 
Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo
Post Number: 399
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:39 am: |    |
Detroit the original sprawl? I mean, the founders plopped down on pristine land and started building, expanding, building, expanding. Yet you seem to believe that anything expanded outside the city proper is evil sprawl and wrong.. Well it all started with Detroit, as with any other major city. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 497
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:43 am: | |
Well technically sprawl is on both sides of the city line. It starts before Eight Mile depending on how you define it. |
Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria
Post Number: 2458
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:48 am: | |
quote:Well it all started with Detroit, as with any other major city.
Huh? |
Karl
Member
Username: Karl
Post Number: 6267
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:52 am: | |
The bulldozers are headed your way, Miss cleo. Imagine your 40 acres sitting between the RenCen and the Penobscot.
But don't worry - the Spirit of Detroit will watch over ya. |
Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria
Post Number: 2459
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:57 am: | |
Even in Charlevoix. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8323
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 9:40 am: | |
Not really. Sprawl did progress through the city beyond Grand Boulevard to Boston Edison, etc but much of that was due to growth.
As I see ti sprawl is when you are developing land at a rate quicker than population growth, not establishing a new city.
Charlevoix is probably developed appropiately for the number of people. That is not sprawl. If the population remained constant and the developed land of Charlevoix grew five fold then I see that as sprawl.
Think of land needs for the population then think of the developed land. That is an important component when considering sprawl. Much of the development into many suburbs was necessary because of population growth. Having an are expand from 16 mile to 52 mile with the same population is sprawl.
Just my opinion. |
Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo
Post Number: 400
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 9:52 am: | |
What you dont seem to understand Karl, is that we have laws in place here that prevent such things. I also live in an Association. with all the land privately owned, there will be no bulldozers anywhere near me. Heck, we dont have any billboards or huge lit *golden arches* in Charlevoix. People actually care about what they have to look at here. People hold dear the open land and space here, unlike the city and the sprawl. |
Rrl
Member
Username: Rrl
Post Number: 738
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:02 am: | |
Actually, northern Michigan towns are beginning to sprawl as much as SE Michigan cities. Observe Traverse City, Petoskey and Gaylord. While still relatively small towns, the development that is pushing around their periphery with Sprawl-mart and super-center projects are reducing many of these previously quaint and peaceful towns into traffic snarled, suburban look-alike towns.
If I was a city leader in any of these places, I'd approach growth guardedly.
Charlevoix is next, Cleo. |
Eric_c
Member
Username: Eric_c
Post Number: 914
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:06 am: | |
Indeed. I was disgusted with the sprawling office/industrial parks I saw on the edge of town on 31. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8324
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:07 am: | |
If what Miss CLeo says is true it is very smart of Charlevoix to put restrictions on development.
Portland does the same thing (obviously much larger scale) with their green belt and it will stay stable and housing values will increase by limiting sprawl. Metro Detroit and much of Michigan is a model of what not to do as far as development goes.
The shame is people are now just starting to see real estate taking a hit throughout the entire region. It is too far gone to enact any legislation to save property values in SE Michigan. Foreclosures will increase for many years to come throughout the entire region. |
Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo
Post Number: 401
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:09 am: | |
TC, Petoskey and Gaylord are NOT small towns, Charlevoix is. We have actually turned away all *big box* stores that try to build here. You can say *Charlevoix is next* all you want,I live here, I think I have a better grasp of what is going on here than you, we have a great counsil and government that really care about the town and keeping it *small town* Some places actually care. |
Bussey
Member
Username: Bussey
Post Number: 484
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:09 am: | |
Wow, you are the coolest. Where do I join up?
It's because of people like you and communities like Shar Lee Voie that places like Detroit exist.
Where is our Stazi when you need it to make everyone, forcibly, move back to the city and create the critical mass so needed to revitalize the hulks left from people like yourself.
What are the association dues there in Ostentatious Acres? |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8325
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:25 am: | |
quote:I live here, I think I have a better grasp of what is going on here than you
Yet you seems to feel you have a better grasp of what is going on in Detroit than those of us that live here.
quote:Some places actually care.
Nice. You are all class. |
Karl
Member
Username: Karl
Post Number: 6275
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:26 am: | |
For those of you who remember: in the early '60's there were cornfields where Fairlane Towne Center now exists. My understanding is that Henry Ford planned Dearborn to be "self-sustaining" and as such would grow much/all of its own food. That thinking was respected for a few decades after his death, but you see what happened.
If your association/town/company doesn't own every single acre that you wish to control or protect, you're vulnerable regardless of your idealistic thoughts.
Phoenix is a good example of both sprawl and preservation. The Phoenix Mountain Preserve was begun and added to over the years, with the city paying prices which, at the time, were considered stratospheric. Now they are preserved and are far more valuable than they were at the time of purchase. It is referred to as "A priceless necklace of trails and gems" and consists of 46 parks, trails, etc allowing folks to hike or bike over an enormous area (over 500 square miles) without (or barely having to) cross a street or compete with motorized vehicles.
Miss cleo, your land would be considered a flyspeck in the middle of something like Phoenix. I've always found it rather stunning that you not only spit backward on the city that provided the means for you to "move away" but also on the industry that made it all possible.
And I'll bet that you drive "in" to go to Costco, Sam's and/or Walmart. |
Stephenvb
Member
Username: Stephenvb
Post Number: 7
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:41 am: | |
A scene from my hometown:
A small town (village) with strong leadership easily manages development within their village limits (i.e preserving zoning districts, maintaining density, etc.). Suddenly, the middle school (at one end of the village core) starts crumbling and the process begins for a replacement. Someone donates a butt-load of land a few miles outside the village limits for a new school. School Board loves the idea because it looks like a good deal. Never mind about the added transportation issues, the land is free. School gets built 10 miles away from village and the development follows. Everyone now realizes the gross misunderstanding, but it's too late.
I see this repeated in many small towns/villages: old downtown alongside the new fast food alley. It's fine to say you have a strong government, but without strong "regional" cooperation, it's easy for developers to find people willing to part with their 40 acres. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2157
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:51 am: | |
quote:Phoenix is a good example of both sprawl and preservation. The Phoenix Mountain Preserve was begun and added to over the years, with the city paying prices which, at the time, were considered stratospheric. Now they are preserved and are far more valuable than they were at the time of purchase. It is referred to as "A priceless necklace of trails and gems" and consists of 46 parks, trails, etc allowing folks to hike or bike over an enormous area (over 500 square miles) without (or barely having to) cross a street or compete with motorized vehicles.
That's not preservation--that's conservation. Cacti and sand don't have too many problems preserving themselves, at least not until faced with the bulldozers of cowboy Manifest Destiny American Dreamers. |
Bussey
Member
Username: Bussey
Post Number: 485
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:51 am: | |
That's why we need the Stazi... |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2159
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:59 am: | |
^Stazi is just more bureacracy. I would prefer to just cut the subsidies for building sprawl. Maybe then we could balance a budget in this country and have money for book learnin our kids, so they don't make the same dumb mistakes our fathers and grandfathers made. |
Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline
Post Number: 711
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:00 am: | |
Many northern Michigan towns persist in sabotaging their economic development futures by exhibiting an aversion to land use planning. The aversion is driven by the good ole American belief that unfettered property rights rightfully perch at the top of all of our legal systems. If you own it, you should get to do whatever you damn well please with it.
This belief permeates the political establishment in most northern Michigan counties. It makes the enactment of useful zoning ordinances extremely difficult. Also, because northern Michigan city and village boundaries are usually quite small, the surrounding townships and their planning bodies are the ones that have the most effect on development. These townships are very often dominated by residents and elected officials motivated exclusively by the goals of low taxes and small government.
The result of these political realities is that almost all growth occurs within a conventional suburban model. It's even worse in some townships where no zoning of any type exists. Then you get the junkyard next to the restaurant next to the medical office, next to the lumber yard, next to the motel, next to the mobile home that is next to the used car lot. You have driveways every 200 feet on a road traveling 60 mph with a jumble of signage that couldn't be uglier. Eventually, nobody will invest any real new money because they know that any significant investment could be jeopardized by a noxious use of an adjacent property. You wind up with the lowest common denominator. Tourism is also discouraged because who wants to spend their vacation or buy their second home in such a place. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8327
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:04 am: | |
quote:quote:
Phoenix is a good example of both sprawl and preservation. The Phoenix Mountain Preserve was begun and added to over the years, with the city paying prices which, at the time, were considered stratospheric. Now they are preserved and are far more valuable than they were at the time of purchase. It is referred to as "A priceless necklace of trails and gems" and consists of 46 parks, trails, etc allowing folks to hike or bike over an enormous area (over 500 square miles) without (or barely having to) cross a street or compete with motorized vehicles.
That's not preservation--that's conservation. Cacti and sand don't have too many problems preserving themselves, at least not until faced with the bulldozers of cowboy Manifest Destiny American Dreamers.
Still good planning all the same. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 2430
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:44 am: | |
Sprawl-type patterns are sometimes included inside the city limits, because some of Detroit was built after WWII when the modern definition of sprawl, which is low-density development that may or may not be forced by legitimate population growth, went into effect. Much of Detroit's pre-war neighborhoods aren't particularly high-density compared to east coast cities, but they cannot be called sprawl patterns by modern standards. Detroit grew to nearly two million people, outward grow was to be expected, it's just a matter of HOW its built/designed when we determine if it's sprawl or not. Extreme northeast Detroit borders on sprawl, i.e. along Seven mile from Mack to Kelly, but its still not that bad. The same holds for northwest Detroit going towards Redford.
These days, in exurbia, we have total sprawl. Sprawl which is extremely low density, and beyond that, extremely unneccesary considering that regional population is declining. |
B24liberator
Member
Username: B24liberator
Post Number: 10
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 12:53 pm: | |
I for one am tired of seeing all the cornfields and woodlands plowed under for the latest 'exclusive' community-- Most of those McMansions look the same to me anyway, and any 'estate' airs are quickly lost by them when they are crowded next to another on an acre of land at the most. I'm not being a NIMBY here, but I feel there is no need for this super-sprawl that has popped up during the last twenty years-- Not when existing man made infrastructure already exists in core areas like Detroit, Flint, etc... S.E. Michigan resembles too much the donut, with an empty center and such. |
Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr
Post Number: 261
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 2:05 pm: | |
Miss Cleo, you're in Charlevoix? My family owned a place at the tip of Oyster bay by the nature preserve for almost 50 years. I have many fond memories of the area - but i also remember when it really started to explode. I was split when KMart opened a store in Charlevoix - it was nice not to have to drive to Petoskey, but on the other hand, it seemed an omen of things to come.
I wouldn't call it sprawl so much either, its population (at least in the summer) was growing significantly. I didn't like it, it was no longer the quiet, lazy town i visited every summer, but since i was one of those visitors, i guess i don't really have the right to complain. But in any case, it certainly wasn't sprawl in the manner Detroit is experiencing. I'd have to agree with jt1's definition. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 505
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 9:22 pm: | |
Certainly is difficult to define 'sprawl,' much less draw a line where it ends and starts. My favorite definition of it is where the density of development is too sparse to support mass transit. A definition like that helps to quantify it better. |