Can a city improve with less residents, less tax base but more supporters?

There is no question that the CoD has many supporters from the suburbs and state-wide that do many great things. With that said, it appears that the supporters are increasing while residents and tax base continue to decline.

So the question I pose to the board is: Can a city ever improve with a declining population, declining tax base but a large number of supporters that live outside the community?

The intent is not to belittle any of the great work done by those that live outside the city as the efforts by anyone working to improve the city make a large impact.

By that criteria, you can ask the same question of every tourist town in Michigan.

Couldn't support in the suburbs/surrounding area help arrest a decline in population/tax base? If enough people not living in the city see it as a desirable location for entertainment, for example, sooner or later some of them are going to want to live closer to their entertainment options. That kind of thing can snowball.

Of course, there's a tipping point--people who support the city but don't live in it have a reason for that and the snowball effect can't happen until those reasons are confronted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

By that criteria, you can ask the same question of every tourist town in Michigan.

---

Possibly. Tourists towns are less populated and have less costs to deal with [[legacy costs, infrastructure, care for the impoverished and elderly, etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthofNormal

Couldn't support in the suburbs/surrounding area help arrest a decline in population/tax base? If enough people not living in the city see it as a desirable location for entertainment, for example, sooner or later some of them are going to want to live closer to their entertainment options. That kind of thing can snowball. .

---

Absolutely and I think that many in the suburbs do a lot to make Detroit better and more desireable. More people working, spending money, being visible only makes the city and neighborhoods better and contributes to the tax base.

Quote:

---

Of course, there's a tipping point--people who support the city but don't live in it have a reason for that and the snowball effect can't happen until those reasons are confronted

---

Therein lies the problem. The city needs residents to improve [[more taxes, more eyes on the street, more occupied homes, etc) but many aren't willing to move to the city until more homes are occupied, more people are around, etc

Yes. This is why it matters to Oakland and Warren counties, and the rest of Wayne.
It's all about having a relevant city core that is a proper, dense city area. The many neighborhoods of single-story ranches probably are not viable, because if you want to live like that, why not just move to a suburb with better schools, etc. But a "T" up Woodward [[because of the existing density) and along the waterfront [[because waterfront is usually viable) makes a lot of sense to me.
Both for Detroit and for the region as a whole. The reason people who are from here graduate from college here and then move away is not *just* because of the economy, it's also because a city is super-compelling to a lot of young people of at least some means. Establishments that occupy and repurpose one hundred year old spaces exude creativity and dynamism; oftentimes, many of the residences in the suburbs come off as individualized takes on a blah prefab, and even independent businesses find it hard not to be in a strip mall. Walking places is intellectually stimulating and ties you into the neighborhood, by way of random conversations or quickly checking out a new storefront, in ways that life in an area full of superblocks does not automatically do, since you drive everywhere and don't have as much opportunity to stumble over something new and interesting [[walking past a new restaurant is meaningfully different from driving past a new restaurant in a strip mall). A lot of movies and shows that villify the city are about ghetto life [[or greedy Wall Street types, but that's beside the point), but a lot of movies and shows that villify the suburbs specifically address the question of anonymity and alienation, of being somehow disconnected from your fellow humans and living your life out in a series of exchange that are many times largely reduced to economic transactions. I've already made this point on this board somewhere, but the fact that you might stumble past a romantic dinner and dancing gem on your way home from the Y or actually spend 20 minutes interacting on mass transit or in a park with someone significantly different from you is very appealing to people with their whole lives before them, people who are shaping their futures. They've seen the suburbs, and it's all American Beauty to them.
So now that I have slammed suburbia, I grew up in suburbia and currently live in suburbia. It's great for a lot of things, like giving young children a lawn to play on or segregating out the commercial areas from the residential ones. Biking from superblock to superblock is probably a challenge, but within superblocks, biking can be divine and super-safe. As Hermod pointed out elsewhere, Troy is one of the top 5 safest cities in America. A lot of suburbia was planned in ways that maybe don't inspire lifelong creativity, but for what they are designed to do they were designed well or better.
But 25 year old "creative types" don't want to drive their station wagon to the Star Theatre in the Staples Center for a fun, exciting night out. The *regional* decline is driven [[nyuck, nyuck) not only by the auto industry's struggles in the past 30 years [[setting aside the lifeline provided by the SUV fad), but also by the fact that the 25 year olds' eyes can only glaze over when they visit friends studying in cool cities. If those people come back, it's only 10 or more years later, when the combination of their family being nearby, the familiarity of it all, the family-friendly nature of the place, and the lower cost of living may prompt them to look for a job in SE Michigan.
Any attempt to diversify the economy not at the auto industry's expense into innovative areas will benefit very significantly from having an attractive urban core.

Also, here's another thought, though quite random: Finding us some gays can help, or at least so I have heard. Specifically, they say gays were among the first to move into formerly depressed neighborhoods like Harlem and renovate externally beautiful but internally neglected brownstones they acquired on the cheap. Why? Because they don't care about the quality of schools and such. Later they sell, and the whole neighborhood goes to gentrification hell because of all the million-dollar homes.
I don't mean to inject some fabulous stereotyping into this discussion, but it could be a relevant development story, actually. It can't be a strategy, cos you can't go and discriminate, but still, if a bunch of young men confident in their ability to handle themselves and without the "structural" issues that make many former urbanites move to the burbs later in life decided to "take over" a corner of town, that corner would probably benefit.

1. Create a regional government for "Detroit" metro, eliminate the invisible political divisions between municipalities of the same city. We have to start thinking of ourselves [[Metro Detroit) as the same city. Why have a hundred different school districts and police and fire districts? Why have a hundred city councils and city governments all battling one another for resources? Why have stark divisions between these municipalities such as Bloomfield Hills compared with Pontiac or Grosse Pointe compared to Eastpointe? Some of the worst school districts lay blocks away from the best. Why have bus services that don't connect or match up and compete with one another? I highly doubt any of this will change so long as we are so divided along race, class and geographic lines. Having a structured way to decide things on a regional scale is important, otherwise we just let politicians duke it out informally on piece-meal projects and essentially accomplish nothing.

2. Create a comprehensive and bold rapid mass transit system. We need light-rail and maybe even heavy-rail or expanded people mover within the urban core, with connections into the inner ring burbs such as Royal Oak and Dearborn. We need rail connection from the Airport to the Downtown businesses districts [[or bus at the very least!). We need regional rail that connects to the suburbs, exurbs, satellite cities and other large cities in Michigan such as Lansing and Grand Rapids. We need a huge improvement in buses, including better signs, bus shelters, schedules, increased frequency and routes, especially when connecting to a rail. Finally, work toward getting a high-speed rail west to Chicago and east to Toronto, with a revived Michigan Central Station as the main gateway into SE Michigan by rail.

3. Transform land-use/Shrink the region. We need to think regionally when "shrinking" the city. All previous discussion of shrinking treat Detroit as a vacuum, separate from the rest of the metro and state and the rest of the country. Suburbs also need to adapt and become more urban. We need to alter our land use pattern, with the aim of eliminating sprawl, by focusing development around activity centers, connected by transit. Some of these centers are very clear, such as Greater Downtown Detroit [[which is also the center of the region) but also in suburbs such as Dearborn, and other areas. Some centers have yet to emerge, but the foundation for them already exist. For example, land-use could be altered in Southfield to create three urban districts/clusters [[Northland, Civic Center, Northwestern) with connecting to Downtown Detroit, rather than a sprawling mess where it is impossible to navigate without a car. Southfield has a lot of assets, such as numerous offices and Lawrence Tech University. These assets would be built upon, so that activities can be clustered into districts, rather than spread out. Some areas might get less dense, and revert back to farming or nature, but this is a process that should happen organically, boosted by incentives, so it should not be forced. Eventually the suburb/city distinction will blur until there is little difference, and we become one city.

All good ideas, casscorridor. From what I am reading, land use patterns in the 21st century will mean that some of our current urban infrastructure in places like Detroit will revert to greenspace.

I also find fryar's upside-down dense "T" of the city compelling. I'm in the Detroit housing market and looking to buy within the next six months to one year, and everything I'm interested in is within that "T". I figure there is long-term potential within those areas.

Hate to break it to people but there's no way that voters are going to go for a regional government... at least not right now. Regional Cooperation is where it needs to start for right now, the simple fact is too many [[oakland county) residents in the area have a fear of the city, perhaps rightly [[see wsj article from a few weeks ago) or perhaps not rightly [[look at the rich cultural treasures only the downtown area can offer) so.

I agree about mass-transit for long term, but it's important to remember that most mass-transit is heavily subsidized by taxes and government support. Right now the state is beyond broke, and creating another system which needs to be supported by tax revenue does not sound that reasonable. At this moment we need to be making difficult decisions about the role of state government for its citizens, and while I personally think mass-transit, culture, and education [[among others) are part of that mix, too many things aren't being funded well enough by the state right now. Taxes probably need to go up, funds probably need to be reallocated, but right now the initial start-up costs of mass transit are probably too big for the region or state to support. Please understand, I am not opposed to mass transit, I use it on a regular basis when I am in New Jersey [[about 6-8 months a year, and think we ultimately need it, I just don't think it can be done right now)

What can be done right now is reforming the city of Detroit tax base to make it more in line with the rest of the region [[particularly for business owners... we are not Manhattan, there isn't a bridge to cross to get in and out of the city unless you're going to Canada), create and expand dramatic programs to lure middle-class tax paying residents into the city [[take abandoned lots and give them the lot for free if they rehab or build a new house), and with that the promise of better schools -- heck maybe even consider partnering with vouchers for the time being; help Wayne State build up even more of an infrastructure...get it to be a US News & World Reports top 100 school...get more visiting professors/programs, more TT professors, more new student housing, make Wayne State "the hip place" for kids to go to College in the state with sexy dorms and student amenities etc., ensure that the cultural assets only available in the city [[theatres, DIA, symphony) don't go under.

As the city continues to get stronger more development will follow, with that in turn more people will follow, it's important to remember a whole generation [[if not two generations) have grown up in a post-riot Metro-Region... one that has taught them "never go into the city" their entire lives... stay where it's "safe". These folks will not have views that change overnight, it's going to take time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

Can a city ever improve with a declining population, declining tax base but a large number of supporters that live outside the community?

The intent is not to belittle any of the great work done by those that live outside the city as the efforts by anyone working to improve the city make a large impact.

---

Supporters volunteering is nice, but can easily become an empty gesture. The real problems of Detroit can be solved most efficiently by living, working, etc., here, learning what works and what doesn't, and fixing things as they go.

Volunteering is an extra effort by people who already have a vested interest in the immediate community.

Let's see...

Who does more for the city?

A) City of Detroit resident who sits in their house, pays their personal property tax, and insults/belittles the work of a recently deceased person [[from group B) on a forum

B) Suburbanite who stages multiple events in the city and brings other suburbanites in with their cash, who then go to other events, tell others, etc

I'm gonna have to go with B.

OK, jt1, now be a good boy and apologize to the grumpy man from east Detroit for not deferring on your opinion that a certain late Detroit booster is a hypocrite for not having resided in Detroit in light of her recent passing in a completely different thread. Do we think it's right to speak ill of the dead? Exactly, no it's not. Can we imagine any reasons why she would do that? I knew it, of course we can...what, you say it could have been because she had kids and DPS is not know for being first-rate? Very good. See? It is possible to be a Detroit booster and not live in Detroit. Have we learned our lesson? OK, good. Then go apologize to the grumpy man who is clearly very upset about the Detroit booster's passing, because it's the only way to keep these people on subject.

The situation in the suburbs is pretty desperate as well. It can be done, it just needs chipping away at.

Nobody's going to want to live anywhere they don't feel safe. City, suburb or rural. Gated communities and HOAs seem to be the way to go. They're even gating established neighborhoods in rough areas.

Sorry, don't know what HOAS stand for. Also not sure what "established" neighborhoods have become gated.

Seriously happy I missed the thread where a suburban city supporter [[ now deceased) was insulted. So many important civic programs are supported by our suburban friends. I probably did most of my volunteer work [[1000's of hours) over the years I lived in the burbs. Guilt I guess.

I can't fault people for wanting good schools and at least a perception of safety. Perhaps if the charter schools had been around when my kids were younger we may have stayed.

The minute our kids were out of school, we were back in Detroit.

I think one of the smartest marketing tools I have seen is areas identifying themselves such as the The Villages, Midtown, Corktown etc. The city does need to right size. For years the neighborhoods have been neglected, money should be allocated to these organized neighborhoods in proportion to contributions creating a semi autonomist collection of communities within the city. Regionalism in a microcosym.

Quote:

---

Who does more for the city?

A) City of Detroit resident who sits in their house, pays their personal property tax, and insults/belittles the work of a recently deceased person [[from group B) on a forum

---

Please show where I insulted/belittled anybody's work. I pointed out that a city needs tax base and residents. You also make assumptions about what I do/don't do in the community. Quit an assumption on your part.

Quote:

---

B) Suburbanite who stages multiple events in the city and brings other suburbanites in with their cash, who then go to other events, tell others, etc

---

As I have stated multiple times: Those that contribute but don't live in the city do a great deal. The city however desperately needs residents and a stornger tax base. Is that a statement that you disagree with?

Quote:

---

I'm gonna have to go with B.

---

Again, you are making assumptions about what I do or don't do in the community. I didn't realize that if you post on this forum that it implies that it is all one does. So if you are pointing the finger and making assumptions I would expect that you are willing to list all of the great things you do in the city.

Detroit will once again be a successful community if it figures out that people in the metro region can, for the most part, choose to live anywhere they want and can afford, and that therefore Detroit must compete in some way for their business.

The governments of Detroit over the past eighty years, if I may risk a generalization, have floundered on the continuing belief that people ought to live in Detroit because people ought to live in Detroit. This is unrealistic and dangerous.

Now, if the Detroit City leadership ever decides to try to be competitive, what exactly does that mean? Several things. First, get basic City services in order; and the way to do that, in an absence of huge amounts of money, is to first save money by getting rid of thousands of unnecessary make-work City jobs. Second, merge services or privatize services where it no longer makes sense [[if it ever did) for the City to be owning and running things itself; of course, public transit immediately leaps to mind, but there are others. Third, reform the organizational structure of DPS, since the current structure clearly doesn't work and is a national joke. Fourth, provide services or opportunities to residents that nonresidents cannot as easily obtain [[use your imaginations).

That's just a starter list. The sad thing is, nobody seems to be looking at any of this. You might have plenty of your own things to add. But if Detroit refuses to compete with the rest of the region, or continues to pretend there is no competition, than the cities which are trying to do a good job will continue to win, and Detroit will continue to lose.

Professor Scott, your posts are always a good and informative read.
Detroit has a regional competitive advantage with regard to having a viable urban corridor, being the center of it all, hosting many of the big-ticket cultural and sporting events - with regard to being a city, really. For the non-urban parts, I'm afraid I got nothing.

I've got to disagree with the Professor on part of this. Detroit is never going to win a competition of being a community that's the safest or cheapest or offers the best public services in the region. The suburbs have huge advantages over the city in these areas that the city will never overcome. But it doesn't need to either. People who are going to move to Detroit are not focused on moving to a city that's the safest or cheapest place to live. The people that are will likely never move to Detroit. Successful cities around the world are never the safest or cheapest places to live in their region. Why do you think Detroit can only succeed by beating the suburbs at their own game?

I agree on most of the other points about streamlining services, reducing costs, fixing the schools. But it's unrealistic to set goals that the city can never meet to attract people who will never move there. Instead, the focus should be on fixing those things that matter to people who live and work in big cities, like having a reliable transit system that serves the entire region. The other items you mention matter to the degree that they free up resources to allow the city to better itself in the areas that matter to people who live or would want to live in the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

I've got to disagree with the Professor on part of this. Detroit is never going to win a competition of being a community that's the safest or cheapest or offers the best public services in the region. The suburbs have huge advantages over the city in these areas that the city will never overcome. But it doesn't need to either. People who are going to move to Detroit are not focused on moving to a city that's the safest or cheapest place to live. The people that are will likely never move to Detroit. Successful cities around the world are never the safest or cheapest places to live in their region. Why do you think Detroit can only succeed by beating the suburbs at their own game?

I agree on most of the other points about streamlining services, reducing costs, fixing the schools. But it's unrealistic to set goals that the city can never meet to attract people who will never move there. Instead, the focus should be on fixing those things that matter to people who live and work in big cities, like having a reliable transit system that serves the entire region. The other items you mention matter to the degree that they free up resources to allow the city to better itself in the areas that matter to people who live or would want to live in the city.

---

Exactly. Thank you for saying this. The differences between Detroit and the other "grand" American cities are:

1) No urban elite class tied to specific neighborhoods that others must pry out of their cold, dead hands.

2) Fewer post-WWII immigrant groups with enclaves within city limits.

Whenever I play "most dangerous city" or "most crappy school system" with my friends who hail from Chicago/LA/Philly/etc., I lose. Their most frequent observation about Detroit is "where are the people? Where are the cars? Where's the trains?" The only contest I usually win is "English's city is the most abandoned."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East Detroit

Let's see...

Who does more for the city?

A) City of Detroit resident who sits in their house, pays their personal property tax, and insults/belittles the work of a recently deceased person [[from group B) on a forum

B) Suburbanite who stages multiple events in the city and brings other suburbanites in with their cash, who then go to other events, tell others, etc

I'm gonna have to go with B.

---

Wait, are we comparing residents, including people who live, work, or regularly play in the city, to supporters, meaning people who maybe visit the casinos, tunnel and stadiums only, and support Detroit by occasionally volunteering, donating money, or only verbally?

Contrary to popular belief by some, Person "A" in the quote above also is spending money for groceries, most medical expenses, beauty and retail expenses, fuel, and other things. While not everyone fits the stereotypes, Person "B" is someone I have yet to meet outside of this site [[significant, since I started in the suburbs), leading me to believe they are very rare, when looking at the Metro Detroit population as a whole.

Driving through areas of Detroit with the doors locked so you can volunteer at a crack house demolition, or to show your kids "the real world", or to go to a regional event is a bit of an empty gesture. We're thankful you volunteered, but it's the same way your kind of thankful that your wacky aunt gave you a pink and green knitted sweater for your 8th Birthday.... at the end of May.... after your Mom smiles at you and tells you it's really the thought that counts.
:o

As a Detroit resident for 47 out of 57 years and a current resident, I still think it advisable to give tax paying non residents a type of partial vote. Before people scream racism, most people I know who work in the city but live in the burbs are black. Empirical experience at best I know. I just think a vote in affairs that affect one tends to foster better relations and more commitment to our core city.

There have been so many focus groups etc that have great ideas that unfortunately are read by no one and no action taken. These think tanks of students, professionals and residents need to be heard.

Yes this city could be run way more efficiently but cronyism holds this city back. My favorite example is I did a street scape [[landscape) design for a non profit for free. The funding was there via the city, but the plants had to be purchased through an approved vendor. The vendor supplied the plants @ a cost of $18,000. I could have purchased the same for $5,000. Nice profit for them huh! All of the labor was provided by volunteers not this approved landscape company. That explains a lot of why this city fails to operate a balanced budget. They were also contracted by the city to water these plantings which was a service they never delivered on but got paid anyway. Most plants died as a result, what a horrible waste of money, free labor and bitterness that ensued on the part of the volunteers.

Pay to play must end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

Gated communities and HOAs seem to be the way to go. They're even gating established neighborhoods in rough areas.

---

Ugh...fuck that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

I've got to disagree with the Professor on part of this. Detroit is never going to win a competition of being a community that's the safest or cheapest or offers the best public services in the region. The suburbs have huge advantages over the city in these areas that the city will never overcome. But it doesn't need to either. People who are going to move to Detroit are not focused on moving to a city that's the safest or cheapest place to live. The people that are will likely never move to Detroit. Successful cities around the world are never the safest or cheapest places to live in their region. Why do you think Detroit can only succeed by beating the suburbs at their own game?

I agree on most of the other points about streamlining services, reducing costs, fixing the schools. But it's unrealistic to set goals that the city can never meet to attract people who will never move there. Instead, the focus should be on fixing those things that matter to people who live and work in big cities, like having a reliable transit system that serves the entire region. The other items you mention matter to the degree that they free up resources to allow the city to better itself in the areas that matter to people who live or would want to live in the city.

---

The problem is that Detroit will have to continue streamlining services and shrinking the DPS year after year. It's almost like a managed withdrawal or wind-down. There won't be an and to the cutting if people keep leaving the city and they will keep leaving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sumas

but the plants had to be purchased through an approved vendor.

---

Does the name of the company stat with Torre &.......?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

Why have a hundred different school districts and police and fire districts?

Some of the worst school districts lay blocks away from the best.

---

I was reading a study on-line a couiple of weeks ago talking about consolidation of school districts. You get economies of scale with consolidation up to a certain size. Once you get a school district larger than that size range, you begin to introduce bureaucratic inefficiencies [[Detroit textbook storage for example) which takes away from any economies achieved by scale.

A 'school district" should consist of two [[or as a max three) high schools and their feeding elementary and middle schools. The elected school board should be voluntary and not career positions with no salaries and no staff [[just small expense accounts). All of the administrators and most of the teachers should know each other.

You could have regional "education authorities" to run a consolidated vo-tech program and provide for central purchasing to get the best deal by making quantity buys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick

The problem is that Detroit will have to continue streamlining services and shrinking the DPS year after year. It's almost like a managed withdrawal or wind-down. There won't be an and to the cutting if people keep leaving the city and they will keep leaving.

---

Yes, but tides change just as the moon cycles through phases, and the lines in the sand are inevitably washed away.

"Can a city improve with less residents, less tax base but more supporters?"

No. That has essentially been the problem for the past 50 years. Detroit has been bleeding population and tax base, but never seems to have a shortage of cheerleaders. Look where we are. D hat wearing will not save us.

Yeah, but Detroit, as a city, didn't keep up with the times and adjust to the shrinkage. It can totally be a dense city of 500k-1M surrounded by some farmland.

If Detroit drops the parts of itself that are "crappy suburbs", and shrinks down to the city parts and keeps the more viable neighborhoods, it totally works out. There's little reason for someone to move to the "crappy suburbs" parts when they can just go live in an actual suburb, but if you're looking for city living in metro Detroit, your options outside of Detroit are pretty limited.

It didn't have to be this way. Decades ago, society could have chosen to confront and overcome its ills, but that milk was spilled long ago. I don't think my analysis of where Detroit is competitive, regionally, and where it is not results from any particularly new developments.

And if you live in one of the "crappy suburb" parts, I don't mean to offend you or anything. You may have a beautiful 1920's house, or something else that does not innately suck. But some of these places may not be viable; it's a lot of ground for the police to cover, a lot of wiring for AT&T to replace, and so on, and if the money isn't there, all you can do is suck it up and deal with the consequences. According to the threads on here, some parts of Detroit are really, really far gone, and sometimes you just have to be realistic and settle for second best because it is feasible.

So there you go, fewer residents + less tax base = smaller, smarter city. Some of the historical roots of this are Us-vs-Them type stuff, so getting external supporters on board is clearly also important. But the smaller, smarter city will convert some of them to residents, and the rest to "tourists" [[i.e. ball park attenders, DIA visitors, etc) anyway, so they will do more than just wear D hats. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick

It's almost like a managed withdrawal or wind-down.

---

Yes, it's basically a managed withdrawal. A lot of people will be sad to see their neighborhoods go, but if the writing's on the wall, all you can do is respond intelligently.

I realize a lot of people are from around here and may have emotional ties to things, but I don't think it is justifiable to continue with the status quo. On this board, I have read that criminals are stripping and looting abandoned and foreclosed homes with very little delay, and in an organized fashion. I can only imagine the hopelessness it must engender in the people who live in those neighborhoods, or who are growing up there. It makes for a messed up frame of reference, a messed up view of what life is like. I can think of no feasible plan for overcoming these burdens, unless somebody on the outside wants to throw a couple billion dollars at the issue. I can only imagine that if you're 12 and living there, your whole family [[provided they still live in Detroit), including your grandparents, have witnessed decade after decade of decay and ruin, which of course does something unhappy to a person.

Basically, and this is going to sound comical [[except you're all already familiar with the idea), but why not let's have all of those folks move into apartments or smaller homes close to the DIA and such, is the main idea. I don't know that that generates a lot of jobs, though it might generate some, but it would be a sustainable situation that holds out the promise of things improving, despite the fact that you have fewer residents than in the 1950's and less of a tax base. The lower Woodward corridor has had so much successful development and money thrown at it, it's not going anywhere. It will continue to enjoy some basic level of city services, as a result of maybe an unhappy fact of life about the world. The point being, the police is a lot likelier to patrol the neighborhood, even if somewhere a house was foreclosed on [[said house now being more valuable, of course) than if the neighborhood is miles away from the nearest precinct and has been slowly reverting to wilderness.

Instead of everything around you going to heck all the time in a manner consistent with the life experiences of those around you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

Yeah, but Detroit, as a city, didn't keep up with the times and adjust to the shrinkage. It can totally be a dense city of 500k-1M surrounded by some farmland.

If Detroit drops the parts of itself that are "crappy suburbs", and shrinks down to the city parts and keeps the more viable neighborhoods, it totally works out. There's little reason for someone to move to the "crappy suburbs" parts when they can just go live in an actual suburb, but if you're looking for city living in metro Detroit, your options outside of Detroit are pretty limited.

---

Just so we are all on the same page, the areas out side of the Grand Boulevard Loop in many parts, saw the least amount of population lose, and in some cases saw growth from 1950 to 2005, as illustrated below.

Attachment 6674

The "suburban" areas of the City of Detroit are not viewed a s a problem by many, are what we some are talking about abandoning in parts, or are what [[I have to assume) people are talking about turning into large commercial scale farms.

It is the central city, the area within or adjacent to the Grand Boulevard Loop that are the center of attention, and the target of many of the programs and bizarre ideas we have been hearing about. The neighborhood stabilization and demolition plans on the other hand, are in large part, targeting areas outside of Downtown and the Grand Boulevard Loop, as shown below.

Attachment 6675

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

Just so we are all on the same page, the areas out side of the Grand Boulevard Loop in many parts, saw the least amount of population lose, and in some cases saw growth from 1950 to 2005, as illustrated below.

Attachment 6674

The "suburban" areas of the City of Detroit are not viewed a s a problem by many, are what we some are talking about abandoning in parts, or are what [[I have to assume) people are talking about turning into large commercial scale farms.

It is the central city, the area within or adjacent to the Grand Boulevard Loop that are the center of attention, and the target of many of the programs and bizarre ideas we have been hearing about.

---

Truly amazing that the waterfront along the Detroit River has been abandoned over the last 50+ years. In most areas, riverfront would be a premium for development.

"Truly amazing that the waterfront along the Detroit River has been abandoned over the last 50+ years. In most areas, riverfront would be a premium for development."

Uh, where? Most of the areas that one could call abandoned were in active use for industrial purposes within the past 20 years.

Well, I definitely learned something there. But what about the last 10 years? I understand what you're saying, DetroitDad, but I wonder if the statistics wouldn't look very different for 2000-2010 [[I guess we may know soon enough). It seems really quite counterintuitive to me.
The reason being that Detroit is stigmatized in any number of ways, and land/property in the suburbs is not prohibitively expensive, from a middle class perspective. I can tell you why I would move to a dense Woodward corridor - to engage in some "urbanite" stuff like walking to a bistro/cafe type joint next a park in order to enjoy a saturday morning's brunch of brie and cranberry preserves on french bread with some kind of delectable coffee. If that's not important to me, if I want to drive to a cheesecake factory, I don't think I move to Detroit. And I think getting the whole french bread thing set up in downtown Detroit is going to be much, much easier than fixing all of that other stuff up, and downtown/midtown has a competitive advantage. Some of what I saw just north of 8 Mile was only very marginally nicer than immediately south of 8 Mile, but it probably passed as providing better services. I think walking to a Tigers game, to the Fox, to Cliff Bell's or Buzz Bar, is an easier sell to a different demographic [[and I'll just have to picnic in Harmonie Park for now :-).
Can an argument be made that those areas had the least density to begin with, that the time frame shown is precisely the time frame during which urban sprawl played out, and that it may have played out longer and more forcefully in the home of the automobile than in some other places?
For what it's worth, I like that whole ambling to french bread with brie and cranberry preserves kind of thing, I think it's pleasant. I don't look down on people who go to Denny's as meatheads, I also go to places like that sometimes, and I have bought some of my weird fancy-shmancy junk [[as well as shampoo) at Wal-Mart and Target. If I was married with kids, that whole bag would be at the top of my list of things to cut out, it's a self-indulgent bit of ridiculousness, I admit, but its pleasant.
The waterfront can be redeveloped, notwithstanding its industrial past; certainly up to Belle Isle and beyond to the GP's has potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

The waterfront can be redeveloped, notwithstanding its industrial past; certainly up to Belle Isle and beyond to the GP's has potential.

---

The problem is that the Corps of Engineers and the environmentalists won't let you carve backyard canals into the land from the river any more. With some massive urban renewal and some canal digging, everything east of E. Grand Boulevard from Mack to the river could be high end residential property with Mcmansions, swimming pools, and boat docks pouring taxes down the rathole [[oops, I mean into the city coffers)..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

So the question I pose to the board is: Can a city ever improve with a declining population, declining tax base but a large number of supporters that live outside the community.

---

No, they can serve as an extremely important supplement to what is happening in the city. Nothing, however, can replace residents and a tax base - unless, we're talking about tens of millions of supporters/visitors each year.

Tourist towns were mentioned above as an example of where his already works. The problem there is that tourist towns don't have 138 square miles of land nor do they have a population of 900,000 to service.

Sumas, HOAs are Home Owner Associations...read: cult/neighborhood watch on steroids. Some HOAs are more benign while others can approve/deny what you can do to your own house, what kind of garbage bags you can use for trash [[AMHIK), improvements to your home, etc.

Back to the topic. While all of these things are great ideas, how are any of these things going to improve the current educational state of the city, primarily the illiteracy rate? Is the assumption that it will just work itself out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Islandman

Back to the topic. While all of these things are great ideas, how are any of these things going to improve the current educational state of the city, primarily the illiteracy rate? Is the assumption that it will just work itself out?

---

A revitalized city offers a future and gives everyone a stake in the wider world/reduces the number of disenchanted and alienated individuals, which incentivizes staying on track with your education? I'm not trying to blame the victim here, or to foster cries advocating individual accountability either, but it seems almost like a simple mechanical cause-effect type thing to me.
So yes, basically it will just work itself out. What else do you propose, a bunch of federal funding? A public education campaign with airtime volunteered by TV stations to educate people on what makes sense in the world, so they don't elect people named reverend?
Stick him or her, with family, in one of those $10,000 HUD-owned condos in the Lafayette area [[yeah, that's out there). Everything is so cheap right now.

It's either all shot to hell and we all move one with our lives, or we build on what makes sense. I don't have a plan what to do for a kid surrounded by zero expectations in a land of liquor, I mean party, stores and worse that I have no confidence in finding 500k people to populate, except to get him or her the hell outta there as soon as possible. If things get better, it will lift everyone [[and everyone's spirits).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

Nobody's going to want to live anywhere they don't feel safe. City, suburb or rural. Gated communities and HOAs seem to be the way to go. They're even gating established neighborhoods in rough areas.

---

Large gated communities would be the way to go with some of their own neighborhood or HOA governance. Detroit won't be revived until people with money feel safe from crime and have quality schools to sent their kids to. Mayor Bing is talking about abandoning some areas of the city to increase the efficiency of City services. Instead of having crime infested 'green spaces', how about accomodating large gated communities of say 10,000 residents. That would be enough of a population to have it's own internal stores and schools. Invite the developers to start spending their money in Detroit instread of elsewhere. If the community could work our something with DPS - fine. If not, there would be enough people to establish their own private schools where their kids could get a quality education and walk home safety.

This would be a win-win for Detroit. It would bring in construction jobs, service jobs, and tax revenue. New residents would stimulate the demand for additional services in greater Detroit. To the extent that private schools were established, the residents of the community would still be paying Detroit property taxes to prop up DPS funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Large gated communities would be the way to go with some of their own neighborhood or HOA governance. Detroit won't be revived until people with money feel safe from crime and have quality schools to sent their kids to. Mayor Bing is talking about abandoning some areas of the city to increase the efficiency of City services. Instead of having crime infested 'green spaces', how about accomodating large gated communities of say 10,000 residents?

---

That's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, it is the exact opposite of what a city is. Next...

While this does seem like a good idea, the same plan has been implemented for years in my home island of Puerto Rico. Some gated communities have anywhere from 1 to 4 security gates.

While you may feel safe at home, anything outside of your house is still quite lawless. The overall community needs to be part of the plan for it to work. Sectioning parts of the city to the more affluent is right out of Robocop.

I agree with Detroitnerd that that's not a great plan for resuscitating the city overall, but I understand where Kathy2Trips is coming from. It addresses some of the financial issues and such. But it ultimately results in being disconnected from the city, like those Riverview towers [[or river-something, at any rate), which I would never move into precisely because they're so gated. Then again, FWIW, those have to be some of the most expensive apartments in the city.
I still think the whole cool city for 20-somethings is feasible. Schools are perceived to be a problem in very many cities, even successful ones, fixing those would be like fixing all of Detroit, a gargantuan accomplishment. Building a fun playground for college graduates is a well-trodden road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roq

Ugh...fuck that.

---

Why? Your argument descends to the level of "don't mean squat", if you can't defend it. Why can't a "master planned community" be created within existing boundaries, grandfathering in existing homeowners? Trying to think out of the box, here. BTW: HOA = Home Owner's Association. Not exactly like, but similar to, a neighborhood association.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Truly amazing that the waterfront along the Detroit River has been abandoned over the last 50+ years. In most areas, riverfront would be a premium for development.

---

Absolutely, that area is screaming for redevelopment and a controlled access environment would protect that area from surrounding crime areas. And, maybe someday there won't be a need for gates, but until then.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

Absolutely, that area is screaming for redevelopment and a controlled access environment would protect that area from surrounding crime areas. And, maybe someday there won't be a need for gates, but until then.......

---

Conversely, as long as the gates are up, there will be no need to control crime.

I understand where you're coming from, but I strongly argue that the best environments to build for a city are ... urban environments.

Detroit has good bones to build on. If, in the name of attracting investment, we are willing to get rid of street grids, history, buildings and start from nothing, then we'll build something without any history to it. And you can find that easily enough -- an oversupply, in fact -- in the exurbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

Absolutely, that area is screaming for redevelopment and a controlled access environment would protect that area from surrounding crime areas. And, maybe someday there won't be a need for gates, but until then.......

---

I think there's some gated development down there already, actually. Harbortown or something? They have a shopping center on Jefferson. Yeah, okay, there's probably something to your idea, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

I think there's some gated development down there already, actually. Harbortown or something? They have a shopping center on Jefferson. Yeah, okay, there's probably something to your idea, actually.

---

I used to deliver pizza from a store there. My dad was actually one of the carpenters who built the place. According to him, it was classic work from the boom-box-and-six-pack school of construction. He actually had to go through when they were done and cut holes for the vent fans in the kitchens on almost all the crescent condos. They just slapped vents over drywall and went on their merry way. "F*[[k it up, cover it up, head for the hills."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Islandman

While this does seem like a good idea, the same plan has been implemented for years in my home island of Puerto Rico. Some gated communities have anywhere from 1 to 4 security gates.

While you may feel safe at home, anything outside of your house is still quite lawless. The overall community needs to be part of the plan for it to work. Sectioning parts of the city to the more affluent is right out of Robocop.

---

As kathy points out, remaining residents could be grandfathered in to the new community. Also, a condition of providing a percentage of 'affordable housing' could be required of the developer. Anyway, why have all the affluent folks living off in the burbs when they could be paying Detroit property taxes instead and creating a demand for private businesses? Would you prefer to continue listening to crickets in 'open spaces' instead? Detroit doesn't have the money to be properly managing many square miles of green spaces. Better that some new residents come in somewhat on their terms and start paying taxes for police, fire, school, and other City services which are now on life support.

Think of RenCen as being a walled off gated community right now. GM doesn't allow just anyone in there. How does RenCen's existence offend your sense of an urban environment? If RenCen was a big condo development instead of a corporate headquarter, would you say it was right out of Robocop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Why have all the affluent folks living off in the burbs when they could be paying Detroit property taxes instead and creating a demand for private businesses?

---

Believe it or not, we have some very affluent people living in Detroit right now. It's just that they appreciate what the city has to offer. Trying, at great expense, to knock down Detroit and turn it into an ahistorical exurban environment sounds counterproductive to me. I mean, if they want that stuff, why would they want to pay a premium for a house built new in Detroit when you can buy the same sorts of houses foreclosed in Macomb or Clinton Township?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Believe it or not, we have some very affluent people living in Detroit right now. It's just that they appreciate what the city has to offer. Trying, at great expense, to knock down Detroit and turn it into an ahistorical exurban environment sounds counterproductive to me. I mean, if they want that stuff, why would they want to pay a premium for a house built new in Detroit when you can buy the same sorts of houses foreclosed in Macomb or Clinton Township?

---

Detroit could use more wealth. You hit on a good point though. Those people will do the deciding if they have an option. Just because it isn't your cup of tea, shouldn't make you get in the way of what they might want. I envision communities of 10,000 plus with a high percentage of urban multiple story condo development with a lot of walking options and affordable units. Some existing neighborhood building might be rehabilitated as part of the mix. The burbs are typically more spread out and car dependent. Take care of your crime problem and the gates would probably eventually come down. Even if they didn't, so what? There are a lot of neighborhoods in Detroit where strangers don't go now anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

Absolutely, that area is screaming for redevelopment and a controlled access environment would protect that area from surrounding crime areas. And, maybe someday there won't be a need for gates, but until then.......

---

Serious question: have you ever seen a major city revive itself through building gated communities? The United States of America has no shortage of examples of cities that have pulled themselves back from the worst of urban decay... And I can't think of a single one in which gated communities in the central city was the method of their salvation. In fact, they all seemed to do the exact opposite of building gated communities: they focused on improving transit, accessibility, and improving the vitality of the urban core.

Now I'm not saying that the perception of safety isn't an issue, but I am saying that it strikes me as ridiculous to believe that gated communities could possibly help Detroit.

What your talking about sounds kind of like a larger version of Riverview Towers, maybe moreso than Harbortown. If someone can get that organized, maybe on account of the river view, by all means. But it's quite hard to get that done.
What you're talking about also bears a pretty good similarity to a revitalized urban core along Woodward from downtown to midtown, minus the gates, once the M-1 project gets its act together.
I realize that there's a key difference, basically in terms of the gates, but if you're talking about 10,000+ people, that's kind of the scale you're looking at. Like Stuyvesant Town in New York or something.
I don't think that's real easy to pull off, and a smaller, perhaps more realistic version would basically be another Harbortown. I suppose maybe if these places with gatedness-appeal got together, they could arrange a private school for themselves that makes sense. But revitalizing the downtown-midtown corridor is so much easier, don't you think, since it can grow organically on a foundation that is already in place?
Just my 2 cents. I definitely appreciate the creative thinking, though.

To play devil's advocate, if it's something along Jefferson, like Harbortown is, why not? It wouldn't interfere with any ongoing development efforts, and you can always remove the gates later.

I understand that having a bunch of gated communities is not a model of urban development, but is that area really subject to urban development? I don't know, maybe it is, but it didn't look that hot a couple of years ago.

Conceivably, what if it's a mini-pretend-GP on the other side of Belle Isle? There's got to be land lying fallow there somewhere. Some kind of monster complex that houses 10,000+ people and has a bunch of stuff inside it that people can walk toward, maybe some piers or a beach...it could generate some property tax income, which probably beats nothing.

I can see where you guys are going with this, but it would be really hard to pull off, and it might not sell anymore at this point. The Book Cadillac, which is in the real city, is selling pretty darn expensive apartments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

To play devil's advocate, if it's something along Jefferson, like Harbortown is, why not? It wouldn't interfere with any ongoing development efforts, and you can always remove the gates later.

I understand that having a bunch of gated communities is not a model of urban development, but is that area really subject to urban development? I don't know, maybe it is, but it didn't look that hot a couple of years ago.

---

The Riverwalk? Why would you allow a handful of people to wall off access to the city's waterfront from the rest of the residents? And how exactly does this save Detroit anyway? Lack of gated communities aren't the reason people are fleeing the city. There are already several gated communities there!

Contrary to popular belief, many of our more well-off suburbs with great police departments and neighborhood watch programs, still choose to employ private security at night, especially in business corridors.

The issue is that upper income areas will always be possible targets because that is where the opportunity for criminals actually is. Even with their self seclusion, state of the art security systems, and gated style, they still manage to be occasional targets. I don't think it will be any different in Detroit, and it will be a challenge to mix incomes the way an urban area should be. Before you do that, you better have a good support system [[temporary safety net and/or place of entry) for the poor and lower income folks, along with several easily identifiable ladders to better lives.

It also might help to figure out a way to stop sending our citizens to prison, essentially a college for becoming a better criminal. A commitment to education... no, scratch that, to sticking with individuals from the beginning to beyond college, should be the goal. We should be learning what our citizens dream of, and make it possible to accomplish right here in Detroit.

The sacrifice for all of us is that we will likely not see the results of our actions, and just have to understand that our actions create ripples through eternity the same way throwing a pebble can send ripples across a mill pond.

Just exploring the idea. And no, Riverwalk is a prize that should be extended as far as possible.
What's the deal with downriver of downtown? If those Riverview Towers, if that's what they're called, those high-rises behind JLA, decided to expand, would that interfere with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Serious question: have you ever seen a major city revive itself through building gated communities? The United States of America has no shortage of examples of cities that have pulled themselves back from the worst of urban decay... And I can't think of a single one in which gated communities in the central city was the method of their salvation. In fact, they all seemed to do the exact opposite of building gated communities: they focused on improving transit, accessibility, and improving the vitality of the urban core.

Now I'm not saying that the perception of safety isn't an issue, but I am saying that it strikes me as ridiculous to believe that gated communities could possibly help Detroit.

---

Public transit is great in places where people aren't afraid of getting mugged walking home. "Improving the vitality of the urban core" is a cliche rather than a concrete idea. Additional residents and their money will help Detroit. Large gated communities are just one way to attract these new residents. Noone in their right mind is going to endanger their own kids if they can afford not to.

I've never even seen such an experiment attempted. Maybe no major cities have revived themselves, or at least improved their financial condition, doing this because none have done it. I'm curious. Name a few cities the size and financial condition of Detroit that have pulled themselves back from the worst of urban decay.

Mayor Bing and the Federal government are going to be spending $10,000 a house to tear them down. Then someone has to maintain the empty lots although Detroit can't afford to cut all of it's grass now. Detroit is 139 square miles. What if a one-half square mile area [[about 44 blocks, or 3,700' square) were set aside for such an experiment? Picture an area the size of St. Jean to Cadilac and Goethe to E. Jefferson becoming a thriving community of about 11,500 taxpayers with the need for building necessary housing, shops, schools, and businesses for that many people. It wouldn't, by itself, turn Detroit around but 10 or 20 such developments would make a great start. Just that amount of construction work would be a help and this could be done without holding out a hat for years hoping for federal dollars.

I hope some developers are reading this now. Deatroit real estate is cheap and Detroit has a Mayor who wants to start turning things around. Time to work out a mutually acceptable deal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

It addresses some of the financial issues and such. But it ultimately results in being disconnected from the city, like those Riverview towers

---

One of the main concerns preventing people from moving back into the city is safety. Gated communities address this concern cheaply. Whether or not the concern is valid, or if gated communities are actually safer is somewhat irrelevant, you need the perception of safety to get people to move back.

It can be a stop-gap measure as well - design the enclosed communities with points where they can be re-connected to the surrounding streets once crime gets under control.

It's far from a perfect solution, but it's cheap and easy to try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Public transit is great in places where people aren't afraid of getting mugged walking home. "Improving the vitality of the urban core" is a cliche rather than a concrete idea. Additional residents and their money will help Detroit. Large gated communities are just one way to attract these new residents. Noone in their right mind is going to endanger their own kids if they can afford not to.

I've never even seen such an experiment attempted. Maybe no major cities have revived themselves, or at least improved their financial condition, doing this because none have done it. I'm curious. Name a few cities the size and financial condition of Detroit that have pulled themselves back from the worst of urban decay.

Mayor Bing and the Federal government are going to be spending $10,000 a house to tear them down. Then someone has to maintain the empty lots although Detroit can't afford to cut all of it's grass now. Detroit is 139 square miles. What if a one-half square mile area [[about 44 blocks, or 3,700' square) were set aside for such an experiment? Picture an area the size of St. Jean to Cadilac and Goethe to E. Jefferson becoming a thriving community of about 11,500 taxpayers with the need for building necessary housing, shops, schools, and businesses for that many people. It wouldn't, by itself, turn Detroit around but 10 or 20 such developments would make a great start. Just that amount of construction work would be a help and this could be done without holding out a hat for years hoping for federal dollars.

I hope some developers are reading this now. Deatroit real estate is cheap and Detroit has a Mayor who wants to start turning things around. Time to work out a mutually acceptable deal!

---

This won't work.

Many people have some attraction to a more rural living arrangement in America, for many reasons that would make this post too long if discussed here. To many, a city is generally a environment that can easily overstimulate an individual. There is generally three types of people/reactions in a society [[city and suburbs).

1. Eunice The Over Enthusiastic Embracer; Generally, Eunice is the person who is powered and inspired by a city. They view the society and city as something they are amazed by, and eagerly want to be a part of it, or capture it's essence in some way [[art, business, community service, etc.).
2. Deal With It Dan; Dan has some issues with the city, it makes him feel lost, just another cog in the clock, or blade of grass in a field. Dan copes with city life, and resides in the city, but generally does not enjoy it in itself. Dan deals with his over-stimulation by withdrawing.
3. Run For The Hills Hank; Hank deals with the city by rejecting it outright, and tends to avoid it when possible, often living in the suburbs, since many small towns are now in about as bad of shape as many cities.

Dan will be your prime buyer of gated communities, since he want's to be secluded from the city, but still needs or wants to be nearby. Dan feels his home is where he feels most comfortable, and wants to withdraw himself and relax there. Eunice on the other hand, is the opposite, and views the home as uncomfortable and public places more like home. Hank on the other hand will not be moving into your gated community, since he already rejected the location.

I'm not sure we have enough Dans left for the type and size of communities you are suggesting. The other two groups will never embrace that living arrangement. My reason for thinking this is seeing what happened when smaller gated communities failed to attract enough residents before the current depression/recession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Public transit is great in places where people aren't afraid of getting mugged walking home. "Improving the vitality of the urban core" is a cliche rather than a concrete idea. Additional residents and their money will help Detroit. Large gated communities are just one way to attract these new residents. Noone in their right mind is going to endanger their own kids if they can afford not to.

I've never even seen such an experiment attempted. Maybe no major cities have revived themselves, or at least improved their financial condition, doing this because none have done it. I'm curious. Name a few cities the size and financial condition of Detroit that have pulled themselves back from the worst of urban decay.

Mayor Bing and the Federal government are going to be spending $10,000 a house to tear them down. Then someone has to maintain the empty lots although Detroit can't afford to cut all of it's grass now. Detroit is 139 square miles. What if a one-half square mile area [[about 44 blocks, or 3,700' square) were set aside for such an experiment? Picture an area the size of St. Jean to Cadilac and Goethe to E. Jefferson becoming a thriving community of about 11,500 taxpayers with the need for building necessary housing, shops, schools, and businesses for that many people. It wouldn't, by itself, turn Detroit around but 10 or 20 such developments would make a great start. Just that amount of construction work would be a help and this could be done without holding out a hat for years hoping for federal dollars.

I hope some developers are reading this now. Deatroit real estate is cheap and Detroit has a Mayor who wants to start turning things around. Time to work out a mutually acceptable deal!

---

Your second paragraph should have been your first and only. There are no examples of cities that have walled themselves off and into success. And that's no fluke. End of story. Also "cliche" is not the opposite of "concrete". So if "cliche" works then so be it. Let Detroit be cliche!

iheartthed, I find that numbers work better than cliches. The numbers I used assume a population density of about twice that of Detroit when it had 1.6M residents. What we are talking about is a project possibly less expensive than RenCen but no one complains that RenCen has it's own security and only certain people are allowed in. Are the workers in RenCen 'walled in' ? If RenCen was turned into a condo and shop complex would you be worried that people who chose to live there would be 'walled in'? Why should you even care if those people make their own lifestyle choices? Are you the lifestyle police? How would having 10,000 new residents, construction jobs, and service jobs be worse than having crime, untended vacant lots, and unemployment?


You brought up 'improving transit, accessibility, and improving the vitality of the urban core'. Wasn't that what the People Mover was supposed to do for downtown? Then adding more People Movers should make downtown even more vital but where are you going to get the money? Detroit is broke, Michigan is broke, the federal government has to borrow from China to pretend it isn't broke. That is why some new ideas have to be tried that don't rely on begging bankrupt governments for cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

This won't work.

Many people have some attraction to a more rural living arrangement in America, for many reasons that would make this post too long if discussed here. To many, a city is generally a environment that can easily overstimulate an individual. There is generally three types of people/reactions in a society [[city and suburbs).

1. Eunice The Over Enthusiastic Embracer; Generally, Eunice is the person who is powered and inspired by a city. They view the society and city as something they are amazed by, and eagerly want to be a part of it, or capture it's essence in some way [[art, business, community service, etc.).
2. Deal With It Dan; Dan has some issues with the city, it makes him feel lost, just another cog in the clock, or blade of grass in a field. Dan copes with city life, and resides in the city, but generally does not enjoy it in itself. Dan deals with his over-stimulation by withdrawing.
3. Run For The Hills Hank; Hank deals with the city by rejecting it outright, and tends to avoid it when possible, often living in the suburbs, since many small towns are now in about as bad of shape as many cities.

---

This is a great list! At my new job, we have all three types. I'm meeting a Deal With It Dan tomorrow... a resident of the Riverfront Towers. Finds Midtown/Lafayette/Corktown too risky to live in.

I'm definitely a Eunice, but why can't we have more attended apartment buildings here like the Park Shelton? I don't want to live behind a gate that takes my guests 15-20 minutes to get through [[Riverfront, etc.) but I also don't want to end up like the lady in the WSJ who bought near B-E and came home to find it stripped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBMcB

It's far from a perfect solution, but it's cheap and easy to try.

---

Yeah, I get that, that's why I picked up on the idea again after first dismissing it.

FWIW, I did take the skywalk between Millender and RenCen as an indication that this complex was supposed to let you not be part of the city if you didn't want to, but I have also moderated my view of it since on account of my having experienced a couple of Michigan winters.

I'm defensive about the lower Woodward corridor, because I think of it as concrete, with many of the pieces in place already. In my mind, it basically has already happened there. If you stick it right in the middle of that corridor, at least without some kind of retail frontage, you could break the continuity of that. The riverfront should always make sense for development, and as was mentioned, is in fact being developed by smaller gated communities already, so I guess its off the table. But if you want to range outside of that "T", be my guest.

You'll have political obstacles for sure. Isn't there a wall on Woodward up around 8-Mile that I read about in Origins, a wall that had been put up in not-so-ancient times to keep Detroit's black population out of the suburbs, more or less? This idea would lurch straight into that still-open wound.

And there is something questionable about the idea of building a faux mini-Hamtramck in order to attract people who don't want to live in Detroit to Detroit. But they may be out there, longing to be convinced that they can do so without sacrificing good schools or safe neighborhoods.

Or what about the undeveloped parts of the riverfront. Is anything happening downriver of Joe Louis Arena, behind the Riverfront Towers? Build something there, put in place a skywalk with a moving sidewalk to the People Mover, and open your school to the public as a private school.

I don't think this idea is awesome, it doesn't fill me with warm feelings, but in some areas, it probably couldn't hurt. Things are challenging.

Yeah, for me as well, I'm a Eunice. I don't want to live in the gated community myself. I want to walk out the door and be stimulated.

Speaking of Michigan winters, we had someone rotate through the Detroit office for 18 months from the Bangalore office. He ended up living in my building in downtown. Shortly after he arrived, he and I went out to the Indian movie theater in, what, Novi? We watched this subtitled Bollywood version of The Matrix called Krrrrish, which was fun. The cliche about jaw-dropping panoramic scenescapes held up as the young lovers danced through the meadows of some Himalayan valley. Krish ended up kicking butt in a Singaporean circus, but that's beside the point.

On the way back to the car, he makes conversation, small talk stuff, and asks me "so, when does the warm season start?" I think I just stared at him, completely befuddled, although nowadays I laugh heartily.

This was August, 2006. Little did he know what he was in for. :D

Vik, if you're out there, buddy, lurking, it is I, Fryar. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

You'll have political obstacles for sure. Isn't there a wall on Woodward up around 8-Mile that I read about in Origins, a wall that had been put up in not-so-ancient times to keep Detroit's black population out of the suburbs, more or less? This idea would lurch straight into that still-open wound.

---

The wall is actually a bit west of Woodward; it runs north-south between Birwood and Mendota, entirely within Detroit. The area from Birwood eastward [[on both sides of 8 Mile, interestingly enough) was settled by blacks back when it was still largely rural, and nobody much minded them being there because nobody really wanted the land for anything else. Then, as the city grew, a developer wanted to put in a new subdivision west of the existing black community, but knew the FHA would redline anything he built there since the demographic data showed the area to have a large proportion of blacks. So he built a wall to separate his new subdivision from the older black neighborhood, the FHA ignored the demographics on the other side of the wall and declared his subdivision sufficiently white for its residents to qualify for mortgages, and the houses all sold to nice, respectable white folks who weren't the least bit racist [[some of them probably even had a black friend!). Then a decade or two later the laws were changed so blacks could live west of the wall too, and white folks up and down Mendota left skid marks on the pavement.