Is it me, or does it just feel like Detroit turned a corner?

[Fnemecek]

I can only imagine that this is true. It's a concern. I know that's real friggin trite to say. Sorry. Can't do more from here, on here, than tritely comment, though.

I don't think that idea invalidates Brushstart's perspective, though.

Well, since Brushstart's perspective was to continue the same strategy that has failed again and again for the past 50 years, I would say that it does.

[fryar]

Well, since Brushstart's perspective was to continue the same strategy that has failed again and again for the past 50 years, I would say that it does.

I'm not really qualified to carry on a conversation about the last 50 years of urban planning strategy in Detroit. You're basically blowing my mind by suggesting there was such a thing. Who was running that show? Whatever it was, surely the downtown developments, at least, of the last 10 years or so are radically different.

I don't imagine there is anything noticeable trickling down from these developments into the real neighborhoods as yet, though, and I'm sure those living in the neighborhoods are pretty fed up with those in Coleman Young Center.

[BrushStart]

Well, since Brushstart's perspective was to continue the same strategy that has failed again and again for the past 50 years, I would say that it does.

You keep looking at this like it's one or the other, i.e. "Downtown" versus "the rest of us." That's the same dysfunctional rhetoric the city vs. suburbs folks keep clinging to. It shouldn't be shocking that downtown is going to be the focal point of revitalization efforts. It's the visible face of the city and region, it's the beating heart of the body. How well off will the neighborhoods be if downtown is shuttered and decrepit with half the buildings on the skyline obviously blighted?

There are many fantastic neighborhoods in the city where some of the best Detroiters are hunkered down. There's no doubt city services should be pumped into those areas with reckless abandon, but as far as development goes, it needs to be concentrated around Detroit's key institutions, some of which are on life support. The city's future is inextricably tied to the continued existence and success of greater downtown and those anchor institutions. Those institutions keep Detroit a remarkable dot on the map. Stabilizing the core is the only way to make the city competitive, and until the core is desirable, functional, and attractive, the rest of the city will continue to tumble. Consider who would live in the Detroit of the future if it no longer had the institutions, deep cultural reservoirs, and entertainment venues that it currently has... Nobody.

If there was a plan over the last 50 years, it certainly didn't involve revitalizing the core, and downtown certainly didn't age like wine. The mantra of city/state/national government must be "Keep the pipeline of developments flowing into greater downtown and turn on the flow of city services to Detroit's stable neighborhoods." That's it. There's no other way to "fix" Detroit. At the end of the day, the neighborhoods can be right as rain but if greater downtown is an apocalyptic hellhole, there will never be even a trickle of inflow of fresh faces, only a steady stream of out migration to other cities that offer what Detroit is devoid of.

[Richard]

The key is the tax base,most of what is going on downtown is being done with tax credits,one year from now who is going to support this? it is all well and good but unless the neighborhoods are also supported which are the ones that will be providing the taxes to pay for it all it becomes difficult .

The currant investment push is wanting to keep the light shining on just downtown core which is great but it has already been proven that using a one step approach makes for one long uphill battle,hence the rise and fall.

Did the downtown empty out first then the outskirts? People left the surrounding neighborhoods thus providing no support for the downtown which in turn lost.It is no easy solution anyway one looks at it.

[Fnemecek]

You keep looking at this like it's one or the other, i.e. "Downtown" versus "the rest of us." That's the same dysfunctional rhetoric the city vs. suburbs folks keep clinging to. It shouldn't be shocking that downtown is going to be the focal point of revitalization efforts. It's the visible face of the city and region, it's the beating heart of the body.

I love how dismiss the downtown vs. neighborhoods argument and then, in the next breath, promote a downtown first strategy.

How well off will the neighborhoods be if downtown is shuttered and decrepit with half the buildings on the skyline obviously blighted?

Depends. Once downtown is shuttered, do the politicians find a different excuse for not giving us the services that we pay for?

If not then we'll be just fine without downtown.

If there was a plan over the last 50 years, it certainly didn't involve revitalizing the core, and downtown certainly didn't age like wine.

There was a plan. It did focus entirely on downtown. The stadiums, casinos, Cobo Center, and everything else was located there as part of that plan.

As for why downtown didn't age like wine, I would argue that is largely because of the downtown first strategy. All of our resources went to a very small portion of the city, at the expense of everyone else.

[fryar]

Once downtown is shuttered, do the politicians find a different excuse for not giving us the services that we pay for?

Why wouldn't they, though? In your blog post here, you convincingly argue that DPD is top-heavy, and that it is not underfunded. Why would the corruption which I am assuming these two factors indicate [[and which I assume to exist anyway) be any less prevalent without downtown?

There was a plan. It did focus entirely on downtown. The stadiums, casinos, Cobo Center, and everything else was located there as part of that plan.

OK, wait a sec. With some exceptions [[Cobo, I'll also volunteer JLA), that's 10 or so years, not 50 years. 50 years is this:

Link

There, that felt good, I haven't referenced that in quite some time.

Anyway, as you probably know, that is my go-to example of why Detroit went as far downhill as it did: Doing a bad job at being a city. Other places had crack epidemics and whatnot, other places have corruption, urban flight is not unique to Detroit, but this is a death sentence. Look at that mess. It's enough to make you think there was some kind of provision associated with Ford Auditorium that kept Hart Plaza from becoming a parking lot. After all, it looks to be prime parking lot territory.

And so, to tie things together, my impression is that there is this multi-decade determination to fail that is finally reversed in the late 1990's. It has trouble gaining traction because the deck is stacked against it in this region so dominated by the suburban model and us-vs-them antagonism, and because of economic issues, and it was going to be a long-term project anyway under the best conditions.

How is the rest of Detroit subsidizing downtown? That's just counterintuitive, at least to me.

[Fnemecek]

Why wouldn't they, though? In your blog post here, you convincingly argue that DPD is top-heavy, and that it is not underfunded. Why would the corruption which I am assuming these two factors indicate [[and which I assume to exist anyway) be any less prevalent without downtown?

First, thanks for reading my blog. I appreciate you plugging my post on DPD's budget. http://warrendale.blogspot.com/2011/...y-without.html

Second, you are correct that - even without a downtown - corrupt politicians would still find a way to be corrupt. That comment was intended to be sarcasm.

How is the rest of Detroit subsidizing downtown? That's just counterintuitive, at least to me.

Well, take a look at how many projects in downtown are subsidized by the City of Detroit. Downtown simply doesn't generate enough tax revenue to support all of those projects, especially since so many buildings downtown are actually owned by the City of Detroit itself.

The tax revenue isn't coming from the 0.7% of Detroit that is downtown. It comes from the 99.3% that is the rest of the city.

[BrushStart]

I love how dismiss the downtown vs. neighborhoods argument and then, in the next breath, promote a downtown first strategy.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying it's like a counterproductive hangnail that keeps causing pain and agony, just like the city versus suburbs rhetoric. Most agree these days that the region will not improve until the core [[Detroit) improves. What makes you think that the City of Detroit will improve if the core of the core [[greater downtown) doesn't?

While Detroiters themselves may be the gems of the city, it is the ancient institutions that transcend generations and make the city something more than a gritty swath of land on which some humans reside. The institutions and the skyscrapers and the marble monuments that record our history are what makes Detroit [[the physical city) worth caring about. While the Spirit of Detroit is found in the hearts of the people, the soul of the city is found in the halls of its historic buildings, it's institutions of knowledge and skill, and at the top of the skyscrapers that cast their mighty shadows on the streets below. Downtown is the physical representation of the city. It is the pride of the people. It is what the outside world and Detroiters alike look at to determine who they are, where they have been, and where they are going. If that is not important enough to take priority, then I don't know what is.

Depends. Once downtown is shuttered, do the politicians find a different excuse for not giving us the services that we pay for?

I don't speak for the politicians, because I am not one... just another Detroiter like you. There is no excuse for the lack of city services in any part of the city.

If not then we'll be just fine without downtown.

If by "we'll" you actually mean "you" then I agree. Detroit has some awesome housing stock buried in it's many neighborhoods, but that is not enough to hold people here over the long-haul, even with the best city services if downtown doesn't exist.

There was a plan. It did focus entirely on downtown. The stadiums, casinos, Cobo Center, and everything else was located there as part of that plan.

As for why downtown didn't age like wine, I would argue that is largely because of the downtown first strategy. All of our resources went to a very small portion of the city, at the expense of everyone else.

With the exclusion of Cobo Hall, all of those developments have been recent. Some as recent as 5-10 years, and the effect of those developments is spurring new investments around them. The flow of developments slowed during the national recession, but are again picking up speed. This will lead to a spill-over into near downtown neighborhoods, and eventually further out. For whatever reason, you seem to think that I'm advocating improving downtown at the cost of the neighborhoods. That is not what I'm saying, and it's a short-sighted way to look at the life of the city. If the solid neighborhoods dry up, there can be no continuing spill-over of developments outside downtown's core. Fixing greater downtown is the only long-term strategy to turning Detroit around. Anything else is simply delaying the city's eventual failure.

[Fnemecek]

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying it's like a counterproductive hangnail that keeps causing pain and agony, just like the city versus suburbs rhetoric.

You know what else is a counterproductive hangnail? People who keep asking for money without delivering any results.

People keep arguing that something or another downtown is going to have impact on the rest of the city. Unfortunately, it never materializes.

I don't speak for the politicians, because I am not one... just another Detroiter like you. There is no excuse for the lack of city services in any part of the city.

On this, we concur.

If by "we'll" you actually mean "you" then I agree. Detroit has some awesome housing stock buried in it's many neighborhoods, but that is not enough to hold people here over the long-haul, even with the best city services if downtown doesn't exist.

I don't buy that argument. What you're basically saying is that if my cousin asked me for money every day for several years and I gave it to him then, if he stopped asking for money, I would somehow go broke.

I just don't see that happening.

With the exclusion of Cobo Hall, all of those developments have been recent. Some as recent as 5-10 years, and the effect of those developments is spurring new investments around them.

No, all of them were more than 10 years ago.

The casinos opened in 1999 - 12 years ago.

Comerica Park opened in April, 2000 - almost 11 years ago.

Regardless, 10 years is more than enough to time to gauge the effectiveness of a given strategy. Even before the recession hit, there was very little spillover effect from downtown to the rest of Detroit.

Unless your idea of a vibrant city is one where everybody works at Hard Rock Cafe, Detroit needs more than just another shiny object downtown. We need to start focusing on the 99.3% of Detroit that isn't downtown.