How long will they stay?

[scooter]

I thought Michigan's population was rising if not contained. Do you have any sources for your claim?
As for crime in Detroit, here's the latest.
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...18-crime-stats
Still high but a generational improvement. Gotta admit it's a great start.

well here is one article from set 4, 2018 telling why its one of the worst cities in the usa
DETROIT, Mich. — Detroit is one of the worst cities to raise a family in, according to a new study by WalletHub.
The study looked at different categories such as playgrounds per square root of the population, violent crimes, median family incomes, the amount of families receiving food stamps and share of families living in poverty to determine the ranking.
Detroit was ranked second to last just ahead of Newark, New Jersey.
Detroit, according to the study, has the highest percentage of families living in poverty nationwide and is the second highest city for divorce.
The top cities for families to live in are Overland Park, Kansas, Irvine, California and Fremont, California.

[iheartthed]

I have witnessed this type of migration first hand from my home town of Melbourne Australia. I've mentioned this in other threads on numerous occasions.

In the mid to late 90's, the CBD was all but dead. Office space was vacant and surrounding inner city neighborhoods were riddled with poverty and crime. Wealth was in the suburbs and concentrated in a few select areas. Everything changed after that. Young professionals started moving into the city and it hasn't stopped since. They moved in for the amenities, the lifestyle and walkability factor that was non existent in the suburbs. Infrastructure was improved and the demand for better schools naturally increased allowing them to raise their families. The inner city neighborhoods have eclipsed the suburbs in value and prestige. Now it's a question of how close to the city you live and even a view of the city is something to brag about.

Yes, this is not unique to Detroit, or even to the U.S. for that matter. I think anyone who has lived in a place where it has happened already is not very shocked by it happening in Detroit. Most outsiders are usually shocked that it has taken so long to happen in Detroit.

[SammyS]

well here is one article from set 4, 2018 telling why its one of the worst cities in the usa
DETROIT, Mich. — Detroit is one of the worst cities to raise a family in, according to a new study by WalletHub.
The study looked at different categories such as playgrounds per square root of the population, violent crimes, median family incomes, the amount of families receiving food stamps and share of families living in poverty to determine the ranking.
Detroit was ranked second to last just ahead of Newark, New Jersey.
Detroit, according to the study, has the highest percentage of families living in poverty nationwide and is the second highest city for divorce.
The top cities for families to live in are Overland Park, Kansas, Irvine, California and Fremont, California.

I was asking specifically about Michigan's supposed exodus.
Yes, we have a long way to go but green shoots are sprouting everywhere.
Here's the way I see it. As long as there is staunch resistance and denial of Detroit's progress, then opportunity still remains. There's a famous hypothetical market chart that summarizes the psychology of novice traders and how most are typically on the wrong side of the bet. Sometimes you need to be a contrarian to reap rewards.

[aj3647]

I'm sure people were having the same conversation about Brooklyn 15 - 20 years ago. Have prices dropped and have the neighborhoods reverted to their hardscrabble, bluecollar roots? What about Hells Kitchen? Lower east side?

Did you just honestly compare the Cass Corridor to Brooklyn of all places???

I agree with your premise but to compare Detroit to NYC in any capacity is just utterly insane.

[iheartthed]

Did you just honestly compare the Cass Corridor to Brooklyn of all places???

I agree with your premise but to compare Detroit to NYC in any capacity is just utterly insane.

I don't think the point is insane. There was a healthy dose of skepticism about gentrifying areas in Brooklyn. People thought of Williamsburg and Bedford Stuyvesant the same way that people think of the Cass Corridor.

[LongGone06]

Did you just honestly compare the Cass Corridor to Brooklyn of all places???

I agree with your premise but to compare Detroit to NYC in any capacity is just utterly insane.

The New York Times began making the comparison after The Galapagos Art Space moved from Brooklyn to Detroit in 2014. I was in Brooklyn a couple of months ago and it certainly is dense and vibrant; but, the comparison is more about the perception of the cities, not necessarily the cities themselves.

[313WX]

Did you just honestly compare the Cass Corridor to Brooklyn of all places???

I agree with your premise but to compare Detroit to NYC in any capacity is just utterly insane.

That is one point we agree on.

[Bham1982]

I don't think the point is insane. There was a healthy dose of skepticism about gentrifying areas in Brooklyn. People thought of Williamsburg and Bedford Stuyvesant the same way that people think of the Cass Corridor.

Not really, though. Brooklyn always had excellent urban bones.

Thirty years ago Bed Stuy had high crime and decline, but was intact. Williamsburg was never really "bad", just previously not gentrified.

Detroit is different in that it was never a top-tier urban environment, even at its population peak, and the subsequent demolition has been epic. Midtown, even today, is still very sparse by typical urban standards.

Of course that doesn't mean that Detroit can't improve, but the improvement wouldn't take an analagous path. The appeal is different.

[iheartthed]

Not really, though. Brooklyn always had excellent urban bones.

Thirty years ago Bed Stuy had high crime and decline, but was intact. Williamsburg was never really "bad", just previously not gentrified.

Detroit is different in that it was never a top-tier urban environment, even at its population peak, and the subsequent demolition has been epic. Midtown, even today, is still very sparse by typical urban standards.

Of course that doesn't mean that Detroit can't improve, but the improvement wouldn't take an analagous path. The appeal is different.

The parts of Detroit we're talking about have relatively great urban qualities. If we put America on a scale of urbanity, these areas would fall in the 95th percentile.

I can name many places in Brooklyn that have gentrified that I think are less attractive than many areas of Detroit that haven't.

[K-slice]

The ironic thing is that Cass Corridor has probably never been more auto-oriented than right now. The transients living in the Corridor over the last 60 years obviously weren't living auto-oriented lifestyles. I bet they rarely had cars.

Can't tell if this is a joke, but I'm sure the transients not having a car wasn't by choice. And I suppose you can compare virtually any socioeconomic group to Cass Corridor vagrants and say they are more auto oriented.

Apart from the area south of MLK and north of 75 midtown is very livable day to day without a car. Plenty of restaurants, entertainment [[movie theater would be nice though), 2 full line grocery stores plus whole foods, plus you have the Q line and FAST buses running up and down Woodward all day long. I really don't see most of midtown being any less walk-able than downtown.

[Meddle]

I agree with your premise but to compare Detroit to NYC in any capacity is just utterly insane.

Comparing one cesspool to another seems appropriate.

[mwilbert]

I think the key point was made earlier by k-slice. Greater downtown is the only significant area of urbanity in the area. The total population of greater Downtown is still significantly less than 100K. It's around 2% of the population of the metro. More than 2% of the people want to live in that kind of environment, whether or not they want to live completely without a car.

In the past, the various disadvantages of living downtown discouraged a lot of people, despite the relatively low price, but now as crime as fallen and amenities have increased, more people are interested, and consequently there's more demand and higher prices.

Certainly it's reasonable to think that prices might consolidate or drop for a while given their recent rise and also the apparent softening of the auto economy, but there's no reason to think the overall phenomenon of higher downtown prices is temporary.

One fly in the ointment that I do see has also been mentioned, which is when the various tax abatements that have been granted expire, there's going to be some serious sticker shock. Detroit needs the money, but really needs a lower unabated property tax rate too.

[poobert]

Did you just honestly compare the Cass Corridor to Brooklyn of all places???

I agree with your premise but to compare Detroit to NYC in any capacity is just utterly insane.

The point I was making - that was clearly not taken as "insane" by others here - was that American urban areas previously seen as undesirable a couple decades ago have, instead of waning in popularity, have only grown more desirable. I am regretful that what I thought was an easily understandable point has to be spelled out so explicitly and literally.

I wasn't saying that Detroit and New York City are equivalent. I guess some here aren't much for nuance.

[poobert]

Comparing one cesspool to another seems appropriate.

Charmed, I'm sure. If that is your feeling, I can only wonder why you would be spending time here.

[Bham1982]

The parts of Detroit we're talking about have relatively great urban qualities. If we put America on a scale of urbanity, these areas would fall in the 95th percentile.

Unless you're talking about living right on Woodward on Campus Martius, I can't think of any "great urban qualities" for residential neighborhoods in SE MI. No place in Detroit proper is really "conventionally urban" [[walkable, corner stores and the like, non-poor using transit).

I can name many places in Brooklyn that have gentrified that I think are less attractive than many areas of Detroit that haven't.

"Attractive" is subjective, "urban" isn't. Yes, many people will find Novi or Huntington Woods more attractive living than the Upper East Side or Park Slope.

But the least urban corner of Brooklyn [[whether gentrified or not) has much better urban bones than the most urban neighborhood in Detroit.

If you go out to, say, Bay Ridge, or Brighton Beach, the level of urbanity, pedestrian and transit share, and street-level retail, is off the charts compared to anywhere in Michigan.

Bay Ridge and Brighton Beach have have higher density and pedestrian traffic than Lakeview in Chicago [[the most urban/dense Chicago neighborhood). How can Detroit have better urbanity than the most urban corners of Chicago?

[JonWylie]

Unless you're talking about living right on Woodward on Campus Martius, I can't think of any "great urban qualities" for residential neighborhoods in SE MI. No place in Detroit proper is really "conventionally urban" [[walkable, corner stores and the like, non-poor using transit).



"Attractive" is subjective, "urban" isn't. Yes, many people will find Novi or Huntington Woods more attractive living than the Upper East Side or Park Slope.

But the least urban corner of Brooklyn [[whether gentrified or not) has much better urban bones than the most urban neighborhood in Detroit.

If you go out to, say, Bay Ridge, or Brighton Beach, the level of urbanity, pedestrian and transit share, and street-level retail, is off the charts compared to anywhere in Michigan.

Bay Ridge and Brighton Beach have have higher density and pedestrian traffic than Lakeview in Chicago [[the most urban/dense Chicago neighborhood). How can Detroit have better urbanity than the most urban corners of Chicago?

Why do we constantly fall into this hole of comparing Detroit to New York and Chicago? They are probably the two most urban cities in America, Detroit is so far behind them. This started as a conversation about young people coming from the suburbs, which is true and is a trend that Detroit can capitalize on. There's no need to try to compare Detroit to these cities, we just need to have better urban environments than the surrounding areas.

[DeLemur]

Oh this silly urbanity conversation again. Sure, Detroit isn't dense like some urban centers. That's what happens when you loose 1.1M people [[I'd argue Hamtramck is pretty damn urban though definitely more than other centers) Sure, newly minted downtowners still have a car and are bringing more cars to the urban center.

What's the point Bham?
You just want to remind everyone that Detroit has a long way to go towards true density and transit use?

[Bham1982]

What's the point Bham?

The point is that there's no specific reason to live in an urban center over suburbs if the urban center doesn't have urban features.

The difference between Boston Edison and Northville is, what, exactly, if you don't have real urbanity? Absent urbanity, Boston Edison is just Northville with bad schools, sky high taxes and crime. It won't have broad appeal outside of a few speculators and renovation junkies.

You just want to remind everyone that Detroit has a long way to go towards true density and transit use?

No, the point is that it never had such bones, and the way it's developing now, while generally positive, isn't gonna result in a conventional urban environment. Brooklyn is a poor analogue because the relative appeal is different.

[DeLemur]

Ok. Your Boston Edison example is very good, but not absolute IMO. If I'm in Boston Edison, I can take an uber or ride my bike to the DIA [[Friday night live anyone?). I can go to LCA, Henry Ford Hospital, Comerica Park, Wayne State university and St. Andrews hall within 10-15minutes. Northville hasn't those major amenities. Hell most of Brooklyn doesn't have those major amenities that close to it.

If I live in most of Indian Village, I can walk [[within a mile) to 3 quality restaurants, a quality cafe, a community center, a dry cleaners and even Belle Isle park. You can't do that in Northville living in a large home and you can't find the beauty of an Indian Village home there [[possibly with more demanding upkeep) either. The "urbanity" isn't a wash or perfect, but Detroit is urban and has those advantages.

[Lowell]

Ok. Your Boston Edison example is very good, but not absolute IMO. If I'm in Boston Edison, I can take an uber or ride my bike to the DIA [[Friday night live anyone?). I can go to LCA, Henry Ford Hospital, Comerica Park, Wayne State university and St. Andrews hall within 10-15minutes. Northville hasn't those major amenities. Hell most of Brooklyn doesn't have those major amenities that close to it.

If I live in most of Indian Village, I can walk [[within a mile) to 3 quality restaurants, a quality cafe, a community center, a dry cleaners and even Belle Isle park. You can't do that in Northville living in a large home and you can't find the beauty of an Indian Village home there [[possibly with more demanding upkeep) either. The "urbanity" isn't a wash or perfect, but Detroit is urban and has those advantages.

Exactly. Northville is a great place with a charming and cozy 19th C downtown and historic district. It even had harness raceway. That appeals to a lot of people and I get it. I love dining and doing coffee there then cruising Hines Drive.

But there is next to zero quality art, culture, theatre, sports, and on and on compared to the New Center to Downtown corridor.

However as Northville-ians are affluent I can just about guarantee some of them have weekend pied-à-terre's downtown--another quiet factor influencing occupancy. Think of it like having a cabin in the middle of the action instead of up north--one a short drive away that can increase in value, making it an investment asset as well.

[poobert]

No place in Detroit proper is really "conventionally urban" [[walkable, corner stores and the like, non-poor using transit)...

"Attractive" is subjective, "urban" isn't...

Ok, I'll bite. You make a lot of good points, if as the devil's advocate. Much of Detroit is suburban in nature and relatively low-density. I happily concede that. But then your usual script rolls into "it is really no different than x suburb" which most people do not accept for reasons they have already stated.

However, I'd like to challenge your claim that urbanity is not subjective. That would seem to apply that it is objective. What are your objective measures for urbanity? Because in your proceeding paragraph, you listed...largely subjective measures!

So what is your objective measure for urbanity? How many people per square mile is urban? What kind of a walkscore [[if you accept that as a measure) is urban?

Because, contrarily, you seem to subjectively believe that anything less than Brooklyn is suburban. I'd like to see why, if it is indeed an objective measure.

And I do believe it is. However I think you aren't actually objective in your measurements of it, but rather pretend to be by throwing out random locations that you believe are and aren't urban.

[iheartthed]

But the least urban corner of Brooklyn [[whether gentrified or not) has much better urban bones than the most urban neighborhood in Detroit.

Bushwick, Brooklyn is a good example of a place that was desolate by any measurement and is now one of the most stunning gentrification stories ever.

The urbanity of a neighborhood doesn't mean it has amenities available in X minutes of walking. But you can't build a car free lifestyle just anywhere. There is a large swath of Detroit where you can build that lifestyle pretty easily. This is what I mean by Detroit being in that 95th percentile. We know it can be done in Detroit because it was already there before. It's the common thread of gentrified communities.

[O3H]

It will always be "The Corridor" for many that went to WSU downtown.

Wayne State University-Academic/Administration Building
Address: 5700 Cass Ave, Detroit, MI 48202

[LongGone06]

No, the point is that it never had such bones...

I would take issue with that statement. At its peak, Detroit's population density was nearly 13,000 per sq. mile, or roughly 1,000 more than Chicago's current density. Even now, Detroit's density is about 4,900 per sq. mile, making it more dense than five of the 10 largest U.S. cities by total population, despite the large swaths of vacant land. The western cities in the top 10 are far larger in total land area than Detroit.

[SammyS]

Great conversation despite all the disagreements. I will just add that Brush Park looks like it's gearing up to be an excellent example of what an urban area should resemble with it's proposed restaurants, entertainment, shopping and transit vacinity. If all announced plans are realized, I think we can all agree on a prototype for other developing areas.

https://detroit.curbed.com/maps/brus...nstruction-map