Has Detroit Bottomed out Yet?

[dtowncitylover]

Seriously? In the U.S., how about "almost all". It would actually be easier to list cities with a strong core that are destinations and globally relevant, because there are far fewer.

San Jose- tech capitol of the world
LA- entertainment capitol of the world and second largest first world city in the Western world
Houston- energy capitol of the world
Dallas- diversified economy and will eclipse Chicago in population and economy within 20 years
South Florida- gateway to Latin America and 6 million+ residents
Atlanta- capitol of the South
Charlotte- #2 city of the South
Raleigh Durham, Nashville, hell, any major Southern city excepting New Orleans
San Diego, Phoenix, hell, any major Western city excepting SF, and arguably Seattle and Portland
Austin- fastest growing U.S. metro and tech/hipster center

All of these cities are ultra-sprawly and have a tiny proportion of regional jobs in their CBDs.

Detroit, BTW has not been "working on it for 50 years". The opposite is true. Detroit has spent vast sums trying to build up the core over the last 50 years, to little avail.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. While I can agree most of these cities are globally relevent in their own way, pertaining to many of their local economies [[oil, tech, entertainment, and culture), most of these are not destinations for your run of the mill European or Asian tourist. Charlotte? San Jose? Raleigh? REALLY?!

I would say that Detroit has marketed itself as the Car Capitol of the World, which is basically true and nice except most of the world's tourists don't want to drive. It's expensive, gets tiring real fast, and you don't know the lay of the land. Many tourists come here, expecting to hop on a train to a car museum and go home. But none of these exists. And our fantastic museums and sights are so spread out you do need a car or train to get around. But there's only one choice and it's expensive.

I actually do think Detroit has bottomed out in that there's no way things can get worse unless there's a full on riot/civil war in the streets. I think we know our problems, we are trying to address these problems and aren't afraid to talk about them any more.

[ABetterDetroit]

I actually do think Detroit has bottomed out in that there's no way things can get worse unless there's a full on riot/civil war in the streets. I think we know our problems, we are trying to address these problems and aren't afraid to talk about them any more.[/QUOTE]

No doubt. The biggest change post bankruptcy is now there is enough stability in the city to let businesses invest capital and people so Detroit can grow its tax base.

There is a lot of work that still needs to be done but the days of every fire truck and police car being a worn out pile of junk and emergency responders not showing up without long delays are in the past.

[iheartthed]

Why does Detroit have to be the hub? Why does the region need a strong central hub at all? Times change and regions change...if indeed it does need a hub why not Ann Arbor? Why not some other city? If you weren't from Detroit would you believe that Detroit needs to be the hub? Probably not. Also, I'm not asking these questions to be a smart ass I'm interested in the reasoning behind the notion that Detroit has to be this strong hub? My guess is people from Ann Arbor and Birmingham and Northville will continue to do just fine with or without Detroit as the hub.

I think regions with dense urban cores have greater economic diversity than those without. NYC, SF, Boston, Philly, and NYC are the top 5 densest major cities in the country, and only one of them is easily identifiable by a single industry [[and even then SF is far more diversified from tech than Detroit is from autos). If the auto industry is going to pay the bills forever then no, Metro Detroit does not need Detroit to be a strong core. But we know that isn't going to always be true.

[MSUguy]

My guess is people from Ann Arbor and Birmingham and Northville will continue to do just fine with or without Detroit as the hub.

The fact that you think those places are doing just fine is the precisely problem this region has had for too long . Metro Detroit has some cheapest, least valued real estate in the country. The weakness of Detroit affects the entire region. It makes it harder for companies to recruit talent, I've seen post here and other places from people potentially taking jobs in the burbs who are apprehensive, because of what they've heard about Detroit. It makes it less desirable for companies to move here and do business in the first place. I could go on, but the fact is Detroit's poor image just doesn't stop at 8 Mile for the rest of the world.

[313WX]

The fact those you think those places are doing just fine is the precisely problem this region has had for too long . Metro Detroit has some cheapest, least valued real estate in the country. The weakness of Detroit affects the entire region. It makes it harder companies to recruit talent, I've seen post here and other placesfrom people potentially taking jobs in the burbs who are apprehensive, because of what they've heard about Detroit. It makes it less desirable for companies to move here and do business in the first place. I could go on, but the fact is Detroit's poor image just doesn't stop a 8 Mile for the rest of the world.

Not to mention the region has been stagnant at best in population and economic growth for over 3 decades, it's overall much poorer than it was even 15 years ago, and the metro area has actually declined from the 4th largest to the 13th largest in the nation [[and still falling), whereas NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia are still top 6 largest metro areas.

I always reference this article to counter the idea that the region/state is doing "just fine."

http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michi...iving-us-away/

[Bham1982]

Not to mention the region has been stagnant at best in population and economic growth for over 3 decades, it's overall much poorer than it was even 15 years ago, and the metro area has actually declined from the 4th largest to the 13th largest in the nation [[and still falling), whereas NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia are still top 6 largest metro areas.

I always reference this article to counter the idea that the region/state is doing "just fine."

http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michi...iving-us-away/

One can certainly make the argument that better than average isn't good enough, and doesn't fit your definition of doing "just fine" economically, but one cannot make the argument that the region isn't doing "just fine" because Detroit isn't a sufficiently centralized region.

Most of the region, by most objective measures, is doing OK. You can't get a nice house in a good suburb for less than 400k. Engineering jobs are going begging. Local governing agencies are generally running surpluses. Every retailer has a hiring sign at the entrance. No, Detroit isn't going to be a Dubai-style boomtown. Yeah, things are much better now that the auto industry is humming.

And yeah, Detroit metro and Michigan are population laggards. Every single Northern state is a population laggard. Has nothing to do with whether or not the state has centralized metros. If this were the case, then NY State would the fastest growing state, and Texas would be the slowest growing states, but NY State is pretty average in terms of growth, and TX is almost always at or near the top.

No one wants to hear it, but Michigan is cold, flat and generally unattractive. The only reason it boomed in the first place was because of the auto industry. Unless there's another gold-rush type economic phenomenon, Michigan probably won't be growing by millions in our lifetimes.

[Bham1982]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. While I can agree most of these cities are globally relevent in their own way, pertaining to many of their local economies [[oil, tech, entertainment, and culture), most of these are not destinations for your run of the mill European or Asian tourist. Charlotte? San Jose? Raleigh? REALLY?!

Yes, really.

San Jose MSA only has the best economy on the face of the earth right now, with the highest median household income of any metro on the planet, and high end job growth that crushes basically every global city not named NYC or London. And downtown San Jose is a joke. Even Ann Arbor has more vitality.

[mwilbert]

Yes, really.

San Jose MSA only has the best economy on the face of the earth right now, with the highest median household income of any metro on the planet, and high end job growth that crushes basically every global city not named NYC or London. And downtown San Jose is a joke. Even Ann Arbor has more vitality.

Downtown San Jose is San Francisco.

[Bham1982]

Downtown San Jose is San Francisco.

In a regional context, arguably yes. Anywhere in Northern CA, SF is the main downtown.

But San Jose, not San Francisco, has the vast majority of tech jobs. San Jose has the vast majority of major tech corporations. San Jose has higher incomes and is the region's innovation center [[though SF is no slouch on either count).

It doesn't appear that Silicon Valley's growth has been hamstrung by lack of a vibrant city center, and almost all of the largest firms are in suburban campus-type environments.

[mwilbert]

In a regional context, arguably yes. Anywhere in Northern CA, SF is the main downtown.

But San Jose, not San Francisco, has the vast majority of tech jobs. San Jose has the vast majority of major tech corporations. San Jose has higher incomes and is the region's innovation center [[though SF is no slouch on either count).

It doesn't appear that Silicon Valley's growth has been hamstrung by lack of a vibrant city center, and almost all of the largest firms are in suburban campus-type environments.

You might want to consider whether the reason it isn't hamstrung is because of the availability of San Francisco.

You might also want to think about why there is such a thing as a Google bus.

[Hermod]

I think regions with dense urban cores have greater economic diversity than those without. NYC, SF, Boston, Philly, and NYC are the top 5 densest major cities in the country, and only one of them is easily identifiable by a single industry [[and even then SF is far more diversified from tech than Detroit is from autos). If the auto industry is going to pay the bills forever then no, Metro Detroit does not need Detroit to be a strong core. But we know that isn't going to always be true.

Each of those cities was built around a major harbor and the ocean shipping business. They also became national centers for banking and capital [[driven by the shipping business). Detroit watched the majority of the shipping "pass through" on the river.

[Bham1982]

You might want to consider whether the reason it isn't hamstrung is because of the availability of San Francisco.

You might also want to think about why there is such a thing as a Google bus.

If SF's urbanity is a game-changing preference, then why do the tech companies all cluster as far away as possible from SF? That would be like moving to Brighton to take advantage of Detroit.

It seems that if I were running Facebook or Apple or Google and thought it was critical to be in an urban center, then I would move to downtown SF, or at least near SF, or on a rail line leading to SF, rather than building giant corporate HQ as far from downtown SF as possible. All three companies are building vast new suburban campuses nowhere near transit or anything urban. Why?

Google bus exists because transit in the Bay Area is subpar, and because the corporate campuses are far from available transit. If these companies were urban-focused, there would be no need for Google bus in the first place. You don't need Goldman Sachs bus in Manhattan or AXA bus in Paris, because these companies are headquartered in locations with transit and urban infrastructure.

[Hermod]

If SF's urbanity is a game-changing preference, then why do the tech companies all cluster as far away as possible from SF? That would be like moving to Brighton to take advantage of Detroit.

It seems that if I were running Facebook or Apple or Google and thought it was critical to be in an urban center, then I would move to downtown SF, or at least near SF, or on a rail line leading to SF, rather than building giant corporate HQ as far from downtown SF as possible. All three companies are building vast new suburban campuses nowhere near transit or anything urban. Why?

Google bus exists because transit in the Bay Area is subpar, and because the corporate campuses are far from available transit. If these companies were urban-focused, there would be no need for Google bus in the first place. You don't need Goldman Sachs bus in Manhattan or AXA bus in Paris, because these companies are headquartered in locations with transit and urban infrastructure.

The companies built in Silicon Valley because it was cheap land and built campuses instead of high rises because the land was cheap. The special snowflake hipsters want to live in San Francisco [[and have the money to do so). To keep them happy, the companies are running "google buses". There is just no room in downtown SF for those company offices.

[mwilbert]

The companies built in Silicon Valley because it was cheap land and built campuses instead of high rises because the land was cheap. The special snowflake hipsters want to live in San Francisco [[and have the money to do so). To keep them happy, the companies are running "google buses". There is just no room in downtown SF for those company offices.

This is basically right. A large percentage of their employees want to live in an actual city, but there isn't enough room in SF for corporate campuses. Even if you were willing to spend the money to get the land or build the high-rises, you could never get planning approval.

Note that the current trend is for companies that don't need so much space, like Uber and AirBnB, to actually locate in SF despite the cost, as it gives them an advantage in hiring.

[iheartthed]

The companies built in Silicon Valley because it was cheap land and built campuses instead of high rises because the land was cheap. The special snowflake hipsters want to live in San Francisco [[and have the money to do so). To keep them happy, the companies are running "google buses". There is just no room in downtown SF for those company offices.

No, Stanford.

[bust]

No, Stanford.

Don't forget about Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory. Decades of billions of dollars of government investment funding war systems is what led to the concentration of a tech economy there. Stanford was a huge beneficiary too. And of course it makes sense the government didn't put nuclear weapons labs in the middle of a city. Silicon Valley grew up on the cheap real estate clustered along the transportation lines connecting the two biggest cities nearby. Analagous to swords into plow shears Silicon Valley is the story of warheads and weapons simulations into chips and circuit boards. It has evolved from there.

Invest that level of government funding anywhere and the regional economy will tremendously improve. Invest that money into science and research and innovation will explode.

[mwilbert]

No, Stanford.

No. Of course Stanford had something to do with it, but no one was going to build a chip foundry in San Francisco.

[iheartthed]

No. Of course Stanford had something to do with it, but no one was going to build a chip foundry in San Francisco.

Why wouldn't they? They built car factories in Detroit at the same time Silicon Valley was starting to develop in the Bay Area.

Stanford was the incubator of Silicon Valley. Sand Hill Road literally goes right to Stanford's campus.

[erikd]

Detroit, BTW has not been "working on it for 50 years". The opposite is true. Detroit has spent vast sums trying to build up the core over the last 50 years, to little avail.

Detroit has spent vast sums trying to build up the urban core over the last 50 years?

Most of the 1965-2015 investment in Detroit's urban core has happened in the last 15 years, and especially in the last 5-10 years. There was very little investment in Detroit's core between 1965-2000.

-The RenCen
-Trolley Plaza
-Millender Center
-Riverfront Towers
-One Detroit Center [[500 Woodward)
-The Madden Building [[150 W Jefferson)
-The People Mover
-The Blue Cross Blue Shield tower
-Joe Louis Arena
-The Trapper's Alley enclosure
-Renovations to the Fox Theater and Opera House

That's about all the major investment in downtown Detroit over the 35 year period from 1965-2000. It was like one new building every five years.

Keep in mind that a large percentage of the existing buildings in downtown Detroit emptied out during this same period. The handful of new buildings that were constructed or renovated were dramatically outnumbered by the buildings that were vacated, abandoned, and/or demolished.

Not what i would call spending vast sums...

[mwilbert]

Why wouldn't they? They built car factories in Detroit at the same time Silicon Valley was starting to develop in the Bay Area.

They were pretty much done building car factories in Detroit by the time Silicon Valley was ramping up, but even assuming you were correct, there are a bunch of reasons that the cities are different. Probably the most obvious difference is that SF was built out before Detroit, and people building factories then and now prefer greenfield sites.

Stanford was the incubator of Silicon Valley. Sand Hill Road literally goes right to Stanford's campus.

Of course that is true. Silicon Valley is where it is largely because of Stanford. But it never was going to be in San Francisco.

[iheartthed]

Of course that is true. Silicon Valley is where it is largely because of Stanford. But it never was going to be in San Francisco.

I don't think I can agree with the second sentence. The reason Silicon Valley is located in the South Bay is probably 100% attributable to Stanford's location and it's role as the pioneer of the technology industry. If Stanford were located in SF, or closer to it, then I think that much more of the legacy tech industry would be rooted there.

Even despite the legacy tech industry being anchored in the South Bay, a lot of tech does operate in San Francisco, and many of those companies set up shop after it became an expensive place [[Twitter, Craigslist and Uber, just off the top of my head). I would even go as far as to say that much of the post-Facebook tech boom has taken place in San Francisco and not Silicon Valley.

[Hermod]

I don't think I can agree with the second sentence. The reason Silicon Valley is located in the South Bay is probably 100% attributable to Stanford's location and it's role as the pioneer of the technology industry. If Stanford were located in SF, or closer to it, then I think that much more of the legacy tech industry would be rooted there.

Even despite the legacy tech industry being anchored in the South Bay, a lot of tech does operate in San Francisco, and many of those companies set up shop after it became an expensive place [[Twitter, Craigslist and Uber, just off the top of my head). I would even go as far as to say that much of the post-Facebook tech boom has taken place in San Francisco and not Silicon Valley.

Your examples are of Companies which really do not need much space as their servers can be anywhere.

[Bham1982]

I don't think I can agree with the second sentence. The reason Silicon Valley is located in the South Bay is probably 100% attributable to Stanford's location and it's role as the pioneer of the technology industry. If Stanford were located in SF, or closer to it, then I think that much more of the legacy tech industry would be rooted there.

Well, yeah. It isn't sprawl or urbanity that builds innovation [[for the most part); it's institutions that foster such an environment. I think most attribute Silicon Valley's development to Stanford and the massive postwar military industrial complex investments in California [[all the aerospace and defense and Sputnik-related spending). There were giant sums of federal money being spent on innovation, largely due to fear of Communism, and California was probably the biggest beneficiary.

[Hermod]

Why wouldn't they? They built car factories in Detroit at the same time Silicon Valley was starting to develop in the Bay Area.

Stanford was the incubator of Silicon Valley. Sand Hill Road literally goes right to Stanford's campus.

San Francisco is at the tip of a peninsula and can only grow to the south. Detroit could grow north, west, and southwest. Detroit was not that big when the car companies began building plants.

[LAS2AMS]

Without a doubt, the Downtown core and Midtown is rising. I took a stroll through Downtown the other evening and was surprised by all the pedestrian traffic after dusk, even on a cold, non-gameday weekday. The professional services company I work for re-upped its suburban lease in 2010, but told us at a recent meeting that if it could do it over again, it'd opt to move Downtown, since that's where the youth/business wants to be -- pretty miraculous considering just a few years ago, it would not have been an option.

That said, Detroit's population will likely continue to decrease. There's still a fair number of people who've stuck around in outlying, decrepit neighborhoods comprised mostly of abandoned businesses & homes. Reality is, demolishing these neighborhoods is vital to Detroit's re-development, and with oodles of cheap housing available in other sections of city & inner-ring suburbs, there's no reason for people to be there anyway. The City being able to save money on providing infrastructure & safety far outweighs their needs.