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?

[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

[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.

[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!

[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.

amen to that!

[Detroitnerd]

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

[Lowell]

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

[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.

[Detroitnerd]

I am puzzled because I write on this forum because of my deep interest in Detroit, and because I was surprised by the intensity [[and in my opinion, snarkiness) of your response.

Well then you don't understand why you're PISSING ME OFF. Maybe it's because ...

What I did say is that BLA BLA BLA for another 150 words ...

... you refuse to get the point! You said "during NY's dark years [[late 60's through the early '80s), NYC still had a great transportation system." Then you clarified that "great transportation system" to mean, well, yeah, it broke down a lot and the trains were covered in graffitti and, yeah, it was totally unsafe, and, umm, yeah, the communications systems didn't work and you'd spend a half hour in a dark train with no fan wondering how the hell you were going to get anywhere, but, you know, other than that. Truly a "great transportation system." You remind me of a whiny student who's staying after class to argue why he really deserves an 'A' for saying something totally ludicrous.

While appreciated, your history of Manhattan is unnecessary. As you will see in a post I made above in response to another poster, I am well aware that the most dense areas prior to the implementation of the subway were tenement housing.

Yeah, my history was unnecessary, because you're just going to go on believing what you always wanted to believe, disregarding evidence to the contrary, trying to behave like in that polite, thickheaded way.

Clearly, the transportation system allowed Manhattan to grow more and more. I never disputed that. However, I do think that a certain level of density is required before public transportation can play that role.

That statement is a bunch of lame pussyfooting around the fact that you said the density must come first and the transit must come later.

That said, I do think the Detroit metro area has sufficient density to support public transportation and I am in favor of expanding the region's public transportation options.

Nobody disputed that. You're just covering your tracks a little.

I did not intend to agitate you and I do appreciate your input on this forum. Cheers to you as well.

Go jump in the East River.

[cman710]

Detroitnerd, with your last post, I think this thread just jumped the shark.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd, with your last post, I think this thread just jumped the shark.

Don't blame me for how thick you are!

[lafayette]

Detroitnerd and cman710, I have an honest question, so don't jump on me here. There's no agenda. Just trying to understand your discussion. Does this debate boil down to a chicken and egg issue; does mass transit lead to density or does density lead to mass transit? Here's a hypothetical: if you think that mass transit can lead to density, then do you mean that a mass transit stop at a sleepy, tumbleweed nowhere will create retail/consumer stuff? Not arguing, trying to understand. Cuz if that hypothetical is true, then mass transit to a lot of empty places with retail/office potential in Detroit could actually justify mass transit for metro Detroit, if not at least Detroit proper, and bring so much of Detroit back to life and population density.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd and cman710, I have an honest question, so don't jump on me here. There's no agenda. Just trying to understand your discussion. Does this debate boil down to a chicken and egg issue; does mass transit lead to density or does density lead to mass transit? Here's a hypothetical: if you think that mass transit can lead to density, then do you mean that a mass transit stop at a sleepy, tumbleweed nowhere will create retail/consumer stuff? Not arguing, trying to understand. Cuz if that hypothetical is true, then mass transit to a lot of empty places with retail/office potential in Detroit could actually justify mass transit for metro Detroit, if not at least Detroit proper, and bring so much of Detroit back to life and population density.

Most of Detroit, up to 1915, was built around the streetcar lines. If you laid them down again, there's a good chance you'd see developers step in to build densely along them. And much of those original thoroughfares are still dense, no matter what people say about Detroit being "abandoned." Let's just say Detroit has "good bones."

[cman710]

Detroitnerd and cman710, I have an honest question, so don't jump on me here. There's no agenda. Just trying to understand your discussion. Does this debate boil down to a chicken and egg issue; does mass transit lead to density or does density lead to mass transit? Here's a hypothetical: if you think that mass transit can lead to density, then do you mean that a mass transit stop at a sleepy, tumbleweed nowhere will create retail/consumer stuff? Not arguing, trying to understand. Cuz if that hypothetical is true, then mass transit to a lot of empty places with retail/office potential in Detroit could actually justify mass transit for metro Detroit, if not at least Detroit proper, and bring so much of Detroit back to life and population density.

Lafayette, I do not think the discussion was strictly a chicken and egg issue. I think it is a question of what the most important factors are relating to the growth of a city. In this way, I think the discussion relates squarely to Detroit's situation, as the answer to the question helps determine how one goes about trying to rejuvinate the city.

If we break things down to the most basic level, the major problem Detroit faces is that people do not have incentive to live in the city. These incentives come from perceptions [[and realities) regarding lack of jobs, high crime, high cost of doing business, and poor city services. Some people say that building transit will solve Detroit's problems and lead to population growth. While I think that building great transit will unquestionably make the city more attractive than it was before, I am not convinced that it, alone, would be the city's salvation. For example, Houston, TX has awful public transportation, yet it has experienced amazing growth during the past few decades. [[Houston does have a limited light rail system, but the system does not provide effective transportation for many people.) San Antonio and El Paso have had similar growth.

These cities are growing because of a favorable economic environment and cheap cost of living, in spite of having awful transit systems. People have incentive to move to Houston, just as they had incentive to move to Detroit in the first half of the twentieth century. People do not currently have strong incentives to move to Detroit.

Improved transit would help address the city's economic issues, as it would encourage more companies to locate in the CBD. However, that same transit would also make it easier for people in the suburbs to commute to the CBD. That is one reason why I think that improved transit alone will not be the answer. First and foremost, the city must address the reasons people are not living in the city - economic opportunity, crime, and the like.

[Detroitnerd]

Some people say that building transit will solve Detroit's problems and lead to population growth.

Straw man alert!