California Ad Agency Opening Office Downtown

[bartock]

So, since no advertising agency has moved to metro Detroit and that's a failure for Detroit? I don't understand. We've had two agencies move to metro Detroit in the last four years, one in Dearborn and one in Detroit -- and this is somehow evidence of an Oakland County on the rise? What exactly is your point?

Dearborn is in Wayne County.

I think the response was to the suggestion that an advertising agency's move to Detroit was a failure to metro Detroit.

[jt1]

I don't want to see the suburban office centers of Southfield, Troy, etc., become shells, just like I don't want to see downtown Detroit as a shell. Empty buildings, generally speaking, suck. Many metro areas have city centers along with healthy satellites around their region. It doesn't have to be one way or the other, and to concoct one "villian" as the culprit in an area and a history of this complexity is ridiculous. Glad for any jobs coming into the region, and hopefully filling the empty space.

The difference between here and the regions with a strong city core and satellites around the region is that they grew that way due to demand. Here, the satellites grew by 'poaching' business from the city.

I would love to see the buildings of Detroit, Southfield, Troy, etc all filled. The simple fact of that matter is that has never been the case. The success of Southfield, Troy and other office building locations was based upon a direct negative impact to the city of Detroit.

So if I am giving the options of [[a) a healthy Detroit and weak Southfield, Troy, etc or a [[b) weak Detroit and healthy Southfield, Troy, etc then I will clearly root for option a.

I also won't shed a tear for other cities losing jobs to Detroit since they sure as shit didn't care to lure business away from the city for the last 50 years. Sorry, but when the mayor of Livonia cries about Quicken moving to Detroit I find it hard to empathize. When Fouts whines that the gov't kept GM in Detroit it isn't difficult for me to dismiss his hurt feelings.

So looking at the impact to the city due to the growth of Southfield, Troy, etc then yes, they were villains by building with the sole intent ot displace business from the city of Detroit.

[bailey]

So, since no advertising agency has moved to metro Detroit and that's a failure for Detroit? I don't understand. We've had two agencies move to metro Detroit in the last four years, one in Dearborn and one in Detroit -- and this is somehow evidence of an Oakland County on the rise? What exactly is your point?

a) dearborn is not detroit... it didnt move to Detroit, if it moved to Dearborn.
b) i made no claim that the presence or not is any indication of OC rising or declining. In fact the post had nothing at all in any way whatsoever to do with oakland county. obsess much?
c) i was merely rejecting his "creatives must be in the shining city on the hill" b.s of his post. the ad agencies are where the clients are. Here that means, Troy, Birmingham, Southfield, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Warren.

[jt1]

a) dearborn is not detroit... it didnt move to Detroit, if it moved to Dearborn.
b) i made no claim that the presence or not is any indication of OC rising or declining. In fact the post had nothing at all in any way whatsoever to do with oakland county. obsess much?
c) i was merely rejecting his "creatives must be in the shining city on the hill" b.s of his post. the ad agencies are where the clients are. Here that means, Troy, Birmingham, Southfield, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Warren.

And now Detroit. Intentional oversight?

[bailey]

And now Detroit. Intentional oversight?

nope. sorry. I guess you can add detroit.... until chevy fires them and they close the office.

[bartock]

The difference between here and the regions with a strong city core and satellites around the region is that they grew that way due to demand. Here, the satellites grew by 'poaching' business from the city.

I would love to see the buildings of Detroit, Southfield, Troy, etc all filled. The simple fact of that matter is that has never been the case. The success of Southfield, Troy and other office building locations was based upon a direct negative impact to the city of Detroit.

So if I am giving the options of [[a) a healthy Detroit and weak Southfield, Troy, etc or a [[b) weak Detroit and healthy Southfield, Troy, etc then I will clearly root for option a.

I also won't shed a tear for other cities losing jobs to Detroit since they sure as shit didn't care to lure business away from the city for the last 50 years. Sorry, but when the mayor of Livonia cries about Quicken moving to Detroit I find it hard to empathize. When Fouts whines that the gov't kept GM in Detroit it isn't difficult for me to dismiss his hurt feelings.

So looking at the impact to the city due to the growth of Southfield, Troy, etc then yes, they were villains by building with the sole intent ot displace business from the city of Detroit.

If I were a taxpayer of Warren, Livonia, etc., I would expect my leadership to complain when a business moves.

I get your indifference. Your apathy can be reasoned; L Brooks and the other suburban boogeymen have certainly reasoned theirs over the years. I'm just noting that it is hypocritical to cry foul and then not expect the other guy to cry foul, especially an elected official. It's their freaking job.

[Johnlodge]

Great that an out of state company is locating here. C-E, J. Walter, and Doner have all taken big hits and shed a bunch of creative jobs, though. Hopefully we can retain some of that talent in the area before they all flee off to other locales and continue the drain. A big F U to everybody who turned this into another city vs. suburb thread, you still don't get that you're part of the problem.

[Detroitnerd]

a) dearborn is not detroit... it didnt move to Detroit, if it moved to Dearborn.

So, a moribund local advertising industry is evidence that Oakland County is drawing business? Or are you just tickled that the agency moved to Dearborn, and not Detroit, and therefore is headed by the mind-set that embraces the suburbs and shuns the city?

If so, you simply have no idea what you're talking about, bailey.

Are you aware that the majority of employees at that agency live and recreate in Detroit and not in Dearborn? You have no idea how many Team Detroit folks I have met at Detroit's bars and nightclubs. They are definitely interested in urbanity, and are not basking in some Troy-style environment. Not your average ad agency, for sure.

b) i made no claim that the presence or not is any indication of OC rising or declining.

No, but your point is that two major advertising companies have moved to metro Detroit in the last four years, and only one of them [[in other words, fully 50 percent of them) have located in Detroit. This is intended to cast this new business as an outlier. I think you're being too hasty, bailey. Let's wait a few years and watch the trends. But, yes, as other people have said, businesses looking for cachet in their new locations generally aren't interested in being in Troy-like environments. A very general statement, but one borne out by the evidence.

c) i was merely rejecting his creatives must be in the shining city on the hill b.s of his post. the ad agencies are where the clients are. Here that means, Troy, Birmingham, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Warren.

Very generally speaking, yes. But that doesn't mean we can discount the trends nationwide that are threatening the future of Oakland County. All the more reason why we should get together on a regional government that ensures a vibrant core city, sustainable suburbs and productive farm and recreation land for all, instead of gloating about not being as bad off as the next county or city over.

[jt1]

If I were a taxpayer of Warren, Livonia, etc., I would expect my leadership to complain when a business moves.

I get your indifference. Your apathy can be reasoned; L Brooks and the other suburban boogeymen have certainly reasoned theirs over the years. I'm just noting that it is hypocritical to cry foul and then not expect the other guy to cry foul, especially an elected official. It's their freaking job.

Agreed. It's just a matter of pointing out their hypocrisy and being realistic that the satellite areas weren't built to complement a full Detroit but to poach from it. It's also important to note that Detroit leaders weren't whining to the press everytime a suburb offered tax breaks for them to leave the city. So in a sense the regional leaders are being more hypocritical.

It's also realistic to assume this region will never see all of the offices and housing filled. If, given this reality, I have to pick a winner and a loser, I'll pull for Detroit to be the winner and am not going to shed a tear for Livonia, Warren, Oakland County, etc when they lose business. I know damn well they weren't shedding tears for the city over the years. In fact they were too busy pointing and laughing at the plight of the city to shed any tears.

[jt1]

Great that an out of state company is locating here. C-E, J. Walter, and Doner have all taken big hits and shed a bunch of creative jobs, though. Hopefully we can retain some of that talent in the area before they all flee off to other locales and continue the drain. A big F U to everybody who turned this into another city vs. suburb thread, you still don't get that you're part of the problem.

Fair enough and it is great news that these are jobs that are not moving from one city in SE Michigan to another.

[BrushStart]

Years ago, after moving to the city for a while I felt somewhat similarly, even though I was in the city, but not downtown. With time, I've come to realize that it is a self-loving, stereotyped, one-sided way of things to rail the suburbs as boring, bland, etc. [[a de facto statement about its inhabitants, too, counselor).

Out of a [[US) region of 4-5 million [[depending whose counting) you are in an 80,000 person downtown during the day, with less than 7,000 at night and comparatively speaking, next to no retail, especially at night.

Good for the company moving downtown. Best part is that they are "new jobs" coming in to the region [[although the "old jobs" from C-E were not lost all that long ago). The snickering, "don't be afraid" statements are condescending, illogical in many ways, and hypocritical given the fact that the LBP criticisms are rooted in his same mentality, locale different.

There seems to be a predictable demographic of people who spend their lives in the suburbs, move to the city, then find the nearest soapbox to yell from and crucifix to hang from.

I don't want to see the suburban office centers of Southfield, Troy, etc., become shells, just like I don't want to see downtown Detroit as a shell. Empty buildings, generally speaking, suck. Many metro areas have city centers along with healthy satellites around their region. It doesn't have to be one way or the other, and to concoct one "villian" as the culprit in an area and a history of this complexity is ridiculous. Glad for any jobs coming into the region, and hopefully filling the empty space.

If I gave off the impression that I want the suburbs to fail, I apologize, because that's not what I want. I've lived in both the city and the suburbs, and I'm well-traveled. My perspective is fairly broad, and what I said above is based on all my observations: [[a) from living in the suburbs, [[b) from living in the City of Detroit, and [[c) from outside the region looking in. Look, it's not complicated to figure out what draws people to cities, and that cities drive regions and economic growth. That's the way it is all over the world. It's not a new concept. What is a new concept is the idea of mass suburbanization, or in Metro Detroit's case, the possibility of having no definable core, only sprawl.

Is it true that many companies moved out of the city for the suburbs in our region? Yes. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the suburbs offer a better place to do business than a city. It's only been that way in our city, where forces beyond most of our control caused extensive self-destruction in the city, thus forcing many companies out into to the suburbs. If Detroit was thriving, does anyone really think that those companies would remain in the suburbs? Not a chance. They're only there now because the better alternative has been raped and pillaged by the region's leaders over the course of several decades. The suburbs are fine for raising a family, but they do not offer what most people want out of life. Only in our region are suburbs thought of as the epitome of accomplishment and that's because people have not tasted the sweetness of a vibrant city. All we'd have to do is emulate the ancient design. It hasn't changed much in millenniums. Take Chicago and do what they have done. At least you'll have a shot at keeping your college grads in state.

There is so much evidence to support my conclusion, that debating this seems senseless. Someone has to move back to the city and stand on the soapbox. There's an entire generation of kids that are going to move out of Metro Detroit if nobody shows them by example that Metro Detroit can offer them a vibrant place to live that isn't their father's suburban neighborhood. Young people do not find that interesting or inspiring. It is f-ing stifling. So, I'll stand on my soapbox and hang from the cross until I get fed up with waiting for people like LBP and others to come around and at least pretend that having something resembling a modern city is important to the fate of the region.

[bartock]

If I gave off the impression that I want the suburbs to fail, I apologize, because that's not what I want. I've lived in both the city and the suburbs, and I'm well-traveled. My perspective is fairly broad, and what I said above is based on all my observations: [[a) from living in the suburbs, [[b) from living in the City of Detroit, and [[c) from outside the region looking in. Look, it's not complicated to figure out what draws people to cities, and that cities drive regions and economic growth. That's the way it is all over the world. It's not a new concept. What is a new concept is the idea of mass suburbanization, or in Metro Detroit's case, the possibility of having no definable core, only sprawl.

Is it true that many companies moved out of the city for the suburbs in our region? Yes. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the suburbs offer a better place to do business than a city. It's only been that way in our city, where forces beyond most of our control caused extensive self-destruction in the city, thus forcing many companies out into to the suburbs. If Detroit was thriving, does anyone really think that those companies would remain in the suburbs? Not a chance. They're only there now because the better alternative has been raped and pillaged by the region's leaders over the course of several decades. The suburbs are fine for raising a family, but they do not offer what most people want out of life. Only in our region are suburbs thought of as the epitome of accomplishment and that's because people have not tasted the sweetness of a vibrant city. All we'd have to do is emulate the ancient design. It hasn't changed much in millenniums. Take Chicago and do what they have done. At least you'll have a shot at keeping your college grads in state.

There is so much evidence to support my conclusion, that debating this seems senseless. Someone has to move back to the city and stand on the soapbox. There's an entire generation of kids that are going to move out of Metro Detroit if nobody shows them by example that Metro Detroit can offer them a vibrant place to live that isn't their father's suburban neighborhood. Young people do not find that interesting or inspiring. It is f-ing stifling. So, I'll stand on my soapbox and hang from the cross until I get fed up with waiting for people like LBP and others to come around and at least pretend that having something resembling a modern city is important to the fate of the region.

I agree that a strong city core and something resembling a modern city is important to the fate of the region as a whole.

[iheartthed]

The difference between here and the regions with a strong city core and satellites around the region is that they grew that way due to demand. Here, the satellites grew by 'poaching' business from the city.

I would love to see the buildings of Detroit, Southfield, Troy, etc all filled. The simple fact of that matter is that has never been the case. The success of Southfield, Troy and other office building locations was based upon a direct negative impact to the city of Detroit.

So if I am giving the options of [[a) a healthy Detroit and weak Southfield, Troy, etc or a [[b) weak Detroit and healthy Southfield, Troy, etc then I will clearly root for option a.

I also won't shed a tear for other cities losing jobs to Detroit since they sure as shit didn't care to lure business away from the city for the last 50 years. Sorry, but when the mayor of Livonia cries about Quicken moving to Detroit I find it hard to empathize. When Fouts whines that the gov't kept GM in Detroit it isn't difficult for me to dismiss his hurt feelings.

So looking at the impact to the city due to the growth of Southfield, Troy, etc then yes, they were villains by building with the sole intent ot displace business from the city of Detroit.

Someone on another forum made a list of all suburban office towers in the Midwest that are 250' or taller. Suburban Detroit had the same number of towers on that list as suburban Chicago, even though metropolitan Chicago is twice the size of metropolitan Detroit.

What was even more baffling is that eight of those towers are located in Southfield. All of those towers were built between 1975 and 1989. And 95% of the high rises [[buildings with 10+ stories) that exist in Southfield -- according to this list I have there are 27 -- were built between 1967 and 1992.

Another interesting note about the Southfield building boom is that it's timing was contiguous with a round of building booms that went on in downtown Chicago and Manhattan. Except it happened in what was a middle-of-nowhere suburb instead of the central business district.

[BrushStart]

Someone on another forum made a list of all suburban office towers in the Midwest that are 250' or taller. Suburban Detroit had the same number of towers on that list as suburban Chicago, even though metropolitan Chicago is twice the size of metropolitan Detroit.

What was even more baffling is that eight of those towers are located in Southfield. All of those towers were built between 1975 and 1989. And 95% of the high rises [[buildings with 10+ stories) that exist in Southfield -- according to this list I have there are 27 -- were built between 1967 and 1992.

Another interesting note about the Southfield building boom is that it's timing was contiguous with a round of building booms that went on in downtown Chicago and Manhattan. Except it happened in what was a middle-of-nowhere suburb instead of the central business district.

What's even more interesting, is that unlike Chicago, Southfield and Detroit have abandoned towers that now look like Sh*t. Southfield flunks because it has skyscrapers but no city. Detroit flunks because it has the city with empty rotting skyscrapers. It was a lose-lose for Metro Detroit.

[Mackinaw]

The Palms Building, eh? An inspired choice. Kudos to them.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I agree with gumby that they could have used a newer pic. Maybe these SF transplants will be at home in the same building as The Fillmore!