Ilitchville vs. Gilbertville [[Freep)

[ghettopalmetto]

1.) Didn't say that. Highly challenging in 2014 if only due to location. Add in the issues and solvency of the city/region and you have a very tough road ahead. The access to water might help.

2.) The auto boom happened pre-globalization + pre-air conditioning + pre-air travel + cusp of lumber industry slowdown + pre-union busting + a level of serendipitous. You will never see northern land locked midwest cities boom like that ever again.

3.) You can take issue with it all you want, it's a fact. Coastal and southern cities are kicking the crap out of cold weather landlocked cities. The anomalies are Chicago, Denver and Salt Lake City?

If you spent as much energy on positive thought as you did manufacturing excuses, you could rebuild Detroit single-handedly. If I listened to you, I'd almost believe that Mobile, Alabama is "kicking the crap" out of Minneapolis.

At the end of the day, I believe most people could care less about whatever metric an economist or Forbes Magazine invents. Most folks I know just want a nice place to live, with a good job, a means to get around, access to daily needs, and recreational pursuits that fit their interests. Now, those criteria are different for everybody, and there is a certain segment for whom Detroit is appealing. More often than not, those people are going to be creative, ambitious, willing to take a chance, and desire to make a positive difference. Let's not write them off just because you assume they'd rather be programming code on a beach for a nonunion employer.

When you want to get realistic, please let us know.

[mwilbert]

Do you know what I find amusing? People who extrapolate trends into the indefinite future.

Detroit's early 20th century boom was a massive outlier. Expecting anything like that again is foolish. On the other hand, thinking that the trends leading people south and west are going to continue forever is also foolish. I don't know what will cause people to do something different, maybe it will be the increasingly bad weather in the south and west, or lack of water, or increasing overcrowding/traffic. Twenty years ago, it was common to talk about the Dakotas emptying out and that we should consider turning the whole area back to buffalo. Now, not so much.

All Detroit can do is work to make itself the best city it can be. It can't change its location, so there isn't much point in focusing on that.

[Hermod]

When you think about it, Detroit becoming the center of the automotive industry was quite unlikely. Cleveland, South Bend, Columbus, Fort Wayne, and Chicago were on the major east-west rail lines and had the best communication with Pittsburgh which was the center of the steel and iron industry. Detroit was sort of off the map on an inconvenient dog leg to the north.

The presence of lumber barons with lots of disposable cash to invest made Detroit the earliest center for interurban railroads and the center for the auto industry. The turn of the century venture capital was here in Detroit.

Who made the best guesses, the transit investors or tge auto investors?

[iheartthed]

When you think about it, Detroit becoming the center of the automotive industry was quite unlikely. Cleveland, South Bend, Columbus, Fort Wayne, and Chicago were on the major east-west rail lines and had the best communication with Pittsburgh which was the center of the steel and iron industry. Detroit was sort of off the map on an inconvenient dog leg to the north.

The presence of lumber barons with lots of disposable cash to invest made Detroit the earliest center for interurban railroads and the center for the auto industry. The turn of the century venture capital was here in Detroit.

Who made the best guesses, the transit investors or tge auto investors?

I read that Fort Wayne was very competitive as an automotive center in the early days. However, Detroit did have some things going for it that trumped those other cities, except Cleveland. Detroit was a major [[biggest?) producer of carriages, so it had the know how to transition to mass producing automobiles. It was also located on a waterway with a direct connection to the East Coast via the Erie Canal.

I think Detroit was always destined to be a major city in the Midwest. There is an eerie population correlation between Detroit and Milwaukee up until the early 20th century.

[TennisAndMath]

When you think about it, Detroit becoming the center of the automotive industry was quite unlikely. Cleveland, South Bend, Columbus, Fort Wayne, and Chicago were on the major east-west rail lines and had the best communication with Pittsburgh which was the center of the steel and iron industry. Detroit was sort of off the map on an inconvenient dog leg to the north.

Bingo. And off the turnpike. The state is in a logistical dead zone that makes it very unattractive. What brings SE Michigan/Detroit back will need to be VERY bold.

[ghettopalmetto]

Bingo. And off the turnpike. The state is in a logistical dead zone that makes it very unattractive. What brings SE Michigan/Detroit back will need to be VERY bold.

One can keep things simple and realize that Detroit sits on the Great Lakes, has nearly unparalleled institutional knowledge in manufacturing, and is proximate to an enormous percentage of the United States population.

Or you can wait for some "very bold" idea to materialize out of the ether.

[bailey]

One can keep things simple and realize that Detroit sits on the Great Lakes, has nearly unparalleled institutional knowledge in manufacturing, and is proximate to an enormous percentage of the United States population.

three pretty irrelevant things in today's economy basically. [[unless we're talking about monetizing, building massive pipelines and selling the water in the Great Lakes to the booming water deprived southwest).

Detroit's location and it's manufacturing knowledge is irrelevant when the entire US manufacturing sector is designed to offshore as much of the process as possible.

We need more Gilberts with a idea/process that needs 10s of thousands low to moderately educated people to do something not offshore-able.

[maverick1]

One can keep things simple and realize that Detroit sits on the Great Lakes, has nearly unparalleled institutional knowledge in manufacturing, and is proximate to an enormous percentage of the United States population.

Or you can wait for some "very bold" idea to materialize out of the ether.

The bold is why I feel a significant part of the reason we're not growing and have declined is because we didn't take advantage of this. We've totally failed at taking of advantage, bolstering, and leading here. The fact that there is not a manufacturing equivalent of Silicon Valley here is a shame. Just as finance is to NYC, tech is to the Bay Area, all manufacturing should be in Detroit.

[ghettopalmetto]

three pretty irrelevant things in today's economy basically. [[unless we're talking about monetizing, building massive pipelines and selling the water in the Great Lakes to the booming water deprived southwest).

Detroit's location and it's manufacturing knowledge is irrelevant when the entire US manufacturing sector is designed to offshore as much of the process as possible.

Well, of course those things are irrelevant when you base the entire regional economy on creating more urban sprawl. The further Detroit expands outward, the more it loses its natural advantages.

But about that Great Lakes and manufacturing thing? Yeah, this: After splashy debut, the Cleveland-Europe Express may add another ship

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in..._the_clev.html

We need more Gilberts with a idea/process that needs 10s of thousands low to moderately educated people to do something not offshore-able.

The sole reason that Detroit has fallen so far is that you're all waiting for Mike Ilitch or casinos or Super Bowls or Dan Gilbert to save your asses for you.

[Hermod]

I read that Fort Wayne was very competitive as an automotive center in the early days. However, Detroit did have some things going for it that trumped those other cities, except Cleveland. Detroit was a major [[biggest?) producer of carriages, so it had the know how to transition to mass producing automobiles. It was also located on a waterway with a direct connection to the East Coast via the Erie Canal.

I think Detroit was always destined to be a major city in the Midwest. There is an eerie population correlation between Detroit and Milwaukee up until the early 20th century.

What in and outbound shipments via the Erie Canal supported the auto industry in Detroit?

[bailey]

Well, of course those things are irrelevant when you base the entire regional economy on creating more urban sprawl. The further Detroit expands outward, the more it loses its natural advantages.

bullshit. Sprawl is irrelevant if you have an economy. We don't because we're almost totally reliant on one sector that has been systematically deconstructed. GM, Ford and Chrysler don't source their parts in Mexico and China because of sprawl. Dallas is booming and it's the most depressing, hot, smelly, sprawled, out, bland shit hole in [[my opinion) the country. Take away the energy sector and it'll look like detroit in a decade.

But about that Great Lakes and manufacturing thing? Yeah, this: After splashy debut, the Cleveland-Europe Express may add another ship

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in..._the_clev.html

The simple fact of the matter is the great lakes can't support shipping the way the coasts can. The massive container ships can't get up the locks. Our shipping industry is, has been, and always will be primarily regional.

The sole reason that Detroit has fallen so far is that you're all waiting for Mike Ilitch or casinos or Super Bowls or Dan Gilbert to save your asses for you

of course, the sole reason detroit existed at all...and wasn't just another Lansing or Port Huron, is because of Fords, Fishers, Durants, Dodges, Hudsons, Whitneys, ....etc. if not for them, there are no Kahn buildings to look at or Derrick houses to live in. It's a sleepy backwater border town.

Everyone didn't just show up one day just because. I know this is an oversimplification, but Some guy or group of guys had a really great idea and did something with it HERE and then needed a shit load of people to make that something. Detroit would not be Detroit if Ford built all the Model Ts in Mexico and just shipped them here.

[Hermod]

One can keep things simple and realize that Detroit sits on the Great Lakes, has nearly unparalleled institutional knowledge in manufacturing, and is proximate to an enormous percentage of the United States population.

Or you can wait for some "very bold" idea to materialize out of the ether.

Alpena sits on the Great Lakes as well. Most of the bulk tonnage moving on the lakes has been lumber, grain, and iron ore. The freighter captains wave to Detroit on their way by.

[ghettopalmetto]

bullshit. Sprawl is irrelevant if you have an economy. We don't because we're almost totally reliant on one sector that has been systematically deconstructed.

I think you misunderstood. Sprawl IS the economy in Southeastern Michigan. If people stop buying plastic houses, everyone suffers. But then again, Detroit has only had about 40 years to see that it can't tie itself strictly to the auto industry.

The simple fact of the matter is the great lakes can't support shipping the way the coasts can. The massive container ships can't get up the locks. Our shipping industry is, has been, and always will be primarily regional.

No one is delusional enough to think that Great Lakes shipping can displace the East Coast ports. But if a manufacturer in Cleveland can shave a few days off product transit time, and doesn't have to send a truck or train to New York Harbor or Philadelphia, then he can cut his costs *and* develop a new market in Europe. While Cleveland was developing this service, Detroit was debating how much money to throw at Mike Ilitch.

of course, the sole reason detroit existed at all...and wasn't just another Lansing or Port Huron, is because of Fords, Fishers, Durants, Dodges, Hudsons, Whitneys, ....etc. if not for them, there is no Kahn buildings to look at or Derrick houses to live in. It's a sleepy backwater border town.

You're right. It had nothing to do with strategic location--the ability to receive shipments of iron ore, or raw steel, or access to highways and railroads. It was all dumb luck.

The next Ford and Hudson and Whitney *could very well* be living in Southeastern Michigan...or they might have become tired of the chronic helplessness and petulant bickering and fled to Chicago or Philadelphia or Los Angeles years ago. Your insistence, though, that the entire region should sit on its heels, feel sorry for itself, and do nothing until the Second Coming of Hank Ford shows up is utter crap. Those guys were risk-takers. They didn't wait for permission. They didn't beg and plead someone else to do things for them.

[iheartthed]

bullshit. Sprawl is irrelevant if you have an economy. We don't because we're almost totally reliant on one sector that has been systematically deconstructed. GM, Ford and Chrysler don't source their parts in Mexico and China because of sprawl. Dallas is booming and it's the most depressing, hot, smelly, sprawled, out, bland shit hole in [[my opinion) the country. Take away the energy sector and it'll look like detroit in a decade.

I don't think Dallas has large amounts of unproductive land sitting in its core and not being utilized. That's what ghettopalmetto means by sprawl. And that is most definitely a drag on Detroit's economy...

[Junjie]

1.) Yes, I'm disputing that two world class colleges, plus American, Catholic and Howard bring vastly more economic impact than Wayne and Mercy [[schools nobody outside of Metro Detroit have even heard of). It sounds like you've never been to D.C. before.

Yes, I agree that the five universities you named have more economic impact than WSU + Mercy. But that was never my point [[and naturally you changed the question when responding to elide this fact).

The point was that [[GWU + GT + AU + Catholic + Howard) - [[WSU + Mercy) does not equal the economic difference between Detroit and DC, and in terms of extra contribution of students and faculty to the city is only about equal to WSU itself. How much of the 2.5x difference in regional GDP do you think that remainder accounts for? I doubt it's very significant in the larger scheme of things, but feel free to show otherwise. It'd be great if you could, because then we'd know that all we need to do is get the local billionaires to endow a great private university and Detroit's problems will be solved.

I've lived in the DC area for four years and indeed attended GWU during that time.

2.) Never in my life heard anyone say they have their job or are seeking out Michigan for work because of a border crossing. California has perfect weather ... but Michigan has a border crossing to Windsor! Perhaps it provides some economic boost to the region, but you're grossly exaggerating it. Whenever politicians bring it up I always felt it was a really desperate attempt to make the state look better. "We have cherries... and a border crossing... and we were the birthplace of Motown." A fruit, a bridge the average resident doesn't use, and a record label that fled Detroit 40 years ago.

You seem to be going out of your way to pretend you don't understand the point. In case you're not pretending, I'll spell it out for you.

The United States does $616 billion dollars of trade every year with Canada. 1/4 of this flows through Detroit. That's a large "natural" advantage working in the city's favor. Estimates that I already quoted to you state the crossing is responsible for about 250,000 jobs in the region. I'm sure that none of those people said "I'll move to Detroit for the border crossing!" and yet here they all are nonetheless.

That was all just a tangent explaining to you that Detroit does indeed enjoy certain natural advantages other cities do not, and that therefore totaling up things like climate, geography, status as national capital etc. [[which, by the way, remain constant) is unlikely to do much to explain why one city changed for the worse while another changed for the better.

3.) You don't realize what Seattle, LA, SF, SD, Miami, New York, Boston, D.C. have in common? The most talented people in the nation gravitate towards major cities on the coasts. I don't see the trend reversing.

Well, they certainly don't have good weather in common, do they?

Others already addressed this but Denver, Austin, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake City have all been doing just fine at attracting talent. Hell, Columbus has grown in population by more than 10% each of the past 3 decades despite cold weather, no coast, etc. and now has significantly more people than Detroit. All of this is totally mysterious if we accept what you're saying. The other possibility is that you're just wrong, and that what actually makes cities successful has more to do with the policies they enact and the kind of environment they build.

Given that, here again is the very, very simple point that kicked off this whole "debate": it's worthwhile to look at comparable cities that have been successful in similar circumstances and push for Detroit to model policies that may have made a difference.

[ghettopalmetto]

Hell, Columbus has grown in population by more than 10% each of the past 3 decades despite cold weather, no coast, etc. and now has significantly more people than Detroit.

Let's not get *too* crazy. A significant portion of Columbus's "growth" has been due to annexation of suburban areas, as they've had a very aggressive annexation policy since the 1970s. The city limits extend into Delaware and Fairfield Counties, and the City now comprises some 223 square miles [[more than 50% larger in area than Detroit, with population density about 3/4 that of Detroit). The entire 12-county Columbus sprawlopolis still has fewer people than the Cincinnati area, and fewer than Wayne County.

[EL Jimbo]

three pretty irrelevant things in today's economy basically. [[unless we're talking about monetizing, building massive pipelines and selling the water in the Great Lakes to the booming water deprived southwest).

Detroit's location and it's manufacturing knowledge is irrelevant when the entire US manufacturing sector is designed to offshore as much of the process as possible.

We need more Gilberts with a idea/process that needs 10s of thousands low to moderately educated people to do something not offshore-able.

Water pipelines would be the wrong approach [[not to mention a violation of the Great Lakes Compact). When it comes to water, Detroit, Michigan, and the Great Lakes region as a whole needs to take the long view approach.

Sure, you could make a few bucks bottling water or piping it out west...OR you can wait for those regions to stagnate because water demands can't keep up anymore.

Water is a finite resource. If you don't have enough, your region will not only stop growing, but it will stagnate and decline to a level that your water access can support. For many of the regions of the west, they are reaching that point. Sure, California can choose to invest mightily in desalination to support their metropolitan areas, but they will still lose the water they need for agriculture in the process. The cost to live and do business out there, not to mention quality of life will suffer.

However, for other metro areas without direct coastal access like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Salt Lake City they will simply run into a brick wall in terms of growth due to lack to lack of water.

With all of this happening, people still need to work and business still looks to invest. If the environment is detrimental for continued growth due to lack of water out west, money will look for other places to invest...

And the Great Lakes region will be sitting there with tons of water and open arms.

[mwilbert]

Water pipelines would be the wrong approach [[not to mention a violation of the Great Lakes Compact). When it comes to water, Detroit, Michigan, and the Great Lakes region as a whole needs to take the long view approach.

Sure, you could make a few bucks bottling water or piping it out west...OR you can wait for those regions to stagnate because water demands can't keep up anymore.

I don't think he was proposing this. He was using it as an device to express his thinking that Detroit's location on the Great Lakes isn't relevant to the economy.

[EL Jimbo]

I don't think he was proposing this. He was using it as an device to express his thinking that Detroit's location on the Great Lakes isn't relevant to the economy.

Fair enough, but in the context of the rest of the discussion, Washington's location on the Eastern Seaboard has no more or no less relevance on its economy either.

[mwilbert]

In the case of DC, I agree with you. Some cities' locations are relevant, but DC's success has little if anything to do with its location.

[iheartthed]

Fair enough, but in the context of the rest of the discussion, Washington's location on the Eastern Seaboard has no more or no less relevance on its economy either.

It's hard to prove but I think Washington benefits a lot from being in the megalopolis.

[EL Jimbo]

It's hard to prove but I think Washington benefits a lot from being in the megalopolis.

You could make an argument that DC does benefit from being the Southern Terminus of the ACELA that runs through the Megalopolis, but in the grand scheme of things, that's a marginal impact at best.

[iheartthed]

You could make an argument that DC does benefit from being the Southern Terminus of the ACELA that runs through the Megalopolis, but in the grand scheme of things, that's a marginal impact at best.

I think the Acela is one of the measurable things that Washington enjoys because of its location... But not necessarily the reason for its success. If Washington were built in the middle of the country, like how Brazil planned Brasilia, it definitely would not have a high speed Acela train connecting it to New York.

Beyond the Acela, I think one of the biggest boosts that Washington gets from being in the megalopolis is tourism. Since it's in close proximity to several major cities, and very well connected by transit options to those cities, it makes it easy for tourists to go between those cities. If Washington were in a location like Denver or St. Louis then it would not be able to participate in the tourism ecosystem that Boston, Philadelphia and New York have going.

[EL Jimbo]

I think the Acela is one of the measurable things that Washington enjoys because of its location... But not necessarily the reason for its success. If Washington were built in the middle of the country, like how Brazil planned Brasilia, it definitely would not have a high speed Acela train connecting it to New York.

Beyond the Acela, I think one of the biggest boosts that Washington gets from being in the megalopolis is tourism. Since it's in close proximity to several major cities, and very well connected by transit options to those cities, it makes it easy for tourists to go between those cities. If Washington were in a location like Denver or St. Louis then it would not be able to participate in the tourism ecosystem that Boston, Philadelphia and New York have going.

That is a point there, but I don't think that creates an overwhelming advantage over Detroit if, hypothetically, the US capital was here. According to Google Maps, it is a 7 hour drive from Boston to DC and 11 hours from Boston to Detroit.

I don't think the extra 4 hours creates this immense, inherent, competitive advantage based on location for DC when compared to Detroit. Certainly not enough to give it the value that T&M gives it.

[iheartthed]

That is a point there, but I don't think that creates an overwhelming advantage over Detroit if, hypothetically, the US capital was here. According to Google Maps, it is a 7 hour drive from Boston to DC and 11 hours from Boston to Detroit.

I don't think the extra 4 hours creates this immense, inherent, competitive advantage based on location for DC when compared to Detroit. Certainly not enough to give it the value that T&M gives it.

Well, between Boston and DC there is New York and Philadelphia. Between Boston and Detroit there are two international borders and Buffalo. I don't want to sound like I'm agreeing with T&M because I think many of his points are misguided. I think the takeaway point from this discussion is that Detroit should identify its strengths and play to that. Detroit is not located in the northeast megalopolis but it is located in a similar proximity to Chicago and Toronto that it could use to its advantage.