The Decline of Detroit - How To Prevent in OKC?

[ylouder]

It's personally aggravating because legacy cities (aka rust belt cities) face problems that are cyclically driven by perception, which hampers those on the ground working to solve these problems.

By the way, everyone should get their head around this fact: Michigan is a top 5 state for R&D, propelled in large part by Michigan State and TSUN.

Statewide they have good income levels, good literacy and educational attainment stats, and their corporate economy is at least as diversified as OKC's. Thrown in for good measure amongst the auto makers are household products, cereal, finance, energy, among others.

Detroit isn't functioning as the major city of a healthy state. The problem is there's a disconnect driven by the over supply of real estate - continued production of more real estate - and the needs that all of these communities are clamoring against each other for. This is a problem of polarity and gravitational pull.

I'm confused. Most of us who have been there have said numerous times that the area around detroit is very nice and in a lot of cases much nicer than okc suburbs. Lots of really good jobs and educated workforce, and is really a nice place outside of the over blighted areas in the older sections of town.

And that the major problem facing it is outside public perception, insane and non stop sprawl, and lack of redevelopment in older sections of town. How is this different from what you said?

[Spartan]

I'm confused. Most of us who have been there have said numerous times that the area around detroit is very nice and in a lot of cases much nicer than okc suburbs. Lots of really good jobs and educated workforce, and is really a nice place outside of the over blighted areas in the older sections of town.

And that the major problem facing it is outside public perception, insane and non stop sprawl, and lack of redevelopment in older sections of town. How is this different from what you said?

Sorry I was addressing the fixation on unions that I was seeing in most posts. Sprawl is the main thing. This region is not demographically of professionally unqualified.

I'm just feeling defeated over trying to get some movement on growth boundaries over the last week, when right now the preservation movement is more interested in the seat at the table (with Hardest Hit Funds) strategy. HHF is the undoing of Detroit and Cleveland, but it came about through the perpetuated perception and the half baked idea that demo everything is the ONLY idea. The urban interests are absolutely terrified of taking on Kasich or Snyder.

I think a growth boundary would solve every problem almost, as long as access to LIHTC remains. Demo solves nothing. I truly believe being in Detroit or Cleveland or Pittsburgh or Baltimore is an awe inspiring experience that we shouldn't give up on. Especially the Paris of the Midwest.

[Snowman]

I think a growth boundary would solve every problem almost, as long as access to LIHTC remains. Demo solves nothing. I truly believe being in Detroit or Cleveland or Pittsburgh or Baltimore is an awe inspiring experience that we shouldn't give up on. Especially the Paris of the Midwest.

The hard thing about an creating an urban growth boundary now is the sprawl is so far past the city of Detroit (like a lot of city cores) is that they no longer have any legislative control where the sprawl occurs, they are nearing being only a quarter of the metro population. The metro goes twice as far north as the city is North/South and it is as far west as the city is East/West (South & East were not as much an issue due to the border/lakes, though there is a smaller suburb-ish city in Canada).

They even have a problem similar to Tulsa where the population has migrated so far out that downtown is no longer centrally located, in fact it is probably worse in that the center of the population has probably even migrated outside their city limits and one of their earlier ring freeways will give better access to that than historic downtown if those communities can start getting active on pulling in the regional attractions.

[Spartan]

Yeah, meet Oakland County - suburb and downtown of nothing, all in one.

Here's the one drawback of growth boundaries - artificially accelerated land values. Now consider that Detroit's real problem is that a Detroit address is literally worth nothing. Yes it must be done at the state level in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Jersey, etc. but it's the only solution left. We're not west coast and even if land values get too high as a result, too much of a good thing would be welcome at this point.

[bombermwc]

Well you won't find any support from any state (including MI) that would support an urban growth boundary by forcing the surrounding suburbs to not build. That's more of what DTW faces than OKC's internal issues. OKC has the land to (if it so chose) force development back in (but don't hold your breath there). I really wish it would...it's been wonderful in Portland as a model for oh so many things. But in DTW, the city itself doesn't have much left and isn't where the construction is happening. So if you try to force people to build back in DTW rather than a suburban community, you're really starting a dangerous game from a government perspective. It's one thing to create a boundary inside DTW itself, but it's a whole other ball game to do so in a metro. And with DTW, that's really what we're looking at here.

Keep in mind that DTW is creating it's own growth boundaries, although not really calling them that. As areas become abandoned, the city is cutting utilities to areas so they no longer have to support them. And these aren't just little cul-de-sacs either. So by cutting those services off, they've cut off development to those areas in the hopes of pushing those efforts into other areas. Pairing that with the new revitalization efforts (I just hope it gets the federal funding and the civil earmarks don't go astray) are slowly making a difference.

In all honestly, I really feel like a push from the outer city boundaries IN is what's going to help the most. A growth pattern that makes use of the areas that at least aren't dead (albeit not great...like Warren) can help get things turned back into the city.

[Spartan]

There is no growth at all. It's just a slow drain of activity and resources from Detroit to it's suburbs. After so much poaching there is nothing left, they're now at that post apocalyptic phase. You're right about sectioning off emptied out areas of Detroit, but what happens in revitalization focus areas is widespread demo.

They have $100 MILLION in HHF for nothing but demo, and despite the federal disbursement, it all bypasses Sec 106 review which is charting new disastrous territory. Everything will be lost and this pain of "Rightsizing" is being reserved only for Detroit through demo and none of the suburbs through limits to their poaching. This is absurd.

A growth boundary happened in OR and MN. It can happen in MI and OH - that's not like suggesting it for OKC or Dallas. These are moderate states where sprawl is king but there is still a strong urban coalition and environmentalism appeals to many outside that structure.

[bombermwc]

Before you pounce on the demo work, you also need to examine how the program works, and what structures they are targeting. It's not a blanket project by any means. They aren't targeting a section and dozing randomly.

Step 1- the property has to be deemed abandoned. By the time it reaches that status, it's overgrown, become dilapidated, and is often structurally unsound because of the issues of non-upkeep have caused.
Step 2- Part of the newest form of the program is a notification. The city will post a notification of the site being targeted by the city. The owner then has I believe 72 hours to respond to the notice before they start the process of claiming the structure. Remember that by this point, it's already been left for months or years. Boarded up or broken windows, become a drug house, etc. The goal of this notification effort is not to get the house, but to motivate the owner to do something about it. This new program has seen a high rate of return on the notification side. That doesn't always equate to a "correction", but it's far higher than it once was.
Step 3 - In those situations (which still accounts for 3/4 of them) where either the owner didn't respond or when they responded they chose not to take action (or by inaction) the home is then taken by the city.
Step 4 - This is where the program is taking a new direction. The 100 million for demo is not the dollars I'm speaking of. There was a good piece on NPR last week discussing how the city was able to create a $500 million fund over the next 5 years by shuffling funding around from different apportionments. There was absolute amazement and congratulations given to the financial side for being able to squeeze it together. It's a "pledged" amount at this point because it's to be created over the 5 years, not in a lump sum. These dollars are meant to be spent to help take those homes that the city takes, and decide if they are able to be saved, and if there is an ROI within reach on that home. 500 million isn't that much for a city of that size...you aren't going to be saving those large 10 story apartment buildings with it, but you can save a hundred homes here and there.....seedlings to hopefully help grow something. Because at this point, the property is often in terrible shape, there are few structures that meet the qualifications for the program, but they do exist. I think the statistic I heard was something like 8 out of 35 that was re-habbed from step 2, but since the program is new, there aren't a lot of stats on the remaining 3/4 to say what the city is able to do.

As for the growth boundary, did not the City of Portland create that boundary? Again, only the city can put that in. The state will not sacrifice growth in a suburb to push it to the city. Now would you want the state to be able to have the power to do so. Some people call me a social democrat (remember im registered republican though...LOL), but that sort of interference for the "common good" is a bit much for me. I'd prefer to leave the growth boundaries to the cities. OKC is in a unique, and I would argue better, position that the large land area gives it more power to force the boundary. Often times the growth is within its own borders, so the city would have the ability to push it back in. Like with any boundary, you face the possibility that the people simply move to the other side of the line though...Moore/Edmond/etc. But OKC stands a much better chance of being able to enforce one on its own than DTW, whose land area isn't uncommonly large.

[bchris02]

What would happen if Detroit annexed some of the higher income inner suburbs to give them more of a tax base? Would the newly annexed areas go to hell as well or could they help foster a turnaround for the larger city? I believe one of the man reasons OKC isn't Detroit today is its large land area and the fact the some of the most affluent suburban areas are in the city proper. Otherwise, the city core wouldn't have survived the oil bust of the 1980s. MAPS would have never been passed and the city would likely be looking at expanding suburbs and a dead core to this day.

[venture]

What would happen if Detroit annexed some of the higher income inner suburbs to give them more of a tax base? Would the newly annexed areas go to hell as well or could they help foster a turnaround for the larger city? I believe one of the man reasons OKC isn't Detroit today is its large land area and the fact the some of the most affluent suburban areas are in the city proper. Otherwise, the city core wouldn't have survived the oil bust of the 1980s. MAPS would have never been passed and the city would likely be looking at expanding suburbs and a dead core to this day.

I would guess zero residents would vote in favor of annexation. It isn't some forced thing. Property owners typically have to approve it and it can come to plot by plot. Also you are talking about incorporated cities, not unincorporated townships under the management of trustees. Detroit can't just be like "Hey Troy, we are annexing you and your amazing high end mall."

[bchris02]

What about a city-county consolidation with Wayne County?

[venture]

What about a city-county consolidation with Wayne County?

Detroit proper makes up less than half of the population of Wayne County. It also doesn't take up much of the county itself. Kerry (or others) might be able to correct me on this but in cases of City-County consolidation, I would guess the primary city would make up more of the county.

[Snowman]

What would happen if Detroit annexed some of the higher income inner suburbs to give them more of a tax base? Would the newly annexed areas go to hell as well or could they help foster a turnaround for the larger city? I believe one of the man reasons OKC isn't Detroit today is its large land area and the fact the some of the most affluent suburban areas are in the city proper. Otherwise, the city core wouldn't have survived the oil bust of the 1980s. MAPS would have never been passed and the city would likely be looking at expanding suburbs and a dead core to this day.

Most of the annexations I have heard of were when the central city was healthier economically/politically than the suburb, it is not in any of the wealthier suburbs interest to have this done now. Maybe after thirty years go by if Detroit can get it's house in order and the suburb declines by having the most wealthy either move to a nicer suburb, relocate to different metro, die or a higher end urban housing.

[Spartan]

Before you pounce on the demo work, you also need to examine how the program works, and what structures they are targeting. It's not a blanket project by any means. They aren't targeting a section and dozing randomly.

Step 1- the property has to be deemed abandoned. By the time it reaches that status, it's overgrown, become dilapidated, and is often structurally unsound because of the issues of non-upkeep have caused.
Step 2- Part of the newest form of the program is a notification. The city will post a notification of the site being targeted by the city. The owner then has I believe 72 hours to respond to the notice before they start the process of claiming the structure. Remember that by this point, it's already been left for months or years. Boarded up or broken windows, become a drug house, etc. The goal of this notification effort is not to get the house, but to motivate the owner to do something about it. This new program has seen a high rate of return on the notification side. That doesn't always equate to a "correction", but it's far higher than it once was.
Step 3 - In those situations (which still accounts for 3/4 of them) where either the owner didn't respond or when they responded they chose not to take action (or by inaction) the home is then taken by the city.
Step 4 - This is where the program is taking a new direction. The 100 million for demo is not the dollars I'm speaking of. There was a good piece on NPR last week discussing how the city was able to create a $500 million fund over the next 5 years by shuffling funding around from different apportionments. There was absolute amazement and congratulations given to the financial side for being able to squeeze it together. It's a "pledged" amount at this point because it's to be created over the 5 years, not in a lump sum. These dollars are meant to be spent to help take those homes that the city takes, and decide if they are able to be saved, and if there is an ROI within reach on that home. 500 million isn't that much for a city of that size...you aren't going to be saving those large 10 story apartment buildings with it, but you can save a hundred homes here and there.....seedlings to hopefully help grow something. Because at this point, the property is often in terrible shape, there are few structures that meet the qualifications for the program, but they do exist. I think the statistic I heard was something like 8 out of 35 that was re-habbed from step 2, but since the program is new, there aren't a lot of stats on the remaining 3/4 to say what the city is able to do.

As for the growth boundary, did not the City of Portland create that boundary? Again, only the city can put that in. The state will not sacrifice growth in a suburb to push it to the city. Now would you want the state to be able to have the power to do so. Some people call me a social democrat (remember im registered republican though...LOL), but that sort of interference for the "common good" is a bit much for me. I'd prefer to leave the growth boundaries to the cities. OKC is in a unique, and I would argue better, position that the large land area gives it more power to force the boundary. Often times the growth is within its own borders, so the city would have the ability to push it back in. Like with any boundary, you face the possibility that the people simply move to the other side of the line though...Moore/Edmond/etc. But OKC stands a much better chance of being able to enforce one on its own than DTW, whose land area isn't uncommonly large.

Are you seriously tell me it's okay because the owners have a 72 hour window period to respond and say no don't demo my house? I don't think you realize the full magnitude of abandonment in Detroit. Boston, SF, and Manhattan would all fit inside of Detroit with room to spare and most of it is already emptied out. Midtown Detroit (the Cass Corridor) is the only area with life outside of Downtown.

The bottom line is using signs of life as a parameter for demolition is dangerous. There is no life and you can't demolish it all.

[Stew]

I've never been to Detroit, but have seen quite a bit about it. Not sure how sprawled it is though, but surely it can't be worse than Atlanta, Houston, Jacksonville, OKC, or any other sprawled out cities.

As much as you like to drive you should drive there sometime. It'll blow your mind.

[venture]

As much as you like to drive you should drive there sometime. It'll blow your mind.

Especially once he gets one of the bubble gum machines behind him.

[Plutonic Panda]

Especially once he gets one of the bubble gum machines behind him.

What the hell??? lol... is that for real?? 0_o

[Plutonic Panda]

As much as you like to drive you should drive there sometime. It'll blow your mind.

Later this summer, I'm taking a road trip to explore some cities in Texas... once I get my feet wet, I'll start driving other places in the country. I really do want to see Detroit though. I have always been fascinated by the city, well, at least since I saw the movie 8 Mile.

[venture]

What the hell??? lol... is that for real?? 0_o

Yes. Michigan State Troopers all have the bubble gum machine lines still. They are also among some of the worst ones to deal with. I never speed in that state, especially at night. They are permitted to sit in their hiding spots with zero lights on and do not give you any wiggle room.

[bombermwc]

Are you seriously tell me it's okay because the owners have a 72 hour window period to respond and say no don't demo my house? I don't think you realize the full magnitude of abandonment in Detroit. Boston, SF, and Manhattan would all fit inside of Detroit with room to spare and most of it is already emptied out. Midtown Detroit (the Cass Corridor) is the only area with life outside of Downtown.

The bottom line is using signs of life as a parameter for demolition is dangerous. There is no life and you can't demolish it all.

Spartan - did you read the part about how at that point the place has already been abandoned? How it would have to be sitting in an abandoned state for years and be a public safety issue before they pursue the notice? Just like in OKC, the city doesn't just come in and take a good house, they're targeting abandoned structures. What exactly do you think the demo program is for? Just like in OKC, it's better to remove the problem structures before they collapse. It doesn't take long once a roof starts to drip and windows get busted before the elements start tearing a place apart from the inside...insect infestations like termites. the list goes on and on. I don't think anyone would suggest that the city would come in after the place has sat there even for a year....this is LONG term abandonment. And abandonment to the point where the structure may be hazardous to leave standing.....we've got PLENTY of those in OKC and guess what, the city is making a push to get cracking on demo'ing those as well.

The details make the story and the program, please don't ignore them just because you see the word demo and city together. And if it wasn't legal, don't you think a city with such national attention focused on the efforts, would be making the courts busy from litigation? Oh wait, the owners abandoned the places.....

[Spartan]

"Vacant does not equal blighted, and preservation is blight removal, too."

This is little more than urban renewal once again hashed out on diverse communities. There is such architectural and historical merit in Detroit that doesn't exist in OKC. These things therefor are more nuanced than that perspective can provide for.

[bombermwc]

I don't know that I would go so far as to say its being hashed out on a diverse community. In most situations, the residents surrounding the blighted structures are in favor of them being bulldozed. And they overwhelmingly support the multi-step plan I was describing because it's helping to revitalize some of the structures. People are doing renovations in areas that just don't ever see them. The GOOD owners are staying and trying. The crappy ones are being flushed out.....something OKC is just now starting to get momentum on.

I don't think I've seen the wrecking ball in DTW approach any of those architectural gems though. There's so much art deco there! We're speaking of almost exclusively homes and, to a great extent, those that are becoming structurally compromised and wouldn't be saved regardless of their branding. When a hole opens in a roof and moisture gets in for years and starts rotting it out, whether it's a gem or not, at some point the structure is a loss and is more hazardous as a barely standing structure than as a grass lot.

I would NEVER give any city carte blanche to do anything like this, so please don't confuse my support of their program as a green light to I M Pei their way through DTW. In no way would I EVER support a Pei plan. The focused and targeted efforts are something that make this different for me and the long list of qualifications that a structure has to meet before DTW starts trying to work on it. And keeping in mind that demo is the last resort. In Urban Renewal demo is the first action. It's just a different model.

[Spartan]

These buildings don't just make up ownership. They make up community. You're missing the forest for the tree.

That's also highly inaccurate that the wrecking ball isn't going after gems. Depends what you call a gem, and the main problem here is that it isn't demo as a last resort. What's happening in Detroit is demo first.

[bombermwc]

Sorry, but you're just incorrect on your facts. What qualifies as a gem might be different for you and I, I'll give you that. But the second portion is simply not accurate in any way. DTW absolutely has not, does not, and will not simply come to a house and tear it down without following a process. I will grant that it might APPEAR this way to someone on the outside. It can appear that nothing is happening when you look at the front of the house, but you're also not aware of all of the legal and municipal actions taking place through city government. To say that the wrecking ball is step 1, is just simply not correct. And let me state again, that the city is not coming in and taking houses willy-nilly. By the time they get involved, a WHOLE LOT has happened behind the scenes. And that is usually after YEARS...not just because they want to.

[Just the facts]

bombermwc - I think you are missing what Spartan is saying. He isn't saying that the wrecking ball shows up with no paperwork, he is saying the demo process is the only option being pursued. There is no attempt to restore, retro-fit, or adapt buildings.

For example. No one is trying to save this house. The only option being employed is the demo process (even if it takes the 3 years from filing the paper work to creating a pile of rubble.) Now multiply that by 10,000 other examples.

[Spartan]

Sorry, but you're just incorrect on your facts. What qualifies as a gem might be different for you and I, I'll give you that. But the second portion is simply not accurate in any way. DTW absolutely has not, does not, and will not simply come to a house and tear it down without following a process. I will grant that it might APPEAR this way to someone on the outside. It can appear that nothing is happening when you look at the front of the house, but you're also not aware of all of the legal and municipal actions taking place through city government. To say that the wrecking ball is step 1, is just simply not correct. And let me state again, that the city is not coming in and taking houses willy-nilly. By the time they get involved, a WHOLE LOT has happened behind the scenes. And that is usually after YEARS...not just because they want to.

The process is for demolition, not preservation. The city of Detroit does not have a preservation program. I don't think you understand what is happening in either Detroit or its more successful rust belt counterparts. I am curious how you are involved with Detroit or where your perspective is coming from?

I'm trying to neither laugh nor feel insulted when you of all people, in this thread of all threads, tell me that I'm wrong. Not just that you disagree and here's what you read that made you disagree with me, etc.