What will happen to Oakland County?

[iheartthed]

I think part of what I hear Lincoln saying is that Detroit has been headed toward being irrelevant to the future of the suburbs for a long time.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. As I pointed out in the original post, the suburbs get their "growth" from the city. They aren't attracting out-of-region migrants themselves. So what happens to the suburbs when the city [[the source) dries up? Since Detroit is also unable to attract migrants in its current state...

[Detroitnerd]

"You can't have a functioning region with a shithole as its center."

Where is this written in stone? It's been happening here for decades. If you expect non-residents to 'invest' in Detroit, will they have a say in what happens [[as any investor normally would) or will they be told to pay up and butt out?

How well would you say metro Detroit is functioning? Very well? Tolerably well? So-so? By any empirical standard, metro Detroit is not doing very well. And yes, I think we should all have a say in metro Detroit, and if we all had a vote I doubt Detroit's kleptocratic leadership would have a hold on power much longer.

"I predict failure." News flash... Detroit is a gargantuan failure. Can you think of a non-third world city that is worse than Detroit? Only a Pollyanna with her head in the sand for decades would deny it. In spite of this, the suburbs have flourished for the past 50 years and more.

Haha. I love that whole "news flash" joke. Seriously.

Yes, but it's failure writ small. If we continue to pursue the same strategies of developing the outside and neglecting the center, we can expect the same results with [[first) the inner ring suburbs, then [[second) the second-tier suburbs, and so on. Or we can try something new and different: A coherent metropolitan area that shares resources to create [[A) good urban environments, [[B) good suburban environments and [[C) productive recreational and farming land.

Any parents who want the best for their kids would encourage them to leave an area that will take decades to recover from decades of decline. I hope mine will.

Well, you can't fault people for leaving. They're leaving the metro region in droves. They know that they have only the choice of living in certain auto-oriented communities with good schools or living in a depressed urban area. I can't fault them for leaving. It's what's best for their kids. But if we're going to retain people in the 21st century, we'd better start working on creating [[again) a [[A) good, livable cities, [[B) working suburbs and [[C) productive farmland and fun recreational areas THAT ALL WORK TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON REGIONAL GOOD. IF YOU WANT TO SEE A PLACE WHERE BUSINESSES ARE WILLING TO INVEST IN LOCATING HERE, WHY WOULDN'T YOU INVEST IN MAKING IT LESS THAN A SHITHOLE?

[bibs]

I believe the net migration into Oakland County equals the net migration out of Oakland. I recently moved to another state for work and I rented out the side of the duplex I was living in. About 50% of the inquiries were from Chaldean families moving from another state to Troy, 25% were from Detroit and rest from the surrouding area. I ended up renting my side to a Chaldean family.

[313WX]

"You can't have a functioning region with a shithole as its center."

Where is this written in stone? It's been happening here for decades. If you expect non-residents to 'invest' in Detroit, will they have a say in what happens [[as any investor normally would) or will they be told to pay up and butt out?

"I predict failure." News flash... Detroit is a gargantuan failure. Can you think of a non-third world city that is worse than Detroit? Only a Pollyanna with her head in the sand for decades would deny it. In spite of this, the suburbs have flourished for the past 50 years and more.

Any parents who want the best for their kids would encourage them to leave an area that will take decades to recover from decades of decline. I hope mine will.

I worked with people from all over the world. Your blood might boil if you don't know what many of them think of us. The world doesn't need Detroit. Detroit no longer has the clout to demand anything from anyone. Detroit needs to seriously, if not radically, clean house to be worthy of investment. Don't try the guilt trip or painting those who think like us as racist or elitists. It doesn't work anymore.

Then why do you patronize *Detroit* teams? Why do you patronize *Detroit* casinos? Why do you drink *Detroit* water? Why does the water you flush your toilet with go into *Detroit* sewers? Why do you use *Detroit* electricity [[DTE)? Why do you use *Detroit* airport? Why do companies in the suburbs love to lobby Detroit's name when outside of the state?

I could go own and own, the fact is if it weren't for Detroit [[even if for nothing else its name) the suburbs would be a lost cause nationally and possibly statewide. But what you and other suburbanites fail to realize is if Detroit continues to decline and the anti-regionalization attitude continues, Detroit's name will no longer have any weight, and that will mean all the nice amenities you suburbanites do want out of Detroit will disappear.

[English]

SE Oakland County reminds me of Detroit around the time I was a little girl. Judging from my personal circles, it seems like the crowd that used to live in NW Detroit now lives in Southfield, Oak Park, and some are in Farmington Hills. The types whose parents moved into Southfield back in the 1970s and early 1980s for the "schools" are heading towards Novi, Wixom, and Walled Lake.

There's quite a bit of life still in SE Oakland. However, there's quite a bit of vacant commercial real estate [[and growing), and you can find homes for sale for prices that are worrying for potential buyers. This matters because that part of the county is the most urban, and likely the most sustainable. I know exurb dwellers are happy right now driving to the big box retailers, but gas absolutely will go to $5 per gallon within the decade. There will always be people who will choose a rural life, but sometime soon, most people will have to choose whether to be a city mouse or a country mouse.

Oakland County will prosper if we can do some things to make our region and our nation prosper -- specifically, rebuilding all of our infrastructure over the next 20-50 years. The problem is that the generations in power just don't have a long range vision for our nation and our world. A growing number of the kids under 40 do. They're waiting in the wings, and will have their shot at it soon. We'll just have to wait and see.

[tangerine]

oh god-- another thread of anti-suburb people licking each others balls

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

I think OC is in big trouble. My recommondation is that it partner with Detroit city to develop a viable urban core along Woodward Avenue [[see Woodward Project thread).

The country government is working hard to promote the county, but I am afraid they are still indulging in the fantasy that the country can prosper on its own as some type of stand-alone suburban paradise.

[Hermod]

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. As I pointed out in the original post, the suburbs get their "growth" from the city. They aren't attracting out-of-region migrants themselves. So what happens to the suburbs when the city [[the source) dries up? Since Detroit is also unable to attract migrants in its current state...

There is "growth" and there is "growth".

Transfers from one political entity to another can be beneficial or they can be detrimental. If you are a locality, you want "producers" to move in aas opposed to "eaters" moving in.

If you packed up Detroit's welfare load and shipped them up to the UP, it would mean "growth" for the UP, but an economic disaster. One the other hand, if some of the second tier financial firms located in or locating in Detroit moved to the UP, it would be beneficial growth for the UP.

[Fury13]

What urbanized area in the United States is doing well without a well-functioning city center?

Los Angeles is pretty much the prime example of that. Although there is a city center in LA, the emphasis is on outlying areas: Santa Monica, Hollywood, Westwood, the Valley, Beverly Hills, etc. It is a decentralized city/metro model that came about as a result of the impact of the automobile. Therefore, it's fragmented, disjointed, and freeway-dependent, with minimal public transit. Sound familiar?

So... Detroit has basically evolved the same way as LA. I like the concept of new urbanism and certainly hope for a rejuvenated Detroit city core, but I wonder if you're all trying to remake LA [[Detroit as it stands now) into New York [[Detroit circa 1910). And yeah, that's a simplistic comparison, but you get my drift.

[iheartthed]

There is "growth" and there is "growth".

Transfers from one political entity to another can be beneficial or they can be detrimental. If you are a locality, you want "producers" to move in aas opposed to "eaters" moving in.

If you packed up Detroit's welfare load and shipped them up to the UP, it would mean "growth" for the UP, but an economic disaster. One the other hand, if some of the second tier financial firms located in or locating in Detroit moved to the UP, it would be beneficial growth for the UP.

Follow me: Detroit has fed middle class families to Oakland County for the better part of a century now. Detroit has been the single largest feed of middle class residents to Oakland County. It started as "white flight" then transitioned to "black flight". Detroit's supply of middle class families that it can feed to Oakland County will likely soon run dry. What will happen to Oakland County when it can't pull residents from Detroit?

[iheartthed]

Los Angeles is pretty much the prime example of that. Although there is a city center in LA, the emphasis is on outlying areas: Santa Monica, Hollywood, Westwood, the Valley, Beverly Hills, etc. It is a decentralized city/metro model that came about as a result of the impact of the automobile. Therefore, it's fragmented, disjointed, and freeway-dependent, with minimal public transit. Sound familiar?

So... Detroit has basically evolved the same way as LA. I like the concept of new urbanism and certainly hope for a rejuvenated Detroit city core, but I wonder if you're all trying to remake LA [[Detroit as it stands now) into New York [[Detroit circa 1910). And yeah, that's a simplistic comparison, but you get my drift.

Detroit absolutely did not evolve the same way L.A. did. 1)You can't go through metropolitan Los Angeles and find continuous blocks of abandoned buildings and houses that you find in communities of metropolitan Detroit. 2)Los Angeles City is currently at its historical peak population. 3)Los Angeles City has never achieved the historical peak densities that Detroit City had.

[DetroitPlanner]

Forecasts are based on long term-trends. You're making your assumptions based upon the most turbulent year the region has seen since the depression. In 2008 the region shed HUNDREDS of thousands of jobs. You would expect that map to look like that, people moving out and few moving in. It ain't rocket science.

Don't you see anything wrong with your theory or your conclusion?

A large portion of Oakland's new housing in the last several years has been in places like Royal Oak, with new subdivisions on the fringe being almost non-existent. Condos are replacing homes and will eventually provide a much better tax base as well as the type of environment where transit flourishes.

[Danny]

According the factual DATA for SEMCOG. Oakland County's population has increased to 1,205,000 people in the last 10 years. It's regional growth and fewer new alternative jobs make it possible. In the meantime Detroit's population continues to decline badly! to 772,000 people from 951,000 since 2000, a lost of over 178,000 people. The middle income blacks are in the flight than poor black flight. An increase of Mexican/Hispanic and fewer mix race folks will be the next dominace in Detroit in the next 30 years. Althought it could be more folks living in Detroit, but they haven't been registered as pernament homeowners.

[Johnlodge]

The conversation can continue despite lincoln's fetish for "ball-licking" [[not my words, moderator) and getting hung on on the one suggestion of revenue sharing. I think lincoln knows the future of Oakland and Macomb, as well as the state, are in part tied to Detroit. Even L. Brooks has admitted this. What the city really needs is a whole lot of new blood, and there are better places to get it than the suburbs.

“Foreign-born are one and a half times more likely to be college educated. They’ve started a third of all the high tech firms in the state over the last ten years. If you are foreign-born, you’re seven to eight times as likely to file for an international patent,” said Tobocman.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...-20100914-wpms

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...-renew-Detroit

[Danny]

What will happen to Oakland County? It would be the next "WHITE DETROIT" with its mayor L.B. Patterson [[ the reversal of Coleman A. Young).

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET!

As I wait for the a new book called "The Quotations of L.B. Patterson."

Neda, I miss you so.

[Det_ard]

A strong core would help the region but it isn't essential for the region to thrive. My example of a city/region that did well despite a weak core is Detroit in much of the 80's, 90's and 00's. The center was withering yet the regions was generally healthy due to a strong auto industry. We may not be able to rely on that one industry as much as before, although its success will still be a huge factor in our region's future, but the region's health is dependent on jobs. Jobs are dependent on business success. A strong viable central city helps with business attraction but we've seen in the last thirty years that it isn't a necessary condition. Those who feel it is are engaging in wishful thinking not grounded in experience.

[iheartthed]

Forecasts are based on long term-trends. You're making your assumptions based upon the most turbulent year the region has seen since the depression. In 2008 the region shed HUNDREDS of thousands of jobs. You would expect that map to look like that, people moving out and few moving in. It ain't rocket science.

Don't you see anything wrong with your theory or your conclusion?

I think you misunderstood my point.

[maxx]

http://www.mott.org/news/news/2010/policing.aspx

This sounds like something Detroit could use. Maybe someone in the Ford Foundation can take note.

[Hermod]

The conversation can continue despite lincoln's fetish for "ball-licking" [[not my words, moderator) and getting hung on on the one suggestion of revenue sharing. I think lincoln knows the future of Oakland and Macomb, as well as the state, are in part tied to Detroit. Even L. Brooks has admitted this. What the city really needs is a whole lot of new blood, and there are better places to get it than the suburbs.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...-20100914-wpms

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...-renew-Detroit

There are immigrants and there are immigrants.

Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans are not creating high tech businesses and getting a disproportionate share of new patents.

The immigrants who are starting new high tech businesses [[with high tech jobs) are from East Asia, South Asia, and Israel. They have tended to move into Ann Arbor [[Washtenaw) or Troy [[Oakland) as opposed to wanting to live in Detroit. Check Troy's population statistics for Asians.



.

[Novine]

"My example of a city/region that did well despite a weak core is Detroit in much of the 80's, 90's and 00's."

If Detroit is your benchmark, this statement is true. If you compared SE Michigan to almost any other metro area in the US, you'll find that SE Michigan lagged in almost every area.

[Detroitnerd]

My example of a city/region that did well despite a weak core is Detroit in much of the 80's, 90's and 00's. The center was withering yet the regions was generally healthy due to a strong auto industry.

Well, in fairness, that seems to be Oakland County's strategy for the future.

Maybe they should change their motto to: "Can't it be 1981 again?"

[Detroit Stylin]

"My example of a city/region that did well despite a weak core is Detroit in much of the 80's, 90's and 00's."

If Detroit is your benchmark, this statement is true. If you compared SE Michigan to almost any other metro area in the US, you'll find that SE Michigan lagged in almost every area.

...."almost"?

[xphillipjrx]

If the METRO DETROIT area doesn't work together to make itself as a whole attractive to people and businesses outside of the METRO DETROIT area, then the METRO DETROIT area will continue to decline. Worrying about people moving from one part of the METRO DETROIT area to another is backwards thinking that has contributed to our problems while solving none of them.

This. .

[jt1]

A strong core would help the region but it isn't essential for the region to thrive. My example of a city/region that did well despite a weak core is Detroit in much of the 80's, 90's and 00's. The center was withering yet the regions was generally healthy due to a strong auto industry. We may not be able to rely on that one industry as much as before, although its success will still be a huge factor in our region's future, but the region's health is dependent on jobs. Jobs are dependent on business success. A strong viable central city helps with business attraction but we've seen in the last thirty years that it isn't a necessary condition. Those who feel it is are engaging in wishful thinking not grounded in experience.

There is a major flaw in your argument. The success of the suburbs in the 80s, 90s and 00s was due to migration out of the city and a healthy mfg/auto base. The mfg/auto base has been greatly reduced and will not ever get to the levels of employment seen in those decades. In the 80s, 90s and 00s the region got by on what was existing. The region has done very little to bring in new industry and new jobs.

Decentralization is fine when there are existing jobs. Decentralization however makes attracting jobs an uphill battle. This is a different situation and there is little that Michigan and especially the region can offer that other areas can't.

What do we have to offer? A neglected core city, no true urban areas, massive numbers of failing roads, inefficient government, divisions based upon race and class, an uneducated workforce, high property taxes, crumbling infrastructure that is spread over way too much geography. Those aren't exactly the type of things that will lure businesses to relocate here and our previous strong mfg/auto base is shrinking every day.

The unfortunate thing is that many in the region can't see the impending doom since they have been conditioned to compare themselves to Detroit which gives the impression that things are looking good. They aren't. If your buddy weighs 500 pounds it doesn't mean that you weighing 400 is healthy.

[Fury13]

Detroit absolutely did not evolve the same way L.A. did. 1)You can't go through metropolitan Los Angeles and find continuous blocks of abandoned buildings and houses that you find in communities of metropolitan Detroit. 2)Los Angeles City is currently at its historical peak population. 3)Los Angeles City has never achieved the historical peak densities that Detroit City had.

I'm not talking about population; I'm talking about having outlying centers of business and residential vitality that do not depend on the city core for their existence or popularity. Those outlying centers, which are now more prominent than the original central business district, came about as a result of the rise of the automobile and early sprawl. That is the LA model, and that is the Detroit model. It's about the way the area looks and feels, not solely about population. NYC is dense and centralized; so are Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia. LA, in contrast, is decentralized. Whether intentional or not, Detroit has followed LA's lead rather than NYC's.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm not talking about population; I'm talking about having outlying centers of business and residential vitality that do not depend on the city core for their existence or popularity.

But the point is that Oakland and Macomb counties have depended on the central city for business and residents. Over the period 1940-2000, most of the "growth" in those counties was actually capital flight and middle class migration from Detroit to the counties. Now the well is running dry. There are no businesses and residents left to take from Detroit, and the counties cannot attract businesses and residents from the rest of the country. Hence the problem.

Those outlying centers, which are now more prominent than the original central business district, came about as a result of the rise of the automobile and early sprawl. That is the LA model, and that is the Detroit model.

This may have more to do with when they hit "boom town" status than any inherent design principles. Detroit had its population boom in the 1910s, Los Angeles in the 1920s.

It's about the way the area looks and feels, not solely about population. NYC is dense and centralized; so are Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia. LA, in contrast, is decentralized. Whether intentional or not, Detroit has followed LA's lead rather than NYC's.

Actually, given the chronology of boom and development, L.A. followed Detroit's lead, not vice-versa.

As far as abandoned buildings or vacant lots, I'll bet you'll find more than a few of each in South Central LA: Compton, Inglewood, etc.

You'll also find that Los Angeles has about five times as many "Higley 1000" households as the closest L.A. contender, Newport Beach.

From 2008: "It may surprise some that central cities dominate the top of the list for total number of households found in the Higley 1000. Not all central cities have seen their wealthiest citizens flee to the suburbs [[e.g. Detroit, Hartford, and Cleveland). In fact, five out of the top six places are central cities. Manhattan easily tops the list with 37,429 Higley 1000 households found in six neighborhoods." In fact, on their list of the cities with the most wealthy households, Los Angeles is No. 2. Does this comparison of Detroit to Los Angeles really hold any water, when seen in this light?

SEE http://higley1000.com/archives/87