Never realized how bad Detroit urban sprawl was...

[the_yellow_dart]

Both cities have metro populations of 4.5 million, and both maps are at the same zoom level. How does this difference happen? Are there not apartment buildings in Detroit??

Detroit
Toronto

[CARBIZ]

I don't know about Detroit, but the map you've included for Toronto includes all the way to Port Hope (in the east) and Hamilton/Cambridge in the south west. If you added up all the cities of Vaughan, Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton (Mississauga and Brampton have a combined populaton of nearly one million!), Pickering....and so on, plus the smaller hamlets of Bolton, Clarington, etc. Well, you are looking at a population of probably 6 million or better. Two thirds of ONtario's populations sits in the "golden horseshoe."

[the_yellow_dart]

I think you're helping my point. The map of Toronto has room to include all those things at the same zoom level that allows the screen to only encompass Detroit and its connected suburbs.

[Shantanu]

The actual central city of Detroit is pretty densely built up, even today after half it's pouplation has left since 1950. But the suburbs sprawl across hundreds, perhaps thousands of square miles. But there's nothing atypical about Detroit, most American cities are like that. Some places like Phoenix are all sprawl, even the central city (outside of downtown) looks like a big suburb. I think there's somewhat less sprawl in Canadian cities, perhaps because they don't build as extensive a network of local expressways for people to get around. But it's still pretty close to how things are in America.

[ToniCipriani]

I noticed the density of Toronto has gone up pretty quick in the past few years, compared to what it was like 10+ years ago when my family migrated there. It's almost comparable to Hong Kong (literally).

[regfootball]

urban sprawl is a myth

[VenSeattle]

urban sprawl is a myth

[post="53825"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's alive and well in the Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex.

[NOS2006]

What is "urban sprawl?"

[Cory Wolfe]

What's urban sprawl? ...My Brookvillian mind can't process what that is. :blink: :P

[Croc]

I think urban sprawl is sexy.

[capriceman]

We have alot of suburbia..... In Detroit there is alot of empty houses and that every one lives outside of Detriot. I live Less then 5 form where detroit starts and Detriot is not somthing to be proud of living there. I try to bring up a picture of what "REAL" Detroit looks like


Toronto at about 42 miles up


Detroit at 62 miles up.

Average street on Detroit


And normaly people want to move away from that and move like over where I live


Im not being Racist or anything but what would you rather live in

[NOS2006]

Where did you get the overhead? I wanna find my house and compare it to the D lol

[capriceman]

download "google Earth" its a program its usally on Googles hompage or just search google earth and get the free one but you have to stay online (if you have dial up) to use it i think you search any where in the world its preety fun if your board.

[mustang84]

Detroit has such large suburbs because most of the population left during the 60s and 70s. I've seen aerial pictures of Detroit where entire blocks are filled with crumbling or razed buildings. Even parts of downtown have fallen into disrepair; when you ride the elevated People Mover, the second levels of some abandoned buildings are all nice and painted with shades in the windows, but the first floor (below the People Mover) is decaying and falling apart. It's that bad. But when you lose half of your population, what can you expect?





Touch up done to the second floor of the Statler Hotel in the 80s to give People Mover riders a more pleasant view of downtown Detroit


The old Michigan Theater turned into a parking garage


The abandoned Cadillac Hotel, once a premier Detroit hotel

[NOS2006]

Want to see something funny? This is my "close" metro-Detroit town:

[aaaantoine]

Now we know where you live, Nos! :P Well, not really...

[Cremazie]

Guys, this is where I consider home.. so much swimming :)

[capriceman]

Whos that chick in the lawn chair? But yeah Detroit is horrible, Thats why almost all pics of detroit have the Renosonce Center in it since it is the only nice and clean building there. Also when you have nimrods running it

[Croc]

Why, it's Paris Hilton!

[capriceman]

Why, it's Paris Hilton!

[post="54176"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I no that, i was meaning like in the areial photo like in the someones back yard as a joke.

[Croc]

Oh, heh my b.

[balthazar]

I haven't been in Detroit in a number of years, but when I was, there was much scariness. I had thought overturned, burnt-out cars sitting at the curb were the stuff of 'racial tension' movies, but no-oooo. Still, there was a ton of really cool stuff and I know I didn't see but 2% of it. I remember walking all around the Ford plant in Highland Park & looking in the windows. Wish I could get back there and snoop around.

[capriceman]

I can drop you off on a street and you might not come back i alive if you want to see the "REAL" Detroit Highland park is some what nice tho.

[the_yellow_dart]

I really can't make fun of abandoned buildings in the Detroit downtown - my point was about sprawl.

The downtown of the city I grew up in (Brantford, Ontario) was recently used as-is for the set of the Silent Hill movie. Here's a picture of a typical section of the downtown core to give you an idea.



Those murals were commissioned by the city to make it look better. "Well, we don't have any businesses, so let's paint 'em on!!"

[Petra]

I really can't make fun of abandoned buildings in the Detroit downtown - my point was about sprawl.

The downtown of the city I grew up in (Brantford, Ontario) was recently used as-is for the set of the Silent Hill movie. Here's a picture of a typical section of the downtown core to give you an idea.



Those murals were commissioned by the city to make it look better. "Well, we don't have any businesses, so let's paint 'em on!!"

[post="54638"][/post]

No offense, but, yeah, Brantford blows. My cousin lives there (he literally lives on the wrong side of the tracks), and I can attest that the city is a dive, at least in the downtown area, where these crumbling buildings line a confusing path of one-way streets. Urban sprawl has certainly been a factor in Brantford: Businesses have moved away from the downtown and out into the countryside, and, with them, hundreds of clone-houses have popped up as well. It's the kind of place that looks good when you first see it, but it's falling apart on the inside. Eventually, Brantford will probably just be a satellite city for Hamilton and Kitchener/Waterloo.

J's Place is pretty nice, though... my cousin has played there a few times.


As for Toronto? I don't go there much, but, when I do, it doesn't seem like it has a lot of Urban Sprawl, in the sense that subdivisions of clone-houses have been spreading out like a cancer. Rather, it seems to me like the whole Golden Horseshoe is just one vast city. You can't tell when Hamilton ends and Brampton begins. The same is true for Detroit: Where and when does Pontiac end, and Detroit begin? Of course, you can't see the whole picture from the major freeways that I always take, but I think the point remains valid. Toronto and Detroit do sprawl, but in a different way than you might think.

[Croc]

I have yet to go to Detroit, but now with all these pictures I will prepare myself for the Blade Runner set.

[Petra]

I have yet to go to Detroit, but now with all these pictures I will prepare myself for the Blade Runner set.

[post="54716"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

More like the Gorilla Unit, actually (political correctness be damned; sometimes, you've got to tell it like it is).

[regfootball]

I think urban sprawl is sexy.

[post="53888"][/post]

sweet. oh she has nice legs.

[regfootball]

my comment at urban sprawl was meant to point out that the term itself is purposely created as a derogatory term by fanatical liberals to punish folks for wanting to utilize our nation's land for what we actually need it for.....for living, working, etc. the next motive of the liberal urbanite anti-suburbia movement is to destroy the suburban growth so the tax base remains in the core cities where inefficiency and excessive politics needs it to survive. if they can keep wealth and tax base in the core, then the risk of core cities becoming politically and idealistically irrelevant is less. i'm all for cities remaining vibrant, but core cities never seem to be willing provide what most average middle class folks want for it to be attractive to live there. there always seems to be an agenda. many folks go to suburbs because there is less agenda, fewer rules, and more space and freedom. And less of propping up those who aren't quite keeping up. Edited December 8, 2005 by regfootball

[Croc]

Yea, I don't know that movie, Petra, and I don't see what race has to do with the SET DESIGN.

[Petra]

Sorry. By "Set", I thought you were referring to the cast.

[capriceman]

Actual story that happened today, I was in Detroit to get a certain licesense renewed and I was talkig to a cop and he saw what i drove on this form i was filling out and he said if you are in "rough" areas try no to slow down or watch for the "boxing" technique. I was amazed he told me this. "boxing" is where 2-4 cars box you in so you cant escape. Im Suprised Josh isnt in here defending Kid Rocks home town :P

[The O.C.]

Talk about urban sprawl.....the greater Los Angeles, 5-county area (L.A., Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties) runs for well MORE than 100 miles from north-to-south and east-to-west. I've hit the trip odometer in my car when first coming into the city of Ventura, north up the 101 and by the time I hit my town in south Orange County, I've driven 110 miles in solid, built-up areas along the 101 and 405. AND, I'm still a good 15 miles from the San Diego county line (where built-up areas abruptly end due to Camp Pendleton MCAS.) That's 125 miles of uninterrupted L.A. city and suburbs. These all are not separate metro areas either.....L.A. media (TV, radio, etc.) covers this entire area. Once you get north to Santa Barbara....that's separate....and east to Palm Springs, that's separate as well....not to mention San Diego being separate down south.

[The O.C.]

Going back to the topic of Toronto and Detroit......sprawl versus built-up city centers......here's some interesting stats from skyscraper.com......

I forget what they define as a "skyscraper" but it was something with a specific height and/or number of floors to be considered a "highrise."

Here are some of the more skyscraper-intensive cities in the USA with Toronto thrown in as a comparison.

You'll see that Toronto is only 2nd to New York in total number of highrises.....BUT of skysrapers OVER 150meters tall, Toronto has only 13.....so relative to the total number, it has a more low-rise (relatively-speaking) skyline......

You'll note Detroit has only 8 skysrapers over 150meters......

City - Number of Highrises - Number over 150meters tall

New York - 5,930 - 50+
Toronto - 2,056 - 13
Chicago - 1,519 - 50+
Los Angeles - 524 - 24
Honolulu - 460 - 0
San Francisco - 437 - 19
Philadelphia - 437 - 12
Miami - 402 - 7
Houston - 384 - 29
Dallas - 323 - 19
Boston - 304 - 18
Atlanta - 265 - 12
Minneapolis - 260 - 10
Seattle - 250 - 14
Detroit - 240 - 8
Denver - 223 - 7
Phoenix - 91 - 0 (because someone mentioned Phoenix.)

Another example....L.A. is known for not having a large skyline like New York and Chicago....but it's still got a significant number.....524. But out of 524, 24 of them are over 150meters tall....second only to Houston (if you take NY and Chicago out of it.)

Interesting.......

[Flybrian]

I wish we had more high-rises around here. Inland though. No more on the beach. PLEASE.

[funkypunnk]

my comment at urban sprawl was meant to point out that the term itself is purposely created as a derogatory term by fanatical liberals to punish folks for wanting to utilize our nation's land for what we actually need it for.....for living, working, etc.

the next motive of the liberal urbanite anti-suburbia movement is to destroy the suburban growth so the tax base remains in the core cities where inefficiency and excessive politics needs it to survive.  if they can keep wealth and tax base in the core, then the risk of core cities becoming politically and idealistically irrelevant is less. 

i'm all for cities remaining vibrant, but core cities never seem to be willing provide what most average middle class folks want for it to be attractive to live there.  there always seems to be an agenda.  many folks go to suburbs because there is less agenda, fewer rules, and more space and freedom.  And less of propping up those who aren't quite keeping up.

[post="54739"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Come to Chicago!
Although it has its share of bad neighborhoods, the core of the city is wonderful,vibrant, and very desireable. I choose the suburbs because I like to breakout alot, but I have lived downtown and it too was wonderful, and expensive. I prefer the burbs, expecially just over the border in Indiana where 350K buys a half acre, 3500+sf, 4 Bedrooms, 3 1/2 baths, 4 car garage, cherry cabinets, walnut floors, tray ceilings, custom paint, intercom, fully wired for anything I'll ever want to do, central vac, etc., all on a premium pond lot and built to my specifications! Taxes are only 3800 a year! :) Edited December 19, 2005 by funkypunnk

[The O.C.]

I wish we had more high-rises around here. Inland though. No more on the beach. PLEASE.

[post="60614"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Where are you at again, Fly?

[Croc]

"Where are you at?" I think you just revealed some midwestern roots there, OC! :lol:

Heh, in all seriousness, Fly's in Tampa.

[thegriffon]

I have yet to go to Detroit, but now with all these pictures I will prepare myself for the Blade Runner set.

[post="54716"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's so apt. You don't see it much in the movie with all the advertising signs and the busy commercial area, but there are actually meant to be whole apartment buildings like the Bradbury with only one occupant since everyone else has gone off-world to escape the fallout (which is why the owl, snake and most other animals are artificial).

[Flybrian]

Where are you at again, Fly?

[post="60808"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Clearwater, a suburb of Tampa/St. Petersburg.

Unfortuntately, the majority of the new high-rise buildings here are promulgated along the beaches as condominums and offices are moving to large, expansive coporate parks only a few stories high but spread across acres. Its quite ridiculous.

[The O.C.]

Clearwater, a suburb of Tampa/St. Petersburg.

Unfortuntately, the majority of the new high-rise buildings here are promulgated along the beaches as condominums and offices are moving to large, expansive coporate parks only a few stories high but spread across acres. Its quite ridiculous.

[post="60901"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh, OK....yeah....my parents live in Tampa.

From skyscraper.com........
City - Highrises - Number over 150meters high

Tampa - 112 - 4
St. Petersburg - 63 - 0
Clearwater - 51 - 0

That's one of the things I like about southern California compared to, say, Florida.....there is almost a complete lack of highrises along our coast. Some say it preserves the beauty of the coast for us.....but then again, I don't think people vacation at our beaches the same way they do in Florida (the Pacific is NO where near as warm as the Atlantic.)

Also, our mountains and large percentage of hilly terrain (e.g...Laguna Beach) also probably makes it harder to plan highrises along the coast. Long Beach is the only city to have any number of coastal highrises but some of those are corporate office buildings.

We are getting so crowded in The O.C. that there is a big move to residential and commercial highrises inland.....which helps to break up the monatony of Orange County housing tracts and shopping malls......

City - Highrises

Long Beach - 50
Irvine/Newport Beach - 45
Santa Ana/Costa Mesa - 23
Anaheim - 17

I really am intriqued by urban planning......and if I were to go back and do college all over again, I'd probably choose that to study.......

[the_yellow_dart]

Going back to the topic of Toronto and Detroit......sprawl versus built-up city centers......here's some interesting stats from skyscraper.com......

I forget what they define as a "skyscraper" but it was something with a specific height and/or number of floors to be considered a "highrise."

Here are some of the more skyscraper-intensive cities in the USA with Toronto thrown in as a comparison.

You'll see that Toronto is only 2nd to New York in total number of highrises.....BUT of skysrapers OVER 150meters tall, Toronto has only 13.....so relative to the total number, it has a more low-rise (relatively-speaking) skyline......

You'll note Detroit has only 8 skysrapers over 150meters......

City - Number of Highrises - Number over 150meters tall

New York - 5,930 - 50+
Toronto - 2,056 - 13
Chicago - 1,519 - 50+
Los Angeles - 524 - 24
Honolulu - 460 - 0
San Francisco - 437 - 19
Philadelphia - 437 - 12
Miami - 402 - 7
Houston - 384 - 29
Dallas - 323 - 19
Boston - 304 - 18
Atlanta - 265 - 12
Minneapolis - 260 - 10
Seattle - 250 - 14
Detroit - 240 - 8
Denver - 223 - 7
Phoenix - 91 - 0  (because someone mentioned Phoenix.)

Another example....L.A. is known for not having a large skyline like New York and Chicago....but it's still got a significant number.....524.  But out of 524, 24 of them are over 150meters tall....second only to Houston (if you take NY and Chicago out of it.)

Interesting.......

[snapback]60612[/snapback]

I was going back through my old threads and finally saw this. You've really answered the original question here. Thanks.

[CARBIZ]

The Lib-left eco-loonies that have run Toronto (into the ground) for the past 35 years put a moratorium on tall buildings in the mid-70s. Most of the 50+ storey towers were built in a building boom in the late '60s/early '70s, then nothing. We went through a "tall is bad phase" for a couple decades. Now, suddenly, the eco-Nazis have decided that Canada is running out of room and "tall is good" again, as long as it means saving the migrating path of the peoni-moths (?) There are no less than 15 buildings under construction taller than 45 floors, including two towers in Missisauga of 50 and 56, and an 80 storey hotel downtown. I think tall is good, but without the infrastructure (highways/subways) to support this tall building boom, Toronto with a measly population of 5 million in the greater area will have all the problems of New York with 20 million. Now that is progress!

[capriceman]

No one wants to start bussines in Detroit since 1 bad area 2 extreme taxes 3 people that work in detroit and live in suburbs have to pay higher taxes to work in detroit 4 Did i say its a bad area? Thats why there is so much suburb devolepment. and Citys like Novi and Wixom that have all the bussines and tall buildings.

[deftonesfan867]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas/Fort_Worth_Metroplex


Urban sprawl in a big way and i'll never understand why some reports lump Dallas as the only major city in this area.

EDIT: The population estamite is from 2004, its well over 6 million now. Edited July 28, 2006 by deftonesfan867

[trinacriabob]

most of the population left during the 60s and 70s.  I've seen aerial pictures of Detroit where entire blocks are filled with crumbling or razed buildings.  Even parts of downtown have fallen into disrepair;

[snapback]54064[/snapback]

It's like the opening sequence from "Beverly Hills Cop," the original. Good God...would anybody want to live there? Obviously, the auto execs have to live somewhere nice, but it isn't within the city limits. I think that if I could tolerate cold, I could do Toronto, but NOT Detroit.

[Enzora]

the next motive of the liberal urbanite anti-suburbia movement is to destroy the suburban growth so the tax base remains in the core cities where inefficiency and excessive politics needs it to survive.  if they can keep wealth and tax base in the core, then the risk of core cities becoming politically and idealistically irrelevant is less. 

Um, how exactly do governments need densely-populated cities to be inefficient and excessive? Hell, the whole suburban movement itself is a gross exercise in inefficient excess.

i'm all for cities remaining vibrant, but core cities never seem to be willing provide what most average middle class folks want for it to be attractive to live there.  there always seems to be an agenda.  many folks go to suburbs because there is less agenda, fewer rules, and more space and freedom.  And less of propping up those who aren't quite keeping up.

[snapback]54739[/snapback]

I prefer to think of it as the "fuck the poor, I don't want to face the fact that there are problems in the world" mentality.

[capriceman]

It's like the opening sequence from "Beverly Hills Cop," the original.  Good God...would anybody want to live there?  Obviously, the auto execs have to live somewhere nice, but it isn't within the city limits.  I think that if I could tolerate cold, I could do Toronto, but NOT Detroit.

[snapback]172732[/snapback]

Toronto has Sars (sp) Detroit just has hobos that sit in front of Cobo on during the autoshow.

[regfootball]

What is "urban sprawl?"

[snapback]53878[/snapback]

a sprawling of a bunch of car hating leftist urbanites, that's what Edited July 29, 2006 by regfootball

[I hope GMRULES again]

Detoit is a real eye opener for first time visitors. It has improved somewhat from when I was first there in 93 but so much of it is still a ghost town its unbelievable. In Hamtramck the GM plant is surrounded by boarded up buildings and closed factories, it looks like something out of old movies from WW2.