Ilitchville vs. Gilbertville (Freep)

'Disaggregating the aggregate' - some geek speak from work - it seems:

1). Ilitch has mostly sports and entertainment, including one gambling site.

2). Gilbert has mostly non-sports, non-entertainment commercial usages, but does have one gambling site.

OR:

Gilbert has mostly the central business district,

Ilitch has mostly the area north of GC Park [[JLA is obviously way south, but that isn't his arena).

Interesting that other than gambling, they don't compete against each other. Ilitch does sports and entertainment further north of Gilbert's commercial enterprises.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140727/NEWS01/140726004

But they did cooperate on M-1 rail which is good. M-1 serves both well.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140727/NEWS01/307270087

I really, really like the article. Two men/organizations, contrasting styles, etc. etc. BUT there is room for both [[and others).

What Dan Gilbert did that Mike Illitch didn't do is buying more Downtown Detroit buildings, fix em' up, lure pop-art retail and his yuppie professional clients can move in. Mike Illitch had hold on to his Fox Town Properties for a long time. He rehabbed the Fox Theater Building, built his Motor City CaSINo brought some land up to Grand River Ave. Make deals with Comerica Bank to built a new stadium for the Tigers and that's it. Gilbert is commanding lead of making spontaneous capital investments in Downtown Detroit. [[ Or should I say Gilberttown Detroit.)

Neither one is doing a damn thing for me but spending my tax dollars.

This soooooo reminds me of that famous quote credited to the 1'st Baron Rothschild, Nathan.

"The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."

John Mogk, a longtime law professor and development expert at Wayne State University, called the impact unmatched in modern U.S. history.

“No two individuals have made more major investments in the city,” he said. “The percentage of property in a major urban core owned or controlled by the two is unprecedented in the U.S.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

This soooooo reminds me of that famous quote credited to the 1'st Baron Rothschild, Nathan.

"The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."

John Mogk, a longtime law professor and development expert at Wayne State University, called the impact unmatched in modern U.S. history.

“No two individuals have made more major investments in the city,” he said. “The percentage of property in a major urban core owned or controlled by the two is unprecedented in the U.S.”

---

The one thing few mention is that Ilitch got in when 'there's blood in the streets' while Gilbert got in when things were much, much better.

Ilitch gets little credit HERE for getting in so early where only fools or visionaries would get in.

I see it all the time in D.C.: Folks got into neighborhoods, e.g., Logan Circle, Shaw, etc. a few decades ago when drug pushers and prostitutes were plying their trade on the street corner. They sat on property until things started changing and then made their move.

Now their neighborhoods have completely turned around.

Or the famous story about Abe Polin, a D.C. visionary. Someone took Abe Polin to a huge vacant parking lot [[yes, a parking lot destined for greatness) where drug dealers hung out.

That parking lot is now the Verizon Center, home of the Wizards and Caps.

Hell, the Reeves Center [[14 and U, N.W.) was like what is Mayor Berry thinking? [[who would put a government office building THERE?). Now that area is very pricey. I believe that area was part of the riots in D.C. [[believe 14th and 7th streets N.W.).

In D.C. today, we saw folks hold on to wasteland near Buzzards Point, waiting for the day that area would turn up. I believe the Coast Guard's headquarters were built in the 70s. NO federal government agency wanted to be there.

Now D.C. government will pay pretty penny [[like more than 100M) for land for a new soccer stadium.

What a fluff piece. It would be nice to read an article with some new insights about their operations and plans such as Gilbert's retail leasing and residential. The only people interviewed are George Jackson and a Wayne State prof. Nothing new here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Neither one is doing a damn thing for me but spending my tax dollars.

---

Have you not seen the development that Illitch and Gilbert done to the Downtown Detroit. Rothschild were right about their financial philosophy. When folks in Detroit spill blood turning their neighborhoods to welfare ghetto villages, THEY came in to buy Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

The one thing few mention is that Ilitch got in when 'there's blood in the streets' while Gilbert got in when things were much, much better.

Ilitch gets little credit HERE for getting in so early where only fools or visionaries would get in.

I see it all the time in D.C.: Folks got into neighborhoods, e.g., Logan Circle, Shaw, etc. a few decades ago when drug pushers and prostitutes were plying their trade on the street corner. They sat on property until things started changing and then made their move.

Now their neighborhoods have completely turned around.

Or the famous story about Abe Polin, a D.C. visionary. Someone took Abe Polin to a huge vacant parking lot [[yes, a parking lot destined for greatness) where drug dealers hung out.

That parking lot is now the Verizon Center, home of the Wizards and Caps.

Hell, the Reeves Center [[14 and U, N.W.) was like what is Mayor Berry thinking? [[who would put a government office building THERE?). Now that area is very pricey. I believe that area was part of the riots in D.C. [[believe 14th and 7th streets N.W.).

In D.C. today, we saw folks hold on to wasteland near Buzzards Point, waiting for the day that area would turn up. I believe the Coast Guard's headquarters were built in the 70s. NO federal government agency wanted to be there.

Now D.C. government will pay pretty penny [[like more than 100M) for land for a new soccer stadium.

---

Wake me up when the federal government moves to Detroit.

Wake me up when Oakland, Livingston, Wayne, Washtenaw, Genesee and Macomb are 6 of the top 10 wealthiest counties in the U.S.: http://www.wtop.com/41/3594972/Ameri...ies-in-DC-area

Wake me up when all of Detroit sees a boom like merely one street in D.C.: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/re...evelopers.html

Wake me up when Detroit goes from #65 to #1 in most educated city in the U.S.: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tro-areas.html

In short, Detroit != D.C. Nothing in D.C. is replicable in Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 401don

What a fluff piece. It would be nice to read an article with some new insights about their operations and plans such as Gilbert's retail leasing and residential. The only people interviewed are George Jackson and a Wayne State prof. Nothing new here.

---

The would require real journalism. The local papers are just propaganda machines for the region's billionaires and the Big 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

The one thing few mention is that Ilitch got in when 'there's blood in the streets' while Gilbert got in when things were much, much better.

Ilitch gets little credit HERE for getting in so early where only fools or visionaries would get in....

---

Bravo to Ilitch for investing in Detroit when few others did. I don't see why Ilitch is hated here. Its become almost a badge of honor here to beat up on him. I too disagree strongly with many of his decisions -- but at least he was here making investments and decisions when nobody else was. The 80s were truly dark days downtown. Bravo.

Things indeed were better when Gilbert joined in. If we can keep our heads out of our asses and get over fighting old battles, we'll all look back at the today and realize Gilbert bought very low, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

Wake me up when the federal government moves to Detroit.

Wake me up when Oakland, Livingston, Wayne, Washtenaw, Genesee and Macomb are 6 of the top 10 wealthiest counties in the U.S.: http://www.wtop.com/41/3594972/Ameri...ies-in-DC-area

Wake me up when all of Detroit sees a boom like merely one street in D.C.: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/re...evelopers.html

Wake me up when Detroit goes from #65 to #1 in most educated city in the U.S.: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tro-areas.html

In short, Detroit != D.C. Nothing in D.C. is replicable in Detroit.

---

Yes, D.C. and Detroit are very, very different. No one disputes that and certainly not me, having lived and worked IN Detroit [[been there; done that) and having spent the last 35 years of my life in the D.C. area. I and others I know left MI in the late 70s or 80s.

That said, the principles of urban theory and urban growth [[or decline) is the same.

If not, why would all of the urban pioneers be spending bucks in Midtown? Why would Gilbert be buying what 50+ buildings in downtown?

D.C. is a great place to live, work and play.

Detroit is trying to become that, at least in the downtown areas.

Well Gilbert is a full-fledged investor on the face of it. What folks don't dig about Ilitch are the wait-and-see tactics that are symptomatic of the Moroun syndrome. Moroun is w/o contest the most reviled of the three.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

If not, why would all of the urban pioneers be spending bucks in Midtown? Why would Gilbert be buying what 50+ buildings in downtown?

---

What's the total cost of Gilbert's Detroit acquisitions, not counting Greektown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

Wake me up when the federal government moves to Detroit.

Wake me up when Oakland, Livingston, Wayne, Washtenaw, Genesee and Macomb are 6 of the top 10 wealthiest counties in the U.S.: http://www.wtop.com/41/3594972/Ameri...ies-in-DC-area

Wake me up when all of Detroit sees a boom like merely one street in D.C.: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/re...evelopers.html

Wake me up when Detroit goes from #65 to #1 in most educated city in the U.S.: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tro-areas.html

In short, Detroit != D.C. Nothing in D.C. is replicable in Detroit.

---

T&M. You're logic is wrong. The feds were in DC when DC was crap. It wasn't as if the feds moved to DC, and then, bang, it get fixed.

A lot of our cities nationwide are recovering because of broad trends. Young folks today have the same feelings that our grandparents had towards city living. They enjoy the density, liveliness, diversity, and compact less car-centric living cities offer. They also don't have the money their parents do from defined-benefit pensions and from the real-estate boom. Its harder for young folks to make it in a 3-bedroom ranch in Rochester than it was. That cash is locked up with their parents. These things combine to help all cities.

The question is how much Detroit wants to enjoy the renaissance, or do we want to fight the old racial battles to 'protect Detroit's jewels'... which are of zero interest to young folks today of all religious groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

Well Gilbert is a full-fledged investor on the face of it. What folks don't dig about Ilitch are the wait-and-see tactics that are symptomatic of the Moroun syndrome. Moroun is w/o contest the most reviled of the three.

---

I wonder if Matty will ever put together a Moroun-ville out there in southwest and corktown.....I doubt it

The difference is that Gilbert deals only in positives. He buys something and invests in it. He makes money, we get a healthier downtown, and his properties being in a healthier downtown makes him even more money.

He *is* competing with other people downtown but he focuses on "winning" by maximizing his own stuff rather than trying to minimize other people's stuff. He also understands that other investors being winners makes him even more of a winner because their efforts increase the value of his own.


Ilitch on the other hand does the opposite. He's only in the entertainment business. He buys property to protect his entertainment business. He maximizes his entertainment business even if it means he minimizes everything else around it. He deserves credit for choosing to locate his entertainment business in Detroit [[and also Little Ceasars and Olympia) but he also deserves criticism for hoarding huge swaths of real estate with seemingly no intention of actually getting into the real estate business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

T&M. You're logic is wrong. The feds were in DC when DC was crap. It wasn't as if the feds moved to DC, and then, bang, it get fixed.

A lot of our cities nationwide are recovering because of broad trends. Young folks today have the same feelings that our grandparents had towards city living. They enjoy the density, liveliness, diversity, and compact less car-centric living cities offer. They also don't have the money their parents do from defined-benefit pensions and from the real-estate boom. Its harder for young folks to make it in a 3-bedroom ranch in Rochester than it was. That cash is locked up with their parents. These things combine to help all cities.

The question is how much Detroit wants to enjoy the renaissance, or do we want to fight the old racial battles to 'protect Detroit's jewels'... which are of zero interest to young folks today of all religious groups.

---

Excellent, excellent points.

D.C. had riots which caused many of the same problems as Detroit went through in 1967.

D.C. had a mayor, Marion Berry, who was reviled by the suburbanites. My [[former) congressman, Stan Parris, in the 80s played the same cards as does L. Brooks Patterson. I've seen this movie before.

The principle of suburbanization and then a return to the cities Wesley describes is more of a widespread phenomena, not simply D.C.

The question today for Detroit is can the government and the people and the commercial enterprises work together for the good of the city and the region. D.C. has answered that question successfully. What I agree, is that Detroit has much, much, much bigger hole to climb out of.

Sure the federal government and its expansion really helped. Instead of the federal government, Detroit has Gilbert and Ilitch to lead the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Excellent, excellent points.

D.C. had riots which caused many of the same problems as Detroit went through in 1967.

D.C. had a mayor, Marion Berry, who was reviled by the suburbanites. My [[former) congressman, Stan Parris, in the 80s played the same cards as does L. Brooks Patterson. I've seen this movie before.

The principle of suburbanization and then a return to the cities Wesley describes is more of a widespread phenomena, not simply D.C.

The question today for Detroit is can the government and the people and the commercial enterprises work together for the good of the city and the region. D.C. has answered that question successfully. What I agree, is that Detroit has much, much, much bigger hole to climb out of.

---

We squabble. Others build. We say we must have a 'conversation about race' before we can move forward. Others just move forward.

In the past, I think suburban racism played a huge evil part. Today racism exists, but its just a minor irritation. The real problems in Detroit are self-inflicted.

We can and should continue to fight racism. But let's also fight against the real problem. Crime. Burdensome foreclosure laws. Stifling bureaucracy.

This is a rare moment. Almost everyone in the world wants us to succeed. We can, but not if we continue to fight old battles while the rest of the world says, hey come here where we can get stuff done and fight new fights.

IF anyone thinks D.C. was immune to the ills which affected Detroit and other large cities, I suggest they look at the population of D.C. over the years. [[Do remember when D.C. had the crack cocaine epidemic it was known as the 'murder capital' of the world.)

1950 [[highest): 802K
2000 [[lowest since pre-WWII): 572K.
2013 [[est.): 646K.

What's happening with D.C. is both commercial enterprises and people are returning to D.C. and yes, D.C. did not sink to the depths of Detroit. Detroit has a bigger hole to dig out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

Where would D.C. be without the power to tax and borrow huge amounts of money.

The parasite is crippling the host.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

IF anyone thinks D.C. was immune to the ills which affected Detroit and other large cities, I suggest they look at the population of D.C. over the years. [[Do remember when D.C. had the crack cocaine epidemic it was known as the 'murder capital' of the world.)

1950 [[highest): 802K
2000 [[lowest since pre-WWII): 572K.
2013 [[est.): 646K.

What's happening with D.C. is both commercial enterprises and people are returning to D.C. and yes, D.C. did not sink to the depths of Detroit. Detroit has a bigger hole to dig out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

---

Looks like in 2013 they had Capital gains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Ilitch gets little credit HERE for getting in so early where only fools or visionaries would get in.

---

Why should he? Why is figuring out a new and innovative way to extract profits from a broke-ass city somehow supposed to be praiseworthy?

It's a common myth that places like Detroit are not profitable. They are, and always have been. But the rougher the market, the less scrupulous the players. Ilitch got in earlier than Gilbert because he was willing to be a bit sleazier. Moroun invests in rougher neighborhoods than Ilitch does, because Moroun's business strategy is less dependent on his public image, so he can be more straightforwardly destructive without affecting his profits [[the one thing that an 87-year-old billionaire needs to prioritize above all else).

Real estate speculation is, by and large, a dishonorable business. Parsing the degree to which any one individual involved in that business is personally dishonorable is a relatively harmless way to kill some time, I suppose, but I don't see where any of them deserve "credit."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

IF anyone thinks D.C. was immune to the ills which affected Detroit and other large cities, I suggest they look at the population of D.C. over the years. [[Do remember when D.C. had the crack cocaine epidemic it was known as the 'murder capital' of the world.)

1950 [[highest): 802K
2000 [[lowest since pre-WWII): 572K.
2013 [[est.): 646K.

What's happening with D.C. is both commercial enterprises and people are returning to D.C. and yes, D.C. did not sink to the depths of Detroit. Detroit has a bigger hole to dig out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

---

This also happened to D.C. between then and now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro

Probably gonna be hard for Detroit to replicate that one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

T&M. You're logic is wrong. The feds were in DC when DC was crap. It wasn't as if the feds moved to DC, and then, bang, it get fixed.

A lot of our cities nationwide are recovering because of broad trends. Young folks today have the same feelings that our grandparents had towards city living.

---

Federal spending/employment is BOOMING. The Metro was built. D.C. is on the coast. D.C. is warm climate. GWU, Georgetown, American, Catholic, Howard within city limits. GDP is 2.5x Detroit's.

With regard to your suburb living comment: most of the people working in D.C. live in the burbs. Most people can't afford D.C. proper and or move out of D.C. proper in their mid to late 20s. Suburban living is still king.

Find a city Detroit can actually compare to. Detroit isn't the next Brooklyn, or D.C. or Houston.

I think it is a lot easier to revitalize a city in the middle of a growing metropolitan area than it is to do it in the middle of a stagnant area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

Federal spending/employment is BOOMING.

---

No it isn't. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2.../CES9091000001

Quote:

---

With regard to your suburb living comment: most of the people working in D.C. live in the burbs. Most people can't afford D.C. proper and or move out of D.C. proper in their mid to late 20s. Suburban living is still king.

---

People living in the suburbs because they can't afford the city doesn't really say "Suburban living is still king." to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I think it is a lot easier to revitalize a city in the middle of a growing metropolitan area than it is to do it in the middle of a stagnant area.

---

Absolutely!!

The problem is bigger than Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

Have you not seen the development that Illitch and Gilbert done to the Downtown Detroit. Rothschild were right about their financial philosophy. When folks in Detroit spill blood turning their neighborhoods to welfare ghetto villages, THEY came in to buy Detroit.

---

How's your neighbor-hood doing Danny, thriving? Are your tax dollars being spent on revitalizing YOUR neighbor_hood? Or is it SSDD?

Its a good binary relationship. Illich brings the entertainment. Gilbert brings the jobs and livability

The article was a yawn, so I've trussed up the pic a bit:

http://38.media.tumblr.com/981abaa3c...ev0o1_1280.gif

DC has the largest growth industry in the US. Government.

In a sense, Gilbert's best assets are the many real estate specialists he has at his disposal, both in house and others. He has spurred interest in commercial real estate, moved some of his co. HQ's and ably managed to do this in multiple layers. Detroit is fortunate that this player was a major broker that understood the complexity of rebuilding not only the core's real estate but interest in propping it up in a lasting way. The backroom deals are perhaps unsavory, but remember that he could take his biz to a hundred markets, more or less "healthier" than da D and gotten extra benefits from city administrations since that is the way the billionaires get their way. You're fucked if you go along and same if you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

...snip.... You're fucked if you go along and same if you don't.

---

There's an underlying sense in a lot of how we approach business vs. residents that if you give money to residents -- then you take it away from neighborhood and citizens.

I don't believe that cities are static. They change. They shrink. They grow. If they grow economically, the residents will benefit.

If we look at government as a dispenser of a fixed pot of money, then you're right. But its not. And it shouldn't be. We've fallen into the trap of thinking that government's function is to create jobs. It is not. It should be to help business create jobs. Provide Elizabeth Warren's infrastructure to make companies succeed. She's wrong when she thinking companies should pay for infrastructure. No. Government pays for infrastructure for people and corporations to use to create wealth for us all. Not to dole it out. But to create it.

Like or dislike I or G. Like or dislike what they've done. And where they've sucked off the public tit. But there are tits all over begging to be sucked. They are just playing the game. And we must just play the game.

Opting out of the game is actually the biggest 'f--king' we can get. And that's what Detroit has chosen to do. Opt out of building a workable city. And tried to opt-in on living on the kindness of strangers -- like the State, Feds, grants, etc.

Not the role of Ilitch and Gilbert, but now celebrities are getting on board...

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...oward-recovery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

Federal spending/employment is BOOMING. The Metro was built. D.C. is on the coast. D.C. is warm climate. GWU, Georgetown, American, Catholic, Howard within city limits. GDP is 2.5x Detroit's.

---

As explained above, federal employment is not booming and increased spending doesn't coincide with the turnaround in DC. Moreover, the collapse of DC in the 1950s/1960s coincided with an enormous increase in the size of the federal government. Clearly federal spending has helped the DC region in a major way since 9/11. But the growth of defense contractors in suburban VA office towers doesn't explain why the city of Washington itself was able to arrest its population decline and begin growing again while converting large swathes of burned out or impoverished neighborhoods into valuable, attractive real estate.

Yes, the Metro was built. That was intentional, not ordained by fate. Maybe instead of dully wondering why DC is so lucky and Detroit is so cursed and using the difference to avoid comparisons, the region should get off its ass and build some decent transit the way DC did.

DC is on the coast [[or at least sort of near other East Coast cities), Detroit is the busiest international crossing with our largest trade partner. Every city has its geographical advantages. I doubt this goes very far to explain why DC is growing and Detroit is not.

Sure, DC is warmer than Detroit but this is hardly a big factor. Summer in DC is hell. Winter's cold [[30-45) and wet and even gets snow a couple times. Maybe it's better than MI depending on your preference for heat vs. cold but SoCal it ain't.

Wayne State and Detroit Mercy together are as big as Georgetown and GWU combined. I don't think the additional presence of American U, Catholic, and Howard explains much about the major differences between Washington and Detroit. Put together, those three add another WSU sized student body. Yeah, that'd be helpful for some part of the city but it would hardly have made a dent in Detroit's collapse and isn't the cause of DC's rebound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

Find a city Detroit can actually compare to. Detroit isn't the next Brooklyn, or D.C. or Houston.

---

If you're the one suggesting that we can't compare the two cities, I think it's incumbent on you to find a better comparison. Chicago? Cleveland? DC and Detroit share a similar regional size [[5.7 million Detroit-Windsor area vs. 5.8 million DC area), similar history of racial issues and riots [[though I'd definitely take Coleman Young over Marion Barry), similar major declines in the 1950s/1960s/1970s, are both one-industry towns overly dependent on that industry's particular whims, are/were both "murder capitals" of the USA. That's about as good as you're gonna get for any two cities given how messy the real world is. And yet one spent the 1990s and 2000s falling ever farther into the hole while one was becoming a top-3 destination for young people to move to with ongoing population growth. I think this difference is worth our attention, and I suspect its causes are more complex than a jump in national defense spending.

As Wesley Mouch posted just above, Detroit needs to get in the game of building a workable city. That's what the current benefactors appear to be aiming for, and that's what DC has managed to do [[though not fully) over the past three decades. I'd argue that looking at what other declining cities have done right would be a good place to start in achieving that goal, whatever the differences between the communities.

There are some REALLY good comments flowing on this D.C and Detroit and how one is thriving and the other is trying to reboot and reclaim what it once was.

ONE, of many, things which distinguishes the D.C. area and Detroit is how well the D.C.-area governments work together.

Saturday's opening of the Silver Line [[subway) is again another example of how government leaders from D.C., No. Va, Prince Georges County, Montgomery County, etc. work together for the good of all. It was a love fest among politicians from NoVa., D.C., and Maryland.

I worked in Ann Arbor for a while before coming to D.C. [[1979) Washtenaw County seemed very well run for the benefit of all.

I look at Wayne County and don't see a well run county. I see the animus between Oakland and Detroit [[we had that problem in the 80s between our No. Virginia congressman and Marion Berry in D.C. Fortunately for us, that ended.)

So based on my life's experiences:

I've seen cities and counties very, very well run [[e.g., Washtenaw County, Fairfax County, Va., Arlington County, Va; etc.).

I've seen cities, both Detroit and D.C., which had real problems in governance. D.C. has turned it around significantly. Detroit appears to be making progress.

The big thing is that D.C. and the D.C. area is light years ahead of Detroit and the Detroit area of solving its regional problems.

The opening of the Silver [[subway) Line Saturday means a worker in Prince Georges county [[Md.) can take the subway to the posh Tysons Corner area of Fairfax County. Our subway system has promoted a melting pot of ridership [[a subway train in D.C. might have a high paid government worker, a poor kid taking the train to school, tourists, etc.).

Also, in the federal government, folks of every race, national origin, age, sexual orientation, etc. worked side by side. The area prides itself on its diversity, not something the Detroit area can say with a straight face.

I really, really believe the D.C. just didn't get good fortune as if it landed from heaven, but the area has worked really, really hard to make things work and work for all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

As explained above, federal employment is not booming and increased spending doesn't coincide with the turnaround in DC. Moreover, the collapse of DC in the 1950s/1960s coincided with an enormous increase in the size of the federal government. Clearly federal spending has helped the DC region in a major way since 9/11. But the growth of defense contractors in suburban VA office towers doesn't explain why the city of Washington itself was able to arrest its population decline and begin growing again while converting large swathes of burned out or impoverished neighborhoods into valuable, attractive real estate.

Yes, the Metro was built. That was intentional, not ordained by fate. Maybe instead of dully wondering why DC is so lucky and Detroit is so cursed and using the difference to avoid comparisons, the region should get off its ass and build some decent transit the way DC did.

DC is on the coast [[or at least sort of near other East Coast cities), Detroit is the busiest international crossing with our largest trade partner. Every city has its geographical advantages. I doubt this goes very far to explain why DC is growing and Detroit is not.

Sure, DC is warmer than Detroit but this is hardly a big factor. Summer in DC is hell. Winter's cold [[30-45) and wet and even gets snow a couple times. Maybe it's better than MI depending on your preference for heat vs. cold but SoCal it ain't.

Wayne State and Detroit Mercy together are as big as Georgetown and GWU combined. I don't think the additional presence of American U, Catholic, and Howard explains much about the major differences between Washington and Detroit. Put together, those three add another WSU sized student body. Yeah, that'd be helpful for some part of the city but it would hardly have made a dent in Detroit's collapse and isn't the cause of DC's rebound.



If you're the one suggesting that we can't compare the two cities, I think it's incumbent on you to find a better comparison. Chicago? Cleveland? DC and Detroit share a similar regional size [[5.7 million Detroit-Windsor area vs. 5.8 million DC area), similar history of racial issues and riots [[though I'd definitely take Coleman Young over Marion Barry), similar major declines in the 1950s/1960s/1970s, are both one-industry towns overly dependent on that industry's particular whims, are/were both "murder capitals" of the USA. That's about as good as you're gonna get for any two cities given how messy the real world is. And yet one spent the 1990s and 2000s falling ever farther into the hole while one was becoming a top-3 destination for young people to move to with ongoing population growth. I think this difference is worth our attention, and I suspect its causes are more complex than a jump in national defense spending.

As Wesley Mouch posted just above, Detroit needs to get in the game of building a workable city. That's what the current benefactors appear to be aiming for, and that's what DC has managed to do [[though not fully) over the past three decades. I'd argue that looking at what other declining cities have done right would be a good place to start in achieving that goal, whatever the differences between the communities.

---

I can't even debate with you because your regional bias clouds any chance of a constructive dialogue. You really think Mercy and Wayne are comparable to Georgetown and GWU? You really think anyone graduating from college cares about a freaking border crossing? Then you completely dismiss the weather and coast. Lol. I'm sorry, it's obviously impossible to talk with you about this.

Detroit needs to find a land locked city that's doing well. Pittsburgh, I guess? Although everyone I know there says it's fairly miserable, despite the improvements. Saying Detroit can become D.C. is like introducing a DPS dropout to a medical doctor and telling them to go become a surgeon. You have to be more realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

I can't even debate with you because your regional bias clouds any chance of a constructive dialogue. You really think Mercy and Wayne are comparable to Georgetown and GWU? You really think anyone graduating from college cares about a freaking border crossing? Then you completely dismiss the weather and coast. Lol. I'm sorry, it's obviously impossible to talk with you about this.

Detroit needs to find a land locked city that's doing well. Pittsburgh, I guess? Although everyone I know there says it's fairly miserable, despite the improvements. Saying Detroit can become D.C. is like introducing a DPS dropout to a medical doctor and telling them to go become a surgeon. You have to be more realistic.

---

Think regional.

If you did a survey of all the engineering capacity in Detroit metro, and the wealth created by the auto and other industries, you could figure a way toward a prosperous metropolis.

What a strange place Washington was when all this crime and destruction was happening, in the capital of the richest country in hemispheres 1 and 2 [[North and South) or hemispheres 3 and 4 [[East and West) take your pick.

Detroit is still weird as hell to a lot of people. It doesnt have Big Govt that bloats the DC region, I like the groundhog figure of speech to describe the stalling. If the suburban belt felt the beginnings of a pinch, then maybe the quick connect to federal apparatus would bring in some much needed help. When does this happen though?

Yes, decline has been reversed in many DC neighborhoods over the past 20 years. [[Not so much in most of Anacostia and NE DC.) And Detroit could certainly learn a thing or two from what has worked for DC in these neighborhoods including aggressive adaptive reuse of obsolete commercial structures, "complete streets" planning, low parking minimums and community policing strategies. But on a more macro scale, it is impossible to examine the cities as apples to apples. World class mass transit in the form of the Metro exists in the entire DC region as a permanent fuel for economic development there. Detroit has nothing remotely comparable and that absence changes the equation. In many circumstances one can't just say that, well, DC does it this way so why can't Detroit do it too. The Metro creates access to hundreds of thousands of jobs and immeasurably improves urban density and property values. It is a wealth and jobs creator and without it, DC's turnaround, even with the constant flow of federal jobs and spending, would have been far more modest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swingline

Yes, decline has been reversed in many DC neighborhoods over the past 20 years. [[Not so much in most of Anacostia and NE DC.) And Detroit could certainly learn a thing or two from what has worked for DC in these neighborhoods including aggressive adaptive reuse of obsolete commercial structures, "complete streets" planning, low parking minimums and community policing strategies. But on a more macro scale, it is impossible to examine the cities as apples to apples. World class mass transit in the form of the Metro exists in the entire DC region as a permanent fuel for economic development there. Detroit has nothing remotely comparable and that absence changes the equation. In many circumstances one can't just say that, well, DC does it this way so why can't Detroit do it too. The Metro creates access to hundreds of thousands of jobs and immeasurably improves urban density and property values. It is a wealth and jobs creator and without it, DC's turnaround, even with the constant flow of federal jobs and spending, would have been far more modest.

---

Well stated!

On transportation, a person from the poorest part of the region has the same access to a world class transportation system as anyone else.

The system is really [[economically) class-less. Workers making the minimum wage and six figure salaries utilize the same system.

I doubt anyone has compiled the data, but I'd love to know the number of jobs which are physically located say within a half-mile radius of a subway stop; let's call them 'accessible' jobs. It does an excellent job of moving the worker to his job no matter where in the region it might be.

Yes, emu Steve, death apart; subways and trains are the great equalizer.

I really enjoy using the subway just to get a "human buzz". You get to experience the evolution of a city; its fashions,
the ethnic makeup and just the variety of folks who transit, rich and poor, fit and handicapped, etc... Apart from small businesses in the hub stations, there are also designated spots for musicians [[auditioned and approved) to play for money in rotation. So there are opportunities that breed connectivity in a lot of ways. I do think Detroit will benefit from new transit schemes in the future. When it does get a new scheme, it will be new and state of the art. That will give the city an advantage over other ones.
I am at a four minute walk from a Metro station in my city, and it is one of the five major indices of value and lifestyle that made us move to the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swingline

World class mass transit in the form of the Metro exists in the entire DC region as a permanent fuel for economic development there. Detroit has nothing remotely comparable and that absence changes the equation. In many circumstances one can't just say that, well, DC does it this way so why can't Detroit do it too. The Metro creates access to hundreds of thousands of jobs and immeasurably improves urban density and property values. It is a wealth and jobs creator and without it, DC's turnaround, even with the constant flow of federal jobs and spending, would have been far more modest.

---

What's most impressive about the Metro is that it was constructed through agreement between the District, Maryland, Virginia, and Congress, as well as the participating local governments. Yet in Detroit, the single-state Michigan Legislature can't even create an RTA with teeth...and the road planners at SEMCOG have already decreed that Sexybus will solve all of Southeast Michigan's transit woes.

What's least impressive is the short-sighted planning and amount of funding dedicated to Metro. The Rosslyn Portal--as well as the Blue/Orange segment through DC--was already clogged before the Silver Line obtained construction funds. To my knowledge, there are no concrete plans to separate the Blue Line from the Orange, even though it has been proposed [[and immediately written off as "too expensive"). Part of that is because Metro changed its planning mechanism, delegating those functions to each of the three jurisdictions...a project with regional benefit, such as separation of the Blue and Orange Lines, would be incumbent entirely on the District to fund.

There also isn't much redundancy in the system [[i.e. multiple routing options, express tracks), nor are there plans for subway expansion in the District as it grows. To say nothing of the idiocy of running a frequent, expensive mode of urban transit in the median of a freeway to an airport over 30 miles away from town....

I will agree, though, that the better problem is that too many people want Metro service, vis-a-vis transit viewed as a nonessential commodity as it is in Detroit. And it has helped create more loci for development to take place, despite the best efforts of the suburban counties to full-tilt embrace 1950s-style planning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

I can't even debate with you because your regional bias clouds any chance of a constructive dialogue. You really think Mercy and Wayne are comparable to Georgetown and GWU? You really think anyone graduating from college cares about a freaking border crossing? Then you completely dismiss the weather and coast. Lol. I'm sorry, it's obviously impossible to talk with you about this.

---

It seems you had a lot of trouble understanding my post.

I pointed out that WSU and Mercy together are about the same size as Georgetown and GWU. That's a measurable fact. Which is to say, they bring in about the same number of students, faculty, and staff to work and live in Detroit that Georgetown and GWU do for Washington. Are you disputing that?

No, I don't think people specifically care about border crossings. But since the border crossing generates something like a quarter million jobs and billions of dollars in business, it would seem to be at least as relevant as DC's position "on the coast". [[I'm not sure what you're referring to here, unless you just mean it's grouped with the "East Coast" cities. It's certainly not on the ocean.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

Detroit needs to find a land locked city that's doing well. Pittsburgh, I guess? Although everyone I know there says it's fairly miserable, despite the improvements. Saying Detroit can become D.C. is like introducing a DPS dropout to a medical doctor and telling them to go become a surgeon. You have to be more realistic.

---

Yeah, Pittsburgh might be a good fit. That's useful. I've only visited Pittsburgh whereas I've lived in Michigan and DC so I'd be interested to hear more about what Pittsburgh has "done right" that might apply to Detroit.

I'm not saying Detroit should become DC. I'm saying DC experienced a massive population collapse, horrible racial strife, and yet somehow ended up on the exact opposite end of the spectrum as Detroit. Maybe there are some things DC did that Detroit could emulate. Is that really such a bizarre notion? Obviously they aren't exactly the same. But I think emu steve [[regional cooperation) and swingline [[complete streets, community policing, metro) already made two excellent points about some regional differences that have nothing to do with the inherent qualities of DC or Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

What's least impressive is the short-sighted planning and amount of funding dedicated to Metro. The Rosslyn Portal--as well as the Blue/Orange segment through DC--was already clogged before the Silver Line obtained construction funds. To my knowledge, there are no concrete plans to separate the Blue Line from the Orange, even though it has been proposed [[and immediately written off as "too expensive").

---

Off topic for DetroitYes at this point but check out the WMATA planning blog:
http://planitmetro.com/2014/07/03/ne...ons-revisited/

http://planitmetro.com/2013/12/05/pr...orail-network/

The real work/fight to separate Orange and Blue is just getting started, not being written off. The saving grace of the crush at Rosslyn may be to make it so bad that everyone agrees something must be done.

Gilbert is in the mortgage business and knows the real estate game inside and out, with a lot of money to spend. Mortgages are cash cows with no overhead to speak of other than a few computers and employees. Ilitch is a pizza vendor and sport investor. He knows how to play his game as well. The latter is more interested in finding a new home for his teams than becoming a real estate baron. He has a lot of overhead in his casino and sport teams which I believe places some limits on his entrepreneurial ambitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Yeah, Pittsburgh might be a good fit. That's useful. I've only visited Pittsburgh whereas I've lived in Michigan and DC so I'd be interested to hear more about what Pittsburgh has "done right" that might apply to Detroit.
.

---

I am from Pittsburgh....I don't think it's really a straight up comparison. It'd be more like Detroit if all of the major employers and universities were outside the city limits. All of the old riverfront mill towns in the Pittsburgh area are in terrible shape. Especially the majority black Monongahela valley cities like Duquesne and McKeesport.


Imagine Detroit if U of M, Chrysler, and Ford, LTU, Madonna,Cranbrook,etc. were all within the City limits. If all those towers in southfield and troy were downtown instead.

Pittsburgh was just geographically lucky that it didn't have hundreds of square miles of beet fields to plow over and swamps to drain. Pittsburgh also has lots of natural gas. Which you can't really say for Detroit. What Pittsburgh has 'done right' is basically be lucky.


As far as inland cities doing well. I guess Houston/Dallas but does Texas really count? Chicago is just running on momentum right now and has serious issues as a city. I guess Indy, Cincy and Columbus are doing pretty good but they're much smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

It seems you had a lot of trouble understanding my post.

I pointed out that WSU and Mercy together are about the same size as Georgetown and GWU. That's a measurable fact. Which is to say, they bring in about the same number of students, faculty, and staff to work and live in Detroit that Georgetown and GWU do for Washington. 1.) Are you disputing that?

No, I don't think people specifically care about border crossings. 2.) But since the border crossing generates something like a quarter million jobs and billions of dollars in business, 3.) it would seem to be at least as relevant as DC's position "on the coast". [[I'm not sure what you're referring to here, unless you just mean it's grouped with the "East Coast" cities. It's certainly not on the ocean.)

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

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.

---

It seems like you've concluded that Detroit can never be a successful, thriving city, because it's not a major city on the coast. So if everything is beyond anyone's control--as you seem to believe--why do you even bother posting here? Is wallowing and feeling sorry for yourself going to improve anything?

Never mind that Detroit was once one of the richest cities in the world...despite not being on the coast. And I'd take serious issue with your claim that "the most talented" people are on the coasts. I can tell you there are a heck of a lot of loser hangers-on in all of the cities you noted. I'd rather Detroit have people with dreams, and the balls to implement them, than to be a collection of insecure trend-followers who just want to "be seen".

With that said, I think Dan Gilbert somewhat captures the spirit of a dreamer, and he has demonstrated that he has an idea of what will make Detroit a better city. To me, though, he does appear to be a bit "number crunchy" to be truly innovative. Ilitch, on the other hand, has made a career out of anti-pizza, and soaking the public for whatever he can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

1.) It seems like you've concluded that Detroit can never be a successful, thriving city, because it's not a major city on the coast. So if everything is beyond anyone's control--as you seem to believe--why do you even bother posting here? Is wallowing and feeling sorry for yourself going to improve anything?

2.) Never mind that Detroit was once one of the richest cities in the world...despite not being on the coast.

3.) And I'd take serious issue with your claim that "the most talented" people are on the coasts.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

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?

---

Minneapolis is doing great. It's only the Rust Belt cities that are laggards. That's not geography, it's the culture of the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TennisAndMath

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? http://www.detroityes.com/mb/images/...s/rolleyes.png

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

---

Sure, but the reality is it has tied itself to manufacturing...and as a country we just don't do it anymore in the numbers we did. I mean, you're the one saying the manufacturing institutional knowledge is an asset. I agree it's an asset, but, it's an asset only as long as whatever the process is/product made, it can't be done out of state or off shore cheaper. Look at Michigan's newest Billionaire... 5 hour energy guy [[I'm not looking up how to spell his name)... lives in Farmington [[iirc), company hq is in a shitty sprawl office park, makes his gross caffeine shots in Indiana. Has fuck all to do with livable walk-able place making and all to do with tax structures, cost and convenience.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Detroit built a 25 million dollar dock and port for the last flashy idea that was to expose the region to whole new markets and people: Great Lakes Cruising. You're trumpeting a half empty ship that might run a few specialty trips. I get that we don't want to avoid innovation, but if I'm looking for the shortest distance for shipping, i'm not making a north turn at the Detroit river to find port. I'm stopping in Cleveland...or toledo so I don't then have to truck my goods off the peninsula or sail them all the way around to Chicago.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's a lot of dumb luck. Why not toledo? Monroe? Flint? Port Huron? Bay City? or Muskegon even? Pretending Detroit is in some unique location, singularly suited to be successful is ridiculous. Favorable in the era when everything needed to go by water routes and this was a strategic location to garrison military, sure.. but by today's standard? c'mon.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I know you love to claim that I and others are making the "waiting on a savior" argument, but no one is. My sole point is we need an industry here that will employ large numbers of moderately to low educated people that can't be off shored and won't be out-stated. A mix of trade regulation, smart governance, AND innovation drawn from the manufacturing knowledge could help that.... but none of that is coming because oligarchs run our economy. In the absence of that, it would be nice to see a few more oligarchs like the Illitches or Gilbert massing up EMPLOYEES doing SOMETHING some kid in India can not do. Sitting around navel gazing about our manufacturing heritage and nice lakes isn't helping much.

There is very little being done here that can't be done by literally billions of others elsewhere for pennies on the dollar. THAT is Detroit and Michigan's "problem".

Of course it's only a problem if you think Detroit should be more than it is today. Personally I think we should just embrace the suck and accept that Detroit's day of being a relevant place is long past. water finds it's level. Like a mining town after the mine stops producing, much of the area's land mass and much of it's people are simply useless and redundant. Vast areas of both Detroit proper and metro detroit...i'm looking at you everything above 16 mile...should just be returned to farmland.

It's a really beautiful state.. no doubt. Trees are the right height and all. let's just be a place where everyone has a cottage. The midwest's "up north". heck the entire western side is all FIBs anyway.

Quote:

---

Those guys were risk-takers. They didn't wait for permission. They didn't beg and plead someone else to do things for them.

---

....and they paid hundreds of thousands of people semi slave wages to make themselves impossibly rich OR they clear-cut massive forests OR they polluted the rivers and lakes that are apparently our region's greatest treasures OR they dismantled the mass transit here in the push to run freeways everywhere... which would all be manageable, except for the fact that the very second they found a replacement labor force, or a cheaper way to make or ship product, they left. Leaving us holding the bag.

You sound like a teahadist lecturing on poverty; "If Detroit would just stop whining and pull itself up by it's bootstraps it'd all be 1950s type prosperity again" while always ignoring the structural issues behind the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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...

---

which it would if it's energy sector went away in the same fashion Detroit's manufacturing sector did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

which it would if it's energy sector went away in the same fashion Detroit's manufacturing sector did...

---

I would like to agree with this but I can't give Detroit a pass here. Dallas seems to work much better together on a regional level than Detroit. If Dallas went through a stagnant growth period -- which may be happening now since its growth rate last decade was pretty low -- I think the civic tools exist to keep it from going off a cliff. I would expect Dallas to end up more like L.A. than like Detroit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

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.

---

Touching on location and the Great Lakes again. I read in today's USA Today that Lake Mead is down to 39% of normal capacity. Lake Mead provides water for Nevada, Southern California, and parts of Arizona. Water is getting pretty close to a crisis issue out there. A lot of investment that has been going out to that part of the country will soon realize that the grass is literally greener over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

which it would if it's energy sector went away in the same fashion Detroit's manufacturing sector did...

---

This is getting O/T for this thread and this board, but I'd believe the de-Detroiting of the automobile industry could happen to states heavily relying on oil.

May not happen for say 25 - 50 years, but it could happen.

I can see folks driving Tesla or Volt like cars stopping at charging stations which could get a lot of its energy from solar. I'm not saying that gas powered cars of today will end up in the Smithsonian, but instead of being say 97 - 98% of all vehicles [[that number is a guess for traditional cars - excluding hybrids or electric) maybe 50 - 50 mix between gas and others in say 25 years.

That would be a huge negative for that energy sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

This is getting O/T for this thread and this board, but I'd believe the de-Detroiting of the automobile industry could happen to states heavily relying on oil.

May not happen for say 25 - 50 years, but it could happen.

I can see folks driving Tesla or Volt like cars stopping at charging stations which could get a lot of its energy from solar. I'm not saying that gas powered cars of today will end up in the Smithsonian, but instead of being say 97 - 98% of all vehicles [[that number is a guess for traditional cars - excluding hybrids or electric) maybe 50 - 50 mix between gas and others in say 25 years.

That would be a huge negative for that energy sector.

---

If you think that solar and wind can produce all the electricity we need to power our industries, homes, battery powered cars, charge our electronics, and power our mass transit, then, yeah, the energy industry will go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

If you think that solar and wind can produce all the electricity we need to power our industries, homes, battery powered cars, charge our electronics, and power our mass transit, then, yeah, the energy industry will go away.

---

NPR did a story the other day, how the US is changing from importing oil to actually exporting oil. They seemed to think the US will be a big exporter of it one day. I personally think the natural electricity/battery angle is overplayed. We still don't have a reliable technology for storing electricity, which is a major issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

NPR did a story the other day, how the US is changing from importing oil to actually exporting oil. They seemed to think the US will be a big exporter of it one day. I personally think the natural electricity/battery angle is overplayed. We still don't have a reliable technology for storing electricity, which is a major issue.

---

We have been a net exporter of oil for several years now. In addition we have no issue with natural gas. It has always amazed me that in that environment we could not have more stable gasoline prices.

That being said I am a big proponent in using technology to help lower our overall travel costs through increasing Hybrid, electric, alternative fuels, and modal shifts to transit, walking, or bicycles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

If you think that solar and wind can produce all the electricity we need to power our industries, homes, battery powered cars, charge our electronics, and power our mass transit, then, yeah, the energy industry will go away.

---

absolutely possible. germany generated 50% of its power from solar this year

http://www.iflscience.com/technology...gy-using-solar

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/50-per...ar-new-record/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

We have been a net exporter of oil for several years now. In addition we have no issue with natural gas. It has always amazed me that in that environment we could not have more stable gasoline prices.

---

It is a constant mystery to me why people think this. I think it is poorly written headlines. The US is not close to being a net exporter of oil. We import about 50% of our crude supply. The US does export some refined products, so net we probably produce more like 60-65% of the crude we use domestically.

For instance, see line 2 of this page:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_...mbbl_a_cur.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hybridy

absolutely possible. germany generated 50% of its power from solar this year
http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/50-per...ar-new-record/

---

It is certainly possible. Of course that wouldn't mean the energy industry would go away, just that the energy industry would be different. That is the direction things are moving, but they won't stop producing oil and gas, it will just move into smaller niches. There are plenty of applications where fossil fuels aren't going to be displaced in the foreseeable future. You aren't going to be able to run an airliner on electricity anytime soon, although you could run it on biofuels if you had to.

Actually the applications Hermod listed are all pretty feasible with today's technology, although "factories" is pretty generic and some of those need fossil fuel inputs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hybridy

absolutely possible. germany generated 50% of its power from solar this year

http://www.iflscience.com/technology...gy-using-solar

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/50-per...ar-new-record/

---

You must read the Guardian article very very closely. I'll copy two snips of the article.

Quote:

---

Fraunhofer ISE research institute revealed that solar panels in the eastern European country generated a record breaking 23.1 GW of electricity in one hour on June 6th. On June 9th, a national holiday, solar energy production peaked at 24.24 GW, which equalled approximately 50.6 percent of the electricity demand.

---

What the article says is for one hour, probably around noon, this happened. It was a peak, then all night long you get nothing.

Quote:

---

Bernard Chabot, a renewable energy consultant based in France, said that Germany has proven that there are no “excuses” for any country to not, at the very least, achieve 20 percent energy production on renewable resources.

---

That is why Bernard Chabot talks of achieving 20 percent, a far cry from 50 percent. Must read articles like this very very closely. They have an agenda and tend to exaggerate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyOnTheWall

That is why Bernard Chabot talks of achieving 20 percent, a far cry from 50 percent. Must read articles like this very very closely. They have an agenda and tend to exaggerate.

---

What you say is true, but misleading, as Chabot in that quote isn't talking about Germany, but about "any country". Chabot actually expects renewables in Germany to exceed 50 percent of overall electrical production in the near future, which isn't a huge stretch considering that renewables supplied 27% of total German electrical demand for the first quarter of this year--not peak demand, total demand. Note that the first quarter isn't a very sunny time in Germany, although I suspect it is windy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

What you say is true, but misleading, as Chabot in that quote isn't talking about Germany, but about "any country". Chabot actually expects renewables in Germany to exceed 50 percent of overall electrical production in the near future, which isn't a huge stretch considering that renewables supplied 27% of total German electrical demand for the first quarter of this year--not peak demand, total demand. Note that the first quarter isn't a very sunny time in Germany, although I suspect it is windy.

---

The average price of electricity in Germany is 35c per kWh. In the US it is 12c. Are Americans are ready to see their cost of electricity triple?
http://theenergycollective.com/linds...ound-world-kwh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jiminnm

The average price of electricity in Germany is 35c per kWh. In the US it is 12c. Are Americans are ready to see their cost of electricity triple?
http://theenergycollective.com/linds...ound-world-kwh

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to. Solar power doesn't cost anything like 35 cents/kwh anymore. For instance, see the article and especially the chart here: http://www.trendingenergy.com/will-t...lar-pv-growth/

At this point, in most states it would still cost more than power produced from coal or natural gas [[though nothing like triple), but the difference is declining pretty rapidly.