Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Feral Houses

See the feral houses of Detroit, Michigan.

I have been to inner-city Detroit.  The term "feral houses" is no joke.  Parts of the land have gone wild and turned to urban jungle that isn't really safe for humans to venture into.  There are shadows moving against the light.  There are things creeping around.  That city has seen waves of immigrants from many countries, and oh yes, everybody's things-that-go-bump-in-the-night have come along for the ride.  And then stuck around and got real friendly with each other in the back alleys over the years.  So when you take what used to be a thriving city and suck most of the people out of it, then leave empty houses and cars and factories and what-all else just lying around ... yeah, things get WEIRD.
Tags: photography
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 26 comments
nimitzbrood

nimitzbrood

December 18 2010, 23:45:04 UTC 10 years ago

I can't help but wonder when there will be some sanity and homes like these will just be given to whoever can keep them up before they reach this level of decay.

We've got a ton of homeless in this country and a ton of people soon to be homeless.

I'm hoping one day that sanity will overcome greed but I won't hold my breath.

Wonderful pictures BTW. :-)
msstacy13

msstacy13

December 19 2010, 00:22:11 UTC 10 years ago

Well, obviously, not in Detroit.
But I think some cities have had the foresight
to do that.
Part of the problem is that very few people
able to maintain these homes
want to live in them.
And, as a general rule,
there cannot be more homeowners in a city
than there are jobs.
ysabetwordsmith

Yes...

ysabetwordsmith

December 19 2010, 06:35:13 UTC 10 years ago

Unemployment can easily lead to homelessness. That's a problem, because homelessness makes all other challenges worse or insurmountable. So preventing it is a very efficient way of reducing cost and effort in handling many other problems.
msstacy13

Re: Yes...

msstacy13

December 19 2010, 19:12:50 UTC 10 years ago

I could be misinformed, but IIRC,
the majority of these homes were simply abandoned,
not foreclosed. The owners relocated, either to another city,
or to an apartment. And there was no one buying these houses,
and the city did nothing about them,
and there they are.

When industry relocates, or simply dies away,
the most productive workers will probably find work elsewhere,
but they will not take their houses with them.
ford_prefect42

Re: Yes...

ford_prefect42

December 19 2010, 23:27:44 UTC 10 years ago

Yes. However, the city or county forecloses on them after 2 or 3 years (depending on where) of nonpayment of taxes. So those properties almost certainly currently belong to the city.
msstacy13

Re: Yes...

msstacy13

December 19 2010, 23:37:59 UTC 10 years ago

True.
They could have been used as scatter-site residences
for subsidized housing.
Or dismantled for salvage, and the lots used for something.
ysabetwordsmith

Re: Yes...

ysabetwordsmith

December 19 2010, 23:53:03 UTC 10 years ago

Detroit is a little weird on this. I think their time limit is about 6 months of vacancy, after which a house is supposed to be torn down. (They don't always seem to tear those down, and they don't care why it's vacant.)
ysabetwordsmith

Yes...

ysabetwordsmith

December 19 2010, 00:56:09 UTC 10 years ago

>>I can't help but wonder when there will be some sanity and homes like these will just be given to whoever can keep them up before they reach this level of decay.

We've got a ton of homeless in this country and a ton of people soon to be homeless.<<

It bothers me that America values money and power over people, as demonstrated by the fact that buildings are allowed to fall to ruin while people go homeless.

I think a good solution would be for communities to buy vacant places and put them to use -- some for community centers, some for low-rent or free housing. Another good option would be for the military to buy empty houses and give them away to disabled soldiers. "We're sorry that you lost your legs in the line of duty. Here, have a place to live." Other folks might come up with more ideas to keep from wasting resources and abandoning people.
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

December 19 2010, 07:52:53 UTC 10 years ago

Many of those homes can be purchased for $1. There simply is no person currently interested in maintaining them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/02/detroit-homes-mortgage-foreclosures-80

"value" is dependent on "to whom and for what purpose", not on any third party opinion. If there are properties for sale for $1 that go to seed due to lack of buyers, then those properties are worthless. Regardless of the replacement cost.

A city with no export industries (industries that involve outside money flowing in) have property values that approach zero eventually. It isn't greed or insanity, just life.

Case in point, why don't *you* go buy a $1 home?
rhodielady_47

rhodielady_47

December 19 2010, 09:40:29 UTC 10 years ago

Ford, sometimes property goes unsold not because it is worthless but because the property is located in such a dangerous part of town that nobody wants to risk their safety working on the house much less live there afterwards.

Many large scale property developers will wait until they can buy several whole city blocks of real estate at a time, then tear it all down and rebuild it as one solid unified neighborhood of apartment buildings, shopping, office buildings, etc.
It may sound drastic but sometimes this is what it takes to turn a blighted area around.
:[
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

December 19 2010, 19:21:14 UTC 10 years ago

Location is a major component of value. If a property is located on the moon, or in a war zone then "worthless" is an appropriate descriptor.

Buying blocks and doing "urban renewal" is a good option on those, but it does require a housing marketplace in which new homes are worth more than the cost of construction (and demolition, etcetera). That doesn't seem to be the case in Detroit.
the_s_guy

the_s_guy

December 19 2010, 09:47:34 UTC 10 years ago

It strikes me that if the $1 includes the land, it might be worth buying a lot of places, knocking them all down, and waiting for the land to become worth something again.

I guess it would depend on what the annual upkeep cost (taxes etc) for an empty block of land is.

Perhaps some negotiation on property rates could be made with the city, along the lines of "Let's say a company with no personal liability buys these properties for $1, refuses to pay taxes, and then dissolves before you can sue it. Sure, you can seize the property, but you can't sell it to anyone and you wouldn't be getting any kind of taxes at all on it until it eventually becomes sellable again - which could be decades. Alternatively, I could buy it and pay you $100 a year in taxes until the suburb gets back to 50% occupancy or I build on the lot, whichever comes first."