Detroit should have gone "cold turkey"

[Eber Brock Ward]

1) Wrong, period.

2) Chicago is freaking BOOMING. Construction around the loop is insane. You keep holding your breath for this pension problem to blow it up though.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...t-burden-grows

He [[or she) wasn't exaggerating at all. Chicago and Illinois are in dire straits.

[Hermod]

They did at one point in time, back in the 1930s through 1950s [[when Detroit was spoken in the same breath as NYC and Chicago). Of course, that was when Detroit had an extensive street car system to compliment its heavy passenger rail lines.

Part of Detroit's problem is that its train station [[Michigan Central) was placed so far away from the actual CBD, whereas Chicago's train station was right in the heart of its CBD. Once they got rid of the street cars, it became much more of a chore to ride the train into the city [[Detroit) and get around.

Ummm, Detroit had three train stations [[Central, Fort St, and Brush St). Chicago had seven [[Dearborn, Grand Central, Union, Central, LaSalle, C&NW, and CNS&M).

Getting passengers from one station to another in Chicago was a major logistics effort.

[Eber Brock Ward]

With a handy chart in this one:

http://www.illinoispolicy.org/simple...ooming-crisis/

[BankruptcyGuy]

1) Wrong, period.

2) Chicago is freaking BOOMING. Construction around the loop is insane. You keep holding your breath for this pension problem to blow it up though.

3) Pittsburgh is exponentially healthier than Detroit right now, in case you didn't know.

1. It's your American right to believe what you want to believe, no matter how foolish.

2. Downtown Chicago's office vacancy rate is 14% [[as of March).http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-vacancy-rises

Detroit's was 11.5% as of the same period. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...7-7-percentage

But again, believe what you want to believe, even in the face of facts to the contrary.

3. How are you defining "healthy"? Pittsburgh is under the PA equivalent of an emergency manager. But again, don't let the facts bother you.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201405130184

[iheartthed]

Young people follow jobs, period. It's not the "sexiness" of the city, and it never has been. Richard Florida made that argument to Jennifer Granholm [[remember Cool Cities?). It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Detroit is in revival because of the relocation of white collar jobs to the City's core. When CA and IL recognize their pension problem, it will result in either massive tax increases or reductions in services, just like what happened to Detroit 20 years ago. And employers have and will leave, just like 20 years ago.

I don't exactly agree with this. Why would companies need to move back to the urban cores if there is not a competitive incentive to do so?

[Lowell]

I don't exactly agree with this. Why would companies need to move back to the urban cores if there is not a competitive incentive to do so?

I think you are both right. Dan Gilbert has stated that his move of Quicken from Livonia to downtown was greatly influenced, maybe even predominately so, by the need to offer an exciting and stimulating work site setting for the types of young employees he was trying to attract after learning that many had turned down offers to go to more exciting places than an exit off 275.

Compensation packages are the main driving force and one will work in hell if the price is right. But how one spends his or her work day and what they walk out to for lunch or happy hour counts for a lot. Quicken has been quick to realize that and probably explains a big part of why they win those 'best places to work' awards.

[Detroitnerd]

I don't exactly agree with this. Why would companies need to move back to the urban cores if there is not a competitive incentive to do so?

I think there's a lot of willful misperception going on [[and some outright lying) when it comes to boomer [[and later generations') reactions to millennials and their shifting lifestyle choices.

They go where the jobs are.

More truthfully, they move across the country when they take a job. And since the jobs they're looking at are all over the country, they get to take their pick of environment when they take a job. People who don't mind humdrum, half-hearted urbanism pick Houston or Dallas [[not Detroit). People who want a mix of drivable and walkable pick places in Southern California to the southwest and to some extent southeast [[again, not Detroit). People who want tight, urban places with lots of choices pick the places that provide it, whether it's New York City, Boston, Austin, San Francisco, Portland, or what have you. Again, they don't pick Detroit.

The reaction to this is that insecure boomer who has to sell his house to meet his retirement goals saying, "People aren't moving to city centers." And, since it's not super-visible in metro Detroit, they're not nec. lying. They're just dismissing all the evidence that's come in on the most studied, most marketed-to generation ever. And it turns out they want jobs, good jobs, but not at any cost. They're really, really choosy, and not afraid to move across the country if that city's jobs meet their needs better. So young people do move into the city, just not here, and so it's not seen -- or acknowledged -- by metro Detroit boomers.

But the lie gets put to this when you talk about city residents who age. All of a sudden, they exist. They exist because, "When they have children, and they have to put those children in school, the suburbs are going to start looking pretty good to them!!!"

See? All those young people living in the city begin to exist when they turn 30, or when their children turn 5. That's when our suburban naysayers acknowledge them.

So, they're willfully blind to anybody living downtown, anywhere. Until those people become old enough and have enough money to buy their houses from them so they can move to -- largely -- the same places those young people are moving. [[For jobs … heheheheh).

[ghettopalmetto]

I think there's a lot of willful misperception going on [[and some outright lying) when it comes to boomer [[and later generations') reactions to millennials and their shifting lifestyle choices.

They go where the jobs are.

More truthfully, they move across the country when they take a job. And since the jobs they're looking at are all over the country, they get to take their pick of environment when they take a job. People who don't mind humdrum, half-hearted urbanism pick Houston or Dallas [[not Detroit). People who want a mix of drivable and walkable pick places in Southern California to the southwest and to some extent southeast [[again, not Detroit). People who want tight, urban places with lots of choices pick the places that provide it, whether it's New York City, Boston, Austin, San Francisco, Portland, or what have you. Again, they don't pick Detroit.

The reaction to this is that insecure boomer who has to sell his house to meet his retirement goals saying, "People aren't moving to city centers." And, since it's not super-visible in metro Detroit, they're not nec. lying. They're just dismissing all the evidence that's come in on the most studied, most marketed-to generation ever. And it turns out they want jobs, good jobs, but not at any cost. They're really, really choosy, and not afraid to move across the country if that city's jobs meet their needs better. So young people do move into the city, just not here, and so it's not seen -- or acknowledged -- by metro Detroit boomers.

But the lie gets put to this when you talk about city residents who age. All of a sudden, they exist. They exist because, "When they have children, and they have to put those children in school, the suburbs are going to start looking pretty good to them!!!"

See? All those young people living in the city begin to exist when they turn 30, or when their children turn 5. That's when our suburban naysayers acknowledge them.

So, they're willfully blind to anybody living downtown, anywhere. Until those people become old enough and have enough money to buy their houses from them so they can move to -- largely -- the same places those young people are moving. [[For jobs … heheheheh).

Half the problem is local zoning regulations. Even if the young and educated wanted to live in a place like Macomb Township, or even Troy, the zoning boards have gone out of their way to create wholly uninteresting places. Land uses are segregated. It's difficult to walk anywhere. Transit is virtually nonexistent. Bicycling is suicidal. We grew up in those places. We know what they're like. Why would we choose to subject ourselves to predictable drudgery if we can find a place that provides new experiences, ideas, and maybe challenges us in different ways?

On top of that, your typical suburban neighborhood is self-selecting, meaning you get to live in a house that looks like everyone else's house, and all of your neighbors look like you, and have an income within $10,000 of yours. I mean, what 22-year-old can afford a $200,000 or $300,000 home, on top of student loans, and especially when he has to spend a small fortune driving everywhere for everything?

Continuing to insist that modern 20-and-30-somethings want the Leave It To Beaver, doing-yardwork-every-weekend lifestyle is delusional. Yes, with all the knowledge we have of the most-studied generation ever to exist, ignoring these factors is economic hara-kiri.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I acknowledge that the urban revival is ideally self-sustaining: people move somewhere, retailers/nightlife/housing follows, making a place more exciting, making more people want to move there. But this isn't [[in my opinion) a chicken and egg problem. If there are jobs, but no retailers, retailers will come to fill the spaces. If there is no housing, developers will build it. But if you have jobs, retailers, housing and nightlife, and the jobs leave, the people will leave as well.

I think DetroitNerd had it right: "[People] go where the jobs are." For the longest time, that wasn't Detroit. But it is now, and that puts a big smile on my face.

[iheartthed]

I think you are both right. Dan Gilbert has stated that his move of Quicken from Livonia to downtown was greatly influenced, maybe even predominately so, by the need to offer an exciting and stimulating work site setting for the types of young employees he was trying to attract after learning that many had turned down offers to go to more exciting places than an exit off 275.

Compensation packages are the main driving force and one will work in hell if the price is right. But how one spends his or her work day and what they walk out to for lunch or happy hour counts for a lot. Quicken has been quick to realize that and probably explains a big part of why they win those 'best places to work' awards.

I agree that some people will "work in hell if the price is right." But there are a lot of people who won't.

This is my own anecdotal experience but I personally have not considered jobs because of location. I get contacted by recruiters a lot and one of the first things I look at is the location of the company. If it's somewhere in suburban New York [[I live in Brooklyn) I don't even consider it. I also get contacted a lot by the big Silicon Valley firms and I've been hesitant to pursue those opportunities because I don't want to work in a suburban office park. Those probably fall more into my "work in hell for the right price" category, but California is a pretty sexy depiction of "hell."

More, I also do a bit of recruiting for my company. I work for a company that has offices around the country. Everybody wants to come to New York. Everybody. If they can't get New York they always base their preferences on the "sexiness" of the city: Boston, San Francisco, L.A., D.C., Chicago [[usually in that order). Few kids coming out of school who can write his or her own ticket is choosing Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis or any other Rust Belt city right now as their top choice. If it's the choice between Boston and Detroit then Boston will always win unless there is some other factor like family or familiarity.

ETA: Family or familiarity is the only reason I would ever choose to relocate back to Detroit, were I ever to get a job offer there. That is scary because that's not a sustainable way to attract talent.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I agree that some people will "work in hell if the price is right." But there are a lot of people who won't.

This is my own anecdotal experience but I personally have not considered jobs because of location. I get contacted by recruiters a lot and one of the first things I look at is the location of the company. If it's somewhere in suburban New York [[I live in Brooklyn) I don't even consider it. I also get contacted a lot by the big Silicon Valley firms and I've been hesitant to pursue those opportunities because I don't want to work in a suburban office park. Those probably fall more into my "work in hell for the right price" category, but California is a pretty sexy depiction of "hell."

More, I also do a bit of recruiting for my company. I work for a company that has offices around the country. Everybody wants to come to New York. Everybody. If they can't get New York they always base their preferences on the "sexiness" of the city: Boston, San Francisco, L.A., D.C., Chicago [[usually in that order). Few kids coming out of school who can write his or her own ticket is choosing Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis or any other Rust Belt city right now as their top choice. If it's the choice between Boston and Detroit then Boston will always win unless there is some other factor like family or familiarity.

ETA: Family or familiarity is the only reason I would ever choose to relocate back to Detroit, were I ever to get a job offer there. That is scary because that's not a sustainable way to attract talent.

Thank you for the insight. I think that, given a choice, young people would prefer the cities you suggest, without question. Two items to ponder:

1. A rapidly declining portion of the population is given a choice. Employers know that, given labor slack, that they can locate [[within reason) where they want and they'll find employees, unless it's some kind of specialized labor pool that they need to fish in.

2. A system of attracting young people without providing the qualities that middle-aged people [[did I just call myself middle-aged? eech.) are seeking becomes very transitory. It can also be subject to drying up very, very quickly. Once people have families and kids, their two biggest issues after employment are crime and schools. I know Chicago has no more to offer Detroit on those scales. I don't know about New York or LA, but I'd guess they're not that different on those metrics. So if the CoD wants to capture those young employees when they get older, they have to improve in those regards. But I don't think that any of the mentioned cities are better than any other.

[313WX]

Ummm, Detroit had three train stations [[Central, Fort St, and Brush St). Chicago had seven [[Dearborn, Grand Central, Union, Central, LaSalle, C&NW, and CNS&M).

Getting passengers from one station to another in Chicago was a major logistics effort.

Detroit's equivalent to Chicago's Union Station [[in the heart of Chicago's downtown) was MCS, which was a couple miles west of downtown Detroit.

Brush Street and Fort St. only served very limited train lines.

[iheartthed]

Thank you for the insight. I think that, given a choice, young people would prefer the cities you suggest, without question. Two items to ponder:

1. A rapidly declining portion of the population is given a choice. Employers know that, given labor slack, that they can locate [[within reason) where they want and they'll find employees, unless it's some kind of specialized labor pool that they need to fish in.

I think it depends on the industry and type of talent. I think we can discount those jobs that are structurally tied to a particular region because of environment or otherwise, because they aren't really up for grabs. Of course a chemical engineer won't find many opportunities to work in that field in New York or any big city [[however, a person with a chemical engineering degree who doesn't necessarily want to be a chemical engineer is a different story).

No city is really competing for an industry that is structurally tied to another region. For instance, the automotive industry is quasi-structurally tied to Detroit. Detroit doesn't really compete against anyone for auto industry talent and does quite well at attracting people who want to work in the auto industry. What Detroit fails horribly in attracting is people who have aspirations beyond the auto industry. Likewise, Houston will do well as long as energy is doing well, but when energy is not the flavor of the month Houston will have economic issues as well.

What the sexy cities do well is appeal to talent that is industry-agnostic. I think Detroit's future depends on becoming a more industry-agnostic type of place, which means becoming a sexier city.

2. A system of attracting young people without providing the qualities that middle-aged people [[did I just call myself middle-aged? eech.) are seeking becomes very transitory. It can also be subject to drying up very, very quickly. Once people have families and kids, their two biggest issues after employment are crime and schools. I know Chicago has no more to offer Detroit on those scales. I don't know about New York or LA, but I'd guess they're not that different on those metrics. So if the CoD wants to capture those young employees when they get older, they have to improve in those regards. But I don't think that any of the mentioned cities are better than any other.

I am a millennial but I'm at the older end of the spectrum. I think people in my demographic will definitely buck the trend in terms of settling in cities. Even if many of us eventually do migrate to the suburbs it will likely be in suburbs near the places where we began our careers, which does not bode well for suburban Detroit because it's missing that pipeline.

[Lowell]

Good points all. All work is hell to some degree so we are talking about rings of hell.

So even in Rustbelt urban centers there is huge demand to live in the downtown cores. Why not? Major league sports, art, culture, clubs with leading acts, cultural institutions, grand inspiring architecture and all kinds of excitement, even casinos right outside your door. Sure it is not as sexy as Manhattan or San Francisco but sexy enough. Better than an office tower in Troy surrounded by acres of parking followed by a commuter grind.

Of the thousands of emails I got when the 1997 publication of the Fabulous Ruins of Detroit tour went viral most striking were the hundreds from young suburbanite inquiring how one could live downtown. That demand has now come to fruition.

And sure, when they get married and have kids, the suburbs look attractive and they often move there. But so what? They are replaced by other youth and, let's not forget, only 25% of households have kids. They in turn are replacing people who move to retirement homes or die. It isn't like 'Oh, wow, downtown's cool' then 'We got kids, good bye' and downtown is suddenly empty again. It's a churn and right now that churn is more inward than outward.

ETA: Family or familiarity is the only reason I would ever choose to relocate back to Detroit, were I ever to get a job offer there. That is scary because that's not a sustainable way to attract talent.

Detroit's improved a lot. Don't rule^ us out completely.

[Wesley Mouch]

There absolutely is a trend toward urban living in many young people. That's fantastic. [[And I share and have lived that life.) The total count of young downtown dwellers is increasing at an amazing pace. The percentage increase is huge.

However I'm not sure that 10,000 young people moving downtown represents a total mind-set change of young adults. How adults are 'hatched' each year? And what percentage move to Detroit's core?

Napkin math: 5,000,000 people, average lifespan of 75 years: 66,000 young adults hatched per year in our metro. How many move downtown in a given year? Where are the rest? Are they wishing they lived downtown? Or are they happy in Clarkston, RO, or Eastpointe?

Urban living is a trend, no doubt. But it may not yet be the majority choice -- or even close.

This leads me to second BG's point.... two biggest factors after jobs are crime and schools. Crime can be addressed by money, police. And there's hope for schools now as some Charters are showing that new ways can work. [[Yeah, some charter sucks... but some excel and are proving that new methods work... and its that innovation that is our best hope for the future of Detroit.)

[Willi]

Moving cost money, lots of it. It is not exactly cheap , even if you do it yourself with friends.
Buying selling houses is one thing, breaking leases and the first/last month rent is tough.
Putting a deposit on all the utilities to get them turned on, etc., etc.
Paying someone to move your stuff is also a tough nut to overcome.
Years ago Ford paid to move me as a young employee and then stuck me with the bill,
via my taxes as a capital gain in my income so I felt the pain about a year later.

People need to really think what is gained by moving anywhere, via pencil to paper analysis.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of the thousands of emails I got when the 1997 publication of the Fabulous Ruins of Detroit tour went viral most striking were the hundreds from young suburbanite inquiring how one could live downtown. That demand has now come to fruition.

And sure, when they get married and have kids, the suburbs look attractive and they often move there. But so what? They are replaced by other youth and, let's not forget, only 25% of households have kids. They in turn are replacing people who move to retirement homes or die. It isn't like 'Oh, wow, downtown's cool' then 'We got kids, good bye' and downtown is suddenly empty again. It's a churn and right now that churn is more inward than outward.

Amen.

What I've noticed in Cleveland is, that even as the downtown population continues to grow [[apartment occupancy is something like 98%), many downtown dwellers migrate to nearby neighborhoods within the city limits. Neighborhoods like Tremont, Ohio City, and Detroit-Shoreway are seeing more and more younger folks, and these are the three hottest real estate submarkets in the entire region.

I have friends who choose to live in the city limits, in neighborhoods like Old Brooklyn, Edgewater, St. Clair-Superior, and West Park. A co-worker lives in University Circle. I've met folks who choose to live in Slavic Village. Not only do they want to be close to the sports and culture and whatnot, but want proximity to the lake and river, good restaurants, and being able to walk and bike without getting mowed down. Ultimately, they all desire a sense of place, a sense of history, and a sense of community and shared purpose--things you just don't get in a brand-new, beige-siding, garages-in-front, socioeconomically homogeneous subdivision.

So the end goal shouldn't be just to get people to live downtown, but when they choose to move out of downtown, to have neighborhoods that are attractive so that they aren't automatically fleeing to the suburbs. And there are pockets of this happening in Detroit, but I think that there's still a ways to go.

[Richard]

I think the boomers are being overlooked,lots of us also prefer urban living and we are not saddled with student loans etc,just how much extra income does a 20 something have to spend after rents,loans etc.

some of us even like walkability to restaurants,theater and entertainment,without the yard to maintain.

[Honky Tonk]

I think the boomers are being overlooked,lots of us also prefer urban living and we are not saddled with student loans etc,just how much extra income does a 20 something have to spend after rents,loans etc.

some of us even like walkability to restaurants,theater and entertainment,without the yard to maintain.

Right On! I don't know where people get this idea you have one foot in the grave after age "X". A lot of my "geriatric" friends are more active and still kicking more booty then some of the kids I know 1/4 of their age.

[Willi]

Detroit has a ton of great things - BUT it suffers from an image issue across the USA.
The movers/shakers with millions to spend should wage a full-on media blitz about Detroit.
Not for a day, or a week or a month, but continually, relentlessly and for a full year.
Get the message out that Detroit [[and the suburbs) have worthwhile things to do.
Use multiple media attacks and don't rely on just the Pure Michigan folks, add to them.
Don't like to gamble, or care about pro sports, then bike at Belle Isle, kayak the river,
go for a walk on the Paint Creek Trail, find a craft beer pub, and so on, etc., etc.
It definitely is not ALL desolate wasteland of cobble, burnt out shells, and gang graffiti.
Some parts are actually, nice.

[Lowell]

I think the boomers are being overlooked,lots of us also prefer urban living and we are not saddled with student loans etc,just how much extra income does a 20 something have to spend after rents,loans etc.

some of us even like walkability to restaurants,theater and entertainment,without the yard to maintain.

Very true. I know people who have retirement places and 'sky cabins' downtown for a fraction of what it costs in other downtowns. The perception of Downtown to Cultural Center has turned a corner in the past decade. The perception of it being liveable, exciting, on the rise and safe [enough] has arrived.

They're thinking, 'Why spend five hours driving up north to the lake when what I really want is downtown? That was fine when the kids were around, now we're ready to party without have to drive.'

[Lowell]

Detroit has a ton of great things - BUT it suffers from an image issue across the USA.
The movers/shakers with millions to spend should wage a full-on media blitz about Detroit.
Not for a day, or a week or a month, but continually, relentlessly and for a full year.
Get the message out that Detroit [[and the suburbs) have worthwhile things to do.
Use multiple media attacks and don't rely on just the Pure Michigan folks, add to them.
Don't like to gamble, or care about pro sports, then bike at Belle Isle, kayak the river,
go for a walk on the Paint Creek Trail, find a craft beer pub, and so on, etc., etc.
It definitely is not ALL desolate wasteland of cobble, burnt out shells, and gang graffiti.
Some parts are actually, nice.

Shh. Quiet will ya.

[Gistok]

"A churn".... that's a good description. And there's many good reasons why most who have kids leave downtown.... mainly having children is very expensive and time consuming. When you add up the cost of buy versus rentl [[mortgage interest deduction), the 3% City Tax, and the cost of not sending kids to a private school.... that's quite a chunk of change for many newly expanded families.

[Honky Tonk]

I know several couples that had and raised kids, Downtown, years ago. The kids turned out terrific, but then moved to the burbs. The parents still live there, but it is getting too costly with the influx of the latest younger generation.

[Wesley Mouch]

"A churn".... that's a good description. And there's many good reasons why most who have kids leave downtown.... mainly having children is very expensive and time consuming. When you add up the cost of buy versus rentl [[mortgage interest deduction), the 3% City Tax, and the cost of not sending kids to a private school.... that's quite a chunk of change for many newly expanded families.

The mortage interest deduction for the rich should be eliminated. Its a much bigger benefit to those with expensive homes. Its of no benefit to those who don't deduct, and no benefit to those who can better use the standard exemption. Rise up, Democrats and attack this as gift to the rich as unfair. Snyder eliminated the pension deduction gift to the rich retirees, now its time for Democrats to rise up and likewise show that they really care about the working class. Both the interest credit and pension exemption disproportionately benefit the rich -- while only marginally helping the working class.

[[disclosure... I am a beneficiary of the tax deduction, and thank all the working class people who can't take this deduction each day when I rise for helping me afford Starbucks coffee.)