Detroit Off Topic

[hudkina]

There is no such thing as "privacy" on public streets, but I wouldn't doubt the city council would be against the use of these cameras...

[TheDetroitCity99]

....I don't mean to depress anyone here but...WINTER STORM WATCH IN EFFECT FROM FRIDAY AFTERNOON

THROUGH LATE SATURDAY NIGHT

Wswdtx

Storm Total Snow Accumulations May Exceed 8 Inches.

Don't worry, won't post anything till it turns into a warning. But winter never ends. According to Jerry Hodak 8"-12" isn't out of the question ontop of the 5"-8" most of us saw yesturday. Thinking about those total numbers makes me dizzy.

Becoming headline news. This could easily be the biggest one of the season.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?conten...a9-eeb6a8075968

Total Storm Accumulations ONTOP of TUESDAY/WEDNESDAY STORM 3/4- 3/9 will exceed 8" for all of Metro Detroit. Downtown Detroit/Downriver/Grosse Pointes - 14"-Minimum. Oakland/Western Wayne/80% of Monroe - 12" -Minimum.

1. Immediate Detroit-18"+ Maximum

2. Northern & Monroe-16"+ Maximum

That's much snow that could be on ground by the time this storm pulls out.

Edited March 6, 2008 by TheDetroitCity99

[Michi]

Detroit would be the last city to install any sort of cameras (even though they have before (Hart Plaza))...this city is so corrupt, it's how politicians gain power. You can have the mayor define what deceit it by him leaving no trail, and then you can have city council point the finger at him, but then do the same thing 1 month later...a'hem: Monica Conyers.

Detroit exists because the leadership truely believes that its citizens are dumb enough, stupid enough and weak enough to accept the lowest standards of quality of life. If that's the only way the leadership can operate, then of course they don't want to babysit the public w/ cameras, because in reality and in the bottom line, as we have seen, it is the city that needs the babysitting. It's just too bad that there is no higher power above them in city administration that would enforce a normal status quo.

Semi-controlled chaos...it's the best way to describe Detroit, at will, from chosen leadership style of the administration.

[wolverine]

I don't believe someone was actually inside, but I never knew there was footage of Old Slumpy collapsing. Had anyone else seen this video?

[statedude3]

Yea, I've seen the video of it falling without the person in there. Lol! Actually, it is not funny at all...until the goofy version with the person in there.

[hudkina]

I saw the original version a long time ago. The guy videotaping keeps saying "oh my god, oh my god" or something like that.

[Michi]

Wow, never saw that. What a pain. I never really ever bothered to look, but is Old Slumpy completely gone now?

[hudkina]

I believe so...

[Allan]

Yes, Slumpy is a freshly-graded dirt lot now.

Is it just me, or has the city demolished a lot of houses lately? They demolished 2 on my block, and 2 one block over last weekend. This comes just weeks after they demolished 2 houses 3 blocks away. It's nice to actually receive some attention from the city for once.

[wolverine]

So the city is actually doing something? That's remarkable.....

[WayneTigers]

A friend and I went to Greektown on Saturday and it was great. I took a bunch of pictures but now I can't find my camera! Fortunately it was only a disposable camera, which is all I can afford right now.

[wolverine]

Fact of the day I learned in class. Did you know you could fit the entire city of San Francisco in Detroit's open space? We have a lot of real estate to work with. Imagine the city size if this could eventually be repopulated.

[hudkina]

Imagine the city size if this could eventually be repopulated.

[RustTown]

Wolv, I've been trying to some time now to find the amount of vacant land in the city, but I think even the best numbers are probably estimates. I wonder if the number you speak of defined as "open space" includes parks? I've never been able to find a consistent measure that ranks cities on their vacant lands.

[hudkina]

Rouge Park (1.8 sq. mi.) and Belle Isle (2.4 sq. mi.) together are almost 10% of San Francisco's area (46.7 sq. mi.)

Hell, I wouldn't doubt that if you added up the 6 major cemetaries, that would be another 10%...

[wolverine]

This number does NOT include parks or even abandoned houses. Just empty or unused land. That includes unused parking.

Edited April 2, 2008 by wolverine

[hudkina]

I doubt there are over 47 sq. mi. of vacant lots in the city, that would equate to over 225,000 individual 1/8 acre lots. There is no way that much acreage sits empty. Since 1969 there have been about 175,000 demolition permits issued to the city. However that doesn't just include individual houses. It includes major apartment buildings, housing projects, etc. that would otherwise fit more units per 1/8 acre. It also doesn't take into account the fact that many of those houses were demolished to make way for new developments, and aren't necessarily "empty lots" today. Nor does it take into account all of the new infill that has gone up throughout the city.

I don't know, I guess I would need proof to actually believe something like that.

[tracer1138]

I doubt there are over 47 sq. mi. of vacant lots in the city, that would equate to over 225,000 individual 1/8 acre lots. There is no way that much acreage sits empty. Since 1969 there have been about 175,000 demolition permits issued to the city. However that doesn't just include individual houses. It includes major apartment buildings, housing projects, etc. that would otherwise fit more units per 1/8 acre. It also doesn't take into account the fact that many of those houses were demolished to make way for new developments, and aren't necessarily "empty lots" today. Nor does it take into account all of the new infill that has gone up throughout the city.

I don't know, I guess I would need proof to actually believe something like that.

[hudkina]

Well, if Detroit at 139 sq. mi. had San Francisco's population density, it would have a population of 2.3 million people, which isn't that far off from the peak population of the 1950's. However, the city would need at least 50% more housing units (probably in the form of apartment towers) than it did in the 1950's to attain such a population again, thanks to smaller household sizes.

Edited April 3, 2008 by hudkina

[wolverine]

hudkina, you wouldn't happen to have any data of the average density/block in Detroit back in the 50's would you? Detroit has a lot two level flats that appear as though they are single family homes. I'm curious as to how many people occupied one of these residential structures during the city's peak population.

I should also find out if my statement includes highland park as well. It might.

[hudkina]

I'm not sure. I know that in 1950, there was an average of 3.6 people per housing unit in Wayne County. That number has dropped to 2.4 per housing unit in 2000.

[RustTown]

Just for reference, some household size numbers for Detroit and Wayne County from 2000 and 2006 (estimate) according to the 2000 Census and 2006 American Community Survey:

2000

Detroit City: 2.77

Wayne County: 2.64

2006:

Detroit City: 2.86

Wayne County: 2.70

How does this compare to 1990? I was surprised to see that it seems that Detroit (of the major cities) is one of the few experiencing an increase in household sizes.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Lmichigan

[hudkina]

I wouldn't doubt that a large part of that is that younger people aren't moving out of their parents' house as early as they might have under a better economy. But then, I wouldn't doubt that the Census Bureau is wrong on these estimates...

[RustTown]

If that were the case, it wouldn't explain why Detroit seems to be the only city experiecing an increase in household size. BTW, on issues of demographic change, I trust the ACS a lot more than I trust Censu Bureau estimates for population change. It seems to me that the ACS collects quite a bit more information for its task than the department of the Census Bureau that collects information for estimates.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Lmichigan

[hudkina]

The American Community Survey is still a relatively new concept and might still be considered to have certain flaws.