Pontiac the Next Royal Oak?

[ghettopalmetto]

B. Both cities are worse off than we are. Yes there are bright spots, but on a whole the colleges and Cleveland Clinic are not enough of a draw.

Bwa ha ha ha ha. I love threads like this. We get to learn who gets out, and who doesn't.

Cleveland = not in bankruptcy court. There's a huge improvement right there. I could go on, but why kick a dead horse?

Back to the original question. Sure, why couldn't Pontiac be the next Royal Oak? All you need is a bunch of restaurants and bars--so many, such that it becomes "regional" in scope and poaches customers from other locales. I mean, isn't that the way "development" has been done in Southeast Michigan for decades?

Brooks Patterson already thinks Oakland County is the center of the known universe. Let's make Pontiac the center of that center!

[nain rouge]

I never said there was "nothing to fix" in Pontiac.

OK, fine. You basically said that Pontiac's buildings look like crap, but hey, poor people gotta live somewhere. You should choose your words more carefully if you don't want to be misinterpreted.

You are using Wikipedia, which is garbage.

Wikipedia can be garbage, but the page I linked to uses official Census data and was peer-reviewed. I'd like a source for your documentation, which apparently disagrees with the official data cited by Wikipedia.

[nain rouge]

Well, I couldn't wait for Bham, so I found the most official source myself: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2013/index.html . [[click link for "Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area; and for Puerto Rico")

From what I can gather, Chicago's MSA is up from 2010 to 2013 and has had consistent growth each year. Detroit's MSA is down from 2010 to 2013 but has rebounded some in the last 2 years.

Of course, we all know that Census estimates tend to be a bit off anyway, so who knows? We do know for a fact, at least, that Detroit's MSA lost population from 2000 to 2010, while Chicago's MSA gained.

Which brings us back to this:

Then how do you explain Chicago having even lower population growth rates than Detroit?

I don't. Because that's false.

[poobert]

Wow!

Twenty-five years later and the S.E. Michigan mind-set STILL has not changed one bit. I use to hate seeing all of these little towns trying to out-compete each other to become the next Detroit. Detroit may be a dump now, the same as it was a dump 25 years ago but NO city/suburb in Michigan can remotely come close to Detroit on it's worst day. If R.O., Ferndale, B'Ham, Downriver, Pontiac etc... supported the REAL Metropolitan Downtown [[Detroit), we'd be a city on the scale of Chicago, New York, D.C or Philly today. Nothing has changed over the past 25 years. Detroit is still the enemy to the burbs and the end result is we STILL don't have a vibrant, bustling, thriving, booming big city in the State of Michigan. The S.E. Michigan region is screwed... and by watching these videos, I don't think it'll ever thrive.

I'm not blaming the burbs for wanting their cities to bustle but they have to understand that for the region to thrive, Detroit has to be the draw. S.E Michiganders EITHER don't understand this or we SERIOUSLY want Detroit to fail and want nothing to do with the city at all.

This my friends, is what is causing so many young people to move away for decades now, and counting. Royal Oak is not a big city and it doesn't have a big city feel either. Nor does B'Ham, Pontiac or Ferndale. This problem has caused our largest city to fall into the ranks that it has. To be compared to Oklahoma City, Grand Rapids and Cleveland. Very sad!

“They are killing me, I hate Detroit, I hate cars, I hate guns, I don’t even want to look at a steak anymore!” – Ken Cosgrove, Accounts.

I see two of the most odious posters here have reached new lows, somehow. I love taking a little hiatus and seeing how much shittier the little brats here can become. You both know who you are.

[DetroitPlanner]

Well, I couldn't wait for Bham, so I found the most official source myself: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2013/index.html . [[click link for "Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area; and for Puerto Rico")

From what I can gather, Chicago's MSA is up from 2010 to 2013 and has had consistent growth each year. Detroit's MSA is down from 2010 to 2013 but has rebounded some in the last 2 years.

Of course, we all know that Census estimates tend to be a bit off anyway, so who knows? We do know for a fact, at least, that Detroit's MSA lost population from 2000 to 2010, while Chicago's MSA gained.

Which brings us back to this:
I don't. Because that's false.

Recent polls have shown that 50 percent of the people who live in Illinois want to leave. Outside of Chicagoland there is very little population in that state.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168770/ha...elsewhere.aspx

[nain rouge]

Like I wrote, Chicago is no paradise. It's still Rust Belt. I just wanted to correct misconceptions about growth rates.

[jackie5275]

I thought downtown Pontiac already had its rebirth in the late 90s early to mid 2000s. It kind of ran along the same timeline as the "Cool Cities" initiative that, I personally think, was modelled after downtown Royal Oak. Interests in the small number of establishments there faded. The loss of Arts, Beats, & Eats didn't help either, but it pretty much ran its course.

Downtown Royal Oak was built with some existing entertainment/cultural establishments that were expanded upon. Downtown Pontiac was built with none of them really. Establishments were put in there, but didn't succeed for too long. You have more a blue collar crowd in Pontiac. You have more of an artsy-hipster crowd in Royal Oak.

[nain rouge]

Also, on the topic of Houston and sprawl, sprawl works there for the moment because it's growing. Metro Detroit's last decade of real growth was the '60s, but we've continued sprawling out. Sprawling beyond your means eventually becomes a serious financial drain, as we've seen.

In truth, Houston is growing in spite of the costs its unchecked development. When you're that economically successful, you can afford to be foolhardy. Metro Detroit, given its stagnant economic reality, needs to retrench and pursue smart growth. Sorry, but it's true.

It is proven that strong cores promote growth. If that wasn't the case, they could put towering office parks wherever they wanted. Instead, any major office park is strategically built on the edge of a significant metropolitan area. You don't need Manhattan density to succeed, but you need some density.

[motz]

However, this whole thread isn't about "fixing" Pontiac, it's about building up Pontiac as a Royal Oak-type destination, which does zero for existing residents.

Let us back the freak up here Bham1982. Why do you think that Birmingham and Royal Oak have been able to sustain large police forces, as well as a strong city government? Is it just due to the magical money fairy that blessed your fair town? NO, it is because both Royal Oak and Birmingham have extremely robust COMMERCIAL and residential tax bases. If Pontiac becomes the new hot spot destination for Oakland County, you better bet the residents will see some pay off in the form of improved city services. Maybe they could reactivate their police force, bolster their fire department as well as Waterford Township's.

Will Pontiac become the next Royal Oak? Probably not. It was supposed to be that back about a decade ago, it was supposed to be a decade before that. It has a little bit of momentum now, but the way the city is designed with the Phoenix Center and the Loop and ugh. If LBP would be willing to invest in reversing terrible decisions made years back, it could thrive. But in its current state? It's just the place I drive through to get to my friend's mom's lake house.

[Bham1982]

What's the fastest growing major American city? Sprawly Houston

What's the slowest growing major American city? Urban Chicago

Chicago Area Population Barely Grows

Greg Hinz
March 27, 2014

Source: Crain’s Chicago Business

Metropolitan Chicago remains caught in an ultra-slow growth mode, with the region adding just an estimated 23,230 residents last year.

According to figures released this morning by the U.S. Census Bureau, the Chicago Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area grew to 9,537,289 in the year ended July 1 — a growth rate of less than 0.3 percent. The CMSA includes not only the inner region but portions of southeast Wisconsin and northwest Indiana.

That’s about the same rate as the 30,178 and 22,776 annual growth in the two prior years since the 2010 census, and an indication that, for whatever reason, the Chicago region remains pretty much caught in the economic recession that followed the subprime mortgage crisis.

With just under 70,000 more people since 2010, the CMSA markedly trails booming Sun Belt cites such as Houston, Dallas and Phoenix as well as two other cities that arguably are the Windy City’s peers: New York and Los Angeles. The New York CMSA added 382,000 people since 2010, while Los Angeles added 303,000, according to bureau estimates.

The Houston metropolitan area added about 138,000 people last year, the most in the nation. Of the nation’s 381 metropolitan areas, 289 gained population last year, with an average hike of 0.9 percent, while 92 lost population.

http://www.beezodogsplace.com/2014/0...-barely-grows/

[Bham1982]

Let us back the freak up here Bham1982. Why do you think that Birmingham and Royal Oak have been able to sustain large police forces, as well as a strong city government? Is it just due to the magical money fairy that blessed your fair town? NO, it is because both Royal Oak and Birmingham have extremely robust COMMERCIAL and residential tax bases. If Pontiac becomes the new hot spot destination for Oakland County, you better bet the residents will see some pay off in the form of improved city services. Maybe they could reactivate their police force, bolster their fire department as well as Waterford Township's.

All true, but what is the point? Why would it be a public policy priority to gentrify Pontiac? Poor and working class people have to live somewhere too. Obviously fight crime and improve services and all that, but there's no reason to try and gentrify Pontiac.

And it won't happen, because Pontiac's housing stock [[except for a few streets with Indian names on the west side) is absolute crap. It's all hastily constructed housing for factory workers, Brightmoor or Taylor style. Pontiac went from a tiny village to a mid-sized city concurrent with the auto boom, and has little historic fabric.

[nain rouge]

Houston is growing because of the continued success of the energy industry and the renewed vitality of domestic energy sources. The energy industry is to Houston what the auto industry once was to Detroit. Sprawl has nothing to do with it.

The energy industry in Houston is a legacy industry that emerged in a more compact, urban past. Really, almost any major industry can be traced back to an urban center. In Houston's case, so long as the energy industry keeps pumping away, it can afford its immense suburbs. But if the energy industry falters, it will have serious difficulties reinventing itself.

Without a true core, you're not going to have the cohesiveness - both economically and in terms of population - necessary to reinvent a local economy. That's Metro Detroit's problem. It has a demonstrated inability to innovate outside of cars. Except now, cars aren't enough.

Even Silicon Valley, a sprawling area, benefited immensely by being sandwiched between San Fran, Oakland, and San Jose. There's a reason it didn't pop up in Monterey.

There's a common pattern in large American communities. 1. A major innovation occurs in an urban center. 2. The newly minted wealth move to the countryside. 3. Decades later, the middle class follows. That's how this country works. Do you honestly disagree?

The vitality of urban Chicago - RELATIVE TO DETROIT - is why Chicago's MSA has gained about 2 million people since 1970, while Detroit's MSA is technically down since 1970. Like I've said again and again, Chicago is a Rust Belt city with real problems, but there's a reason it has consistently outperformed Detroit.

[nain rouge]

Also, I want to make it clear for the record that I'm not a growth, growth, growth guy. I don't think Detroit needs a booming population to be stable and provide an attractive environment for citizens. It does, however, need to concentrate development in a smarter way.

[ghettopalmetto]

Also, I want to make it clear for the record that I'm not a growth, growth, growth guy. I don't think Detroit needs a booming population to be stable and provide an attractive environment for citizens. It does, however, need to concentrate development in a smarter way.

This. Where did anyone get the idea that "growth" = "nice place to live and work", anyway? You couldn't pay me enough to live in Houston, or any one of a number of Sun Belt hellholes.

But since Houston is growing faster than Detroit, better to leave Pontiac shitty, and not take any chances.

[rex]

If R.O., Ferndale, B'Ham, Downriver, Pontiac etc... supported the REAL Metropolitan Downtown [[Detroit), we'd be a city on the scale of Chicago, New York, D.C or Philly today. Nothing has changed over the past 25 years. Detroit is still the enemy to the burbs and the end result is we STILL don't have a vibrant, bustling, thriving, booming big city in the State of Michigan.

How are places like R.O. Ferndale. B'Ham etc supposed to do this? "Support the REAL Metropolitan Downtown [[Detroit)" What does it even mean and how are municipalities or the residents therein supposed to accomplish this? If a metropolitan community has an annual support Detroit day what exactly would that constitute? Community field trips to downtown? Canned food drives to benefit poor Detroit residents? Pro-Detroit commercials sponsored by SCS and broadcast in other cities? Im sayin. If you are going to float big broad ideas let them make sense.

[Johnnny5]

The big problem is that much of downtown Pontiac is already gone. Comparing the current downtown to old maps shows that nearly half the city is now parking lots and roads set up to bypass what was left. That's why the uncovering of portions of the Clinton River and converting some of those cement seas into green spaces [[And with luck a continuance of development along Huron) would be a great step in reviving the downtown.

As for the location, I really have to disagree with those that claim that Pontiac is in the middle of nowhere. It's very close to many suburbs with high disposable incomes [[And M-59 and I-75 give those further along quick access as well). Actually, I would be surprised if it's much less centrally located among Metro Detroit's population than Detroit is. The reason being that it does not have the issue of bordering a massive amount of open water or sparsely populated section of Ontario.

[luckycar]

As I sit here in the world HQ of Lucky Auto Sales,Pontiac based since '52,I see out my window 3 companies that have spent millions here in town.One is an industrial construction company,one is a heat treating company and one is a railroad.There is lots of room for more growth,more people and hipsters are welcome.Things can only get better."We may be laying in the gutter but we're looking up at the stars!"

[gnome]

I encourage anyone looking for a fresh new-to-you ride to visit Mr. luckycar.

Good guy with good cars.

[iheartthed]

Even Silicon Valley, a sprawling area, benefited immensely by being sandwiched between San Fran, Oakland, and San Jose. There's a reason it didn't pop up in Monterey.

Silicon Valley probably owes its existence to Stanford. But Stanford owes its existence to San Francisco.

[Detroitnerd]

To talk about "growth" in Houston without qualifications misses the point. When a large area is developed outside Houston, Houston annexes the area, capturing the taxes and providing the services.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw

It's not a great strategy for building a cohesive, dense core city, but it works financially.

So, unless Bham is proposing that Detroit proper annex the suburbs bit by bit, the example of Houston isn't really all that relevant.

[Bham1982]

To talk about "growth" in Houston without qualifications misses the point. When a large area is developed outside Houston, Houston annexes the area, capturing the taxes and providing the services.

This is completely irrelevent. It has nothing to do with annexation.

We're talking about overall metropolitan growth, not municipality-specific growth. Houston has the fastest growth in the nation, yet is a craptastic sprawlfest with almost no urbanity.

[Jason]

I think the main thing Pontaic needs is investment, and the downtown is really only a few blocks big.

This is completely unrealistic, but I think it would be a good idea for the county to just, in one go, develop key empty sites and abandoned buildings. Decide what it needs to be like in order to be attractive, and then just make it that way. The developments would likely be profitable over the long term so the main thing the county would be ponying up is capital, and the sell would be "tired of having pontiac in your backyard? let's replace it with another royal oak/birmingham!". There could be a mixed income aspect to it in order to get more bodies downtown, help people out, help eminent domain out [[idk how that works now, but I'm guessing low income housing is "public good" enough to count?), and get the associated government money.

[motz]

The big problem is that much of downtown Pontiac is already gone. Comparing the current downtown to old maps shows that nearly half the city is now parking lots and roads set up to bypass what was left. That's why the uncovering of portions of the Clinton River and converting some of those cement seas into green spaces [[And with luck a continuance of development along Huron) would be a great step in reviving the downtown.

As for the location, I really have to disagree with those that claim that Pontiac is in the middle of nowhere. It's very close to many suburbs with high disposable incomes [[And M-59 and I-75 give those further along quick access as well). Actually, I would be surprised if it's much less centrally located among Metro Detroit's population than Detroit is. The reason being that it does not have the issue of bordering a massive amount of open water or sparsely populated section of Ontario.

Oh hey, look! Totally on point and [[from my eyes) accurate commentary on the reasons for why downtown Pontiac is the way it is today! I completely and 100% agree that Pontiac is right in the middle of many major roads. You also forgot Woodward and like, one mile from Telegraph.

Also Bham, do you think Detroit would still be the way it is today if it had annexed Warren, Southfield, Oak Park, etc where much of the city's tax base moved? Because you're telling us to totally disregard something that has an extremely profound affect on a city's ability to stem the outflow of tax dollars to surrounding communities.

[EastsideAl]

I think it's time to bring back Bourbon St. North.

[ghettopalmetto]

Also Bham, do you think Detroit would still be the way it is today if it had annexed Warren, Southfield, Oak Park, etc where much of the city's tax base moved? Because you're telling us to totally disregard something that has an extremely profound affect on a city's ability to stem the outflow of tax dollars to surrounding communities.

Annexation doesn't solve any problems--all it does is boost population figures in the Census. If Detroit had been able to annex its border suburbs, the tax revenue would "stay" in the city limits, but the City would have to service an even larger area.

Columbus, Ohio loves to tout that it's the Largest City in Ohio, with 810,000 residents. But the city covers an area of 220 square miles...think the size of Detroit increased by another 60%. And all of that area requires schools, roads, police, fire, and utilities. What they've been doing is no different than what has taken place in Southeast Michigan...paving over farms and spreading tax revenue thinner over an ever-larger area. And I think we can all deduce that it's more expensive to provide these services in suburban areas, due to the spread-out nature of the environment. The only difference is that the rampant suburbia in that area is called "Columbus" instead of "Commerce Township".