Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?

[ilikeverin]

I love Detroit. I've never actually been there, but I love it none the less. My ideas:

STOP TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS (certain ones, at least): seriously, why are they doing this? I've been following Detroit since the fourth grade, and every time I think this city has turned the corner, they go and tear down some new skyscraper. Seriously, they go and reject bids for development and tear these stuff down. The city even helps "developers" tear down buildings in defiance of courts (see the Madison-Lenox case in 2005- was it so long ago?¹). The historic building stock is one of Downtown Detroit's strong suits, and it's a shame that it's being lost. It's shooting yourself in the foot. Tear down the rotting houses in the outer city! I'd place a moratorium on all demolitions in the city center.

URBAN FARMING? PAH!: One of the big ideas I hear these days is this "urban farming" on the "urban prairie", i.e., vacant lots. So, let me see, it's suggested that you have a half-deserted urban core, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by suburbia, surrounded by farmland again? You're only going to further the isolation of Downtown Detroit from the hinterland. Rather than farmland, why not extend the suburbia into the city? Southeast Michigan- ideally "Metro Detroit"- needs to be integrated further, and so I propose:

TAKE BACK THE CITY, ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT A TIME: Detroit will not repair itself overnight. We all know that. What needs to be done is to re-urbanize the city, ideally at a population of 1,500,000-2,000,000 people. This could be accomplished by focusing on certain neighborhoods and areas for development in stages- such as the New Center, Eastown, Brush Park and the areas south of Jefferson Ave. from Downtown to just past Belle Isle. Following the principles of New Urbanism, these regions could become fairly large "towns" themselves (well, the New Center would be a Jersey City-esque edge city²). Development would spread out radially from those areas, which would see particular investment in security, education, and general quality-of-life-improving services, until the city is generally covered.

Are you insane?!?!  Detroit needs to concede.  The city itself is never going to get its mojo back.  Programs like urban farming and destroying city blocks are the only solution to deal with what is right now a tremendous under-crowding issue.  If hordes aren't swarming back into the city with its ridiculously cheap housing market right now, you just have to realize that you can't ever get things back to the way they were.  Of course the suburbs should move back into the city, but that's never going to happen, thanks to the lovely racist sentiment still en vogue in the suburbs.

[ilikeverin]

I think the best idea is to create Urban parks out of the low density neighborhoods, and once you take out the bad parts hope that the land will be in demand again 20 or 30 years.

The whole 'city' is 'bad parts'. And it will never be in demand again because it is an urban wasteland.

I'm curious.  Have you actually ever spent a substantial amount of time in Detroit?  I haven't but a lot of people I know who have lived there like the place.  I've interrogated them about it several times because my assumption was it was a bombed out wasteland of little worth.  They tell me its actually pretty cool and they would move back there.  These people were all professionals with graduate degrees.  They were white and black.  I dunno.  I just don't think that place is the 100% write off we've been led to believe.

The people you met were from the suburbs.  When they were talking about "Detroit", they were talking about the suburbs.  No one likes Detroit Detroit.

Of course the suburbs should move back into the city, but that's never going to happen, thanks to the lovely racist sentiment still en vogue in the suburbs.

It also won't happen because they are (in reality) part of Detroit. The 'city' is really just one huge slum district of a large urban creature. It's like it exists to prove Lewis Mumford right about the Necropolis or something.

Shh, don't tell people from Warren that it's just as miserable as Detroit is.

[ilikeverin]

The us vs. them attitide of the city council needs to go.  Not every issue has a black vs. white component of it.  Stop treating it like it does, and accept outside help instead of sticking to the attitude that you can fix it yourselves - clearly you cannot.

I absolutely don't deny that the attitudes of the city council are disturbing, but as far as racial issues go it's hard to argue that anyone but the whites started it and whites are still the main perpetrators now.

[ilikeverin]

Yes, finally someone who gets it.

Actually, Inks seems to be directly contradicting you about whether it's a good idea to demolish things

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A what?

The us vs. them attitide of the city council needs to go.  Not every issue has a black vs. white component of it.  Stop treating it like it does, and accept outside help instead of sticking to the attitude that you can fix it yourselves - clearly you cannot.

I absolutely don't deny that the attitudes of the city council are disturbing, but as far as racial issues go it's hard to argue that anyone but the whites started it and whites are still the main perpetrators now.

Wholeheartedly agree.  But the council has the ongoing view that anytime somebody outside of Detroit tries to step in and help, that they're trying to take control away from the black population and have some kind of white takeover.

Yeah, that's true as well.  Argh.  Everything about Detroit is so depressing!

[ilikeverin]

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).

[ilikeverin]

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?

It's not just that, too; keeping people spread out means you have to waste a lot of money on police/fire protection, buses, streetlights (oh wait, those are being privatized), etc. that you wouldn't if people were actually at a reasonable density for an inner city.

[ilikeverin]

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?

It's not just that, too; keeping people spread out means you have to waste a lot of money on police/fire protection, buses, streetlights (oh wait, those are being privatized), etc. that you wouldn't if people were actually at a reasonable density for an inner city.

What does tearing down homes have to do with density?

Because you can convert the land that the abandoned homes are sitting on to something that requires less patrolling and less fire protection; not to mention there are always the one or two holdouts on each street who insist on staying (probably because they can't find anything better, given that Detroit is, well, Detroit) and therefore need all those services.

[ilikeverin]

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.

That seem a very bad idea, as it only will result in people (with money) leaving those suburbs and leaving Detroit to administrate new collapsing neighbourhoods.
From what I have read about Detroit, the bad blood between the sururbs and the city are so ugly, that it would be a disaster to unite them, and would only result in people further away.

In fact my suggestion would be the other way around, Detroit should become smaller, cut off depopulated areas from Detroit, and offer the remaning population to relocate to other neighbourhood. This would lower the public expenses for Detroit and make it easier for police and fire departments.
Afterward I would offer the now empty areas to developers more or less for free. The result could be new sururbs closer to the city.

Yes, this.  The level of vitriol between the city and the suburbs means that any proposal that involves Detroit annexing more land will go very, very badly indeed.  Although seeing the Pointes swallowed up by Detroit would be pretty funny for a short time.  The Pointes have existed from the very beginning to keep the "riff-raff" out... imagine the reaction when they become the riff-raff!

[ilikeverin]

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.

That seem a very bad idea, as it only will result in people (with money) leaving those suburbs and leaving Detroit to administrate new collapsing neighbourhoods.
From what I have read about Detroit, the bad blood between the sururbs and the city are so ugly, that it would be a disaster to unite them, and would only result in people further away.

In fact my suggestion would be the other way around, Detroit should become smaller, cut off depopulated areas from Detroit, and offer the remaning population to relocate to other neighbourhood. This would lower the public expenses for Detroit and make it easier for police and fire departments.
Afterward I would offer the now empty areas to developers more or less for free. The result could be new sururbs closer to the city.

Yes, this.  The level of vitriol between the city and the suburbs means that any proposal that involves Detroit annexing more land will go very, very badly indeed.  Although seeing the Pointes swallowed up by Detroit would be pretty funny for a short time.  The Pointes have existed from the very beginning to keep the "riff-raff" out... imagine the reaction when they become the riff-raff!

Columbus (OH), Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York (to some extent), and Phoenix saved themselves from being like Detroit by annexing would-be suburbs. Contrast St. Louis. 

But that's the past tense, you see - they annexed suburbs as or before cities spiraled out in the 60s-80s.  The damage that not working with the suburbs caused (cf. Minneapolis, which didn't annex land but became a part of the Met Council) has already been done in Detroit, and now the suburbs and the urban core, despite their interdependence, mutually despise each other.