U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [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 03-17-2011, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Downtown Detroit
1,497 posts, read 3,135,539 times
Reputation: 919

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2011, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
379 posts, read 959,205 times
Reputation: 137
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Here.
14,378 posts, read 13,158,710 times
Reputation: 16816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForStarters View Post
(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.
,,,,,,,,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Downtown Detroit
1,497 posts, read 3,135,539 times
Reputation: 919
Quote:
(A) Chicago's metro population has grown, Metro Detroit's has stagnated
Quote:
My point exactly. And with that growth has come sprawl. It is endemic to growing cities.
Quote:
Yes, so why has Metro Detroit doubled in size (and doubled it's housing stock) when our population has remained the same? Chicago's sprawl is at least justified by population growth, likely due in part to Metro Detroiters relocating to Chicago.
(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
Quote:
My point exactly. The young people ultimately add to sprawl.
Quote:
You may be correct, but Metro Detroit cannot survive without an inflow of young people at least equal to the outflow of old people. The problem we have, which is pointed out in the letter that prompted this thread, is that we are not attracting or maintaining young people. As many have suggested, it is because our urban environment is lacking compared to other cities.
(C) Transit definitely does not encourage sprawl, and there is not even a singular example of where it has
Quote:
Anything that facilitates ease of movement will ease movement away from the city. Every city with expansive rail systems is proof of this.
Quote:
Not true. Mass transit creates density, which is inherently urban. Sprawl and mass transit are like oil and water.
(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?
Quote:
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.).
Quote:
While Chicago's rail-yards and steel companies were falling into extinction, Chicago was proactive in building an environment that people desired, which attracted new industries. Metro Detroit just kept building more freeways, more sprawl, more strip malls and planned subdivisions. It didn't attract anyone, and it didn't attract new industries. There is reason Southfield Town Center is nearly entirely vacant. It's a ghost town.
(E) The answer is not eliminating sprawl, it's offering a diversity of living environments.
Quote:
How much of metro Chicago is "diverse living environments" and how much is sprawl common to Detroit and every other city?
Quote:
Like I said, having some sprawl is fine. Perhaps it's even a natural progression, but you cannot have just sprawl. There is a huge demographic of economically important people that are unwilling to except the sprawl lifestyle. And, that demographic is not just young hipsters, it's a wide range of people of all backgrounds and age ranges.
(F) Everyone knows many young Metro Detroiters who have moved to Chicago, unfortunately, most of them will not be coming back.
Quote:
And therefore not contributing to sprawl here.
Quote:
Are you trying to be absurd? Losing population is the problem!
..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 06:19 PM
 
30 posts, read 57,789 times
Reputation: 36
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."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Detroit's eastside, downtown Detroit in near future!
2,055 posts, read 3,875,692 times
Reputation: 661
^^^^ Oak Park is nice
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Grand Rapids Metro
8,867 posts, read 17,667,206 times
Reputation: 3817
Quote:
Originally Posted by us66 View Post


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.

Last edited by magellan; 03-17-2011 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Grand Rapids Metro
8,867 posts, read 17,667,206 times
Reputation: 3817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Here.
14,378 posts, read 13,158,710 times
Reputation: 16816
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Here.
14,378 posts, read 13,158,710 times
Reputation: 16816
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidMichguy View Post
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).
..............
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2020, 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