There is a certain aspect many people do not directly factor into their choice when purchasing a home or renting an apartment. Of course, every college student knows the process of trying to find an apartment all too well. In undergrad I noticed many of my friends would look for apartments usually by sorting their choices from lowest monthly rent to highest. Some had larger budgets than others, but a cheap place always got consideration. Next, it the cost of utilities makes its way into the conversation. Some places would incorporate water or electricity into the rent cost to sweeten the deal. However, it was not until a geography nerd like me chimed in with a question such as, "Well, how far is this from campus?" or "Is there a bus that runs nearby?"
An organization called CNT has done numerous studies and has put together a very cool mapping program that allows users to visually see the true cost of housing as the element of geography is incorporated.
http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php#region=Muncie%2C%20IN&theme_menu=0&layer1=23&layer2=24
This link takes you to Muncie, IN--the home of my graduate college, Ball State University. It's obvious the least expensive places to live are downtown as this is where most amenities are located. You can zoom out to places like Chicago and see exactly where the train lines run as these locationally efficient housing units will require much less in transportation costs as a percentage of one's income. Very cool site; enjoy!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Detroit: America's Paris
I have many mixed feelings on the once-great city of Detroit, Michigan. For one, I really dislike how it seems to represent the entire state as a whole. I get really sick of having to explain to people how there is a whole other part of Michigan outside the metro Detroit area (and let's not forget the U.P.). Also, I get pretty damn sick of Detroit being used as examples of 'what not to do' or 'your city could end up like this!'
When it comes to planning, sure. Maybe Detroit is as close to the worst case scenario we've been confronted with. Maybe Detroit was ultimately killed by the automobile that created it. Every highway ever planned in the City of Detroit ended up being built. Unfortunately, that same dedication to transportation infrastructure didn't carry over to the light rail proposed in the 1970's to link downtown Detroit and its inner-ring suburbs. All that's left of that plan is the three mile People Mover (sounds like the name of a public transit system in a futuristic dystopian novel). Despite the poor decisions and carelessness of decades gone by, let's put the criticisms away now. Let's start pointing fingers less and start uncovering the truths. Detroit is a city with the infrastructure to support upward of 3 million. All the roads, sewers, utilities, neighborhoods, and sheer amount of land can adequately provide for what would be America's third largest city (and very close to Los Angeles in second). Yet despite Detroit's meager current population of just over 900,000, it still has a very strong sentiment of survival, renewal, and recreation. Detroit has no choice but to complete reinvent itself.
The documentary titled Detroit Lives really changed my opinions on suffering cities a lot. A link to the first part of the documentary can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMysMDHdb4
The citizens of Detroit are working even harder to revitalize their neighborhoods and provide themselves better communities to live. I completely believe in the adage that if Chicago had half the heart Detroit has, it would be New York City by now.
One part of the documentary struck me when they're driving in the car and Johnny Knoxville asks, "This is a big ass road. What is this some kind of highway?" The two along with Johnny exclaim how "this is how we roll in Detroit." The New Urbanist would be quick to say, "This road is far too wide and is under-utilized." Absolutely correct, but what does it matter? If it's a point of pride of Detroiters, what's so bad in preserving the aspects of their city they love? My problem with New Urbanism is that it seems to simply be a checklist for a "good" urban space.
"Do we have trees lining our streets with a grassy median? Check. Mixed-use everywhere? Check."
Look, these aspects of cities are great, and they are tried-and-true urban forms which have existed and prospered since humans began settling in permanent settlements. However, for a place like Detroit, let it keep some of its cultural heritage. I feel the vast majority of communities in America are nameless, faceless places anyway. The city of Grand Rapids is looking to restore its namesake and give the Grand River is rapids back. What a great idea--let's restore some of the unique aspects and characteristics that were so important to the establishment and prosperity of our settlements.
When it comes to planning, sure. Maybe Detroit is as close to the worst case scenario we've been confronted with. Maybe Detroit was ultimately killed by the automobile that created it. Every highway ever planned in the City of Detroit ended up being built. Unfortunately, that same dedication to transportation infrastructure didn't carry over to the light rail proposed in the 1970's to link downtown Detroit and its inner-ring suburbs. All that's left of that plan is the three mile People Mover (sounds like the name of a public transit system in a futuristic dystopian novel). Despite the poor decisions and carelessness of decades gone by, let's put the criticisms away now. Let's start pointing fingers less and start uncovering the truths. Detroit is a city with the infrastructure to support upward of 3 million. All the roads, sewers, utilities, neighborhoods, and sheer amount of land can adequately provide for what would be America's third largest city (and very close to Los Angeles in second). Yet despite Detroit's meager current population of just over 900,000, it still has a very strong sentiment of survival, renewal, and recreation. Detroit has no choice but to complete reinvent itself.
The documentary titled Detroit Lives really changed my opinions on suffering cities a lot. A link to the first part of the documentary can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMysMDHdb4
The citizens of Detroit are working even harder to revitalize their neighborhoods and provide themselves better communities to live. I completely believe in the adage that if Chicago had half the heart Detroit has, it would be New York City by now.
One part of the documentary struck me when they're driving in the car and Johnny Knoxville asks, "This is a big ass road. What is this some kind of highway?" The two along with Johnny exclaim how "this is how we roll in Detroit." The New Urbanist would be quick to say, "This road is far too wide and is under-utilized." Absolutely correct, but what does it matter? If it's a point of pride of Detroiters, what's so bad in preserving the aspects of their city they love? My problem with New Urbanism is that it seems to simply be a checklist for a "good" urban space.
"Do we have trees lining our streets with a grassy median? Check. Mixed-use everywhere? Check."
Look, these aspects of cities are great, and they are tried-and-true urban forms which have existed and prospered since humans began settling in permanent settlements. However, for a place like Detroit, let it keep some of its cultural heritage. I feel the vast majority of communities in America are nameless, faceless places anyway. The city of Grand Rapids is looking to restore its namesake and give the Grand River is rapids back. What a great idea--let's restore some of the unique aspects and characteristics that were so important to the establishment and prosperity of our settlements.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)