turned into parks and greenhouses?


sort of the opposite of

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot


Full circle,
I like it
peace,
kp

It would be beneficial if Cleveland followed suit, and planted fruit and nut trees in their planned parks.

Makes sense.

Or are my eyes playing tricks on me?

I wouldn't loiter around on that side, in any case!

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 02:38 PM - Edit history (2)

Purists see the sturdy-looking, older homes and cannot help but to want to bring them back, but after decades of neglect, many have been stripped of their "innards", and are dangerously close to collapse. To rehab, costs a lot more than to rebuild, but of course one new house in acres of ghost houses, will not sell for much, and may be stripped in the process of being built.

It actually makes some sense to just tear them down and re-introduce nature.

Detroit sprawled the way it did because of the WWII build up and the immediate aftermath of the war.. It could not last once the southern migration began and the jobs left.

Truthfully, there will probably never again be anything even approaching a "need" for the number of homes that were abandoned & left to crumble.

While it may seem to be a good idea to "fix up the houses and give them to the poor", it is not a good idea because having a home (even a new one) requires a pretty steady and sufficient income (which poor folks do not have), and the houses would soon enough suffer again.

Detroit is not alone. Go to almost any midwestern /western small city that used to be bustling with factories, and you will see empty houses, shut down businesses and blight.

Instead of fighting about abortion/guns/God & other assorted issues, we need to figure out a way to get MONEY into the pockets of poor people.. They will find a way to house/feed themselves IF THEY HAVE SOME MONEY...

a house that will only be worth half what you spent. Never.

Wonder who knows who....hmmmmmm?

Whoever was in charge of it simply ignored the simple economics of the value of the home versus the rehab cost. My own city of St. Paul, through the county seized some homes that were uninhabited, uninhabitable, and with overdue taxes. They tried to sell them for $1 or some ridiculously low number, but nobody wanted them. The problem was that the city was going to require that all systems in those homes be brought up to today's building codes. The buildings were built in the first couple of decades of the 20th century or late in the 19th century. Bringing them up to today's codes would have cost far more than the value of the home after restoration. Tearing them down and building new homes didn't compute, either, since the neighborhoods they were in were not desirable on the real estate market.

That's the problem with programs like those. Unrealistic goals are set by administrators with know knowledge of the building trades or what might be involved. So the program fails. Those houses have all been torn down, now, which should have been the first choice.

couldn't pay the mortgages, or landlords stopped maintaining the places in habitable condition. It's a common situation in a down housing market in city neighborhoods. So, the house goes empty, the pipes freeze and everything is ruined. It's simply not worth fixing up most such abandoned houses.

The city in which I lived, Fort Wayne, Indiana, had someone come in from Michigan (this was years ago and now can't remember which city they represented) talked about doing this and how it really helped neighborhoods. I continue to think it helps neighborhoods bounce back and become healthy for all.