IS the current "revitalization" of Greater Downtown real?

[Bham1982]

Here, you never responded last time: http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...411#post370411

And I think there's a third thread out there where I started rattling off projects in Chicago when you tried to pull that "subsidy" crap again.

You're having a hard time following the conversation.

Again, the claim was that all cities do this, for all their projects downtown.

You keep citing one city, and projects not downtown, so completely irrelevent to the conversation. I never said struggling, poor neighborhoods should never receive govt. assistance.

Chicago is an outlier, TIF subsidies are outliers, and even Chicago is nothing like Detroit. They aren't subsidizing grocery stores, restaurants, etc. downtown and in the yuppie areas.

Yes, they have used TIF subsides in marginal areas like the West Side [[and no, this is not a desirable area; if it were a desirable area, obviously they wouldn't be spending $7 million for a place to buy grocieries).

Like I wrote earlier, when you bring the deal team together on one of these deals, the subsidy question is not generally one of "will we subsidy?" but, rather, "what type of subsidy package can we put together?"

And that's exactly why downtown Detroit isn't revitalized. There's no market yet. In prosperous cities, the question isn't "What will govt. provide the developers", it's "What will developers provide the govt."

Just stop. It's the same old canard about subsidies and it's disproven every time.

What is disproven every time? What are you even talking about?

If an area needs massive grants to stay afloat, it isn't revitalizing. I could build superluxury condos in River Rouge, given the proper subsidies. It doesn't mean River Rouge is revitalized just because the govt. pays someone to build something.

[TexasT]

Just stop. It's the same old canard about subsidies and it's disproven every time. Hone your argument, if you're going with the subsidies line. You either need to drop it or acknowledge that, yes, there are subsidies for many projects in Detroit's downtown, but that's the case with just about any substantial project in other major cities.

Meh. Every ridiculous claim of his can be dashed with a link to an obvious counterexample [[see above). It's tiring. He can do his own Googling or just continue to be wrong.

The man thinks the West Loop, one of the trendiest neighborhoods in Chicago, "full of spacious lofts, cozy cafes and popular nightspots," described by the Tribune as "a magnet for young professionals," and home to some of the most celebrated restaurants in Chicago [[Avec, Blackbird, Girl & Goat, Nia) is in the ghetto. He may know less about Chicago than he does about Houston and that's saying something.

[Eber Brock Ward]

You're having a hard time following the conversation.

Again, the claim was that all cities do this, for all their projects downtown.

You keep citing one city, and projects not downtown, so completely irrelevent to the conversation. I never said struggling, poor neighborhoods should never receive govt. assistance.

Chicago is an outlier, TIF subsidies are outliers, and even Chicago is nothing like Detroit. They aren't subsidizing grocery stores, restaurants, etc. downtown and in the yuppie areas.

Yes, they have used TIF subsides in marginal areas like the West Side [[and no, this is not a desirable area; if it were a desirable area, obviously they wouldn't be spending $7 million for a place to buy grocieries).



And that's exactly why downtown Detroit isn't revitalized. There's no market yet. In prosperous cities, the question isn't "What will govt. provide the developers", it's "What will developers provide the govt."



What is disproven every time? What are you even talking about?

If an area needs massive grants to stay afloat, it isn't revitalizing. I could build superluxury condos in River Rouge, given the proper subsidies. It doesn't mean River Rouge is revitalized just because the govt. pays someone to build something.

Wait what the fuck? I posted links to NYTimes articles about the subsidies for projects in Manhattan and you're talking about Chicago and "one city"? Even better when it's another example of you getting owned on the same point weeks ago?

Awesome.

Do you bother to read or do you just pick a few things from your same tired script and repost them?

[Eber Brock Ward]

Meh. Every ridiculous claim of his has been dashed with a link to an obvious counterexample [[see above). It's tiring. He can do his own Googling or just continue to be wrong.

The man thinks the West Loop, one of the trendiest growing neighborhoods, home to some of the most celebrated restaurants in Chicago [[Avec, Blackbird, Girl & Goat, Nia) is in the ghetto. He may know less about Chicago than he does about Houston and that's saying something.

Fixed for you.

And Bham, if you are too lazy to read what I actually post [[like the NY one above, where you starting going off about Chicago), it's not worth my time to find the links to disprove your points.

[Danny]

Thanks to DanGilbert, Downtown Detroit will be filling up with more exotic retail. MikeIllitch and Peter Karmanos should have done these years ago.

[michimoby]

Nothing happens downtown/midtown absent generous subsidies or some actors with non-market motivations [[say Gilbert).

I'd disagree with the claim that Gilbert is motivated by non-market forces. On the contrary, he knows that he's going to make an absolute killing on the efforts he's undertaking.

Here's the issue, though: Gilbert is creating a majority of the demand - which is driving the supply of young professionals even more. Almost everything downtown - at the moment - hinges upon Gilbert's investments.

What needs to take place in order for things to stick is some healthy competition for talent, tenants, and money. There's no incentive for Gilbert et. al. to begin neighborhood development because it's incredibly binary: there's not as much of an opportunity cost to live in the suburbs as compared to folks in Chicago and NYC.

The major hurdles I observe center around the personal investment individuals are making in the city's pain points: namely, education and city government. Singles and young marrieds have little incentive to care about the former [[for now); and simply put, young people are not deeply invested in the political process [[save some folks like Kirk Mayes). A counter-example: Bloomberg appointed a 28 year-old, Rachel Sterne Haot, to serve as NYC's Chief Digital Officer. Is she the most qualified? Well, it depends what you define as "qualified".

Not until you see this mass of young professionals actively engaged in, and welcomed into, the decision-making process will I say that Detroit has turned the corner.

[nain rouge]

Downtown and Midtown are definitely the most inviting they've ever been in decades I think that's promising, but for me, the real sign that the revitalization is legit will be when neighborhoods like Woodbridge truly turn around. Then we'll have some critical mass.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Oh you know, just another unsubsidized bar/restaurant/project:

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...owards-bar.php

[Shollin]

My concern is the development is being driven by one person. This seems like deja vu. Don't people complain about Detroit holding onto the auto industry and putting all their eggs in the auto basket? What's different about the Gilbert basket? I haven't seen any major development from out of state companies or an expansion of any industry. What happens if Gilbert's companies go south? Look at Compuware. About 10-12 years after building their new headquarters, the company is fighting to stay alive. What if that happens to Gilbert?

[louis]

Can you post us these examples? Because I don't know what you're talking about. I can't recall subsidies being used in Ann Arbor

U of M receives 1.15 billion dollars annually from the federal government for research, endowment payouts, and gifts. [[http://vpcomm.umich.edu/budget/fundingsnapshot/2.html) now while these are not subsidies they do pour money into the local economy

[michimoby]

U of M receives 1.15 billion dollars annually from the federal government for research, endowment payouts, and gifts. [[http://vpcomm.umich.edu/budget/fundingsnapshot/2.html) now while these are not subsidies they do pour money into the local economy

...true, but those subsidies are also being provided to one of the world's premier research institutions. The expected return on those subsidies is nearly priceless. Detroit's a bit more of a gamble.

[drjeff]

U of M receives 1.15 billion dollars annually from the federal government for research, endowment payouts, and gifts. [[http://vpcomm.umich.edu/budget/fundingsnapshot/2.html) now while these are not subsidies they do pour money into the local economy

Ann Arbor provided a huge subsidy to Google [[over $38 million) to convince them to open a downtown office. And Google never actually hired all the workers it was supposed to hire.

http://www.annarbor.com/business-rev...er-five-years/

[Spartan]

My concern is the development is being driven by one person. This seems like deja vu. Don't people complain about Detroit holding onto the auto industry and putting all their eggs in the auto basket? What's different about the Gilbert basket? I haven't seen any major development from out of state companies or an expansion of any industry. What happens if Gilbert's companies go south? Look at Compuware. About 10-12 years after building their new headquarters, the company is fighting to stay alive. What if that happens to Gilbert?

It may be driven by one person, but there is a lot more to it than just the Gilbert family. Though Gilbert is the one buying the buildings, companies are moving down here to fill them. Quite a few small tech companies [[and Twitter) are in the M@dison and other buildings. Quicken and the Rock family fills a lot of space, but they rent just as much out to other companies.

Completely separate from Gilbert, Compuware, DTE, GM and Blue Cross all offer incentives to their employees to move into the city. GM and BCBSM have moved quite a few jobs downtown. Village Green, one of the top-rated landlords in the business has recently purchased two of the largest residences in the downtown area. Broderick and the Whitney have/are renovations. Campbell-Ewald just announced their moving recently.

[michimoby]

It may be driven by one person, but there is a lot more to it than just the Gilbert family. Though Gilbert is the one buying the buildings, companies are moving down here to fill them. Quite a few small tech companies [[and Twitter) are in the M@dison and other buildings. Quicken and the Rock family fills a lot of space, but they rent just as much out to other companies.

Completely separate from Gilbert, Compuware, DTE, GM and Blue Cross all offer incentives to their employees to move into the city. GM and BCBSM have moved quite a few jobs downtown. Village Green, one of the top-rated landlords in the business has recently purchased two of the largest residences in the downtown area. Broderick and the Whitney have/are renovations. Campbell-Ewald just announced their moving recently.

Couple of points:

1. Those startups are being majority [[if not entirely) funded by either DVP or Bizdom, which are - surprise - both Gilbert-franchised.

2. It would be really interesting to see how the incentive game is played out, e.g., what % of new moves are affiliated with Gilbertville, % to BCBSM, etc. could give some perspective on the capture rate for each company.

[Honky Tonk]

Completely separate from Gilbert, Compuware, DTE, GM and Blue Cross all offer incentives to their employees to move into the city. GM and BCBSM have moved quite a few jobs downtown. Village Green, one of the top-rated landlords in the business has recently purchased two of the largest residences in the downtown area. Broderick and the Whitney have/are renovations. Campbell-Ewald just announced their moving recently.

My question is what incentives to these companies have for giving incentives? I can't believe these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Are they being reimbursed by someone for giving incentives? If so, where is this reimbursement coming from?

[Richard]

I'd disagree with the claim that Gilbert is motivated by non-market forces. On the contrary, he knows that he's going to make an absolute killing on the efforts he's undertaking.

Here's the issue, though: Gilbert is creating a majority of the demand - which is driving the supply of young professionals even more. Almost everything downtown - at the moment - hinges upon Gilbert's investments.

What needs to take place in order for things to stick is some healthy competition for talent, tenants, and money. There's no incentive for Gilbert et. al. to begin neighborhood development because it's incredibly binary: there's not as much of an opportunity cost to live in the suburbs as compared to folks in Chicago and NYC.

The major hurdles I observe center around the personal investment individuals are making in the city's pain points: namely, education and city government. Singles and young marrieds have little incentive to care about the former [[for now); and simply put, young people are not deeply invested in the political process [[save some folks like Kirk Mayes). A counter-example: Bloomberg appointed a 28 year-old, Rachel Sterne Haot, to serve as NYC's Chief Digital Officer. Is she the most qualified? Well, it depends what you define as "qualified".

Not until you see this mass of young professionals actively engaged in, and welcomed into, the decision-making process will I say that Detroit has turned the corner.

That is about the jist of it ,Mr. Gilbert's and others main focus is where he is that , quote "We are hoping others will pick up on the other sections" but the problem is everybody else city level is redlining everything else.

Shure they say have at it but if you do expect no support city level what so ever. Funds are being dirveted to that main objective which in turn is creating more havac in the outer rings ,it is all a controlled system with straight line views.

Most other cities have realized that no matter how much you rebuild the core without strong supporting rings you do spin circles after and a stall factor kicks in.

Untill the city thought pattern changes at the top which is your job to make that change come elections ,nobody is going to be allowed to divert attention from the core changes happening,as you can see it will be one window at a time,in the meentime it is a big game of throwing bandages at the outer rings to try and keep them from imploding.

[TexasT]

My question is what incentives to these companies have for giving incentives? I can't believe these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Are they being reimbursed by someone for giving incentives? If so, where is this reimbursement coming from?

Living incentives helps attract better candidates. Making those incentives specific to downtown bumps up the attractiveness in the city, which helps the company by 1) attracting even more candidates and 2) making their property values increase [[assuming the building is owned, not leased).

If these incentives were being reimbursed by public funds, I think you'd see more companies offering them.

[Honky Tonk]

Living incentives helps attract better candidates. Making those incentives specific to downtown bumps up the attractiveness in the city, which helps the company by 1) attracting even more candidates and 2) making their property values increase [[assuming the building is owned, not leased).

If these incentives were being reimbursed by public funds, I think you'd see more companies offering them.

You've offered the "theory" behind incentives, but you haven't answered my question.

[TexasT]

You've offered the "theory" behind incentives, but you haven't answered my question.

It sounded like you were wondering what their motivation could be. What is your question then?

[Honky Tonk]

It sounded like you were wondering what their motivation could be. What is your question then?

I can't believe these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Are they being reimbursed by someone for giving incentives? If so, where is this reimbursement coming from?

[Richard]

I can't believe these companies are doing
this out of the goodness of their hearts. Are they being reimbursed by someone for giving incentives? If so, where is this reimbursement coming from?

It is good buisness sense, yes most are out of pocket because if you want good employees you invest in them in training and other perks to retain them.

If you buy a building you can recieve incentives , you can use these to improve the building or if your cash heavy you can pass them along in the form of reduced rent for a period. That part is taxpayer paid.

Search USA Today money on the billions being spent in silicone valley to provide bennifits and perks to lure and retain employees into the 90 hour workweek.By Google and such not taxpayer funded.

[TexasT]

I can't believe these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Are they being reimbursed by someone for giving incentives? If so, where is this reimbursement coming from?

For the LiveMidtown endeavor, the companies are putting their own money in but it's being supplemented as well.

The DMC, HFHS and WSU are the three largest employers in Midtown. Each will invest funding during the first year of the program. The investment will be matched by the Hudson-Webber Foundation and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. The Kresge Foundation plans to provide additional support.


http://detroit2020.com/2011/01/13/live-midtown-incentives/

[jaytheory]

Downtown and Midtown are definitely the most inviting they've ever been in decades I think that's promising, but for me, the real sign that the revitalization is legit will be when neighborhoods like Woodbridge truly turn around. Then we'll have some critical mass.

your right that neighborhood improvement will be the lynchpin to the whole thing. but I would say from what i understand, Woodbridge is tremendously better than what it was in the 80's and 90's.

[mwilbert]

I can't believe these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Are they being reimbursed by someone for giving incentives? If so, where is this reimbursement coming from?

I don't believe there is any reimbursement. And mostly the companies doing this are non-profits, so they don't even get a tax deduction. Presumably they perceive it as a way to strengthen their neighborhood, which makes it easier for them to attract customers and employees. They might also think it improves their image as institutions making a positive contribution to the city. As was pointed out earlier, there were some additional contributions from other entities.

Perhaps you remember the program to attract young renters to Grosse Pointe Park a year or two ago? Privately funded, just to try to keep the neighborhood strong.

http://grossepointe.patch.com/articl...s-for-students

[Honky Tonk]

It is good buisness sense, yes most are out of pocket because if you want good employees you invest in them in training and other perks to retain them.

If you buy a building you can recieve incentives , you can use these to improve the building or if your cash heavy you can pass them along in the form of reduced rent for a period. That part is taxpayer paid.

Search USA Today money on the billions being spent in silicone valley to provide bennifits and perks to lure and retain employees into the 90 hour workweek.By Google and such not taxpayer funded.

MI State Housing Development Authority, is that State or Federally funded? I'm having a hard time pulling up anything on the Hudson-Webber Foundation.

Detroit certainly isn't Silicon Valley. I can understand wanting the best technicians and medical staff for your hospital. BCBS certainly doesn't need "the brightest minds" to do that work. Same with DTE. Even if they did, paying for someone out of your pocket to move next door to work seems a bit excessive.