Does Detroit has a master plan?

[iheartthed]

I was reading an article on the city in TIME [[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...887864,00.html), and a professor from U of M suggested that the city does not have one. Is this true?

[iheartthed]

Excuse the typo in the thread title... It's late.

[Lorax]

I think that's one of those questions that you could equate with:

1) Does Monica Conyers have a brain?
2) Does Matted Moron give a crap about his reputation?
3) Has Martha Reeves met a dessert cart she didn't like?
4) Did Swami Kilpatrick worry about being a pathological liar?
5) Does serving on the Detroit School Board require a literacy test?

I think we can all agree the answer to all the above, as well as the initial question is a resounding NO!

[Novine]

There's this on the city's web site:

http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/Departme...4/Default.aspx

Whether it's followed or of any use, I can't say.

[Novine]

This explains everything:

"People know that times are bad. But we're not going to roll over and die," says George Jackson, CEO of the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation. "To me, this is war. And I think we're going to win."

Geo. Jackson must have gone to the "We had to destroy the village to save it" school of warfare.

[Lorax]

There's this on the city's web site:

http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/Departme...4/Default.aspx

Whether it's followed or of any use, I can't say.

I understand for it's primary use it's a lot easier on the skin than corn cobs.

[Lorax]

Geo. Jackson must have gone to the "We had to destroy the village to save it" school of warfare.

Instead of tilting at windmills, he's apparently flailing at historic buildings.

Quixote Jackson- this will be his new name. Thanks.

[Novine]

What role did DEGC have in the Riverfront Casino area debacle? One of George's defenders laid out a list of good things he did but never mentioned that mess and the businesses that failed fiasco drove out of the area or the out of business.

[Bloomfield Pills]

Do Detroit's leaders have a master plan? Yes: Bleed what's left of the city dry before the state takes over.

[Todd_Scott]

I was reading an article on the city in TIME [[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...887864,00.html), and a professor from U of M suggested that the city does not have one. Is this true?

I believe you've misread the quote. The UM professor was referring to the city not having a blueprint for dealing with vacant land.

[iheartthed]

I believe you've misread the quote. The UM professor was referring to the city not having a blueprint for dealing with vacant land.

Which would be what they would put in a master plan.

[ghettopalmetto]

Master Plan:

1. Demolish everything old.

2. Hope someone comes and builds something.

[urbanophile]

Almost every city in the United States has what is called a "comprehensive plan". They are required by law in most places. This includes land use maps, community goals, a thoroughfare plan, etc. Also, every urban area in the country has a federally mandated long range plan administered through a Metropolitan Planning Organization that is required to get federal funding for transportation projects.

Having said that, almost no cities have what I would call a proper strategic plan. That is, what are the customer segments they are going after, the value proposition to serve it, the things that are needed to bring it about, etc. This involves defining community goals and a real understanding of what is required to get to them in terms of talent/human capital, legal/regulatory regimes, tax structure, social practices and culture, facilities and infrastructure, cost base matters, organizational structures, etc.

I gave an overview of what one might look like here if anyone is interested:

http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2...-strategy.html

I've yet to see a city that has a good strategy document. However, you can argue that places like Portland took a strategy driven approach. That is, they decided that they wanted to build a city where many of the best and brightest who wanted an urban environment without the New York style cost and hassles would want to live. And their theory was that this would drive economic growth. Then they implemented an UGB, extensive transit system, land use policies, parks and other facilities, etc. to create a highly differentiated market with appeal to their market segment.

I'd argue Portland is exclusionary to some extent. Clearly its strategy is not right for Detroit. But Detroit desperately needs one. I might suggest starting with some "facts on the ground" - that is, things you can't change - and figure out how to reposition them as assets other cities can't match and/or mitigate the ones you can't change. Some of these are:

- Along an international border
- A transport bottleneck
- Largest percentage of African Americans in the country in the core city and county in the US
- Access to fresh water
- Large tracts of empty and/or largely underutilized land in the central city
- Large metro area population
- Centrality [[middle of the United States, though in a peripheral geography for its region)
- Flatness
- Four distinct seasons
- The Detroit River / major waterway
- Heavy unionization
- Heavy auto industry concentration
- By far largest city in the state
- Not the state capital
- State flagship university on edge of region

I'm not saying it is easy, but this is the path forward for Detroit and Michigan.

A proper city and regional strategy would probably take 3-4 years and cost several million dollars to pull off. Also, it would require leadership conditions to be successful that don't appear to exist at present, unfortunately. Politicians have no interest in this sort of thing. They need ribbons to cut. And few people appreciate the need for something like this. But something like a 21st century Burnham Plan is really needed for most of our Midwest cities.

[Lorax]

But something like a 21st century Burnham Plan is really needed for most of our Midwest cities.

Truly, this is what Detroit needs. In addition to political will, wealthy individuals who care enough to do the right thing [[attention Matted Moron), and politicians who know they will be held accountable if they refuse to do the public's business.

With the amazing architecture Detroit has, there is really no excuse for the condition of the city. No excuses for stripping vacant buildings, no excuses for not stepping up to the plate and bringing forward a vision for planning and development that is realistic and has a chance of working.

Any sane individual knows demolition of MCD and other historically significant structures will only add to Detroit's demise. The costs are simply not dollars and cents, and all too often we've allowed the bean counters to run the show, and haven't put the aesthetic police in charge enough.

I knew when I was a kid that demolishing Rose Terrace, the Dodge mansion in Grosse Pointe was a mistake- the adults around me said there were no servants to take care of it anymore, and taxes were too high for anyone to pay, not to mention the upkeep. No one tried to think of institutional or business purposes creatively that would have saved this treasure from being replaced with seedy tract housing.

It was the wrong decision then, it's the wrong decision now.

And we are the worse off for it.

Funny how in Europe it isn't even a bare consideration to destroy the built environment for new structures. Everything is re-used. If McDonald's wants to open there, it may be in a 17th century building. They are not allowed to clear land for acres of parking and throw-away structures. It wouldn't even be considered.

The mentality of the people has to change.

There is a value to preservation above and beyond the tax incentives and the accounting.

Sadly, if it hadn't been for tax incentives among other considerations, buildings like the Book Cadillac would never have been restored.

People in this country need to wrap their minds around the value of retaining the built environment, above and beyond any and all other considerations, and what it means to continuity with the past.

In many ways, it would have kept people from leaving Detroit and Michigan if buildings weren't treated as disposable.

If I could look forward to shopping at a downtown Hudson's, ride a streetcar instead of a bus, live in the neighborhood my family raised me in, I probably would have stayed. I think you'd find many others would have done the same.

Even now, in middle-age, I have bought a home locally, though live out of state. My hard work and my industry would have benefitted Detroit all these years had people thought it was worth saving, beginning by respecting the built environment.

It really disgusts me sometimes that we're still fighting socially retarded mind-sets at this late date when other cities look at us like we're from another planet and it makes me sick.

[Novine]

Urbanophile is right that there's not the political will in the city's current political class for this kind of effort. But this is the kind of effort that Detroit's non-profit sector could undertake that would allow participation from all sectors of the community and region. While ideally you would have participation and buy-in from the political side, at this point, there's very little down side if they don't. They might attack the vision that is created but if the vision is good enough, if it's strong enough, and it has the ability to be implement from both inside and outside of city government, over time, you can create enough intertia and support behind the vision that the political class will be required to get on board or you'll get a strong enough leader who will embrace the vision and make it their own for Detroit.

There's enough smart people and enough money that could come from Kellogg, Skillman, Renaissance and others to underwrite and lead such an effort. But someone has to get the ball rolling. Detroit and our region is falling behind further and further each day. We can't afford to sit around and wait for someone to save us.

[urbanophile]

Novine, the New Economy Initiative has something like $100 million to invest. The money is there if the conditions for success are right.

I actually don't think you need to have a politically driven strategy. Quite the opposite actually. Rather, it would be driven from the private sector. I'd suggest the business sector is the place. Something like Detroit Renaissance [[as you noted) or another corporate vehicle is probably the best route. And from what I've seen they've got the best thing going so far. For example, I like their Aerotropolis idea. The Burnham Plan was sponsored by the Commercial Club of Chicago, a group of the top businessmen in the city.

The challenge is that an elite business driven plan can be perceived [[and perhaps accurately so) as representing a parochial interest.

Here are a few things I think would need to be in place to make this work:

1. A region-wide consensus that change is required
2. An effort led by both business and the left-leaning NGO sector, with participation from grass roots orgs and the arts/culture community.
3. A geographically and ethnically diverse participation, including at the leadership level
4. State, local, and educational institution inclusion

In short, you need to get more or less the leadership of every influential community segment to agree to participate, compromise, endorse the output, and agree to sell it back to their constituency. The sales effort and the follow-up implementation are as critical as the plan itself. Without that, you are wasting your time.

Also, this group has to be clear-eyed, realistic, and ready to set goals specific to the community, not just regurgitate the conventional wisdom or aspirations that are clearly out of reach. I believe in stretch goals. But we don't want to kid ourselves either.

Clearly, I've thought a lot about this. One of my own personal aspirations would be to someday be the executive director and lead author of such a plan. In the meantime, I'll keep blogging about it I guess.

[urbanophile]

Lorax, you highlight one interesting thing I'd probably add to the list. Detroit has one of America's largest stocks of pre-war skyscrapers. What to do with these? It is easy to say preserve them all, but that would cost a fortune. Just restoring the MCD alone would be hundreds of millions of dollars most likely. And what would that buy the city? Part of this has to understand that you've got limited resources and you have to deploy them where it makes the most sense.

I'm an urban kind of guy, love density, love transit, etc. In fact, I just won a competition sponsored by the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce for how to boost transit ridership in that city I'm happy to say. But Detroit is incredibly auto-oriented. Yet what does the city want to do but build a fancy and extremely expensive transit system? I'm not saying transit would be bad. But is this where Detroit need to be focusing? That's what I mean by just regurgitating the conventional wisdom. Light rail advocates push the same solution regardless of the city. I think we've got to look at the local context and see what makes sense. I don't think trains are going to be a big part of Detroit's near to mid-term future. In that light, is MCD really the right investment?

When times are tough, as they are in Detroit, we have to be willing to have the courage to look the unthinkable right in the eye. Change is going to be painful, not easy. And Detroit won't be turned around without sacrifices. The MCD might be one of them.

As for Moroun, I found the Detroit News article on him highly revealing. It makes me wonder, why is it that local billionaires in Kansas City [[the Stowers family) donated $2 billion to endow a medical research institute there while the big money guy in Detroit gives little back? Could it be that he is simply an authentic product of Detroit? Is he an anomaly or a symptom of what is wrong more broadly?

You might be interested in this post as well, where I argue Detroit's cultural problems run deep and have their roots as far back as 1920. A commenter named thundermutt has some interesting insights as well.

http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2...ican-city.html

[DetroitDad]

A plan would just sit on the shelf and collect dust, or never be created, tied up in endless court battles and regional bickering.

Detroit needs the residents of the region to really join together. We need to show disapproval with voting if we can. Every stupid thing our elected officials do do, needs to be met with marches to council meetings and letter writing. Suburbanites and urbanites also need to be doing this when their communities do something that counteracts better regionalism. I have absolutely no idea how to light the fires under my fellow Metro Detroiters in order to get them to move on this. Everything most have tried has been met with failure.

Post 1967 riot Detroit reminds me of a sort of microcosm of Europe during the Middle Ages. Everyone ran hiding in gated communities or suburbs and giving up the grand ideal and city of Rome out of fear and hate. When Romans didn't like what was going on, they threw their temper tantrum by leaving instead of taking personal responsibility for what had happened.

After the fall, many years of fighting and bickering eventually led to the people almost wiping each other out. It wasn't until they hit rock bottom; had all imagined hope of success or rebuilding without each other striped from them that they started really making progress. That, and the actual people were just sick of the constant hardship that made them take back their governments.

Metro Detroit apparently hasn't been through enough hardship yet.

[Novine]

I did include Detroit Renaissance but I'm not sure they are the ones who can make that happen. Part of the problem is that while they tried to be innovative by bringing in outsiders to lead DR [[Paul Hillegonds then Doug Rothwell), both who brought the kinds of skills that should translate into action [[a former Republican House leader and former head of state EDC under Engler), DR's ideas haven't managed to capture a broad base of support. They have all of the key business interests behind it but in Detroit, that hasn't been enough. Clearly, their efforts haven't been broad enough to lead to regional action.

Compare what's happened in Detroit over the past 10 years versus Grand Rapids. While GR is smaller and less racially divided than Detroit, it does suffer from many of the same problems that grip Detroit and SE Michigan, just on a smaller scale - racial tensions, urban underclass, sprawl, regional infighting. Yet, the city and region appear to have coalesced behind a vision of a core city leading a region towards greater prosperity. Leaders from all sectors have embraced a common and consistent vision for the city and region and have translated that into action.

GR is now one of the national leaders in green building and it's one of the few urban cities in Michigan that's seeing significant investment in renovation and new construction. They are also seriously talking new transit systems in the city and suburbs. I posted an article here about one of the outlying suburbs working with the local transit agency to create a transit-oriented development zone to be served by a dedicated transit line going into downtown GR. Can anyone imagine that happening here in SE Michigan? We should be looking at how GR managed to create this consensus and what steps they took to get there. They are doing something right and nothing we're doing in Detroit or SE Michigan comes anywhere close to that.

[urbanophile]

Novine, clearly a business group by themselves can't make it happen.

GR has one huge benefit over Detroit: it is much smaller. The elites of various stripes likely all know each other personally and are linked in may civic organizations. This can be good and bad but it also creates room for community leadership consensus. Add in the grass roots to this and you've got it.

[Lorax]

Thanks for the shout out, Urbanophile, I understand we have to choose our fights wisely, but certainly MCD and a handful of other seriously threatened landmarks would qualify.

My point in the long winded diatribe was how people need to see things in a new light, mainly how much the built environment of the past contributes to the present, as well as the future. Not to say every little, insignificant structure needs to be preserved, but the landmarks need to. Too much in Detroit has been lost already.

Planning is key here, and commitment to fulfilling a vision. No one ever said it was easy, but easy never got us anywhere. We do things in Detroit, and have, because they are difficult. Obstacles are indemic, but nothing is impossible.

I mentioned in a previous thread how the Book Cadillac was reborn through Frankenstein financing which would have been unthinkable a few years ago, but creative ways need to be used to get the results we desire as a community.

More on the topic of MCD and Matted Moron [[my pet name for the bastard) he's an anomaly, I believe. My family was one of the founding automotive families in Detroit, and contributed greatly in the early-mid 20th century to the arts, hospitals, education- unitl the money ran out!

Philanthropy may seem dead in Detroit, but there are instances where it shines through. Mr. Moron is simply a miser who's more wedded to his monstrous wealth than to the community he thinks he's a part of.

I lived in Chicago for a number of years, and though it has a better track record of preservation than most, still as late as the last 20 years, the fight continues.

I was living there when, if I remember this correctly, the block of N. Michigan Avenue between Ohio and Ontario was demolished for a lousy looking retail structure.

900 N. Michigan was removed in favor of the tower that stands there now.

The Lakshore Athletic Club was recently demolished, and many historic homes on the north shore/suburbs and north side have been featured on a popular HGTV show called "Wrecklaimation" which was disturbing to watch.

Detroit has lost much more, especially key structures to it's history, and in fact, the most people-oriented buildings: Hudson's, Crowley's, Kern's, B. Siegel's, Sander's, entire neighorhood shopping districts along it's major arteries such as Grand River, Gratiot, Jefferson, Woodward, etc.

Neighborhood cohesiveness has been destroyed completely in most if not all cases. We can get into the reasons why, but what's done is done. What needs to be done is draw the line in the sand and say "no further."

We know the answers, it's implementing them that people find daunting. Politically, changes need to be made. Laws need reviewing, a real plan for the city needs adopting.

You mention rail as an example of may or may not be in the best interest of the city. Detroit is the largest city in size and population in the US without a rail system.

This would in my view be a catalyst for redevelopment if it's done right. It has to be comprehensive- all major arteries served originally by streetcars would be a good place to start. Starting with Woodward- but the line needs to pick up in Oakland county and head out to Pontiac. This takes a regional approach.

Suburbanites need to get over the idea of "muggers" riding into their neighborhoods, and suburbanites who work in the city need to realize the benefits of riding the rails to work versus buying gas and paying for parking.

In retail there is a saying: "know your customer by training your customer". We're selling rail lines, so making it advantageous to use them is the best selling feature.

Keep it clean, well-lit, heated in winter, air-conditioned in summer. Keep it well staffed. Keep the price reasonable. Keep it regional. The suburbs need to be invested in this for it to work.

There is no more going it alone- the burbs and the city will either thrive or die together.

The state legislature can play a role here as well. Detroit needs to give up it's park system to the Metropark Authority, Cobo hall needs a regional authority, perhaps the schools and police and fire departments as well. This is what will bring Detroit, and indeed, the suburbs along in this process.

These are solutions unique to Detroit and it's region, and only by thinking in these terms can the region survive.

[Novine]

I don't want to thread-jack this into a discussion about MCS but the entire discussion highlights everything that's messed up with our priorities in Detroit. Of all the ways to spend millions of dollars in Detroit, demo-ing this building can't be on anywhere near the top of anyone's list. Even if it wasn't owned by a billionaire, it's not in a location that lends itself to immediate redevelepment and its presence isn't doing harm to the Corktown area. As others have noted, it may even be a bit of a tourist attraction if nothing else.

When Detroit has thousands of vacant beyond-repair homes that serve as crackhouses or worse, that pose a daily risk to the neighbors and neighborhoods where they are located, why are we having a debate about this money and this building? If it has to be spent on demolition, isn't it better spent elsewhere? If it doesn't have to be spent on demolition, can't that money be better used to lift up some area, not for creating one more vacant lot? I know, when we lack a strategic vision, every issue can become the big issue and every dollar becomes a dollar to debate because we don't have a consensus on where we want to go.

[Novine]

"GR has one huge benefit over Detroit: it is much smaller. The elites of various stripes likely all know each other personally and are linked in may civic organizations. This can be good and bad but it also creates room for community leadership consensus. Add in the grass roots to this and you've got it."

No doubt, in GR, it's easier to get everyone in the same room. But look at the boards of the various groups like Detroit Renaissance. It's the same list of names that run the major companies in town, the major non-profits, and so on. They should be able to get enough of a consensus to start the strategic planning. One area where I think Detroit struggles is engaging the grass-roots of the community. This gets back to the comment made earlier about getting people in the area to buy into a vision for the region. But how?

[Lorax]

Certainly if it's an issue of money being spent on demolition versus mothballing, or spending it in other areas, this is what we need to discuss.

Pressure city hall for a master plan which includes MCD and other historic structures as part of the mix. If funds are going to be supplied by the feds, they cannot be used to demolish MCD.

George "Quixote" Jackson needs to be reminded whom he works for, and to get his ass on a plan to support renovation efforts for MCD [[and the Lafayette Bldg.) which is not only the right thing to do, it's what his constituency desires as well.

Neighborhoods have far greater access to assistance for renovation and grass-roots organization at this time as opposed to single threatened structures owned by disinterested billionaires.

As for spending stimulus monies on neighborhoods:

Shoring up the best of Detroit's neighborhoods, where cohesiveness still exists should be first priority- Rosedale Park/Grandmont, University District, Boston-Edison, Indian Village, East English Village, Woodbridge, Palmer Park, Palmer Woods, etc.

The thousands of early 20th century workman cottages, largely frame construction with brick porch posts have been decimated throughout the city, especially on the east side, and should be further down the priority list.

Brick neighborhoods should get priority funding to stabilize them.

See, I've already outlined several points where a master plan for the city to get a head start!

But again, as I mentioned, there is a regional component that is the linchpin in all this- without it, nothing will happen.

[Lorax]

This gets back to the comment made earlier about getting people in the area to buy into a vision for the region. But how?

Getting involved.

Electing people who will be accountable.

Protest and march when necessary.

Democracy if it is to exist and indeed thrive is NOT a spectator sport.

And voting every few years is not enough.

Organizing, taking advantage of federal and state programs out there, and holding your state and federal elected officials accountable is key.

Your state and federal representatives DO NOT want to hear from you except at election time.

Make sure they hear from all of you often throughout the year, on issues big and small. Let them know you are watching and listening. Push your community agendas to the front of the line, and believe it or not, you will get results.

Make sure corporate interests in your districts have not compromised your representative's integrity. They work for you as citizens first. Corporations do not get a taller chair at the table.

Finally, local government needs to be responsive. Call the press when they overstep the line. Metrotimes is good at this kind of journalism. So are some of the larger papers.

Take command of your interests, and you will be better served as a community.