Planner, the regional glut of office space is not related to the notions that JD hits on, which is that higher concentration downtown is better for the region, in addition to Detroit itself. One can agree or disagree with the premise that it helps the region, but the fact that the region has too much space is not an argument against the premise, nor an argument against encouraging companies to move downtown. It is just a fact, and it calls for us to take measures that encourage 1) migration to the region from other states and 2) vigorous endogenous growth [[I think we're starting to see this; we are much more entrepreneurial than we were in 2008), while leaving it in the hands of building owners to deal with their glut of space or try to improve their space to command higher rents, regardless of where they are located. These are important concerns, but don't directly relate to the pros and cons of the proposal being discussed.

But the proposal being discussed may in fact relate to the glut of space [[i.e. lack of regional employers). As JD argues, and again, we can agree or disagree, our ability to accomplish #1 above is probably enhanced if we have more urban concentration. I agree, And I would argue that #2 might have enhanced potential, too. Ironically enough, even though so much is done virtually, physical concentration of ideas-makers and implementers still matters. See Silicon Valley, Boston, and most recently, Detroit. Business and innovation communities are still a real thing, so I think consolidating/concentrating/collapsing people across this particularly sprawling region into smaller spaces or corridors, be it entirely downtown Detroit, or perhaps the whole Woodward corridor into southern Oakland County, is quite possibly in everyone's best interests.