrounded by pasture, like any "up north" type setting. Now, the majority of population in these places lives in sprawling new-subdivision type setups...you wouldn't argue, right?

I need help...why am I alone speaking for the other 95% of detroityes right now!?
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 66
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 71.227.26.9
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I do have issues with urban living - I don't like it. I wouldn't say I am afraid of Detroit, I go into the city several times a year. Unfortunately, me, my family, and many of my friends have been victims of “random” crimes in Detroit. Mostly assault or robbery of some kind, nobody killed yet.

On 2 of the occasions I recall, the police basically blamed us “suburbanites” for being assaulted because we “shouldn’t have been in the area.” I guess we were making their job harder. It would be wonderful if we could all get along and live in Detroit like we did in the 40’s and 50’s, but the suburbs are there, and many people seem to prefer that kind of lifestyle. I will stop now, I wasn't my intention to beat up on the city...
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 98
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfectgentleman has his opinion and it would be the same if this site was called CharlotteYES!, PhoenixYES!, Des MoinesYES! There actually are people that prefer suburban living and often suburban areas are much more affordable than the urban core city.
But, Perfectgentleman, since you're an anti-city type ... why are you here???
Top of pageBottom of page

Hornwrecker
Member
Username: Hornwrecker

Post Number: 1077
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 63.41.40.102
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What I've learned from this thread: everything outside of this is sprawl.

1901 Detroit Map

This map is from 1901, and shows the borders of Detroit just before the automobile boom started.

... or does sprawl start at McNichols? 8 Mile? I-696? Telegraph?

... or maybe it started during/after WWII? etc...?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikem
Member
Username: Mikem

Post Number: 2435
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.43.15.105
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's like what Justice Stewart said about pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 68
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 71.227.26.9
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am not anti-city per se, I prefer the suburbs as a place to live but I would be thrilled if Detroit would recover. After all, the decline of the city affects the entire region so we all have a stake here.

In addition, there is alot of suburb-bashing on this site that I feel should not go un-challenged. I know it makes many of you feel better to blame the problems plaguing Detroit on the suburbs, but that is not solving anything.

It may also be uncomfortable for you to have dissenting opinions on this board, especially from suburban people, but don't you feel a healthy debate stimulates thought?

Who knows, maybe I can be convinced that things in the city are getting better? Maybe I can convince you that the suburbs aren't so bad? As the city and suburbs are inextricably linked, wouldn't it be better to keep the lines of communication open?

(Message edited by perfectgentleman on April 25, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 138
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 24.192.25.47
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfectgentleman's post #64 clearly points out the problem with the "suburban lifestyle"

It is an unsustainable cycle. He moved to escape Southfield, and since where he moved is now being built up because of other like-minded people, he will likely now move again. When does it end?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1424
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

sprawl is irresponsible, low density development; it is worst when it occurs in an environmentally sensitive area, or when it really isn't neccesary, or is subsidizied. True sprawl patterns started late in the 1950s, and are exponentially worse today. By all of these standards, I'd say about 85% of SE MI territory north of 8-mile is in a sprawl pattern, and most of the area west of Telegraph. Now, with Detroit at about 2 million people when the trend began, the inner ring was not entirely unwarranted. But the urban crises and civil rights strife of the 1960s really pushed the trend. Just about all the sprawl since the 1980s, past M-59 and 275, is completely unwarranted IMO. It is a reality that this is market driven--I'm an econ major and don't have my head up my ass--but the preferences driving the market demand (looking at the socio-political aspects of it) are pretty sick and twisted IMO, and that is what this debate is about.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1425
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Exactly, focus.

It seems that the inner-ring, right near the D border, where I grew up, hasn't gotten any more built up since about, oh, say, 1940, when it completely filled up.

All the people that are pissed about things supposedly getting "built up" seem to be living on the edge, where things perpetually get built up. Density is the key word in this discussion. Anyway, these people are always "on the run" to the edge.

Living where i live at home is pretty stress free. The traffic on Mack Avenue is next to nothing outside of a couple hours each day. Its dead quiet at night, I can take a walk on a sidewalk down a tree-lined street. There are parks everywhere. You can walk to school or church or the store. You'd hardly know that I live by that dreaded urban core!
Top of pageBottom of page

Bigin06
Member
Username: Bigin06

Post Number: 1
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have lived in Detroit since birth and have no intention of leaving it anytime soon.
I may sound like a cynic but that "wide open spaces" excuse seems to work until people that are different begin moving into the area. When people say things like that what I hear is "running away from" instead of "running to . But when everyone wants the wide open spaces, it just becomes like the area that you ran away from, so how far are you going to keep moving? The U.P.?

Another big reason for moving further out is "crime". First EVERY major population center in this country has areas that have higher crime rates than others. There are places in Detroit that EVEN I wouldnt go into during DAYLIGHT ! So ofcourse I wouldnt move into or live in an area like that.
However the stats on the Downtown Detroit crime rate is accurate(Thanks MACKINAW). I believe it is from a WSU study done a couple of years ago. Watching the news or reading the newspaper I read about crime in the suburbs as much as in the city. You can't run from crime forever.
I live in New Center in new townhouse and love it!
I can walk to the drug store, several restaurants, the Fisher theater, a few bars and one a nice day to the DIA or Science Center (incredibly enough there are several suburbs that DON'T have sidewalks). In most burbs I have to get into a car to do a lot of those things. I live less than a mile from 3 major highways. I work for a major corporation downtown and my commute is generally about 6 minutes (thats when I take the street).

I've lived here 41 years and:
*Never been shot
*Never been shot at
*Dont know anyone who has been shot
*I graduated High School
*Live in a beautiful historic neighborhood
*Have my trash picked up EVERY Friday and our street lights work(amazing! city services)
*Have never lived in a place that has been broken into.
*Never hear gun fire(except New Years Eve unfortunately)
*Never been mugged or attacked on the street
*Never been raped (or know anyone who has been)
*I am employed (as are 98% of the people that I know)
*Never had a car stolen.

I think surburbanites have way more incorrect assumptions about the city than city folk have about the suburbs. SOME of the suburbs are really cool-I'm glad they're there. But this constantly moving further and further out to escape "crime" and live in "wide open spaces" is really a symptom of something that goes a lot deeper. You can love where you live at without constantly bashing Detroit( DANNY post #4031 you are correct). It seems people that dont live or work here love doing that.

It's been reported that S.E. Michigan is one of the most segregated areas in the nation.

THAT's the true issue that needs to be discussed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1426
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GREAT first post.

Welcome.

The appeal of cities is much wider than people think. For those of you that don't already now, I hold a pretty conservative array of views; I view the desire to improve Detroit and make urban life better a pretty unifying goal though, and I'm as vehement about it as most any city-booster. Unfortunely, everyday politics and socio-economics get thrown into these sorts of discussions too much. Preconcieved notions don't help it either. A lot of people out there are too scared to live in cities. A lot of people are too scared to say that they might want to live in one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 101
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, Mackinaw, especially if they would say that they want to live in Detroit ... what would people say??? Crazy!!! Bigin06, very informative first post.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tayshaun22
Member
Username: Tayshaun22

Post Number: 98
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.14.101.116
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Most people that would move back to Detroit can't move back to downtown. It's the neighborhoods where the crime is, and the neighborhoods are where single family houses are. Your average middle class family of 4 isn't going to live in a loft downtown. Except for Rosedale Park and EEV, there aren't many affordable places for your normal family to live that are free from crime.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1427
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is a common concern and a valid one.

Lower Woodward isn't exactly synonimous with family life. EEV sure is, Indian Village homes are great for families, and Rosedale Park is awesome. In 5-10 years, all those large restored Brush Park homes could house some families. All you need is a cohesive neighborhood with a sense of community. The public schooling situation is another factor that we cannot go without mentioning. Its the single biggest thing in the way of turning the city completely around.

As a corolary to your point, let me add that concerns for having a good family location do not neccesitate moving to the sprawlburbs. In fact, I think a good parent would avoid raising children in such a sedantary, car-dependant place.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 69
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 71.227.26.9
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So let me understand, are you all suggesting that suburban development should be banned by law? Should we be forced to live in Detroit? I am seriously not trying to be a smart-ass here. It sounds like you don't want to allow the market to work and for people who wish to invest in real estate and develop it to operate. I do feel a city needs to have a good master plan and enforce it, and you shouldn’t necessarily grant every request to build something that comes along. The residents should have a say.

An example of this is Southfield, which is right on the Detroit border. It dramatically changed from 1958 when I moved in to when I left in 1981. The large buildings, the highways, tons of housing developments, condos, retail, and industrial mostly happened in the 60’s and 70’s. It became a hideous place and remains so today.

I remember the people who lived in Southfield bitching about all of the buildup, most of the residents didn't want it and many fought city hall on it. The city wanted the tax revenue so anybody who wanted to build got to build. As Southfield was no longer the way it was, people began to leave. It is now a ghost of its former self, Northland is all but gone, most of the restaurants have closed, many of the buildings have massive numbers of empty offices, the schools are bad, many of the neighborhoods are getting shabby, and the crime rate is double the national average.

Unfortunately places like Wixom seem to be following the Southfield model and are overbuilding hideous strip malls and condos that are quickly turning that area into a congested, ugly mess. This will chase people away and create more sprawl elsewhere. If these smaller suburban communities would retain the quaint, bedroom community vibe that they started out as, people would stay and there would be less sprawl.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 103
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Once the demographics of a city like Southfield (or any other city with the same issues) change as dramatically as they have, many residents move further out to get away from what they originally moved there for. Does that make sense?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1428
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:07 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Like I said, sprawl is market driven, and operating within the law and within good economic principles to try to curb it, I think, is one of the great challenges of our day.

You bring up "hideous," so clearly beauty matters to you. Clearly nature is beautiful. But man made things can be too, do you not agree? Perfectgentleman, do you find beauty in the built urban environment? How does it compare to the beauty which can be found in the sort of suburb which appeals to you? Are you willing to trade living in a beautiful places so that you can live in someplace that you feel safe in?
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 140
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 24.192.25.47
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfectgentleman, the scenario you laid out featuring Southfield is the same cycle you are perpetuating in wherever you moved to.

Im sorry, but you can't move to BFE, expect all the same conveniences and services, bitch until you get them, and then bitch that when they've come, they've destroyed the BFE-ness of where you live. It's impossible.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 70
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 71.227.26.9
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mackinaw - yes I do find beauty in an urban environment, Detroit has some great architecture. I like the fact I am near that. My late father told me he could see the Penobscot building from his bedroom window, I never forgot that. I also find beauty in wooded areas, lakes, trees and grass. For me, the latter is where I prefer to live, but I probably would always want to be fairly close to a bigger city.

Hysteria - they are not getting away from what they originally moved their for, they move because the place they are leaving is no longer like it was when they came. My house in Southfield was surrounded by woods, there was ponds and nature all around there. Many of the roads weren't even paved. It changed dramatically.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 71
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 71.227.26.9
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:32 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Focusonthed -

Us folks out here in BFE don't want 25 strip malls, we are bitching ABOUT them being built, not asking for them. Every time a big development comes up for discussion at these zoning board meetings, the residents fight it. The powers that be don't listen. I don't need a frickin party store on every corner. I am willing to have a few less conveniences for less traffic and a quieter area, so are most of the other residents.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 65
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 66.174.92.164
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree that for some, suburban living is appropriate, and for others, urban living is. No one is right, and no one is wrong.

However, for every decision we make, there are possible, unanticipated repurcussions. For instance, when people move out to the exurbs, for whatever reasons, development is going to follow.

This will occur because (1) there is a demand for convenience, and (2) the more people who live in a municipality, the more money it takes to provide even the most basic of services. That is why those municipalities seek the increased tax-base acquired from that development (that the residents are demanding).

The problem I have with total market-driven control of such decisions is that, one day, probably not in our lifetime, but possibly in our great, great grandchildren's lifetime, there will not be any more place to sprawl to.

The final, absolute, unavoidable outcome of free market economies is that, at some point, we are going to run out of resources to produce that which we demand. (In theory, at least :-))
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3600
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You will find that you can not always have your cake, and eat it to, Perfectgentleman. Don't expect people to support someone living way-the-hell out at the edge of existence, but just close enough to the city to use it. If you want your woods and a rural lifestyle, that's fine by me. But don't expect the amenities of the city to follow you and bitch when it gets "too urban" for you.

That wasn't necessarily directed at you as it was the creation of new suburbs, as if we don't have enough of them, already. This exurban lifestyle is unsustainable, illogical, and just plain greed driven.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1430
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good points Ron and Lmich.

The discussion about 'beauty' is a most interesting one. In this discussion, we see where people's priorities lie. The reason I like Detroit and urban areas--big and small--so much is that I value the beauty and advantages of living among this much more than I dislike the ills that may occur in these places. I would trade just about everything to be somewhere beautiful. In some cases, this means lakes, trees, and mountains. And, the opposite end also appeals to me. The history and effort that was put into building great cities has left us some great things, and I intend to enjoy them. Since it is usually more practical--in terms of jobs, amenities, lifestyle, etc.--to live in a city than in the wilderness, city life wins out for now. I guess it all comes down to taste and priorities. But even for people that don't have priorities like mine, it is very hard to reconcile the inefficient and, usually hideous, results of sprawl.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 24
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 68.40.195.233
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I took a course up here at U-M titled "American Suburbia," and we discussed this very topic at GREAT length...

One of the main points touched upon in lecture was the idea of utopia/distopia inherant in suburban living. The idea (in the mind of the future parents who move there) is to have a safe place with good schools where kids can have a wonderful childhood... however it seems that most kids in the suburbs find it a miserable cement wasteland. I was NOT raised in the suburbs (thank god) but the various polls shown in lecture and video interviews shown seemed to prove my point. Kids wanted out of the boredom, and unwalkable wasteland... think of the treacherous life of a 12 year old (who can't drive) growing up in a commuter culture 2 hours from L.A., for example... All there is to do is cause trouble and go to the mall (if your parents are willing to drive you...)

Also, as far as raising your kids in a safe environment goes... studies have shown that though the drugs of choice vary, illegal drug use is about even in inner-city and suburban schools... although high-school pregnancy is higher in urban settings, underage drinking is higher in the suburbs... sounds like our culture has problems... not the innercities...

finally to answer PerfectGentleman's statement that

"the suburbs are there, and many people seem to prefer that kind of lifestyle."

Sure, but are they given a choice? REALLY? we, as a culture have thrust suburban commuter living on ourselves... to the point that city living is the exception not the norm (the majority of americans now live in the suburbs) it is like saying Detroiters don't like mass transit because they don't use it... as there is no amazing mass transit option, the flight to the suburbs has made cities less desirable to suburban soccer moms. It has been our own doing. If given a REAL option, I think people would reject the suburbs like the plague...

(Message edited by andylinn on April 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1431
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's that really popular course with Prof. Lassiter, isn't it?

Good points, Andy. I think transit + schools would be the conditions that make the city an option for just about everyone.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 25
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 68.40.195.233
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

that's the one, mackinaw. (it's A VERY GOOD CLASS)
Top of pageBottom of page

Ltorivia485
Member
Username: Ltorivia485

Post Number: 2608
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 199.74.87.98
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Andylin, I took a Suburbia course here at Northwestern. We discussed similar topics like your professor taught, including the books "The Suburbs" (Palen) and "Suburban Nation."
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 73
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Andylinn -

This so-called "course" you took about suburbia has left you severely mis-informed. Of course people have choices, and they are voting with their feet, leaving the city. What is this notion of an "un-walkable wasteland?" At least when you walk around out here, you don’t have to worry about being robbed. I grew up in the suburbs as my kids are and nobody finds it "treacherous," quite the opposite.

Treacherous is going to school and wondering if someone will be shot. The statistics are clear, the suburbs are safer, have better schools, better infrastructure and better services. That is why most people move there as soon as they can afford it. Thousands of people in the suburbs are either former Detroiters themselves or have parents who were. They left and have no intention of returning. No amount of mass transit will matter to most people in the suburbs, if you asked them if they would consider living in Detroit they would look at you as if you were nuts.

It is sad that our universities are indoctrinating their students with liberal dogma, robbing them of a real education.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 174
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you want your woods and a rural lifestyle, that's fine by me. But don't expect the amenities of the city to follow you and bitch when it gets "too urban" for you.


you guys are so funny, dont you get it? We dont want the city *amenities* I will have septic and well, I look forward to driving on roads where I will see 5 cars tops in the morning.

As far as there being *nothing to do but get in trouble* wrong-o again....4-wheeling, canoeing, fishing, hunting, camping, bonfires, boating sking, snowmobling are just a FEW of the things that will be right out our front door. YOur thinking there is nothing to do proves you dont get it nor would you enjoy that lifestyle, but WE do

Yup, you are right about drugs being everywhere, thats no argument to be in a city.

and yes, WE did have a choice, we choose to leave this area and move to where my husband has a great job and is only 10 min from work. Your arguments just dont wash, you keep grasping at straws trying to disprove country living, as I said, well and spetic, I am draining the city of NOTHING.

Stay in the city, I cant stand all the cement, enjoy....but stop knocking MY way of life
Top of pageBottom of page

Machoken
Member
Username: Machoken

Post Number: 1210
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 207.145.38.104
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 9:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Honest question for Miss_cleo: Why do you frequent DetroitYES if you 'cant stand all the cement' and everything else urban?
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 136
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 9:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfectgentleman: would you be so quick to run to West Farkistan if I-96 was a toll road? Thank the tax dollars from the (then) million-plus Detroit residents for subsidizing your commute. How about if your 3/4 acre vinyl-clad palace was $50k more, because the developer had to pay for the sewer and road infrastructure impreovements his 2000 houses created? Thank Roseville, Inkster, Redford and Ferdale for that money. What if your taxes went up to pay for a school for all those happy suburban kids? Well that's why you keep getting the crappy strip malls you so despise - because they raise the tax base without taxing you.

That's the argument against sprawl - the FACT that the older suburbs and inner city residents are paying for it, because it can't pay for itself. Pay your own way, and you can live wherever the heck you want! Just stop trying to get there on the backs of the disadvantaged.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4034
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 9:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Miss_cleo,

Who are in the middle of nowheresville, go enjoy you way of life through the trees bloom, the sky is clear and blue, where the deer and water foul play. But wait until when a next big box store comes to your town. Then you will see urban sprawl catching up. Turning your "Pleasantville" to "Sprawl City".
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 74
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:17 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Udmphikapbob -

Although roughly 1/2 of the people who work in Detroit live in the suburbs, most suburban people do not work in Detroit. I guess it says quite a bit about the city in that many who work there don't want to live there. Hell, until recently, many on Kwame’s staff didn’t live there.

The people that do work there and live in the suburbs do pay city taxes however so they are "subsidizing" the city in that regard. The water and sewer bills of the people who use city services "subsidizes" the poor in Detroit who cannot pay. They do this even though they have no representation in city government.

Everyone pays taxes to the state to help fund the highway system, so nobody in Detroit is "subsidizing" the commute of anyone out here. Where do you get this notion that people in Roseville, Inkster and Ferndale are subsidizing me? They pay their taxes and I pay mine. You make statements that have no basis in fact.

In fact, because Detroit residents have more people on government assistance and those who do work make less money, they are consuming far more in government services than the tax dollars they pay. Why do you think Detroit is on the brink of receivership and is always broke? The top 50% tax brackets pay 95% of the taxes in this country, and most of these higher income people live in the suburbs, at least in terms of Michigan. The median income in the city of Detroit is $29,000, most people at that level and below are paying little, if any federal income taxes.

Where would the attractions like the sports stadiums and entertainment venues be if suburban people stopped coming in? What about Greektown and the casinos? There is millions of dollars a day coming into the city from suburban residents. Detroit would be totally devastated without that income.

The specter of Detroit has inhibited the ability of Oakland County communities to attract new investment and business. When Brooks Patterson tries to woo investors to expand their business’s out here the city of Detroit is brought up as a negative because of its horrible image around the world. A politician in the Chicago area can sell the proximity to the city as a benefit, not a drawback. Decades of Liberal Democrat rule in Detroit has done irreparable harm to a once great city. All we have left is arrogant city leaders and people like you, pointing fingers at people like me as being the problem. Clean your own house and get rid of the mentality of entitlement and dependency.

Make it a clean, safe place where people can work and live and improve the schools and infrastructure. Learn to nurture investment and new business instead of chasing business away. Maybe then people will listen to your pitch. As of now, all it is hollow, baseless rhetoric.

(Message edited by perfectgentleman on April 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1432
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"At least when you walk around out here, you don’t have to worry about being robbed."

Once again, you're dealing in generalities and fear. The problem is, you take things so far...you basically believe that if one is in the city, something bad will thus happen to them.

And out in the exurbs, in most cases, if you want somewhere to walk, you have to drive there first. Whether it be to the pseudo-downtown they created for you, or the climate controlled mall, or to a natural area. And except for a few lucky cases, you can't walk to the store, school, etc...And who says crime can't happen everywhere. I hear about plenty of crime when I watch the local news up north.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 138
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Everyone pays taxes to the state to help fund the highway system, so nobody in Detroit is "subsidizing" the commute of anyone out here. Where do you get this notion that people in Roseville, Inkster and Ferndale are subsidizing me? They pay their taxes and I pay mine. You make statements that have no basis in fact.




They pay their taxes and you pay yours, and it all goes into a big pool. Are the declining inner suburbs receiving back every dollar they are paying into this road fund? NO. Their money goes towards widening I-75, or a new interchange at Beck and 96, Ford Road in Canton, etc. Residents in the outer suburbs are receiving around $1.50 in highway spending for every $1 they pay in taxes. Residents in the City and inner ring get back about $0.70 of their money. They subsidize this expansion of infrastructure as the existing roads fall apart, and they do so so that businesses can move farther away, and people have to commute farther and farther, because these new areas are zoned as such that you can't build a house on a lot smaller than Rhode Island - let alone a <gasp> apartment building.

It's a system that has been subsidized by the federal government since the 1950s. Don't forget that big write-off you get from the feds for paying that Rock Financial interest-only loan. Think that doesn't help you more than it does someone in a $60,000 bungalow? Care to justify why we still have a mortgage-interest deduction and a deduction for property taxes?

The concentration of the poor in inner cities has been proven to lead to an expanding spiral of poverty. If some of these people on government assistance could get reliable cheap transportation, and affordable housing near where jobs were being created, then they could send their kids to a better school, and get off government assistance because they could get to a job that pays them better. It has been proven that if you take the same poor people, and spread some of them out in the suburbs, that those who were given the opportunity did far better than those left behind in the City. This lessens dependence on social assistance, and stops "them" from taking all your tax dollars.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7230
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfect Gentleman - Back up some claims:


quote:

The water and sewer bills of the people who use city services "subsidizes" the poor in Detroit who cannot pay.




That is an absolute fallacy that people throw around. Last year waster was shut off to 40,000 Detroit households. Nobody is subsidizing them. Once water comes into I would expect incorrect facts from someone with so much contempt for the city.


quote:

Everyone pays taxes to the state to help fund the highway system, so nobody in Detroit is "subsidizing" the commute of anyone out here. Where do you get this notion that people in Roseville, Inkster and Ferndale are subsidizing me? They pay their taxes and I pay mine. You make statements that have no basis in fact.




Whne the new suburbs are built everyone in the region pays for the new infrastructure which keeps home prices low. Since a majority live in the city and inner rings we are in fact subsidizing sprawl. Why do we pay the same rate for Consumers and DTE even though the new communities are having new infrastructure installed in their area. Flat out we are subsidizing that. It is a concept that is easy enough for a child to understand. That is the problem with unmitigated sparawl - there is a continuing infrastructure with no additional people in the region and we all pay for it while those in the new comunities reap the benefits.


quote:

In fact, because Detroit residents have more people on government assistance and those who do work make less money, they are consuming far more in government services than the tax dollars they pay.




And why do you think the city has to take on the burden of the poor in the area. It costs our city tax dollars, services, etc. Should we distribute the NSOs and homeless throughout the region? Makes sense if you are all about sharing. But we will continue to keep those as 'Detroit' problems.


quote:

Where would the attractions like the sports stadiums and entertainment venues be if suburban people stopped coming in? What about Greektown and the casinos? There is millions of dollars a day coming into the city from suburban residents. Detroit would be totally devastated without that income.




Valid argument but where would the stores and malls in inner rings be if the residents of Detroit did not spend billions in those stores every year. If you are going to argue that people in the suburbs support stadia and downtown you have to acknowledge that Detroiters spend a lot in the suburbs. A concept often forgotten by people like yourself.


quote:

The specter of Detroit has inhibited the ability of Oakland County communities to attract new investment and business. When Brooks Patterson tries to woo investors to expand their business’s out here the city of Detroit is brought up as a negative because of its horrible image around the world.




You aren't that ignorant are you? OC has seen all of its building at a loss to Detroit. To now claim that Detroit is holding OC back is ridiculous narrow minded. IN addition I would like to know what your man LBP is doing to foster a better business environment in the region. He bitches about what is wrong but does nothing to improve the region. If anything he is one of the divisive people that keeps this region from growing. OCs gains are at the loss of others in this region and has done nothing for long term stability of the region. If only people weren't too ignorant or too full of hate to see that.


quote:

Make it a clean, safe place where people can work and live and improve the schools and infrastructure. Learn to nurture investment and new business instead of chasing business away.




Let me paraphrase for you and so many others like you:

You guys do the work. Make it a place I can enjoy then I may pitch in. Until then I will do nothing and bitch while doing nothing. Your attitude that Detroit's problems are Detroit's and Detroit's only speaks volumes why this region is not moving forward. We have hundreds of thousands of people like you that insist Detroit needs to make itself a better place then you will take some ownership in it. Maybe, just maybe if the people like yourself helped the city and the region could move forward.

So in summary let's see what PG most likely thinks:

Detroiters should be rewsponsible for the poor, the mentally ill, the burden of uninsured drivers and any thing else that costs money.

Suburbs should have control over DWSD as it is a revenue stream.

Detroit should improve itself without help of otehrs. Once others think it is nice enough they may then consider helping Detroit.

BRavo PG. With people like you in the region there is no wonder that the region as a whole continues to decline. Your post just reeks of opportunism, laziness and a 'it is your proble' attitude.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7231
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MIss Cleo - I agree 110% with you on this:


quote:

If you want your woods and a rural lifestyle, that's fine by me. But don't expect the amenities of the city to follow you and bitch when it gets "too urban" for you.




While I get annoyed with some of your anti-city rhetoric I appreciate the honesty and truthfullness of your statement. If only so many others in the region understood such a simple point as well as you do.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 75
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mackinaw -

The crime rate in Detroit is 3 roughly times the national average, the crime in the suburbs is roughly 1/3 the national average. These are statistical facts and not generalities. Please see my previous post on that. There is very little crime up north so if one does occur it makes the news, what else do they have to talk about?

Someone getting a car stolen makes the news out here. Since there are over 25,000 auto thefts in Detroit, they are NOT mentioned in the papers because it isn't news, just everyday life. You could fill up 2 newspapers with the crimes that happen in Detroit on a daily basis if you wanted to report it all. Mainly the murders get reported in Detroit, there is at least an average of 1 per day, but most other crimes like rape, assault and robbery are not reported by the press. If anything they are under-reporting most of the crime in the city.

Folks like you who say that there is little crime are doing a disservice to others and possibly endangering them. You are encouraging people with little savvy in regard to the city to come to a place where many areas are unsafe. Should they have a problem, their chance of getting assistance from law enforcement in a timely manner is remote at best. These are documented problems and you are trying to pretend they don’t exist. How would you feel if some newbie listened to this advice and was robbed, assaulted or killed after wandering into one of the “no-go” zones?

Of course there is crime in the suburbs but violent crime is miniscule compared to the city. You can’t afford to be this naďve. I know many people who have been victims of crime in the city, including myself. I guess the only factor that limits your exposure is that most of the crime in Detroit is against other Detroiters. Is this because of a lack of available targets because most outsiders stay away? Maybe.

I can go out my front door and walk for miles if I wish, pavement is optional when it comes to walking. My kids walk to the store every day and I never go to the mall, I wish there were no malls out here in fact. There were enough stores out here 10 years ago, we don’t need more.

(Message edited by perfectgentleman on April 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin

Post Number: 2651
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.202.227.12
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

JT1 Let it go big man...

Obviously you are dealing with another MetroDetGuy in PG...

Spare yourself the headache
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7233
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good advice - Thanks.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 67
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 66.174.92.163
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:42 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PGM,

With regards to water, Detroit sells water to the suburbs at a wholesale rate. The LOCAL fees, etc are what make your water bill high. In fact, the LOCAL fees are MORE THAN DOUBLE the wholesale rate of the water sold. What that means is that if your LOCAL officials would eliminate ALL LOCAL FEES, then your water bill would be approximately 60% less than it is now. (I will try and find my source for this info). Go bitch to your elected officials, not mine.

Let's not confuse the facts, the reason the water bills are high in the suburbs are because of SUBURBAN FEES!!!!!!!!!!! Not because of the alleged high rates Detroit charges.

As for the feable suburban arguments re: their ENTITLEMENT to an ownership interest in the water department, the rationale goes like this: I have BOUGHT water from you for 40 years, therefore I am entitled to an ownership interest. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? That is the same thing as saying, I eat lunch at McDonald's everyday, so I am entitled to OWN IT!

The reason the suburbs want the DWD is because it it extremely efficient, and is very high revenue generating.

With respect to your ability to live where you want, I again turn your attention to this article which recounts the history of suburban development

http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=4268.

Based upon this history, the ONLY WAY YOU CAN WASH YOUR ASS IS BECAUSE OF DETROIT, because we SELL YOU WATER. You exist because we ALLOWED YOU TO EXIST.

If you don't like the rates you pay, BUY SOMEWHERE ELSE or BUILD YOUR OWN TREATMENT PLANT!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 68
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 66.174.92.163
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also PGM,

the reason your elected officials allow the sprawl that you and your neighbors don't want is because IT COSTS MONEY FOR YOU TO LIVE THERE.

They allow development SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO RAISE YOUR LOCAL TAXES.

Also, don't take it personally, I just get riled up about these things. It is a good discussion.

Ron :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1431
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PerfectGentleman seems reasonably intelligent. It does seem, however, that he doesn't quite grasp the difference between "cause" and "effect". The generalities don't help much, either. I'd have my city neighborhood go toe-to-toe with his suburban wonderland any day of the week. It wouldn't even be a contest.

I'd encourage PGM to read and explore both sides of this debate, lest he have an underinformed opinion. Pick up "Suburban Nation" by Duany and Plater-Zyberk for a start. Thomas Sugrue's "The Origins of the Urban Crisis" should be on any short list.

I think most of the pro-urban people have lived in both suburb and city, and are informed enough to have made a decision. Most suburbanites have never lived in a city before. You don't have to like city living, but don't bash it when you know nothing about it.

I support anyone's right to choose where they want to live. I don't support the obligation to pay for that choice foisted upon me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 140
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PG - you say "city" and "suburbs" as though there were a rigid barrier between the two, and that all suburbs are one homogeneous entity. Crime will spread to the inner suburbs as the city core vacates. then it spreads farther into the next layer of suburbs, and so on. then you head farther away, leaving a vacancy filled by a poor family trying to get away themselves. poverty begets poverty, and crime begets crime. until fair housing and transportation policies do something about the high concentration of the poor in certain areas, crime will only get worse for the entire region.

you can choose to support those who wish to stop the madness, or those who profit from perpetuating it - your call.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 141
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, add Orfield's 'MetroPolitics' to that list (in case you couldn't tell from my posts).
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 76
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1 -

Water:
40,000 people may have had there water shut off after not paying their bills for months. There are thousands of others who are behind. Even the city council admits this. Without suburban revenue, the city water and sewer system would be broke.

Highways:
Highways are funded by gasoline taxes and federal highway funds. Since suburban people do more commuting and buy more gas we pay more gasoline taxes. We also pay more in federal taxes then the average Detroiter.

Utilities:
Consumers and DTE do not do hookups for free, they are factored into the cost of the housing. In addition they are INVESTING in the infrastructure because they know they will get thousands of paying customers on-line, some paying exorbitant rates to heat and cool these large homes you all hate.

Poverty in Detroit:
There is poverty in Detroit due to a lack of opportunity because many businesses have left. Education is another problem, as well as single moms who have to raise kids even though they can’t afford it. Fathers are not present in most of these homes to help shoulder the burden. Nobody is “sending their poor” to Detroit, they live there already and their own choices have made the problem worse. Dropping out of school and kids having kids is a recipe for poverty, not just here but everywhere.

Detroiters spending in the suburbs:
I totally acknowledge that Detroiters spend money in the suburbs, they have to because many of the goods and services they need are not available in Detroit. It is not billions of dollars and more money comes in from the suburbs than flows out of the city, mainly because of the limited buying power of lower income people.

The effect Detroit has on regional development:
The failure of Detroit has had more far-reaching effects than OC, it is actually state-wide. Most outsiders view Michigan and Detroit as being synonymous. This is too bad because Michigan is a beautiful state, as is much of Detroit. Everyone in the city bit their nails during the Super Bowl, hoping nothing bad would happen. Why is that? It took a massive effort to get ready for that and many people including many from all over the state got involved. We all knew the stakes were high because of the reputation the city had and we wanted to change it. Why? So people would consider coming here and investing in the future, because we know they hadn’t been thinking of Detroit as an opportunity in the past. No mystery here. Unfortunately that momentum has been lost. Believe me; all suburban people want Detroit to recover! It is better for everyone! But we need real solutions and not more of the same crap that we have been getting for the past 30 years! It isn’t working. Either is pretending the problems don’t exist.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 142
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Believe me; all suburban people want Detroit to recover! It is better for everyone! But we need real solutions don't want to sacrifice any of our cushy lifestyle or be forced to pay to support our unsustainable development.

there, fixed that for ya.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 77
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ron -

I have never needed city water, so I am not complaining about the rates. I am just saying the revenue coming in from the burbs helps fund the system for everyone. There are no "subsidies" going on here. A regional water board would seem fair to me as it is a regional system. As for me, I can wash just fine with my well water and septic system. The Metro Times is a leftist, socialist rag that I no longer read. I will take your word for what it says.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 175
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Honest question for Miss_cleo: Why do you frequent DetroitYES if you 'cant stand all the cement' and everything else urban?

Honest answer: I DONT hate the city. I hate how it is run and made to look a fool on the news all the time. I love going to a Wing game and strolling thru Greek Town and Hart Plaza/Riverwalk with my husband. We take our kids to the museums..festivals...I enjoy the city...to a point. I could not live there, after a short time I long to be around nature and less cement, less noise......I actually feel my blood pressure rise and I feel stressed in the city....I feel more like myself out in the country....more calm, peaceful. Thats what it takes for me to be happy , just like city living is the thing for you. I appreciate it, but I wouldnt want to live there, simple as that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 72
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 66.174.92.162
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PGM,

That's the thing, it is not a REGIONAL system in the traditional sense of the word. It is the equivalent of a commercial venture by a municipality, whereby we sell a product.

Again, none of this is personal, and I think having a diversity of opinions is a positive thing on the forum. I have learned more from people who don't think like me than I have people who do think like me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 79
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Miss_cleo -

You are scaring the children! Your dissenting views and your suburban attitudes are upsetting them. They want people like you and me to go away! Or better yet, die! Don't you realize that you have no right to comment on the City of Detroit unless you live there?

I know you naively thought we had the free exchange of ideas in this country, but that is only true if you agree with urban liberals.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 81
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 67.63.232.195
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am sorry if I offended anyone on here today, truly. I actually love the city and have since childhood, even though I don't choose to live there. I got a little angry by the tone of some of the people on here, so I may have been a little mean spirited in return. That is not to say that I agree with all of you or that I don't believe in what I am saying, but I did not wish to be an ass either. I will try to stay off the board for awhile.

(Message edited by perfectgentleman on April 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 601
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 194.138.39.56
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Miss_Cleo, Thank you for your honest answer. While I, like you, can appreciate nature and a walk through the woods, I prefer the City. That's why I live here and you shouldn't. It is completely understandable and I do not fault you for it. It is the correct choice for each of us.

Even we in the City don't like the problems we have or the bad press that seems to come at us, all the time. And while I KNOW Detroit has some HUGE problems, you will never hear me going around bad mouthing the City. Negativity only breeds more negativity and quite frankly, we have enough of that around this region. I will not be a part of that. I moved to the City to make a positive change. I feel I am doing that. If someone doesn't like my positive attitude, screw 'em. Negative attitudes change nothing and only bring the region further down.

Thank you, Miss_Cleo.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 143
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 206.81.45.34
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

now you've gone off the deep end, and this thread will die.

no one will ever say you can't choose to live anywhere you want. it's when your freedom to choose comes at the expense of those who, as a result of the inherently biased system have no choice - that's when it becomes a problem. we have offered many sources of information where you can see how this is in fact what has been going on for the last 50 years. i look forward to hearing back from you in a month when you've looked into it.

PG - i too have gotten a little fired up, and wish no personal animosity towards you. it's hard to fight an uphill battle against 50 years and millions of people.

(Message edited by udmphikapbob on April 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1432
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Highways are funded by gasoline taxes and federal highway funds. Since suburban people do more commuting and buy more gas we pay more gasoline taxes. We also pay more in federal taxes then the average Detroiter.




This statement borders on the absurd. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) have increased exponentially since the 1980s. In the meantime, the average CAFE mileage of the vehicles we drive has decreased. One can surmise that we buy much more gasoline, and thus pay more in gas taxes, than we did 20 years ago.

So why is there such a backlog of road repairs? Why doesn't the FHWA run a surplus? I'll tell you why--it's because gas taxes don't cover the cost of roads! Therefore (drum roll), some sort of SUBSIDY is required. PGM acknowledges this so much in the ambiguous term "federal highway funds".

Let's not even get started on externalities like pollution, and time wasted in traffic.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 284
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 68.20.140.8
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have heard that GM is working on flying cars that will allow us to live anywhere in the state and fly anywhere to work at 400 mph. It will be great. We will all live on 10 acre hobby farms with horses and pigs as far as the eye can see. We will all have riding lawnmowers. We will all have home theaters so there won't be any need for movie theaters. We will all shop online so there won't be any need for stores. Our children will be taught by computers. There won't be any need for cities any more, well except for those who can't afford flying cars and 10 acre farms. Oh yeah, about those poor people. The cities will be just for THEM and a few people that want to live in lofts. Their will be no more neighbors. It will be exactly what everyone really wants. It will be sprawl brought to its logical conclusion. It will be utopia. Well except for the poor of course.

(Message edited by eastsidedog on April 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1433
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 1:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Within 20 years, if the attitudes we see even here on this forum remain, and the economy is not structurally different, all the remaining farmland between Detroit and Lansing will probably be gone. I'm sure the narrow area of country between the far western Metro Detroit area of Canton Twp. and Ann Arbor will also be filled in with a continuation of disgusting subdivisions in that time too. Even without economic expansion or population gains. Most of northern Michigan will be turned into condo communities and family homes on large acreage, developing right up against the national parkland. I fear for Michigan's future. It will turn into one big ugly intermediate, few cities, very little nature, just people scattered everywhere.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo

Post Number: 176
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.47.85.139
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

nah! Thers enough of you City folk to keep things going...there will always be a Detroit
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4035
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.238
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfectgentleman,

Great post even The Ghettoman read you post and liked it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 27
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 68.40.195.233
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok, ok, I need to clear two things up...

First, when I said that kids raised in the burbs were bored as hell, I was referring to culdisack culture. Miss Cleo, it really seems to me that you are referring to country living culture.. Suburbs to me are Clinton Township, etc... Try being a 12 year old and walking accross the parkway there, impossible. It seems that you live in the country... much different. Suburbs don't have septic tanks. : ) [although don't be surprised if you begin to suffer from NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yardism) when every inner right suburbanite moves out by you... given our sprawl rate, it won't be long... you'll no longer be able to enjoy your tranquil lifestyle.

Secondly, Perfect Gentleman, you must understand that the suburbs were built with subsidy from cities, and loans were secured, through the GI bill, in a racist (prefentially white) and subsidized manner... This is not "free market" Rather, our government, having had quite a few "suburban" presidents in a row, has vastly favored the suburbs in recent years... People DO NOT have 100% free choice... I even forgot to mention housing ownership tax breaks... rental property is more scarce in the suburbs, making housing ownership tax breaks (MUCH higher than rental breaks) a wealthy suburban subsody. .andy
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4036
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.238
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here are other suburbs destined to become ethnically mixed while more white-folks contiune to move far away from the borders of Detroit as soon as possible:






At eastpointe, located at north of E. 8 Mile from the borders of Warren to the borders of St Clair Shores and up to E. 9 Mile Rd. lies a beautiful well kept up cookie cutter brick ranches and bungalows. Lot's of Black Detroiters had migrated over there to occupy it. Lot's of white-folks who are now living over there don't to see their community filled up with black-folks so most of them start selling their homes and moved further out to ex-urbs. As for right now Eastpointe's black population now stands at 5% while the white population is 91% by 2030. The black population in Eastpointe would reach 45% while the white population declined to 22%.



In Warren despite little racial problems, Warren's black population now stands at 3% while the Asian population is 4% and ethnic Arab Muslim population is 3% Warren's white population is now 91%. Black-folks from Detroit had attracted to Warren mixture of apts complexes some even occupy some homes in the communities. The Asians are also attacted to few homes in Warren so will the ethnic Arab Muslims. By 2030 Warren's Black poplution would increased to 35% Warren's Asian population would increase to 15% and the ethnic Arab-Muslim population in Warren would increased to 20%. Warren's white population would decreased to 30%. This event would cause to them to flight to other areas.



Black-folks mostly from Detroit had migrated to Redford TWP. since the mid 1980s occupying moslty at the Parkway Heights subdivision along Joy Rd. to Plymouth Rd from the West Parkway to Telegraph Rd. by the 1990s the subdivsion is moslty black while more black-folks from Detroit started to move into the cookie cutter brick ranches mostly north of I-94 Schoolcraft FWY from Telegraph to Beech daly Rd. Today Redford TWP's black population is up to 9% according to SEMCOG, but the black population in Redford TWP boomed over the last 6 years now reaching up to 11% While the White population in Redford TWP. is 85% By 2030 Redford TWP's black population would increased up to 60% whilt the white population in Redford TWP. would decreased to 28%. The white flight in Redford TWP. has begun.


Dearborn has experienced an quick influx of ethnic Arab Muslims mostly Yemenese at Dearborn's historically Arabian Village along Dix and Vernor area, mostly Lebanese and Iraqi Shiites in the east side area along W.Warren from Wyoming Ave. to The Fairlane areas. The ethnic Arab Muslim population is now over 35% and it growing. The black population in Dearborn is 1% they mostly occupy at the new homes along Tireman, Greenfield and Rotunda areas and Fairlane Apts along Ford Rd and Auto Club Drive. While the white population in Dearborn is over 89%. By 2030 the ethnic Arab population in Dearborn would increase to 60% covering all amost 3/4 of the city. whilt the black population would increase to 10% the white flight in Dearborn would cause the popultion to decreased to 25%. Meanwhile the ethnin Hispanics would further occupy some parts of Dearborn incresing its populace to 10%.

(Message edited by danny on April 27, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 28
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 68.40.195.233
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 4:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To add to my post just a minute ago... to defend my statement that kids don't like growing up in the relativly confining suburbs... how many kids have you met from the city who have said "i wish I grew up in the suburbs." the answer is ZERO. I've never met any... however, I can think of 10 kids who are personally dissapointed in their parents decision to move to the SUBURBS, and COUNTLESS more from the burbs who wish that they were raised in the city... but don't personally fault their parents for it... .andy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tayshaun22
Member
Username: Tayshaun22

Post Number: 101
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.14.101.116
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 5:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ghettoman, when does your book come out???
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 143
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 24.192.25.47
Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Soon enough, I-69 will become known as the "Outerbelt"

We won't even have to build one like Houston!
Top of pageBottom of page

Pdtpuck
Member
Username: Pdtpuck

Post Number: 13
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 208.251.168.194
Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 6:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm a little late on this, but...

When do the "inner" suburbs become part of the "old" city?

That'll be the next abomination!

"Founded in 1970!!!!"
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4038
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:14 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here are some more inner ring suburbs destined to be the victims of white flight:





In Harper Woods destined to become Grosse Pointe Heights(Snobbyville Heights) Lots of blacks from Detroit east side ghettohoods looked in amazement when they see a well kept up cookie cutter Detroitesque white communities. So by the late 1980s they started to migrate to to those areas from Moross and Kelly up to 8 mile/Venier area. Most of them even occupy the Apts. along Beaconsfield St. and Venier Ave. and the daily items from Eastland Mall. By the 1990s Harper Woods black population had increased to 10% acccording SEMCOG. But 5 years later the black population in Harper Woods had increased to 8%. While the white population had decreases to 85% The white flight in Harper Woods to the ex-urbs of Macomb County had begun. By 2030 the black population of the future Grosse Pointe Heights( Snobbyville Heights) would extend to 70% while the White population would continue to decrease to 15%.


Dearborn Heights has experienced a influx of ethnic Arabs Muslim mostly Lebanese and Iraqis expanding from parts of Detroit's Warrendale community in the west side and parts of Dearborn's east side to Dearborn's Crestwood sub-division from W.Warren to Cherry Hill Rd. incresing its populace to 19%. While the black population trying to catch up by mirgating to Crestwood sub-division, but unfortunately the ethnic Arabs are filling up the community faster then I expacted all the way up to Joy Rd. near the Redford TWP. border from West Parkway St. near the Detroit border sub-division of Copper Valley to Insker near the Westland and Livonia border and beyond. However the blacks mostly from Inkster are quicky filling the the homes in Dearborn Heights Westwood sub-division despict RACIAL backlashs from pranksters. Most of them settle along the in-between borders of Inster and Dearborn while the others settle the Westwood neighborhoods. While the white population now stand at 91.6%. By 2030 The ethnic Muslim expansion further west will quickly filled up all of the Crestwood sub-division slowly pushin black folks from Detroit out and divert themselves to Redford Twp. Fewer black-folks from Inkster would quickly filled the west corner of Westwood sub-division while more etnic Arab Muslims would quickly filled the the rest of the Westwood sub-division slowly preventing any more blacks to occupy those homes. The white population of Dearborn Heights will continue to decrease to 40%.



Wayne's black population had gone up to 11% according to U.S. CENSUS, however more blacks from Inkster will continue to buy more of the homes and apts. as the population goes up to 16%. The white population in Wayne now stands at 84.4. By 2030 The black population mostly from Inkster would quickly filled up 3/4 of Wayne up to 75% Whilw the white population would decrease to 18%.




Westland's black population had increased to 7% most of them are from Inkster according to U.S.CENSUS. However the black population had increased more up to 12%. Most of them started to occupy the the apts. along W.Warren Ave. from Middlebelt to Wayne Rd. near Westlang Mall. And they quickly filled up the southern tip of neighborhoods of along Middlebelt near Van Horn near the Romulus border. The White population in Westland Today now stands at 87.2%

By 2030 the black population in Westland would increase up to 55%. While the white population would quickly decrease to 30%. The white flight in Westland to the ex-urbs of Canton TWP. Plymouth, Livonia, Northville TWP. Salem TWP. Ann-Arbor has begun.



Since the 1920s to now. Roseville has a well kept up Black community thanks to housing opportunities and jobs. Their communty is located at 10 Mile Rd. near the Eastpointe border to Frazho St. And from Gratiot Ave to Kelly Rd. Their population now stands at 2% They were destined to expand their commuities, but segregation and real estate covenants kept them from buying homes in Roseville until HUD declared restrictive covenants ILLEGAL. The White population in Roseville now stands at 93.4%.

By 2030 Thanks the influx blacks occupying 88% of Eastpointe neighborhoods and 60% of the south end of Warren. Lots of blacks would continue to migrate and occupy up to half of Roseville while the white population would decrease uo 25%. White flight would happen in Roseville soon.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.