Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not when it comes to city planning, the axioms of it don't change. The only time when it works to tear down a house is when you have something else that will immediately take its place. There are city lots in Mpls. that were taken with urban renewal and remain the same parking lot 40 years later. 40 years of lost taxes, years of lost vitality. They thought clear cutting buildings would be an impetus for development -- it is not. So when Detroit or Buffalo get uppity and demolish blocks of homes, what is taking their place? Nothing.
Also, the type of person who would find Detroit in anyway attractive likely likes history and architecture (it is about all that city has left). Why would it be at all prudent to derpive that city of its architecture. A old house is built like a brick, a new house is made to look like a brick. When it is economically feasible to rehabilitate a house, it is wanton to demolish it for the sole sake of rebuilding. Most of the time (disregarding the surrounding areas' effect) it is feasible to rehabilitate.
If government stayed out of urban areas, there would be no urban areas left. Even the Bostons, Seattles and Minneapoliss with little blight would be doomed. There are too many people who need governemnt services in major metropolitan areas.
You all just don't get it. I'm not saying tear houses down and not replace them and/or put a parking lot there.
What I'm saying is that in most cases, it is usually cheaper to rebuild a similar home on a parcel with a blighted home than to completely rehab it. And like I said, things (including buildings) have a tendency to wear out, and people do have a tendency to like new stuff. So in that regard, it really doesn't matter either way.
And by the way--all of these "old homes" were new when they were built, too.
What do you think should be done with all the abandoned homes in communities all over America. In some towns like Cleveland up to one in 8 houses are abandoned after the bank repossed them. This is causing towns to go down hill and neighborhoods to be overtaken by homeless and squatters. Maybe the government should take over and either rebuild the homes or destroy them.
If in your neighborhood, many of the houses were abandoned, what would you like the government to do?
They shouldn't do anything with them, except leave them so people can see the United States being liquidated. Instead of buying in to the media's false security delusions. I'm friggin' worried about our nation now days. We must have terrible leadership, and people are just becoming lost souls more and more. They don't want to hear the truth. We need the Bible, more than we need more libertarians, republicans, or democrats.
A common misconception is that only run down areas have illegal activities. Get with the program. More drug dealers live in suburbs and nicer communities. More criminals live in suburbs and modern housing. Many are your coworkers and stuff. In Florida its VERY easy to meet people with a family, nice boat, house, a business, and find out they sell something.
Large quantities of drugs aren't made in th ghetto, they're invested there by broken down people.
Leave them up, maybe the homeless will have a place to put their head in the winter, when the US economy stabilizes at the global level. If you want to blame somebody, blame globalization, and people for selling our nation away to it.
The world is fast becoming a slave to a system. Drugs can be dealt with by turning down peer pressure, but when your jobs are gone and its total dog eat dog, you might just see what a mistake we made putting our people under that system. Nobody has to conquer our nation, our people and politicians are giving it away.
nothing. the government shoudln't do anything besides what it already does which is fine owners whos homes arnt up to code. In many cases these homes are foreclosed and the bank actually owns them. I say let the market guide this one, the last thing we need is simulated growth. People will buy homes when they can afford them again.
You all just don't get it. I'm not saying tear houses down and not replace them and/or put a parking lot there.
What I'm saying is that in most cases, it is usually cheaper to rebuild a similar home on a parcel with a blighted home than to completely rehab it. And like I said, things (including buildings) have a tendency to wear out, and people do have a tendency to like new stuff. So in that regard, it really doesn't matter either way.
And by the way--all of these "old homes" were new when they were built, too.
First, in many of these areas, the houses are in disrepair because people don't want to live in the neighborhood, not because the house is crap. Almost all homes are easily cheaper to rehab it than to rebuild it. Plus you lose all the details. If you were to completely rehab the home, it would be just as nice if not nicer than a new home, and the home would have all the niceties that a new home would.
the fact is, if you tear the houses down, most likely nothing is going to replace it. check out some rust belt cities, it was already tried in the 70s and 80s.
the fact is, if you tear the houses down, most likely nothing is going to replace it. check out some rust belt cities, it was already tried in the 70s and 80s.
Jesus, how many freaking times do I have to say this? The houses do not need to be razed UNLESS new units are going to replace the ones that get torn down.
And last time I checked, this is 2007. There isn't a whole lot in the way of mass decline/wiping out of city streets anymore; fortunately most planners have moved beyond that stage.
Jesus, how many freaking times do I have to say this? The houses do not need to be razed UNLESS new units are going to replace the ones that get torn down.
And last time I checked, this is 2007. There isn't a whole lot in the way of mass decline/wiping out of city streets anymore; fortunately most planners have moved beyond that stage.
yeah, because no one is tearing down ANY of the old houses anymore, they are rehabbing them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
