While Detroit is bankrupt, another downtown housing devevelopment is announced

**emu steve** · July-23-13, 04:53 AM

http://www.freep.com/article/2013072...Globe-Building

I'm sure all of this is baffling to the outsider who doesn't understand what is happening in and around downtown and midtwown while the rest of the city struggles badly.

**Chicago48** · July-23-13, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by emu steve

http://www.freep.com/article/2013072...Globe-Building

I'm sure all of this is baffling to the outsider who doesn't understand what is happening in and around downtown and midtwown while the rest of the city struggles badly.

The "trend" in urban planning - if you call it that -- is to have two societies - the uber rich [[Manhattan NY) who can afford the million dollar condos -- and the outer area [[i.e. the boroughs) comprised of the working and middle class. There's a plan out there somewhere that shows how this will look for Detroit. Almost like Atlantic City, where the casinos are in a patch of area separated from the run-down neighborhoods.

**Bham1982** · July-23-13, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by emu steve

-I'm sure all of this is baffling to the outsider who doesn't understand what is happening in and around downtown and midtwown while the rest of the city struggles badly.

Why is it baffling? It's very much related to the city's economic ills.

Pouring taxpayer money into projects that aren't feasible on the private market, calling this "revitalization", then wondering why the projects aren't successful over the long term and only spark more calls for taxpayer "participation" on other plots of land.

**Bham1982** · July-23-13, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Chicago48

The "trend" in urban planning - if you call it that -- is to have two societies - the uber rich [[Manhattan NY) who can afford the million dollar condos -- and the outer area [[i.e. the boroughs) comprised of the working and middle class. There's a plan out there somewhere that shows how this will look for Detroit. Almost like Atlantic City, where the casinos are in a patch of area separated from the run-down neighborhoods.

Maybe this is the media stereotype but it isn't reality. Manhattan actually is a very mixed-income borough, with significant income-based subsidized housing. The Outer Boroughs have faster income and jobs growth than Manhattan.

Brooklyn has the most gentrification, the fastest jobs growth, and the biggest jumps in housing prices. Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens routinely post better jobs numbers and housing permits numbers than Manhattan.

Manhattan does have the most super-rich, by far, and will always be the economic, cultural and transit center, but most of the revitalization/gentrification in NYC is nowhere near Manhattan. Go out to Bushwick to see hipster money, Flushing to see Asian money, Gravesend to see Syrian Jewish money.

**iheartthed** · July-23-13, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Maybe this is the media stereotype but it isn't reality. Manhattan actually is a very mixed-income borough, with significant income-based subsidized housing. The Outer Boroughs have faster income and jobs growth than Manhattan.

Brooklyn has the most gentrification, the fastest jobs growth, and the biggest jumps in housing prices. Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens routinely post better jobs numbers and housing permits numbers than Manhattan.

Manhattan does have the most super-rich, by far, and will always be the economic, cultural and transit center, but most of the revitalization/gentrification in NYC is nowhere near Manhattan. Go out to Bushwick to see hipster money, Flushing to see Asian money, Gravesend to see Syrian Jewish money.

As if New York didn't also use taxpayer money to jumpstart urban development. Why do you always speak so precisely about New York and then make sweeping generalizations about Detroit?

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Why is it baffling? It's very much related to the city's economic ills.

Pouring taxpayer money into projects that aren't feasible on the private market, calling this "revitalization", then wondering why the projects aren't successful over the long term and only spark more calls for taxpayer "participation" on other plots of land.

**bailey** · July-23-13, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Why is it baffling? It's very much related to the city's economic ills.

Pouring taxpayer money into projects that aren't feasible on the private market, calling this "revitalization", then wondering why the projects aren't successful over the long term and only spark more calls for taxpayer "participation" on other plots of land.

I'm fine with using federal and state tax payer investment in projects like this when it was city, state and to some extent federal lax regulation and shortsightedness that allowed a river front to languish as a cesspool of industrial blight.

You can't say, hey...that industrial property that we let be built and pollute the area over a century of industrial use? yeah, YOU clean it up....

as an aside, this project is miles different from giving a billionaire tax money to build his suburban looking "entertainment" district [[read: massive parking decks with first floor bars[[maybe)) and stadium for his hobby buisiness.

**Hypestyles** · July-23-13, 07:40 AM

how much of the east riverfront still consists of derelict/abandoned structures?

**401don** · July-23-13, 07:44 AM

Once again many layers of financing, both public and private, have yet to be arranged and they "hope" to break ground by spring. Yeah, I hope so too.

**Scottathew** · July-23-13, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Chicago48

The "trend" in urban planning - if you call it that -- is to have two societies - the uber rich [[Manhattan NY) who can afford the million dollar condos -- and the outer area [[i.e. the boroughs) comprised of the working and middle class. There's a plan out there somewhere that shows how this will look for Detroit. Almost like Atlantic City, where the casinos are in a patch of area separated from the run-down neighborhoods.

With rents planned for $850 to $1,700 I don't understand where the "uber-rich" people fit in there.

Seems like they're targeting working middle-class professionals that want to move from the suburbs.

What are they going to do to fix the uber-poor? That's not the job of a developer. You're going to have to educate the poor and break the cycle of being poor.

**mwilbert** · July-23-13, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Why is it baffling? It's very much related to the city's economic ills.

Pouring taxpayer money into projects that aren't feasible on the private market, calling this "revitalization", then wondering why the projects aren't successful over the long term and only spark more calls for taxpayer "participation" on other plots of land.

I really think you have to look at individual projects, rather than saying that the whole idea of subsidized projects is bad. The idea of brownfield credits, or of historic preservation credits, for example, make perfect sense to me.

What is bad is subsidizing projects in idiotic locations [[I will continue to harp upon the insanity of the redevelopment of Herman Gardens), and subsidizing projects that are massively uneconomic and/or destructive of the urban fabric. This project, assuming it actually does get funded, looks like a nicely scaled project in a completely viable location. There isn't any reason to think it won't be successful.

**mwilbert** · July-23-13, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by 48307

What are they going to do to fix the uber-poor? That's not the job of a developer. You're going to have to educate the poor and break the cycle of being poor.

If there is anyplace you don't need developers to address the problems of the poor, it is Detroit. To address the needs of the poor, you need to figure out how to employ them, or give them money, or provide them with other non-cash assistance. I'm not aware of anyone against education, but it isn't going to help the poor in any reasonable timeframe--at this point it barely helps the lower middle class, such as it is.

**emu steve** · July-23-13, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Chicago48

The "trend" in urban planning - if you call it that -- is to have two societies - the uber rich [[Manhattan NY) who can afford the million dollar condos -- and the outer area [[i.e. the boroughs) comprised of the working and middle class. There's a plan out there somewhere that shows how this will look for Detroit. Almost like Atlantic City, where the casinos are in a patch of area separated from the run-down neighborhoods.

I think your post is overstated but I understand the point.

I always like to refer to D.C. as a case study of a central city which went through hard times [[e.g., crime, bad government, decreasing population, etc.) and then turned it around big time.

One thing about D.C. is there are more and more affluent, professionals, etc. who pay large amounts of taxes which helps support D.C. government and those who are financially marginalized. High income people in D.C. live in the expensive neighborhoods but are now more and more have been moving into areas which formerly were crime ridden [[e.g., 14th street which was the scene of the 1968 riots, near the Nationals Park, etc. etc.).

The difference in Detroit is that there are so few affluent, professionals, etc. that there isn't enough of them to produce a tax base to support the city.

Producing 'trendy' neighborhoods and getting those young professionals who pay abundant taxes but don't require much city services is what is needed to help stabilize the city.

I haven't looked at the data, but I suspect one of the big problems with Detroit has been the declining tax base over many decades.

Detroit is learning that one can't cut, cut, cut... At some point tax revenues to the city need to rise.

Detroit needs to 'grow' its way out of this mess which is why what Gilbert and others are doing is so important.

**Spartan** · July-23-13, 08:36 AM

Have to wonder if this happens without the Globe Building renovation. Great news that fills a needed demand.

**Novine** · July-23-13, 08:45 AM

"Detroit is learning that one can't cut, cut, cut... At some point tax revenues to the city need to rise."

Is there anyone in city government who hasn't already figured that out? But as has been discussed here over and over and over again, how does a city like Detroit accomplish that when the average home in the city is worth the price of a used car?

**Eber Brock Ward** · July-23-13, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

"Detroit is learning that one can't cut, cut, cut... At some point tax revenues to the city need to rise."

Is there anyone in city government who hasn't already figured that out? But as has been discussed here over and over and over again, how does a city like Detroit accomplish that when the average home in the city is worth the price of a used car?

Yeah, I think that's why Orr's plan to *increase* city services is so important.

Over all of these years, we've been cutting, cutting, cutting, and cutting just to meet out credit card [[bonds, pension, health care) bills. Finally, we have the opportunity to cut up the credit cards and actually dedicate that money to what was cut in the past, like public safety and lighting.

As to this specific project... end thread after this:

Once again many layers of financing, both public and private, have yet to be arranged and they "hope" to break ground by spring. Yeah, I hope so too.

**mwilbert** · July-23-13, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

"Detroit is learning that one can't cut, cut, cut... At some point tax revenues to the city need to rise."

Is there anyone in city government who hasn't already figured that out? But as has been discussed here over and over and over again, how does a city like Detroit accomplish that when the average home in the city is worth the price of a used car?

By getting the average home in the city to be worth more than the price of a used car? It isn't as if Detroit would have to be a fully-functioning city to make housing prices go up--all you probably need are some relatively modest improvements in public safety.

**ScienceFair** · July-23-13, 09:13 AM

This looks like a much better and more inclusive plan than the @water and Watermark projects that were previously planned. I would be thrilled to see this go through.

**southen** · July-23-13, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Spartan

Have to wonder if this happens without the Globe Building renovation. Great news that fills a needed demand.

i think that played a part in it, but it was just a matter of time. those blocks along the dequindre cut were going to be ideal and valuable for housing at some point. i was waiting for some riverfront news after everything that gilbert has done. i think the dominos may begin to fall now that someone is starting a development along the river. that area has serious potential.

**Scottathew** · July-23-13, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

If there is anyplace you don't need developers to address the problems of the poor, it is Detroit. To address the needs of the poor, you need to figure out how to employ them, or give them money, or provide them with other non-cash assistance. I'm not aware of anyone against education, but it isn't going to help the poor in any reasonable timeframe--at this point it barely helps the lower middle class, such as it is.

The long-term fix is education, not hand-outs. We need to teach poor people and their parents that our youth is going to attend school, not drop out, stop having babies at a point in their lives that it will de-rail them, stay away from drugs and drinking, etc... We can't just give things to people, we've got to educate them so they are motivated to making the choices to lift themselves out of poverty.

Poor people keep making choices that guarentee their future of being poor. If we can educate our youth about how their decisions are going to have long lasting consequences, then maybe they won't make those decisions.

**Novine** · July-23-13, 09:29 AM

"If we can educate our youth about how their decisions are going to have long lasting consequences, then maybe they won't make those decisions."

Because these people don't see the effects of poor choices every day? The dead, drugged, destitute or imprisoned don't exist in lives on poor people?

**mwilbert** · July-23-13, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by 48307

The long-term fix is education, not hand-outs. We need to teach poor people and their parents that our youth is going to attend school, not drop out, stop having babies at a point in their lives that it will de-rail them, stay away from drugs and drinking, etc... We can't just give things to people, we've got to educate them so they are motivated to making the choices to lift themselves out of poverty.

Poor people keep making choices that guarentee their future of being poor. If we can educate our youth about how their decisions are going to have long lasting consequences, then maybe they won't make those decisions.

Of course bad choices help keep poor people poor, but the idea that education can fix that is dubious. The big difference between the rich and the poor isn't that the rich don't make mistakes, but that they can recover from them. The poor have no margin for error.

I'm all in favor of educating people, trying to teach them to make good choices, etc. I just lack your faith in that efficacy of that approach in getting people out of poverty, particularly in the current economic environment.

**Eber Brock Ward** · July-23-13, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by 48307

The long-term fix is education, not hand-outs. We need to teach poor people and their parents that our youth is going to attend school, not drop out, stop having babies at a point in their lives that it will de-rail them, stay away from drugs and drinking, etc... We can't just give things to people, we've got to educate them so they are motivated to making the choices to lift themselves out of poverty.

Poor people keep making choices that guarentee their future of being poor. If we can educate our youth about how their decisions are going to have long lasting consequences, then maybe they won't make those decisions.

I would have agreed with this a decade ago, but I think many of them are actually rational economic decisionmakers, even if unintendedly so, since your hypothetical broad-brush group can:

1. Continue dropping out of school, having babies, doing drugs and so on, but have a net worth of zero and do what they want with their time; or
2. Do none of that, have a net worth of negative tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars due to student loans, and have a drudge of a job where they're constantly pushed for more efficiency, whether at an office or wherever.

Following the straight and narrow doesn't seem so attractive on those terms, does it? No wonder so many folks, even from suburban upbringings, are saying "screw school" and becoming thugs, or hipsters, or some other career path that doesn't require formal education.

**Honky Tonk** · July-23-13, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward

or some other career path that doesn't require formal education.

Living in Mom & Dad's basement.....

**Eber Brock Ward** · July-23-13, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Living in Mom & Dad's basement.....

Being a barista or working in retail and living in mom and dad's basement sure as hell beats doing the same with tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt.

**Honky Tonk** · July-23-13, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward

Being a barista or working in retail and living in mom and dad's basement sure as hell beats doing the same with tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt.

IF they're working, [[that's Ok). I know a few that live there and haven't worked in years. I think they've gotten accustomed to Mom & Dad sending them money. Welcome to the real world.