Detroit's measuring stick.

[iheartthed]

For better or worse, Detroit really does need to quit allowing itself to be compared to every bedroom burg north of 15 Mile Road, as if those too should be treated like big cities.

Respectfully, Utica or Fraser ain't Chicago, people -- and they're not supposed to be. Detroit is -- or should be -- where the bulk of the action is around here...when it comes to nearly any business in the region.

Stripped from here: http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/0...the-politician

Which begs the question... How did Detroit get mired down into measuring itself against its suburbs? I never heard of Chicago measuring itself against Schaumburg, or New York measuring itself against White Plains... Or heck, even San Francisco measuring itself against San Jose. So why/how do local conversations always gravitate towards measuring Detroit against Troy or Farmington Hills? And is it healthy?

[tetsua]

I really think people in the Detroit region don't understand the relationship between a city and its suburbs. There's been a civil war through out Detroit for some 50 years now which honestly hasn't done anyone in the region any good.

[esp1986]

I really think people in the Detroit region don't understand the relationship between a city and its suburbs. There's been a civil war through out Detroit for some 50 years now which honestly hasn't done anyone in the region any good.

Agreed... there are a number of reasons for this too... something that can hopefully bridge that gap can be mass transit, which [[the lack thereof) was a big contributor to the problem in the first place, though far from being the only contributor. We will see how that all shakes out...

[Hermod]

Because there never was that much in downtown Detroit that was "essential" to the region. Detroit was always a "city of neighborhoods" and once the lawyers, accountants, medical practices, and retail became available outside of downtown, there really was no need to go out of your neighborhood and go downtown. New York, Chicago, and Washington DC have vibrant downtowns despite also having urban blight. Detroit just has urban blight.

If the Wayne County had built Wayne University [[before it became Wayne State) out in Plymouth, Detroit would be more desolate than it is.

[iheartthed]

Because there never was that much in downtown Detroit that was "essential" to the region. Detroit was always a "city of neighborhoods" and once the lawyers, accountants, medical practices, and retail became available outside of downtown, there really was no need to go out of your neighborhood and go downtown. New York, Chicago, and Washington DC have vibrant downtowns despite also having urban blight. Detroit just has urban blight.

If the Wayne County had built Wayne University [[before it became Wayne State) out in Plymouth, Detroit would be more desolate than it is.

What city isn't a "city of neighborhoods"?

Wayne State has little bearing on the most stable neighborhoods in the city [[other than maybe a handful of employees calling those hoods home), so I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

[Hermod]

What city isn't a "city of neighborhoods"?

Wayne State has little bearing on the most stable neighborhoods in the city [[other than maybe a handful of residents calling those hoods home), so I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

Wayne State pretty much anchors mid-town.

What if Wayne State were not there?

[iheartthed]

Wayne State pretty much anchors mid-town.

What if Wayne State were not there?

And for decades that was one of the most desolate areas of the entire city. So still not seeing how Wayne State's presence kept Detroit from being more desolate than it is...

[Detroitnerd]

We're the only metropolitan area that wants our city to be its own suburb.

[casscorridor]

Because there never was that much in downtown Detroit that was "essential" to the region. Detroit was always a "city of neighborhoods" and once the lawyers, accountants, medical practices, and retail became available outside of downtown, there really was no need to go out of your neighborhood and go downtown. New York, Chicago, and Washington DC have vibrant downtowns despite also having urban blight. Detroit just has urban blight.

If the Wayne County had built Wayne University [[before it became Wayne State) out in Plymouth, Detroit would be more desolate than it is.

Depends on what you consider essential. 3/4 major sports teams are located here. [[Historically, all four... hopefully soon to be again). All the major museums--The DIA, the Science Center, Historical Museum, African American Museum-- are located here. The highest concentration of offices anywhere in Michigan [[Central Business District). Wayne State, one of the Michigan's three major research Universities and the only one in Metro Detroit [[unless you consider Ann Arbor to be part of Metro). One of the nation's top art schools, the College for Creative Studies, is here. One of the world's largest corporations, General Motors, is headquartered here. The only place you can go to Broadway theater in Michigan. Arguably the largest art incubator in the country, the Russell Industrial Center and the largest business incubator in the state, Techtown are also here. Dozens world class galleries, restaurants, bars and nightclubs. The only two transit systems in the Metro Detroit, SMART and DDOT have their HQ's here. Wayne County offices are centered here, as well as most Southeast Michigan offices for the State of Michigan. We have one of the largest urban parks [[Belle Isle) in the country and the only urban state park in Michigan [[Miliken State Park). We have dozens of historic neighborhoods with unparalleled architecture when compared to the burbs. We have vibrant immigrant communities [[old school: Greektown, new school: Southwest for Mexican and Hamtramck/NorHam Indian and Bagledesh and Arabic. West Side for Arabic. We were the first Capitol of Michigan [[located in Capitol Park) The Auto Industry history is centered here. I could go on...

And Wayne State University would have never been located outside of Detroit because it evolved into a university from a collection of separate colleges rather than just being created by scratch by the state legislator.

New York, Chicago, and DC have vibrant Downtown because a few very simple reasons. 1) they have heavy-rail rapid transit systems 2) many more corporations located in their CBDs or in DC's case, the Federal Government 3) They have many more people living in their downtown neighborhoods, many more white middle-class people that is. For these very easy to understand reasons, NYC, Chicago and DC are much more vibrant than Detroit.

But I totally agree with the first post, that we need to stop allowing ourselves to be compared to the suburbs so much. It really isn't necessary. Suburbs are essentially the same in every city you go to, but the inner cities are what make a city unique. I just named a bunch of things

[Det_ard]

But I totally agree with the first post, that we need to stop allowing ourselves to be compared to the suburbs so much. It really isn't necessary. Suburbs are essentially the same in every city you go to, but the inner cities are what make a city unique. I just named a bunch of things

I've been told by several transferees that they loved Detroit's suburbs compared to the suburbs of other cities. My theory is that some of the things that are in the central city in other cities are displaced to the suburbs in metro Detroit. Most of Birmingham, Royal Oak and Ferndale's vitality would be in the city in a place like Chicago, Boston or San Francisco, for example.

[Zacha341]

Well stated information... thanks.

Depends on what you consider essential. 3/4 major sports teams are located here. [[Historically, all four... hopefully soon to be again). All the major museums--The DIA, the Science Center, Historical Museum, African American Museum-- are located here. The highest concentration of offices anywhere in Michigan [[Central Business District). Wayne State, one of the Michigan's three major research Universities and the only one in Metro Detroit [[unless you consider Ann Arbor to be part of Metro). One of the nation's top art schools, the College for Creative Studies, is here. One of the world's largest corporations, General Motors, is headquartered here. The only place you can go to Broadway theater in Michigan. Arguably the largest art incubator in the country, the Russell Industrial Center and the largest business incubator in the state, Techtown are also here. Dozens world class galleries, restaurants, bars and nightclubs. The only two transit systems in the Metro Detroit, SMART and DDOT have their HQ's here. Wayne County offices are centered here, as well as most Southeast Michigan offices for the State of Michigan. We have one of the largest urban parks [[Belle Isle) in the country and the only urban state park in Michigan [[Miliken State Park). We have dozens of historic neighborhoods with unparalleled architecture when compared to the burbs. We have vibrant immigrant communities [[old school: Greektown, new school: Southwest for Mexican and Hamtramck/NorHam Indian and Bagledesh and Arabic. West Side for Arabic. We were the first Capitol of Michigan [[located in Capitol Park) The Auto Industry history is centered here. I could go on...

And Wayne State University would have never been located outside of Detroit because it evolved into a university from a collection of separate colleges rather than just being created by scratch by the state legislator.

New York, Chicago, and DC have vibrant Downtown because a few very simple reasons. 1) they have heavy-rail rapid transit systems 2) many more corporations located in their CBDs or in DC's case, the Federal Government 3) They have many more people living in their downtown neighborhoods, many more white middle-class people that is. For these very easy to understand reasons, NYC, Chicago and DC are much more vibrant than Detroit.

But I totally agree with the first post, that we need to stop allowing ourselves to be compared to the suburbs so much. It really isn't necessary. Suburbs are essentially the same in every city you go to, but the inner cities are what make a city unique. I just named a bunch of things

[casscorridor]

I've been told by several transferees that they loved Detroit's suburbs compared to the suburbs of other cities. My theory is that some of the things that are in the central city in other cities are displaced to the suburbs in metro Detroit. Most of Birmingham, Royal Oak and Ferndale's vitality would be in the city in a place like Chicago, Boston or San Francisco, for example.

Okay, these are a few isolated examples. I was going to add to my post, but forgot, that perhaps the one thing that is unique about Detroit's suburbs is that suburban places like downtown Royal Oak and Ferndale and Birmingham are perceived by many people in region as meca's of urbanism, they make these places their Downtown Detroit. I think there are many young people in Troy who treat downtown Royal Oak as downtown Detroit. They go there every single weekend to party. They are attracted to the vibrant downtown.

But you have to realize that not all of Royal Oak is vibrant. Only the few blocks of downtown are. The rest is just like any other inner/middle-ring suburb. Ferndale this is even more true. There is just a three or so block strip along 9 Mile and Woodward, everything else is tiny wood framed houses. Not exactly what I would call urban. And the funny thing is that people in these places think they are way cooler than they actually are. They love the idea of being "hip" and "urban" without actually having to live in a real city [[Real Detroit is located in Ferndale, yet Metrotimes is in Detroit... ironic?).

But anyone who is involved in the Detroit cultural, music or artistic scenes understands that Detroit [[proper) is where it is at. I forgot to list some things, like the Burton Theatre or the Detroit Film Theatre where you can see movies you can't see outside of NYC/LA and a few other places [[this is unlike the Main Art in RO which plays the big "indie" movies, not really art film and true independent films). There are also many underground music venues where you will find music you simply can't find in the suburbs. Like Scrummage University which was an incredibly vibrant display of underground and independent music [[they're still around, but don't have a venue anymore). Or [[old school) Funk Night when it was at places like the CAID, Hoban Foods Center or the Bohemian Home.

Many people still think Ferndale or Royal Oak is the "hip" place to be. But that is changing rapidly. Now it is Midtown/Cass Corridor, Woodbridge, the Villages or Eastern Market. I have 18-25 y/o friends that live in all of these places. There is also more obscure places like Farnsworth Street near the Packard Plant, which is a developing colony of artists. Or NorHam [[North Hamtramck) which was highlighted in such places as the New York Times because of the 100 dollar houses and the artists coming in from around the world to live there.

If a young person wants to live in a real city, they are either going to move to Chicago or somewhere else or move to Detroit. If they want to live in a suburb, they'll probably choose Ferndale or Royal Oak because they are the most liveable. There is a very big difference here. We have to start focusing on how we can bring those people that choose Chicago here, instead of focusing on people that would have lived in the burbs regardless. That is why focusing on what is unique to Detroit, when compared to other cities is more important than what is unique to Detroit compared to the burbs. [[Yet, I do think both are important).

[Lowell]

Touché CassCorridor and you didn't even have to touch in downtown's proximity to another country.

[cman710]

casscorridor, I think you make an excellent point that so many of the metro-regions important institutions are located in Detroit. However, I do disagree with the following:

New York, Chicago, and DC have vibrant Downtown because a few very simple reasons. 1) they have heavy-rail rapid transit systems

I think you are conflating causation and correlation. New York has a heavy-rail rapid transit system in part because it is so dense and because such a system was needed to move people around the city in the early decades of the 20th century. [[The natural water barriers surrounding the city made sprawl difficult in the days before highways.) Ultimately, the regional ail system was expanded along with population growth and with suburban sprawl. Surely, NYC's great public transportation system also became attractive to businesses, who want access to labor markets. But the rail system is not one of the three major reasons why NYC is so vibrant. In fact, during NY's dark years [[late 60's through the early '80s), NYC still had a great transportation system, but people left the city for many of the same reasons they have left Detroit.

2) many more corporations located in their CBDs or in DC's case, the Federal Government

I do agree with your second point regarding the location of businesses. But again, the businesses are located in NYC for various reasons that relate to the health of the city - proximity to other, similarly situated businesses, skilled labor force, etc. I completely agree with your point regarding DC. The DC metro region just got "lucky" that the federal government has expanded exponentially in the past 40 years, and the whole region is benefiting.

3) They have many more people living in their downtown neighborhoods, many more white middle-class people that is. For these very easy to understand reasons, NYC, Chicago and DC are much more vibrant than Detroit.

This point is factually true [[more middle-class whites do live in these cities than in Detroit), but again, I do not think it has caused New York, or Chicago, or DC to be more vibrant than Detroit. Rather, these cities have retained more of their middle class populations [[white and non-white) because they have remained places where people could find good paying jobs, live in close proximity to many attractions, receive reasonable levels of city services, and live in reasonable safety. These cities have also maintained middle-class population because they have continued to receive first and second-generation immigrants, many of whom have worked themselves into the middle class.

[Detroitnerd]

But the rail system is not one of the three major reasons why NYC is so vibrant. In fact, during NY's dark years [[late 60's through the early '80s), NYC still had a great transportation system, but people left the city for many of the same reasons they have left Detroit.

As somebody who actually rode the subway in the mid-1980s, I'll just let you know that you have no freakin' idea what you're talking about.

[cman710]

Detroitnerd, as someone who also actually rode the subway in the mid-1980s [[albeit as a youngster) and lived in NYC for over 25 years, I do know what I am talking about so please investigate the facts before making snarky comments.

I was responding to casscorridor's point in the macro-sense, that the NYC region had a well-developed transportation system. NYC did in fact have a well-developed public transportation system in the 1970s and 1980s, and it did not stem the tide of people leaving. Did the system not work nearly as well as now? Of course. Was graffiti covering everything? Yes. Was the subway perceived as safe? No.

I am aware of all those things. But my point remains valid, which is that a public transportation system developed in response to the growth of NYC, and now NYC has benefited from that when other factors have made the city more attractive.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd, as someone who also actually rode the subway in the mid-1980s [[albeit as a youngster) and lived in NYC for over 25 years, I do know what I am talking about so please investigate the facts before making snarky comments.

It's not snarky. It's a rebuke. Because if you honestly believe that New York City's subway system didn't go down the crapper then you're either lying, crazy or stupid. Take it from somebody who was a teenager riding the subway in the years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1991-2002. The trains were covered in graffitti. Homeless men physically grabbed you and shouted at you for money. People were passed out or sleeping on the trains. They were infrequent and slow. They'd come into a station, wait for a few minutes, then lunge into the tunnel. Sometimes, they stop in the middle of the tunnel for minutes at a time. The lights would flicker and die. The conductor could hardly be heard, his voice was so garbled by the old communications system. The whole subway system seemed to smell like popcorn and hot piss.

Compare this to the subway functioning in the 1990s. They closed off the train yard and patrolled it with dogs to keep the taggers out. They introduced new cars, upgraded track, upgraded signals, make the subway police into real police, put in cameras, switched the train to recorded announcements that are easy to hear. The ride up until I left in 2002 was much smoother, safer, faster and with much better climate control.

So, as you can see, I have already investigated the facts, as I FREAKIN' LIVED THERE. What's your excuse?

I was responding to casscorridor's point in the macro-sense, that the NYC region had a well-developed transportation system. NYC did in fact have a well-developed public transportation system in the 1970s and 1980s, and it did not stem the tide of people leaving. Did the system not work nearly as well as now? Of course. Was graffiti covering everything? Yes. Was the subway perceived as safe? No.

The subway was just another example of urban disinvestment, which hit New York particularly hard in the 1970s and 1980s. Most interestingly, it underfunded the things you'd file under "public good" in poor neighborhoods. You'd see the same thing on the streets that you would in the subways: leaking hydrants, poor garbage collection, unrepaired vandalism, poor policing, crammed classrooms, etc. The subway was just another part of the systemwide failure in providing services to mom-and-pop stuff. Of course, the ritzy neighborhoods could afford to keep up their integrity, but what rich person was going to ride the subway?

I am aware of all those things. But my point remains valid, which is that a public transportation system developed in response to the growth of NYC, and now NYC has benefited from that when other factors have made the city more attractive.

Actually, no. The business climate in New York has been carefully coaxed since the days of the Erie Canal, which has made it attractive for business. But to say that the growth came and the subway was in response to it is ridiculous. It's almost as if you have no idea of the history of New York City if that's your point. You don't build Rockefeller Center then try to put a subway under it. You don't build the Empire State Building and then try to run the subway under it. Those monumental buildings would not be possible unless they had access to a subway, bringing in hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour. I don't want to sound snarky, dear me, but your thesis is poppycock.

[iheartthed]

I think you are conflating causation and correlation. New York has a heavy-rail rapid transit system in part because it is so dense and because such a system was needed to move people around the city in the early decades of the 20th century. [[The natural water barriers surrounding the city made sprawl difficult in the days before highways.) Ultimately, the regional ail system was expanded along with population growth and with suburban sprawl. Surely, NYC's great public transportation system also became attractive to businesses, who want access to labor markets. But the rail system is not one of the three major reasons why NYC is so vibrant. In fact, during NY's dark years [[late 60's through the early '80s), NYC still had a great transportation system, but people left the city for many of the same reasons they have left Detroit.

I think you are confusing necessary condition with correlation. I don't think anyone is saying that if you drop the NYC transit system in the middle of... Dubuque, Iowa, that Dubuque will suddenly become Manhattan. But the NYC transit system is necessary to sustain the large, densely populated metropolis that exists in NYC. If they had demolished the subway system in the 1950s -- like Detroit's and many other urban American transit systems -- then the city would probably have continued to hemorrhage residents for the past 6 decades, like Detroit.

Most of what is now the NYC subway system was built more than a century ago when the city had half the population that it is now. It was built in anticipation of future growth, not solely as a reaction to the existing population.

[iheartthed]

We have to start focusing on how we can bring those people that choose Chicago here, instead of focusing on people that would have lived in the burbs regardless.

You really hit the nail on the head there. Nobody graduating from the University of Michigan this spring will be packing up and moving to Chicago or NYC for their school systems.

[cman710]

It's not snarky. It's a rebuke. Because if you honestly believe that New York City's subway system didn't go down the crapper then you're either lying, crazy or stupid. Take it from somebody who was a teenager riding the subway in the years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1991-2002. The trains were covered in graffitti. Homeless men physically grabbed you and shouted at you for money. People were passed out or sleeping on the trains. They were infrequent and slow. They'd come into a station, wait for a few minutes, then lunge into the tunnel. Sometimes, they stop in the middle of the tunnel for minutes at a time. The lights would flicker and die. The conductor could hardly be heard, his voice was so garbled by the old communications system. The whole subway system seemed to smell like popcorn and hot piss. Compare this to the subway functioning in the 1990s....

Detroitnerd, I am puzzled by your slightly hostile response. If you reread my previous message, I clarified what I had initially said - that by the 1970s and 1980s, New York had a "well-developed" transit system, which is true. Even in the worst of times, millions of people used the subway every year. I completely agree with you that the subway system itself operated poorly until the 1990s, so I am not sure why you are getting so exercised about this issue and claiming that I know nothing about New York.

I will defend my point, however, that the city's subway system was initially developed in response to the fact that the city needed a means to move around millions of people. Was the city as big as it would become? No, but the city still had 4.5 million + people before the subway lines were really developed. Did the subway system allow for and promote greater growth? Of course it did. The point is that urban growth is caused by a multitude of factors. Pointing solely to one or two factors does not explain New York's vitality.

[jsmyers]

Before the subways, there were numerous elevated lines and streetcars.

Transit did "cause" New York's density; just the the Erie canal "caused" its economic prosperity.

[cman710]

I would say that transit enabled New York's already high density to become even more dense throughout the 20th century. Parts of Manhattan were incredibly dense in the "Five Points" era, well before rail had become a significant means of transportation within the city. If rail transportation alone caused density, how do you explain the incredibly high density of that slum and others like it that existed in Manhattan for years before the development of the subway system?

My whole point is that no one factor contributed to New York's increase in density. New York was situated on an excellent natural port. That advantage became even greater with the opening of the Erie Canal. The financial industry began to develop in the city, making it even more important for business and finance as the industrial age swung into gear. New York also became an important manufacturing center, partially fueled by huge numbers of immigrants coming from Europe. The city became more dense, and eventually the subway system was developed [[by provide companies). This allowed even greater density, and greater density over wider areas. That helped the economy grow even more and more, as businesses had access to larger labor markets, as well as larger consumer markets. [[And this is vastly simplifying.)

And on and on... No one factor caused New York's density. Rather, density developed along with many other equally if not more important factors.

[President Sekou]

Chicago is a good start. Suburbs are suburbs. Relatively unremarkable regardless of wherever you go. No one moves to or from a region because of a "hip suburb". The fact of the matter is the inner city sucks, we have no downtown of real importance, and we have no gentrified yuppieville where which can lure in the college grad or well to do 20 something. Chicago does, and Chicago wasn't the destination it is now, 20 or really even 10 years ago. [[opinion) So they should be the measuring stick for us, what they did right and what we continue to do wrong.

[wolverine]

^ Detroit should never measure itself up to be Chicago or the other way around. The more I've lived out here, the more foreign to each other these cities seem...apples and oranges. Detroit has to do something different, have its own formula to fix very different problems.

[exmotowner]

I really think people in the Detroit region don't understand the relationship between a city and its suburbs. There's been a civil war through out Detroit for some 50 years now which honestly hasn't done anyone in the region any good.

Absolutely agree!!! 200%! That region needs to get over itself and work together to make the WHOLE metro area better. Yes for the last 50 years its been city versus suburbs and black versus white and vice versa. If everyone up there can't come together and live together like every other city in the country seems to do quite well, Detroit doesnt stand a chance. This city versus suburb thing is childish and needs to stop if the area is to move forward. Just my opinion!