NY Times - Last Stop on the L Train: Detroit

[Bham1982]

It seems like a highly unlikely phenomenon because 1. There are tons of cheap urban areas in the Northeast Corridor very close to NYC [[someplace like Camden is as cheap as Detroit, but with public transit and actual urban neighborhods) and 2. Detroit lacks an urban environment, so isn't a cheaper version of a more desirable city, it's an entirely different environment probably not appealing to urbanites [[I'm assuming creatives in NYC value an urban environment).

[CrashDummy]

2. Detroit lacks an urban environment, so isn't a cheaper version of a more desirable city, it's an entirely different environment probably not appealing to urbanites [[I'm assuming creatives in NYC value an urban environment).

Did you just say Detroit lacks an urban environment? I can't think of more than a handful of cities that would possibly be more urban.

[Bham1982]

Did you just say Detroit lacks an urban environment? I can't think of more than a handful of cities that would possibly be more urban.

You can't be serious. Essentially all cities are more urban than Detroit. Is there even one city on earth outside the U.S. that would be less urban?

No one moves to Detroit for urbanity. That would be absurd, as it was always a city of single family homes, not apartment blocks. Now it's a city of homes interspersed with prairies, and resolutely anti-urban. It's like the anti-Barcelona or anti-Naples. Everyone has a yard and garage.

[Junjie]

You can't be serious. Essentially all cities are more urban than Detroit. Is there even one city on earth outside the U.S. that would be less urban?

No one moves to Detroit for urbanity. That would be absurd, as it was always a city of single family homes, not apartment blocks. Now it's a city of homes interspersed with prairies, and resolutely anti-urban. It's like the anti-Barcelona or anti-Naples. Everyone has a yard and garage.

It sounds like you guys have not only different definitions of "urban" [[character versus density) but also different definitions of "Detroit" [[core areas artists might plausibly care about or entire city/metro area). Seems unlikely to be a productive discussion. Artists looking for "urban grit" will find plenty in Detroit. But who knows whether that's enough to make any real difference, or whether Detroit can attract beyond that demographic just based on present downtown/midtown.

Any ideas how many people Galapagos will actually bring? They've certainly got a ton of space... three buildings in Highland Park and one in Corktown. Surprised this wasn't a bigger part of the linked story.

http://www.galapagosdetroit.com/

[gameguy56]

It seems like a highly unlikely phenomenon because 1. There are tons of cheap urban areas in the Northeast Corridor very close to NYC [[someplace like Camden is as cheap as Detroit, but with public transit and actual urban neighborhods) and 2. Detroit lacks an urban environment, so isn't a cheaper version of a more desirable city, it's an entirely different environment probably not appealing to urbanites [[I'm assuming creatives in NYC value an urban environment).

Camden and Newark are gentrifying too. So is Oakland CA.

[Hypestyles]

New Yorkers need to hire Detroiters when they set up shop here.

[TTime]

http://www.bustle.com/articles/23350...have-to-starve ...this article was from last year but it mentions a few cities that I didn't think of. I read a few of these lists last night and Detroit is mentioned in one or two of them.

[CrashDummy]

It sounds like you guys have not only different definitions of "urban" [[character versus density) but also different definitions of "Detroit" [[core areas artists might plausibly care about or entire city/metro area). Seems unlikely to be a productive discussion.

Haha! Yes, I think you're right.

[EL Jimbo]

I'm with you on your first point but your second point is highly subjective.

Of course it is subjective. ART is subjective.

Regardless of the medium, there are often instances where artists are drawn to location that inform and inspire their artistry. William Faulkner couldn't have been William Faulkner if he hadn't lived in the South. Pearl Jam wouldn't be what it is without Seattle. Would anyone know who Jimmy Buffett is if he'd never moved to Key West? Place is important in artistry.

Now not every place is for every artist. An artist has to find the place that works for them. The next Frederick Remington might find Kansas or Montana to be inspirational than Detroit, but the artist who used to find the things about Brooklyn inspiring but is now being priced out of their Williamsburg studio space may find some of that energy and vibe they used to feed off of for their art in present day Detroit.

Is it subjective? Hell yes it is, but it doesn't make it any less true.

[TTime]

Of course it is subjective. ART is subjective.

Regardless of the medium, there are often instances where artists are drawn to location that inform and inspire their artistry. William Faulkner couldn't have been William Faulkner if he hadn't lived in the South. Pearl Jam wouldn't be what it is without Seattle. Would anyone know who Jimmy Buffett is if he'd never moved to Key West? Place is important in artistry.

Now not every place is for every artist. An artist has to find the place that works for them. The next Frederick Remington might find Kansas or Montana to be inspirational than Detroit, but the artist who used to find the things about Brooklyn inspiring but is now being priced out of their Williamsburg studio space may find some of that energy and vibe they used to feed off of for their art in present day Detroit.

Is it subjective? Hell yes it is, but it doesn't make it any less true.

I guess if you're going to bring truth into the discussion I would truly say Detroit has very little in common with Brooklyn and it's quite a leap to suggest large amounts of artists who found inspiration in Brooklyn will find it here.

[SWMAP]

Its pretty obvious that, even now, Detroit is Jack White's muse.

[bust]

I guess if you're going to bring truth into the discussion I would truly say Detroit has very little in common with Brooklyn and it's quite a leap to suggest large amounts of artists who found inspiration in Brooklyn will find it here.

Coming from someone who knows this subject all too well, from both cities, the big piece you're missing is that people leaving Brooklyn don't want today's Brooklyn. I can't speak for everyone but I feel comfortable saying that for a large and very important part of the demographic little of the New York that drew them there in the first place remains.

After existing for decades as a creative nexus the east village / alphabet city / lower east side reached a tipping point in the very early 90's that sent it accelerating toward gentrification and ultimately today's banality of yuppie condos, tasting menus, and pub crawls. Many of the creatives who abandoned it dispersed into Brooklyn, only for the accelerating gentrification to chase them further there. Today’s Williamsburg is a playground for the privileged staving off adulthood behind costumes of rebellion searching for dysphoria as a badge that they’re special like they’re desperate to prove. It’s a tourist destination, where on the weekend it’s as likely you’ll find a local as in Times Square. Annie Sprinkle said it best, here adapted: Today’s New York is overrun by the children of the people artists and so many other creatives moved there in the 80’s and 90’s to avoid. Let any New Yorkers who disagree remain.

Meanwhile, as I said earlier, not only artists are leaving Brooklyn. As prices skyrocket and circumstances change creatives and entrepreneurs of all sorts are finding better alternatives elsewhere. Some choose Detroit. Detroit has time and space in vast abundance, in a stimulating urban environment rich in under-appreciated talent, history, and grossly underdeveloped opportunity — among the most important qualities that attracted creatives to Brooklyn in the first place. And as any rich person knows: buy low.

It's not my goal to convince anyone this is true, nor do I have any certain insight into the future. These are just my thoughts on the situation, from someone who has thought about it a lot. It will be interesting to see what happens. I predict it will be good for Detroit.

[TTime]

Coming from someone who knows this subject all too well, from both cities, the big piece you're missing is that people leaving Brooklyn don't want today's Brooklyn. I can't speak for everyone but I feel comfortable saying that for a large and very important part of the demographic little of the New York that drew them there in the first place remains.

After existing for decades as a creative nexus the east village / alphabet city / lower east side reached a tipping point in the very early 90's that sent it accelerating toward gentrification and ultimately today's banality of yuppie condos, tasting menus, and pub crawls. Many of the creatives who abandoned it dispersed into Brooklyn, only for the accelerating gentrification to chase them further there. Today’s Williamsburg is a playground for the privileged staving off adulthood behind costumes of rebellion searching for dysphoria as a badge that they’re special like they’re desperate to prove. It’s a tourist destination, where on the weekend it’s as likely you’ll find a local as in Times Square. Annie Sprinkle said it best, here adapted: Today’s New York is overrun by the children of the people artists and so many other creatives moved there in the 80’s and 90’s to avoid. Let any New Yorkers who disagree remain.

Meanwhile, as I said earlier, not only artists are leaving Brooklyn. As prices skyrocket and circumstances change creatives and entrepreneurs of all sorts are finding better alternatives elsewhere. Some choose Detroit. Detroit has time and space in vast abundance, in a stimulating urban environment rich in under-appreciated talent, history, and grossly underdeveloped opportunity — among the most important qualities that attracted creatives to Brooklyn in the first place. And as any rich person knows: buy low.

It's not my goal to convince anyone this is true, nor do I have any certain insight into the future. These are just my thoughts on the situation, from someone who has thought about it a lot. It will be interesting to see what happens. I predict it will be good for Detroit.

Buy low....hmmmm....I like the sound of that. Harper Woods is pretty low or maybe Flint. I have to think lower.

[bust]

Buy low....hmmmm....I like the sound of that. Harper Woods is pretty low or maybe Flint. I have to think lower.

Buy low, what's interesting. Great advice.

[TTime]

Buy low, what's interesting. Great advice.

Sorry, my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I thought. Buying low is obviously not some sort of rich person secret and yes it's a basic investment concept that can pay off but it can also bite you in the ass. That's why I suggested the examples of Harper Woods and Flint. Would you buy in those places? Also, buying low and selling high is all about time frame. If we looked at a 5 year chart of property values you would technically be buying high if you purchased in Detroit right now. Of course you could ride the trend up and be totally justified in your purchase or you could get caught buying the top of this spike. Time will tell....

[EL Jimbo]

I guess if you're going to bring truth into the discussion I would truly say Detroit has very little in common with Brooklyn and it's quite a leap to suggest large amounts of artists who found inspiration in Brooklyn will find it here.

It has more in common with Brooklyn than Montana or Kansas does.

[EL Jimbo]

Sorry, my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I thought. Buying low is obviously not some sort of rich person secret and yes it's a basic investment concept that can pay off but it can also bite you in the ass. That's why I suggested the examples of Harper Woods and Flint. Would you buy in those places? Also, buying low and selling high is all about time frame. If we looked at a 5 year chart of property values you would technically be buying high if you purchased in Detroit right now. Of course you could ride the trend up and be totally justified in your purchase or you could get caught buying the top of this spike. Time will tell....

But high and low is relative to the local housing market. Even at its current 5 year high, Detroit is still vastly less expensive than the New York market. I saw something come across my twitter yesterday that said that for the average price of an apartment in Soho you could buy 29 homes in Detroit. Now I know that's Manhattan and not Brooklyn, but it is still a reflection of the difference between the Detroit and New York markets.

Even if the current rise in home values is just a mini-bubble, someone who's buying "high" in Detroit now would still be vastly better off than someone in New York when it comes to the expense line on their balance sheet.

[Bham1982]

I guess if you're going to bring truth into the discussion I would truly say Detroit has very little in common with Brooklyn and it's quite a leap to suggest large amounts of artists who found inspiration in Brooklyn will find it here.

Yeah, that's basically my point. Brooklyn may have artists, Detroit may have artists, but the overlap would probably be minimized by the fact that they're such radically different built environments. Someone who likes Brooklyn's current environment isn't likely to be drawn to Detroit current environment, and vice-versa.

And I don't see the "cheaper real estate costs" argument, because there are tons and tons of places with similar costs as Detroit, many within relative proximity to NYC. There are lots of depressed towns like Newburgh and Camden and Bridgeport and areas around Philly that offer dirt-cheap prices, but with urbanity, proximity to NYC, and some resemblance to Brooklyn.

If you're in a Bushwick loft, and prices are skyrocketing, why would you move to a suburban-style neighborhood in Detroit that looks like a bombed out version of every older suburb in the Eastern U.S.? Why not move to the South Bronx, which has tons of lofts and is as urban as it gets, or go cheaper and head to Newark, or really go Detroit-cheap and head to Camden or depressed parts of Philly?

Detroit is single family homes with yards, back alleys, strip malls, huge industrial zones, massive freeways, quiet, etc. It's a very different type of environment. You'll be playing the suburban homeowner game, with lawnmower in tow. Not exactly a six floor Bushwick loft, overlooking a tenement/tower landscape.

[iheartthed]

But high and low is relative to the local housing market. Even at its current 5 year high, Detroit is still vastly less expensive than the New York market. I saw something come across my twitter yesterday that said that for the average price of an apartment in Soho you could buy 29 homes in Detroit. Now I know that's Manhattan and not Brooklyn, but it is still a reflection of the difference between the Detroit and New York markets.

Even if the current rise in home values is just a mini-bubble, someone who's buying "high" in Detroit now would still be vastly better off than someone in New York when it comes to the expense line on their balance sheet.

SoHo is one of the most expensive places to buy real estate on the planet. I'm not sure what insight is gained by comparing real estate there to Detroit. Why not compare Beverly Hills to East St. Louis while we're at it? lol.

[Junjie]

Yeah, that's basically my point. Brooklyn may have artists, Detroit may have artists, but the overlap would probably be minimized by the fact that they're such radically different built environments. Someone who likes Brooklyn's current environment isn't likely to be drawn to Detroit current environment, and vice-versa.

And I don't see the "cheaper real estate costs" argument, because there are tons and tons of places with similar costs as Detroit, many within relative proximity to NYC. There are lots of depressed towns like Newburgh and Camden and Bridgeport and areas around Philly that offer dirt-cheap prices, but with urbanity, proximity to NYC, and some resemblance to Brooklyn.

If you're in a Bushwick loft, and prices are skyrocketing, why would you move to a suburban-style neighborhood in Detroit that looks like a bombed out version of every older suburb in the Eastern U.S.? Why not move to the South Bronx, which has tons of lofts and is as urban as it gets, or go cheaper and head to Newark, or really go Detroit-cheap and head to Camden or depressed parts of Philly?

Detroit is single family homes with yards, back alleys, strip malls, huge industrial zones, massive freeways, quiet, etc. It's a very different type of environment. You'll be playing the suburban homeowner game, with lawnmower in tow. Not exactly a six floor Bushwick loft, overlooking a tenement/tower landscape.

Camden, Newark and Bridgeport have nothing culturally attractive in the way that Detroit does. No one's going to be inspired by those places. Detroit simply has cultural cache that no other comparably cheap city can match. This is one of its remaining assets despite everything that's happened.

As to the urban form argument, as I've understood it, the argument is that these folks would consider moving to the downtown/midtown areas which do offer some of the urbanity they're assumed to be seeking. Those areas are still comically cheap compared to Brooklyn. But the nice thing about Detroit is it could even attract artists who WANT an affordable single family home. Plenty must exist. It's just that in NYC you can't be both in proximity to the core art scene and afford a single family home, so no one does. I doubt that 100% of artists in Brooklyn refuse to live in anything but an apartment simply on principle.

If artists really do leave Brooklyn en masse, some may indeed go to Bridgeport or Philly or whatever. But it would be stupid of Detroit not to try to draw its fair share. Given the Galapagos move it would seem that at least some of the people who actually matter in this - the artists themselves - think Detroit has its advantages.

[Bham1982]

Camden, Newark and Bridgeport have nothing culturally attractive in the way that Detroit does.

Newark is 20 minutes by PATH subway to Manhattan, which is probably the cultural capital of the world. Bridgeport and Camden are short train rides to Manhattan.

What is so "culturally attractive" about Detroit? The DIA? Cleveland's art museum is better still, and the city is just as cheap/wrecked as Detroit, so is Cleveland going to be the next great art center?

No one's going to be inspired by those places. Detroit simply has cultural cache that no other comparably cheap city can match. This is one of its remaining assets despite everything that's happened.

What "cultural cache"? What does this even mean? Michigan in the national context, is cow country. How is Six Mile and Mound "inspirational" and the spectacular Hudson Valley not "inspirational"? Sounds absurd.

But the nice thing about Detroit is it could even attract artists who WANT an affordable single family home. Plenty must exist. It's just that in NYC you can't be both in proximity to the core art scene and afford a single family home, so no one does. I doubt that 100% of artists in Brooklyn refuse to live in anything but an apartment simply on principle.

You're right. If an artist lives in Brooklyn, and hates urbanity, then Detroit is definitely a possibility. I just don't think that's very common, as there are plenty of very culturally rich parts of the U.S. that are suburban in form, so why would such artists be living in Brooklyn in the first place? NYC is a terrible choice for those who abhor hard-core urbanity.

And why would they go to some tumbledown version of suburbia/country in [[what is perceived as) corn country, rather than, say, the Hudson Valley, which is gorgeous, often cheap, very close to NYC, and has tons of artists, much more so than in Michigan?

Given the Galapagos move it would seem that at least some of the people who actually matter in this - the artists themselves - think Detroit has its advantages.

Galapagos is a for-profit model that already had Detroit connections, and was never a major player in the NYC arts scene. It isn't like it just decided to move to Detroit unprompted.

[bust]

Sorry, my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I thought. Buying low is obviously not some sort of rich person secret and yes it's a basic investment concept that can pay off but it can also bite you in the ass. That's why I suggested the examples of Harper Woods and Flint. Would you buy in those places? Also, buying low and selling high is all about time frame. If we looked at a 5 year chart of property values you would technically be buying high if you purchased in Detroit right now. Of course you could ride the trend up and be totally justified in your purchase or you could get caught buying the top of this spike. Time will tell....

I caught your sarcasm. I guess you didn't catch mine.

My point is to say of course buying cheap isn't by itself a good strategy. Thus the "what's interesting." It's an AND operation. Detroit has no shortage of opportunities that combine both.

Believe it or not, creatives are moving to Detroit, and for a variety of reasons. They're usually among the first to figure out where it's interesting, then they enhance it once they're there.

Meanwhile, since we're comparing Detroit to Brooklyn, here's a house for rent in Brooklyn: http://streeteasy.com/building/414-d...et-brooklyn/th. Sure Park Slope is a nice area, but this is on an unappealing block on its fringe, hemmed in by the noise and traffic of Flatbush Avenue on one side and more noise and traffic of 4th Avenue on the other. It's steps from the Barclay's Center and the often unruly crowds it attracts nightly. It reeks of grease from Shake Shack. Burger and pizza joints, like sports bars and bright signage, are emblems of the neighborhood's downward spiral since the arena opened. It costs $15,000 a month, owning nothing. For a year's rent there, what can you buy in Detroit? Is value out of whack?

[bust]

Newark is 20 minutes by PATH subway to Manhattan, which is probably the cultural capital of the world. Bridgeport and Camden are short train rides to Manhattan.

What is so "culturally attractive" about Detroit? The DIA? Cleveland's art museum is better still, and the city is just as cheap/wrecked as Detroit, so is Cleveland going to be the next great art center?


What "cultural cache"? What does this even mean? Michigan in the national context, is cow country. How is Six Mile and Mound "inspirational" and the spectacular Hudson Valley not "inspirational"? Sounds absurd.


You're right. If an artist lives in Brooklyn, and hates urbanity, then Detroit is definitely a possibility. I just don't think that's very common, as there are plenty of very culturally rich parts of the U.S. that are suburban in form, so why would such artists be living in Brooklyn in the first place? NYC is a terrible choice for those who abhor hard-core urbanity.

And why would they go to some tumbledown version of suburbia/country in [[what is perceived as) corn country, rather than, say, the Hudson Valley, which is gorgeous, often cheap, very close to NYC, and has tons of artists, much more so than in Michigan?


Galapagos is a for-profit model that already had Detroit connections, and was never a major player in the NYC arts scene. It isn't like it just decided to move to Detroit unprompted.

While there are a few words here I agree with [[it's true: many are leaving New York for the Hudson Valley) there are so many more I don't. I have no interest in a debate and won't take the time to break it down in specific. Suffice it to say the perspective you project from Birmingham is largely out of sync with the reality on the ground in New York. We're each entitled to our opinions. Of course some are more informed than others. I enjoy most of your posts on other topics. I know you have your areas of expertise.

[iheartthed]

Meanwhile, since we're comparing Detroit to Brooklyn, here's a house for rent in Brooklyn: http://streeteasy.com/building/414-d...et-brooklyn/th. Sure Park Slope is a nice area, but this is on an unappealing block hemmed in by the noise and traffic of Flatbush Avenue on one side and more noise and traffic of 4th Avenue on the other. It's steps from the Barclay's Center and the often unruly crowds it attracts nightly. It reeks of grease from Shake Shack. It costs $15,000 a month, owning nothing. For a year's rent there, what can you buy in Detroit? Is value out of whack?

This is a townhouse in one of the most affluent areas in all of NYC. For a year's rent there you could buy into most places in Metro Detroit.

These cost imbalances actually point to there being an extreme glut of property in Metro Detroit compared to NYC. Detroit has an extremely high home ownership rate compared to NYC [[52% vs 32%). The reason why Detroit's home ownership rate is so much higher is largely because prices are depressed due to housing glut in Metro Detroit.

If you want to see Detroit's prices appreciate towards NYC there is a simple way to do it: stop sprawling.

[bust]

This is a townhouse in one of the most affluent areas in all of NYC. For a year's rent there you could buy into most places in Metro Detroit.

These cost imbalances actually point to there being an extreme glut of property in Metro Detroit compared to NYC. Detroit has an extremely high home ownership rate compared to NYC [[52% vs 32%). The reason why Detroit's home ownership rate is so much higher is largely because prices are depressed due to housing glut in Metro Detroit.

If you want to see Detroit's prices appreciate towards NYC there is a simple way to do it: stop sprawling.

I agree, with qualification. And mass transit really helps. That $15,000/month rental doesn't come with a parking spot. Meanwhile until very recently this fringe corner of Park Slope was not affluent. There remain plenty whom many would consider poor on the same block. And drug dealers a two minute stroll away, in the best direction. It's amazing how it all coexists.

This part of Brooklyn wasn't always so expensive. It was downright dangerous not long ago. It followed the well-worn path of gentrification, attracting immigrants, creatives, gays and lesbians, and other community-oriented residents who made it much better. The lucky / most prescient bought and are now wealthy. The less lucky were priced out as the neighborhood drastically improved.

Notably, from experience, based on reactions when I moved there in the 90's: the people who thought I was crazy were native New Yorkers, who couldn't get past the neighborhood's bad reputation, and failed to see the potential fresh eyes could see.