Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?

[Wonkish1]

Muon2, housing in Detroit is literally close to free. I don't think many places can make that claim.  The trick is to make the place, or larger swaths of it, livable for those not destitute (who are just trapped) or criminals.  

Making it livable would actually involve making the housing cost substantially more than present because one reason for the almost free housing is the fact that most of it is not fit for human habitation.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All that free housing has long since had all the wiring ripped out for scrap, roofs caved in, inoperable plumbing. And it's impressive how quickly things decay in a humid environment with several freeze/thaw cycles each year. If there were a magic bullet, the people in charge woud have seized upon it. If not in Detroit, then in one of this nation's many urban slums. If I had too go with one thing though, it's probably crime and perception of it. Maybe the folks at City Hall could get together with the Police Department and the folks at the PR at a major company. It'd be an enormous uphill climb, obviously.

No they wouldn't have seized on it when there primary goal is to engage in corruption not benefit the people of the city.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Muon2, housing in Detroit is literally close to free. I don't think many places can make that claim.  The trick is to make the place, or larger swaths of it, livable for those not destitute (who are just trapped) or criminals. 

Making it livable would actually involve making the housing cost substantially more than present because one reason for the almost free housing is the fact that most of it is not fit for human habitation.

Yeah, but still the ability to either buy a property that is fit or buying one that isn't and throwing a good chunk of money in it will keep Detroit's housing stock extremely cheap for a very, very long time.

Detroit doesn't have a housing stock; it has a collection of ruins in which people (regrettably) live. The city, as defined by its official boundaries, is dead and can't be saved. The old planning jargon for such places was 'obsolescence', and it captures the problem pretty well. Of course that was a term that was only ever applied to specific districts, whereas with Detroit...

[Torie]

Muon2, housing in Detroit is literally close to free. I don't think many places can make that claim.  The trick is to make the place, or larger swaths of it, livable for those not destitute (who are just trapped) or criminals. 

Making it livable would actually involve making the housing cost substantially more than present because one reason for the almost free housing is the fact that most of it is not fit for human habitation.

What is not fit for habitation are the streets and the schools, more than the houses. It is a hood issue, not a Jimmy Carter habitat for humanity issue.

[Wonkish1]

Detroit doesn't have a housing stock; it has a collection of ruins in which people (regrettably) live. The city, as defined by its official boundaries, is dead and can't be saved. The old planning jargon for such places was 'obsolescence', and it captures the problem pretty well. Of course that was a term that was only ever applied to specific districts, whereas with Detroit...

The notion that Detroit doesn't have an overabundance of nondilapidated housing stock as well is absurd. They have an abundance of both. So in the future if Detroit ever halts its decline and starts growing again there will be cheap options in both well maintained property as well as a large quantity of even way cheaper fixer upper property. And if a lot of places get torn down to be replaced with apartment complexes, condos, or new homes that's fine too.

Edit left out the non!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is not fit for habitation are the streets and the schools, more than the houses. It is a hood issue, not a Jimmy Carter habitat for humanity issue.

These things are all related.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do find the incredible faith here in half-baked piecemeal boilerplate (whether partisan or the classic American delusion of 'good government' as a solution to anything) solutions to be quite sweet. Even if there is the crazy logic of a Khrushchev-era Soviet planner lurking (to your surprise, not doubt, as well as mine) lurking, surreally, in the background.

The notion that Detroit doesn't have an overabundance of dilapidated housing stock as well is absurd. They have an abundance of both. So in the future if Detroit ever halts its decline and starts growing again there will be cheap options in both well maintained property as well as a large quantity of even way cheaper fixer upper property. And if a lot of places get torn down to be replaced with apartment complexes, condos, or new homes that's fine too.

Detroit certainly has houses. It's just that no one in their right mind would ever want to live in one.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I lived near Detroit I'd like to buy one of those super-cheap houses and open a show venue in it.

[memphis]

If I lived near Detroit I'd like to buy one of those super-cheap houses and open a show venue in it.

You willing to invest some serious cash in security and getting it up to code? It'd be cheaper and safer to just rent an actual venue in Minneapolis and be a professional if that's what you want to do with your life.

[Wonkish1]

I do find the incredible faith here in half-baked piecemeal boilerplate (whether partisan or the classic American delusion of 'good government' as a solution to anything) solutions to be quite sweet. Even if there is the crazy logic of a Khrushchev-era Soviet planner lurking (to your surprise, not doubt, as well as mine) lurking, surreally, in the background.

The notion that Detroit doesn't have an overabundance of dilapidated housing stock as well is absurd. They have an abundance of both. So in the future if Detroit ever halts its decline and starts growing again there will be cheap options in both well maintained property as well as a large quantity of even way cheaper fixer upper property. And if a lot of places get torn down to be replaced with apartment complexes, condos, or new homes that's fine too.

Detroit certainly has houses. It's just that no one in their right mind would ever want to live in one.

What is wrong with you? First your post about good governance and Khrushchev make no sense relative to my post.

Further more to make a blanket statement like the entire metro of Detroit doesn't have any homes worth living in just shows that your a very ignorant person living on the other side of the pond.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I lived near Detroit I'd like to buy one of those super-cheap houses and open a show venue in it.

You willing to invest some serious cash in security and getting it up to code? It'd be cheaper and safer to just rent an actual venue in Minneapolis and be a professional if that's what you want to do with your life.

A house show venue. None of that would be needed, I'd just need a spot in the living room or basement big enough to hold shows and set up a sound system.

[TJ in Oregon]

I do find the incredible faith here in half-baked piecemeal boilerplate (whether partisan or the classic American delusion of 'good government' as a solution to anything) solutions to be quite sweet. Even if there is the crazy logic of a Khrushchev-era Soviet planner lurking (to your surprise, not doubt, as well as mine) lurking, surreally, in the background.

The notion that Detroit doesn't have an overabundance of dilapidated housing stock as well is absurd. They have an abundance of both. So in the future if Detroit ever halts its decline and starts growing again there will be cheap options in both well maintained property as well as a large quantity of even way cheaper fixer upper property. And if a lot of places get torn down to be replaced with apartment complexes, condos, or new homes that's fine too.

Detroit certainly has houses. It's just that no one in their right mind would ever want to live in one.

What is wrong with you? First your post about good governance and Khrushchev make no sense relative to my post.

Further more to make a blanket statement like the entire metro of Detroit doesn't have any homes worth living in just shows that your a very ignorant person living on the other side of the pond.

I'm not sure what he was going for with the Kruschchev part but I don't think he said (or meant) in the entire metro Detroit area. But, I doubt you'd find very many of the vacant homes in Detroit worth living in at the moment. You would need to invest a considerable amount of money to make them so.

Most of the land in the inner-cities is already very, very cheap. For example, in 2008, the median house sale price in East Cleveland was a whopping $20,000. In 2008 we had over 1,400 houses sold for less than $1000 in Cleveland and East Cleveland and 133 sold for $1.

There certainly are some houses worth saving—and people buy them and save them. But, the problem is not that the city is buying and demolishing too many houses. The city can’t keep up with the need to demolish them. If you have a desire to buy a cheap house and do something with it, go right ahead. You’ll find there aren’t many people in line.

[Wonkish1]

I do find the incredible faith here in half-baked piecemeal boilerplate (whether partisan or the classic American delusion of 'good government' as a solution to anything) solutions to be quite sweet. Even if there is the crazy logic of a Khrushchev-era Soviet planner lurking (to your surprise, not doubt, as well as mine) lurking, surreally, in the background.

The notion that Detroit doesn't have an overabundance of dilapidated housing stock as well is absurd. They have an abundance of both. So in the future if Detroit ever halts its decline and starts growing again there will be cheap options in both well maintained property as well as a large quantity of even way cheaper fixer upper property. And if a lot of places get torn down to be replaced with apartment complexes, condos, or new homes that's fine too.

Detroit certainly has houses. It's just that no one in their right mind would ever want to live in one.

What is wrong with you? First your post about good governance and Khrushchev make no sense relative to my post.

Further more to make a blanket statement like the entire metro of Detroit doesn't have any homes worth living in just shows that your a very ignorant person living on the other side of the pond.

I'm not sure what he was going for with the Kruschchev part but I don't think he said (or meant) in the entire metro Detroit area. But, I doubt you'd find very many of the vacant homes in Detroit worth living in at the moment. You would need to invest a considerable amount of money to make them so.

Most of the land in the inner-cities is already very, very cheap. For example, in 2008, the median house sale price in East Cleveland was a whopping $20,000. In 2008 we had over 1,400 houses sold for less than $1000 in Cleveland and East Cleveland and 133 sold for $1.

There certainly are some houses worth saving—and people buy them and save them. But, the problem is not that the city is buying and demolishing too many houses. The city can’t keep up with the need to demolish them. If you have a desire to buy a cheap house and do something with it, go right ahead. You’ll find there aren’t many people in line.

What's the point of demolishing them? Because they are an eye sour? That isn't a good enough reason to spend money demolishing property.

I bet the reason why you're seeing a lot of property not being able to sell is because the city is probably refusing to lower to the tax assessed value down to the sale price(its real value). So if I buy a house for $100 and its tax assessed value is $20k then the property taxes on the investment are the problem not the initial purchase price.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

But has there been any discussion in Lansing?

That would NEVER pass.  The Detroit City Council would be enraged over that proposal.  In fact, I can picture that council meeting.  Lansing would probably need their approval, and even if they didn't, the Council would raise such a huge fuss that even the most determined, well-intentioned legislator would give up.

I suspected that would be the case, but I could imagine that some legislator from a more distant corner of MI might have proposed it anyway. I wouldn't expect much in the way of complaints from constituents in a district in central or western MI.

It may have been proposed, but it wouldn't ever be actively discussed.  I'd be willing to bet $50 that such a bill wouldn't make it out of committee.

Plus, legislators from distant corners of Michigan probably don't really care enough about Detroit to propose a bill such as that.  There are a lot of people in Michigan who don't have a clue of what Detroit's like.

[memphis]

If I lived near Detroit I'd like to buy one of those super-cheap houses and open a show venue in it.

You willing to invest some serious cash in security and getting it up to code? It'd be cheaper and safer to just rent an actual venue in Minneapolis and be a professional if that's what you want to do with your life.

A house show venue. None of that would be needed, I'd just need a spot in the living room or basement big enough to hold shows and set up a sound system.

Pretty sure there are laws that govern commercial activity. Especially in a residential neighborhood. Even without that, you down for no electricity or heat? And a roof ready to cave in at any moment, with all the potential for lawsuits that that brings. I don't think you get the severity of the disrepair of these houses.

[Ebowed]

What's the point of demolishing them? Because they are an eye sour? That isn't a good enough reason to spend money demolishing property.

That's a fantastic reason to spend money demolishing property, but more importantly, these properties are uninhabitable.

By all means, invest in these properties if you think it will pay dividends, but be prepared to plant crops.

[Wonkish1]

What's the point of demolishing them? Because they are an eye sour? That isn't a good enough reason to spend money demolishing property.

That's a fantastic reason to spend money demolishing property, but more importantly, these properties are uninhabitable.

By all means, invest in these properties if you think it will pay dividends, but be prepared to plant crops.

An eye sour is a reason to spend money to demolish them? Detroit has bigger problems than eye sours. That instead would be a luxury of a city that had a lot of things going right for them.

Even if their uninhabitable it still doesn't mean that you should use tax payer dollars to demolish them.

If an investor wants to pay the money to demolish them let them do it.

[Dave from Michigan]

Interesting discussion Here are my thoughts, opinions and comments. I personally have found the collapse of Detroit interesting. I don't think Detroit will make a huge turnaround anytime soon regardless of what we do the city is just to messed up. But it will be a slow comeback over 20-40 years. Also I don't think Detroit will ever approach the 1.85 million people it had it 1950. A population of 1 million would be a nice goal by 2050. Of course we don't even know if Detroit's population has bottomed out yet. Personally I think it has or is very close to bottoming out. Mostly of all a large majority of people left can't afford to leave. Also there are a handful of areas of Detroit that are not awful areas. Yeah they have more crime and other problems than average, but they are somewhat livable. The city needs to focus on these neighborhoods, such as Downtown, Midtown, Corktown, the villages, Palmer park, university park, Rosedale park, etc. Lots of these neighborhoods are somewhat ok and have decent to nice homes and aren't necessary burnt out and dilapidated, but the neighborhoods need some help. And should be the focus of a fixing Detroit.

I don't have any specific ideas for fixing Detroit, there is so much wrong. Obviously fixing crime and the school system are very important. Corruption and general incompetence are also a problem in Detroit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is wrong with you? First your post about good governance and Khrushchev make no sense relative to my post.

Well, I wasn't just replying to your post. There is a very American delusion that 'good government' can solve serious structural problems, and I find it sweet. As though all the death of Detroit could somehow be halted if its local government was corrupt. Awww... bless. As for Khrushchev, well, I thought that was obvious (given that this is a political forum) but evidently not. Khrushchev was noted for 'hare brained schemes', the best known of which was the Virgin Lands fiasco (but there were so many others). Reading this thread, it's hard not to be reminded of that. Which is, I admit, a little bit surprising. But then Nikita Sergeyevich did say that he would be a Tory if he were British. So maybe he'd be a Republican if American.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it's fairly clear that I was only thinking of Detroit city.

[TJ in Oregon]

I do find the incredible faith here in half-baked piecemeal boilerplate (whether partisan or the classic American delusion of 'good government' as a solution to anything) solutions to be quite sweet. Even if there is the crazy logic of a Khrushchev-era Soviet planner lurking (to your surprise, not doubt, as well as mine) lurking, surreally, in the background.

The notion that Detroit doesn't have an overabundance of dilapidated housing stock as well is absurd. They have an abundance of both. So in the future if Detroit ever halts its decline and starts growing again there will be cheap options in both well maintained property as well as a large quantity of even way cheaper fixer upper property. And if a lot of places get torn down to be replaced with apartment complexes, condos, or new homes that's fine too.

Detroit certainly has houses. It's just that no one in their right mind would ever want to live in one.

What is wrong with you? First your post about good governance and Khrushchev make no sense relative to my post.

Further more to make a blanket statement like the entire metro of Detroit doesn't have any homes worth living in just shows that your a very ignorant person living on the other side of the pond.

I'm not sure what he was going for with the Kruschchev part but I don't think he said (or meant) in the entire metro Detroit area. But, I doubt you'd find very many of the vacant homes in Detroit worth living in at the moment. You would need to invest a considerable amount of money to make them so.

Most of the land in the inner-cities is already very, very cheap. For example, in 2008, the median house sale price in East Cleveland was a whopping $20,000. In 2008 we had over 1,400 houses sold for less than $1000 in Cleveland and East Cleveland and 133 sold for $1.

There certainly are some houses worth saving—and people buy them and save them. But, the problem is not that the city is buying and demolishing too many houses. The city can’t keep up with the need to demolish them. If you have a desire to buy a cheap house and do something with it, go right ahead. You’ll find there aren’t many people in line.

What's the point of demolishing them? Because they are an eye sour? That isn't a good enough reason to spend money demolishing property.

I bet the reason why you're seeing a lot of property not being able to sell is because the city is probably refusing to lower to the tax assessed value down to the sale price(its real value). So if I buy a house for $100 and its tax assessed value is $20k then the property taxes on the investment are the problem not the initial purchase price.

The point of tearing them down isn’t just to remove an eyesore. Abandoned houses breed crime by providing an ideal location for squatters, junkies, drug deals, etc. There have been studies that have shown crime rates are affected by the presence of broken down houses. Have you ever heard of Broken Windows Theory?

The property tax re-assessments might in theory be a good idea, and perhaps it could be done in Detroit, although it would not work in Cleveland because the public story line would immediately become that someone connected to public officials doing the purchasing (we’ve had plenty of scandals along these lines in recent years—our county government is a mess). The city has offered tax abatements in the past to those building houses in the city and there are a few pockets where this has been successful, but it has failed to reinvigorate most of the neighborhoods.

[TJ in Oregon]

Pittsburgh is inapposite largely, because it never had the degree of crime Detroit did and does, did not get its infrastructure gutted in riots driving out most businesses (Detroit has zero appliance stores in the city) and actually has many picturesque hilly neighborhoods that folks actually want to live in. It is also substantially white. The issue going forward, is will Cleveland end up more like Detroit or Pittsburgh.

The west side of Cleveland is like Pittsburgh in this regard and the east side is like Detroit. Most of the houses on the west side are occupied and liveable. Many, perhaps most even, of the east side looks like a post-apocalyptic movie. The Cuyahoga River acts as a buffer between neighborhoods, keeping the historical differences between the two still true.

[memphis]

Pittsburgh is inapposite largely, because it never had the degree of crime Detroit did and does, did not get its infrastructure gutted in riots driving out most businesses (Detroit has zero appliance stores in the city) and actually has many picturesque hilly neighborhoods that folks actually want to live in. It is also substantially white. The issue going forward, is will Cleveland end up more like Detroit or Pittsburgh.

The west side of Cleveland is like Pittsburgh in this regard and the east side is like Detroit. Most of the houses on the west side are occupied and liveable. Many, perhaps most even, of the east side looks like a post-apocalyptic movie. The Cuyahoga River acts as a buffer between neighborhoods, keeping the historical differences between the two still true.

^^^^^^
Although Memphis doesn't have a tidy river, we more than have our "good" and "bad" areas too. And everybody knows where they are. And they can be quite close together. My brother ex-wife lives on a street of adorable historic bungalows. Go one block down the right way and you have well-kept mansions. Go the other way, and you have boarded up shacks. Sometimes, you just have to know. But East Memphis, where I live, is primarily fancy pants white folks (I live in a little working class pocket next to the interstate). Anyhow, point is those of us from cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Memphis have a better feel for the challenges ruined neighborhoods bring. There are no easy catch-all solutions. You can spend $75,000 bringing one of these ruined shacks up to code, but then nobody with the means to pay you a reasonable amount in rent wants to live in the area. For all the talk of white flight a few decades ago, there has been an equally impressive exodus of blacks with the means out of these neighborhoods as well. Here in Memphis, the black flighters mostly fled to the old white flight neighborhoods, which in turn led to a new round of white flight in the 90s. But that a separate issue. The following house is available in one of these obsolete slums in my hometown for $3,000. Any of you suburban white kids are more than welcome to come dump some family money in it. I think it would be hilarious. Just do yourself a favor, don't linger around after dark.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I lived near Detroit I'd like to buy one of those super-cheap houses and open a show venue in it.

You willing to invest some serious cash in security and getting it up to code? It'd be cheaper and safer to just rent an actual venue in Minneapolis and be a professional if that's what you want to do with your life.

A house show venue. None of that would be needed, I'd just need a spot in the living room or basement big enough to hold shows and set up a sound system.

Pretty sure there are laws that govern commercial activity. Especially in a residential neighborhood. Even without that, you down for no electricity or heat? And a roof ready to cave in at any moment, with all the potential for lawsuits that that brings. I don't think you get the severity of the disrepair of these houses.

Yes, these house shows tend to be illegal, but they still happen all the time. If tons of people get away with them in Minneapolis and even in Bismarck, ND I'm pretty sure that the police will be a bit more pre-occupied in Detroit. They go on in Memphis too by the way. Obviously I'd need electricity for the soundsystem, but heating wouldn't be an issue most of the time. It's not your top priority when you have a bunch of running around moshing into each other in a small enclosed space, trust me. During the winter I could rent out some industrial heaters. Some guys in Mankato did this whenever they booked winter shows in an unheated barn outside of town. I guess I'd have to get the roof repaired though.

[memphis]

If I lived near Detroit I'd like to buy one of those super-cheap houses and open a show venue in it.

You willing to invest some serious cash in security and getting it up to code? It'd be cheaper and safer to just rent an actual venue in Minneapolis and be a professional if that's what you want to do with your life.

A house show venue. None of that would be needed, I'd just need a spot in the living room or basement big enough to hold shows and set up a sound system.

Pretty sure there are laws that govern commercial activity. Especially in a residential neighborhood. Even without that, you down for no electricity or heat? And a roof ready to cave in at any moment, with all the potential for lawsuits that that brings. I don't think you get the severity of the disrepair of these houses.

Yes, these house shows tend to be illegal, but they still happen all the time. If tons of people get away with them in Minneapolis and even in Bismarck, ND I'm pretty sure that the police will be a bit more pre-occupied in Detroit. They go on in Memphis too by the way. Obviously I'd need electricity for the soundsystem, but heating wouldn't be an issue most of the time. It's not your top priority when you have a bunch of running around moshing into each other in a small enclosed space, trust me. During the winter I could rent out some industrial heaters. Some guys in Mankato did this whenever they booked winter shows in an unheated barn outside of town. I guess I'd have to get the roof repaired though.

I'll take your word that these illegal house shows happen in Memphis. We have a more than adequate supply if dive bars that would suit the purpose much better, but whatev. However, I can 100% guarantee you these house shows do not go down in the neighborhoods we're talking about. Your "scene" kids wouldn't last 5 minutes in South Memphis.

[Simfan34]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

But has there been any discussion in Lansing?

Oh, God no.  That would be political suicide for politicians both from Detroit (who would be seen as "destroying their town", as if it isn't doomed already) and for politicians outside Detroit (who would be seen as helping Detroit and therefore tainted).

Well, if not actual breakup, then I'd say just devolution.

I'm from Lincoln Park, just south of Detroit.  And on the topic of buildings - buildings that are beyond repair need to be torn down.  Old buildings that have historic value should be kept.

Places like Fort Wayne Michigan Central Station need to be fixed up, not just left to rot.  As many buildings as can be saved should be saved.

Yes!

If I had money, I'd buy up a bunch of houses in Brush Park, fix them up, and sell them to Chinese millionaires looking to park some cash.

[Wonkish1]

The point of tearing them down isn’t just to remove an eyesore. Abandoned houses breed crime by providing an ideal location for squatters, junkies, drug deals, etc. There have been studies that have shown crime rates are affected by the presence of broken down houses. Have you ever heard of Broken Windows Theory?

The property tax re-assessments might in theory be a good idea, and perhaps it could be done in Detroit, although it would not work in Cleveland because the public story line would immediately become that someone connected to public officials doing the purchasing (we’ve had plenty of scandals along these lines in recent years—our county government is a mess). The city has offered tax abatements in the past to those building houses in the city and there are a few pockets where this has been successful, but it has failed to reinvigorate most of the neighborhoods.

I posted broken window theory on this thread about 2 pages prior. I tend to think that a dilapidated house can only breed crime to the extent that there is a lack of police. And I also point out that without enough police even an area with a lot of bulldozed property can have high crime as well. The people will just squat in the few homes that weren't bulldozed.

The problem lies with the lack of law enforcement capable of patrolling and making arrests and equally important whether or not they make arrests of people like crack heads, meth heads, etc. who police officers normally avoid because they don't know what to do with them given that they are a financial loser to the city and aren't dealers themselves.