If you were 22-26 yo, would you move to Detroit RIGHT NOW? Why?

[dtowncitylover]

$20 shots? Tell us some more fairy tales. Are these childish exaggerations used to highlight that cities with more offerings are more expensive? You mean cities, each of which that lure tens of thousands of college grads to move in every year are more expensive than the country's most terrifying major city? Shocking.

FYI, I'm female, bro.

Ok, I don't care what your sex is.

Anyways, yes these cities are more expensive and don't offer, to those who prefer to live in Detroit, anything new. But Detroit does offer something new: revitalization and a comeback that is unprecedented. And that is what is exciting to some.

Yes, Detroit has high crime, poor schools, and shattered neighborhoods, but only means we've hit the bottom and have nowhere to go but up.

But what we have found out about you is that you're a black, female Chicago transplant with some Metro Detroit connection who continues to rip Detroit because we have failed some of our most vulnerable members of society and then bash those who wish to save a city from being wiped off the map. While you still continue to live and work here, without offering any help to make this region a better place and instead offering non-constructive criticism. I mean, did you major in Pessimism Studies?

[48009]

1. Anyways, yes these cities are more expensive and don't offer, to those who prefer to live in Detroit, anything new.

2. Yes, Detroit has high crime, poor schools, and shattered neighborhoods, but only means we've hit the bottom and have nowhere to go but up.

3. But what we have found out about you is that you're a black, female Chicago transplant with some Metro Detroit connection who continues to rip Detroit because we have failed some of our most vulnerable members of society and then bash those who wish to save a city from being wiped off the map. While you still continue to live and work here, without offering any help to make this region a better place and instead offering non-constructive criticism. I mean, did you major in Pessimism Studies?

1. Breaking news: Everybody that moved to SF, LA, NYC, Chicago, DC, Miami after college immediately questions their decision after learning there is nothing different between them and Detroit. Um, OK.

2. Rock bottom says who? Pretty sure 411 people were murdered last year. Further, who says you have to go "up"? History is full of abandoned ghost towns that never went "up".

3. I have no obligation to help bring back this fallen city and I honestly wonder if the efforts by the few who are trying are futile. As in the city is so far gone you won't be able to bring it back and the competition from other large cities is impossible to topple.

[mwilbert]

You can't answer the question of why people might move to Detroit by making a list of reasons people wouldn't move to Detroit. When people give you reasons why people might find Detroit attractive, you continue to give reasons why you and the people you know would not. Or you say most people wouldn't find those reasons compelling.

But for purposes of your question, it doesn't matter if most people don't find them compelling. People vary widely in what they care about, and you only need a very small fraction of people to find Detroit attractive to have plenty of potential people, and there isn't a lot of competition for Detroit's particular niche, so people who find the idea of a place like Detroit appealing are likely to actually check out Detroit, unlike more normal cities which are in closer competition with each other. It is safe to say that San Francisco is attractive to a much larger number of people than Detroit is, but it is practically certain Detroit will actually attract a higher percentage of the people who find Detroit attractive than San Francisco will of the people who find San Francisco attractive.

Are there enough of these people to help jump-start Detroit's revival? I don't know, but it seems pretty obvious there are some of them even though you seem incapable of recognizing their existence or understanding their motives, even when they tell you what those motives are.

[dtowncitylover]

3. I have no obligation to help bring back this fallen city and I honestly wonder if the efforts by the few who are trying are futile. As in the city is so far gone you won't be able to bring it back and the competition from other large cities is impossible to topple.

No one says you do have an obligation to help the city, but don't tell those who want to they're wasting their time. That's your opinion.

This movement was started by a few, but as Detroit's issues became more prominent, I think everyone, at least those who are from this area, has realized the need for the city to get back on its feet.

And yes, most regions offer the same amenities with their own twist. True, Detroit doesn't offer transit, good public safety, good public education, but I think after the bankruptcy and restructuring that will change. But the region offers the same cultural attractions, educational institutions, eating options, housing options, among others. I don't need to go to Chicago to see fine art or eat at a pricey restaurant.

I mean the thought of abandoning Detroit like an old Colorado mining town is asinine to me and not going to happen. So we can let it be, a schitty town that can't function, or turn into a vibrant, liveable city.

40 years ago we did not think China was going to be the competitive place it is today. But where did our industrial base go?

[48009]

I think everyone, at least those who are from this area, has realized the need for the city to get back on its feet.

Why is there a "need" to bring Detroit back? Serious question. The region has done well with prosperous suburbs in favor of a bustling city. Entirely plausible we can't have both.

Depending on your definition, it's been more or less gone for 20-50 years. The city is SO far gone, and has been gone for so long, even with BILLIONS in state and federal aid, that it's hard to argue the economic case in favor of further recovery efforts.

[313WX]

The region has done well with prosperous suburbs in favor of a bustling city.

I guess, if you call a stagnant economy with stagnant population growth [[falling from a top 5 metro to now a top 20 metro) "done well."

[48009]

I guess, if you call a stagnant economy with stagnant population growth [[falling from a top 5 metro to now a top 20 metro) "done well."

The city has been a dump for several decades. The burbs were prosperous or "top 5" not even 10 years ago; so yea, the burbs did just fine without Detroit proper.

[313WX]

The city has been a dump for several decades. The burbs were prosperous or "top 5" not even 10 years ago; so yea, the burbs did just fine without Detroit proper.

"Hey, we may not be doing all that great, as we haven't grown a lick since the 1970s and our college-educated children continue to run away from here at a record pace to regions with functioning/vibrant urban cores and mass transit is a foreign concept to us, but sprawl has still done us good in SE Michigan as at least we're better off than hellhole Detoilet!!! They should sell it off to Canada or nuke it, but be sure to keep the Lions, Tigers, Red Wings, Slows BBQ, the Casinos, the DMC, the DIA, and the DWSD. After all, those things belong to everyone in Michigan, not just those lazy, incompetent, corrupt, entitled ""Detroiters", regardless of whatever any silly licensing agreements or Titles say! Move them to the suburbs!!!"

[dtowncitylover]

Why is there a "need" to bring Detroit back? Serious question. The region has done well with prosperous suburbs in favor of a bustling city. Entirely plausible we can't have both.

Depending on your definition, it's been more or less gone for 20-50 years. The city is SO far gone, and has been gone for so long, even with BILLIONS in state and federal aid, that it's hard to argue the economic case in favor of further recovery efforts.

LOL That's cute. No, we have not been fine. We have been stagnant, economically and in population, since the 1970s. The 90s were maybe the best years, but has never as grand as the 1950s.

I would really love to see these BILLIONS in federal aid. Because, I'm pretty sure Michigan gives more to the federal government than it receives.

We live in the USA. The greatest country on earth and we have embarrassed ourselves by letting a city fall into disrepair and dysfunction. But what does the rest of the country, yourself too it seems, say back, "That's your problem, we shouldn't have to deal with it." That's nice, but just be forewarned it can easily happen to your cities as well.

[Hermod]

I would really love to see these BILLIONS in federal aid. Because, I'm pretty sure Michigan gives more to the federal government than it receives.

You get this same biased argument every time this comes up. It is alwayt gross federal taxes paid versus gross federal outlays.


DUHHHH, the portion of taxes paid by the entire US which goes to support the Navy is largely spent in about half-a-dozen places. How are we going to allot the money paid to aircraft carrier crews evenly to all the states? We can't because the carriers are all located in Norfolk and San Diego. Should we base a carrier at Belle Isle to "even things out" for Michigan?

The same goes for Army money which goes to southern states because most of the military bases are there [[the weather is more conducive for outdoor training).

By the same token, a worker at an auto plant pays into social security all his working life. That money is "Michigan outgo to the feds" by your accounting. Said worker then retires and moves to Florida and draws social security which you count as "Florida income from the feds".

You have to look at the pot of money which goes out for locally targeted federal aid and see how that is distributed and whether or not the distribution is fair.