U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-29-2014, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
6,383 posts, read 6,008,841 times
Reputation: 3558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
Building over Detroit with suburbs will not reduce crime, and bulldozing the city to start over doesnt necessarily mean people will move in (if you build it they will not necessarily come). Also, it'd be a pretty pointless gesture to eliminate Detroit's outer neighborhoods when its the inner ones that are suffering most.
There is no city there for them to bulldoze. What exists outside of downtown that is really worth salvaging; most of those neighborhoods are all but vacant, maybe one person on a city block built for hundreds or one household on a city block built for 20 or 30 homes.

I am not referring to viable neighborhoods, I am talking about neighborhoods that are only functioning at like 2 to 5 percent capacity. We all know that the city cannot afford to continue providing services there and in a lot of cases, have already stopped providing essential services to some of these neighborhoods. So allow the suburbs to take over; if they even want to at this point I know that city has some of the most turbulent relationships between a city and its suburbs that you'll find in America, or at least that is publicized. You can't tax the people that have stayed back enough to make up for the windfall. Plus cities like Detroit love to tax businesses at exorbitant rates; those that have bought into the name brand of the city, a brand that is too tarnished and rarely delivers as promised.

If you have a neighborhood block which has already been demolished with beavers and other wildlife living on it, whose only viable use is urban farming, you mean to tell me you would rather allow that land to exist in the city when there is no tax revenue coming in and no hope of anyone ever moving onto that land again. There isn't anything that Detroit can do at this point to make up for the 1.1 million people they have lost over the years. At best you may get a small trickle coming in, because it is cheap and you get land and/or property at fire sale prices, say 50,000 people a year at best, if that. Just 30 years too late in the game unless they have something else up their sleeves.

Not so much building over Detroit, but building in Detroit, on land that no longer belongs to the city but to a suburb that can actually manage the property. This is assuming that there are suburbs willing to annex parts of the city. I would love to see some high density construction on some of that land, but Detroit cannot seem to evolve beyond downtown, and even downtown, you still have aging infrastructure that needs updating.

As a region, Detroit continued to grow until the 21st century, about 50 years after losses in the inner core were first reported. Most people do not realize this. Fix that outer ring of nature that exists between the fringe neighborhoods of the city that can actually be salvaged, and the suburbs. Now the metro population is decreasing; what happens when the metro of say, 2080 resembles the metro of 1920? As far as crime, once the city is destroyed where would one go for theft; people in your city are too poor and do not have anything worth stealing, all of the scrap metal is gone, where else would crime occur? It is unrealistic to assume that the city can continue to contain its crime and that it would never spread out to suburbia.

Last edited by goofy328; 03-29-2014 at 07:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2014, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Valdosta (Atlanta Native)
3,531 posts, read 3,074,709 times
Reputation: 2330
Detroit Demolitions Leave Blank Page for City's Next Chapter | AOL Real Estate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,763,081 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328 View Post
There is no city there for them to bulldoze. What exists outside of downtown that is really worth salvaging; most of those neighborhoods are all but vacant, maybe one person on a city block built for hundreds or one household on a city block built for 20 or 30 homes.

I am not referring to viable neighborhoods, I am talking about neighborhoods that are only functioning at like 2 to 5 percent capacity. We all know that the city cannot afford to continue providing services there and in a lot of cases, have already stopped providing essential services to some of these neighborhoods. So allow the suburbs to take over; if they even want to at this point I know that city has some of the most turbulent relationships between a city and its suburbs that you'll find in America, or at least that is publicized. You can't tax the people that have stayed back enough to make up for the windfall. Plus cities like Detroit love to tax businesses at exorbitant rates; those that have bought into the name brand of the city, a brand that is too tarnished and rarely delivers as promised.

If you have a neighborhood block which has already been demolished with beavers and other wildlife living on it, whose only viable use is urban farming, you mean to tell me you would rather allow that land to exist in the city when there is no tax revenue coming in and no hope of anyone ever moving onto that land again. There isn't anything that Detroit can do at this point to make up for the 1.1 million people they have lost over the years. At best you may get a small trickle coming in, because it is cheap and you get land and/or property at fire sale prices, say 50,000 people a year at best, if that. Just 30 years too late in the game unless they have something else up their sleeves.

Not so much building over Detroit, but building in Detroit, on land that no longer belongs to the city but to a suburb that can actually manage the property. This is assuming that there are suburbs willing to annex parts of the city. I would love to see some high density construction on some of that land, but Detroit cannot seem to evolve beyond downtown, and even downtown, you still have aging infrastructure that needs updating.

As a region, Detroit continued to grow until the 21st century, about 50 years after losses in the inner core were first reported. Most people do not realize this. Fix that outer ring of nature that exists between the fringe neighborhoods of the city that can actually be salvaged, and the suburbs. Now the metro population is decreasing; what happens when the metro of say, 2080 resembles the metro of 1920? As far as crime, once the city is destroyed where would one go for theft; people in your city are too poor and do not have anything worth stealing, all of the scrap metal is gone, where else would crime occur? It is unrealistic to assume that the city can continue to contain its crime and that it would never spread out to suburbia.
The worst population losses in Detroit weren't in the outer neighbourhoods though, but the core. The losses in the outer neighbourhoods are more or less consistent with what you'd expect as a result of decreasing household sizes with relatively little abandonment.

% Population change from 1950 to 2010.

SW Ontario Urbanist: Post-World War II Rust Belt Trends

Downtown has at least stabilized now and is starting to get new development. Also I suspect job losses were not quite as bad as the population losses in downtown/midtown. The largely abandoned neighbourhoods are mostly adjacent to downtown and many are continuing to lose population rapidly.

Anyways, while not every city is NYC, not every city is Detroit or Cleveland either. Most cities out West, and several cities in the South and Northeast don't have too much abandonment in the core (if any). If a significant portion of future growth is infill and adaptive reuse, it's foreseeable that some would run out of parking lots and abandoned warehouses in the core before too long. A couple cities are pretty much at that point already. A lot of southern cities, though most still have room in the core, have proportionally small cores, which also means that urban housing could be undersupplied, and are growing very fast. It's possible that these would run out of room too. Canadian cities also have relatively little core abandonment, many have proportionally small pre-WWII cores, and many are growing fast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 12:10 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,955,483 times
Reputation: 18050
The move to urban areas by job control because of limitations of energy and transport are long gone. hen the move to get more welfare type funding has gone in poor moving to cities. The cost to fund has just overtime reduced the advantage move from the farm to city use to provide. Many cities are more and more left with the poor they drew once funded by those now moving out. The retirement of 26% of the population isn't going to help any as they seek COL with no job consideration but also move jobs by their movement with wealth they possess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,763,081 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
The move to urban areas by job control because of limitations of energy and transport are long gone. hen the move to get more welfare type funding has gone in poor moving to cities. The cost to fund has just overtime reduced the advantage move from the farm to city use to provide. Many cities are more and more left with the poor they drew once funded by those now moving out. The retirement of 26% of the population isn't going to help any as they seek COL with no job consideration but also move jobs by their movement with wealth they possess.
I'm certainly not seeing any indication of what you're talking about here. I mean, yes, some people are moving to small towns to retire, but in many small towns, that's only barely enough to make up for the loss of younger people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 01:25 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I may have overstated my case, but my main point was that people upthread were talking about all suburbs as if they were large-lot, cu-de-sac McMansions. A lot of suburbs don't have these traits. While there's something of a MCM craze now on the west coast, these sort of neighborhoods are not where the stereotypical "suburb person" wants to locate. Houses are too small and/or dated. And in some cases crime is rising and school quality are falling as well. In an area with high demand, the neighborhoods can maintain healthy population levels of course. But there probably isn't going to be the same level of investment in keeping the neighborhood as it is, particularly if the number of renter-owned houses rises and the population becomes more transient. Thus such neighborhoods are probably becoming easier and easier, politically speaking, to attempt to remake.
I see what you're trying to argue, but I can't think of many postwar suburbs (mostly detached homes and outside the city limits) with the situation you're describing. An actual example would be helpful, otherwise it seems rather theoretical. And in the Northeast, most of the housing stock, especially the suburban housing stock is from roughly 1945 to 1980, there's not that much newer alternative to choose from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,763,081 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I see what you're trying to argue, but I can't think of many postwar suburbs (mostly detached homes and outside the city limits) with the situation you're describing. An actual example would be helpful, otherwise it seems rather theoretical. And in the Northeast, most of the housing stock, especially the suburban housing stock is from roughly 1945 to 1980, there's not that much newer alternative to choose from.
Probably more common to have that in the Sunbelt and California. Maybe Detroit has a little bit of that too. A lot of these are mostly just working class with more social issues than the average, not full out ghetto though. Examples in Toronto's suburbs (outside city limits) would be Malton, Miliken (Markham) and parts of Brampton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 03:37 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,011 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33075
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
First off, it's worth mentioning this is happening already in cities like Portland and Seattle. "Suburban" style neighborhoods (which are mostly gridded and have Craftsman-era bungalows) are seeing small groups of houses bought out near major transit lines, knocked down, and replaced with smaller to midrise apartment buildings. Hell, this kind of retrofitting has long gone on in areas of high demand, such as around universities.

I daresay most cities, even in the Sun Belt, have tons of neighborhoods like this. Out west they continued to use a grid pattern even in suburban areas, topography permitting, in the MCM period. Most of these neighborhoods are found in outlying portions of major cities (or in some cases, like in the South/West, practically right outside of the CBD), but given they have the closest locations to urban jobs and amenities, one would expect to see retrofitting there first. Even presuming a fair amount of the older detached single-family neighborhoods put up development strictures (historic districts, local zoning rules, etc) there still will be enough "semi-urban" land to densify for the next few decades.

Also, one should keep in mind that while people like suburbs in general, many individual suburbs, particularly older first-ring ones, are not so desirable. The house square footage of the first true suburban developments built between 1945 and 1960 was often smaller than houses in the city proper. Except for some of the more high design/larger houses, the future for many is not bright. In low-desirability areas, these neighborhoods are becoming poorer, and seem to be transitioning into "new ghettos." In high desirability areas, the houses are knocked down, with McMansion infill put in their place. But no one seems to really care about their integrity as a built form. I don't expect the next 30 years to be kind to them.
Honestly, I don't know of any areas around Denver that have homes that are being torn down to build apartments. And what's the big deal about apartments, other than they increase density? One of the advantages of Denver, as per "5280" magazine is you can live 10 min from downtown and have a sf home with a yard. Now that may be horrifying to some, but some like it.

Denver has a lot of "first ring" suburbs that are considered quite desirable, esp. on the west and south sides, e.g. Arvada, Wheat Ridge and Littleton. I've not seen any housing being knocked down to build McMansions, either. And on the subject of McMansions, I don't get it. An old mansion has many of the features people mock in newer ones, e.g. more rooms than a family of 10 needs, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Also the key thing is, the suburbs can continue to be suburban, there should just be more urban planned areas around each transit stop.
Like what? Back when we were going to get our train, the City Fathers and Mothers went crazy with their plans. They formed some sort of a "Highway 42 area revitalization" district to plan a mixed use area. However, that has all gone awry.

City of Louisville - Business Retention and Development
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...63808443,d.aWM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 03:51 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Los Angeles definitely had large areas of single family homes torn down for apartment. You can see it on a satellite view, I might dig up the link later.

Definitely a number of homes in my parent's neighborhood were torn for bigger "McMansion" replacements. Not too hard to find on Long Island. DC has some newer planned areas around train stations, the NYC metro (excluding most of the city, of course) has some older ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,681,041 times
Reputation: 26666
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Los Angeles definitely had large areas of single family homes torn down for apartment. You can see it on a satellite view, I might dig up the link later.

Definitely a number of homes in my parent's neighborhood were torn for bigger "McMansion" replacements. Not too hard to find on Long Island. DC has some newer planned areas around train stations, the NYC metro (excluding most of the city, of course) has some older ones.
I can't think of any recent tear downs in Oakland where single family homes were razed for something else. Other than during the redevelopment era when the freeway and BART came and the razed the Victorians in black areas for those huge projects. All recent development has been infill, other than the rebuild after the hills fire. There is a case where a quarry gave way to townhouses. Warehouse to lofty condos. Offices to condo....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top