New York Times, Economist Ed Glaeser and Detroit's Strategy

[renf]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ness/?emc=eta1

[Ocean2026]

Good story as long as Detroit doesn't raze buildings of architectural interest.

[Hermod]

Good story as long as Detroit doesn't raze buildings of architectural interest.

Who decides if a building's "architectural interest" outweighs the cost of maintaining or restoring the building? Is there some kind of board of "excessively smart" people or whoever can get a building placed on the register first?

[Detroitnerd]

It's a terrific strategy. Remember when New York was suffering in the 1970s? Luckily, they had the good sense to knock down a lot of outdated housing stock, remove subways, and remake Manhattan into a place with lots of open fields "ready for development." And, 40 years later, it has TOTALLY paid off. Look at all the great new mini-malls and big-box stores they've built there! And getting rid of all that expensive infrastructure helped make that boom possible!

[Carey]

Detroitnerd: What subways did New York take out? Where were the open fields in Manhattan? You are certainly correct that New York has boomed since the chaotic '70s, but I don't know that the boom was produced by getting rid of infrastructure. Huge immigration and big profits on Wall Street certainly helped. Much of the new housing in Manhattan is very expensive, but more moderate housing has been built in the outer boroughs. You can't compare Manhattan, one of the capitals of the world, with Detroit, but the revitalized Bronx should give Detroiters some hope that, yes, it can happen here.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd: What subways did New York take out? Where were the open fields in Manhattan? You are certainly correct that New York has boomed since the chaotic '70s, but I don't know that the boom was produced by getting rid of infrastructure. Huge immigration and big profits on Wall Street certainly helped. Much of the new housing in Manhattan is very expensive, but more moderate housing has been built in the outer boroughs. You can't compare Manhattan, one of the capitals of the world, with Detroit, but the revitalized Bronx should give Detroiters some hope that, yes, it can happen here.

Carey: It is not uncommon for us to make liberal use of satire on this forum. Welcome aboard!

[Bearinabox]

Carey: It is not uncommon for us to make liberal use of satire on this forum. Welcome aboard!

It is also not uncommon for said satire to fly straight over everybody's heads.

[Detroitnerd]

It is also not uncommon for said satire to fly straight over everybody's heads.

I know. I gotta use more satire warnings. ...

[canuck]

Maybe spending on the skytrain was a drop in the bucket, maybe the street rail project is too little too late but these projects were more sane than vacating older buildings and building new ones. I still am puzzled that no cohesive approach by the federal government to Detroit's plight exists. It seems to me that detroiters are long used to believing they have little voice in the matter in spite of a wealth of good ideas and sentiment about their city. It is a very important city and will be transformed. but waste has to be adressed, therefore a moratorium on new building should be able to coexist with a effort at rehabbing existing structures such as the old Wayne co. courthouse.
There is plenty that can be done, but I think that a major plan is needed adressing the ideas set forth by the city and the AIA.

If the feds invested in commissioning a major plan for Detroit's rightsizing, gathering the best of worldwide concepts, then many other north american and european blighted cities would benefit. Detroit pioneered the 20th century city, a lot of it was good: it had good mass transit once, still has good density in downtown that needs to be preserved and enhanced. Detroit will lead other smaller urban areas such as Cleveland and St-Louis etc...

[casscorridor]

I wouldn't call the People Mover the silliest transit projects ever. There are far sillier. Sure, the range is very limited, but for what it is --a downtown loop-- it is excellent. Downtown simply would not be the same without it. I can not tell you how many times I have taken it to get to work, transferring from a bus. I do the same thing on the way back on stop at the CVS in the RenCen sometimes. It is really great when its cold or rainy, walking across Downtown [[although not thatttt big) is quite a hike, especially in bad weather.

I also think this writer draws a false dichotomy between transit and "funding our children." Only a NYT writer would think this is a choice. Besides that fact that the funding comes from completely different places, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't fully fund a comprehensive mass transit system AND have the best education system possible. I see these false dichotomy being draw, like jobs vs. environment or jobs vs. immigration or schools vs. parks, etc etc. They just aren't necessary. We as citizens should never be forced to make that decision.

Is there some force of nature that is preventing our schools from being excellent? Is there some force of nature that is preventing us from having a real mass transit system? ... I don't think so, yet to this NYT reporter, it seems so. Like somehow rust belt cities will never rebuild. Probably because they subscribe to the religion of the market, the faith that markets are natural, and that they naturally allocate resources the way we need. So the market says Detroit is now useless [[or less useful), so it makes sense why they think Detroit is the way by natural forces.

I wonder if the NYT reporter draws a similar dichotomy between Iraq and Afghanistan vs. funding society. Probably not. Transportation AND excellent schools benefit everyone. War benefits no one but the rich. Who is lining the pockets of the New York times?

Who is behind the shrinking plan? Is it ordinary citizens or is it the corporations that got us into this mess in the first place? When are we going to stop letting them trick us into trusting them?

[iheartthed]

I still am puzzled that no cohesive approach by the federal government to Detroit's plight exists.

If the state of Michigan never acted like it gave two-shits about Detroit's situation then why should the federal government waste its time?

[elfez]

In theory, I like the plan that Bing is trying to lay out. There is so much destruction and desolation in our city that needs to be addressed. Collapsing the dilapidated neighborhoods and moving the "last standers" in those areas makes sense. Bring the citizens into areas together, where services can be concentrated and administered properly.
There are plenty of foreclosed properties, even in these "good" areas that people can be offered housing to be placed into in the transfer. there must be a fair solution for those making the moves.
The Feds need to be in on this whole process. They have ignored our plight long enough. We led the Industrial Revolution from this city, supported the country during WWII, and sustained the economy for decades. Time for the feds to show some serious consideration towards real Urban Renewal.
The plan may sound far fetched, but so did the horseless carriage. we are facing a turning point in our city's history, and with all of the pistons firing, People, Local Gov, Stater Gov and Feds, we can drive the Motor City back to the forefront of American progress, and STOP THE DECLINE!

[Retroit]

The article raises the problem of kicking residents out of their homes in order to make room for more vacant land. But a further question should be asked: once these residents are adequately compensated for leaving their homes, how many are going to relocate within Detroit and how many are going to relocate to the suburbs?

[canuck]

The article raises the problem of kicking residents out of their homes in order to make room for more vacant land. But a further question should be asked: once these residents are adequately compensated for leaving their homes, how many are going to relocate within Detroit and how many are going to relocate to the suburbs?

If all the levels of government have been able to expropriate property for freeways for the greater good, I dont see how hard it is to manage that. There is a lot of work right there in raising and moving buildings when possible. It's about what detroiters were able to accomplish in the past and how that connects to your future. Bulldozing is inevitable in some areas but it is a cop-out in other areas.

The timing is right in that the technology and manpower are available. Also, the low cost of housing is not a deterrent to redevelopment. Govts provide property and labor tax incentives to companies setting up in their states, the relatively debased property values are an added bonus in a planning stategy, no?

[English]

If the state of Michigan never acted like it gave two-shits about Detroit's situation then why should the federal government waste its time?

Well, if Michigan was sitting on an oil field...

I've always believed that when fresh water becomes scarce by mid-century, Michigan will thrive once again. A lot of folks alive today will have gone to their rest by then, but we can all take heart that our children and grandchildren will live in a more prosperous region. The Rust Belt will become "the Oasis."

[boogiechillen]

I wouldn't call the People Mover the silliest transit projects ever. There are far sillier. Sure, the range is very limited, but for what it is --a downtown loop-- it is excellent. Downtown simply would not be the same without it.

I'm sorry, casscorridor, but the People Mover is a joke. It takes more of an effort to ride it than it does to walk anywhere downtown.

Glaeser is a hater, though. He said this about Detroit in a 2006 article:

"There are no reasons why it can't, and shouldn't, decline," Glaeser says. "And I would say that for many other cities. There's no reason not to let decline go forward." The greatness of America is dependent in part upon regional evolutions and migrations, he adds. "Places decline and places grow. We shouldn't stand in the way of that."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/ma...erland&emc=rss

[BShea]

War benefits no one but the rich.

War in general, or the one you mentioned?

[Detroitnerd]

War benefits no one but the rich.

War in general, or the one you mentioned?

Never read the famous speech by Gen. Smedley Butler?

[BShea]

It was a book [["War is a Racket" in 1935), not a particular speech, for which Gen. Butler was famous. He's less famous for his insistence that a 500,000-man fascist army had gathered outside of the capital to overthrow FDR. He was also passed over for combat command in France because the high command considered him unreliable, and later passed over for commandant of the Corps because he was a complainer.

Of course, he made good points in his book -- in the early 20th century, U.S. administrations used the USMC like a corporate police force. That said, there were often humanitarian and other geopolitical reasons for sending in the Marines -- it wasn't always at the behest of the Wall Street Fat Cats, Daddy Warbucks and other bogeymen of Progressive nightmares. But that meme is useful for some ideologies, contextual historic facts aside.

As for the assertion that war is nothing more than a racket for the rich, I say this: Would you say, in person, to a concentration camp survivor that war is an evil racket and nothing good comes of it? I personally have known such survivors of the Nazi horrors whose eyes well up in tears when they remember seeing the first soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division and other units arrive at their camps to liberate them.

What a racket.

The horrors of the world have been stamped out, or held at bay, by war or the threat of war. Yes, almost all war is linked to economics -- we're free of Britain because the middle class grew weary of what, upon reflection, were reasonable taxes levied by an inept government -- but since our Revolution, war has been waged for liberty as we know it, too.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

[Detroitnerd]

You're a pretty good debater, BShea, but the myth that war can be a humanitarian enterprise is wrongheaded and silly.

It was a book [["War is a Racket" in 1935), not a particular speech, for which Gen. Butler was famous. He's less famous for his insistence that a 500,000-man fascist army had gathered outside of the capital to overthrow FDR. He was also passed over for combat command in France because the high command considered him unreliable, and later passed over for commandant of the Corps because he was a complainer.

Ha. Just a troublemaker, huh? All sour grapes, I'm sure. No other star-wearing officer was passed over for big assignments repeatedly because of his troublesome personality.

Oh, wait. MacArthur?

Of course, he made good points in his book -- in the early 20th century, U.S. administrations used the USMC like a corporate police force. That said, there were often humanitarian and other geopolitical reasons for sending in the Marines -- it wasn't always at the behest of the Wall Street Fat Cats, Daddy Warbucks and other bogeymen of Progressive nightmares. But that meme is useful for some ideologies, contextual historic facts aside.

What makes you think the big, bad, old Department of War is so different from our friendly, people-saving, humanitarian Department of Defense? Why is the fact that the United States military has been used as the bludgeon of the bankers and multinationals a "meme" and the idea that the U.S. military are good guys saving the world a "hard fact"? Surely it could be your own ideological leanings, yes?

As for the assertion that war is nothing more than a racket for the rich, I say this: Would you say, in person, to a concentration camp survivor that war is an evil racket and nothing good comes of it? I personally have known such survivors of the Nazi horrors whose eyes well up in tears when they remember seeing the first soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division and other units arrive at their camps to liberate them.

What a racket.

Ah, yes. In a haystack of blood and suffering and torture and slaughter, you pull out one needle of hope. But when the suffering of war ends, must we thank war for ending the suffering it has caused? To my mind, that's like praising death for leaving a few people alive.

The horrors of the world have been stamped out, or held at bay, by war or the threat of war. Yes, almost all war is linked to economics -- we're free of Britain because the middle class grew weary of what, upon reflection, were reasonable taxes levied by an inept government -- but since our Revolution, war has been waged for liberty as we know it, too.

The most dangerous thing about a victorious nation is that it believes that it can solve its problems through war. Perhaps if the United States had been damaged as badly as the UK and Germany and Japan, we would see the wisdom in peace, the dividend of not paying for standing armies, the way a martial mentality degrades our views of justice.

You speak of the one war of liberation we fought as if it were all over taxes. How interesting! Is that a widely held libertarian revisionsim?

I love the ideals of Jefferson and Paine, but I grieve for their distortion over time. Anyway, if the War for Revolution had never been waged, I often things that things would likely be much the same right now, an Anglo-American imperial endeavor, with the "colonies" at its center and the "motherland" reduced to a lapdog. And, despite all Americans beaming with pride, the Union Jack may as well be quartered in our flag instead of the field of stars. It's a sad spectacle that the Founding Fathers would have averted their eyes from in shame: Still fighting for empire, fighting for money, fighting for loot and calling it a war for justice.

BShea, no country ever said it was going to war to make the world a worse place. I should think you'd know better.

[EastsideAl]

It's a terrific strategy. Remember when New York was suffering in the 1970s? Luckily, they had the good sense to knock down a lot of outdated housing stock, remove subways, and remake Manhattan into a place with lots of open fields "ready for development." And, 40 years later, it has TOTALLY paid off. Look at all the great new mini-malls and big-box stores they've built there! And getting rid of all that expensive infrastructure helped make that boom possible!

Very funny...

But it's to the point - cities don't grow and prosper by destroying themselves. Cities grow through inward migration and economic development. They may save some money in the short term by doing this thing, but in their wake they will have destroyed much of what makes a city a city, leaving behind only final desolation. Now that it seems to have finally finally dawned on everyone [[30+ years too late) that the auto industry ain't coming back as a driver of job growth, maybe a better use of our meager resources is to actually get started on leveraging our advantages [[the primary one being cheap land, commercial/office space, and housing) to attract new businesses and, most importantly, new people to our area.

[Hermod]

Of course, he made good points in his book -- in the early 20th century, U.S. administrations used the USMC like a corporate police force. That said, there were often humanitarian and other geopolitical reasons for sending in the Marines -- it wasn't always at the behest of the Wall Street Fat Cats, Daddy Warbucks and other bogeymen of Progressive nightmares. But that meme is useful for some ideologies, contextual historic facts aside.

During Woodrow Wilson's tenure in office, the US Navy referred to its Caribbean Squadron and embarked Marines as "The State Department's Navy".

[EastsideAl]

I still am puzzled that no cohesive approach by the federal government to Detroit's plight exists.

Where do you think this is? Canada?

[Hermod]

YHa. Just a troublemaker, huh? All sour grapes, I'm sure. No other star-wearing officer was passed over for big assignments repeatedly because of his troublesome personality.

Oh, wait. MacArthur?

Exactly what assignments was MacArthur "passed over" for during his 50-plus years in service. In the end he was fired by Harry Truman, but that was the only assignment he was ever relieved from during his career.

[EastsideAl]

It's interesting to me that people consistently bring up WWII in these discussions. One of the very few [[the only?) international conflicts in history that was, arguably, fought in some significant measure for moral reasons. It's almost as if the rest of the history of warfare for nationalism, religion, aristocratic aggrandizement, and profit ceases to exist in the light of that one conflict.

It's also not entirely clear to me how we ended up in this particular historical argument in the context of Detroit.