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

[Coldjensens]

I guess you see what you are looking for. Detroit metro is far prettier than many other cities. It is very green here. Most cities and towns have streams, lakes or rivers that actually have water in them. Wildlife is everywhere. Trees are everywhere. The area is filled with quaint small towns with old fashioned downtowns.

Yes there are a lot fo suburbs that are just sprawl. However that are a lot of suburbs that are beautiful. It depends on which ones you look at. Even the sprawl suburbs are prettier than most other City's sprawl suburbs because of the trees, grass, and water everywhere.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

I guess you see what you are looking for. Detroit metro is far prettier than many other cities. It is very green here. Most cities and towns have streams, lakes or rivers that actually have water in them. Wildlife is everywhere. Trees are everywhere. The area is filled with quaint small towns with old fashioned downtowns.

Yes there are a lot fo suburbs that are just sprawl. However that are a lot of suburbs that are beautiful. It depends on which ones you look at. Even the sprawl suburbs are prettier than most other City's sprawl suburbs because of the trees, grass, and water everywhere.

True, true. Every time I'm in the Desert Southwest, and even Colorado, after a while it wears on me how barren everything is without trees and natural grass. Plus, I thought that if I'd see one more neighborhood with big privacy fences separating each and every house (like cattle in a stockade), I was going to get ill.

Live Local Search - Colorado Springs sprawl

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Originally Posted by and the

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.

The Old North St. Louis Restoration Group is a community-based nonprofit organization established by neighborhood residents in 1981 to "restore and develop the physical and social dimensions of the community in a manner that respects its historic, cultural, and urban character." The Restoration Group has evolved from humble beginnings as an all-volunteer organization to an effective community development corporation with a professional staff and a broad range of community-building activities.

In St. Louis some residents of the Old North got together and began doing something. They formed the Old North St. Louis Restoration Group (ONSLRG). First it was volunteer, and is still nonprofit, and it began doing work, even if a little at a time, to restore areas of North St. Louis and it began to get support from UMSL (University of Missouri St. Louis) and the Catholic Commission on Housing, and Sustainable Neighborhoods.
Old North Saint Louis
What's New in Old North

They restore old homes and buildings a little at a time, with help from the organizations listed above and donations from citizens and online.

Here's a slideshow of some of their work. YouTube - Old North St. Louis Revitalization in Progress

Obviously, there's a long way to go, but work is being done. Unfortunately, in some areas of North St. Louis there are still blocks where there should be at least a dozen houses and there are 1 or 2 left. But it's improving. And, since ONSLRG was formed, there has been an explosion of loft and retail developments in downtown, a lot of it still ongoing. The city is much more attractive than it was in the early 80s through the 90s.

Can Detroit not do something like this? Can citizens not get together and put their heads together? Even if they don't have a lot of money to invest in this, if they can put their money together and possibly get some sponsorship, surely something can be done. Missouri has tax credits for historic buildings and I believe Michigan does as well.

If these buildings in North St. Louis can be saved surely some of the homes in Detroit can be saved. And there has been a slight migration back to the cities across the U.S. Detroit needs to take advantage of it, as does every city.

I'll admit, I've never been to Detroit, but surely something can be done to restore these historic buildings. Usually these historic buildings are more solidly built than their newer cookie-cutter counterparts. And often old homes have a character that new homes don't have. Even townhomes (in St. Louis) that look similar usually have slightly different colors, decorations, and roofs. Why tear down when you can restore?

[Michigansnowflake]

There is no city that is pretty to me, they are all equally ugly. I hate so much cement and pollution and so many cars and etc, etc.........Give me small towns and wide open spaces

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Cato the Elder

It's also somewhat relative. Let's put this on a global scale. How many US cities can compete as one of the prettiest cities? Hmm...San Francisco. Yeah, San Diego is nice, Chicago has great modern architecture, Boston has history, and NY is NY, but compared to Barcelona, Milan, Marseille, Edinburgh, Prague, Sydney, Krakow, and even Vienna, Amsterdam, Toronto, Vancouver, Paris, London, Constantinople, Singapore, Copenhagen, and the US is pretty bad for its size and GDP. FWIW, in this context, I don't find metro Detroit worse than average in the US. I can think of as many uglier cities (Houston, Memphis, Toledo, Akron, Atlanta, Fresno, Indy) as I can comparable cities (Sacramento, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Louis) and prettier cities (SF, SD, Seattle, Portland, Boston, Chicago).

As far as pretty cities go, I once had a colleague from the University of Copenhagen on sabbatical for a year in the US. After visiting every nook and cranny of the country, he said the only US cities that could compete against the nice Euros were Boston, Chicago, San Francisco...period. It's not a surprise that these three attract the most Euro tourists and ex-pats if given a choice. Most would eschew NY, DC, and LA for more than a visit if possible but it's difficult due to their political and economic statures - doesn't make them pretty cities though.

Please tell me if there is something wrong with me!!!!

Why does everyone think Chicago is so beautiful?? I know from the area, I'm really not being a "grass is greener on the other side" but come on!

I don't get it.

Maybe I'm just too much of a nature and history guy who thinks if there aren't structures that pre-date the civil war, mountains, or rugged, natural ocean coastline, then the city has nothing unique enough that can't be replicated.

Am I ignorant about architecture? Why is anything Chicago have, architecture-wise so special. I've seen pictures. The older buildings of downtown Chicago look like what Detroit has. The newer ones look like what Houston or Dallas have.

Can someone please set the story once and for all why in the world Chicago would be considered so beautiful architecturally?? Am I just ignorant??

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Please tell me if there is something wrong with me!!!!

Why does everyone think Chicago is so beautiful?? I know from the area, I'm really not being a "grass is greener on the other side" but come on!

I don't get it.

Maybe I'm just too much of a nature and history guy who thinks if there aren't structures that pre-date the civil war, mountains, or rugged, natural ocean coastline, then the city has nothing unique enough that can't be replicated.

Am I ignorant about architecture? Why is anything Chicago have, architecture-wise so special. I've seen pictures. The older buildings of downtown Chicago look like what Detroit has. The newer ones look like what Houston or Dallas have.

Can someone please set the story once and for all why in the world Chicago would be considered so beautiful architecturally?? Am I just ignorant??

Have you been to Chicago, or just seen pictures? It all has to do with the "context" of Chicago's architecture, and how the new and old buildings relate to each other, the density of it all, and how they all sit on a backdrop of the Lake Michigan shoreline, or the Chicago River, or Grant Park, or riding in on the Brown Line. It's almost a perfect mix of new and old, shiny steel and dull granite, short and fat or tall and skinny, red, greens and blacks, diamonds, squares, trapezoids, cones, cylinders, cantilevers, and buildings that look like wedding cakes.

























No Southern city has that same feeling.

[*Danielle*]

Originally Posted by CMUfan

In my travel experience, I would say yes, it is uglier, with the possible exception of Cincinnati.

What can be done? It would take too much effort, time and money with little or no resources to devote to the cleanup. The run down, empty, abandoned buildings would need to be demolished or refurbished...you would have to eliminate a certain population as well (homeless, drug dealers, street "businessmen," etc.).

I am from Cincinnati and I have lived in Detroit for 4 years. There is NO COMPARISION what so ever...Detroit has more urban decay then any city I have ever seen. Not to bash Detroit...It has a ton of potential but just has a corrupt mayor that can't get 'er done...

[Cato the Elder]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Am I ignorant about architecture? Why is anything Chicago have, architecture-wise so special. I've seen pictures. The older buildings of downtown Chicago look like what Detroit has. The newer ones look like what Houston or Dallas have.

Can someone please set the story once and for all why in the world Chicago would be considered so beautiful architecturally?? Am I just ignorant??

Chicago had the "misfortune" of having a great fire, as I'm sure you heard. This misfortune actually had good timing as it swept away many of the ad hoc, haphazardly built structures from its early years that's typical for a burgeoning frontier city with no planning. After the fire, the city had a clean slate approximately at the same time the city was about to enter its golden years, which fueled its building in a spectacular manner - think Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe - the Chicago School.

In 1893, Chicago would host the world's fair, which came to be known as the White City, which was an inspiration for the song America the Beautiful (a good thriller novel set in the fair is Devil in the White City). The Fair would basically make neo-classical architecture the style of choice in the US for 50 years. The designers are a virtual who's who: Olmstead, Burnham, McKim, Hunt, Sullivan, etc.

Chicago would build the first "skyscraper" in 1895 and go from there. As a Chicago native, I think it's overrated in some ways, especially among the metro Detroit youth, but one place it is underrated if anything is in its architecture.

Capiche?

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Chicago's beautiful, but every city has some beautiful parts.

I find most cities beautiful in some ways.

St. Louis can be beautiful, too, but on a smaller scale:
















Thanks to Urban St. Louis - View Forum - Photography - Showcase St. Louis for the pictures.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Anyway, it's easy to find beauty in just about any city when you look for it.

Detroit