‘Detroit is the new Detroit' — and real estate developers talk about why that's good

Is Detroit the new Brooklyn?

"No," David Blaszkiewicz told a real estate conference Wednesday. "It's not the new Brooklyn at all. Detroit is the new Detroit."

Blaszkiewicz, president of Invest Detroit and CEO of the Downtown Detroit Partnership, was one of dozens of speakers who addressed Detroit as part of a two-day real estate conference titled "Detroit: Forged by Innovation."

It marks the 25th anniversary of the real estate forum, hosted by the Urban Land Institute and the University of Michigan. Crain's is a sponsor of the event.

"We're always comparing ourselves to other cities, but we are unique," Blaszkiewicz told a crowd of 440 people. "But I see this as a city that is coming into its own, and we're creating a framework now for a new Detroit."

The real estate forum is held in a different city in Michigan each year, putting a spotlight on how the city is developing and how it is perceived by people in the particular city and outside it.

Bringing an outside perspective to Detroit was Tony Goldman, CEO of New York City-based Goldman Properties. He made his name by redeveloping decayed buildings in the South Beach section of Miami and the SoHo neighborhood in New York.

Goldman told the local developers to "think big" and not be limited by goals that seem unattainable. He called for the city of Detroit to give away vacant homes to teachers, artists and police officers and for public parks such as the Dequindre Cut to be turned into "world-class public spaces."

Goldman was emotional when he talked about the Heidelberg Project in Detroit.

"To see something so beautiful, literally created from nothing, very much moved me," he said.

With the wealth of historic buildings in Detroit, he said, the city needs to create the environment that will excite people and make them want to live, work and invest in the city.

"Detroit can be like Berlin and be a new frontier for artists and creative people to live," he said.

In other cities, Goldman has jumped in by purchasing as many as 20 buildings at a time. Asked whether he'll make such a move in Detroit, he didn't say yes — but didn't say no, either.

Continued at: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/111119985

Well, we will see what happens I guess.

No, Detroit is not "the new Brooklyn." Detroit is Detroit.

really, can't anything be written without comparisons to others? At least this real estate guy understands that. I've recently read many reviews of local things that draw comparisons to places in Chicago, NY, LA. It's annoying as fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpup

No, Detroit is not "the new Brooklyn." Detroit is Detroit.

really, can't anything be written without comparisons to others? At least this real estate guy understands that. I've recently read many reviews of local things that draw comparisons to places in Chicago, NY, LA. It's annoying as fuck.

---

and the sooner we stop comparing ourselves, the sooner we can get over this inferiority complex that the region suffers from.

South Beach may have been decaying but it was not scrapped out and those deco apartments were still in use add the fact that it is the early 80s and millions of dollars to spend "under the table" it kinda helps when it is not profit motivated.

Every city is different but the basic constant dynamics still are the same everywhere,the only thing different from the eighties when it comes to city "rebirth" is the recognition that it may be better to invest more heavily in the outer rings verses the CBC core.

No one has said Detroit is New York or Chicago or Philadelphia or Tokeattlemphindianasanfranclevanapolis.

But apparently these places are doing something right and we're doing something wrong if they're light years ahead of us in their revival and/or their population decline has slowed to a crawl or stopped completely while our city continues to decay and decline rapidly.

Ignoring them and saying we're not them while continuing to do the same tired stuff that caused Detroit's decline in the first place versus taking some constructive criticism and pointers from other places then putting those pointers into action IMMEDIATELY will just accelerate Detroit's race towards becoming the first 143 sq. mi ghost town.

I'm pretty tired of hearing what Detroit CAN be. Detroit is what it is and it's a great city. It's not for everyone but either is Chicago, New York or LA. I wish the "so-called" urban professionals would just leave and stop thinking they have all of the answers. They haven't done anything to help Detroit and everything that has been done has been from people who have already been here or people who have come here and done something to make a difference. I'm tired of the media talking about the great comeback and I'm tired of the media comparing Detroit to the fall of Berlin. I'm tired of everyone elses opinion of our great city. Detroit is a MAJOR city IN THE WORLD and can easily be mentioned in the same breath as New York, London or Paris. Detroit is a city that EVERYONE knows and we get respect regardless of what people think about our city. I meet Chicagoans who LOVE Detroit all the time, I meet New Yorkers who love Detroit like crazy.

Detroit is Detroit. I LOVE Chicago, I love NYC, I love LA, I love Miami and I love Detroit but Detroit is where my heart is.

No need to compare...let's just be Detroit.

Quote:

---

Detroit is a MAJOR city IN THE WORLD and can easily be mentioned in the same breath as New York, London or Paris.

---

No it is not, and I love this town, but this kind of silliness has got to stop. I love that peple love their individual part of Detroit, and those that have worked to keep their own space up and runnning, but it is foolish to even say that Detroit-proper is still a major world city [[it is not, though, the overall metro still is) or that as a collective entity [[the 713,777 combined) it is a "great" city. You can still love your experience in the city and still recognize that it's a complete, incohesive mess of a place, collectively, unliveable for the vast majority of Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by begingri

"Detroit can be like Berlin and be a new frontier for artists and creative people to live," he said.

---

I like how in the same breath of an article someone says not to compare Detroit to other cities and then someone else does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexlin

No it is not, and I love this town, but this kind of silliness has got to stop. I love that peple love their individual part of Detroit, and those that have worked to keep their own space up and runnning, but it is foolish to even say that Detroit-proper is still a major world city [[it is not, though, the overall metro still is) or that as a collective entity [[the 713,777 combined) it is a "great" city. You can still love your experience in the city and still recognize that it's a complete, incohesive mess of a place, collectively, unliveable for the vast majority of Americans.

---

I agree with this sentiment and related ones above. I have always winced at comparisons or what I call 'satellite mentality' where some locals view us a little burnt-out moon that orbits and should attempt to imitate some planet that we could never be -- and most would not want to be anyway.

We are what we are. Live with it, run with it, make it better and wear it on our sleeves. That is the road to respect.

In fairness to the article and the event there is a lot to be enthused about and maybe that is creating a tendency toward hyperbole. It was real estate forum afterall and they don't thrive on pessimism.

Downtown Detroit is in its most optimistic moment in decades. Dan Gilbert is buying it up and exciting that realtor community. New windows are climbing up the Broderick and its sister across the street, the Whitney, is preparing to come online. Rentals from the Cultural Center to Straits are almost filled up. Forward-leaning businesses and thousands of their youthful employees are working and moving downtown. Sports franchises are successful and booming and their fans once wary of downtown are rediscovering its magic. And that elephant that is always in the Detroit room, the auto industry, is profitable and gaining strength.

There is a long way to go and many obstacles remain, but I think few will argue that the direction isn't up and gaining steam.

There's a term in the mental health field called "dialectic". The dictionary definition is that it describes using systematic reason that juxtaposing opposed or contradictory ideas in an effort to resolve their conflict.

I think, in many ways, that Detroit is a city of opposites right now. I've made reference to this in the past, describing the "three blind men and an elephant" phenomenon. But it also comes up regularly on the forum as Detroiters [[and suburbanites) see their personal experiences of Detroit come to a clash. On the front page of the Detroit Free Press lies an 3-part series called "Living With Murder", exposing the atrocious problem of homicide in our neighborhoods. But in the same city, you have high-rises with apartments at $5,000 per month have an open house and over 500 young singles, couples, and retirees line up to place reservations in an area of town that is at over 95% occupancy.

My own family's relationship with Detroit is a story of opposites. My parents moved out of East English Village back in 2001 and headed for Hall Rd in Macomb County. Why? Crime, and a slow deterioration of the neighborhood. But I moved back into the city in 2008 and have yet to witness a burglary, attempted burglary, or violent crime in the areas I frequent.

I bring up the term "dialectic" because a psychologist, Marsha Linehan, found that a major milestone in her patients' treatments was to accept -- and ultimately resolve -- the inevitable tension between: [[1) self-acceptance in the current moment and [[2) a demand for change in the current moment. She states that her treatments required confrontation, commitment, patient responsibility...while also focusing considerable energy on acceptance and validating the current condition.

Honestly, Detroit [[city limits) is hardly a world class city. It has much to improve before many outsiders would even consider it an "average" city. But it also has so much potential that is going unused and in time, Detroit can be a city of greatness and excellence. Perhaps Detroit, just as it first created the middle class at the turn of the 20th century...could be the first society to innovate the tackling of the socio-cultural roots of poverty and dysfunction. There is a huge opportunity to become the new model...finding 21st century ways to solve the problems that were simply ignored in the 20th century until things got out of control.

But back to real estate...understanding that there is value in accepting this inevitable tension and then resolving it, one must admit that outsiders [[and many insiders) spend far more time criticizing and confronting Detroit about its many ills and woes, challenging us to "get better". That's a necessary component. But so is accepting where we are and validating our current state...also a necessary component. When outsiders are congratulating us because we are finally stepping up to the place and taking up the "challenge"...let's not lament just because it underhandedly invalidates where we currently are.

We can celebrate the one and still do the other. Detroit is Detroit. We have much to cheer. We have much to change. We are being acknowledged for our successes. And we can still accept our current failures. It's all at the same time. Sounds kind of woo-woo, but this Linehan has found the first evidence-based treatment to help the most impossible patients heal.

I'd say it's fair to think that Detroit was once seen as "impossible" to change, right? Maybe there's something to learn there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

... I bring up the term "dialectic" because a psychologist, Marsha Linehan, found that a major milestone in her patients' treatments was to accept -- and ultimately resolve -- the inevitable tension between: [[1) self-acceptance in the current moment and [[2) a demand for change in the current moment. She states that her treatments required confrontation, commitment, patient responsibility...while also focusing considerable energy on acceptance and validating the current condition....

---

:) I like a post with some meat on its bones.

Dialectical behavior therapy

The attention Detroit is receiving via comparisons to Brooklyn, TriBeCa, SoHo, etc., is a way of exposing Detroit to those who have the ability to invest in her. Detroit needs exposure. Outsiders can see value where many locals cannot because they are jaded by the city's past. Detroit is an insular place, and for the most part, has always looked inward for solutions. That is starting to change now that Detroit is on the radar. It is true that Detroit needs to be "Detroit," but in order to restore its image, comparisons to successful urban areas help expose the opportunities available.

In terms of comparing Detroit to other revitalized neighborhoods across various cities, I never understood why gentrification was never truly successful in recent Detroit or at least why it hasn't taken off like it has in other cities. Even in Midtown it seems like most of the housing was a few renovated empty buildings with only 1 or 2 small new condo complexes. They're all full though...

Aside from preserving historical architecture, there's still a lot of space to build. The areas between Woodbridge and Corktown for example, seem to be completely overlooked despite the obvious advantages each neighborhood has; proximity to Downtown, access to freeways, and core diverse communities. That type of situation probably looks familiar to some spots in New York but for some reason Detroit wants the magic bullet to have people from the suburbs come in and suburbanize the inner-city. That only works in selection situations [[more so in the outer neighborhoods), but in the long term, it's not what is going to keep people in the city.

Owning a car will still be more expensive in the city than it will be in the suburbs. And that alone would probably limit how many people would be willing to move into the city. Ugh, I guess I answered my own question...Detroit is just doing it wrong if they're really aiming for a vibrant city. :eek:

Now that I think about it, how Detroit develops will greatly effect how effective mass transit is in the region. If every new condo built has a car garage attached to it, what's the incentive for people to use mass transit? High car costs will just drive them right back out of the city and into the suburbs basically putting Detroit back where it is today, but with the bigger version of the PM...a money draining mass transit system that's supported by the lowest incomes of the regional economy. Ugh, and with our politicians, I don't feel too optimistic that they realize this. :[[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illwill

Detroit is a MAJOR city IN THE WORLD and can easily be mentioned in the same breath as New York, London or Paris.

---

Usually to make a counter comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

In terms of comparing Detroit to other revitalized neighborhoods across various cities, I never understood why gentrification was never truly successful in recent Detroit or at least why it hasn't taken off like it has in other cities.

---

Detroit has never had incentive to reuse developed land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

In terms of comparing Detroit to other revitalized neighborhoods across various cities, I never understood why gentrification was never truly successful in recent Detroit or at least why it hasn't taken off like it has in other cities.

---

The reason it hasn't really caught-on relative to other cities is fairly simple.

Detroit is shrinking. Until this changes, revitalization is roughly a game of musical chairs. You renovate a Midtown apartment complex, so another in Dexter-Davison will be vacated.

Until Detroit exhibits net growth, there will be no net gain from gentrification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The reason it hasn't really caught-on relative to other cities is fairly simple.

Detroit is shrinking. Until this changes, revitalization is roughly a game of musical chairs. You renovate a Midtown apartment complex, so another in Dexter-Davison will be vacated.

Until Detroit exhibits net growth, there will be no net gain from gentrification.

---

Plenty of cities have gentrified while the population shrank. Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Plenty of cities have gentrified while the population shrank. Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, etc.

---

True, and so is Detroit.

My point is that there is no net gain from the gentrification. Chicago, for example, is gentrifying, but shrinking almost as fast as Detroit. The yuppies are there, but the city is still dying.

Gentrification, by itself, will not save a city. You need net population gain, or something close to it, or the benefits of gentrification are hyperlocalized.

In a place like NYC or LA, investments in new housing and whatnot make more economic sense and have wider benefits, because you have a growing population base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

True, and so is Detroit.

---

What is your definition of gentrification? I don't really see any examples of it in Detroit. In Detroit there has been some conversions of old office buildings or warehouses into trendy lofts and apartments. But these generally happened in areas that were not previously residential neighborhoods, or in areas that were virtually abandoned. Corktown and the area around Wayne State are perhaps the exceptions. But, by and large, gentrification in Detroit has been severely lacking compared to Chicago or the East Coast.

Quote:

---

My point is that there is no net gain from the gentrification. Chicago, for example, is gentrifying, but shrinking almost as fast as Detroit. The yuppies are there, but the city is still dying.

Gentrification, by itself, will not save a city. You need net population gain, or something close to it, or the benefits of gentrification are hyperlocalized.

In a place like NYC or LA, investments in new housing and whatnot make more economic sense and have wider benefits, because you have a growing population base.

---

I want to agree with this but I think there is something missing from it. Chicago, the city, is declined in population but it isn't dying. The NYC region doesn't have a very high population growth rate. In fact, the Chicago area grew by a slightly larger percentage than both the New York and Los Angeles regions. But the policies in New York and Los Angeles offer impetus for the regions growth to show up in the central cities of those regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

True, and so is Detroit.

My point is that there is no net gain from the gentrification. Chicago, for example, is gentrifying, but shrinking almost as fast as Detroit. The yuppies are there, but the city is still dying.

Gentrification, by itself, will not save a city. You need net population gain, or something close to it, or the benefits of gentrification are hyperlocalized.

In a place like NYC or LA, investments in new housing and whatnot make more economic sense and have wider benefits, because you have a growing population base.

---

Yea but isn't that population base come from outside of those respective regions? People move across the country to live in New York in large numbers...it's probably slowed down somewhat but my point is, Detroit can't grow without being attractive to a nationwide population. I don't expect people from other parts of Michigan to move into Detroit [[especially a large number of suburban folk) but say if it was cheaper for someone to live and work in Detroit versus Chicago, Indianapolis [[which is growing btw), or Cleveland, then [[along with the other major factors) Detroit could possibly become a higher consideration for people moving between major cities.

This is probably irrelevant to specific gentrification but in my mind, new housing for a new population is just as good if not better than trying to move around the population already in the region into buildings that'll take millions of dollars and loads of time to renovate anyway. It'll also discourage building suburban style developments that won't really help the city in the long-term. If Detroit is labelled as a "world-class city", then it should at least try to appeal to worldwide residents. Now all we need are some unicorns...:o

I guess I shouldn't use "gentrification"...but what other term is there for new development in the inner-city? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Yea but isn't that population base come from outside of those respective regions? People move across the country to live in New York in large numbers...it's probably slowed down somewhat but my point is, Detroit can't grow without being attractive to a nationwide population. I don't expect people from other parts of Michigan to move into Detroit [[especially a large number of suburban folk) but say if it was cheaper for someone to live and work in Detroit versus Chicago, Indianapolis [[which is growing btw), or Cleveland, then [[along with the other major factors) Detroit could possibly become a higher consideration for people moving between major cities.

This is probably irrelevant to specific gentrification but in my mind, new housing for a new population is just as good if not better than trying to move around the population already in the region into buildings that'll take millions of dollars and loads of time to renovate anyway. It'll also discourage building suburban style developments that won't really help the city in the long-term. If Detroit is labelled as a "world-class city", then it should at least try to appeal to worldwide residents. Now all we need are some unicorns...:o

---

New York and other major cities are sustained through foreign immigration. New York actually has a negative growth rate of native born residents.

Detroit needs a plan. It needs a blueprint for long term rehabilitation and development. Detroit's downtown and New Center's historical role as a central place of business in the region needs to be strengthened. If metro Detroit wants a revitalized region that will attract new residents, it will look at every possible avenue to strengthen Detroit. A very careful amalgamation that would contain the seeds of rehabilitation for the heart of the region will yield results in better time than all the punctual efforts at gentrification. The reason is that neither Detroit or the suburbs can go it alone. Both will suffer in the long run if a coalition cant happen.

Detroit wont get transit that is worth a damn if there isnt a critical mass of users to cater to. This means amalgamation. Ditto with infrastructure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

I guess I shouldn't use "gentrification"...but what other term is there for new development in the inner-city? :confused:

---

You're right.

The thing is, when outsiders like me say "Detroit's coming back!" what we mean is "investment is happening within midtown and the CBD".

Folks in the neighborhoods don't share the same optimism in the "New Detroit" as outsiders, because economically the "New Detroit" is not obtainable at their income level.

I understand the frustration that people feel that revitalization is only happening in limited, sterile areas like CBD and midtown, but it's better than nothing.

Jobs are moving into the city, and along with the jobs some people are moving in too. I work in the city but simply wouldn't move in because I have children and I can't afford a private school for them. Also, I have very real concerns about crime and police response within the city.

It will take decades for the racial and economic divide to dissolve in Detroit. Until then, we just need to celebrate our victories along the way.