Would you say that metro Detroit is "uglier" than other metro areas? (Cadillac: housing)

[Cliffie]

Originally Posted by natterer

This is a comment I have heard from various out-of-towners who visit. It's not so much about the pockets of decay as it is about the general layout, sprawl, and appearance of the metro area, combined with its general lack of natural landmarks. Los Angeles, for example, may sprawl terribly, but you can see the mountains from various angles.

A lot of metro Detroit is nothing but low-density housing tracts with little commerce strung together by commercial boulevards that are wide and ugly. There is a general sense of bleakness to a lot of the environment.

What can be done to fix this, and how did things get this way?

It used to be uglier than other cities, but all metro areas are starting to look the same if you ask me. But Detroit has always had a grubby, sooty look that seems to come with being the "buckle on the Rust Belt." The buildings inside are usually fine, or much better than fine, but outside -- yikes!

If downtown Detroit were torn down to the foundations and rebuilt with some aesthetic principles guiding the architects, we might have a better shot at attracting new business and industry to the area.

nd we really, really need more neighborhood-pride organizations to revivify the lawns and plants some trees, repaint -- generally brighten things up. The occasional refurbished building, like King's Bookstore on Lafayette, screams to me that it CAN be done.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Why not restore downtown buildings, rather than just tearing them all down?

[Cato the Elder]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

Why not restore downtown buildings, rather than just tearing them all down?

Exactly - if you raze Detroit and rebuild, you'll have Phoenix at best. Detroit has an asset newer cities cannot manufacture accurately no matter how hard they try - character that comes from structures and space designed in the 19th and early 20th century. The craftsmanship from that period is unavailable except sometimes at great cost. Neo-Victorians structures never look right for this reason. No matter how much money they have, Phoenix will never have a Olmstead designed park like Belle Isle, nor buildings designed by Kahn and Cret. This is a resource that the rust belt cities really need to leverage in the 21st as they reinvent themselves. The blueprint is there from cities advanced in the process like Chicago and Boston (though the latter DID demolish pretty much all their Victorian houses), and even those closer to square one like Philadelphia and Baltimore - now it just needs to come together.

Bluefly, DC is a decent city and all, but I don't see it making any non-resident's top 50 list of most beautiful cities in the world. If Detroit was the capital, or maybe if Carter had been re-elected, we would have a rail system also, and it would be more than just regional rail. FWIW, Boston is a terrible comparison for density b/c of its age. Even so, look at another old city like Philadelphia and its suburbs - makes metro Detroit look compact. They were 2 million like Detroit in 1960 and expecting to be 10 million by 2000 - ahem, didn't happen and now they have way more space than they need and can maintain. They've basically survived up to now with their excessive wage tax for anyone living OR working in the city.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Also, houses built 80-100+ years ago are often built better than newer homes. Typically newer construction, especially suburban, are built cheaply and sold cheaply. Whereas, many cities have old structures built well 100 years ago that are still standing strong. It makes no sense to demolish everything and rebuild. Some new construction is good, but you need a good balance.

Older buildings have such character. Even townhomes that look similar usually have slightly different features. There are a number of townhomes in St. Louis, but I don't know as much about Detroit. But I'm basically just saying that older buildings tend to have more character than newer buildings.

[Bluefly]

Cliffe - no offense, but your perspective is so dangerous.

For starters, you're assuming old industrial = ugly. In fact, there has been a marked shift in lifestyle choices in which people (mostly young and empty nesters) have chosen to live in older walkable urban communities over the new development of suburbia. Detroit City now has a surplus of infrastructure in high demand across the country. The new outer suburbs with new development are actually predicted to become the next slums (this month's Atlantic Monthly).

Secondly, downtown Detroit has some of the most gorgeous artchitecture in the country. I can't believe you would suggest razing it and starting over. To build what? Some outlet malls? A few CVS's? Give me some grit, baby!

[Bluefly]

oh yeah -

Cato - I guess I've just seen DC from a different perspective - the coordination of the government buildings with the solstice, the beautiful rowhouses, the largest urban park in the country, the museums, the overall design of the city, the height restriction with the broad boulevards... Man, DC's gorgeous and I've never heard anyone say otherwise. I do see that people who live there fall in love with the city in ways visitors never understand.

I agree with your point on Boston's age. I was just pointing how how much the automobile obliterated compaction. Anyway, that's all off topic.

[jst333]

If You really want to see some uglyness, I think Chesterfield township could win the ugly award. Aside from the area's along the lake, It's the classic urban nothingness sprawl. Seriously no unification, and paved over cornfield's. My family joke's... "Chesterfield! home of the overpass".. and abandoned shopping carts! Its just another exit off the freeway that is an ugly, overpopulated, unfriendly, sprawling mess. And not to mention, lack of character and almost constant rescue/police siren's filling the air.
Now to me... THAT'S UGLY!

[and the]

Why not restore downtown buildings, rather than just tearing them all down?

They are. The Fort-Shelby Hotel and Book Cadillac projects, for example. As far as single family houses though.....That's another story. There's so much blight where the best potential for renovation is, that I don't know if it's doable without large scale eminent domain aquisitions and demolition.

[Cato the Elder]

I believe people are restoring single family homes in Brush Park. The post-war houses on the fringe of the city are usually not well-made enough to justify restoration, but there are plenty of prewar houses in other parts of the city with great potential.

[BurtsBees]

I would definitely agree about the uglieness factor. After visiting Phoenix, Detroit just looks like a dump.