And a left handed way of making a man sign up on that automotive dream.
There’s a long-range plan to consolidate the neighborhoods. They’ve drawn up maps showing which neigborhoods are viable and which ones they’re planning to write off, and ultimately they’re going to use emminent domain to buy up the outlier houses and bulldoze them. There hasn’t been much movement on the plan yet. I assume they were waiting for the bankruptcy to be settled, and they probably want to clear out all the abandoned buildings first.
The old Packard Plant is a major headache. It’s a huge, asbestos-filled ruin. Some guy bought it and is planning to redevelop it. I think he’s nuts. Land in Detroit is dirt cheap; it would be cheaper, by several orders of magnitude, to buy a vacant lot and construct a new building.
Answer: “Not from any major city anymore…”
For an island of green above an urban area, take a look at Manhattan’s High Line Park.
erm… Central Park? You heard of it? Big green jobby? 700 acres?
http://michaelminn.net/newyork/parks/central_park/
Yes, a city of over 650,000 (more than Seattle, Denver, Washington DC, or Boston proper) is not a major city. :rolleyes:
Yeah, and even in the residential lots, you don’t know that the soil is good. I’m guessing most of those still have a lot of junk in the soil from the foundations and utilities and they just put a few inches of soil and some grass seed on top.
But, short term, you can at least use the square footage to hold above ground planters with imported soil. Provided we’re talking community garden plots here and not agribusiness, that’s good enough for tomatoes and green peppers and making the lot productive.
A young billionaire ought to buy up huge plots of cheap Detroit land. Wait decades for its value to go up.
Detroit has a chance to really take the lead on some innovative urban development. No other major city has the cheap land and available emptiness to build. I hope they turn it into something wonderful. Green skyscrapers with wall gardens, outdoor rec centers/parks, giant, cool looking buildings. It shouldn’t be too hard to convince some rich person looking for a legacy to drop a comparatively small amount on land and build a giant building shaped like his head or something
I’ve wondered if any of the folks who theorize what the world would be like after an apocalyptic event are taking note of this real-life case study. Granted it was an economic bomb, not an atomic one that took Detroit out, but the devastation, loss of services and infrastructure, drastic reduction in population, and increasing alternative uses of available resources could really be instructive. Yoo hoo - any sociologist/anthropologist types out there taking note?
Well, there is Dan Gilbert.
Mind you, he’s only concentrating his efforts on a relatively tiny downtown area, but over time it could have some more far-flung positive effects.
I doubt they’re being seeded; they’re almost certainly being cleared of debris at a snail’s pace and then left alone to weed over and fester.
Where would one get the water for the above ground planters? While it’s a perfectly cromulent idea the infrastructure may not exist on those blocks anymore. And in a city where some residents struggle to pay their water bills and risk losing their kids to the foster system if their water gets shut off, free water for such projects would be a slap in the face.
Some of the empty lots have two story hills of soil and trash that have been growing for years.
The pic of the Packard Plant just made me think that they could save a ton of money if they shot “The Walking Dead” in Detroit instead of Georgia. And the city would make some money on the deal…
The plant’s not safe to shoot in, though the state does give film companies great tax breaks.
There are about 200 demolitions a week. And they’re getting money to do more than demo.
I’ve been watching that move along, but it is a troubling ethical area, which will keep it moving slow. It’s one of those complicated situations that nobody likes any alternative. My liberteriany side is disgusted by the notion of “Congratulations on maintaining a nice house and contributing to the betterment of an area while crime, arson and complete dystopia crashed in from all sides, now get the fuck out” But the practical side, that can do math, can’t help but see the economics can’t possibly work the other way.
Those high-rises in the pictures?
That’s the Imperial Trantorian Library which by some fluke cough, cough survived the Sack.
The problem of water supply to urban farms is not as large as you might think. Studies in the arid west have shown that irrigation agriculture actually requires slightly less water per acre than does the suburban development that often supplants it. Granted the situations are not exactly comparable (the water use of the previous urban landscape may not be as lavish as suburban development, OTOH agricultural requirements for supplemental water would be considerably less than in arid regions). In any case, if sufficient water was available for previous uses, there ought to be plenty to support urban agriculture. And if water was only required at, say, one point per block (generally sufficient for an irrigation system supply) the infrastructure requirements would be considerably less than previously when multiple individual hookups fed each lot within said block.
I was intrigued when I first read about Detroit’s work with urban agriculture. It may well be the highest and best use of the available land.
SS
Also, it’s possible to use ‘grey’ water- cleanish, part-used, minimally treated water for plant growing. It nees some planning and infrastructure to work on anything but the backyard scale, but that sounds like a pretty good test project.
You really missed a trick there, Terminus Est.
Wrong definition of of “above”. 
