I think some people are prematurely writing Detroit's epitaph in favor of places like Troy and Southfield. Detroit was founded where it is for a reason, and those reasons still exist.
It was founded as a military outpost and trading post. It's proximity to navigable waterways made it an industrial hub as most goods were shipped by boat. How many wharfs, docks and factories are on the water in Detroit theses days? It last incarnation was as a car manufacturing center. How many plants are still in Detroit? Two?
You have a city that sits on a major waterway, is at the confluence of highway and railroad networks, and sits on an international boundary. Never mind that Detroit has at least as good of connectivity to its neighbors, Ann Arbor and Toledo, which has potential to build economic synergy. These are not unimportant characteristics to casually dismiss.
well, the control of that international boundary is, for all intents and purposes, in the control of a private citizen for his own gain. I think the areas around the bridge might differ on whether or not having it there is a good thing. Of the three cities, Detroit Toledo and Ann Arbor, the only one thriving is the one NOT located on the waterway, and confluence of rail networks of which you speak. It's thriving because it is as disconnected from the dying manufacturing industry as it possibly can be in this state. However, take away the gigantic state subsidized Uof M, and you'd have the Mt Clemens of Washtenaw county.

In my opinion, the days of the suburbs are numbered, even in a white collar culture. Why would one drive an hour each way to a meeting if he could take a cab a few blocks, or God forbid, walk?
That presupposes the suburbs will not become more "urban" in nature. Downtown Birmingham is walkable..restaurants, condos, and offices galore. Downtown Royal Oak, similar and growing. Dearborn the same....etc. Yes, exurbs are silly, but to say that Detroit MUST come back is ignoring the fact that most of the region has moved beyond needing Detroit as the regional Downtown and have been busily building their own.

Retroit should take solace in knowing that cities that do provide diverse housing stock, walkable neighborhoods, and higher density are very desirable these days. The evidence is in the housing prices, such as when the outer suburbs of Northern Virginia tanked much sooner and faster than comparable homes in the District of Columbia
That is all well and good, but I would contend that DC was always the center of the region and the result you cite is simply the artificial real estate bubble bursting and normalcy returning. If this area ever recovers, what property is going to come back to peak? Indian village or Birmingham?
Detroit needs to make itself open for business and capitalize on its natural advantages.
I agree that Detroit needs to radically overhaul how it does business. But, natural advantages, what natural advantages? access to 19th century modes of shipping? early 20th century architecture? a vast and easily used mass transit system? great schools? educated workforce?
The problem with Detroit is it has virtually nothing to offer the vast majority of those that live here.
Copying the suburbs just isn't going to cut it--the people who want to live in those suburbs have spoken with their feet and their wallet, and aren't going to move into Detroit just because it looks and feels the same as where they currently live and work.
The hilarous part and the part that illustrates Detroit's regional irrelevance is what I said above, all those evil suburban communities are embracing the urbanist planning philosophy. Cities that had no real downtowns are either building them or trying to...with varying levels of success. What no one is doing is considering Detroit as an alternative.