is it worth comprimising walkability in a city? (Detroit, Ann Arbor: rent, insurance)

[pojack]

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

Why on Earth are you taking on such a combative tone and looking for an argument in this thread?

I'm not. I'm simply offering opposing views. Apparently, some people don't like opposing views or are hypersensitive enough to let a nameless, faceless stranger on the internet bother them. I come here for real discussion. Something that doesn't usually occur outside of the internet because our society is so sensitive to opposing views, you may be labeled racist, elitist, etc... Here it doesn't matter, in real life, it does.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

You addressed another regular poster with the quip, "Hey genius," and now you're accusing me of lying, essentially, in order to, what, impress? Provoke? Not my thing.

My "quip" was only after the poster you're referencing accused me of being illiterate and suggested I attend community college for reading comprehension classes. Tell the whole story. And yes, I don't believe you when you say that mothers would consistently do their kids homework for them. I'm sure you witnessed this a few times, but to represent that it happened all of the time is an exaggeration. I don't buy it, sorry.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

Quite frankly, you sound like an obstinate, petulant frat boy/sorority girl.

You call me out for calling someone a name, and in the next sentence, you call me names... Too funny. I could return the favor, but I'll refrain. I will, however quote Socrates: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

But suburban Toronto is definitely more lively, because the culture is different...

Got it. You don't like metro Detroit.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

Your logic is baffling.

I say, "I think (Detroit) suburbs are soulless."
To which you say, "Oh, yeah? Well, where would your kids have gone to school, then?"

I don't get the connection. I'm talking about an overall culture, a vibe, and you throw in the issue of schools. What one has to do with the other is beyond me.

So in your view, schools and the communities they serve are independent of each other? Now THAT'S baffling logic. Schools are actually a reflection of the communities they serve. Even with school of choice. Most kids aren't commuting 10 miles in order to attend school in another district.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

Incidentally, I've never said anything about the schools in the suburbs, but, as it happens, I thought they were very good. I have no complaints. Happy now?

Great! I know the district we're in is an excellent one. And I'm glad your kids received good educations.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

My daughter has done well in school, as have my sons, because they've gone to good schools, in, yes, suburban Detroit, and for the last 6 hears, here in Nashville. Mostly, however, it's because they have parents who strongly value education, and have always stressed the importance of it. My kids have grown up in a home full of books, I always read to them starting when they were infants and took them to the library, and they've watched their parents read voraciously. They saw their mother earn her master's when they were very young, and in recent years, watched their father complete an MBA, his third master's. So, it's fair to say that my kids were going to value higher education at least somewhat and strive to do well. It's in their DNA.

Agreed. And most likely the reason why upper class communities normally have excellent schools.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

And, no, I would not have sent my kids to school in Detroit because of the conditions in that city and many of its schools. That's all I'll say about that.

Agreed again.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

LOL. Where did you pull this absurdity from? When did I say "MOST people in upper class suburbs ONLY value their children's future income and retirement account balances?" Making accurate inferences isn't your strong suit, is it?

What you said was:

I work in education and found that many people, for all their preoccupation with the outer trappings of "academic excellence," considered education little more than a means to an end. They were concerned, ultimately, with their kids' ability to outperform other kids. No matter how.

You didn't say most. You said MANY. How many? 10% 25% 50%? How many people are preoccupied with their kids academic excellence in your opinion in upper class districts. Should the parents not be concerned with their kids education and let the teachers handle it all? Again, trying to understand your logic.

And then you said this:

I happen to think it's not a good thing to value education only for how much money one's kids will potentially make, or for how good one's kid's 401K will be. I don't think it's a good thing to teach your kids that "outperforming" others, no matter what, is all that matters -- instead of encouraging them to be curious, open-minded individuals dedicated to learning, impacting the world in a positive way, and striving to expose oneself to, and understand, other worldviews.

You're saying that parents were more concerned with their kids future earnings than being opened minded and curious. In my experience, the opposite is true in the upper class district we now live in. The kids appear to be much more open minded and curious than in the lower class district we came from.

[usroute10]

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

The relationship between a city and its suburbs is a synergistic one. Ideally. That is not what I found in Metro Detroit.

But suburban Toronto is definitely more lively, because the culture is different. Why? I honestly don't know all the reasons why, but one reason is certainly because Toronto suburbs have good public transit systems within each suburb, to downtown, and to other surrounding cities throughout southern Ontario. Second, and even more significant, the city of Toronto and its downtown is a busy, dynamic, thriving, safe center of commerce, recreation, and living. It is the preferred residence for millions, and many Torontonians are forced to live in the suburbs because they simply can't afford to live there. Heck, that's now the way it is in Nashville.

I think I found suburban Detroit especially insular because there isn't the same strong city core to act as an anchor uniting the many suburbs and to offer a diversion.

Thank you, Ms. newdixiegirl, for pointing out how metro areas are supposed to work. Detroit metro is an aberration, this is one of the reasons why it hasn't grown in population since the 1960's.

A "suburban-centric, city-marginalized" metro located in cold, flat, featureless landscape with a limited economy = stagnation for 50 years

But these suburbanites around here have no problem with the way it is, just as long as their little suburban island is ok.

[GoBlueA2]

Originally Posted by usroute10

Thank you, Ms. newdixiegirl, for pointing out how metro areas are supposed to work. Detroit metro is an aberration, this is one of the reasons why it hasn't grown in population since the 1960's.

A "suburban-centric, city-marginalized" metro located in cold, flat, featureless landscape with a limited economy = stagnation for 50 years

But these suburbanites around here have no problem with the way it is, just as long as their little suburban island is ok.

You need to understand that Detroit has been dead for so long that we are now on our 2nd or 3rd generation of people in Metro Detroit whose work and school never brought them into the city. Their homes, schools and work are in the burbs. Why would you expect people to suddenly want to do life in Detroit?

[Geo-Aggie]

Originally Posted by GoBlueA2

You need to understand that Detroit has been dead for so long that we are now on our 2nd or 3rd generation of people in Metro Detroit whose work and school never brought them into the city. Their homes, schools and work are in the burbs. Why would you expect people to suddenly want to do life in Detroit?

Because you're thinking in a very regressive mentality, based on reality of two decades ago.

Today we're actually into the 2nd generation of people whose work and school regularly do bring them into the city. I'm 31, I regularly go to the city for recreation, work, events. I also have two kids, and sometimes they come with me. While people my age have seen the transition back to the city hosting events, my kids will grow up knowing Detroit as the place where all the best stuff in the metro happens. The world isn't centered around soulless suburban sprawl any longer. Yes, hypocritical of me as I am indeed a suburbanite, but I specifically picked my suburb for its proximity to the city and the available walkable retail/restaurant districts. The world of driving the family station wagon 10 miles to a suburban Sears and getting a bite at the nearby Bob Evans, so you can later return to your meticulously planned and exclusive subdivision, is slowly unwinding.

And this is all a very, very good thing.

[DTWflyer]

Geo-Aggie, I love your glass half-full approach to Metro Detroit and frankly I see more hope in the people who are under-35 and/or transplants to the region.

The reality is its an uphill battle to change generations of perceptions.

By and large, much of Metro Detroit is very parochial, insular, and provincial. The vast majority of people in the region do no work in the city and maybe at best come down for 1-4 events per year. However the same can be said for other major cities as well.

[Geo-Aggie]

Unquestionably an uphill battle still, but... it's a battle that has momentum. It's no longer the spiraling out-of-control doom and gloom of the past few decades, and that wasn't unique to Detroit - that simply hit Detroit a lot harder, and to make things worse, the decade long statewide recession created a situation where the young urban pioneers of the 2000-2010 era didn't come back to Detroit like they did Seattle, Denver, Philly, Boston..., because there was no work for 10+ years, rather than 2-3. Now there's work.

Things will continue to improve, but yeah - definitely an uphill battle to convince most of the 35+ crowd of this. Even in Berkley some of my older neighbors treat us with shock when we tell them we took our kids to Midtown for lunch or Eastern Market for produce. One night we had our friends from Detroit over, visiting on the porch, and my neighbor came by. He asked if they were new to the area too (meaning our neighborhood) and our friend responded saying "Yeah, we just bought a place just south of here off 7 Mile" and you could see the shock on their face. They didn't remark on it, but you could tell it didn't compute. It makes sense. There are seriously people who haven't traveled 3 miles south in decades. It's super sad. They have no idea that 7 Mile and Schafer looks pretty much just like 11 Mile and Coolidge. Well, maybe not JUST like, it's still pretty working class there vs. the solidly middle-class/upper-middle class you find north of 696, but... you get what I'm saying. It's not a burnt out warzone.

[MS313]

Originally Posted by DTWflyer

Geo-Aggie, I love your glass half-full approach to Metro Detroit and frankly I see more hope in the people who are under-35 and/or transplants to the region.

The reality is its an uphill battle to change generations of perceptions.

By and large, much of Metro Detroit is very parochial, insular, and provincial. The vast majority of people in the region do no work in the city and maybe at best come down for 1-4 events per year. However the same can be said for other major cities as well.

I think you have a point with the under 35 crowd. When I go downtown on the weekends in the daytime it's pretty vibrant but mostly people under 35 (although there are blacks of all ages) but there are a good size handful of people over 35 as well. But at nighttime it almost looks like a huge urban college party. Like Michigan State welcome week meets downtown Detroit. I don't usually see too many people over 35 around that time.

[usroute10]

Originally Posted by GoBlueA2

That's the way it works! Immigrants generally take over the vacated cities and burbs.
Why people want to live where the air is clean, crime is low (no public transport!), houses are new and have desired amenities...gee...not hard to figure out. We live in a free country and people can live where they want to. Remember, the city and suburbs you speak of were once "nature, pastures, forests, orchards and farms."

Although the City of Detroit has been mentioned by some in this thread, the main focus of this thread was weighing the pros and cons of older, more walkable suburbs, versus newer, sprawled out suburbs. The older suburbs have that I walking about – places like Livonia, St. Clair Shores, and Allen Park - don’t have all of this crime and traffic and dirty air you are talking about.

I want to earnestly address 2 contentions that you made:

1) You equated public transit with poor and crime. We live in an area with an inferior and limited public transit system that is only used by the elderly, poor, and disabled. However, there are many U.S. cities with significantly better transportation systems that also feature rapid transit. Rapid Transit is the preferred transportation of choice for commuting to jobs and events in many cities across America – from Portland to Chicago to Washington, DC, to Philadelphia to Atlanta. It is not just for poor people.

2) The difference between the destruction of the pastures and forests in the city and the today’s sprawl, is that the population was GROWING and it was natural for a growing population to EXPAND OUTWARD because the older areas were full. However, we have the same population as we had in 1970, yet we occupy like 50% MORE area.

If the population of the metro area wasn’t so sprawled out:

A) We would have THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX MONEY to repair FEWER roads and bridges. We could afford to have roads of good quality.

B)We would have enough money replace the antiquated combined storm-sanitary sewer system of our metro area. This system fills the Huron River, Clinton River, Rouge River, and Lake St. Clair with raw sewage during heavy rains.

C).If the metro area population was more concentrated, we could develop a public transit system which would provide more frequent service, a larger variety of services (such as van-pools, express buses and commuter rail) and would serve more people. We could maybe start to look like a world-class metro area that gives people transportation options.

[GoBlueA2]

Originally Posted by usroute10

Although the City of Detroit has been mentioned by some in this thread, the main focus of this thread was weighing the pros and cons of older, more walkable suburbs, versus newer, sprawled out suburbs. The older suburbs have that I walking about – places like Livonia, St. Clair Shores, and Allen Park - don’t have all of this crime and traffic and dirty air you are talking about.

I want to earnestly address 2 contentions that you made:

1) You equated public transit with poor and crime. We live in an area with an inferior and limited public transit system that is only used by the elderly, poor, and disabled. However, there are many U.S. cities with significantly better transportation systems that also feature rapid transit. Rapid Transit is the preferred transportation of choice for commuting to jobs and events in many cities across America – from Portland to Chicago to Washington, DC, to Philadelphia to Atlanta. It is not just for poor people.

2) The difference between the destruction of the pastures and forests in the city and the today’s sprawl, is that the population was GROWING and it was natural for a growing population to EXPAND OUTWARD because the older areas were full. However, we have the same population as we had in 1970, yet we occupy like 50% MORE area.

If the population of the metro area wasn’t so sprawled out:

A) We would have THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX MONEY to repair FEWER roads and bridges. We could afford to have roads of good quality.

B)We would have enough money replace the antiquated combined storm-sanitary sewer system of our metro area. This system fills the Huron River, Clinton River, Rouge River, and Lake St. Clair with raw sewage during heavy rains.

C).If the metro area population was more concentrated, we could develop a public transit system which would provide more frequent service, a larger variety of services (such as van-pools, express buses and commuter rail) and would serve more people. We could maybe start to look like a world-class metro area that gives people transportation options.

What immediately comes to mind is a line that I heard quite a bit my first year living down south, "You're not from here, are you?"

This is the Motor City. We like driving cars, especially the ones we make. Period. This is not old or antiquated. There are thousands of people here whose livelihood, directly or indirectly, come from the auto industry. There are thousands more retired from it. There are thousands more like me one generation from it and quite loyal to it. Yes, more industries are setting up camp here (thank God), but we are still the Motor City and will be for quite some time. Bottom line, there's not much motivation for public transportation. You would be naive to compare Detroit to other cities when it comes to transportation.

I did not equate poor with public transportation. You inserted that.
In fact, I take public transportation occasionally at work when I need to run across town.

I highly recommend that you respect the experience and views of suburbanites just as you would like your perspective respected. We have listened to nothing but bad news about Detroit for decades, and people live quite happily in the burbs, or in my case, rural area. There is nothing wrong with that. If you and your generation want to help revive Detroit, more power to you! I don't want to pay what Detroiters do for car insurance, that's reason enough not to move there. If you want to turn people on to the city, invite them down. I was there last weekend for a Fisher building tour, and impressed with the variety of new restaurants. You attract more flies with honey, ya know. ;-)

You seem to have a socialist view about assigning people to live in certain areas. That is not what this country is about...quite the opposite, actually.

As for the percentage of land usage, so what? Cities return to grass...we're already seeing that in Detroit. The city is wise to raze houses and close off utilities to under populated sections of town. Why should we HAVE to repopulate it? If you WANT to, that's fine.

As for funding of roads...that's a major disaster at the state level. We are taxed for roads when we purchase gasoline, and not all of that money is used for that purpose. This is a different, and wider conversation that has to do with how taxes are collected and distributed. I would not ask people to move for this purpose, even if their moving did solve that problem.

I do appreciate your enthusiasm for the city and hope that it is a good experience for you and your family! There are many way that suburbanites help with city...tourism, city income tax, and through amazing work that non-profits are currently doing.
Fix-up work marks 50 years since

[craig11152]

Originally Posted by GoBlueA2

This is the Motor City. We like driving cars, especially the ones we make. Period. This is not old or antiquated. There are thousands of people here whose livelihood, directly or indirectly, come from the auto industry. There are thousands more retired from it. There are thousands more like me one generation from it and quite loyal to it. Yes, more industries are setting up camp here (thank God), but we are still the Motor City and will be for quite some time. Bottom line, there's not much motivation for public transportation. You would be naive to compare Detroit to other cities when it comes to transportation.

Well said. Its admittedly anecdotal but I recently spent a weekend in Chicago. My observation of the young folks I was around was that Uber and Lyft were the two most popular modes of transportation. Cabs were a distant third while buses and the "L" were not much on anyone's radar screen that I witnessed. Those young folks I witnessed were all college grads with fairly good paying jobs. My stepdaughter who lives in Chicago (grew up in Grosse Pointe Woods, graduated from MSU) used to take the bus to work when she struggled to make ends meet. Now that she flirts with a 6 figure income you'd have to put a gun to her head to take the bus.