Printable View
How excited would other cities in states that take competing for jobs seriously in light manufacturing, the housing industry and distribution centers ect.. would love to have 900 parcels of redevelopable commercial property suddenly appear?
Many would be licking their chops at the economic possibilities.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...tes/348442001/
Well, Detroit is the safest city in the country from natural disasters.
We never have to worry about tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, large hail storms, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Tornados are rare, but they happen here. I remember one in the mid 90's destroyed some trees, and damaged some homes in my neighborhood in NW Detroit, and tore up Hamtramck pretty good.
Actually all of what you mentioned has happened here before though all but the latter are rare. Back in 2012 Hurricane Sandy knocked out power to parts of the DTE system north of Port Huron.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Sounds good until you dig into the article. There are a lot of issues with these sites-too small, contaminated, high crime area, not cleared, insurance costs, lack of highway access, etc. etc. Other cities may not have 900 sites, but most probably have at least 25. Multiply that by 100 cities and you have 2500 sites that may be more desirable than what Detroit has to offer.
Not sure what you mean by "sites-too small"? And as for lack of highway access.... you do know that this site abuts onto I-94 to the north, with the Mt. Elliot and E. Grand Blvd. freeway access ramps. And I-75 is only 1 mile to the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Around 1953, a tornado caused serious damage in Flint.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Crime by itself is not a sufficient excuse to freeze out developments. Security technologies are more advanced, abundant and affordable than ever. Be honest, there are light manufacturing industrial areas all over the United States that would be less than desirable to leave your car with the keys in it or be a nice neighborhood to go for a walk alone feeling completely comfortable.
Freeway access doesn't hold water. The reality is that there are plenty of interstates in the city making a majority of these sites readily available to them. Convenient in fact in many cases.
Contamination is an issue for some for sure, but not all or even the majority. It's not like they all where making PCBs or other chemical production. What a great majority of them where in the business of was metal fabrication of some sort for the auto industry. Usually a manageable containamation issue not requiring large sources of funds.
Demolition is required in a lion's share of these sites to allow construction of modern efficient facilities. Demolition is cheap, especially when offset against property acquisition cost of competing areas compared to Detroit.
Something is fundamentaly wrong in this state when in the current economy the only way to get employers to make capital investment in Detroit is to abate the property tax. But if that is how we are going to continue to do business indefinitely let's get on with it because we need the jobs, especially in our most challenged communities. The financial cost alone of doing nothing is already proven to be much too high.
That's because Detroit and Michigan is a no-growth at best [[rapidly shrinking relative to the rest of the country at worst) region that has a shaky local economy at best and a backward ass state government who refuses to spend money on necessary infrastructure improvements [[I.E. mass transit system, road repairs, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
It would be a huge risk [[with possibly low reward) for any developer to pour a ton of money into major projects here without some type of incentive[[s).
Its really to bad excuses are not marketable, we keep coming up with new ones all the time. If they were this metro area would be second to none in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
https://www.cato.org/blog/detroits-high-property-taxes
Lack of public transportation may be a blessing with the ushering in of autonomous vehicles. IOW's, there will be an instant market ripe for the picking.
That's a completely seperate discussion which has nothing to do with attracting *NEW* development.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
To add to my point [[with respect to spending money on infrastructure improvements), as much as people whine about the subsidies that were given to the Illitch family for the arena, between it and the Q-Line, I have a hunch that it could eventually lead to some nice spinoff development.
For example, with the attractions they're lining up already at LCA, I wouldn't be surprised if we hear the announcement of a couple high rise hotels within the coming months / years to accomodate the visitors.
If this happens, it would be a perfect example of government spending increasing aggregate demand.
I don't think 900 are good candidates for redevelopment. I doubt anyone thinks that. But surely more than a few have the bones and the prospects to be new industry, cool apartments, stores or restaurants. And all would have interesting and unique design. I am certain many will be turned into something new and useful. The ones with the least contamination and that are closest to established neighborhoods stand the best shot.
I wasn't referring to any specific site. I was just referring to statements in the article that many of the sites are small, such as former tool & die shops, and one-third are located in residential areas, so to say these manufacturing sites are something other cities "would love to have" is a bit of a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
On the contamination aspect,the states guidlines refer to end use,if a contaminated industrial site is going to be reused as industrial then it does not matter as much as if it was being re-use for the general public.
If somebody wants to take an industrial site to re-use for the general public it is going to be heavily dependent on brownfield and tax credits in order to make it feasible.
The city plan had included the east side as heavy to light industrial,but now that Packard is proposing mixed use it may create a situation of dead space of industrial because as it has been shown in the past people like the concept of living industrial until they move there,then they push to change it.
That is going to be an interesting case study,that area is a large chunk of the cities future industrial target,if you give that up you are going to have to keep the residential mixed industrial and those smaller units will come into play as industrial.Or you are going to get into another Poletown situation.
You can already see the path that the city is going.
The CBD or downtown is layed out as office,tech,healthcare,education and now coming with an entertainment district.
What you have left is the surrounding neighborhoods with housing options and light to heavy manufacturing and industrial.
You have to be careful about takeing a building that may seem Today in the middle of nowhere and has no chance of ever being useful in its original intent and marking decisions based on the proposed idea is better then nothing.It may limit you in the future.
To me anyways,right now the city is holding cards with options that carry long term stability abilities that will attract future business,but you have a window that once the bridge is built,it is going to severely limit you.
You guys,right now,are the ones that are going to determine the future of your city for generations to come,something that has not happened in generations and most likely will not happen again.
That is something both amazing and scary.
The article is laying the groundwork and opening up the dialogue in advance,because the spaces downtown are filling up and getting costly so those rings of sort are going to be next.
Well, the fact you have to go back more than 60 years for an example is an indication these aren't serious problems in this area. Yes we have the occasional tornado, but nothing like TX and OK, and yes we have earthquakes, but in my experience they're pretty weak. We don't even get the 2-3 foot snowfalls the Northeast seems to get every winter when a Noreaster goes through. Really a pretty mellow area when it comes to natural disasters. Most of our disasters seem to be manmade:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
In the immortal words of King Louis XV of France....
"Aprés moi, le deluge"..... :eek:
Very well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don K
Furthermore, Flint is not Detroit. Because of their elevation and distance away from the water, Flint always see more gnarly weather when compared to Detroit.
It struck me when we were driving down to Columbus a couple of months ago. You see reservoirs, catch basins, and aquifers everywhere down there. Fresh water is a big deal, and that's just half a state away from a large great lake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Michigan is one of the few states [[along with Florida and probably Minnesota) where finding a place to put all the water is an issue.
Where did people come up with the idea that Detroit doesn't get weather events or natural disasters?
We just had one million households without power for nearly a week. We have annual blizzards, windstorms, icestorms. We get flooding, tornados, and even the aftereffects of hurricanes. We can even get minor earthquakes. The Midwest has very extreme weather by global standards. Our weather can be deadly a few months a year.
How often does, say, LA, get a major earthquake? Once every two centuries? We get lesser events every year. They rarely have comparable power outages or flooding. They get wildfires and mudslides, but much more geographically contained than our issues.
I bet you Michigan has a lot more weather-related deaths than Southern CA.
Two in Michigan, 22 in California last year according to the National Weather Service [[http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/state16.pdf).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
No one said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
But it has been determined that Detroit is in fact the *safest* city in the country from Natural Disasters...
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/06/...ral-disasters/
This is basically a "deaths directly attributable specific events" list, not a list of deaths due to weather. Thousands of Americans die every year from cold or heat exposure, very few due directly from an earthquake, wildfire and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkd
Southern CA has very mild weather, and MI has extreme weather, so I would bet there are far more weather-related deaths here. Hundreds can die in a big city due to a single heatwave or cold spell.
739 deaths in Chicago in a single heatwave. Even an 8.0 earthquake probably wouldn't kill that many in LA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Chicago_heat_wave
And the cold kills 20x as many people as the heat:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...aths/27657269/
We aren't the worst, though. Oklahoma, Kansas, and the like have the most extreme weather, by far. The nation's interior has the crappiest, most dangerous weather, from North Texas up through the Dakotas. Blazing heat, deadly cold, tornado alley, etc.
Problems other cities would love to have?
Figuring out how to renovate and restore some really cool architecture.