Hello, thoughts on the future of Detroit

Hello all, I am new to the forums, but I have been a big fan of Detroit for 30+ years. I have only been there twice [[I live in Seattle). The first was in 2000 and the second was last week. I loved Detroit in 2000 for its spirit and history, and in 2023 I was delighted to see how the downtown area is being preserved and how business is picking up, though saddened to hear that fewer people can afford to live there. I hope that Detroit will remain an affordable place to live, even if the affordable part might not be the downtown core anymore.

I wonder if anyone can recomend any existing threads that address the question "is there a risk of Detroit rents and home prices getting as rediculously high as in many other cities, and what might happen to many of Detroit's abandoned historic sites?

I am aware that the Packard plant is being torn down, and though I am saddened, I can understand why it may be neccesary. It's easy for an outsider like me to see an abandoned historic factory and think it is wonderful, but the people who live near it might not think so, especially if there are problems with crime and safety and the structure is becoming unstable.

The problem with Detroit is that it is 140 square miles that used to contain 2 million residents, but has now lost 2/3s of them. Unfortunately the infrastructure still in place from those times must be maintained even when there are just a couple of houses left in a once thriving neighborhood. Most of the economic wealth over the years has decamped to the surrounding suburban sprawl and is only recently being reinvested in the old city. I think Detroit could evolve into a series of small village like enclaves where only the best real estate would be preserved and possibly connected by greenways and the rest allowed to go fallow, but I don't believe it will ever be a city of 2 million again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baerster

I am aware that the Packard plant is being torn down, and though I am saddened, I can understand why it may be neccesary. It's easy for an outsider like me to see an abandoned historic factory and think it is wonderful, but the people who live near it might not think so, especially if there are problems with crime and safety and the structure is becoming unstable.

---

I wouldn't worry about the Packard plant coming down, at least not in your lifetime anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by expatriate

The problem with Detroit is that it is 140 square miles that used to contain 2 million residents, but has now lost 2/3s of them. Unfortunately the infrastructure still in place from those times must be maintained even when there are just a couple of houses left in a once thriving neighborhood. Most of the economic wealth over the years has decamped to the surrounding suburban sprawl and is only recently being reinvested in the old city. I think Detroit could evolve into a series of small village like enclaves where only the best real estate would be preserved and possibly connected by greenways and the rest allowed to go fallow, but I don't believe it will ever be a city of 2 million again.

---

Agreed. Detroit at one time in the 30's during the auto industry boom, was the 3rd or 4th largest city in the US. Those numbers will never be achieved again. It's barely over 500,000 now in population.

If one drove through most larger cities in this country during the late 70s and 80s they were no different then what Detroit looks like today,the difference is in recognizing when that point of making the same mistakes over and over again while expecting different results no longer is a viable plan.

There is no reason in the world why Detroit cannot grow and prosper if it really wants to there are just to many historical examples of cities out there that have proven it.

Its not a matter of if Detroit can prosper more if it has the will to prosper.

And yes as it moves forward rents will increase and affordability will decline,if they do not then it kinda defeats the purpose of existing as a city.

Once again I will quote a contractors response to protesters demanding affordable housing that was building a pricey condo building in St Petersburg Florida during a press conference.

“ When downtown was affordable,nobody wanted to live there,after private enterprise spent millions improving it,which drives up demand and prices,now you want to live there at the rates that were available when you did not want to live there”

If one is concerned about the future of affordable housing in Detroit,now would be the time to buy something while it is still affordable,because the underlying response in that concern,one already knows what will happen,otherwise it would not be a concern.

If people thought the city was not going to evolve it would not be a concern in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by expatriate

I think Detroit could evolve into a series of small village like enclaves where only the best real estate would be preserved and possibly connected by greenways and the rest allowed to go fallow, but I don't believe it will ever be a city of 2 million again.

---

I think the same. The stabilizing/growing neighborhoods will continue to densify in the future. The declining/emptying neighborhoods will eventually become orchards, wetland preserves [[we need these to mitigate flooding), solar farms etc. Hopefully all the "nodes" of density get linked with good transit and greenways, too.

I don't think Detroit will ever fill out with 2M residents again, but if climate migration really kicks into gear, I could see a few hundred thousand moving to the city over the coming decades. Phoenix is limiting new construction due to water shortages, insurance companies in California are pulling out, and Florida's insurance ecosystem is on the brink. Maybe we top off somewhere just north of 1M.

Who knows though. Nobody in 1940 could have predicted the Detroit of 1970. Maybe the "right" string of events play out where Detroit truly booms in the future and surpasses its former apex. Unlikely, yes, but stranger things have happened.

Detroit 2050

pop. 815,648

57.8% Black
30.2% White
10.4% Hispanic
3.0% other

Detroit 2100

pop. 1,465,990

48.9% White
32.0% Black
12.6% Hispanic
8.7% other



That's better for the future of Detroit.

I can agree with you all that Detroit will never get to where in was circa 1954, when the estimated population hit its' zenith of 2 million.

However I recently read about Rome... where in the Empire era it got to over 1 million, and after the barbarian invasion and up to the Italian Renaissance a thousand years later, it was only a middling city of 25,000. Florence, Venice, Naples Turin, Genoa and Milan all were larger Italian cities, until the Renaissance, when Rome's population made a slow rise, and by Italian reunification in 1861 it had already reached 200,000... and today is 2.87 million.

Of course Detroit was never totally depopulated, and it would a fools bet to say that Detroit will make it back to 1954s totals. But honestly, we don't know what the future holds... :confused:

Maybe if sea levels do rise and coastal cities are uninhabitable, then we could gain from that, or from many other reasons, such as having more Henry Ford's or Dan Gilbert's in our future... :)

^ and what cha gonna do if the sea levels do not rise and you get bored waiting for more Henry Fords or Dan Gilbert’s to show up in hopes.

Sometimes ya just gotta take the horse by the reins.

Simplest solution is for everybody to make a baby and you have doubled your population overnight.

A huge hindrance to renewed growth are the schools. When I grew up in Detroit in the 60's Detroit Public Schools were better than decent. Now, if you're living in the city it's 10K per year for each kid for private schooling, or something approaching that number. Most people feel that adequate schools should come along with property taxes, like they do in a lot of other places.

Sea levels are already rising, so that's not really an "if" situation. I don't think anyone is suggesting we just coast along until climate migration hits either -- we should definitely work to improve things beforehand.

Schools. Taxes/Insurance. Crime. Transit/Job Access. We need to "fix" at least a couple of these major issues if we want Detroit to grow on its own merit.

Taxes and Transit are probably the two lowest hanging fruit there, and both could see progress with just a little legislation and reform. Schools and Crime are both far more complex issues and could honestly take decades to properly resolve.

When you look at cities that are classified as desirable even there the public school system is mediocre at best,they have not been able to figure out how to improve that part for decades no matter how much money you throw at it in the urban environment.

When you also look at the age group that is populating those cities as a majority it is 25 to 35 who are not really having babies in the first place.

They do not seem to be concerned about taxes in general more so the ability to find affordable housing because as a rule they are not really established in careers for the younger set.

I kinda think in Detroit it is more about the curve where there are more putting into the system verses taking out and what does it take to encourage that age group to locate there.

It’s a big country with a lot of options out there and what seems to be driving movement is,it is the cool thing to do and not necessarily the smart thing to do,people have a tendency to follow the herd.

People are flocking to Florida,even more so with that age group to Tampa ,why though ?

Its not much different then any other city’s,not much for public transportation but it exists,the downtown is improving but is still a cluster phuck,the traffic is insane,the rents are insane and it is not like there are a million things to do every day.

I think it is more of a marketing thing,a city does not seem to have to be cool to move to,you have have to make people think it is.

During the market crash 2008 ,the jobs report listed Tampa as having the most jobs available,so a lot of people re-located there,6 months later they said - oops that was incorrect information.

But the intended results still worked.

Detroit needs to get a few of those people that can sell ice to an Eskimo as marketing representatives,then have all of these bots posting across the internet that it is the next cool place to move to.

Because all of these things that we think drives movement,does not really seem to have much to do with anything.

On one of these recent threads I wrote about putting more residential apartment buildings on the arterial roads. The idea is that you get more people to live where the transit and retail is located so that people won't have to be so dependent on cars. Then like someone suggested earlier, turn the land where the people used to live into parkland, wetlands, tree farms, or solar farms.

Along Gratiot as it travels from Harper towards Eight Mile, there are blocks of abandoned side streets. Again, focus on putting more apartments on Gratiot and then focus on redeveloping those side streets only on and up to that first or second block off of Gratiot, especially on the East side. The rest of the block should be closed off and made into parkland until it reaches the next major street. So on the East side of Gratiot the cut off would be Chalmers north of Houston-Whittier and Hayes closer to Seven Mile. On the West side of Gratiot there would be more pocket parks, since a good portion of that area West of Gratiot is densely populated. It won't do a lot to increase Detroit's population, but it would help reduce city services/expenses in areas where the population is low, therefore putting more money towards city services in more densely populated areas.

^ nothing personal but that is somewhat of a defeatist outlook,it’s based on the city will never grow,the city has to look at it as what can we do to re populate these neighborhoods all of that talk before of downsizing the city and making its footprint smaller is admitting defeat in a city that is not known for allowing itself to be defeated.

The city has decades of legacy costs and is adding to that balance in a daily bases,if it shrinks the obligations on the remaining residents increase so you really only have two choices.

Shrink the footprint and make it a high net worth city
Grow the city

There is not enough land in the city to be spending millions on solar farms that will end up as a 10% reduction in 100 residents homes.

A lot of that infrastructure in those abandoned neighborhoods you are still paying for on that debt,you cannot shut it down and allow it to deteriorate from non use otherwise when it comes to expanding you are going to have to accumulate even more long term debt to replace it at a higher cost.

In the cities eyes it is actually cheaper doing what you are doing with it now and really how many parks do you need,how many months out of the year are they used and how many people go to them every day.

You have a signature park that very few cities in the world can claim to have and it could be argued that it is not in park like shape.

Everything you add cost money to build,then cost money to maintain it all adds up into the millions every year,on top of everything else.

I think I remember when a adjoining city decided it was best to cut off a road and people got upset.

You cannot look at Detroit as today you have to look at it like where do we want to be 5-10-20 years into the future.

But as a city that what they do and every year they put out a future city plan answering those questions,every city does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

^ nothing personal but that is somewhat of a defeatist outlook,it’s based on the city will never grow,the city has to look at it as what can we do to re populate these neighborhoods all of that talk before of downsizing the city and making its footprint smaller is admitting defeat in a city that is not known for allowing itself to be defeated.

The city has decades of legacy costs and is adding to that balance in a daily bases,if it shrinks the obligations on the remaining residents increase so you really only have two choices.

Shrink the footprint and make it a high net worth city
Grow the city

There is not enough land in the city to be spending millions on solar farms that will end up as a 10% reduction in 100 residents homes.

A lot of that infrastructure in those abandoned neighborhoods you are still paying for on that debt,you cannot shut it down and allow it to deteriorate from non use otherwise when it comes to expanding you are going to have to accumulate even more long term debt to replace it at a higher cost.

In the cities eyes it is actually cheaper doing what you are doing with it now and really how many parks do you need,how many months out of the year are they used and how many people go to them every day.

You have a signature park that very few cities in the world can claim to have and it could be argued that it is not in park like shape.

Everything you add cost money to build,then cost money to maintain it all adds up into the millions every year,on top of everything else.

I think I remember when a adjoining city decided it was best to cut off a road and people got upset.

You cannot look at Detroit as today you have to look at it like where do we want to be 5-10-20 years into the future.

But as a city that what they do and every year they put out a future city plan answering those questions,every city does.

---

The "City" cannot grow when it has to compete with the sprawl that continues to be constructed in the Greenfield's surrounding it. Detroit has always been, for better or worse, a place where people preferred single family detached dwellings and that mindset has to be changed in order for it go grow. In every place that claims the title of "city" the norm is for multi-unit housing and population density well served by public transit and a city requires density, which does not mean congestion, to support public transit. These are places where, for the most part, it cost more to live in the "city" rather than the suburbs. On a recent trip to Zurich, a city with only 2/3 the population of Detroit it felt more like a city of several million. It is not defeatist to suggest that Detroit try to manage contraction in the face of all these obstacles.

It’s more about providing options,a youngster currently living in downtown enjoying the hustle and bustle it provides,gets married and has a rug rat and wants to slow the pace down but still wants to live in the city.

Thats what Detroit provides,options without having to leave for the suburbs,the surrounding neighborhoods offer a slower pace with the ability to stretch ones legs.

Its tough to compare other countries,there are some where 80% of the population lives on 10% of their land mass.

Yes it is density but it was established 1000 years ago out of need.

Using this country and its cities as an example we look at what creates density,bottom line is lack of land,no other choice but to go up and when you have a lack of land the land available brings a premium price which effects affordability.

Detroit does not have that problem,it never has,why create a situation for generations in the future by setting the foundation now.

You figure out a way to overcome obstacles and turn them into your advantage,you cannot take steps to remove them because another one presents itself.

You just cannot flip a switch and shrink a city,it cost money and if one is willing to invest in shrinking a city they should be prepared to invest in growing it which brings in more taxpayers and reduces the costs to the taxpayers at large.

Detroit has legacy costs,the smaller you shrink the city the higher the costs are in the remaining taxpayers.

It’s to late in the game to say okay Detroit is now a city of 10 blocks and we need to create density.

You are not creating density by encouraging growth,you are trying to create density by forcing the existing residents into a smaller space in order to create a fake facade of density.

Density is not a requirement of a successful city,Manhattan is dense which I am sure is great for those that can afford to live there,if that is the goal you need to tell at least 500,000 current residents to pack their bags.

Diversity and affordability in housing options for all walks of life over rules density any day of the week.

Before and during the bankruptcy that was the main topic,well one of them outside of bulldoze the city into the river,shrink the city was the cry,it’s the only way to survive,but yet here you still are moving right along,you do not need to shrink the city,you need to grow it,the market will dictate density in the future but it is not a priority.

The city is generational in thinking but people have a tendency to look at today and base decisions based on things will stay as they are today,forever.

They do not,if they did you as a city would still be in the same place as you were 10 years ago.

To grow the city and lighten the tax load you need more people to move there,they are not going to move there based on density,they can move to 500 other cities in the country you are now competing with.

You take what you have and exploit it,flip your downfall into your success,Detroit can do it because it has the footprint that very few cities have,you are not going anywhere trying to play the game of pretending to be like any other city in the country and trying to mimic them.

The biggest thing is people do not take the time to ask themselves what are the core reasons people move to another city,you have to be honest with yourself and make the changes that are proven to work,it’s not always about economics.

Detroit is currently a city where every individual can make a difference and impact on the city,granted simply mowing the grass and picking up the trash is a qualifier, but people as individuals like to be in places where they can believe they are making a difference,they can do that in Detroit because it is an open slate.

Detroit is an open palate it is up to the current residents to paint the picture of the future,it is easy to go to wal-mart and buy a stock photo off the shelf but Detroit has never been the take the easy road kinda city.

It’s a little disappointing to me anyways,a city that once led the world in innovation is now saying they are whooped and the best they can come up with is to admit defeat and shrink the city into something that is already in existence everywhere else,people might as just move to Ann Arbor,looks cute enough as a city does not seem to have the crime and looks pretty clean no headaches.

I am not buying it anyways,you need to be showing everybody else how to overcome those obstacles,it’s your history and in your DNA,it’s not in your history to just be a follower.

I'm surprised that no one has started a new thread on Mayor's Duggan's tax reform plan. It seems to me from a cursory look that it might go a long way to growing the city in the way that you would like. They could start, in my opinion, with that long abandoned riverfront apartment building on East Jefferson near the Whittier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by royce

On one of these recent threads I wrote about putting more residential apartment buildings on the arterial roads. The idea is that you get more people to live where the transit and retail is located so that people won't have to be so dependent on cars. Then like someone suggested earlier, turn the land where the people used to live into parkland, wetlands, tree farms, or solar farms.

Along Gratiot as it travels from Harper towards Eight Mile, there are blocks of abandoned side streets. Again, focus on putting more apartments on Gratiot and then focus on redeveloping those side streets only on and up to that first or second block off of Gratiot, especially on the East side. The rest of the block should be closed off and made into parkland until it reaches the next major street. So on the East side of Gratiot the cut off would be Chalmers north of Houston-Whittier and Hayes closer to Seven Mile. On the West side of Gratiot there would be more pocket parks, since a good portion of that area West of Gratiot is densely populated. It won't do a lot to increase Detroit's population, but it would help reduce city services/expenses in areas where the population is low, therefore putting more money towards city services in more densely populated areas.

---

That 2nd paragraph you wrote is way out there. You're talking about whole lot of parks. The city can barely take care of the parks they have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Agreed. Detroit at one time in the 30's during the auto industry boom, was the 3rd or 4th largest city in the US. Those numbers will never be achieved again. It's barely over 500,000 now in population.

---

Yes Detroit's population is is about 600,000.

That's about 410,000 blacks, 120,000 whites, 70,000 Hispanics, 10,000 Asians, and 3,000 Arabs and fewer Indo-Americans.

So far speedy gentrification has lured whites and young professionals into most inner city areas like Gilbert Town [Downtown Detroit] Corktown, Brush Park, Cass Corridor and some parts of Southwest Detroit, North End, Palmer Woods and Sherwood Forest.

Blacks are still continuing moving to the suburbs due to high crime, poor schools, rising rents and slower police response. However only a handful of blacks are moving back to Detroit. Can't buy a home with welfare checks, Social Security and food stamps anymore.

Hispanics are still growing throughout SW Detroit hoods. However fewer of them are moving to most downriver suburbs to have a more better life.

And there a fast growing number of Indo-Americans and Bangladeshi's near the Detroit-Hamtramck border forming Banglatown.

Detroit's regional businesses are growing. We still got a long way to go before our '313' Motor City [[MOTOWN) is back on the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

That 2nd paragraph you wrote is way out there. You're talking about whole lot of parks. The city can barely take care of the parks they have now.

---

I know it sounds Draconian but cutting off the streets means that you don't have to pay to repave the streets. Cutting off the streets means you can cut off the streetlights and save on electricity.. If the area is fenced in, then you don't have to worry so much about cutting the grass on all of those vacant lots. On some of the fenced in area the city can plant trees, like apple trees. And truth be told, the city is doing a much better job of taking care of the parks. I live around the block from one and city workers are out there every week, sometimes twice a week, picking up trash and cutting the grass.