3 ms·

I'd like to know more background on this. Why don't people move into the empty buildings? Housing in the UK is fairly scarce and empty buildings are likely to b

I'd like to know more background on this. Why don't people move into the empty buildings? Housing in the UK is fairly scarce and empty buildings are likely to be colonised by squatters. After ten years or so squatters can actually claim the property. I thought artists would like the opportunity to get a big studio at a discount rate, and hackers who are bootstrapping would sure make their capital go a lot further in Detroit.

neutronicus 15y ago
Detroit is crime-ridden and cold. Why not just move to another part of the US?
- noelwelsh 15y ago
  Sure it's cold, but it's cheap and apparently still has decent facilities. I'm not sure on the crime -- how much is that story a media beat-up? Are there other parts of the US where you can be near a large urban centre and pay virtually nothing? (It's an honest question! And yes, I could probably look this up somewhere.)
  - stevenbedrick 15y ago
    "Anecdote isn't the plural of datum", and all of that, but here's a point for the scatterplot. I was in Detroit visiting family a year or so ago, and we spent a day driving around the downtown area sightseeing (featuring commentary by elderly relatives about theaters, stores, restaurants, etc.). At one point, while leaving the Indian Village neighborhood, we came across a police roadblock; a series of U-turns and detours revealed that, in fact, the police had closed off an area several blocks on a side including a good-sized stretch of Jefferson (a major road in Detroit). There were several police helicopters buzzing around, lots of armed cops, etc. etc. This was during rush hour. After talking to some of the officers and some bystanders, we discovered what was happening: somebody had, upon being evicted from some sort of residential treatment facility, begun threatening people with a gun. When the police arrived, he shot at them, and then ran away. The police were currently trying to figure out which of several buildings he was in, and had closed off most of a neighborhood as well as a major street to try and contain the situation.[1] In most cities, this sort of thing (major police operation, shots exchanged between police and armed member of public, street closures, etc.) would have been big news; that night, none of the local news broadcasts even mentioned it (one traffic report that afternoon did mention the closure of Jefferson, but didn't go into details). No headlines in the paper the next day, either.[2] My point here is that this sort of thing was apparently commonplace enough that it wasn't considered to be a newsworthy event, and none of my Detroit relatives seemed particularly surprised or concerned. 1. Notably, the particular chunk of neighborhood in question was at least half-abandoned (judging from the amount of ivy covering every second house). 2. Technically, by "the paper the next day," I mean the Detroit Free Press's website. At that point in time the DFP wasn't printing week-day paper editions.
- tomotomo 15y ago
  Downtown Detroit, where many of the pictures were taken, is actually much safer than the US on average. But people would rather live in a sprawling suburb.
- matwood 15y ago
  That's been the thought of most of the country for a long time as many either move to the coast or want to move to the coast and just can't afford it. A great second choice (first for some) is a mountain city like Denver (or nearby Boulder). Or, if you really don't care about mountains or ocean then a city like Austin at least has great weather and overall vibe. To each his own, but I will never live in the middle of the country and will always either need to be near the beach or mountains (I did the mountains the last couple years and am again near the beach).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jcampbell1 15y ago
In the US, we also have squatters rights, but the more common thing is a thug claims to be the "property manager", and rents space to many bums for $10/month. Smartly, he signs 2 years leases with the bums, and because of strong renters rights laws, the actual owner has to respect the leases. Now if the owner wants to rehab the building, he must go through a legal eviction process, or buyout the leases from all the squatters.
- mgkimsal 15y ago
  So the real property owner has to respect leases that someone who doesn't own the property made? Why don't I just go rent out someone's home right now from under them, and get protection for my 'leases'?
  - matwood 15y ago
    There's a difference between trying to rent out something that the owner lives in and takes care of and squatting on something that has been abandoned by the owner. The problem is that many of the properties are likely in legal limbo through foreclosure, bank ownership, and auctions. Once a new true owner finally takes over it might have been years since the last real owner. That's when squaters rights start to come into play.
  - jcampbell1 15y ago
    The law protects the renters, not the false property manager. The bums actually live in the building and pay rent. I have rented apartments plenty of times, and never once verified that the landlord is the actual property owner. I just assume I am paying the building owner or their representative. The bums are making the same assumption, and deserve renter's rights just the same. I am sure the lease could be invalidated if you could prove the bums knew the property manager did not represent the owner, but that is just as much of a legal hassle.

neutronicus 15y ago

Detroit is crime-ridden and cold. Why not just move to another part of the US?

noelwelsh 15y ago
Sure it's cold, but it's cheap and apparently still has decent facilities. I'm not sure on the crime -- how much is that story a media beat-up? Are there other parts of the US where you can be near a large urban centre and pay virtually nothing? (It's an honest question! And yes, I could probably look this up somewhere.)
- stevenbedrick 15y ago
  "Anecdote isn't the plural of datum", and all of that, but here's a point for the scatterplot. I was in Detroit visiting family a year or so ago, and we spent a day driving around the downtown area sightseeing (featuring commentary by elderly relatives about theaters, stores, restaurants, etc.). At one point, while leaving the Indian Village neighborhood, we came across a police roadblock; a series of U-turns and detours revealed that, in fact, the police had closed off an area several blocks on a side including a good-sized stretch of Jefferson (a major road in Detroit). There were several police helicopters buzzing around, lots of armed cops, etc. etc. This was during rush hour. After talking to some of the officers and some bystanders, we discovered what was happening: somebody had, upon being evicted from some sort of residential treatment facility, begun threatening people with a gun. When the police arrived, he shot at them, and then ran away. The police were currently trying to figure out which of several buildings he was in, and had closed off most of a neighborhood as well as a major street to try and contain the situation.[1] In most cities, this sort of thing (major police operation, shots exchanged between police and armed member of public, street closures, etc.) would have been big news; that night, none of the local news broadcasts even mentioned it (one traffic report that afternoon did mention the closure of Jefferson, but didn't go into details). No headlines in the paper the next day, either.[2] My point here is that this sort of thing was apparently commonplace enough that it wasn't considered to be a newsworthy event, and none of my Detroit relatives seemed particularly surprised or concerned. 1. Notably, the particular chunk of neighborhood in question was at least half-abandoned (judging from the amount of ivy covering every second house). 2. Technically, by "the paper the next day," I mean the Detroit Free Press's website. At that point in time the DFP wasn't printing week-day paper editions.
tomotomo 15y ago
Downtown Detroit, where many of the pictures were taken, is actually much safer than the US on average. But people would rather live in a sprawling suburb.
matwood 15y ago
That's been the thought of most of the country for a long time as many either move to the coast or want to move to the coast and just can't afford it. A great second choice (first for some) is a mountain city like Denver (or nearby Boulder). Or, if you really don't care about mountains or ocean then a city like Austin at least has great weather and overall vibe. To each his own, but I will never live in the middle of the country and will always either need to be near the beach or mountains (I did the mountains the last couple years and am again near the beach).

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jcampbell1 15y ago

In the US, we also have squatters rights, but the more common thing is a thug claims to be the "property manager", and rents space to many bums for $10/month. Smartly, he signs 2 years leases with the bums, and because of strong renters rights laws, the actual owner has to respect the leases. Now if the owner wants to rehab the building, he must go through a legal eviction process, or buyout the leases from all the squatters.

mgkimsal 15y ago
So the real property owner has to respect leases that someone who doesn't own the property made? Why don't I just go rent out someone's home right now from under them, and get protection for my 'leases'?
- matwood 15y ago
  There's a difference between trying to rent out something that the owner lives in and takes care of and squatting on something that has been abandoned by the owner. The problem is that many of the properties are likely in legal limbo through foreclosure, bank ownership, and auctions. Once a new true owner finally takes over it might have been years since the last real owner. That's when squaters rights start to come into play.
- jcampbell1 15y ago
  The law protects the renters, not the false property manager. The bums actually live in the building and pay rent. I have rented apartments plenty of times, and never once verified that the landlord is the actual property owner. I just assume I am paying the building owner or their representative. The bums are making the same assumption, and deserve renter's rights just the same. I am sure the lease could be invalidated if you could prove the bums knew the property manager did not represent the owner, but that is just as much of a legal hassle.