Detroit Entrepreneur guy meme

[subsidized]

Continue on being frustrated Mooby. You're simply an over sensitive product of the "every kid is a winner" little league generation. I only talked shit to you once here on this post, because in a sense... you were the Detroit Entrepreneurial Guy.

[WaCoTS]

However, I honestly don't get anti-gentrification Detroiters. We're not talking about densely populated neighborhoods or occupied business districts with local business owners. It's half-empty neighborhoods or abandoned buildings. It's not really "gentrification"...it's redevelopment. Should we be content with a city less than half occupied? To me, there's plenty of Detroit to go around, lol.

when is gentrification EVER good? the way i read the term anyway defines it as a situation where people with money move into an area where [[regardless of population levels) lower-income people live. the result is that the cost of living in that area goes up and those poorer people who are native to it can no longer afford to live where they grew up [[or perhaps dont even WANT to live there anymore due to the significant change in--or loss of--character it used to have from blue collar to yuppy). the transplants then look around and believe they have "fixed" or "saved" an area because it now resembles the background they originally came from, and pat themselves on the back.

i dont see anything good about that. and again, i dont see how it is correlated to population levels. maybe today's native Detroiters LIKE living in quiet, country-like atmosphere? what if a bunch of people flocked to say, West Bloomfield and doubled the population, thus increasing the density? would the current residents of appreciate that? prolly not, i'd guess.

just saying.

Detroit could definitely benefit from lots of new residents, but not at the expense of the things that textbook gentrification usually entails.

[michimoby]

Continue on being frustrated Mooby. You're simply an over sensitive product of the "every kid is a winner" little league generation. I only talked shit to you once here on this post, because in a sense... you were the Detroit Entrepreneurial Guy.

I think it's more that you have absolutely no substance to back up your "big boy" talk. Most level-headed, mature people in this world choose to discuss and disagree rather than throw shitbombs, but I can't force you to take the former approach.

[Spartan]

when is gentrification EVER good? the way i read the term anyway defines it as a situation where people with money move into an area where [[regardless of population levels) lower-income people live. the result is that the cost of living in that area goes up and those poorer people who are native to it can no longer afford to live where they grew up [[or perhaps dont even WANT to live there anymore due to the significant change in--or loss of--character it used to have from blue collar to yuppy). the transplants then look around and believe they have "fixed" or "saved" an area because it now resembles the background they originally came from, and pat themselves on the back.

i dont see anything good about that. and again, i dont see how it is correlated to population levels. maybe today's native Detroiters LIKE living in quiet, country-like atmosphere? what if a bunch of people flocked to say, West Bloomfield and doubled the population, thus increasing the density? would the current residents of appreciate that? prolly not, i'd guess.

just saying.

Detroit could definitely benefit from lots of new residents, but not at the expense of the things that textbook gentrification usually entails.

How is increasing the income level of an area not a good thing? Increased tax revenue, better for local businesses. I get where you can say it's bad in some ways [[pushing out the "natives") but to ignore the good that comes from it doesn't make much sense.

[subsidized]

I think it's more that you have absolutely no substance to back up your "big boy" talk. Most level-headed, mature people in this world choose to discuss and disagree rather than throw shitbombs, but I can't force you to take the former approach.

What the fuck is it you want me to answer? You asked me one question. Do I think DVP is the golden egg for Detroit's startup community? No, no I do not, but there seems to have been numerous startups that have gone through DVP and are now doing quite well so it's better than what has been offered here in the past. Venture capital firms are still relatively new to Michigan and now that the door has been opened I'm sure there will be many more to follow.

Though, I'm not quite sure what "big boy talk" I am supposed to be backing up.

You found it difficult to be successful here so you went to a place where you were more likely to succeed, and I cannot fault you for that whatsoever. Then you laugh at the article because it claims that it's not as easy to get off the ground here in Detroit as it is in other cities. Isn't that exactly what you were saying one month ago?

[michimoby]

What the fuck is it you want me to answer? You asked me one question. Do I think DVP is the golden egg for Detroit's startup community? No, no I do not, but there seems to have been numerous startups that have gone through DVP and are now doing quite well so it's better than what has been offered here in the past. Venture capital firms are still relatively new to Michigan and now that the door has been opened I'm sure there will be many more to follow.

Though, I'm not quite sure what "big boy talk" I am supposed to be backing up.

You found it difficult to be successful here so you went to a place where you were more likely to succeed, and I cannot fault you for that whatsoever. Then you laugh at the article because it claims that it's not as easy to get off the ground here in Detroit as it is in other cities. Isn't that exactly what you were saying one month ago?

See, that wasn't so hard. Up until now, your responses to me were chock-full of back-handed insults, which were unnecessary to get to the question I asked. Sounds like you actually know what you're talking about, which is encouraging.

Look at the original tone of the article, sub. It's not like Ted is saying "it's easier to make it work in NYC because of the resources they have...we currently don't have those in droves". He's implying that "entrepreneurs in NYC and SF are slackers compared to Detroiters." He's indirectly criticizing the very ecosystem that made him the successful entrepreneur that he is today. That's what brought me pause, and my colleagues here in NYC provided the chuckle.

But I could be reading it with an edge of bias. I probably am, actually. But hearing him throw around the claim that he's going to be a "hero" to Detroit is just a bit hard for me to swallow; I can't fathom what it's like for the local entrepreneur that's been slogging away for decades trying to make it.

[gnome]

This entire thread, and its subject, further illustrates the dearth of humor in Detroit. Folks can't take a joke. They are sooo concerned about being disrespected, sooo concerned of being identified as a vacuous hipster, or a self-appointed taste maker.

Mr. Meme needs to embrace his memeness like he does his scarf, while sipping his cold-pressed Eritrean, naturally.

[gnome]

Mooby, pull your head out of your navel. It is embarrassing.

[WaCoTS]

How is increasing the income level of an area not a good thing? Increased tax revenue, better for local businesses. I get where you can say it's bad in some ways [[pushing out the "natives") but to ignore the good that comes from it doesn't make much sense.

if that ends up being the case, thats great. but what im saying is that typical "gentrification" describes what happens when thats NOT the case. ie, the geographical AREA may see NET improvement, but if it's only because already-affluent people moved in, then is that really improvement?

the theory, at least, is that yes, "local" businesses will see better revenue, but that may not always translate in reality. mom & pops may still be pushed out by chain stuff, or stuff designed to cater to the new more affluent transplants, [[ZZZOMG!!WHOLEFOODS!!!), not the blue collars who used to shop there.

likewise, the "dive" places may get completely changed or taken over by an influx of transplants who frequent the establishment because of its ironic "diveyness", not because that is all they can afford.

[gnome]

Wacots, could you give us a concrete example of how that scenario has played out here?

your theory applies to certain parts of New York, SF, Philly and other such places; but of all the problems we have, is gentrification on that list?

De-gentrification certainly. That is common. Hard working folks who have paid off their houses and the neighborhood becomes a burned out hulk. That story is so common it barely warrants a mention, but lord help us if someone moves in and starts mowing their lawn. Damn. Can't let that happen.

[WaCoTS]

again im not arguing against bringing in more resident taxpayers.

but talk to working class people in the cities you mentioned, especially Brooklyn or Queens. it is a double-edged sword, as is the capitalism that drives it. in and of themselves redevelopment and capitalism are not bad, but when allowed to run amuck overdevelopment is the result. NYC is anything but an urban utopia. it's a rich kids-only club, and the infrastructure is overburdened to the max from all the greedy developers looking to crowd tiny parcels with 20-story apt towers where once a house or small factory stood, without changing any of the aging utility infrastructure, and the greedy politicians are facilitating it.

all im saying is if Detroit is going to see a resurgence of population we have to guard against the pitfalls, and we have plenty of examples to look to for a roadmap.

[antongast]

Wacots, could you give us a concrete example of how that scenario has played out here?

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...operties-again

De-gentrification certainly. That is common. Hard working folks who have paid off their houses and the neighborhood becomes a burned out hulk.

I think the word you're looking for is "filtering."

[gnome]

Forgive me Antongast, but I don't see anything in your supplied link that points to gentrification. I do see a bunch of people being kicked out of their place because a new owner does not want them there.

Unless I do not understand the word, gentrification, maybe you can enlighten me.

WaCots, Brooklyn is not Detroit. The shortage of land in the New York area is more of a driving force than anything else. Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island could fit on Detroit's east side prairie, with room left over.

if gentrification is a problem here, I have not seen it. Personally I am not threatened by dog parks or coffee shops, nor fresh cut lawns, unmolested flower boxes, neither do I feel the need to cross the street when I see a mother and her pram. There are many things that don't frighten me. I would like to be unfrightened most of the time. I could get use to that.

[antongast]

Forgive me Antongast, but I don't see anything in your supplied link that points to gentrification. I do see a bunch of people being kicked out of their place because a new owner does not want them there.

Unless I do not understand the word, gentrification, maybe you can enlighten me.

You asked for "a concrete example of how that scenario plays out here." That's how it plays out here. It doesn't play out here the way it plays out in New York or San Francisco, because land scarcity isn't an issue here. If you don't want poor people in a certain part of the city, you can't just sit around and wait for them to be pushed out by the invisible hand, you have to be more proactive about it.

There are threads on here all the time where people complain about some element of the greater-downtown neighborhood [[Tom Boy Market, the NSO, the "wasteland" of the southern Corridor) that is perceived as unsightly or undesirable. In a lot of cities, those elements would fade away of their own accord. Here they only disappear when someone with money and influence decides they're incompatible with their vision for the area and takes action to remove them.

The thing is, in theory the dog parks and coffee shops and baby strollers and whatnot should be able to coexist with the people who are here already, because of the simple fact that we're in a city that's lost sixty-some percent of its population. There should be plenty of room for everybody. We should be able to reap the benefits of gentrification without having to displace anyone. Detroit could be an ideal test case for the proposition that gentrification doesn't always have to have a harmful, destructive side. But that's not what's happening here, because to the powers that be, displacement of the poor is a feature, not a bug.

[mwilbert]

The shortage of land in the New York area is more of a driving force than anything else. Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island could fit on Detroit's east side prairie, with room left over..

No they couldn't. NYC is over 400 square miles.

[michimoby]

WaCots, Brooklyn is not Detroit. The shortage of land in the New York area is more of a driving force than anything else. Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island could fit on Detroit's east side prairie, with room left over.

That may be true, but there's a handful of pockets of upheaval occurring in the Williamsburg/Bushwick area of Brooklyn at the moment. There's basically 3-4 stops on the L between the two neighborhoods that's getting filled up with new apartment development and - as expected - higher rents, movement of lower-income families, etc. further east.

[gnome]

Thank you for that correction MW.

antogast, so what you are saying is that Detroit style gentrification is unique and does not follow the dictionary understanding of the term?

Who is the person, or committe in charge of redefinition? Are you involved? Because I still have not seen anywhere in Detroit where poor people were moved out enmass and replaced by rich people. Maybe Lafayette Park might qualify but that was almost 60 years ago and was designed by Meis to welcome all sorts of the income strata.

The buildings you refer to by Cass Park have not become havens for the rich. The affluent have not moved in and there are no plans in the offing. I wish there were, but I have not seen such plans, can you share those plans with the rest of the class?

On the subject of the NSO or Tommy Boy, have they closed? You offer those as examples, but only as one possible scenario out of thousands.

but let's look at moving they NSO.

if all that hateful gentrification takes place, and untold thousands of moneyed latte sippers move in and rehab those buildings I assume the poor folks would move somewhere else. As unfair as that may be, would the NSO be able to service their client base if their clients moved? Would forcing their clients to walk miles and miles fulfill their mission?

i am not sure about that.

[Zug]

My problem is that much of Detroit was once considered nice. Most of the high & middle class moved out. What was left was the poor. The city emptied out more & more over time...and poorer people could spread. Just guesstimating, but low income [[in poverty, or receiving government subsidized housing) could probably live in 75% of the city. Just because the city emptied out and poor people could now afford to live almost anywhere in the city does not mean that those areas can now only stay low-income or low-income friendly. I don't think people have the right to stop development of an abandoned area so a low income person can continue being the only resident on the block.

And in my opinion, gentrification isn't always considered a bad thing. Of course the people displaced will think it is. However, governments, business communities, and the new residents don't think it's a bad thing. Neighborhoods always change...and I don't think there's anything wrong with promoting developments that lead to population density and higher wealth in a city.

I get the point that when you bring in new things, you are pushing people out while changing the culture and feel of an area. However, we're not talking about outsiders taking over a thriving Paradise Valley. We're talking about places with less than half occupancy. Do we really need a city almost entirely made up of abandoned, poor & "gritty" neighborhoods?

[Gannon]

Thank you for that correction MW.

antogast, so what you are saying is that Detroit style gentrification is unique and does not follow the dictionary understanding of the term?

Who is the person, or committe in charge of redefinition? Are you involved? Because I still have not seen anywhere in Detroit where poor people were moved out enmass and replaced by rich people. Maybe Lafayette Park might qualify but that was almost 60 years ago and was designed by Meis to welcome all sorts of the income strata.

The buildings you refer to by Cass Park have not become havens for the rich. The affluent have not moved in and there are no plans in the offing. I wish there were, but I have not seen such plans, can you share those plans with the rest of the class?

On the subject of the NSO or Tommy Boy, have they closed? You offer those as examples, but only as one possible scenario out of thousands.

but let's look at moving they NSO.

if all that hateful gentrification takes place, and untold thousands of moneyed latte sippers move in and rehab those buildings I assume the poor folks would move somewhere else. As unfair as that may be, would the NSO be able to service their client base if their clients moved? Would forcing their clients to walk miles and miles fulfill their mission?

i am not sure about that.

So, you are saying gentrification has to become a flood before you will notice it? What about those old folks forced out of their homes by Dan Gilbert on Washington Boulevard...or the latest evictions near Foxtown?

They fit the definition of gentrification. Clearly.

[Gannon]

I will help ya. This from dictionary.com:

gen·tri·fi·ca·tion [jen-truh-fi-key-shuhn] noun
1. the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.
2. an instance of gentrifying; the condition of being gentrified.

[hamtown mike]

I resemble the meme. I also don't put too much stock in it. There are about as many different ways of being a young white entrepreneur who moved here from out of state as there are people who fit that description. There will always be people who resent me for what I resemble--and, probably, always people who I will resent based only on what they resemble.

Detroit doesn't need a white savior. It does need successful white businesses. And successful black businesses. And Arab businesses, and businesses owned by anyone else who is willing to live and work and pay taxes and mow the lawn.

"Successful businesses" isn't the magic bullet. There isn't one. There never will be one. There's only a long series of gradual steps towards a city that might be better than Detroit is today. Many of those will be missteps. Many steps will also be extremely profitable for some people.

The average young white 20-something outside Detroit has access to way more capital than the average young black 20-something inside Detroit. The deck is stacked in America across the board in favor of white men -- our boats rise more when the tide comes in. The "rebirth of Detroit" will probably disproportionately benefit white men. I think we should try for it anyway -- and simultaneously, we should try to end the systemic inequality of race and gender in America.

Well stated. I would suggest that all boats rise with the tide- all boats that are properly mended and free of holes. All have access to the tools to "better their boat." So as the tide rises those who chose to not use the tools drag their leaking sieves to shore [[or sink) leaving a wide open bay and the yachts begin to appear. Should we post a sign that says no boats over 20 feet until we get our shit together? To drag out this economic nautical theme one step further- free market skippering is the only way for real growth.

[Zug]

Gannon is right that gentrification doesn't have such a limited definition. However, the assumption that some have that gentrification is ALWAYS bad just seems wrong, in my opinion.

Many people will see gentrification and consider it an improvement. The whole idea that if low-income people get into an area that it can no longer get improved for fear of increasing housing values just seems counterproductive.

I really do sympathize with having to move due to prices rising. But Detroit could use higher income residents...and the city's so sparsely filled that there are plenty of areas where people can move. Is it fair? No. But we also can't expect business interests to operate in fair ways. I mean, it's just as unfair when neighborhood changes affect middle or high income people.

Just look at what happened in many middle class neighborhoods over the last decade. You have a housing crisis that lowers home values...many people have an underwater mortgage as a result [[and many middle class families cannot sell)...then all of a sudden Wendy Welfare with 6 kids can afford to live next door. That's just as unfair, and leads to a similar type of economic and cultural change in a neighborhood that people complain about with gentrification. But people will act as if it is insensitive to complain about a low-income person "moving up" in life. I don't see gentrification or this example as inherently "bad"...it's just that neighborhoods always change. When people don't like the change, they have to adjust or move.

[antongast]

antogast, so what you are saying is that Detroit style gentrification is unique and does not follow the dictionary understanding of the term?

Every place is unique to some extent. I doubt gentrification in New York looks exactly the same as it does in San Francisco, either. I'm calling what I see happening in Detroit "gentrification" because I can't think of another word that describes it better. I don't think I'm the only one doing this. If you prefer to give it a different name, please feel free, although you might consider something less unwieldy than "a bunch of people being kicked out of their place because a new owner does not want them there" if you want it to catch on.

The buildings you refer to by Cass Park have not become havens for the rich. The affluent have not moved in and there are no plans in the offing. I wish there were, but I have not seen such plans, can you share those plans with the rest of the class?

I get the feeling you're being deliberately obtuse here.

On the subject of the NSO or Tommy Boy, have they closed? You offer those as examples, but only as one possible scenario out of thousands.

I used them as examples of gentrifiers complaining about evidence of poverty in their gentrifying neighborhood, even when it's not hurting them and shouldn't affect them personally. Sorry for not making that clear.

but let's look at moving they NSO.

if all that hateful gentrification takes place, and untold thousands of moneyed latte sippers move in and rehab those buildings I assume the poor folks would move somewhere else.

That's one possible outcome. The point I'm trying to make here is that other outcomes are possible beyond that. Why can't latte-sippers and poor folks coexist in an economically integrated neighborhood?

[antongast]

Gannon is right that gentrification doesn't have such a limited definition. However, the assumption that some have that gentrification is ALWAYS bad just seems wrong, in my opinion.

I don't think this. It's a complicated issue! Gentrification has both positive and negative consequences, as do most things. "Gentrification is always bad" is a straw man.

Many people will see gentrification and consider it an improvement. The whole idea that if low-income people get into an area that it can no longer get improved for fear of increasing housing values just seems counterproductive.

Again, I agree. Completely shutting new high-end development out of low-income areas would be a completely boneheaded policy, which is why nobody is advocating it.

I really do sympathize with having to move due to prices rising. But Detroit could use higher income residents...and the city's so sparsely filled that there are plenty of areas where people can move.

The city is also so sparsely filled that there are plenty of areas, even in the greater-downtown gentrification zone, where high-end developments can be situated without having to displace anyone. I'm not saying that means you have to never displace a single person ever, but "displace all the people" on the one hand and "keep the neighborhood poor and run-down forever" on the other is a false choice.

Is it fair? No. But we also can't expect business interests to operate in fair ways.

No, we can't. That's why we explicitly empower the government to look out for the public interest in cases where it may differ from private interests. In this case, I think our government is doing a lousy job of that.

I mean, it's just as unfair when neighborhood changes affect middle or high income people.
Just look at what happened in many middle class neighborhoods over the last decade. You have a housing crisis that lowers home values...many people have an underwater mortgage as a result [[and many middle class families cannot sell)...then all of a sudden Wendy Welfare

What the fuck?

with 6 kids can afford to live next door. That's just as unfair, and leads to a similar type of economic and cultural change in a neighborhood that people complain about with gentrification. But people will act as if it is insensitive to complain about a low-income person "moving up" in life. I don't see gentrification or this example as inherently "bad"...it's just that neighborhoods always change. When people don't like the change, they have to adjust or move.

This was happening well before the housing crisis, mostly as a result of filtering processes caused by decades of new housing construction in excess of population growth. Even just looking at the housing crisis, though, poorer neighborhoods were harder-hit than more affluent ones. Instead of suffering the indignity of a poor person moving in next door, you might be stuck on a block where two-thirds of the houses are in various stages of being foreclosed/scrapped/torched, and the police and fire department don't show up when you call them. Neighborhood change disproportionately screws the poor both coming and going.

Which is not to say that neighborhood change is "always bad," or that it has no positive effects on anyone ever, or even that it always does more harm than good. I do think that screwing the poor less badly and less often should be a priority of our public policy, however we decide to go about doing that. Maybe that means trying to counteract some of the processes that screw the poor, or maybe it means letting the processes play out and then giving poor people money or some other benefit to compensate, or maybe it means a little of both, or maybe it means something else entirely. I think some kind of policy intervention is necessary, though.

[Zug]

I was mainly referring to WaCoTS saying things like:

“when is gentrification EVER good?”

and

“maybe today's native Detroiters LIKE living in quiet, country-like atmosphere?”

I admit that I thought you were advocating leaving an area to rot just so a handful of low-income people are not forced out.

The problem is that if you have higher-end developments in an area, the desirability of the area will inevitably rise. You can’t force a building owner to continue to provide low-income housing. Any type of government intervention will either be unfair to building owners, or will mean using tax money to pay for low-income people to live in now middle/higher income neighborhoods...which I don’t think too many people would support.

My using of neighborhood change for the non-poor was just to illustrate that “unfair” neighborhood change isn’t exclusive to the poor. “Filtering” isn’t new, but nearly everyone I know that live in “middle class” suburbs have talked about “lower class” people moving into their neighborhood since housing prices dropped. They typically attribute it to more homes being for rent than for sale in their neighborhoods. Of course the housing crisis affected lower class neighborhoods more than middle & higher class ones...but that doesn’t invalidate my point that change can happen anywhere and that neighborhood change isn’t always fair to those already living there.

Don’t get me wrong, I know where you’re coming from. Ideally, it would be nice to have mixed-income buildings or neighborhoods. Or even better yet, enabling the poor to have true upward mobility. However, I don't think either of these are easy to accomplish [[and may be impossible in a capitalist society).