 
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3602
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 2:00 pm: |    |
Ok, Detroit is in a particular sticky situation.
Despite the tiny, rapid, but thin pulse occurring in a 4 sq. mi area of Detroit (Downtown), the surrounding neighborhoods (which hold majority of the tax base & culture) continues to fall steadily to the wayside with no end in near sight.
However, on the flip side, during the 1970s & a portion of the 1980s, downtown was a complete mess (stores closing left & right, hotels closing & eventually becoming surface lots, theatres that were abandoned & left to rot) while the neighborhoods were getting along just like any other big city (national retail, chain grocers, schools in walking distance, more neighborhood police & fire stations, etc.). However, like every big city from that time, even they were seeing a gradual decline as well (albeit slower than what's happening now).
Now, the overall point is, of course we have a weak feeble pulse in the CBD now, but unlike what people tend to believe, it's not making up for the rapid decline occurring outside of it.
On the other hand, cities that were similar to Detroit (Chicago, Philadelphia) are seeing the net results of downtown investment happen much faster without a massive decline within the neighborhoods.
In my opinion, if things keep up, Detroit will simply be a island of wealth & vibrancy surrounded by blight & prairies. A city is nothing without it's people (just a heart is nothing without blood) and if we don't have enough blood flowing, the heart will die.
So while downtown is coming along, why not focus more investment in the neighborhoods (focus more police presence in the areas with high crime, enforce sanitation ordinances, etc.). How about putting street signs along Van Dyke (bet. I-94 & 6 Mile) or making sure the lamps are on at night. These small steps alone would make the neighborhoods seems a bit more attractive.
A company will not move to a city where the employees (or employers) can't find a safe, clean neighborhood & good schools for their children. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4857
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 2:28 pm: | |
I believe it a fallacy to think that only investing in downtown will spread improvements to neighborhoods. If the goal is to improve neighborhoods, then neighborhoods need direct investment. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3603
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 2:45 pm: | |
^Yes, but that theory is flawed when you have so many things working against it (rapidly declining neighborhoods, very slow revival of the city center, etc.) |
Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement
Post Number: 544
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 3:01 pm: | |
I was starting to get geeked up when Cockrel starting talking about cleaning up the city. I was expecting him to say that he was going to have city workers cleaning up the streets and start ticketing businesses that did not maintain their properties. He stopped short of that and just made a feel good speech admonishing citizens to stop littering.
Reason I bring this up is, one of the easiest and quickest ways to make the city attractive is to clean it up and make police presence visible. If people feel like they can move to a safe clean neighborhood they will. |
Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Post Number: 362
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 3:31 pm: | |
DRise...thanks for starting this thread. I was thinking about this very fact as I read your post on the thread I started about promoting Detroit. It's becoming evident to me that there really is starting to be a wider gap between the downtown and the neighborhoods. And candidly, my residence, social life, and business is all done downtown...so my last real experience with the neighborhoods was in the 90's growing up in East English Village. I haven't been there in years. So it's very easy for me to talk about selling and promoting the city, because there's lots for me to happy about. On the flip side, if you're in a neighborhood with horrible city services, scrappers stealing copper, and abandoned homes popping up, it's pretty hard to be optimistic about stuff. All politics is local, as they say.
I'm not sure what the way to go is here. Are there any models for how other cities have made their transformation? I still stand by my opinion that the middle class family with children is one of the last ones that will return to the city. It could take a decade (or more) for the city to address the schooling and safety concerns necessary to compete for this population segment, and there are so many better options very widely available.
The demographic the city can win back right NOW are singles, DINKs, YUPpies, LGBT, etc. And these people are likely to be looking at midtown, CBD, Corktown, Indian Village neighborhoods over the many traditionally middle class neighborhoods in the city, IMHO. Plus this segment traditionally has higher incomes, higher property tax revenue, at no cost in resources for schooling and other services.
So to summarize, I don't see at as Downtown vs. Neighborhoods. Eventually, we want and need to work on both. But I don't see it as feasible for us to grow our population taking middle class families from St Clair Shores, Livonia, Redford, or Warren. We need to start by attracting the rich suburbans, otherwise we won't have the money to provide the city services we need for the whole city. 
I'd like to hear how other cities have done it, though. Maybe I'm wrong.
(Message edited by youngprofessionaldetroiter on September 20, 2008) |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3605
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 3:47 pm: | |
YPD, I agree.
However, we don't just need the middle class to fill the homes, working class families who have pride in their neighborhoods (rather poor or rich) are welcome as well.
Also, we do need the younger crowd as they will carry the torch of whoever passes away. However, the flaw with that is once they receive their education (from U of D & WSU) & have kids, Detroit simply won't be the place for many of them (and we'll lose them to suburban communities or other metropolitan regions). Also, thre's simply not enough of them to go around. We gain 1 college student for every 10,000 citizens we lose.
In order for outsiders to look at Metro Detroit positively, it must be the Detroit citizens, government, and people from SCS, Livonia, Redford, Warren, etc. who take the first step (Quicken, Compuware).
Most other cities did the CBD approach, but those same cities didn't see a massive decline in population, tax base or overall building stock like Detroit. So they saw positive results much quicker. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 14032
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hey!
The new Mayor is doing a great job cleaning up...isn't he filling a dumpster FULL of Kwhyme appointees over the weekend?
I bet City Hall smells better on Monday.
As for the downtown/neighborhood conundrum...if we can identify target neighborhoods that will get support and make THEM destination 'hoods for citizens...gather folks CLOSER to Fire and Police Stations, groceries, working bus lines, EACH OTHER (especially if senior citizens and others needing support)...use eminent domain to capture recent abandoned houses and create some program that will gather good people together near the services they are paying for...then let more of the prairie turn over to community gardening so the city doesn't have to pay to mow it.
Hell, change back the laws to let us keep cows, goats, and chickens in small and very manageable quantities and grass will never be a problem. Let them fill up the no-man's land between residential oases...it will be easier to spot poachers and crop thieves when the money and food crises get even HOTTER.
We'll be the first hybrid foodcity...but not talking genetically modified seeds...moreso the hybridization of the now-dead industrial urban experience with the way more logical and sustainable (greenest of all green) urban agriculture movements! |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 5380
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 5:21 pm: | |
At this point, with streetscape upgrades having been done, facade improvements having been funded, and with privately-funded street-sweeping crews, I don't think we can fairly say that neighborhoods are losing out to downtown in terms of funding and services.
The services are poor in the neighborhoods, not because downtown is soaking them up...but because there's very little money to go around in general. An increase in tax revenue which comes from anywhere in the City will help that situation. Lately, the increases in revenue are coming from downtown, midtown, and a few neighborhoods. Whence the money comes from doesn't matter. But it is important that it does come, because the lack of services (especially dependable police) and neighborhood vitality is a push factor that only allows the tax base situation to spin out of control.
I think downtown's reputation as a destination, as a place that almost always has something going on, and as a growing center of business, is well-settled. While the DEGC and other negotiating bodies rightly should be focused with bringing in new tenants large and small, and making development happen on our huge empty spaces and skyscrapers, City Hall's focus should be making neighborhood life better. Police presence, and small-business initiatives and streetscape improvements which increase vitality in the neighborhood business districts should be the priorities. Basically take what Kilpatrick did for a half-dozen neighborhoods i.e. East English Village and spread that around to every part of the city as much as possible.
When/if QL HQ comes and there are at least further murmurings about Cadillac Centre, then downtown will pick up steam and really require a hands-off approach.
The wildcard that I'm wondering about is how hard/fast Cockrel will push Woodward LRT, and how the DDOT plan is melded with the private funds on the table. This needs to be settled as soon as possible. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2805
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 6:03 pm: | |
A lot of the improvement of the neighborhoods lies on the backs of the citizens in those neighborhoods. Maintaining your property and raising you kids to be productive citizens goes a long way in determining the success of a neighborhood.
Lights working and garbage being picked up is important. Yet, that has never been a problem in my parents eastside neighborhood, and they've been there for 48 years. Yet, property owners renting their properties to people who have no investment in those properties, contributes greatly to the decline of their neighborhood and many others in Detroit neighborhoods.
My parents block had over 45 houses and some apartments in 1960. Now, there are only 14 houses left on the block. Most of these houses remain because the owners still live in them. If Detroit had more apartment complexes, then the decline in housing stock would probably be much slower.
Also, if it was possible to institute a "no renting" zone in some neighborhoods, where the owner has to sell his property if it's a single-family residence, then maybe the decline in housing stock would lessen and the neighborhoods wouldn't be in such a degree of abandonment.
The city, however, could benefit from having more police officers. I remember the day when the police force exceeded 5000 officers. Yet, if citizens in many Detroit neighborhoods were doing the "right" things, then you wouldn't need a large police presence, but that's an issue to debate at another time.
Downtown vs. the neighborhoods will always be the debate as long as both are hurting. Clearly, if one is successful then the focus of attention and resources should be directed toward the other. Shoring up the CBD is the easier endeavor. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 5382
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 6:19 pm: | |
Good points about the ability of block clubs, neighborhood associations, and households themselves to effect change. They still rely on the City at a certain point, though. |
Daddeeo
Member
Username: Daddeeo
Post Number: 128
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 7:53 pm: | |
There will a lot fewer city employees after they find out how big the deficit is. Layoffs will only make things worse.
Downtown has been getting the biggest share of cash for the last 30 years. They thought if downtown got fixed up, everyone would come back. Instead, a ton of people have left from the neighborhoods and big sections look like they're from the Little House on the Prairie. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 919
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 8:49 pm: | |
Some things.
Chicago and Philly have massive problems in the their neighbourhoods. South Chicago and West Chicago are in just as serious decline as some Detroit neighbourhoods.
Southwest Philly and even portions of north Philly have massive issues with crime and decay and are seeing massive flight to the suburbs. My cousin being one of them. She loves the city, but could not keep putting up with the huge crime issues and declining neighbourhoods of Philly. So off to the suburbs she went(she still goes downtown often though).
Also the majority of Detroit's tax base does not come from the neighbourhoods. The majority of Detroit's tax base actually comes from downtown and the Woodward corridor up to New Centre. I do not have the exact stat, but I think something like almost half the tax income Detroit collects comes from the CBD and greater downtown area.
The same is true in cities like Chicago and Philly. The majority of the tax base is downtown.
Kill downtown, and you lose alot of tax revenue that supports the neighbourhoods.
A strong downtown builds strong neighbourhoods. They all work together and create synergy.
Very few people are going to want to live in inner city Detroit, if downtown does not offer large amounts of jobs, and other services. As more jobs come downtown, etc, it creates demand for living spaces in the neighbourhoods. But if people need to commute to Novi for work, you can pretty much assure most won't be choosing inner city Detroit anytime soon.
So build up your downtown employment. Its the most important thing for the revival of the inner city neighbourhoods, as well as the inner suburbs.
Here is a good quote.
"Leinberger told his listeners that the city should abandon the old politics of downtown versus the neighborhoods and the region. The city should churn out more financial data showing how a strong downtown tax base provides revenues and services vital to neighborhoods and the region. "
(Message edited by miketoronto on September 20, 2008) |
Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84
Post Number: 391
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 10:14 pm: | |
Great topic.
Royce, on the,"no renting zone" idea, I'm not sure that would work. I do see what you are trying to accomplish with it.
I don't believe it is possible to restrict how a homeowner uses their property unless the entire neighborhood signs on to an association.
In my past experiences with being a homeowner who rents out property, the renter can be the bad actor. The laws make it easy for a renter to take advantage of a homeowner. It is the responsibility of a homeowner to select a good quality tenant, but crime and poor city services dry up qualified applicants. It gets tiring to have to clean up after an eviction. Many who rent homes should be in an apartment or condo for rent instead because they are unwilling to maintain the yard/property.
I feel many more homes in Detroit would be empty if landlords didn't bridge the gap for affordable housing opportunities. |
Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84
Post Number: 392
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 10:20 pm: | |
On a side note about renters, I've known one to leave a house cleaner than they got it, with rent on time for 16 years!
(Message edited by warrenite84 on September 20, 2008) |
Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3
Post Number: 495
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 10:43 pm: | |
Rock on Gannon!
I'm not a fan of emminent domain, but i do like your vision of the first Hybrid city!
I think we can bring in families sooner than expected, should be an interesting couple months.
Cheers! |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 2:57 am: | |
The "downtown vs. neighborhoods" debate is completely illogical, with very little factual basis.
The money invested in downtown development doesn't "take away" money from neighborhood development, nor does downtown development happen "instead of" neighborhood development.
When Compuware invested $300 million in a new downtown HQ building, the city neighborhoods didn't lose out on that money. When GM spent $500 million to upgrade the RenCen, the neighborhoods didn't lose a half billion dollars in investment. When the casinos spent a couple billion dollars building large hotel/gaming/entertainment facilities, creating almost 10,000 new jobs, and hundreds of millions in new tax revenue, it didn't happen instead of neighborhood investment.
This is not a downtown vs. neighborhood situation.
If Compuware and GM didn't invest $800 million in new HQ buildings in downtown Detroit, they would have invested $800 million in new HQ buildings in Oakland County. Investing this money on neighborhood services, instead of a downtown HQ, is not an option.
The same goes for the casinos, sports stadia, the Book-Cadillac, etc. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 5386
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 8:31 am: | |
Good points-- we shouldn't believe that there's a bias against the neighborhoods just because of all the high-profile downtown developments that were the result of corporate decisions. Having said that, one could still make the case that various incentives which made those projects happen have cost the city. The DDA making a loan (if it's paid back) is a good think, but handouts are bad. I'm pretty sure your points were well-made until we got to the part about the stadia-- CoPa had part-City funding, right?
I guess it comes down to cost-benefit to find out if handouts are outweighed by future tax revenues. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3610
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 9:39 am: | |
quote:They thought if downtown got fixed up, everyone would come back. Instead, a ton of people have left from the neighborhoods and big sections look like they're from the Little House on the Prairie.
Yeah, I understand what everyone else is saying (all good points), but it still doesn't justify what Daddeeo just said. How could someone prevent that from happening? The people wo are taking pride in their home are usually living in a little house on the prairie. Then people come back watery eyed when their home doesn't look like it used to. |
Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 9:54 am: | |
For most municipalities, commercial real estate adds money to the coffers, residential usually costs more money than they take in for the government. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 920
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 12:00 pm: | |
People are moving back through. The spark in life in downtown Detroit has caused the neighbourhoods close to downtown to revive, like Corktown, etc.
Once these neighbourhoods fully revive, than it will spread to the outter neighbourhoods.
Also Detroit's outter neighbourhoods look almost like the suburbs. It is the older closer in neighbourhoods that offer something different, that are going to revive first.
It is in the same in Philly and Chicago, etc. The neighbourhoods closest to downtown are reviving, and the outter ones will follow as the closer in hoods start to get really expensive. |
Daddeeo
Member
Username: Daddeeo
Post Number: 135
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 12:45 pm: | |
What outer neighborhoods are you talking about?
Have you seen the intersection of Grand River & Greenfield?
If my neighbor took pride in his place, we wouldn't have wanted to move. Instead, we got an idiot who worked on his car in the street for weeks even though they had a driveway and garage. They also broke in our house when no one was home.
Our old block has burned out and boarded up houses. That's the kind of stuff to cause teary eyes.
Neighbors who don't give a crap helped wreck our neighborhood. This was 30 years ago and it hasn't gotten any better. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2910
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2008 - 11:50 am: | |
quote:A lot of the improvement of the neighborhoods lies on the backs of the citizens in those neighborhoods.
Then why are we collectively pumping $1.3 billion into the City's coffers?
quote:Maintaining your property and raising you kids to be productive citizens goes a long way in determining the success of a neighborhood.
Let's say that I do all of that. What will that do about the drug dealers who are shooting at each other near my house?
quote:The city, however, could benefit from having more police officers. I remember the day when the police force exceeded 5000 officers. Yet, if citizens in many Detroit neighborhoods were doing the "right" things, then you wouldn't need a large police presence, but that's an issue to debate at another time.
Please define "large" as it relates to a police presence.
If the ratio of police officers to residents is on par with the median number for major American cities, is that "large"?
If the ratio of DPD officers/residents is at 90% of that number, is that "large"?
Is an officer/resident ratio of 80% of the national average "large"?
How many police officers do we have to have before we're large?
BTW - the Freep reported back in January that most major American cities have 1 police officer for every 250 residents. In Detroit, the ratio is 1 for every 413.
In order to bring us to within 80% of the national average, we'll have to hire another 836 new police officers.
Who in Detroit is advocating for a "large" police presence?
quote:Also the majority of Detroit's tax base does not come from the neighbourhoods. The majority of Detroit's tax base actually comes from downtown and the Woodward corridor up to New Centre.
Source?
You're arguing that 3 square miles of land generates more property tax revenue than 164 square miles.
quote:The "downtown vs. neighborhoods" debate is completely illogical, with very little factual basis.
All of the examples that you cited were for commercial investment in downtown.
The debate, as I often here, it focuses on city services; not commercial investment. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2813
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 12:15 am: | |
Fnemecek, if more parents are raising their children correctly, then there will be fewer children out in the streets selling drugs and shooting up the neighborhood. Then the police can target the ones who are.
Also, no form of democratic government can tell parents how to raise their children. No police force can be everywhere. If the populace out numbers the police and a high percentage of that populace is committing crimes, then you're going to have a lot of crime.
Quite frankly, Fnemecek, what point were you trying to make in your last post? A "large" police force for me is one that exceeds 5000 amount. The problem with Detroit is because there is so much crime, it actually needs more police than the 5000 that I mentioned above.
The city must get a handle on crime for the city to be safe and livable. Raising your kids right and adding police sounds like a good mix to use to reduce crime. |
|