Detroit continues to die

[Richard]

Not to dog-pile, but one more bit of anecdotal evidence.

I have two aquaintances who have bought and restored houses in the last 10-15 years, both before the real estate boom, and one before the housing crisis. One is still actively restoring and fixing up other houses in Detroit. Both have bailed on living there.

The #1 reason - city services. Water bills that are screwed up and don't get fixed. Police not showing up when someone is burglarizing a neighbor. Water main breaks causing sidewalks to collapse and never being repaired. These weren't minor, nit-picky issues. These are basic functions of government that aren't working.

Both have sold their homes and moved out of the city. One has a time-lapse video of pictures of his old house he takes every few months, and it's already starting to deteriorate.

Someone who cares needs to be in charge of this stuff. Every couple of years the mayor or a city council member will make a stink, it will get better for a while, then things begin to backslide again.

If you can't keep people in the neighborhoods, Detroit isn't going to complete it's comeback.

Not intending to distract from the thoughts but when they sold,outside of the labor of love aspect,did they sell at a profit? It seems not long ago the issue was people were stuck because they were unable to sell period.

I would be interested in knowing where they moved to,because even though it is known that I do not live there,Take out the word Detroit and honestly you could be describing any urban city USA,unless one lives in a high monied section that is the norm.

Detroit went through a bankruptcy and a lot of other cities that did not cut back city services so much in order to survive they mimic a lot of sediment posted here.

I live in a city that is high on the list that is considered good to move to,unless ones life is in immediate danger police calls are prioritized,if a water main breaks,unless it is in a major street or undermining a structure it will spout water for a couple of weeks and if it drops a sidewalk,the repairs will take a few months.

Dealing with city services is a nightmare,if things are done online then they actually seem to have priority,if you are trying to open a business they will do what every other city does,do everything they can to fee you to death,but that is how they gain revenue so it is expected.

Unless one moves to the country or deals with a small town,it is the norm anymore,show me the perfect urban setting and I will move there in a heartbeat,because it is no different anywhere you go,with urban living you have to be able to deal with a higher level of BS,I would say it is not for everybody.

[O3H]

Any way you slice it, dice it, chop it, serve it up
-- Detroit is still a damn TOUGH sell to people.
People might be willing to ""work"" in the city,
and then slide out of the city limits to live elsewhere.

[SammyS]

Any way you slice it, dice it, chop it, serve it up
-- Detroit is still a damn TOUGH sell to people.
People might be willing to ""work"" in the city,
and then slide out of the city limits to live elsewhere.

I actually grew up in an inner city neighborhood that was once regarded a real shit hole. Poverty, crime, drugs, you name it. Went to school with kids who had alchoholic drug addicted parents. Some with prostitutes for mothers. OD's in alley ways were a common site. Car thefts and home invasions-a-plenty.

Less than 20 years later, and thanks to gentrification, it's now regarded amongst the "finest and most expensive" inner city locations. I draw parallels to areas like Midtown and especially Brush Park.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzroy_North,_Victoria

[O3H]

Gentrification is the way to make Detroit wonderful, got it. Thanks

[SammyS]

Gentrification is the way to make Detroit wonderful, got it. Thanks

It’s a crucial step taken by those that see opportunity where others, like yourself, don’t. This is private money coming in and it’s only been a few years so far. Imagine where Detroit will be in 10 years.

[Bham1982]

Gentrification is the way to make Detroit wonderful, got it. Thanks

Probably true. Immigration too, but, to me, that falls under the umbrella of gentrification.

[gumby]

Gentrification is the way to make Detroit wonderful, got it. Thanks

Well the answer sure as hell isn't to continue with the abject poverty.

[O3H]

Ahhhhh so the PRIVATE money fixes the neighborhoods,
the slums, the environmentally nasty areas and turns them
into wonderful places where everyone wants to buy and live.

It's not the corporate, industrial, incorporated entities that
will create places where people work, earn and feed money in
to stoke the economic engine driving DETROIT forward for greatness.
Because all we have is automotive....cars/trucks....and that's it, right ???
The Detroit auto industry is not exactly setting the world ablaze anymore

Biggest DETROIT employers goes something like this :
-- Ford Motor Co.
-- General Motors Co.
-- U.S.A. Government
-- Henry Ford Health System
-- Rock Ventures

Michigan is home to 12 Billionaires - they just don't live in Detroit
Oakland County has about 2,000 Millionaires, also not in Detroit.
Wayne County has about 700 Millionaires
Macomb County has around 300 Millionaires

How has that private money turned around downtown neighborhoods ?
Why haven't YOU moved there to bask in its all its glory/warmth ?

[bust]

Why haven't YOU moved there to bask in its all its glory/warmth ?

I'm not sure how you could not have noticed: that trend is finally happening, after so many decades of the reverse.

That alone is proof that Detroit is not continuing to die.

Large parts still suffer, but there are strong signs it is turning around.

The question is not whether the turnaround is happening due to corporate investments [[e.g., Bedrock, The Platform, Ford), individual investments like from many here on this board, public investments [[and bailouts), or charity [[e.g., the Knight Foundation).

The answer is all the above, and more.

Take off those dark black glasses and enjoy it: from behind the clouds out peeps the sun.

[professorscott]

A few observations.

First, Detroit is in the best shape it's been, by far, since I first encountered it in 1979. Are there problems? Sure, show me a city without problems. But Mayor Duggan and the city are working as hard as I've ever seen, partnering with outside entities [[which Detroit used to fight tooth and nail; imagine getting QLine done when Coleman Young was mayor, and I was a great admirer of Coleman Young, but still) and making improvements.

Manufacturing is a tired old thing to discuss. Go tour the Dearborn truck plant where Ford makes the F-150. Robots make the trucks. You can have all the manufacturing you want; that doesn't employ people the way that it used to, and never will. One of the thousands of things that Trump gets wrong is the idea that some immigrant monster is taking jobs away; the robots take away the jobs and will continue to take away every job that they can.

I agree with some posters that the purpose of this entire website is to engage in constructive dialogue and not simply "cheerlead", but at the same time it seems unproductive to do the opposite, to simply repeat the tired old story of Detroit's Best Days are Behind It. Nobody knows yet what will, in the long run, turn out to have been Detroit's best days, and I, for one, am still optimistic. Optimistic from a distance, because of the vagaries of chance and economic forces, but optimistic nevertheless. Detroit has, as the Latin slogan says, risen from the ashes, and it has done so more than once.

[Bham1982]

A few observations.
First, Detroit is in the best shape it's been, by far, since I first encountered it in 1979.

I get that "best shape" is a subjective observation, but this statement strikes me as immune to reality.

In 1970, Detroit had a population of 1,511,000. In 1980, Detroit had a population of 1,203,000. So let's be conservative and say Detroit's 1979 population estimates [[based on 1978 count) would be around 1,250,000.

Detroit's current population estimate is 673,000. I don't know how anyone can make a straight-faced argument that a city is better off after losing nearly half its population, including almost its entire middle class.

In 1979, the vast majority of the city was still intact. The commercial corridors were in deep decline, but still existed. You could still shop Grand River/Greenfield or downtown along Woodward. NW Detroit was pretty solid middle-upper class. Hudson's was open downtown. The RenCen had luxury shops. There were plans for a subway, downtown shopping mall, and thousands of downtown market rate apartments.

Nowadays, most of the revitalization consists of casinos, sports stadia, some renovated buildings housing lofts or hotels, a relocated internet mortgage company, and institutional expansion [[hospitals, Wayne). There are bright spots but the city overall is in far worse shape.

[casscorridor]

I get that "best shape" is a subjective observation, but this statement strikes me as immune to reality.

In 1970, Detroit had a population of 1,511,000. In 1980, Detroit had a population of 1,203,000. So let's be conservative and say Detroit's 1979 population estimates [[based on 1978 count) would be around 1,250,000.

Detroit's current population estimate is 673,000. I don't know how anyone can make a straight-faced argument that a city is better off after losing nearly half its population, including almost its entire middle class.

In 1979, the vast majority of the city was still intact. The commercial corridors were in deep decline, but still existed. You could still shop Grand River/Greenfield or downtown along Woodward. NW Detroit was pretty solid middle-upper class. Hudson's was open downtown. The RenCen had luxury shops. There were plans for a subway, downtown shopping mall, and thousands of downtown market rate apartments.

Nowadays, most of the revitalization consists of casinos, sports stadia, some renovated buildings housing lofts or hotels, a relocated internet mortgage company, and institutional expansion [[hospitals, Wayne). There are bright spots but the city overall is in far worse shape.

Thank you. Detroit had a real chance of revival during the 1960s-80s, now not so much. Maybe if the racial climate were not so divisive, the city and its suburbs could have come together to lift the whole region up. I can only imagine how much stronger the current revival would be today.

[313WX]

People today [[individuals and developers alike) only flock to the following places:

1. Places with favorable weather for retirees [[Jacksonville, Phoenix, etc.)

2. Tourist destinations [[Orlando, Nashville, etc.)

3. Places with a large, diverse number of high-paying white collar jobs [[Atlanta, Austin, Seattle, DC, etc.).

#1 and #2 are obviously out for Detroit, so the only real chance at a revival is a prosperity bomb ala Amazon HQ2, basically something to help attract a ton of young, educated, upwardly mobile professionals. So long as Detroit [[meaning the metro area) struggles to produce a ton of the high-paying white collar jobs they desire, it will continue to flounder.

And as Detroit [[metro area) continues to flounder, so does Michigan as a whole [[people want to be in *BIG* vibrant cities).

[Richard]

I think that would push the city faster but you would be doing the same thing as in the past,one horse towns do not seem to fair well,even more so tech wise,Amazon may be king now but whose to say 10-15 years down the road.

All the others were king before Amazon.

I am thinking Detroit is moving forward even slowly but it is and with diversity so if one business sector falls it does not destroy the city in the process.

They say,if you surround yourself with positive people you get positive results,it has been proven to be effective.

I guess one can still be a cheerleader without forgetting the downside because maybe they find it more productive in being positive verses running around yelling the sky is falling,which would be depressing.

There are a lot of cities doing just fine based on diversity verses one specific industry.

[mwilbert]

I get that "best shape" is a subjective observation, but this statement strikes me as immune to reality.

In 1970, Detroit had a population of 1,511,000. In 1980, Detroit had a population of 1,203,000. So let's be conservative and say Detroit's 1979 population estimates [[based on 1978 count) would be around 1,250,000.

Detroit's current population estimate is 673,000. I don't know how anyone can make a straight-faced argument that a city is better off after losing nearly half its population, including almost its entire middle class.

In 1979, the vast majority of the city was still intact. The commercial corridors were in deep decline, but still existed. You could still shop Grand River/Greenfield or downtown along Woodward. NW Detroit was pretty solid middle-upper class. Hudson's was open downtown. The RenCen had luxury shops. There were plans for a subway, downtown shopping mall, and thousands of downtown market rate apartments.

Nowadays, most of the revitalization consists of casinos, sports stadia, some renovated buildings housing lofts or hotels, a relocated internet mortgage company, and institutional expansion [[hospitals, Wayne). There are bright spots but the city overall is in far worse shape.

As you say it is subjective. Imagine someone starts losing blood at a fairly high rate. At the beginning of the process, they are still fairly OK, but they are getting worse fast. After a while, the bleeding is stopped. In some sense, they are worse off than earlier when they hadn't been bleeding as long, and in another sense they aren't.

In my view, it is a much more attractive proposition for a person or a business to move into or stay in Detroit now than it was in 1979. Whether that means the city as a whole is in better shape depends on how you want to look at it.

[SammyS]

As you say it is subjective. Imagine someone starts losing blood at a fairly high rate. At the beginning of the process, they are still fairly OK, but they are getting worse fast. After a while, the bleeding is stopped. In some sense, they are worse off than earlier when they hadn't been bleeding as long, and in another sense they aren't.

In my view, it is a much more attractive proposition for a person or a business to move into or stay in Detroit now than it was in 1979. Whether that means the city as a whole is in better shape depends on how you want to look at it.

Well put.

It’s also a question of momentum and potential. If I may use another analogy common in discussions involving economic phase changes, our current situation is like a pendulum about to reverse swing. Lowest velocity but maximum potential and acceleration.

[O3H]

As some may say - NOPE -

""By way of textbook economics, the huge $1.8 billion corporate tax reduction successfully pushed by Gov. Rick Snyder in 2011 should have resulted in substantial economic growth. But evidence that the tax cuts have made Michigan a prime destination for corporate America is pretty thin. ""

A very slim few - took advantage of cheap land, great tax abatements -
The rest of us still would have a rough time getting a business off the ground and probably wouldn't live near it, in the city limits, eh ?

Who is looking at the accounting books of Detroit for 2020, and views a massive bucket of money for Detroit to lavish upon new stuff ?
Let's continue following the money - for the city - to improve itself.
Does it really have its own money, or will it have to bond just about everything out, and who will buy those bonds, i.e bet on a return ??

Moody’s Investors Service has upgraded Detroit’s issuer rating from B1 to Baa3

[masterblaster]

People today [[individuals and developers alike) only flock to the following places:

1. Places with favorable weather for retirees [[Jacksonville, Phoenix, etc.)

2. Tourist destinations [[Orlando, Nashville, etc.)

3. Places with a large, diverse number of high-paying white collar jobs [[Atlanta, Austin, Seattle, DC, etc.).

#1 and #2 are obviously out for Detroit, so the only real chance at a revival is a prosperity bomb ala Amazon HQ2, basically something to help attract a ton of young, educated, upwardly mobile professionals. So long as Detroit [[meaning the metro area) struggles to produce a ton of the high-paying white collar jobs they desire, it will continue to flounder.

And as Detroit [[metro area) continues to flounder, so does Michigan as a whole [[people want to be in *BIG* vibrant cities).

Do you have any suggestions on how Detroit can begin to attract and generate these high paying jobs. You bring up time and time and time and time and time and time and time again about Detroit's lack of economic vitality, but you offer no insight, from your Atlanta perch, how we might go about reversing the tide. For instance, is there something Atlanta is doing that we can do here?

[313WX]

Do you have any suggestions on how Detroit can begin to attract and generate these high paying jobs. You bring up time and time and time and time and time and time and time again about Detroit's lack of economic vitality, but you offer no insight, from your Atlanta perch, how we might go about reversing the tide. For instance, is there something Atlanta is doing that we can do here?

Since you asked...

One of the reason Atlanta seems to work is because it's actually accommodating to businesses. For example, just recently, Atlanta was considering building a new airport in the north side of the city to relieve Hartsfield-Jackson. Delta knew this would put a dent in their business, so they went to the city and requested they put a moratorium on any new airport plans in exchange for a 20 year lease. Without hesitation, the city not only agreed to Delta's terms, but also sweetened the pot by agreeing to a multi-billion dollar plan to further expand Hartsfield-Jackson, which will be to Delta's benefit.


Detroit, on the other hand, has a history of being very hostile to businesses, especially those that aren't automotive-related. You saw this recently with City Airport, in which several companies came forward offering to invest money into upgrading the airport simply in exchange for a long-term lease, yet the city kept turning them away.

Another thing Atlanta has going for it is image/marketing. They didn't let the ugliness of their past thwart economic growth and developed the reputation of being the city "too busy to hate." It has been actively working since the 1970s to counter the negative perception folks held about the city relative to civil rights, being a part of the south. Everyone within a 50 mile radius of the city is proud to claim that they're from "Atlanta" and whenever a corporation is considering expansion / relocation or a major event is searching for a host city [[I.E. the Olympics), everyone from the suburbs, to the State of Georgia to the city of Atlanta proper comes together to seal the deal by any means necessary without a ton of infighting about who should have more control over administering the deal, or how much in incentives should be offered, or what areas should be more deserving of the investment or to host the event.

Contrast this with Detroit, and the exact reason Volkswagen gave for selecting Tennessee over Michigan for its mega manufacturing operation is because it "lacked cohesiveness." Furthermore, I recently read a post from an idiot on another forum where they were ranting about Oakland and Macomb County being completely separate from the city and not suburban Detroit. It's that type of toxic mindset that's still quite prominent in Michigan that also scares businesses away.

Now to be clear, Atlanta isn't perfect and I'm sure there are some members on there that take glee in rambling on about its traffic problems. But what Atlanta does have going for it is relentless positivity. It's a place that strives to be spoken in the same breath as places as NYC and is willing to do whatever it takes to get there. It doesn't want to settle to mediocrity or being a city that's only "just good enough." I don't know what these could be, but I do know that Detroit and Michigan needs to make bold moves *NOW* [[both from a socio-economic and cultural standpoint) if it wants to compete with places like Atlanta and other desirable cities in the country before it reaches the point of no-return as far as relevance, and I'm just not seeing them happen.

[Colombian Dan]

Detroit isn't living.. it's just surviving....
Should do list:
1. Attract at least 50,000 new residents [[from outside Michigan) yearly.
2. Property taxes must be reduced by at least 75% of current rates
3. New housing must be on at least 1 acre lots or be on a water front canal connected to the Detroit River.

[Richard]

Since you asked...

One of the reason Atlanta seems to work is because it's actually accommodating to businesses. For example, just recently, Atlanta was considering building a new airport in the north side of the city to relieve Hartsfield-Jackson. Delta knew this would put a dent in their business, so they went to the city and requested they put a moratorium on any new airport plans in exchange for a 20 year lease. Without hesitation, the city not only agreed to Delta's terms, but also sweetened the pot by agreeing to a multi-billion dollar plan to further expand Hartsfield-Jackson, which will be to Delta's benefit.


Detroit, on the other hand, has a history of being very hostile to businesses, especially those that aren't automotive-related. You saw this recently with City Airport, in which several companies came forward offering to invest money into upgrading the airport simply in exchange for a long-term lease, yet the city kept turning them away.

Another thing Atlanta has going for it is image/marketing. They didn't let the ugliness of their past thwart economic growth and developed the reputation of being the city "too busy to hate." It has been actively working since the 1970s to counter the negative perception folks held about the city relative to civil rights, being a part of the south. Everyone within a 50 mile radius of the city is proud to claim that they're from "Atlanta" and whenever a corporation is considering expansion / relocation or a major event is searching for a host city [[I.E. the Olympics), everyone from the suburbs, to the State of Georgia to the city of Atlanta proper comes together to seal the deal by any means necessary without a ton of infighting about who should have more control over administering the deal, or how much in incentives should be offered, or what areas should be more deserving of the investment or to host the event.

Contrast this with Detroit, and the exact reason Volkswagen gave for selecting Tennessee over Michigan for its mega manufacturing operation is because it "lacked cohesiveness." Furthermore, I recently read a post from an idiot on another forum where they were ranting about Oakland and Macomb County being completely separate from the city and not suburban Detroit. It's that type of toxic mindset that's still quite prominent in Michigan that also scares businesses away.

Now to be clear, Atlanta isn't perfect and I'm sure there are some members on there that take glee in rambling on about its traffic problems. But what Atlanta does have going for it is relentless positivity. It's a place that strives to be spoken in the same breath as places as NYC and is willing to do whatever it takes to get there. It doesn't want to settle to mediocrity or being a city that's only "just good enough." I don't know what these could be, but I do know that Detroit and Michigan needs to make bold moves *NOW* [[both from a socio-economic and cultural standpoint) if it wants to compete with places like Atlanta and other desirable cities in the country before it reaches the point of no-return as far as relevance, and I'm just not seeing them happen.

I know quite a few that moved from Fla to the burbs of Atlanta,they never set foot in the city or will.

I do not think Detroit should be on a kick to be like other city’s,it has its own identity,even though the metrics or basics are the same in every city.

It has a big hill to climb and to me a dramatic move like dumping something like Amazon in the mix would be to much to fast and would do more damage then good.

If you look at what is happening now,most of the projects are low displacement impact or building without overwhelming,it is giving the city leaders time to address past problems while at the same time addressing the new ones.

The object is to make it a live,work and play for everybody,which includes all income levels.

You could say it would be cool for Detroit to be like San Francisco,but do you really want a large part of the population living in the street to achieve that goal,the cost is to high.

So you set goals of where you want to be 2,5,10 years down the road and just keep plugging along,but that is what is happening already.

The trick is not to keep destroying things that one can build on,there are assets there,nobody has pictures of parking lots in thier vacation photo book.

[Pat001]

Curmudgeonly baby boomers [[not all) refuse to the see the good in Detroit's rebound,

Curmudgeonly baby boomers have heard “Detroit is coming back!!” nonstop for 50 years.

[Honky Tonk]

A few observations.

I guess that's more scientific than anecdotal opinions.

imagine getting QLine done when Coleman Young was mayor,

Granted it's not the blight rail, but the people remover was built under Coleman Young. The Ren Cen too.

Manufacturing is a tired old thing to discuss. Go tour the Dearborn truck plant where Ford makes the F-150. Robots make the trucks. You can have all the manufacturing you want; that doesn't employ people the way that it used to, and never will. One of the thousands of things that Trump gets wrong is the idea that some immigrant monster is taking jobs away; the robots take away the jobs and will continue to take away every job that they can.

Took the F-150 tour, been inside the Mustang Plant for a few days. There are still plenty of people that are needed, and work, in both places. It isn't as robotically automated as people make it out to be. The difference today is, you don't use a pencil to put check marks next to a line, you have to be able to use computers or modern test equipment to obtain those jobs. Has the amount of people required changed? Yes. Every grade school class should go for a field trip so today's kids get a better understanding of what skills they'll need to get a job in today's market.

[Bham1982]

I don't get the Atlanta talk in this thread, as Atlanta is like 1000x more sprawly than Metro Detroit and downtown Atlanta is much crappier and less urban than downtown Detroit.

Atlanta is so suburbanized you can't even identify the city center. Midtown, Buckhead and Perimeter are probably more important than Downtown [[and might even have more impressive skylines, or are headed in that direction).

[313WX]

Atlanta is like 1000x more sprawly than Metro Detroit.

In terms of job sprawl [[the true objective measure of how suburban a metro area is), Detroit takes that cake as far as being the worst in the country [[followed by Chicago), not Atlanta.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/j...ment-location/

and downtown Atlanta is much crappier and less urban than downtown Detroit.

Downtown Atlanta is home to roughly 27,000 residents, 34,000 students and 155,000 daytime office workers [[and this doesn't even include Midtown). Downtown Atlanta is also served by a subway system that connects you to at least one suburban emploumemt center, the major shopping destination in the city amd the airport.

Meanwhile, Detroit, meanwhile, only has 92,000 workers *in total* and 5,300 residents. It's also only servedby a monorail to nowhere outside of downtown and a [[last I heard, not particularly efficient) trolley that only connects it to portions of Midtown.

So to suggest that downtown Atlanta is less urban and more crappier than downtown Detroit is laughable at best.

I get, you hate Atlanta [[it's probably some jealously in reality, as Atlanta's metro area is actually growing while Metro Detroit has yet to exceed its 1970 peak population), but although it may be difgicult for you, please express your hatred while using actual facts next time.