  Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2961 Registered: 02-2005 |
In light of a provocative post by Danindc in our forum on the 8/Woodward mall, where he correctly implores us to try to demand good design in addition to economic redevelopment, enjoy this series of links utilizing local.live.com in which I show off a variety of large-scale areas of suburbanized design in Detroit neighborhoods. Many of these are in our cities core. Enjoy the low-rise housing, poor design, widely-spaces homes, parking lots, cul-de-sacs cut-off streets... 12th and Pallister St. http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.368953~-83.0906 35&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=5639478&enc Type=1 just egregious... http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1v9j382866m&style =o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5639478&encType=1 ...seriously that looks like Sterling Heights right there. ------ Dequindre/Commor: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.40138~-83.07335 9&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir= 0&alt=-1000&scene=5632924&encT ype=1 ...i don't even know what this is. A housing project? It looks like a collection of 1960s side-of-the-freeway motels. http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r207pz829fv6&style =o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5632914&encType=1 ------- The entire lower east side: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.34608~-83.02619 2&style=h&lvl=15&tilt=-90&dir= 0&alt=-1000&scene=5646317&encT ype=1 where did all the streets go?!? http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1rd8982dz1z&style =o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5646273&encType=1 ------- E. Jefferson/Mt. Elliot: higher density but still suburban. Check out the strip mall and the garages facing the entrance road. http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1q7yp82g3f3&style =o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5646392&encType=1 ----- More east Jefferson...east of Marquette. http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1tjft82jxb1&style =o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5643437&encType=1 They're building on the grid, but the construction and design sucks. ------- Frued/Dickerson: Plenty of bad design and disrupted street layouts. http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.365806~-82.9479 31&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=5643613&enc Type=1 check out the completely unwarranted use of cul-de-sacs, and the lack of trees: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1ty9p82my63&style =o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5643613&encType=1 ------ And, of course, East Woodbridge. Not exactly the type of redevelopment you'd want to see in the city's core: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.347428~-83.0713 87&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=5646083&enc Type=1 | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1036 Registered: 07-2004 |
Perhaps the "any development is good development" crowd can take a break and we can get down to brass tacks. Assuming we think it's undesirable, how can we stop this? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2656 Registered: 10-2003 |
A form-based zoning code for major corridors would be a good start. P.S. Glad I could provoke thoughtful discussion. I'm not really an ass--I would prefer people think and reason before assuming a conclusion. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 142 Registered: 02-2007 |
Bulldoze it all and throw up new levit towns | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 1390 Registered: 06-2006 |
any development in Detroit is good development | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2966 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thejesus, it is true. But why can't be have mechanisms and regulations that can channel it correctly? How can someone get away with building homes on lots as large as those ones at 12th/Pallister are? If the city had stricter zoning, would sites that we want developed really take that much longer to get developed? Especially in our core, where the development pace is solid. What if someone said "no" to the asinine designs of the Woodbridge developers. Let's say the developers did walk away because we did not approve of their single-family detached suburban homes...how long would it take for another developer to come along and build something more appropriate. That land should have been divied up, with mid-rise apartments/condos encourages, and we should have re-built the grid. The DEGC puts specifications for what type of buildings they want built with their various RFPs. That's the whole basis of zoning laws. I.e. you couldn't build one of these subdivisions on one of the east riverfront parcels. But there seems to be so much less concern for the finished product once you get away from downtown. In truth, the zoning for that parcel in Woodbridge should have been upgraded beyond single-family detached. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 2192 Registered: 10-2003 |
The city does have a form based code of sorts, it's the Traditional Main Street Overlay district. It covers Woodward between dwtn and HP and the ONCR/Main St. districts. When the TMSO was being developed the legal dept. nixed the picture idea. They didn't think it would stand up in court and didn't want to go that route. So we reluctantly settled for text as the legally defensible stuff with illustrations to show the intent of the verbage. Despite being textually based, it introduces a lot of things that are typically part of a form based code. The reason the city doesn't blanket the entire city in a form based code is due to market conditions. There are some areas of the city, as sad as it is, where any development is good. If you put all these form based codes in the way no one will develop there. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2658 Registered: 10-2003 |
How are form-based codes impediments? Could you make it any easier for an architect than drawing a picture of what you want to see built? Could you make it any more profitable for a developer than to encourage density? I don't buy the excuses. It's a lack of will power, and a fear of anything beyond cookie-cutter. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1038 Registered: 07-2004 |
All the historic organizations that might be interested seem to be more about "preserving" what remains. The development arena is totally in the private sector and in the hands of the city's development people. But I believe I see some development imperatives that should be demanded: Where possible, rehab old properties. (Knocking something down, in jobs created, profits made, and product produced, is inferior in every way to a rehab. As a job, it's nasty, brutish, and short. The profit is taken in a day, and it's small. And the end product is a heap of earth or a parking lot. If land values ever do take off again in Detroit, this will be important, as you can suddenly have a house worth $100 on a lot worth much more. New Orleans is way ahead of us on this. They have the skills. They have hundreds of skilled woodworkers, refurbishers, iron experts, etc. hard at work in that city. In Detroit, we have the largest concentration of ... demolition contractors. Skills get built up over time, so the time to start is now.) Where practical, restore street grids. (Old Detroit's street grid was often awful, wasn't it? But it somehow held all those people during the city's most prosperous period. I'm not saying it wasn't a good idea to drive MLK through to Myrtle, but is it really necessary to flatten an area of downtown by putting a building with an unsuitable footprint in an area when we know it will generate MORE traffic and remove roadway? Many of those old street layouts encourage walkability and interconnectedness between neighborhoods.) Where possible, do in-fill. (In-fill housing choices fit better with Detroit's housing stock, and can be tailored to suit neighborhoods better than whole-block-occupying, park-in-center, fortress-like condos disguised as rowhouses by unused stairways.) Where profitable, build up. (Only when the land values dictate it will the skyline rise.) If nothing can be built, bank the property (The Lower East Side is almost empty in places. Rather than rushing to let developers build something -- ANYTHING -- there, we can somehow bank it against the future. Detroit's proposed land bank may be more a way of laundering a deed or reassembling small lots into larger ones for the sort of developments this thread is against. An ideal land bank would hastening smart redevelopment by clearing the deed, voiding outdated easements, and selling lots for little contingent upon smart development. Don't forget, parts of the Lower East Side look just as they did 100 years ago: A few houses, lots of streets, and a Fire Department here and there.) When it really counts, lay rail. (Rail is the single biggest driver of urban development in the United States right now. Nobody builds low-density next to rail, not if they want to take the full profit!) | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 1391 Registered: 06-2006 |
the short answer is that beggars can't be choosers...there aren't very many developers lining up for the chance to build in the city right now, so the local government is happy to grant developers the permits to build things however they... perhaps this won't be the case in 15 years, but it's the case right now... I'm not saying that you residents shouldn't try to change things if you're in the majority on this issue, which I have my doubts about...but you don't want to drive away the few developers you have by making them jump through a bunch of hoops (Message edited by thejesus on June 14, 2007) | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 2194 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thejesus hit the nail on the head. The problem isn't that the city and others don't see the value in density. The problem is that the developers interested and willing to develop in the neighborhoods like 8 & Woodward don't see the value in density. They're still in the mindset that suburban looking = good/progress, etc. And the thing about architects is a moot point. Real architects aren't designing the stuff thats going up in the neighborhoods w/o form based codes. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 9413 Registered: 10-2003 |
thejesus - It seems to me that the majority of residents are very excited about this. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2659 Registered: 10-2003 |
^If the developers don't see the profit potential, then they're math illiterate. Why build one home per acre when you can sell 10 on the same acre? The fact that the city doesn't step in to explain this (and also requires tons of parking) doesn't help much either. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2969 Registered: 02-2005 |
Detroitnerd, Amen. | ||
Mackcreative Member Username: Mackcreative Post Number: 69 Registered: 08-2006 |
Woodbridge Estates was recently stopped from expanding their footprint into Woodbridge Farms/Woodbridge historic district partially due to the neighborhood collectively putting their foot down. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2971 Registered: 02-2005 |
Interesting. Any stories about how they made that happen, Mackcreative? Here are some more great low-density scenes in Detroit's core: Mack/75: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.347428~-83.0713 87&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=5646083&enc Type=1 how great could Brush Park be if the current developers could work with more of the original grid? http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1r7gt82c98w&style =o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5646197&encType=1 really all the way up to Warren/75 is a clusterfuck on both sides of the freeway. http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.356062~-83.0495 22&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=5643071&enc Type=1 I'm wondering who owns/manages some of the subdivisions on the lower east side other than Lafayette Park, like this one inside of St. Aubin, Chene, Lafayette, and Larned.:http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.338887~-83.0268 09&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=5646336&enc Type=1 | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1040 Registered: 07-2004 |
Mack-75 is an interesting case. Once the bustling heart of Hastings Street, the west side was plowed for the original projects. The other side was plowed 20 or 30 years later for the freeway. Then the projects were plowed for that low-density gated village. (There's actually a nice old church building that remains on the site, IIRC.) So it all looks green and nice and hard by the busy freeway. But drive along the SB service drive between Mack and Wilkins and count off the fire plugs. You'll find like frickin' 6 or 7 in three blocks. That's all that remains to show how dense the area once was, thick with theaters, hotels, rooming houses and restaurants. In other words, this is one three-block area that was intentionally depopulated. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2972 Registered: 02-2005 |
That's what happened, indeed. You might be thinking of Sacred Heart Catholic Church on the other side of the freeway by McDonald's? Quickly went from German-Catholic to African-American-Catholic. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1041 Registered: 07-2004 |
That church? It's not smack in the middle of that development, it's more off to the west a bit, just outside of it. (Or else it would have fallen to the wrecker's ball when the projects went up.) http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1r7gt82c98w&style =o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5646197&encType=1 | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2976 Registered: 02-2005 |
Ahhh, I see what you mean. More like an old storefront church. Cool. Certainly hints at the density which was once there. What I mentioned is definitly outside of that subdivision. There was another church in another part of Brush Park--St. Patrick's, I believe-- that was torn down. | ||
Mackcreative Member Username: Mackcreative Post Number: 70 Registered: 08-2006 |
The Woodbridge Estates' developers wanted to expand into the vacant land fronting Trumbull between Canfield and Lysander and to the East connecting to the not-yet-completed/occupied existing Woodbridge Estates, roughly across the street from the joke that is Bonnie Bridge Villa (after a year still vacant and a construction zone.) The zoning board had declined the use of the land due to not enough frontage and too high density of the townhouses they were planning. Neighbors circulated information, followed by a door-to-door petition, then attended the appeal meeting. Hopefully some day that land could serve as a community garden. All the tax incentives in the world can't change something that is arbitrary, ugly, and poorly-designed. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2977 Registered: 02-2005 |
Sounds like a real debacle. An example of the way that poor design that costs too much can become unmarketable. What do you feel is the vision of the Woodbridge residents? Do they want detached homes, except with higher construction/design standards? I'm guessing they don't like the subdivision-style street layout. | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 30 Registered: 06-2007 |
I personally am not into high-density housing. Ive always lived in single family houses and prefer them. I will not own a home personally that doesnt have a driveway and garage. To say that something "looks like Sterling Heights" indicates that they are offering houses I may actually be interested in. These multi-family structures ghetto-ize quickly. After 20 years they look shabby and cheap.The single family sub's look better with age. All the trees people had planted start growing, etc. The culdesacs and what not add a sense of luxury. And the area at Commor/Dequindre? Those are the projects, and they've been around forever. Where are there projects in the suburbs? Thats not a "suburban"esque development. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 97 Registered: 10-2006 |
HPGrmln, Connor/Dequindre is most definitely a suburban-style postwar apartment development. It has no real street grid, consists of endless, identical Corbusian-style prefab blocks and is completely hostile to the pedestrian. There are tons of these places in Redford, Warren, Madison Heights, and all the inner-ring suburbs (as well as the outer parts of Detroit). As for your suburban preference, there is no evidence that multifamily housing "ghettoizes" faster than single-family housing. In case you haven't noticed, most of the ghettos in metro Detroit consist of single family homes with driveways and garages. On a per square foot basis, I would say that apartment neighborhoods are generally more expensive and desirable than single family home neigborhoods. Certainly Manhattan is easily the most expensive area in the U.S., while the cheapest areas are single family neighborhoods in rustbelt and rural America. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2979 Registered: 02-2005 |
I agree with Crawford. Hpgrmln, the good news is that the majority of Detroit does have single family, detached homes. Plenty of great neighborhoods like Indian Village, East English Village, The University District, and Palmer Park, are all single-family detached, and most have driveways and garages. Developments like the Woodbridge one really have no place in the core of a city of a million people, though. And while desiring a garage and driveway is fine, do all new houses have to have a massive garage door facing the street (as part of the home's facade)? Stuff like that has no place in a real city, yet all those new developments along East Jefferson have just this, and they look mundane and common. Culdesacs=luxury? Some of the most luxurious neighborhoods in the region in Grosse Pointe are completely devoid of culdesacs. It's just a pointless, non-user-friendly invention. There aren't projects in the suburbs, true, but there is comparable architecture to what I showed. | ||
Dbc Member Username: Dbc Post Number: 54 Registered: 09-2006 |
As Hpgrmln said, the second one IS a housing project - the Colonel Hamtramck Homes in Hamtramck. Since when do projects win architectural awards?  And, I agree with Thejesus. I don't see how the city is supposed to turn down developers when they’re not exactly lining up to build properties in Detroit. Plus, developments like Woodbridge Estates are designed to bring in property taxes and retail, entertainment, and dining customers - things Detroit desperately needs. It would be nice if Detroit still had almost two million people, but it doesn't, and thousands of houses are vacant as a result. With all the resultant vacant land and decreased population - and a seeming consumer desire for larger lots and yards - it seems inevitable developments like Victoria Park and Woodbridge Estates are the result. I agree that these "Sterling Heights"-esque developments are less than ideal, but at least they're in Detroit. Also, don't forget all the loft developments and rehabs going on too. Given the realities of Detroit's situation, I welcome places like Woodbridge Estates and Victoria Park. My hope is that as the city becomes more desirable and straightens itself out financially with the increased tax revenue these residents bring, Detroit will have a greater ability to pick and choose developments. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2982 Registered: 02-2005 |
Good point about the projects haha. It is true that there are tons of alternatives for new/rehabbed housing in Detroit. Someone who's not interested in the single family homes in Woodbridge can go around the corner and get a loft or apartment in midtown. I still think just some basic standards and a codified code for the inner neighborhoods of Detroit is warranted. | ||
Mackcreative Member Username: Mackcreative Post Number: 71 Registered: 08-2006 |
I wasn't dogging Woodbridge Estates, it certainly is better than what was there before. It is strange though, a subdivision so close in to the city, though for better or worse it is pretty self-contained. My problem is the subdivision expanding into our neighborhood proper, and that the proposed construction was across from Bonnie Bridge Villas; an entire block which was leveled, cement foundations poured--but only one set of townhouses built, and only one of the four currently occupied. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 221 Registered: 04-2006 |
...and just south of that Dequindre/Commor project they're building desperately-needed infill along Dequindre...except instead of a proper house facing the street with a garage in back facing the alley, they've got this fucked-up notion that the garage should be in front along the street, almost completely blocking the house from view. Why the hell would someone want to live in a house that looks like it was tacked onto the garage as an afterthought? Who comes up with these designs? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1031 Registered: 02-2006 |
The neighborhood I live in is filled with multi-family developments (though mostly single-family and 2-flats) that were built more than 100 years ago, and never "ghettoized". | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1492 Registered: 11-2003 |
I tend to prefer the higher density items like you see on the north side of Chicago. That is what I genuinely like. Even a single family home is a cute little place, on a nice plot, without being too much. With that said, you can't go critiquing this as suburban style development that is new to Detroit. The fact is suburban style development has been a part of Detroit's growth for the past 100 years. Detroit was built the way suburbs used to be built. Notice that much of Detroit looks very similar to parts of Ferndale, Harper Woods, etc. They were all houses of decent size on decent lots, but nothing extraordinary. Detroit has always been "suburban". So really that isn't any different today. Suburban still sells (whether that will continue in 50 years is another debate) and new Detroit development is still "suburban", its just that suburban has changed. It isn't a cute little 1.5 story house on a small lot. It is a large home, on a much bigger lot in a cul-de-sac. That is the new suburban style. Detroit is still suburban, just this new stuff instead of "old suburban". Like I said, I don't particularly like it (I think the old suburban is acceptable as it doesn't focus so much on large, wasteful homes, on large, sprawling grids with large, sprawling lots), but it is nothing new to Detroit. Yeah we would have preferred something more dense, but we can't be picky, and the market doesn't require it. Just more of the past 100 years in a little different flavor. What you gonna do? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5641 Registered: 10-2003 |
Very good points, but that doesn't mean we can't correct the mistakes of the past. Truth is, if Detroit were built more dense, it wouldn't look nearly as wasted as it does, today, and it would be much, much easier to revitalize and rebuild. Detroit's suburban build is showing the negatives consquences of building relatively low-density. As much as cities like Baltimore and Philly have lost, they've seen their redevelopment efforts much more successful, and I really think it's because of the built density. It's one thing to abandon a single family home and watch everything else collapse around you, and easy to get rid of those homes. It's quite a bit more difficult to get the point to abandon and then demolish an entire rowhouse complex. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2414 Registered: 07-2004 |
Baltimore was never anywhere near the size of Detroit_ and Phila never got as bad as Detroit. | ||
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill Post Number: 263 Registered: 09-2006 |
It is so true about Detroit being built like a suburb, My brother has a brochure about Detroit made in 1950 and its called, " Detroit , Americas city of homes". It states that it has more single family homes per capita than any city in the U.S. at the time,,, | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1045 Registered: 07-2004 |
Of course, Detroit has the most rooms per home of any large American city. The housing stock is more elastic as a result: Detroiters have long packed extra families into those homes. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2989 Registered: 02-2005 |
In the realm of American cities today, though, Detroit is not that suburban. Yes there was an emphasis on single-family dwellings, especially away from the Woodward corridor (and this was a great way for us to differentiate ourselves from the highly dense east coast cities), but when you survey what came after us, you'll see that we are middle of the road. Our development came 90 percent before the new, post-war mentality of low-density and wide-open spaces dominated the building of both city AND suburb. That's why most west coast cities excluding San Fran and a handful of others are built for lower density than us. Now the NE and NW corners of Detroit were built near/after WWII, and they are patently suburban, but most of the city is not suburban, but merely reflective of trends that made living in Detroit and away from the east coast desirable. The single-family dwellings are also indicative of the high standards of living in Detroit. These dwellings are generally on 40-50 foot wide lots, are built-close together, often utilizing alleys, and often close to the street. Our neighborhoods cannot be called suburban by today's standards at all. Furthermore, we're still not devoid of high-density neighborhoods. We have (had) plenty of apartment buildings especially inside of the Blvd., and in the 1940-50s census data indicates that population density was upwards of 50,000 sq/mile in some districts in our core, especially midtown. If Detroit had all of its housing stock that it had before stuff started getting torn down and burnt up a few decades ago, and if all of these dwellings were reasonably full (such that we had 1.5-2 million again), our density would run 12,000-15,000 on average for the city. Compare that to other cities and you'll know that this is nothing to sneer at. Despite all the correct observations about how Detroit is not extremely high density and how single-family homes were common place, we have to imagine just how our city was in 1950-60 before we started destroying stuff for freeways and megablocks, and before entire blocks turned into pasture. We were and we are meant to be an urban place, with the exception of the far west and the far northeast sides. The examples in my intial post are all recent redevelopment that does not bear this reality, and does not try to improve Detroit in a way that reflects our actual heritage. | ||
Masterblaster Member Username: Masterblaster Post Number: 52 Registered: 03-2005 |
I agree with Mackinaw. Even though Detroit is mostly single-family houses, it is not mostly suburban. If you do some population density calculations, you will find that at the heights of their prosperity, Baltimore, Washington, DC, and St. Louis, known for there rowhouses, had just about the same population density (12,000-14,000 people per square mile) as did Detroit (13,200 people). Also, Chicago had a population density of 16,500 people/sq. mile at its height, Philadelphia had a population density of about 15,000. Boston and San Fran had densities in the 17,000's. Much of Detroit's older more, urban communities were demolished for freeways (Black Bottom), urban renewal (Corktown), and lame, suburbanesque townhouses (Lower East Side). I contend that the blocks of two-family flats squished together in many Detroit 'hoods, are just about as dense as rowhouses and brownstones. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2994 Registered: 02-2005 |
That could be the case. That would explain why our actual population density numbers stood up well vs. other cities. Either that or our core areas were extremely packed. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5642 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroit, outside of the small 40 square miles old city, or so, i/{is} built in an auto-oriented fashion (i.e. suburban). Sure, Detroit was able to pack in large families to place its population density up there with even more physically dense cities, but that doesn't mean its physical build wasn't suburban. Citylover, the size doesn't have much to do with it. All the cities I mentioned were historically large with physically dense builds. My point was that it was the physical density was a major factor that kept these cities from declining anywhere near as badly as Detroit. Again, you can tear down abandoned house after abandoned house for days. It's quite a bit hard to tear down rowhomes and townhomes when someone is still living in the building. Physically dense cities are finding revitalization easier for a reason. Detroit's problem is that a vast majority of its neighborhoods resemble the same thing you could find across the city limits. To show you just how unique Detroit is concerning single-family homes, here is how much of each of these city's housing stock is detached, single-family homes: Detroit: 63% Indianapolis: 58% Columbus: 46.6% Minneapolis: 45.3% Cleveland: 44.3% Atlanta: 42.7% (just for kicks. ) St. Louis: 40.3% Milwaukee: 39.5% Cincinnati: 35.3% Buffalo: 30.1% Chicago: 24.8% Now, obviously, a city like Atlanta is significantly more suburban, so these numbers can't completely show suburban vs. urban, but it does show you how incredibly unique Detroit is with its housing stock. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 418 Registered: 04-2006 |
Livonia is a prime example of beggars can't be choosy with the new Wal-Mart. Soon, the areas around this new store will become slums and house prices will continue to drop. There are many vacant stores and more are coming. Then the campers and gypsies will come and Livonia will look like Woodstock complete with hippies and sunglasses. Then we can paint the remaining DDOT buses all kinds of colors and they will look soooo cool. The transit advocates love San Francisco but they won't have to go very far as they just get on the Plymouth 38 bus in downtown Detroit and come to way cool Livonia's new Wal-Mart where we can all save big money on all kinds of imported goods. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1487 Registered: 11-2003 |
Unless the city starts telling developers they have to build for density, you will continue to see these more suburban style housing going in. Since the city has so much vacant land at its disposal, they do not really see the need to have high density developments. Not saying it is right, but that is the reality. At least we all can say it is in Detroit. Maybe when every square inch of land in the city is full of housing, they will again build for density. | ||
Abracadabra Member Username: Abracadabra Post Number: 27 Registered: 04-2007 |
I haven't seen anyone mention the important issue : Why? I would prefer a subdivision where the only people walking and driving by live in it. With the open grid, you get all kinds coming by. I am sure the small amount of extra security would be a plus to many. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1036 Registered: 02-2006 |
Abracadabra falls victim to scare tactics. I live in a grid planned city. Not EVERY street is a main street. There is little through traffic on the residential streets. | ||
Jiscodazz Member Username: Jiscodazz Post Number: 33 Registered: 02-2007 |
I see Mackinaw's point and I can't defend a lot of the crap that they're building around here, but more agree with Lmichigan. DETROIT ALWAYS BEEN A SUBURBAN CITY. It was city build on the car. The whole history during the 20th century was the city, then the suburbs expanding evermore outwards. | ||
Sbyman Member Username: Sbyman Post Number: 11 Registered: 06-2007 |
thanks for posting this, i really like the effects of the satellite images. | ||
Bulletmagnet Member Username: Bulletmagnet Post Number: 650 Registered: 01-2007 |
Wonderful thread. I would have to say that the cities lack of understanding of how the past needs to tie in with the present lends to the above type of development I strongly agree with Hpgrmln: "These multi-family structures ghetto-ize quickly. After 20 years they look shabby and cheap." It seems that Detroit does not want to keep any of its past. Show me one new home built that looks 'Detroit'. There is a lot for Detroit to build on, a real style reminiscent of an era. This is what needs to be kept. | ||
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd Post Number: 95 Registered: 09-2006 |
Lmichigan, Cleveland, St. Louis and Buffalo are rife with blight yet others on that list aren't. Density, schmensity, it's the economy, stupid. (Just to be clear that's an expression, not a personal attack.) Let's take Buffalo, for instance. According to your stats, it has less than half the percentage of single-family homes of Detroit. (BTW, where did you get those stats?) Here's a tidbit in an article from yesterday's Buffalo News. http://www.buffalonews.com/cit yregion/buffaloerie/story/9918 0.html quote: Sound familiar? You know what else is familiar? Old-economy industry packed up and left town. The steel plants closed in Buffalo, auto-related jobs have disappeared en masse both here and there. I get nauseated reading all the urban planning buzzwords that float around on this board. The fact is, the domestic auto industry is circling the drain and Detroit had an awful lot of its eggs in that basket. Baltimore and Philly did not. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2996 Registered: 02-2005 |
Abracadabra, I would just say that you already have plenty of options if what you want is a sub. or even a gated community. There are nice ones on the east and west side of Detroit, and of course you can always live in an actual suburb. Basically, I just think we need to put a stop on this sort of development. Enough is enough. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6054 Registered: 02-2004 |
The Crosswinds single family homes along E. Jefferson Ave. and St Jean St. is one of the prime example that a once a low-income black Detroit ghettohood is transformed into a gentrified suburban neighborhood filled up with mostly middle class black folks. It took years of red tape but the developers finally got the plans work out. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6055 Registered: 02-2004 |
Trainman, You quote that soon, the areas around this new store will become slums and house prices will continue to drop. There are many vacant stores and more are coming. Then the campers and gypsies will come and Livonia will look like Woodstock complete with hippies and sunglasses. Then we can paint the remaining DDOT buses all kinds of colors and they will look soooo cool. The transit advocates love San Francisco but they won't have to go very far as they just get on the Plymouth 38 bus in downtown Detroit and come to way cool Livonia's new Wal-Mart where we can all save big money on all kinds of imported goods. I SAY: It all comes down next generation of white folks who want to keep their remaining cookie cutter brick ranch homes and other Brightmooresque wood frame ranch homes before the black folks start to move in. Give it about 30 years and the black folks will be living in Livonia by 2030 and they will ghetto-ize it after the occupy the rest of Redford TWP. It's all thanks to EVIL WAL-MART the not so American store that sells Communist products from China. | ||
Abracadabra Member Username: Abracadabra Post Number: 29 Registered: 04-2007 |
I'm not saying I want gates, or even fences along the major arteries. Where my home is now, in the typical grid system, I have a large amount of traffic. My complaint here isn't crime, but the assholes that insist on driving through at 40 miles per hour as the 20 neighborhood kids run about. My newest plan : I'm going to make a dummy the size of a 7 year old and dress it. I will tie it to a rope and hang it in the maple tree out front. I'll pull the dummy to the front porch and when one of these Dale Jr. wanna-bes comes through I'll let 'er swing out in front of them. Should be good for a few laughs and a couple of lawsuits. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2998 Registered: 02-2005 |
I definitly sympathize with your complaint. I see the same thing in my neighborhood. I don't think being in a culdesac or on a non-thru street would preclude people from speeding, though. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 1331 Registered: 02-2007 |
To Sum Things up, there is nothing suburban about our city. We're like a Broken CD Taped Back Together. (Message edited by Urbanize on June 18, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2683 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: That's why God invented speed humps and other traffic calming devices. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1046 Registered: 02-2006 |
My street only runs for 2 blocks, and there's a stop sign in the middle. Other streets in the hood have stop signs every block and 1 or 2 speed humps in the middle. Trust me, no one goes faster than 15. I almost got thrown off my motorcycle one time when I wasn't paying attention. Never made that mistake twice. |
