Does Detroit has a master plan?

[Todd_Scott]

I was reading an article on the city in TIME [[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...887864,00.html), and a professor from U of M suggested that the city does not have one. Is this true?

I believe you've misread the quote. The UM professor was referring to the city not having a blueprint for dealing with vacant land.

[iheartthed]

I believe you've misread the quote. The UM professor was referring to the city not having a blueprint for dealing with vacant land.

Which would be what they would put in a master plan.

[ghettopalmetto]

Master Plan:

1. Demolish everything old.

2. Hope someone comes and builds something.

[urbanophile]

Almost every city in the United States has what is called a "comprehensive plan". They are required by law in most places. This includes land use maps, community goals, a thoroughfare plan, etc. Also, every urban area in the country has a federally mandated long range plan administered through a Metropolitan Planning Organization that is required to get federal funding for transportation projects.

Having said that, almost no cities have what I would call a proper strategic plan. That is, what are the customer segments they are going after, the value proposition to serve it, the things that are needed to bring it about, etc. This involves defining community goals and a real understanding of what is required to get to them in terms of talent/human capital, legal/regulatory regimes, tax structure, social practices and culture, facilities and infrastructure, cost base matters, organizational structures, etc.

I gave an overview of what one might look like here if anyone is interested:

http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2...-strategy.html

I've yet to see a city that has a good strategy document. However, you can argue that places like Portland took a strategy driven approach. That is, they decided that they wanted to build a city where many of the best and brightest who wanted an urban environment without the New York style cost and hassles would want to live. And their theory was that this would drive economic growth. Then they implemented an UGB, extensive transit system, land use policies, parks and other facilities, etc. to create a highly differentiated market with appeal to their market segment.

I'd argue Portland is exclusionary to some extent. Clearly its strategy is not right for Detroit. But Detroit desperately needs one. I might suggest starting with some "facts on the ground" - that is, things you can't change - and figure out how to reposition them as assets other cities can't match and/or mitigate the ones you can't change. Some of these are:

- Along an international border
- A transport bottleneck
- Largest percentage of African Americans in the country in the core city and county in the US
- Access to fresh water
- Large tracts of empty and/or largely underutilized land in the central city
- Large metro area population
- Centrality [[middle of the United States, though in a peripheral geography for its region)
- Flatness
- Four distinct seasons
- The Detroit River / major waterway
- Heavy unionization
- Heavy auto industry concentration
- By far largest city in the state
- Not the state capital
- State flagship university on edge of region

I'm not saying it is easy, but this is the path forward for Detroit and Michigan.

A proper city and regional strategy would probably take 3-4 years and cost several million dollars to pull off. Also, it would require leadership conditions to be successful that don't appear to exist at present, unfortunately. Politicians have no interest in this sort of thing. They need ribbons to cut. And few people appreciate the need for something like this. But something like a 21st century Burnham Plan is really needed for most of our Midwest cities.

[Lorax]

But something like a 21st century Burnham Plan is really needed for most of our Midwest cities.

Truly, this is what Detroit needs. In addition to political will, wealthy individuals who care enough to do the right thing [[attention Matted Moron), and politicians who know they will be held accountable if they refuse to do the public's business.

With the amazing architecture Detroit has, there is really no excuse for the condition of the city. No excuses for stripping vacant buildings, no excuses for not stepping up to the plate and bringing forward a vision for planning and development that is realistic and has a chance of working.

Any sane individual knows demolition of MCD and other historically significant structures will only add to Detroit's demise. The costs are simply not dollars and cents, and all too often we've allowed the bean counters to run the show, and haven't put the aesthetic police in charge enough.

I knew when I was a kid that demolishing Rose Terrace, the Dodge mansion in Grosse Pointe was a mistake- the adults around me said there were no servants to take care of it anymore, and taxes were too high for anyone to pay, not to mention the upkeep. No one tried to think of institutional or business purposes creatively that would have saved this treasure from being replaced with seedy tract housing.

It was the wrong decision then, it's the wrong decision now.

And we are the worse off for it.

Funny how in Europe it isn't even a bare consideration to destroy the built environment for new structures. Everything is re-used. If McDonald's wants to open there, it may be in a 17th century building. They are not allowed to clear land for acres of parking and throw-away structures. It wouldn't even be considered.

The mentality of the people has to change.

There is a value to preservation above and beyond the tax incentives and the accounting.

Sadly, if it hadn't been for tax incentives among other considerations, buildings like the Book Cadillac would never have been restored.

People in this country need to wrap their minds around the value of retaining the built environment, above and beyond any and all other considerations, and what it means to continuity with the past.

In many ways, it would have kept people from leaving Detroit and Michigan if buildings weren't treated as disposable.

If I could look forward to shopping at a downtown Hudson's, ride a streetcar instead of a bus, live in the neighborhood my family raised me in, I probably would have stayed. I think you'd find many others would have done the same.

Even now, in middle-age, I have bought a home locally, though live out of state. My hard work and my industry would have benefitted Detroit all these years had people thought it was worth saving, beginning by respecting the built environment.

It really disgusts me sometimes that we're still fighting socially retarded mind-sets at this late date when other cities look at us like we're from another planet and it makes me sick.

[Novine]

Urbanophile is right that there's not the political will in the city's current political class for this kind of effort. But this is the kind of effort that Detroit's non-profit sector could undertake that would allow participation from all sectors of the community and region. While ideally you would have participation and buy-in from the political side, at this point, there's very little down side if they don't. They might attack the vision that is created but if the vision is good enough, if it's strong enough, and it has the ability to be implement from both inside and outside of city government, over time, you can create enough intertia and support behind the vision that the political class will be required to get on board or you'll get a strong enough leader who will embrace the vision and make it their own for Detroit.

There's enough smart people and enough money that could come from Kellogg, Skillman, Renaissance and others to underwrite and lead such an effort. But someone has to get the ball rolling. Detroit and our region is falling behind further and further each day. We can't afford to sit around and wait for someone to save us.

[urbanophile]

Novine, the New Economy Initiative has something like $100 million to invest. The money is there if the conditions for success are right.

I actually don't think you need to have a politically driven strategy. Quite the opposite actually. Rather, it would be driven from the private sector. I'd suggest the business sector is the place. Something like Detroit Renaissance [[as you noted) or another corporate vehicle is probably the best route. And from what I've seen they've got the best thing going so far. For example, I like their Aerotropolis idea. The Burnham Plan was sponsored by the Commercial Club of Chicago, a group of the top businessmen in the city.

The challenge is that an elite business driven plan can be perceived [[and perhaps accurately so) as representing a parochial interest.

Here are a few things I think would need to be in place to make this work:

1. A region-wide consensus that change is required
2. An effort led by both business and the left-leaning NGO sector, with participation from grass roots orgs and the arts/culture community.
3. A geographically and ethnically diverse participation, including at the leadership level
4. State, local, and educational institution inclusion

In short, you need to get more or less the leadership of every influential community segment to agree to participate, compromise, endorse the output, and agree to sell it back to their constituency. The sales effort and the follow-up implementation are as critical as the plan itself. Without that, you are wasting your time.

Also, this group has to be clear-eyed, realistic, and ready to set goals specific to the community, not just regurgitate the conventional wisdom or aspirations that are clearly out of reach. I believe in stretch goals. But we don't want to kid ourselves either.

Clearly, I've thought a lot about this. One of my own personal aspirations would be to someday be the executive director and lead author of such a plan. In the meantime, I'll keep blogging about it I guess.

[DetroitDad]

A plan would just sit on the shelf and collect dust, or never be created, tied up in endless court battles and regional bickering.

Detroit needs the residents of the region to really join together. We need to show disapproval with voting if we can. Every stupid thing our elected officials do do, needs to be met with marches to council meetings and letter writing. Suburbanites and urbanites also need to be doing this when their communities do something that counteracts better regionalism. I have absolutely no idea how to light the fires under my fellow Metro Detroiters in order to get them to move on this. Everything most have tried has been met with failure.

Post 1967 riot Detroit reminds me of a sort of microcosm of Europe during the Middle Ages. Everyone ran hiding in gated communities or suburbs and giving up the grand ideal and city of Rome out of fear and hate. When Romans didn't like what was going on, they threw their temper tantrum by leaving instead of taking personal responsibility for what had happened.

After the fall, many years of fighting and bickering eventually led to the people almost wiping each other out. It wasn't until they hit rock bottom; had all imagined hope of success or rebuilding without each other striped from them that they started really making progress. That, and the actual people were just sick of the constant hardship that made them take back their governments.

Metro Detroit apparently hasn't been through enough hardship yet.