Are suburbanites aware of how unattractive living in Metro-Detroit is to outsiders?

[ghettopalmetto]

As for the comment about visiting Chicago vs. suburban Chicago - that's just silly. If I go to visit the Chicago area, it's because I want to see the attractions of one of the country's biggest cities. It has absolutely nothing to do with my preference of Detroit's suburbs vs. Chicago. I have no reason to go to suburban Chicago because, honestly, it offers the same things suburban Detroit does.

It's not silly in the least. When you're trying to attract a workforce that has options on where to live, you have to offer more than plastic boxes, endless freeways, and restaurants supplied by Sysco.

It's mid-April. Head to Ann Arbor right now, and ask the graduating seniors where they'll be moving next month. More importantly, ask them WHY.

Even if those kids are moving to suburban areas in a different metropolitan area, they at least have the option of choosing an urban or suburban environment. Detroit flat-out compels you, if you want an average quality of life, to live in an automobile-oriented suburb, shop at malls, and spend hours of every day in traffic.

Sometimes, I think folks don't realize how ordinary the suburbs of Detroit really are. Oakland County is just Charlotte or Atlanta without the miserable summers.

It ain't about "attractions". People with options, especially people now in their 20s and 30s, go for Quality of Life.

[DJ Tom T]

I think we need to make the distinction between tourism and immigration [[that might not be the right word, but you get my drift).

As a tourist area, Metro Detroit sucks. There isn't a large tourist draw here. However you can also say this about many other regions of the USA.

We don't have enough population to be considered a major Metropolitan area with a "core city/downtown" structure. Again, there are only a handful of cities in the USA that remotely qualify for this status.

So basically, we are like about 95% of the USA - not a whole lot to offer right? So why would anyone move here? Simple - for a job. I have met many people from out of the country that live here because of a job. The ones I've met tend to largely live in the suburbs. Why? Not because they like it any better or worse than downtown, but because it's CLOSE TO WHERE THEY WORK. Simple as that

As an aside, most of these folks [[at least the younger set) tends to be really adventurous and likes to explore, and they love hanging out downtown. But again, if their job isn't close to the city, they're not going to live in the city.

[iheartthed]

We don't have enough population to be considered a major Metropolitan area with a "core city/downtown" structure. Again, there are only a handful of cities in the USA that remotely qualify for this status.

What gave you that idea? Population-wise, Metro Detroit is in the same league as every metro on the either coast except New York and Los Angeles. But places like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco, etc., manage to maintain a strong core city.

[BrushStart]

How can there be any argument that people gravitate toward better cities? It's a stupid question with an obvious answer. Trying to convince people to fall in love with Metro Detroit is like trying to force someone to drink spoiled milk.

By and large, the only people coming to Detroit are those who want to start from scratch and build something new from the ground up. For anyone looking for a region with turn-key conditions, forget this area. The fact is, you have to WANT to live here in order to rationalize it. I mean, really want it.

Detroit's downtown core is coming back and becoming more attractive, but it still doesn't compare to regions of even half the size. The rest of the city is mostly gap-toothed in various states of abandonment with some very beautiful neighborhoods sprinkled in-between, but there is no connectivity between them.

Detroit does have some nice suburbs, but by-and-large, they are the same as those I've seen in other regions. Many of Detroit's suburbs are also on the decline and property values in the dumpster. In this regard, there is nothing extraordinary about suburban Detroit. It is not attracting anyone. People who desire auto-centric suburban living can reside almost anywhere suburban USA and get the same experience minus the extreme racial tensions, lousy economy, and decrepit urban core.

The key to convincing people to come to Detroit and like it is to convince them of the opportunity found in rebuilding it. It not only makes for a feel-good story, but people value their ability to accomplish things that would not be possible in other places. This is true for everyone across the spectrum. Dan Gilbert sees the opportunity to build a real estate empire downtown. Urban pioneers see the chance to own a 5,000 sq ft historic home with a library and solarium on a teacher's salary. Entrepreneurs see the opportunity to start a new company and be the first to market, even in otherwise established areas. In Detroit, small businesses can beat out the otherwise dominate chain stores.

For those of us who are from the Detroit region, many of us have chosen to stay out of a sense of pride and loyalty to the city's history and the legacy of greatness that we have heard about. It took a lot of sweat to make the Detroit that was, and it will take even more to make Detroit the city that will be. That's pretty much why I stuck around anyways.

[poobert]

[QUOTE=Novine;314858]When visitors come to Detroit, after they've hit the highlights, you really have to dig deep to find new things to share with them. [QUOTE]

That's an interesting point. Metro Detroit can be pretty entertaining for a week or so, but then outside sitting in a bar watching the game you have to really do research to find something stimulating to do.

We just had some friends move in from New Orleans. Both lived in major cities growing up. Both are HIGHLY educated. They, predictably, chose to live in Detroit. A month later I'm pretty much out of things to show them. Given that they're bright people they understand the devastation of Detroit but the general lack of activity astounds them. What they find most baffling are our suburbs, though - how boundless and bland they are. They both seem really unhappy here. I'm sure they won't last long. Good luck all of you falling back on your "We have squirrels and sometimes you're stuck here cuz of your job" mantra. Last I checked there weren't that many jobs for the havin', anymore.

And all you bitching about how this is divisive and not helpful - first of all, this is an honest discussion that actually requires looking in a mirror, something we're afraid to have in this region. Second of all if we as a region can't rally around TRANSIT and the DIA - that those things should be SO controvertial here where elsewhere they'd be a no brainer, well, there is no indication of ever turning this thing around. Get pissed at your elected officals for being such backwater assholes and write some letters.

[Hermod]

What gave you that idea? Population-wise, Metro Detroit is in the same league as every metro on the either coast except New York and Los Angeles. But places like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco, etc., manage to maintain a strong core city.

I would submit that Detroit never really had a "strong core city" in that you went downtown for special purpose shopping [[you had your own local shops), doctors, and lawyers. As the doctors and lawyers left the central city for professional buildings with parking and the suburban malls like Northland and Eastland were built, the need to go downtown for most people just went away. Back in the 40s and 50s, trips downtown were always for a special purpose. You didn't go downtown just to "hang out".

The other cities had one or more reasons for their downtown which was strong enough to survive the decay of the city around them. Detroit just didn't have that. Downtown wasn't the major employer in the area. Downtown didn't have irreplaceable buildings [[see how the large office buildings like the Broderick Tower were abandoned).

Washington DC central city would suffer the same fate as Detroit if it were not for the "federal area" at its core.

[ghettopalmetto]

Washington DC central city would suffer the same fate as Detroit if it were not for the "federal area" at its core.

I'd like to submit a gentleman's amendment that despite the "federal area" at the core of DC, it still suffered the same fate as Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s. The difference is, they decided to DO SOMETHING about it.

Later today, I'll dig up some survey stats from blogs [[CEOs for Cities and the like) that show just how many people Detroit is alienating by strictly focusing on the outdated stupid-ass American Dream of the suburbs in lieu of a healthy central city and region.

[rex]

Because i really care what a bunch of europeans think

[gameguy56]

Because i really care what a bunch of europeans think

Metro Detroit is hemorrhaging population. Your fellow Americans have already spoken.

[rex]

and still not a solitary ufck is being given on my end. I don't even disagree with them. As soon as I'm done with grad school I'll probably be out too.

[iheartthed]

I would submit that Detroit never really had a "strong core city" in that you went downtown for special purpose shopping [[you had your own local shops), doctors, and lawyers. As the doctors and lawyers left the central city for professional buildings with parking and the suburban malls like Northland and Eastland were built, the need to go downtown for most people just went away. Back in the 40s and 50s, trips downtown were always for a special purpose. You didn't go downtown just to "hang out".

The other cities had one or more reasons for their downtown which was strong enough to survive the decay of the city around them. Detroit just didn't have that. Downtown wasn't the major employer in the area. Downtown didn't have irreplaceable buildings [[see how the large office buildings like the Broderick Tower were abandoned).

Washington DC central city would suffer the same fate as Detroit if it were not for the "federal area" at its core.

Well, I said "core city" not downtown. And there is a pretty strong correlation between a declining central city and a declining region.

[noise]

and still not a solitary ufck is being given on my end. I don't even disagree with them. As soon as I'm done with grad school I'll probably be out too.

Hey look! This guy doesn't care! Nobody should care!

[jcole]

'd like to submit a gentleman's amendment that despite the "federal area" at the core of DC, it still suffered the same fate as Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s. The difference is, they decided to DO SOMETHING about it.

Yes, Anacostia is beautiful this time of year

[gameguy56]

Yes, Anacostia is beautiful this time of year

I don't get this attitude. Anacostia is a single neighborhood of DC. There are large swaths [[20+ square miles) of Detroit that will never have the population density and economic activity of Anacostia.

[Danny]

If our Metro-Detroit area diplays its non-ethnic culture filled with big box stores, woe filled neighborhoods, ethnic folks from around the world will not enter into those areas. Since the collapse of Automation Alley after 1975, Detroit went from white to black by 1980. Its suburbs went from keeping up with the Joneses to isolated bedroom pockets, but there are some ethnic markets around. You just have look beyond north of 8 Mile Rd. or west of Inkster Rd. to shop. The best way to make Detroit and its suburbs etnically attractive is to bring regional job growth and promote its infrastructure. And reducing big box superstores and increase proletarian New York City styled owned businesses would lure ethnicity to Detroit and its suburbs for years to come.

[casscorridor]

Where do I start?

Michigan was the only state in the nation to loose population.

Detroit lost 200,000 people in only 10 years.

Brush Park, strategically located within walking distance to Wayne State University, Detroit Medical Center, Eastern Market and Downtown CBD is a ghost town. In any other city, it would be the highest valued real estate.

Detroit's suburbs are generic, nothing special about them really, outside of Dearborn because of the auto history.

Detroit missed many opportunities to build a mass transit system, including the most recent chance that was suppose to be "the one"

Tourists come here for three main reasons: family, auto history and ruins. What other reason is there?

Yeah, there are artists moving here, but they are moving here because they can make art out of abandoned materials. Once they are bored with that kind of art, they will leave [[there are many dirt-cheap cities to live in that have way more amenities than Detroit, such as Philly).

Not saying Detroit has no hope, it does. But the politics and culture of Michigan and Metro Detroit need to change first.

[Detroitnerd]

It really boils down to regional priorities. Among the millions of people living in the 100-plus municipalities in metro Detroit, there is an apparent consensus that we do not need cities. That the city is too far gone, impossible to revive, dead wood.

And, in other cities, you simply do not hear that same consensus among regional residents that a strong central city is unnecessary and impossible.

In fact, in most other regions, that proposition would be regarded as insane.

[EastsideAl]

It really boils down to regional priorities. Among the millions of people living in the 100-plus municipalities in metro Detroit, there is an apparent consensus that we do not need cities. That the city is too far gone, impossible to revive, dead wood.

And, in other cities, you simply do not hear that same consensus among regional residents that a strong central city is unnecessary and impossible.

In fact, in most other regions, that proposition would be regarded as insane.

I couldn't agree more with this. But I've often contended that, due to certain aspects of Detroit's history and boomtown settlement patterns, this may be the most 'anti-urban' urban area in the U.S. Outside of the hard core of about 200,000 people who were here back in the early 1900s [[including several of my ancestors), Detroit was a city populated mainly by rural people.

There were a lot of people here like my maternal grandfather, who came here from rural Pennsylvania just after WWI with no formal education, seeking the big-money factory jobs. He and his family lived not far out of downtown, in what we would now call Woodbridge, but his fondest wish was to move out of the city and buy a bigger piece of land, which he achieved first out by Belleville and later down in Florida.

He liked working in Detroit, and didn't mind living here back then [['20s - '40s), but he had no love for cities or urban living. I've met a lot of people around here over the years who are like that, both white and black. People who would gladly move out of the city for the promise of a bigger lot and more land, if they had enough money to do so. This may be one reason why Detroit, though highly populated, didn't grow to be as densely 'urban' as many other cities, and then emptied out to the shocking extent that it has.

[Detroitnerd]

I couldn't agree more with this. But I've often contended that, due to certain aspects of Detroit's history and boomtown settlement patterns, this may be the most 'anti-urban' urban area in the U.S. Outside of the hard core of about 200,000 people who were here back in the early 1900s [[including several of my ancestors), Detroit was a city populated mainly by rural people.

The boomtown factor is an important one to consider. The city teemed with fortune-seeking transients who had little interest in local institutions. They were here for one purpose and one purpose only … to make lots of money. When the money enabled them to, they moved to a house and a yard, either within or without the city. When the city was built up and couldn't expand farther, they often moved out of the city for that larger house and larger yard.

Of course, the America's industrial cities were never an urban planner's dream. Coupled with the automobile enabling people to live in low-density neighborhoods and federal subsidies that fueled a low-density housing boom [[with freeways and GI Bill loans), that generation dispersed over an even wider area. Once their income and energy was removed from the city, there was even less effort to reform it.

The pastoral tendency in America goes back to the 1800s and Emerson and Thoreau and on back to Jefferson. Our forefathers believed that putting capital cities in major centers of commerce would derange government in favor of business, so they put state capitol buildings in cowtowns [[Lansing) where they look out of place and robbing big cities of monumental architecture. Would they had realized that business would hold just as much sway over states' policies, while small-town prejudices and antipathies against cities would hold sway.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of course, the America's industrial cities were never an urban planner's dream. Coupled with the automobile enabling people to live in low-density neighborhoods and federal subsidies that fueled a low-density housing boom [[with freeways and GI Bill loans), that generation dispersed over an even wider area. Once their income and energy was removed from the city, there was even less effort to reform it.

The pastoral tendency in America goes back to the 1800s and Emerson and Thoreau and on back to Jefferson.

This is true to some extent. But just because Detroit [[and Cleveland, Toledo, et. al.) never looked like Brooklyn or even Baltimore doesn't mean they were pastoral or even suburban. A drive down Woodward or Gratiot shows a lot of empty commercial space--space that was once filled with businesses. Then you think of all the buildings that have been razed that had also been filled with businesses.

In short, I think it's a big mistake to argue that Detroit was never "urban". Such ideas seem to only excuse the status quo and get in the way of progress.

[hybridy]

this is how the country sees detroit portrayed. looks awfully suburban already. seems the suburbs are just whiter with ranches instead of bungalows and dubstep instead of the hustle...haha. and are average detroiters that overweight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVWRHJoKqW4

[Detroitnerd]

This is true to some extent. But just because Detroit [[and Cleveland, Toledo, et. al.) never looked like Brooklyn or even Baltimore doesn't mean they were pastoral or even suburban. A drive down Woodward or Gratiot shows a lot of empty commercial space--space that was once filled with businesses. Then you think of all the buildings that have been razed that had also been filled with businesses.

In short, I think it's a big mistake to argue that Detroit was never "urban". Such ideas seem to only excuse the status quo and get in the way of progress.

Let me be clear: I do not mean to argue that Detroit was never urban. The area inside the boulevard used to have very high densities. Local businesses and high-density buildings lined every streetcar line. In front of, say, an apartment building in Cass Corridor in the 1940s, the street would be packed with kids. Densities were definitely higher than 10,000 per square mile, and likely higher than 15,000 per square mile.

Of course, these areas were all within walking distance of transit. There were open spaces that were more difficult to develop outside transit lines. The automobile is what filled them in, and they were almost uniformly low-density.

It is incorrect to say Detroit never had a dense urban inner city. It's just that much of it has just been wiped off the map.

[ghettopalmetto]

Let me be clear: I do not mean to argue that Detroit was never urban. The area inside the boulevard used to have very high densities. Local businesses and high-density buildings lined every streetcar line. In front of, say, an apartment building in Cass Corridor in the 1940s, the street would be packed with kids. Densities were definitely higher than 10,000 per square mile, and likely higher than 15,000 per square mile.

Of course, these areas were all within walking distance of transit. There were open spaces that were more difficult to develop outside transit lines. The automobile is what filled them in, and they were almost uniformly low-density.

It is incorrect to say Detroit never had a dense urban inner city. It's just that much of it has just been wiped off the map.

I think we can agree on that.

The other point that is often raised is that the portions of Detroit outside the Boulevard were less dense than inside the Boulevard. This is also true. But it is also true in places like DC, Chicago, and Philadelphia, where there are plenty of less-dense "outer" neighborhoods within the city limits.

I just wanted to remind the forum that the real anomaly with Detroit is not its history as compared to its peers, but rather its approach in the past 20-30 years as compared to its peers.

[Fury13]

The boomtown factor is an important one to consider. The city teemed with fortune-seeking transients who had little interest in local institutions. They were here for one purpose and one purpose only … to make lots of money.

A lot of people don't realize that Detroit is/was simply that, a boomtown... no different, really, than the silver or gold rush towns in the Old West. Detroit just did it on a larger scale and the boom lasted longer than most.

But the boom has been over for 35 years, at least, and all those people who left aren't coming back. Of course, "ghost town" is typically the successor to "boom town," and all you have to do is drive around the vast abandonment to see that evolution.

[313hero]

Our suburbs are no different from any other suburb in America. Except its nothing really to do except shop. What else is there to do? Well I guess you can go to dave & Busters, do some horseback riding and stuff like that. but our suburbs dont offer ANYTHING thats different from any other place. I go to Chicago on the weekends I want to hang out anyway. Its nothing to do in the burbs except shop. That doesnt make it world class in my book. Oh Yeah you can get a plant job. WOW