Stadiums To Save Detroit

When you see all the good Ford Field and Comerica Park have done for our fair city, I think it's time we turn to the one proven method for urban renewal in Detroit: stadiums. Under my plan, Detroit would be cut into a checkerboard pattern of districts, and sports teams would be allocated to each respective district according to need.

Of course, the first move would be to relocate the Red Wings and Pistons within the greater downtown area, which should fix most of the problems there. But after that, things get a bit stickier. However, by throwing tons of tax money around like it's going out of style, we should be able to attract various minor league and collegiate teams to various spots in the city.

Right now, you hit Gratiot and Grand Boulevard and you're like, what happened? But imagine if you turned the corner and there was a shiny Lansing/Detroit Lugnuts stadium right there on Forest. All the fun loving, rich visitors would demand restaurants and hotels and - BAM! - the area would be fixed. It's so simple I don't know why you idiots haven't figured it out yet.

An abandoned factory near Chicago and Schaefer? Why yes I'd like to catch a Detroit Titans game there! Delray? More like the new home of your Detroit City Football Club!

Let's get our acts together, folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

When you see all the good Ford Field and Comerica Park have done for our fair city, I think it's time we turn to the one proven method for urban renewal in Detroit: stadiums. Under my plan, Detroit would be cut into a checkerboard pattern of districts, and sports teams would be allocated to each respective district according to need.

---

Hilarious, and right on the money, Nain.

I think if people are opposed to giving money to impoverished Detroit families but love showering money on rich-as-Croesus bastards like Ilitch, perhaps we should make some changes.

First, I propose that every family in Detroit call themselves a "team," not a "family." For instance, instead of Mr. and Mrs. Fred Jackson of Grixdale Street, they should be called the "Detroit Jacksons!" They should demand money to keep their stadiums [[formerly called "private homes") in Detroit. Or else they're going to leave for another city! I'm sure Detroit's sports fans wouldn't object to a few hundred million dollars in taxes to "show support for" expanding our teams and getting them brand-new stadiums so they can play better. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Hilarious, and right on the money, Nain.

I think if people are opposed to giving money to impoverished Detroit families but love showering money on rich-as-Croesus bastards like Ilitch, perhaps we should make some changes.

---

I get the arguments against the public funding for stadiums and that building those mega blocks is not the best way to do things. however, I fail to see how Detroit is "worse off" with CoPa and Ford field where they are vs. Detroit with the Lions in Pontiac and the Tigers in Novi and Olympia hq'd in Auburn Hills instead downtown.

To me, the formula should be tweaked and the planning should be more urban.. CoPa's set back is extremely frustrating... but to say that the City would be better off if we just sent every Detroiter a check for 100k is just silly. If that had been done, detroit would just be a lot more empty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

I get the arguments against the public funding for stadiums and that building those mega blocks is not the best way to do things. however, I fail to see how Detroit is "worse off" with CoPa and Ford field where they are vs. Detroit with the Lions in Pontiac and the Tigers in Novi and Olympia hq'd in Auburn Hills instead downtown.

---

Well, I think you've just articulated two of the reasons Detroit is worse off. A transfer of wealth from working people to the mega-rich is bad policy, but especially for cities full of the poorest people. It sends a message that our priorities are taking care of the very richest, and that YOU are not one of them. And downtown has a delicate fabric of streets; clearly siting bigfoot stadia downtown, and demolishing irreplaceable buildings for the attendant parking, is bad policy. Stadia should probably be built outside the congested district downtown. Maybe with mass transit it would be different?

But also, I think, there's a phenomenon called "Building the Cathedral for Easter." You devote some of the land that, ostensibly, you want to have the greatest value, and build massive parking structures around it designed to hold the MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF THE BUILDING, CARS AND PEOPLE. So, like, 99 percent of the time it will not be 100 percent in use, and something like 80 percent of the time it will be less than 10 percent in use. Is this a good use of valuable public space? Is this worth subsidizing? What do we do with it when it's moved on to the next location? Single-purpose architecture is a boon for a while, then a burden.

Then add to that Ilitch's disdain for allowing anybody else to make money on HIS business. His efforts to vertically integrate his entertainment empire leave very little spin-off economic activity. That's just being a bad neighbor, but Ilitch seems to have elevated it to an art form.

The only argument I've heard that even turns me around a bit is Duggan saying, "Well, then that money will just be spent elsewhere in Michigan." And I look at the downsides, the rewarding of bad behavior, the damage to the city's design, the wastefulness of it all, and I kind of shrug.

I know some people at Brookings have had good things to say about this "strategy" of siting entertainment venues downtown, and they're smart folks. But at what cost, oh, Lord? At what cost?

So if you are not into sports move somewhere else?

"the one proven method for urban renewal in Detroit: stadiums."

The property was cheap enough and the city was hungry enough to take what it was given,some might argue that it is a proven method of urban renewal.Unless it was your stadium then it would be the wave of the future so fund it now, please.

Interesting concept though.

It may be that Detroit's past misfortune at losing downtown structures is a plus when it comes to plunking down sizeable new projects in their place.

If the city needs revenue, excitement, potential retail, retaurants and venues generated from stadiums; it is hard to say no. In fact there is no reason other than badly integrated planning for city council to refuse investment of that order of magnitude.

But there is absolutely no reason for less than the best for Detroit; it may be that a great stadium, a smart location attracts more tourists, more potential investments too. Every part of the equation in rebuilding the city needs to be checked to avoid fucking it up further, rendering it less attractive and successful. No more hurried demolitions or long drawn out dereliction, no more favors to parking lot dreamscapers.

A great stadium can be a drawing card for the whole metro to converge on downtown and reestablish the superior attractiveness of downtown for other types of major projects, especially residential condos and eventually a well-executed shopping mall or two. It is doable.

its a way to fill downtown. Good for your restaurants/bars/casinos I suppose.

Giving money to the poor does not lift them out of poverty. Our "War on Poverty" since the 1960s has spent $11T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Giving money to the poor does not lift them out of poverty. Our "War on Poverty" since the 1960s has spent $11T.

---

while we have tried to lift the poor out of poverty through income support, housing assistance, medical insurance, etc. there have been countervailing forces which have largely negated those efforts.

Those countervailing forces include globalization with the loss of millions of jobs overseas and downward pressure on wages in the U.S.

The biggest contributor to poverty is the lack of good paying jobs for all Americans at various education and skill levels.

Looking forward, we face bigger challenges as a country as corporate America attempts to dial back defined benefit pensions and health care coverage for workers and retirees [[Retirees 65+, of course, have access to Medicare which mitigates some of the medical insurance problems.).

The decline of Detroit, Flint, etc. parallel the decline of the manufacturer of automobiles in those metropolitan areas.

And we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing the rich with bailouts, corporate welfare and infusions of taxpayers' money, and none of that has helped the rich put their money toward work that benefits the common welfare. At least the poor spend their money on consumer goods, stimulating the economy.

Does the NYT read DYes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/sp...its-teams.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Giving money to the poor does not lift them out of poverty.

---

If poverty is defined by total annual income, then the only way a direct annual cash transfer to a poor person could fail to lift them out of poverty is if it's an insufficiently large transfer.

However, a lot of assistance for the poor in the United States comes in forms other than direct cash transfers, and the impact of such assistance is not measured by poverty rates. Food stamps, for example, by definition can't lift anyone out of poverty, because they don't affect anyone's cash income one way or the other.

I like the stadiums idea, by the way, but it's not clear to me how Mike Ilitch would benefit from the subsidies directed at non-Ilitch team owners. I think this proposal should incorporate an Ilitch Benefits Agreement [[IBA) to ensure that some percentage of the profits of all these facilities are shared with Mike Ilitch. Developing more stadiums is an important policy goal, but the City of Detroit shouldn't lose sight of the fact that its primary raison d'etre is to make Mike Ilitch richer and his companies more profitable.

That's why I'm starting a public plea to raise awareness about one single issue: Mike Ilitch needs more money. The endeavor will be called Individual Needs Irrelevant: Quickly Unburden It To Ilitch [[INIQUITI). We'll basically have the neighborhood kids of Detroit out on bottle and can drives, we'll ask local entrepreneurs to generously donate a few percentage points of their revenue to Mike, and ask senior citizens to economize on heat or food this winter so we can all raise as much money as possible to help the old guy get just a little closer to that $2 billion net worth mark. I mean, hey, it's the least we can do. If there's some way the people of Detroit can help Mike get even richer, we'd all be proud to do our share. Just give us the word, Mike.

I can sympathize with anyone who questions whether big stadium deals benefit cities enough to justify their costs. But it is true that local sports teams are part of the fabric of the local area anywhere around the country with hordes of devoted fans.

I totally appreciate that Bill Davidson paid for the Palace out of his own pocket but I think if it was downtown, even with public subsidies it would make a big difference.

Also, I think Detroit charges out of town players income tax on their gigantic incomes when they play here but I may be wrong.

Remember, if the Tigers, Lions, and Wings ceased to exist tomorrow or if they never existed to begin with Detroit would not be a friggin Shangri La all of a sudden.

There has been billions upon billions of dollars thrown at rich people, poor people, stadiums, housing, corporations, etc. to the point that the government is broke but they haven't necessarily played any favorites lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

The decline of Detroit, Flint, etc. parallel the decline of the manufacturer of automobiles in those metropolitan areas.

---

Nothing to do with broken homes, high drop out rates, rampant drug use, young black men killing other young black men in huge numbers? Nothing to do with hugely expensize yet useless local government? Ah, yes. Blame the auto companies! Completely justifies ignoring the actual causes of our urban breakdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

A great stadium can be a drawing card for the whole metro to converge on downtown and reestablish the superior attractiveness of downtown for other types of major projects, especially residential condos and eventually a well-executed shopping mall or two. It is doable.

---

Not really. They tend to be a nuisance more than an attraction when it comes to building up residential areas or better established commercial areas. I love stadiums in a gritty neighborhood. A messy place to tailgate and a rundown ballpark district with stores crammed with gear and dozens of bars. Today they are polished up and boring. They try to be an exciting spectacle, but it's overly composed. It's not a classic baseball experience but pre-packaged theme park presentation.

Downtowns across America embraced new stadiums as urban renaissance as a sort of rebranded urban renewal. Instead of a sea of parking, we'll deck it and try to build midrise condo buildings and a couple ballpark district bars and call it [insert sports team name]-town. Ultimately they fell short of expectations. Instead of thousands of condos, they were lucky to break two hundred in some weak post-modern 4 story structures.

They completely missed the point of urban revitalization. The big draw of young folks back to the city are the neighborhoods with rows of intact older housing stock and lots of bars, shops, cafe and retail to choose from. Ballpark districts get these touristy bars and restaurants that are overpriced and mediocre.

I think stadiums can be a part of downtown revitalization just as long as they don't occupy too much of it. Detroit has for the most part destroyed and mutilated its once intricate web of uniquely shaped downtown streets full of lots of great buildings of superb architecture. It still carriers the torch of evolved modernism of demolishing the old and worn out and replacing it with new and shiny, but sterile, faceless structures. The continuity of the downtown is broken up by big interchanges, large and sometimes gated office complexes, private communities, seas of surface parking, stadiums with massive footprints, oversized plazas and convention hall and the most popular of all....mega garages. It's a near cousin to the suburb with a dozen or so fortunate blocks left standing, but even still threatened.

Moving forward the city could build some towers on those empty downtown blocks, but the shift in attention should be toward the neighborhoods. Time is not on Detroit's side to save what left of some older homes and commercial buildings. But the fine grain fabric of neighborhoods will be the city's most valuable assets and become some of the most desirable places to live, unlike the banal apartment complexes and townhomes the city has thrown up in the past 50 years.