Jump to content

Should Grand Rapids Convert to Cul-de-Sacs?


x99

Recommended Posts

$10,000 wouldn't go very far toward updating a typical house. Electrical, plumbing, and HVAC alone would be more than that. Lead abatement can be ridiculously expensive if not DIY'd. Add in windows (preferably refurbish the existing and add storms, but most people would replace, unfortunately) and the upgraded kitchen, and I think a more realistic estimate is $30,000 at minimum. Also, there will undoubtedly be other unforeseen repairs that will crop up (speaking from experience, having just moved into a 1916 house).

It's not a bad idea, though: Buying an urban house and fixing it up is still cheaper than a suburban one. Without such a program, many people wouldn't be able to get the financing to do the work. I think that it would have to be targeted at particular neighborhoods, perhaps based on current property values or foreclosure rates. If a neighborhood could see an influx of improvement-minded owner-occupiers, long-term stability can be effected (watch out for the gentrification complaints, though).

As an aside, I am amused that the discussion has turned to housing quality, and that the tangent was promulgated by some of the same people complaining about the "off-topic" schools discussion. As one of the offenders in the school discussion, I think that both of these tangents are relevant to the wider debate, which is ascertaining what makes a city neighborhood desirable. I'm undecided on the cul-de-sac idea, but I think that any meaningful solution will have a multi-pronged approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

$10,000 wouldn't go very far toward updating a typical house. Electrical, plumbing, and HVAC alone would be more than that. Lead abatement can be ridiculously expensive if not DIY'd. Add in windows (preferably refurbish the existing and add storms, but most people would replace, unfortunately) and the upgraded kitchen, and I think a more realistic estimate is $30,000 at minimum. Also, there will undoubtedly be other unforeseen repairs that will crop up (speaking from experience, having just moved into a 1916 house).

It's not a bad idea, though: Buying an urban house and fixing it up is still cheaper than a suburban one. Without such a program, many people wouldn't be able to get the financing to do the work. I think that it would have to be targeted at particular neighborhoods, perhaps based on current property values or foreclosure rates. If a neighborhood could see an influx of improvement-minded owner-occupiers, long-term stability can be effected (watch out for the gentrification complaints, though).

As an aside, I am amused that the discussion has turned to housing quality, and that the tangent was promulgated by some of the same people complaining about the "off-topic" schools discussion. As one of the offenders in the school discussion, I think that both of these tangents are relevant to the wider debate, which is ascertaining what makes a city neighborhood desirable. I'm undecided on the cul-de-sac idea, but I think that any meaningful solution will have a multi-pronged approach.

You're probably right, you'd burn through $10,000 pretty fast. Although maybe the goal would be that the homeowner would do some of the financing, and it would be a matched program.

Seems like something perfect for the Dyer-Ives Foundation, particularly as they try to draw down their funds in the next 3 or 4 years. Maybe I'll do some inquiring. But it is an interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, my parents utilized a similar program back in the early 90's to replace the ancient octopus-style furnace with a then-cutting-edge 90% efficiency model. It was a city program, IIRC, that offered low/no-interest loans for home improvements. One difference between that program and your idea: for that program eligibility was based on income rather than location (other than being in the city limits). That wouldn't work if you're trying to encourage people with the means to live in the suburbs (who would make too much to qualify for such a means-based program) to opt for the city instead.

I think that the improvement from such a program would not be so much from improving the housing stock, but from targeting specific areas for improvement. In a neighborhood with a stable community, even sub-par houses will attract buyers. Targeting specific blocks (I do think it has to be granular down to the block level) to encourage stable, "anchor" homeowners, will go a long way toward improving neighborhoods. I do think that such a program should target existing homeowners as much or more as encouraging new ones. Also, perhaps the program should encourage people to improve the exteriors of their homes (even landscaping) as well as the interiors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, my parents utilized a similar program back in the early 90's to replace the ancient octopus-style furnace with a then-cutting-edge 90% efficiency model. It was a city program, IIRC, that offered low/no-interest loans for home improvements. One difference between that program and your idea: for that program eligibility was based on income rather than location (other than being in the city limits). That wouldn't work if you're trying to encourage people with the means to live in the suburbs (who would make too much to qualify for such a means-based program) to opt for the city instead.

I think that the improvement from such a program would not be so much from improving the housing stock, but from targeting specific areas for improvement. In a neighborhood with a stable community, even sub-par houses will attract buyers. Targeting specific blocks (I do think it has to be granular down to the block level) to encourage stable, "anchor" homeowners, will go a long way toward improving neighborhoods. I do think that such a program should target existing homeowners as much or more as encouraging new ones. Also, perhaps the program should encourage people to improve the exteriors of their homes (even landscaping) as well as the interiors.

A list could be compiled of eligible "improvements" that would bring the greatest return to the neighborhood, that you could be directly reimbursed for. Energy efficiency and lead abatement are two no-brainers. Especially since, if you did that stuff yourself as a homeowner, the ROI would be low (you invest $5000 in new windows, you won't exactly see a $5000 bump in your property value). The energy payback would probably take you 10 years.

Outdoor landscaping, staining wood siding, rebuilding front porches, etc.??

I do seem to remember a city funded program for lead abatement and other improvements, but I don't know if that is still around? And it's really not promoted well if it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A list could be compiled of eligible "improvements" that would bring the greatest return to the neighborhood, that you could be directly reimbursed for. Energy efficiency and lead abatement are two no-brainers. Especially since, if you did that stuff yourself as a homeowner, the ROI would be low (you invest $5000 in new windows, you won't exactly see a $5000 bump in your property value). The energy payback would probably take you 10 years.

Outdoor landscaping, staining wood siding, rebuilding front porches, etc.??

I do seem to remember a city funded program for lead abatement and other improvements, but I don't know if that is still around? And it's really not promoted well if it is.

I think that the lead abatement program is still around or at least it was last year. It definitely is not promoted well though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a bad idea, though: Buying an urban house and fixing it up is still cheaper than a suburban one. Without such a program, many people wouldn't be able to get the financing to do the work. I think that it would have to be targeted at particular neighborhoods, perhaps based on current property values or foreclosure rates. If a neighborhood could see an influx of improvement-minded owner-occupiers, long-term stability can be effected (watch out for the gentrification complaints, though).

As an aside, I am amused that the discussion has turned to housing quality, and that the tangent was promulgated by some of the same people complaining about the "off-topic" schools discussion. As one of the offenders in the school discussion, I think that both of these tangents are relevant to the wider debate, which is ascertaining what makes a city neighborhood desirable. I'm undecided on the cul-de-sac idea, but I think that any meaningful solution will have a multi-pronged approach.

Off topic? Well, it's all related to neighborhood desirability and attracting residents, which is all much more interesting to me than bullet trains (although not nearly as sexy). I say we go for it. A little diversion never hurts.

A multi-pronged solution is definitely required. Are streets our biggest problem? No. Are they even a root cause? I don't know. Those are notoriously hard to pinpoint. When you compare GR to, say, Ann Arbor, in terms of crime stats: http://grandrapids.a....com/crime1.htm vs http://annarbor.area....com/crime1.htm the problem is evident. Overall density is about same, and populations are really not that dissimilar (114k vs 188k). Grand Rapids' crime, though, is through the roof (even though there is presumably less to steal due to lower incomes). Due to the blessings of geography, most of the residential streets in Ann Arbor don't go much of anywhere, and are a nightmare to navigate. It is somewhat of a "hub and spoke" system in the that the main streets radiate outward. (http://goo.gl/maps/H3nh). Does that directly cause lower crime and good schools? Likely not, but it unquestionably helps by making the inner ring neighborhoods less accessible to non-residents. That they are relatively safe leads to them being filled with people who care about their communities, and who in turn build good schools. Grand Rapids, as has been well established, has little incentive for people to remain on the main roads, and streets are readily navigable (http://goo.gl/maps/F9fm).

What we have in GR is a demographics death spiral that we have halted, and now need to reverse. Without visible changes, that won't happen. Office towers and stores and restaurants and bullet trains are all nice to bring people into the core, but the bigger question is: What changes can you make that are actually attractive to potential residents? It's a tough thing, as I've said, to intentionally market to people with disposable income because you'll be accused of all sorts of horrible things, but the City needs to do it or it will starve.

It's easy to sell street revisions on the idea that they reduce traffic. It is much more difficult to sell them on the idea that they reduce crime. Crime, however, is a major cause of what originally drove people from the City, and what presumably continues to play a large role in doing that--more so, I suspect, than streets alone. In their current configuration, however, the streets are largely designed as crime conduits because they are so wonderfully conducive to uninhibited automobile movement. I found a good overview by Henry Cisneros (HUD Secretary) ca. 1996: http://books.google....id=mA7UHlL6oHUC. I've mentioned the Five Oaks project before with respect to the defensible space concept, but here's some better numbers from that HUD essay: "non-violent crime fell by 25% and violent crime by 50%. Internal traffic declined by two thirds and accidents by 40%." They also note that "crime rates are declining in adjacent neighborhoods." That's real progress that makes a real difference, and it isn't just a reduction in major violent crime.

Putting together a desirable city is going to take a package that attacks crime and schools. If we have great schools, but crime and dangerous streets, we still lose. I suspect we cannot attack the schools by attracting more involved parents unless and until we also give them general safety. Unless your house has been broken into, you have no idea how traumatic it is. Parents with kids will move when that happens if it is perceived as a neighborhood problem. Let's call a spade a spade here: Suburbs, by their geographic removal from urban criminals, naturally facilitate safer neighborhoods. The City does not have this luxury, and needs to take proactive and innovative approaches to crime and safety if it is to succeed and lower the crime rates to reasonable levels. There are plenty of criminals, and their job needs to be made more difficult. The major goal of "defensible space" and CPTED (http://en.wikipedia....onmental_design) is to reduce crime, with safer streets as an offshoot. Cul-de-sacs don't have to be included in the package, but are usually unavoidable to do it right. Policing is great, but it alone will not solve the problem, and carries with it a nasty psychological penalty--"if the cops are in the neighborhood, there must be crime!" Better if smart design helps the neighborhood police itself.

To answer the New Urbanist critique: You market these interconnected grid patterns to rich people in the suburbs in insulated developments, miles and miles removed from opportunistic criminals, busy CBDs, traffic, and other true urban challenges. To claim that grids are great in cities because they facilitate mobility is to ignore an entirely different operating reality from the typical "new urbanist" development. This is old urban, and it is just a bit more gritty.

I think GRDad is exactly right that we're a city on the tipping point. We were, at one point, way past gone. We've made a lot of progress, but seem to have hit somewhat of a stasis in terms of neighborhoods. The next step is trying to figure out how to cross the threshold into being a more attractive option than the suburbs. That's going to be tough, because we'll have to challenge and change established norms to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like where GRDadof3 is taking this. Here are my thoughts for an effective solution utilizing realistic public policy tools.

The four-pronged approach:

  • Housing – 5 year TIF up to $15,000 – the City could also work with a local lending institution to offer low interest loans that is repaid through existing property tax collection. Perhaps their is a required match of say 20-50% that could also be loaned. The City could cap its exposure annually. In the event of a default (perhaps structure as a PACE/special assessment lien), then the (tax) default would result in the City/bank partner retaining ownership of the property. Why would the City want to forgo additional tax revenue? Similar to commercial TIF programs, the intent of this program would be to stabilize the neighborhoods. As properties are improved, it will stabilize the broader neighborhood and increase taxable values on the remaining neighborhood. There doesn't seem to be an extremelly high percentage of vacant homes, so it is more of an issue as to how to get existing property owners or new others with the normal churn of the market to reinvest in the properties.
  • Infrastructure – tax – levy an additional $0.05 / gallon gas tax or property tax. A local gas tax increase would be more effective since it ties the benefit to the user. Property tax is probably the only one that the city has the ability to implement without state legislative changes. With the revenue, dramatically reinvest in the quality of the roads, pipes and sidewalks. It also seems that MI cities should lobby for the ability increase local gas tax rates by a capped amount if publicly voted on.
  • Education – partner with local philanthropic community to implement a Kalamazoo Promise type program. While I agree, that it is difficult for individual parents to “sacrifice” their own kids for the broader purpose of universal, public school, it would become much easier if there is a carrot dangling at the finish line. With more people coming to the same conclusion, this would then raise demands, parent involvement, and then attainment results at existing public schools.
  • Jobs – this is where I scratch my head. Is there an urban-oriented solution for job creation? This really is the holy grail of economic development-strategists, but I suppose Rick DeVos is taking aim at this... launch a 1,000 start-ups and some are bound to catch. Perhaps there could be locational requirements for where businesses must be headquartered, such as in previously developed areas of the metro (i.e. no greenfield sites).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off topic? Well, it's all related to neighborhood desirability and attracting residents, which is all much more interesting to me than bullet trains (although not nearly as sexy). I say we go for it. A little diversion never hurts.

A multi-pronged solution is definitely required. Are streets our biggest problem? No. Are they even a root cause? I don't know. Those are notoriously hard to pinpoint. When you compare GR to, say, Ann Arbor, in terms of crime stats: http://grandrapids.a....com/crime1.htm vs http://annarbor.area....com/crime1.htm the problem is evident. Overall density is about same, and populations are really not that dissimilar (114k vs 188k). Grand Rapids' crime, though, is through the roof (even though there is presumably less to steal due to lower incomes). Due to the blessings of geography, most of the residential streets in Ann Arbor don't go much of anywhere, and are a nightmare to navigate. It is somewhat of a "hub and spoke" system in the that the main streets radiate outward. (http://goo.gl/maps/H3nh). Does that directly cause lower crime and good schools? Likely not, but it unquestionably helps by making the inner ring neighborhoods less accessible to non-residents. That they are relatively safe leads to them being filled with people who care about their communities, and who in turn build good schools. Grand Rapids, as has been well established, has little incentive for people to remain on the main roads, and streets are readily navigable (http://goo.gl/maps/F9fm).

What we have in GR is a demographics death spiral that we have halted, and now need to reverse. Without visible changes, that won't happen. Office towers and stores and restaurants and bullet trains are all nice to bring people into the core, but the bigger question is: What changes can you make that are actually attractive to potential residents? It's a tough thing, as I've said, to intentionally market to people with disposable income because you'll be accused of all sorts of horrible things, but the City needs to do it or it will starve.

It's easy to sell street revisions on the idea that they reduce traffic. It is much more difficult to sell them on the idea that they reduce crime. Crime, however, is a major cause of what originally drove people from the City, and what presumably continues to play a large role in doing that--more so, I suspect, than streets alone. In their current configuration, however, the streets are largely designed as crime conduits because they are so wonderfully conducive to uninhibited automobile movement. I found a good overview by Henry Cisneros (HUD Secretary) ca. 1996: http://books.google....id=mA7UHlL6oHUC. I've mentioned the Five Oaks project before with respect to the defensible space concept, but here's some better numbers from that HUD essay: "non-violent crime fell by 25% and violent crime by 50%. Internal traffic declined by two thirds and accidents by 40%." They also note that "crime rates are declining in adjacent neighborhoods." That's real progress that makes a real difference, and it isn't just a reduction in major violent crime.

Putting together a desirable city is going to take a package that attacks crime and schools. If we have great schools, but crime and dangerous streets, we still lose. I suspect we cannot attack the schools by attracting more involved parents unless and until we also give them general safety. Unless your house has been broken into, you have no idea how traumatic it is. Parents with kids will move when that happens if it is perceived as a neighborhood problem. Let's call a spade a spade here: Suburbs, by their geographic removal from urban criminals, naturally facilitate safer neighborhoods. The City does not have this luxury, and needs to take proactive and innovative approaches to crime and safety if it is to succeed and lower the crime rates to reasonable levels. There are plenty of criminals, and their job needs to be made more difficult. The major goal of "defensible space" and CPTED (http://en.wikipedia....onmental_design) is to reduce crime, with safer streets as an offshoot. Cul-de-sacs don't have to be included in the package, but are usually unavoidable to do it right. Policing is great, but it alone will not solve the problem, and carries with it a nasty psychological penalty--"if the cops are in the neighborhood, there must be crime!" Better if smart design helps the neighborhood police itself.

To answer the New Urbanist critique: You market these interconnected grid patterns to rich people in the suburbs in insulated developments, miles and miles removed from opportunistic criminals, busy CBDs, traffic, and other true urban challenges. To claim that grids are great in cities because they facilitate mobility is to ignore an entirely different operating reality from the typical "new urbanist" development. This is old urban, and it is just a bit more gritty.

I think GRDad is exactly right that we're a city on the tipping point. We were, at one point, way past gone. We've made a lot of progress, but seem to have hit somewhat of a stasis in terms of neighborhoods. The next step is trying to figure out how to cross the threshold into being a more attractive option than the suburbs. That's going to be tough, because we'll have to challenge and change established norms to do it.

One side note about Ann Arbor, as I've researched it a bit: all of the poor people (African Americans/Hispanics particularly) in Ann Arbor were long driven out of AA and into Ypsilanti. It's a lot like EGR, they drove property taxes up and up so as to make it unaffordable for low income households (AA is somewhere around 45 mills I believe for homestead).

Check out the crime comparison between AA and Ypsi, it's mind-blowing, and Ypsi is smaller than Holland city (and they're only a few miles apart):

http://annarbor.area...ypsilanti&s2=MI

Not exactly a model city if you ask me. But I digress. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like where GRDadof3 is taking this. Here are my thoughts for an effective solution utilizing realistic public policy tools.

The four-pronged approach:

  • Housing – 5 year TIF up to $15,000 – the City could also work with a local lending institution to offer low interest loans that is repaid through existing property tax collection. Perhaps their is a required match of say 20-50% that could also be loaned. The City could cap its exposure annually. In the event of a default (perhaps structure as a PACE/special assessment lien), then the (tax) default would result in the City/bank partner retaining ownership of the property. Why would the City want to forgo additional tax revenue? Similar to commercial TIF programs, the intent of this program would be to stabilize the neighborhoods. As properties are improved, it will stabilize the broader neighborhood and increase taxable values on the remaining neighborhood. There doesn't seem to be an extremelly high percentage of vacant homes, so it is more of an issue as to how to get existing property owners or new others with the normal churn of the market to reinvest in the properties.
  • Infrastructure – tax – levy an additional $0.05 / gallon gas tax or property tax. A local gas tax increase would be more effective since it ties the benefit to the user. Property tax is probably the only one that the city has the ability to implement without state legislative changes. With the revenue, dramatically reinvest in the quality of the roads, pipes and sidewalks. It also seems that MI cities should lobby for the ability increase local gas tax rates by a capped amount if publicly voted on.
  • Education – partner with local philanthropic community to implement a Kalamazoo Promise type program. While I agree, that it is difficult for individual parents to “sacrifice” their own kids for the broader purpose of universal, public school, it would become much easier if there is a carrot dangling at the finish line. With more people coming to the same conclusion, this would then raise demands, parent involvement, and then attainment results at existing public schools.
  • Jobs – this is where I scratch my head. Is there an urban-oriented solution for job creation? This really is the holy grail of economic development-strategists, but I suppose Rick DeVos is taking aim at this... launch a 1,000 start-ups and some are bound to catch. Perhaps there could be locational requirements for where businesses must be headquartered, such as in previously developed areas of the metro (i.e. no greenfield sites).

In reference to your Kalamazoo Promise question, there is a program now run by the Grand Rapids Community Foundation aimed at GRPS called Challenge Grants. It's being run in one school, Harrison Park Elementary. It just started and I hear it has totally changed the "attitudes" in that school toward one that is hopeful that these kids now may have a shot at college.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/05/local_foundations_multimillion.html

On the Jobs front, there is talk of a program that will help fund startup companies in underserved neighborhoods in the city. That initiative is a little too early in the infancy stages to talk about yet, so I hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like where GRDadof3 is taking this. Here are my thoughts for an effective solution utilizing realistic public policy tools.

The four-pronged approach:

  • Housing – 5 year TIF up to $15,000 – the City could also work with a local lending institution to offer low interest loans that is repaid through existing property tax collection. Perhaps their is a required match of say 20-50% that could also be loaned. The City could cap its exposure annually. In the event of a default (perhaps structure as a PACE/special assessment lien), then the (tax) default would result in the City/bank partner retaining ownership of the property. Why would the City want to forgo additional tax revenue? Similar to commercial TIF programs, the intent of this program would be to stabilize the neighborhoods. As properties are improved, it will stabilize the broader neighborhood and increase taxable values on the remaining neighborhood. There doesn't seem to be an extremelly high percentage of vacant homes, so it is more of an issue as to how to get existing property owners or new others with the normal churn of the market to reinvest in the properties.
  • Infrastructure – tax – levy an additional $0.05 / gallon gas tax or property tax. A local gas tax increase would be more effective since it ties the benefit to the user. Property tax is probably the only one that the city has the ability to implement without state legislative changes. With the revenue, dramatically reinvest in the quality of the roads, pipes and sidewalks. It also seems that MI cities should lobby for the ability increase local gas tax rates by a capped amount if publicly voted on.
  • Education – partner with local philanthropic community to implement a Kalamazoo Promise type program. While I agree, that it is difficult for individual parents to “sacrifice” their own kids for the broader purpose of universal, public school, it would become much easier if there is a carrot dangling at the finish line. With more people coming to the same conclusion, this would then raise demands, parent involvement, and then attainment results at existing public schools.
  • Jobs – this is where I scratch my head. Is there an urban-oriented solution for job creation? This really is the holy grail of economic development-strategists, but I suppose Rick DeVos is taking aim at this... launch a 1,000 start-ups and some are bound to catch. Perhaps there could be locational requirements for where businesses must be headquartered, such as in previously developed areas of the metro (i.e. no greenfield sites).

I don't think jobs are the immediate issue. Our population swells by 30,000 each day as a result of incoming commuters. Our problem is that they then take the money they make and go elsewhere with it. What we have not done is significant work to attract and retain a higher-income population with the ability to "underwrite" services such as parks, pools, policing, and profitable businesses. I don't think housing discounts will achieve that goal. Overly expensive housing isn't keeping anyone out of Grand Rapids. The end goal, after all, isn't to make the housing cheaper, but more expensive, and to put it into the hands of those with the means to maintain it properly. As it stands now, what we have in place are scores of programs (such as the Get The Lead Out program) that are targeted solely to low income households. Little is being done to make GR more economically diverse.

Kalamazoo Promise is an interesting idea. At a 6% discount rate, the present value of 4 years of in-state MSU tuition is about $30,000.00, whereas the public school tuition is worth (in theory) about $65,000. The big question (from a financial perspective) is whether you can capitalize into housing prices not only the college tuition, but also a portion of the public school tuition. If that actually works, you have a magic bullet to jack up property values and attract college-minded families. Ultimately, everyone benefits from enhanced economic diversity. Of course, this does add a lot of cost. I'm still more in favor of making a guaranteed entry path for City High and other "elite" schools, since we're already paying for that. Of course, none of this works all that well until you tamp down the crime rate (which is about equal with a 5 year running average for both around 495).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another thing that prevents people from investing in their homes and why you need to have a discussion regarding incentives for people to invest is that improvements do not raise the value of your home. I was interested in obtaining a loan to do some upgrades and the bottom line was that my appraisal would not change as the result of some pretty significant upgrades. when a person has no chance of recouping their investment then it becomes much harder to justify. this is of course, beyond the cities ability to influence but it is somewhat frustrating for home owners and I believe is why so many homes are so out of date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to your Kalamazoo Promise question, there is a program now run by the Grand Rapids Community Foundation aimed at GRPS called Challenge Grants. It's being run in one school, Harrison Park Elementary. It just started and I hear it has totally changed the "attitudes" in that school toward one that is hopeful that these kids now may have a shot at college.

http://www.mlive.com...ltimillion.html

On the Jobs front, there is talk of a program that will help fund startup companies in underserved neighborhoods in the city. That initiative is a little too early in the infancy stages to talk about yet, so I hear.

I agree in part that the it is not the total number of jobs, but there are two urban job needs not being met: 1) sufficient job access to low-income individuals (which is a national problem and of course has many supply/demand/global causes) and 2) sufficient diversity of high-paying jobs in the city-proper, since people are more apt to locate near their place of work. Greater regional prosperity should raise all ships.

Discounts are not the answer, you are right, and you are right that the goal is not to make housing cheaper. In order increase the value of the property two things need to happen: 1) the quality of the housing-stock needs to be improved, which the above proposal is intended to facilitate greater reinvestment in our neighborhoods, and 2) we need to attract retain higher income individuals, of which the reinvestment program would achieve. The program should not be income limited, but be available to all that wish to reinvest in existing GR housing-stock. There is actually good case study for this type of program in Detroit. In designated neighborhoods (Midtown, Downtown, Corktown), new homeowners are given a $25,000 forgivable loan. The program has been a smashing success and their has been rapid revitalization in the housing-stock and appreciation of housing prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree in part that the it is not the total number of jobs, but there are two urban job needs not being met: 1) sufficient job access to low-income individuals (which is a national problem and of course has many supply/demand/global causes) and 2) sufficient diversity of high-paying jobs in the city-proper, since people are more apt to locate near their place of work. Greater regional prosperity should raise all ships.

Discounts are not the answer, you are right, and you are right that the goal is not to make housing cheaper. In order increase the value of the property two things need to happen: 1) the quality of the housing-stock needs to be improved, which the above proposal is intended to facilitate greater reinvestment in our neighborhoods, and 2) we need to attract retain higher income individuals, of which the reinvestment program would achieve. The program should not be income limited, but be available to all that wish to reinvest in existing GR housing-stock. There is actually good case study for this type of program in Detroit. In designated neighborhoods (Midtown, Downtown, Corktown), new homeowners are given a $25,000 forgivable loan. The program has been a smashing success and their has been rapid revitalization in the housing-stock and appreciation of housing prices.

Ha, sounds like some kind of task force in the making. But under what area of the city? Economic Development? Planning Commission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, sounds like some kind of task force in the making. But under what area of the city? Economic Development? Planning Commission?

Just FYI, the Planning Commission reviews physical changes presented for re/development (curb cuts, parking spaces, side yard set-backs, landscaping and lighting).

Maybe the mayor's focus on improving the lives of children would take this on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI, the Planning Commission reviews physical changes presented for re/development (curb cuts, parking spaces, side yard set-backs, landscaping and lighting).

Maybe the mayor's focus on improving the lives of children would take this on.

That's a good idea. Moving anything forward through the bureaucracy of City government is always a tough move. The (currently unfunded) traffic calming program states that "An application with a support petition for traffic calming measures must be filled out and submitted before the formal traffic calming process can begin. The duration of the process from petition to construction is approximately 12 to 18 months." In other words, a year and a half to get a speed bump.

No one in city government or otherwise seems to think that quality of residential life is a priority these days. Defund the parks, defund the pools, defund the traffic calming. Pay the cops more money to deal with the fallout. It's just a big, fat, yawn until it all goes to hell in a handbasket. It's already too late by then. Everything is so focused on retail and business development that neighborhoods have been relegated to a backseat.

Home renovation loans--such as Get the Lead Out--are a good idea, but they ultimately benefit just one residence and depreciate over time. They are an expensive way to try to increase desirability. TIF has major legislative issues in the residential context--it would require state legislative action. This is essentially what Ren Zones were, albeit with a rather broad brush, and with an extra helping of cash piled on top. Road restructuring, which can reduce traffic, increase calm and quiet, and decrease crime benefits the whole neighborhood at a fraction of the cost. CDBG funds can often be used to pay for it or, alternatively, a special assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good idea. Moving anything forward through the bureaucracy of City government is always a tough move. The (currently unfunded) traffic calming program states that "An application with a support petition for traffic calming measures must be filled out and submitted before the formal traffic calming process can begin. The duration of the process from petition to construction is approximately 12 to 18 months." In other words, a year and a half to get a speed bump.

No one in city government or otherwise seems to think that quality of residential life is a priority these days. Defund the parks, defund the pools, defund the traffic calming. Pay the cops more money to deal with the fallout. It's just a big, fat, yawn until it all goes to hell in a handbasket. It's already too late by then. Everything is so focused on retail and business development that neighborhoods have been relegated to a backseat.

Home renovation loans--such as Get the Lead Out--are a good idea, but they ultimately benefit just one residence and depreciate over time. They are an expensive way to try to increase desirability. TIF has major legislative issues in the residential context--it would require state legislative action. This is essentially what Ren Zones were, albeit with a rather broad brush, and with an extra helping of cash piled on top. Road restructuring, which can reduce traffic, increase calm and quiet, and decrease crime benefits the whole neighborhood at a fraction of the cost. CDBG funds can often be used to pay for it or, alternatively, a special assessment.

I think that part of the defunding of various programs can be attributed to the recent economy and the devaluation of properties and subsequent loss of revenue. This should likely improve as the economy improves and taxable property values increase. improving neighborhoods is done one house at a time since there is no way to improve them all at once. programs aimed at decreasing traffic and speeders, improving schools, etc. can indirectly increase home values (and reinvestment into homes) but they do nothing for the actual condition of the home which is one of the major reasons why someone would choose to move to the suburbs. in actuality, attacking the problem on multiple fronts is probably the right way to do it. Low interest, or no interest loans would be a good way to make funds available for renovations as banks don't usually loan money for this or do so at much higher interest rates. not to mention you have to have a significant amount of equity in the home to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw/heard on one of those HGTV shows that the homebuyers qualified for a no interest government funded loan (think it was in Canada), that was forgiven in five years if they stayed in the home that long. The five year period was to discourage house flippers. It could be used to do energy upgrades, front porch and facade improvements, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all you folks that hate the American Grid, you may enjoy this discourse:

http://www.thegreata...merican-grid-2/

Paul Knight's response at the bottom, sums up, at least my feelings, of our great American grid.

But certainly the interesting thing about how this thread has evolved is that it would appear that the gridded street pattern is the reason for all of our ills, from crime to the reason people don't want to live in the city. That is giving it a bit too much influence.

I would speculate that in the next twenty years we will see the same kind of problems that are allegedly happening in this city, happening in cul-de-sac neighborhoods. The difference is they will be even more extreme and less fixable. And they will have little to do with the pattern of the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all you folks that hate the American Grid, you may enjoy this discourse:

http://www.thegreata...merican-grid-2/

Paul Knight's response at the bottom, sums up, at least my feelings, of our great American grid.

But certainly the interesting thing about how this thread has evolved is that it would appear that the gridded street pattern is the reason for all of our ills, from crime to the reason people don't want to live in the city. That is giving it a bit too much influence.

I would speculate that in the next twenty years we will see the same kind of problems that are allegedly happening in this city, happening in cul-de-sac neighborhoods. The difference is they will be even more extreme and less fixable. And they will have little to do with the pattern of the streets.

it at least details that the grid has nothing to do with the automobile.

the outer ring suburbs are already in decline (at least in many cities, I don't know about GR). we won't have to wait 20 years for this to occur. my brother-in-law/sister-in-law live a crappy Pulte subdivision outside detroit that has tons of foreclosures and is worth a fraction of it's original value. my brother and his wife live in a similar subdivision outside chicago with a similar loss of value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Good point: Grids are fixable. No is claiming that they are the be-all and end-all of the City's problems. "Fixing" the archaic pre-automobile (and to an extent, "pre-crime") grid system is, however, one of the few things that we can at least try on a limited basis for a negligible cost. If it works, put in a permanent solution. If it doesn't, pulling out temporary barriers is easy enough.

When there are examples out there showing more than 25% reductions in non-violent crime and 50% reductions in violent crime in bad areas, and we have a serious crime problem, doing nothing is lunacy. Throwing something like this at the wall to see if it sticks ought to be a first priority. Throwing cops at it isn't working (and never has). While policing changes might help (i.e. get the police out of the cars as in NYC), there appear to be possible gains to be made in other ways that are not as confrontational.

Here are the cities roughly our size, with their weighted crime indexes per City-data.com (rounded):

POP. 08 09 10 AVG

Fort Wayne, Indiana 253,691 330 300 280 303

Madison, Wisconsin 233,209 280 250 270 267

Des Moines, Iowa 203,433 460 390 390 413

Akron, Ohio 199,110 560 560 540 553

Aurora, Illinois 197,889 320 250 220 263

Springfield, Missouri191,458 580 580 630 597

Grand Rapids, Michigan 188,040 520 450 450 473

Overland Park, Kansas 173,372 170 175 160 168

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 153,888 250 250 250 250

Rockford, Illinois 152,871 680 616 650 659

Joliet, Illinois 147,433 260 240 250 250

Kansas City, Kansas 145,786 650 540 490 560

Naperville, Illinois 141,853 100 130 100 110

[the table probably won't come across too well--just look at the last # which is the average]

Grand Rapids shakes out about right in the middle—at first glance. Of course, these numbers don’t tell the whole story. The weighted average used by City-data assigns different values to things like Murder/Rape/Robbery/Assault/Burglary/Theft/Auto Theft/Arson. In Springfield, for example, the theft rate is off the charts, typically double GR’s. This is an indicator of high retail activity (Grandville also blows GR out of the water in theft)—not necessarily a “high crime” indicator in livability terms. Robberies in Springfield are about half, but burglaries are on par. That leaves only Kansas City, Rockford, and Akron as “higher crime” cities overall than GR. Kansas City has less assault, less robbery, similar burglary and theft, but a HUGE auto theft problem, and a notable murder problem. Akron has less assault, more burglary, and more auto theft. Rockford deservedly has a reputation a den of crime. When you look at the breakdown, though, it surprisingly isn’t that much worse than GR except the murder and rapes. Everything else just trends about 10-15% higher.

What I would theorize is this: That when we're talking about a "feeling" of safety in neighborhoods, we're talking mostly about robberies, burglaries, and vehicles breakin/theft. Grand Rapids has a lot that crime--far too much to be considered a "safe" city by any measure. This is, to be blunt, a very dangerous city to live in on the whole. The odds of your hole being broken into a far higher than in Chicago! Crimemapper.com provides a useful new (and free) tool that might be able to shed some insight on crime in the city. Let's look at burglaries and auto break-ins in areas we've already discussed, and some other cul-de-sac or dead end streets. Heritage Commons this year has had none. The Cass Avenue cul-de-sac has had none. Just south of that on Cass we have multiple. In fact, the Cass/Heritage Commons block is the only block just west of the Hill with none of those crimes. Orchard Hill, none. Robey, Freyling, Donald and Visser, one. Digging around for a few more cul-de-sacs or dead ends: West end of Hopson, none. Benson none. Sinclair none. Barnett none. The whole area NW of the 96 S of Bridge (which is not cul-de-sacs but has no thru streets)--none, except one auto break in on Fulton. Indian Village, which is horrendously difficult to navigate, has almost no burglaries--only two or so this year.

The lack of B&Es in Indian Village is rather surprising--given the nicer homes and likelihood of a better "haul" it ought to be a hotspot. But it isn't. I suspect that has to do with accessibility and navigability. Indian Village is one of the few later subdivisions in GR which was platted with winding streets, restricted access points, and lots of cul-de-sacs. Maybe it isn't the streets--maybe they've got extra police patrols--I don't know, but whatever they are doing, it is working. That got me looking at other areas which have restricted access. The SE side of Alger Heights that abuts Mackey-Maycees park is similar low. And here's a strange one, if you go by the general area: N of Burton and E of Eastern. The streets all run into the railroad tracks, and that whole neighboorhood is a "B&E gap" in an an otherwise high crime area. There is another very odd gap just SW of Oakhill Cemetery where a number of road dead end into the tracks or cemetery. I'm not claiming this is proof--or that there aren't areas that don't fit the pattern--but its worth a look. There are also conspicuous gaps in auto B&Es in that area on the E/W roads that dead end into cemeteries. This gives at least a reasonable suspicion that a lot of that crime is "opportunity" crime that could be cut down by eliminating drive-thru traffic.

EDIT: Here's another well researched more recent paper that lends explanation to the actual patterns we see on the ground: http://www.csun.edu/~sd1229/690H/New%20Urbanism-Crime-and%20the%20Suburbs-2008.pdf

Going by the numbers, it is very fair to say that “Grand Rapids is a relatively high crime mid-size city in the Midwest.” Our crime rate is nearly double that of NYC(!). We can deny it all we want, but the numbers don’t lie. We have a major crime problem, and it makes our city less desirable. Environmental design has long played an acknowledged role in crime, and the situation in GR seems to bear that out--at least over the last 7 months. If we even have a chance to cut crime numbers by 25% (or more) by putting up a few barricades on a temporary basis, and we don't even test it out because it violates the sanctity of the Holy Grid To Which All New Urbanists Must Bow, we as a city are not spending our money wisely. The counter-arguments to cutting up the grid are worthy and often valid, but more often than not, have little behind them other than nostalgia for days where we could afford to sit on our hands. I think we're on a precipice as a city. We've cut crime admirably, but have more to do. With a little innovation and willingness to try something new, there's a shot we might make the City a much more desirable place to live.

For all you folks that hate the American Grid, you may enjoy this discourse:

http://www.thegreata...merican-grid-2/

Paul Knight's response at the bottom, sums up, at least my feelings, of our great American grid.

But certainly the interesting thing about how this thread has evolved is that it would appear that the gridded street pattern is the reason for all of our ills, from crime to the reason people don't want to live in the city. That is giving it a bit too much influence.

I would speculate that in the next twenty years we will see the same kind of problems that are allegedly happening in this city, happening in cul-de-sac neighborhoods. The difference is they will be even more extreme and less fixable. And they will have little to do with the pattern of the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point: Grids are fixable. No is claiming that they are the be-all and end-all of the City's problems. "Fixing" the archaic pre-automobile (and to an extent, "pre-crime") grid system is, however, one of the few things that we can at least try on a limited basis for a negligible cost. If it works, put in a permanent solution. If it doesn't, pulling out temporary barriers is easy enough.

The "pre-crime" grid system? Are you saying the world was a safer place before the grid? Before cities? Was there no crime before the grid, before the city? Is the grid an indicator of crime? Is it the generator of crime?

I wonder, what was the reason they built walls and dug moats around castles or walled-off medieval cities?

I would speculate that there are many other factors that contribute to crime. One might be that we, as a city, seem to promote the concentration of poverty and transient populations in isolated areas. We have (and continue to) built low income housing in pods....instead of dispersing it with market rate housing or integrating it into neighborhoods. These concentrations are, in some cases, breeding grounds for crime.

If the grid was the generator of crime, how do you explain EGR, which is primarily a grid?

Indian Village (Ottawa Hills ??), while not a grid iron, is still a grid, albeit with curvilinear streets. There are a few cul-de-sacs, but it is an interconnected pattern of streets and blocks. It may be harder to navigate, but it is still a grid pattern. How do you explain the lack of comparable crime? It is accessible from many different places along its edges - along Giddings, Franklin and Hall - all places with higher crime.

The grid is not the issue. And as far as the continued reference to New Urbanism, the NU'ers certainly, often-times promote the grid, but so would most true urbanists. The NU'ers, while flawed in some of their architectural bias, are spot on when it comes to the fabric, to city building and to urbanism. This is not about hanging on to some nostalgaic past, it is about knowing what works and what doesn't work.

Cul-de-sacs as the pattern do not work. As an exception within a pattern, they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, The solid criminological research behind CPTED and the critique of New Urbanism for ignoring the "crime problem" are all well known and fairly well accepted. Read the article I noted, which is a nice survey of much of the current scholarly thought on these issues. This is not new stuff, and I am not off the wall here, which you seem to think is the case by pointing at counter-examples such as EGR. As far as EGR dis concerned, it doesn't have crime issues in large part because there are not many "neighborhood" criminals there--it doesn't pay as well as their jobs. That EGR does not have a massive B&E problem is further evidence that this would work: EGR is target rich, but crime low. The criminals are too lazy to go there! Make criminal behavior more inconvenient by location or design, and it decreases!

As for Indian Village, it is a nearly textbook example of CPTED/"defensible space" in terms of street design. There are no N/S through streets in it, period, although if you're really clever and care to go out of your way you can manage to get from Burton to 28th. There are likewise no direct E/W through routes between Plymouth and Breton. A minimum of 2-3 turns or large curves are required. If this were a traditional grid, it would have at least 7 direct N/S through routes, and about again as many E/W. If you go to the area N/W of 196 S of Bridge, there is only one N/S through route of seven N/S streets. There are no E/W routes. Just south of Lake Michigan, the same is true. No N/S because The Mines GC is in the way, and no E/W because the highway is in the way. While factors other than streets are certainly at play, it merits noting that these two (or three) areas, over the last 7 months, appear to be the most crime free areas in the City. Are they all cul-de-sacs? No, but that isn't the point. The point is RESTRICTING ACCESS. In a grid pattern, cul-de-sacs are merely the byproduct of doing that without bulldozing houses.

You're right that this is about "what works," The literature and studies say this does. I wish there were other, better solutions to a very real problem affecting our city's desirability. But so far, what GR has tried has not worked. This is something we haven't tried, but could try very cheaply and on a temporary basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Good point: Grids are fixable. No is claiming that they are the be-all and end-all of the City's problems. "Fixing" the archaic pre-automobile (and to an extent, "pre-crime") grid system is, however, one of the few things that we can at least try on a limited basis for a negligible cost. If it works, put in a permanent solution. If it doesn't, pulling out temporary barriers is easy enough.

When there are examples out there showing more than 25% reductions in non-violent crime and 50% reductions in violent crime in bad areas, and we have a serious crime problem, doing nothing is lunacy. Throwing something like this at the wall to see if it sticks ought to be a first priority. Throwing cops at it isn't working (and never has). While policing changes might help (i.e. get the police out of the cars as in NYC), there appear to be possible gains to be made in other ways that are not as confrontational.

Here are the cities roughly our size, with their weighted crime indexes per City-data.com (rounded):

POP. 08 09 10 AVG

Fort Wayne, Indiana 253,691 330 300 280 303

Madison, Wisconsin 233,209 280 250 270 267

Des Moines, Iowa 203,433 460 390 390 413

Akron, Ohio 199,110 560 560 540 553

Aurora, Illinois 197,889 320 250 220 263

Springfield, Missouri191,458 580 580 630 597

Grand Rapids, Michigan 188,040 520 450 450 473

Overland Park, Kansas 173,372 170 175 160 168

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 153,888 250 250 250 250

Rockford, Illinois 152,871 680 616 650 659

Joliet, Illinois 147,433 260 240 250 250

Kansas City, Kansas 145,786 650 540 490 560

Naperville, Illinois 141,853 100 130 100 110

[the table probably won't come across too well--just look at the last # which is the average]

Grand Rapids shakes out about right in the middle—at first glance. Of course, these numbers don’t tell the whole story. The weighted average used by City-data assigns different values to things like Murder/Rape/Robbery/Assault/Burglary/Theft/Auto Theft/Arson. In Springfield, for example, the theft rate is off the charts, typically double GR’s. This is an indicator of high retail activity (Grandville also blows GR out of the water in theft)—not necessarily a “high crime” indicator in livability terms. Robberies in Springfield are about half, but burglaries are on par. That leaves only Kansas City, Rockford, and Akron as “higher crime” cities overall than GR. Kansas City has less assault, less robbery, similar burglary and theft, but a HUGE auto theft problem, and a notable murder problem. Akron has less assault, more burglary, and more auto theft. Rockford deservedly has a reputation a den of crime. When you look at the breakdown, though, it surprisingly isn’t that much worse than GR except the murder and rapes. Everything else just trends about 10-15% higher.

What I would theorize is this: That when we're talking about a "feeling" of safety in neighborhoods, we're talking mostly about robberies, burglaries, and vehicles breakin/theft. Grand Rapids has a lot that crime--far too much to be considered a "safe" city by any measure. This is, to be blunt, a very dangerous city to live in on the whole. The odds of your hole being broken into a far higher than in Chicago! Crimemapper.com provides a useful new (and free) tool that might be able to shed some insight on crime in the city. Let's look at burglaries and auto break-ins in areas we've already discussed, and some other cul-de-sac or dead end streets. Heritage Commons this year has had none. The Cass Avenue cul-de-sac has had none. Just south of that on Cass we have multiple. In fact, the Cass/Heritage Commons block is the only block just west of the Hill with none of those crimes. Orchard Hill, none. Robey, Freyling, Donald and Visser, one. Digging around for a few more cul-de-sacs or dead ends: West end of Hopson, none. Benson none. Sinclair none. Barnett none. The whole area NW of the 96 S of Bridge (which is not cul-de-sacs but has no thru streets)--none, except one auto break in on Fulton. Indian Village, which is horrendously difficult to navigate, has almost no burglaries--only two or so this year.

The lack of B&Es in Indian Village is rather surprising--given the nicer homes and likelihood of a better "haul" it ought to be a hotspot. But it isn't. I suspect that has to do with accessibility and navigability. Indian Village is one of the few later subdivisions in GR which was platted with winding streets, restricted access points, and lots of cul-de-sacs. Maybe it isn't the streets--maybe they've got extra police patrols--I don't know, but whatever they are doing, it is working. That got me looking at other areas which have restricted access. The SE side of Alger Heights that abuts Mackey-Maycees park is similar low. And here's a strange one, if you go by the general area: N of Burton and E of Eastern. The streets all run into the railroad tracks, and that whole neighboorhood is a "B&E gap" in an an otherwise high crime area. There is another very odd gap just SW of Oakhill Cemetery where a number of road dead end into the tracks or cemetery. I'm not claiming this is proof--or that there aren't areas that don't fit the pattern--but its worth a look. There are also conspicuous gaps in auto B&Es in that area on the E/W roads that dead end into cemeteries. This gives at least a reasonable suspicion that a lot of that crime is "opportunity" crime that could be cut down by eliminating drive-thru traffic.

EDIT: Here's another well researched more recent paper that lends explanation to the actual patterns we see on the ground: http://www.csun.edu/...uburbs-2008.pdf

Going by the numbers, it is very fair to say that “Grand Rapids is a relatively high crime mid-size city in the Midwest.” Our crime rate is nearly double that of NYC(!). We can deny it all we want, but the numbers don’t lie. We have a major crime problem, and it makes our city less desirable. Environmental design has long played an acknowledged role in crime, and the situation in GR seems to bear that out--at least over the last 7 months. If we even have a chance to cut crime numbers by 25% (or more) by putting up a few barricades on a temporary basis, and we don't even test it out because it violates the sanctity of the Holy Grid To Which All New Urbanists Must Bow, we as a city are not spending our money wisely. The counter-arguments to cutting up the grid are worthy and often valid, but more often than not, have little behind them other than nostalgia for days where we could afford to sit on our hands. I think we're on a precipice as a city. We've cut crime admirably, but have more to do. With a little innovation and willingness to try something new, there's a shot we might make the City a much more desirable place to live.

I'm sorry to say that the paper you quoted is generally speaking, crap. It primarily addresses the suburban environment. on page three it states that crime is primarily along the paths that criminals take and then go to to say that more permeable environments create increased access to neighborhoods for committing a crime. except that the access is irrelevant because crimes occur where the criminals travel. they don't go into random neighborhoods to commit a crime regardless of permeability (per the paper). they also make the claim that new urbanist philosophy relies on "eyes on the street" to decrease crime but due to video games and TV nobody goes outside anymore. as anyone that actually lives in the city knows, this statement is wrong. there is someone on the street almost every second of every day.

they additionally go on to state that for cul-de-sacs to be effective that they must prevent pedestrians from traversing the dead end. this would no be possible with temporary barricades as you suggest.

this paper is typical of pseudoscientific sociologic publications. it emphasizes selective quotations and faulty logic. they do state that you can not formulaically apply the concepts within it and that every application requires a detailed site analysis. this is probably true.

many of those cities that you list are not very good comparisons to grand rapids. overland park, naperville, and aurora specifically are poor choices. Madison is populated by a completely different demographic. it is much more white collar and on the whole much more prosperous. several other cities are from much smaller MSAs. if you compare grand rapids to primarily industrial cities of similar size then you will probably find that it does quite well although it is not perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect comparisons and parallels are difficult to come by. The study I cited was merely an overview of the idea that street design does influence crime. I completely recognize that permeability of the sidewalks is a major problem. However, you are never going to sell cutting them off--not in a million years, unless the area is an absolute den of ungodly amounts of crime. Street reconfiguration is admittedly a partial and imperfect solution. It is, nevertheless, a partial solution, which is better than no solution. It's a tool, and we need all the tools we can get.

As for the comparison cities, they are all of the Midwest rust belt cities from 140,000 to 250,000 population. That's the whole list. If you want to go bigger up the list, you have Lincoln, St. Paul, Toledo, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. Only St. Paul and Toledo bear even a passing resemblance to GR in demographics. St. Paul clocks in at a 447 and Toledo is not reported in the aggregate. GR and Toledo used to be similar, but now Toledo is clearly worse based on the separate burglary, robbery, and auto theft rates. St. Paul is just about the same in most categories. To be able to say you have somewhat less crime than Toledo isn't exactly a badge of honor.

When it comes to crime, we have a lot of it. We just live in it (or don't live in those neighborhoods) and thus don't often recognize how bad the problem really is. We really, really need to fix this with whatever tools we have at our disposal, even if they aren't perfect.

they additionally go on to state that for cul-de-sacs to be effective that they must prevent pedestrians from traversing the dead end. this would no be possible with temporary barricades as you suggest.

many of those cities that you list are not very good comparisons to grand rapids. overland park, naperville, and aurora specifically are poor choices. Madison is populated by a completely different demographic. it is much more white collar and on the whole much more prosperous. several other cities are from much smaller MSAs. if you compare grand rapids to primarily industrial cities of similar size then you will probably find that it does quite well although it is not perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.