What will happen to Oakland County?

[BrushStart]

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.

Whether or not Detroit is decentralized like L.A. is irrelevant to whether Oakland County and all of Metro Detroit for that matter is a viable model for the future. Detroit and L.A. are very different beasts, and I don't foresee a vibrant future for Metro Detroit based on the current cityscape. It simply is not desirable without an attractive, functional urban area.

[Fury13]

We can agree to disagree, I suppose. I maintain that Detroit's suburban-style, decentralized paradigm with a preponderance of single-family homes on [[relatively) wide lots, outlying business/retail centers, and reliance on freeways is closer to the LA model than a dense, old-city [[NYC, etc.) model.

Moreover, it's going to be almost impossible to remake the Detroit metro area into a region that revolves around an urban core [[in terms of psychology as well as activity). That window of opportunity probably closed decades ago.

[Detroitnerd]

It may be very difficult to believe, given a lifetime of metro Detroit conditioning, but cities are really driving development in metro areas. And the cities that are doing best have the fewest suburbs, because they can annex them right away. The places that are hurting the most are "suburbs without cities," such as Fort Lauderdale.

In many cases, people can "agree to disagree." But when it becomes clear you are disagreeing with reality, reality has a nasty way of catching up to you...

[Fury13]

It may be very difficult to believe, given a lifetime of metro Detroit conditioning, but cities are really driving development in metro areas. And the cities that are doing best have the fewest suburbs, because they can annex them right away. The places that are hurting the most are "suburbs without cities," such as Fort Lauderdale.

In many cases, people can "agree to disagree." But when it becomes clear you are disagreeing with reality, reality has a nasty way of catching up to you...

Yes, you can say that I'm disagreeing with reality; and I can counter by saying you're myopic and buy into false hopes.

Sure, cities DO drive development in metro areas. In this area, it's Birmingham, Ferndale, Dearborn, Royal Oak, Plymouth, etc., that are doing the driving.

Again, you have your opinion, and I have mine.

People are not going to sour on Oakland County and the quality of life that it offers anytime soon. Sure, population may drop a bit, in line with the dropoff in the entire region.

And NOBODY [[at least in any significant numbers) is going to move back into inner-city Detroit in the near future... beyond the few hipsters and "urban pioneers" who will put up with constant crime, repeated threats to personal safety, and a trashed landscape just to boast that they "live in the city."

[iheartthed]

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.

I still don't follow. Detroit's configuration was much more like NYC's or Chicago's than Los Angeles. Frankly, Chicago is Detroit's closest cousin in terms of major cities. The density and build of Chicago more closely resembles Detroit than it does New York, and it's pretty much always been that.

According to a recent Freep editorial, in 1970 Detroit still accounted for more than 40% of the regions jobs, compared to today where it accounts for less than 13%:

In 1970, Detroit was still the region's hub. Back then, Jones might have taken a bus downtown to work at Hudson's department store, or to one of the retail stores that lined Gratiot, Grand River and Jefferson. She could have gone to one of the city's dozens of factories, or commuted to one of the hundreds of auto-related shops that still laced Detroit's neighborhoods.

In 1970, Detroit had 40% of the region's jobs; by 2000, it had less than 13% of them. Meantime, Detroit's population dropped from 1.5 million to 950,000, while Oakland and Macomb Counties grew from 1.5 million to nearly 2 million.

The article is no longer on the Freep's website, but can be read here: http://insurancenewsnet.com/article....type=newswires

Industrial jobs were clustered in and around southwest Detroit, corporate and clerical downtown, and service jobs in the commercial centers.

[Bearinabox]

...just to boast that they "live in the city."

Well, good thing you know exactly why everyone makes the choices they make. It couldn't be that anyone lives in the city because they like it.

[iheartthed]

And NOBODY [[at least in any significant numbers) is going to move back into inner-city Detroit in the near future... beyond the few hipsters and "urban pioneers" who will put up with constant crime, repeated threats to personal safety, and a trashed landscape just to boast that they "live in the city."

I guess this is the flaw is your understanding. You think a revived Detroit depends on suburbanites moving back into the inner-city. Please flush the thought from your mind. A revived Detroit depends on attracting people to the city who are not natives of the metropolitan area.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, you can say that I'm disagreeing with reality; and I can counter by saying you're myopic and buy into false hopes.

That's funny. I had provided some proof. You know, like, some links to some evidence. What are you providing? Just your opinions.

Like I said, you can go on and pretend the year is 1981. Or you can look at what's happening around the country.

Oakland County's quality of life is tied to Detroit's quality of life. If you don't want to believe that, plug your fingers in your ears and shout all you like. But you probably shouldn't be posting here and then expect to be taken all that seriously.

Where's the PROOF?

[Fury13]

I still don't follow. Detroit's configuration was much more like NYC's or Chicago's than Los Angeles. Frankly, Chicago is Detroit's closest cousin in terms of major cities. The density and build of Chicago more closely resembles Detroit than it does New York, and it's pretty much always been that.

According to a recent Freep editorial, in 1970 Detroit still accounted for more than 40% of the regions jobs, compared to today where it accounts for less than 13%:



The article is no longer on the Freep's website, but can be read here: http://insurancenewsnet.com/article....type=newswires

Industrial jobs were clustered in and around southwest Detroit, corporate and clerical downtown, and service jobs in the commercial centers.

I am speaking of Metro Detroit, not just Detroit city proper, when I speak of decentralization. LA has Santa Monica, the Valley, Westwood, El Monte, etc.: we have Birmingham, Royal Oak, Dearborn, etc. I am referring to major outlying areas of population and activity that have superseded the traditional core. Many residents of metro LA never venture into downtown; the same is true in the Detroit metro area. Many suburbanites haven't been downtown in a decade or longer.

Historically, the only area Detroit city proper had to rival East Coast cities in terms of population density was the Cass Corridor/Midtown, with all the large apartment buildings.

[Fury13]

But you probably shouldn't be posting here and then expect to be taken all that seriously.

I think I've probably been posting here since before you were born. Or damn close to that.

[Detroitnerd]

I am speaking of Metro Detroit, not just Detroit city proper, when I speak of decentralization. LA has Santa Monica, the Valley, Westwood, El Monte, etc.: we have Birmingham, Royal Oak, Dearborn, etc. I am referring to major outlying areas of population and activity that have superseded the traditional core. Many residents of metro LA never venture into downtown; the same is true in the Detroit metro area. Many suburbanites haven't been downtown in a decade or longer.

Historically, the only area Detroit city proper had to rival East Coast cities in terms of population density was the Cass Corridor/Midtown, with all the large apartment buildings.

Links to evidence? Proof?

[Detroitnerd]

I think I've probably been posting here since before you were born. Or damn close to that.

Now, see, folks? You can always tell when people are confident in their arguments and have a command of the facts when they start taking personal pot shots. Nice form, Fury13. Nice form.

[Fury13]

I guess this is the flaw is your understanding. You think a revived Detroit depends on suburbanites moving back into the inner-city. Please flush the thought from your mind. A revived Detroit depends on attracting people to the city who are not natives of the metropolitan area.

No, I believe as you do; suburbanites aren't moving back. Detroit's biggest hope for a partial repopulation is immigrants.

But what is being done to attract immigrants? Where are the jobs that they can fill? Where is the diverse local economy that attracts businesses of all types and offers jobs?

Oh, wait...

[Fury13]

Links to evidence? Proof?

Take a look around. Look at the landscape. It's not just all about stats.

[Fury13]

Now, see, folks?

Oh, I didn't realize you were playing to an audience.

And by the way, the nature of a FORUM is that it's a venue for OPINIONS.

[Detroitnerd]

Take a look around. Look at the landscape. It's not just all about stats.

Detroit is an outlier. You want to have a discussion of the national -- and now global -- trends affecting our region's ability to compete based on ... our particularly backward and failing region? That is absurd.

[Detroitnerd]

Oh, I didn't realize you were playing to an audience.

We all are. As you say, it's a forum.

And by the way, the nature of a FORUM is that it's a venue for OPINIONS.

Actually, Fury13, it's a venue for debate, where opinions that are weak and unsupported have a hard time prevailing over facts. As I said, if you don't like that, perhaps you should just plug your ears and repeat: "There's no place like 1981."

[iheartthed]

Historically, the only area Detroit city proper had to rival East Coast cities in terms of population density was the Cass Corridor/Midtown, with all the large apartment buildings.

Uh, not true:

http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/map...popdensity.pdf

Over half the residents of Detroit in 1950 lived in neighborhoods that were more dense than the average density of New York City today [[and NYC is more dense now than it was in 1950).

[Bearinabox]

Where is the diverse local economy that attract businesses of all types and offers jobs?

If we're ever to have such a thing, it's not going to get its start on Big Beaver Road. Ignoring what's left of our urban infrastructure and declaring it to be unimportant and obsolete is a good recipe for remaining a dying auto-industry town in perpetuity. The auto industry, which took root in the dense central city a hundred years ago, spent most of the last 90 years gradually decentralizing, and what's left of it will probably still be decentralized for as long as it continues to exist. This is why you have "suburbanites who haven't been downtown in a decade," and I don't think the future of our region really depends on them one way or the other. If we're going to try to incubate new industries, we need a place where such things can feasibly happen.

Now, is central Detroit, in its current condition, that sort of place? Not to the extent it needs to be. But the question we need to be asking is "how can we make it more like that?" and not "who needs the city when we have Oakland County?"

[BrushStart]

This region is not sustainable in its current form. It has no sense of identity and no sense of unity in terms of getting regional projects done. This region is so divided that it cannot build 1 stretch of rail between its two largest cities with a stop at the region's Metropolitan Airport. This region is so dysfunctional that despite boasting 50% of the state's population and the vast majority of the state's wealth, it cannot muster the political clout in Lansing to build a simple bridge to its neighboring country. This region is so spiteful, it supports a 2-system bus system in an effort to create a impregnable boundary between its core city and satellite communities. This region is such a failure that it overbuilds until the point of disaster and blight because there is no control over planning and development. This region is so backwards that it struggles to build 3 mile track of mass transit down the central corridor of a metro area of 5 million people. This region turns people away en mass because it cannot even cooperate long enough to have a concerted effort to attract new businesses and residents to its major metro area. This region fights like starved dogs for the remaining scraps of life left in the region, kicks itself when its down, and pours salt into every wound from the past whenever opportunity presents. DOES ANYONE THINK THIS IS SUSTAINABLE?!!!

[Detroitnerd]

DOES ANYONE THINK THIS IS SUSTAINABLE?!!!

In fairness, I think Fury13 does.

[BrushStart]

In fairness, I think Fury13 does.

*Screams wildly and runs around room like a maniac*

[jt1]

People are not going to sour on Oakland County and the quality of life that it offers anytime soon.

I think that is where many of us disagree with you. The QOL in OC is being impacted now - reduction in PDs, FDs, closure of libraries, school operating on reduced budgets, etc.

I'm curious [[and I don't want you to think I'm picking on you) but do you see the QOL in OC remaining the same, getting better or getting worse in the next twenty years? Not compared to Detroit, just in general.

[Patrick]

I guess this is the flaw is your understanding. You think a revived Detroit depends on suburbanites moving back into the inner-city. Please flush the thought from your mind. A revived Detroit depends on attracting people to the city who are not natives of the metropolitan area.

But that is just it...how do you attract outsiders to the city in such a shitty economy? What does Detroit have to do to attract businesses? Give southern-style incentives? Tax breaks? Free land like the wild west? Seems to me that the US is turning into a transient economy as it also turns into a more knowledge-based one as well. How do you attract a significant number of outsiders?

[BrushStart]

But that is just it...how do you attract outsiders to the city in such a shitty economy? What does Detroit have to do to attract businesses? Give southern-style incentives? Tax breaks? Free land like the wild west? Seems to me that the US is turning into a transient economy as it also turns into a more knowledge-based one as well. How do you attract a significant number of outsiders?

One additional option to what you listed above: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...-renew-Detroit