Soul-Crushing Sprawl Kills Business (Detroit, Grand Rapids: homes, neighborhoods, universities)

[ForStarters]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I know several ex-metroDetroiters that moved to Chicago when they were young. After their kids reached school age, they all moved out to the suburbs or beyond. So having a great "walkable, sustainable, etc." city does not prevent suburban sprawl, it encourages it. And rail transit only makes it easier for people to live further from the city. If Chicago is "better" than Detroit, it is because they are (and have been for a very long time) the headquarters of many more multinational corporations. The sprawl there is no less than Detroit.

(A) Chicago's metro population has grown, Metro Detroit's has stagnated

(B) People may move to the 'burbs to raise kids, but there's no people to move to the 'burbs if there are no young people in the city

(C) Transit definitely does not encourage sprawl, and there is not even a singular example of where it has

(D) Multinational corporations won't move to Metro Detroit because we've designed a place that most people don't want to live- Isn't that the point of this whole thread?

(E) The answer is not eliminating sprawl, it's offering a diversity of living environments.

(F) Everyone knows many young Metro Detroiters who have moved to Chicago, unfortunately, most of them will not be coming back.

[Ann_Arbor]

Thanks for posting this. When I explain that light-rail along Woodward will be attractive to the image of the city and to young, smart college grads and entrepreneurs looking for habitat. I get a sense that suburbanites think everything is fine and dandy and the next generation will want the same things they have.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by ForStarters

(A) Chicago's metro population has grown, Metro Detroit's has stagnated My point exactly. And with that growth has come sprawl. It is endemic to growing cities.

(B) People may move to the 'burbs to raise kids, but there's no people to move to the 'burbs if there are no young people in the city My point exactly. The young people ultimately add to sprawl.

(C) Transit definitely does not encourage sprawl, and there is not even a singular example of where it has Anything that facilitates ease of movement will ease movement away from the city. Every city with expansive rail systems is proof of this.

(D) Multinational corporations won't move to Metro Detroit because we've designed a place that most people don't want to live- Isn't that the point of this whole thread? No. Detroit grew because of its large corporations. As these have downsized due to the off-shoring of American manufacturing, Detroit has and will continue to downsize. Chicago has more diverse corporate headquarters (retail, food, service, etc.).

(E) The answer is not eliminating sprawl, it's offering a diversity of living environments. How much of metro Chicago is "diverse living environments" and how much is sprawl common to Detroit and every other city?

(F) Everyone knows many young Metro Detroiters who have moved to Chicago, unfortunately, most of them will not be coming back. And therefore not contributing to sprawl here.

,,,,,,,,

[ForStarters]

(A) Chicago's metro population has grown, Metro Detroit's has stagnated

(B) People may move to the 'burbs to raise kids, but there's no people to move to the 'burbs if there are no young people in the city

(C) Transit definitely does not encourage sprawl, and there is not even a singular example of where it has

(D) Multinational corporations won't move to Metro Detroit because we've designed a place that most people don't want to live- Isn't that the point of this whole thread?

(E) The answer is not eliminating sprawl, it's offering a diversity of living environments.

(F) Everyone knows many young Metro Detroiters who have moved to Chicago, unfortunately, most of them will not be coming back.

..........

[MidMichguy]

Retroit, have you ever actually LIVED in Chicago? I did, for more than two years.

Some people move out to the burbs when they have kids, but lots of people don't. Wicker Park, one of the areas where I lived had lots of people with kids living in condos. I dealt with the public on a daily basis at work and because of the nature of my work got to see where they all lived. Lots of people with kids and money chose to live in the city.

Also, all suburbs aren't created equal, lots of the inner suburbs of Chicago are actually quite nice and not at all sprawly, Oak Park for example.

My point is this- not everyone is going to want the same thing as everyone else, and not everyone is going to want the same thing for their entire life. That's ok. It means that we should have a variety of options for people and make sure to support those options to the point that they're actually viable choices for people. The solution isn't to say "well you dumb kids will want to move the burbs when you have kids, so there's no point in investing in the city."

[detroitlove]

^^^^ Oak Park is nice

[magellan]

Originally Posted by us66

Those aren't bad. Young people really like Ikea, too. I wish I had a Whole Foods closer to home. The Troy one isn't thaaat far, but that one's a step below in size and shopping experience.

Has anyone thought, "Gee, maybe the weather in Detroit really sucks," or "All the racial and ethnic groups appear to be at each others' throats in Detroit." It's not just the suburban sprawl. How about this one: "I spent years at Harvard Law, one of the best law schools in the world; do I want to live somewhere best known for the manufacture of automobiles?"

Detroit isn't a creative area, either, unless it's designing new consumer goods or industrial implements. This is a factory town for many here, and a lot of the rest of the locals are only a generation away from the assembly line. Another difference between SE MI and Chicagoland is the diversification and maybe a bit more of an interest in education. In Chicago, the slaughterhouse butcher's son became a commodities trader. In Detroit, the assembly lineman got his son a job on the line, thus perpetuating a lack of, shall we say, sophistication in most of SE MI, and this veneer of "sophistication" is why Chicago is heaven on earth to Michigan's young.

I would counter that though. Most of the so-called Chicago "sophisticateds" are transplants there, not natives. But my intention was not to compare Chicago and Detroit as a whole, only certain aspects.

You know what would attract people to Detroit from other cities like Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, etc? The fact that the cost of living is so much cheaper, and that it's raw. Those larger cities are becoming more and more taken over by douchebags and hipster wannabes. Detroit is real and edgy. That's what the next generation of 8%-ers is looking for.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I know several ex-metroDetroiters that moved to Chicago when they were young. After their kids reached school age, they all moved out to the suburbs or beyond. So having a great "walkable, sustainable, etc." city does not prevent suburban sprawl, it encourages it. And rail transit only makes it easier for people to live further from the city. If Chicago is "better" than Detroit, it is because they are (and have been for a very long time) the headquarters of many more multinational corporations. The sprawl there is no less than Detroit.

No way no how does mass transit encourage people to move further from the urban core. It's exactly the opposite. Unlike roads, mass transit (particularly rail) is restricted to very specific corridors. People move to the those corridors to take advantage of it.

[Retroit]

How did you get that last post to show the quotes and replies, ForStarters?
-----------------------------
(A) Metro Detroit's population did grow.
Year Metro Population
1950 3,016,197
1960 3,762,360
1970 4,199,931
1980 4,618,161
1990 4,665,236
(source: US Census)
So, you see, the population increased over 50% in 40 years. Where do you expect those people to live? (I know, 50 story high-rise apartment buildings, right?) As I said the sprawl of all American cities is about equal. The only difference is the greater amount of abandonment in the inner city of Detroit due to negative social factors.
(B) A city can "survive" (assuming this means: maintain its existing housing level) as long as it retains approximately the same population. (The population can actually decrease as long as family sizes decreases, there are less married people, more divorcées and widow(er)s, etc.
(C) Every extension of existing rail lines has increased the population near those extensions. New York is a good case study of this. Mass transit only increases density of the area in close proximity to the stops. It has little effect beyond walking distance. Also, the density level generally does not continue to increase after the area is first built up. The growth with continue at the periphery of the populated area.
(D) Again, Chicago has the same amount of sprawl as Detroit. Due to factors other than rail transit, Chicago attracted more diverse corporate headquarters than Detroit (mainly due to its ideal location as a Midwest hub, yet closer to the plains). Between Chicago and NY, another major corporate hub is unnecessary.
(E) I don't disagree that it would be nice if the city of Detroit had retained population and business activity. But the social factor prevented it. Chicago always retained nice areas in the north side which kept downtown intact. Detroit rotted all around downtown and downtown became isolated. None of this had to do with rail transit. If Detroit had rail, suburbanites working downtown would still have chosen to drive rather than take a rail line through areas where they wouldn't even want to live.
(F) Simple law of physics: As population grows, so does sprawl. If population stops growing, sprawl stops. The only thing that will change that is if some areas are being evacuated, which will cause sprawl elsewhere. If you create density with an increase in population, you will only exacerbate evacuation of other areas.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by MidMichguy

Retroit, have you ever actually LIVED in Chicago? I did, for more than two years. No, but I've spent time there. My sister lives there and I know a few other people that have moved there. I was just there a couple weekends ago.

Some people move out to the burbs when they have kids, but lots of people don't. Wicker Park, one of the areas where I lived had lots of people with kids living in condos. I dealt with the public on a daily basis at work and because of the nature of my work got to see where they all lived. Lots of people with kids and money chose to live in the city. And Wicker Park is only a few miles from downtown. The edge of Chicagoland is 40 miles to the west! That isn't sprawl? Wicker Park is also in the north side which remained safe and inhabited by middle-to-upper income people (mostly white). Different situation from Detroit.

Also, all suburbs aren't created equal, lots of the inner suburbs of Chicago are actually quite nice and not at all sprawly, Oak Park for example. Detroit has some nice suburbs as well. And I really don't see much of a difference sprawly-wise between Chicago and Detroit suburbs.

My point is this- not everyone is going to want the same thing as everyone else, and not everyone is going to want the same thing for their entire life. That's ok. It means that we should have a variety of options for people and make sure to support those options to the point that they're actually viable choices for people. The solution isn't to say "well you dumb kids will want to move the burbs when you have kids, so there's no point in investing in the city." True, and I wish that were the case in Detroit, but we have a different situation here. Let me put it this way: suppose the north side of Chicago was like the south side of Chicago. Do you think Chicagoans would have the same variety of options or do you think it would be more similar to Detroit. It should be pointed out that the difference was not due to failure/success of civic planners as relates to rail transit, it was due to social factors which could not be dictated by civic planners (although some tried).

..............