Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 When do you think the city will bottom out? Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 952
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 3:40 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you take a good look at the city... even givin its current redevelopment... is in dire shape. When we see the redevelopment, all that is really going on is within the Grand Blvd loop, and very little outside except for a few gas stations and a FEW rehabed neighborhoods... but nothing on the scale that can turn around the city.

In my honest opinion, I think that the city has bottomed out within the grand Blvd loop, and can now since it has been depopulated to the point of its skeleton, can rebuild with less fear of crime and can rebuild its services. However, although this includes downtown and many important areas, it does not include much of the city at large. In terms of population that produce tax revenue, most of it resides outside of this, and this is where the population hemmorage is occuring, and where suburbanites point their fingers. Just like when the city was born and expanding at a rapid pace, parts are dying at that pace.. And as we can tell, the only chance for rebirth of those places is after the population has left and that area can begin from the bone.

I also believe that inside the Outer drive loop is very close to bottoming out. It hasnt yet, there are still many populated neighborhoods within it, mostly on the westside, but i can predict that it will take 10 or so years before that region is emptied out. WHat will be left is a ghettofied border region of the city... which are still viable neighborhoods that ahve yet to decline to the status of ghetto (in relativity to Detroit). THis is where the city draws most of its strength and tax revenue and is the most stable part of the city but is also rapidly declining as residents with means move out as fast as humanly possible, and people with lesser means take their place in an endless cycle.

We have seen that once a part of the city has bottomed out, it can finally rebuild. Downtown has seen this, as well as Lafayette park, corktown, and the new center area. Inside the Grand loop, population is increasing and the lights are comming back on... but in terms of making Detroit overall a healthy city, this does nothing but put a vitamin IV into a terminally ill cancer patient.

My point is I firmly believe Detroit has many years to go before it finally will hit the bottom from which it can recover. In all reality I say about 10-15 years before the border neighborhoods get emptied out, and inside the outerdrive loop will be ripe for redevelopment... an area big enough to actually effect a turn around for the city.

Yes Detroit is making many great strides, but they simply arent great enough yet to turn the city around. Detroit needs a population magnet, and sustained and substantial investment draw to its neighborhoods that will repopulate parts of it from year to year... permanently.

THere is still many houses being built out in the the outerburbs and lots of infill housing in the inner burbs. Yes this has slowed greatly in the last year, but it still exists.
What do you think is needed to attract this development into something sustained in the city, where entire neighborhoods are rebuilt at once and then the developer moves on to the next one.

I will hope that the same 3 things dont keep comming up because people will live there regardless and find other ways around them if they really want to live there. Many outer suburbs have shitty schools.... and many parents homeschool or send their children to private school. Crime is pretty bad out in Romeo and in the boonies... its pretty easy to get your tools stolen... and if you look at New york or chicago... this hasnt done jack to stop those cities from staying viable. In LA a house covered in security bars will STILL go for a mint 400+. So what does that leave... Taxes... People pay astronomical taxes in Northville, and other well to do suburbs. If these people get the services in return, taxes dont matter so much. In all reality, people will pay an extra 100$ a month in property taxes if they really want to live in an area... Detroits taxes are high, but they are only marginally higher than everywhere else. Taxes arent cheap... bottom line.


SO what is going to attract new residents... Transit maybe? If so, the corridors leading into the city and into downtown will become more viable business districts, and will have a place to draw residents and customers from.... Perhaps this will bring redevelopment to the surrounding neighborhoods. BUt that still leaves many parts of the city that brance out from those corridors and wont be served by them. How would those parts consistantly be rebuilt.

WHere do you think Detroit's population will be when it finally hits the shit rock bottom. 500,000 maybe? Or even less... Remember, 500,000 is still higher than New Orleans was in its heyday.... and is STILL a very large city.


My honest opinion... ITs going to be money. If there is money to be made in Detroit, people will follow. Thats why i mention transit. If will bring money to the city and investment, which brings money, which brings investment, and so on. Downtown is comming online because there is now a crowd forming to make money off. THe casinos bring in money, so they bring in jobs. The riverfront will bring money to the riverfront, which will bring in people, that bring in money. Its a cycle.

SO that leaves this... How do we bring money in to the city?

Im just curious.

if I hear the same BS schools, crime, taxes... please read my entire long winded post... and realize that those dont really matter if people want to live somewhere, and those will ALL improve as a byproduct of repopulation and cant do much to facilitate that. Yes they are important but, they are not the magnet that money is.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 35
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 4:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Taking a break from the Capital One Bowl where my alma mater UW is currently ahead of Auburn 17-zip midway through the 2nd quarter. Wisconsin will succeed where UM couldn't...

Detroit gained its population base from immigration and the second generation of those immigrants and later went downhill when their descendants chose to live better, more cheaply, and safely elsewhere. The only area of Detroit that steadily gained in population since 1990 is SW Detroit - again being fueled by legal and illegal immigration of Hispanics and Arabs, plus those that continued to remain in that neighborhood.

Still, there are business failures in SW Detroit due to its being "overstored." Too many small merchants, not enough customers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1390
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 70.236.173.166
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 6:33 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Manufacturing jobs brought people to Detroit in the 1900s. Copper, iron, and timber brought them here in the 1800s. The fur trade brought them here in the 1700s. What industry will bring people back to Detroit? When we can figure that out we'll all be millionnaires.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2922
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 7:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, one has to ask themselves: Where is the viable economy? There isn't really one. What must also be asked if that outside of the urban pioneers why should any average American choose to move here over somewhere else where they can find a good job and a workable, livable city? If the city can't even provide efficient trash pick up and public safety services why should any family want to "downgrade?" You could always argue that they could move into the more stable neighborhoods in the city, but even those have less retail amentiies and the like than the average urban neighborhood in most any other city (even rustbelt).

With all of that said, the people that have already stuck it out and stayed in the city should stay. They have been able to make it work for them, which is why I'm always a little confused that instead of upgrading to a house in the city they run just across the border or out of state. Still, there is a good deal of reshuffling going on in terms of concentrating population where it's going to matter for the future of the city. Most of the new housing is being filled up by Detroiters. Repopulation within Old Detroit must first be done first to hope to save the rest of the city, IMO. Unless you bring everyone closer to the center, there isn't any strength in numbers. It's much easier to serivce and cover a city half-its former self, in half its former area than what Detroit is trying to do right now in cover less than half its former population (and way less than half it's former tax base) within the same amount of area.

Of course, I realize that it's easy to sit back and armchair quarterback, and that people are proud of their neighborhoods all across the city, but that doesn't mean that citizens and government shouldn't start asking themselves the hard questions (really, the questions that should have been asked back in the 60's). The city can either continue to ignore the inevitable reality, or have reality pass it even further by until there is little left to save.
Top of pageBottom of page

Atl_runner
Member
Username: Atl_runner

Post Number: 1757
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.209.118.72
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 7:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just when you think she hit bottom, she takes another drink.
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 954
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 7:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Matty Maroun wants to bring in shipping to Detroit, and hopefully bypass Chicago making Detroit the trade center of the Midwest. Do you think this may add the jobs and income that could start a new real estate boom in the city?

In all reality, thats the key, is to generate a real estate boom. WIthout that there is no recovery.

I still stand by mass transit on the main corridors into the city... I think that could be enough to bring investment into those regions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5

Post Number: 118
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 68.61.55.140
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Unless there is a huge turn around at the "Big Three" Detroit is going to get much worse before it gets better.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 774
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 64.12.116.195
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Unless there is a huge turn around at the "Big Three" Detroit is going to get much worse before it gets better.




I don't agree with this. Although the auto manufacturers are still important the city is less dependent on them now than at any time in the last 80 years.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2924
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:33 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, the Big Three will still have most of their white collar jobs here. The bluec-collar work was outsourced long ago. GM, for instance, could continue to become less and less important, and it wouldn't change much at corporate.

Alexei, population gain is not necessarily the end all/be all of a recovery. Detroit could essentially become a rich city again with attracting few new residents. Industry and commerce bring in FAR more money for the tax base than residential. In theory, you could bring back a huge amount of commerce that require much fewer residents and bring the city back. A real estate boom is not needed, though it would be nice. Population gain would really only have a direct impact on the almost non-existent quality retail base of the city.

Shipping could be a huge industry for Detroit, but as for it passing Chicago, that is highly debatable. The very reason for Chicago's growth was it's location, and it has all of the major regions rail lines going in right to it. In fact, St. Louis would have been the "Chicago" of the Midwest if it would have been able to persuade the rail companies to make it the hub. Those days are past for both Detorit and St. Louis, and Detroit's really out of the way unless you're talking about internationl trade between Canada and the U.S.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 1617
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.2.148.250
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The city bottomed out in the late 80's. IMO.
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 316
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 71.10.63.140
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:54 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i agree with barnesfoto.

i guess population could drop to maybe 750k,mostly the poor leaving anyway now since there is not much of a middle class anyway.... but by then i would imagine a more stable middle class, as downtown will likely have many many more residents
Top of pageBottom of page

Jenniferl
Member
Username: Jenniferl

Post Number: 221
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 4.229.42.10
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 9:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree that Detroit hit bottom in the 1980s. Back then, there was NO development in the city. At least now there's something, even if all of it is concentrated within the Grand Blvd. loop.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 2121
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.167.58.137
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 9:23 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It bottomed out in 1994-5. Been rising ever since, slowly, two steps forward, one backward, but up and up she goes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Shave
Member
Username: Shave

Post Number: 988
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 172.153.191.131
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 9:59 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would like to piggy-back off of Lmichigan's earlier post. Lmichigan, after you made the following statement...:

"Unless you bring everyone closer to the center, there isn't any strength in numbers."

...my wheels began to spin. The city has barren wastelands throughout its 141 square miles. One issue I see is that leadership is trying to hold itself responsible for all 141 square miles when the money and manpower currently aren't there. Any new development within the neighborhoods need to be concentrated to create a denser Detroit. Areas that can be realistically developed (the Far Eastside project comes to mind) should be developed so that the citizenry that remains are redirected and concentrated in a smaller more homogenized area. It seems that perhaps by bringing people in close proximity to each other, then city services will not be stretched so thinly. The idea to repopulate Detroit should be shelved and the focus should primarily center around making Detroit "smaller" (by smaller, I mean shifting the remaining and incoming population towards the center as well as towards areas that are showing the greatest and fastest route to full-fledged redevelopment). I have heard stories of streets with one to two remaining homes on the entire city block. If people choose to live in such virtual isolation in a cash-strapped city, then so be it. Let them be on their own. I know this is harsh and I could care less about the fact that people "worked hard all their lives and blah...blah...blah..." There will be ethical arguments surrounding this "forced" population shift. But which is worse, a forced shifting of the remaining population in order to provide better services OR to continue the downward trend associated with massive population loss and poor city services?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2927
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 10:12 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I talked about that in another thread, as well. While a forced repopulation would go against everything democratic, repopulating the inner, older Detroit should be greatly encouraged.

City leadership should really grow the balls to simply tell its citizens that the city can ONLY guarantee all city services (in an efficient manner) within a certain, set area. I think it's nearly criminal for the city to continue to the charade that they can deliver all city services to EVERY square mile of the city in an efficient manner if at all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Shave
Member
Username: Shave

Post Number: 989
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 172.153.191.131
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 10:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry. I wasn't aware that you had mentioned this earlier. Your earlier post on this thread just struck a chord within me. You are correct, the city's administration must step up its leadership and make the tough decisions. The leadership's battlecry that "all is well" even in the face of massive layoffs, declining population, increasing unemployment, unpoliced/underpoliced sections of the city, etc. is criminal (at best) as you pointed out. The city owns huge swaths of land within Detroit. A map of the city needs to be laid out on the drawing board, a comprehensive development plan needs to be drawn up, and a plan to efficiently manage a severely scaled down city must implemented. Otherwise, the state will have no other options other than to intervene.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 36
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 10:38 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some questions for Lowell:

In 1994-5, were there serious discussions about the city going into receivership?

In 1994-5, did Ford's and GM's bonded debt securities (some $280+ billion for GM, alone) ever go several notches below "junque" status?
[I won't bring up the bankruptcy scenarios.]

In 1994-5, was the population still comfortably in excess of one million?

In 1994-5, was there still copper atop the Lee Plaza?

In 1994-5...
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2929
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 11:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Certain things have gotten better, and obviously Lowell wasn't talking a bottoming out in the population of the city. There are quite a few areas of the city drastically better then in 1994-5. To use an anology, the disease that has plagued the city has already taken over, and scabbed over, and is beginning to heal in the center. Now, the periphery is going to bottom out and get sick before it is able to get better. Detroit is indeed healing itself even if the results can't be widely seen at this very moment in time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Silverbeauty
Member
Username: Silverbeauty

Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 69.133.93.33
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 1:25 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the hotel/casinos will bring in money for the city. I realize a lot of the money will stay in the casino, but if Detroit can turn into an entertainment district, this will bring in lots of tourists and tourists bring in lots of money.

The hotels will offer conference centers which will bring in business meetings and such.


Hopefully, the casinos will help fuel the growth that has already started, and help kickstart the older neighborhoods regrowth.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 38
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 1:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Probably any state that has an Indian tribe has at least one casino. Why would people outside MI come here to throw away their money? Been to WI lately? Casinos are everywhere over there. Gambling won't help much except for a relatively miniscule number of low-pay service-sector jobs.

Conventions are also a big money-loser for many cities. Too much excess capacity there already for a dying industry. Telecommuting is taking its toll there. No needed travel, lodging costs, etc. Entire continents can be interconnected within a few hours planning. Only the construction lobby interests will benefit at the city's (and taxpayers') expense.

People rarely get addicted to MacDonald's - a better revenue source than casinos for the community. Not many file for bankruptcy for over-frequenting them.

Pray tell. Tell us how the three Detroit casinos are saving the city now. How does the Windsor casino help Detroit due to its proximity? Back to the drawing board...
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 324
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 71.10.63.140
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 1:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Without the casinos, detroit would be screwed much worse than it is today. How many millions are EACH casino paying to the city in taxes???

And, no, the casinos arent necessarily going to attract out of state tourists. BUT, they will continue to attract many of the 4 million ppl in the Metro region that otherwise wouldnt be in the city. And, for those that come to detroit on business or for sporting events, etc, the casinos are used as well. Once the casinos have the theatres ready, more shows will come here and will continue to interest ppl into coming downtown.

Plus, for each person coming to the casino, they are paying for parking (not always casino parking either), riding a shuttle/people mover, eating dinner somewhere downtown, or even staying the night...all of these contribute to the businesses downtown, and all of these contribute to the city coffers.

That is how the casinos are helping detroit. Saving Detroit, no. But keeping it afloat, you bet

(Message edited by motorcitymayor2026 on January 03, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Czar
Member
Username: Czar

Post Number: 2806
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 129.137.179.184
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 2:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with Barnesfoto, I remember the late 80's as bleak.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 724
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 205.188.116.201
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 2:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The casino's are not the end all fix the city answer, but they do help. And they may not attract as many people from outside out area as some would claim, but they keep the money here instead of going across the border into Canada. I know my Grandparents have taken a few bus trips from Grand Rapids to the casinos in Detroit and loved it. It was the first time they have been in Detroit in 30 years and they loved it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bobj
Member
Username: Bobj

Post Number: 316
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 65.221.183.120
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 2:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The 80's were very bad with really no development going on, businesses closing left and right and really almost no businesses opening. Residential development had to be close to zero.

Although it is hard to tell in some parts of the City, I think the turnaround has begun in many parts of the City.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bongman
Member
Username: Bongman

Post Number: 895
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 198.111.56.128
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 3:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I must be a pessimist, but Detroit hasn't hit bottom yet....not when you are losing the amount of population this city is. Looking at the big picture, without jobs, Cleveland & Buffalo have a better shot long-term of recruiting permanent residents than this area does. If it's not for employment, why live here ? I see Detroit bottoming out around 650,000 people....maybe even lower unless some jobs show up. The elevator is still falling in my opinion.....and that's the whole Metro area long-term, not just the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Track75
Member
Username: Track75

Post Number: 2173
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.19.77
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 4:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I moved downtown in '90 and the difference between the area then and now is like night and day (no casinos, no stadii, jsu a few raw lofts, no new housing). For every place that closed up (the Rivertown spots, for example) there are probably 5 - 10 new ones somewhere. The CBD has made great strides and the momentum will continue IMO despite the city's and region's financial and other problems. Urbanism is "in".

The story in the rest of the city is much more mixed. The "name" neighborhoods are stable, SW has come a long way and there's activity in localized pockets all over. On the flip side, the population continues to drop and that hits the already sparse regular neighborhoods where it hurts. I'm afraid to say how far "down" will be for some of the neighborhoods.

On the "bottoming out" topic, one way of dating a bottom is by real estate prices. When did home prices in the city stop falling and begin their impressive year-over-year rises? Early 90's, or later? (I remember a bulletin board ad at work in the mid-80's where someone was selling their house and their car. The car was more expensive than the house.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Billybbrew
Member
Username: Billybbrew

Post Number: 108
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 152.163.100.195
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 7:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard, Please e-mail me... Thank you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bibs
Member
Username: Bibs

Post Number: 434
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 205.188.116.201
Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 11:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In the last two centuries a growth industry: mining, lumber or automotive, lured people by the thousands to Highland Park, Detroit and the state. Many came from the South and Europe. A college education was not required for these manufacturing jobs.

The metro region needs another growth industry or a series of smaller growth industries such as alternative fuels, nanotechnology. These jobs require a college degree and in most cases advance degrees.

Michigan was just lucky to have had an abundance of lumber and iron ore that lead to the developed of businesses which formed the foundation of the automotive industry. I think we are going to have to work hard for the next growth industry rather than relying on Mother Earth or luck. Otherwise, people will follow the jobs and the money trail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tomoh
Member
Username: Tomoh

Post Number: 51
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.40.189.92
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 1:14 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit would do great if it could just attract the tourism dollars of the 5-6 million people in the metro region. The 'casino economy' combined with walkable restaurant neighborhoods like Greektown as well as Mexicantown is one way to do it. The casinos, stadia, and theaters (and their parking garages) take up a pretty large chunk of downtown real estate, one must admit.

Leave it to the suburbs to figure out how to keep coming up with the money to spend in Detroit. ;)

Bibs, the metro region including Ann Arbor produces more high tech/advanced degrees than can be employed locally. They finish school, don't try or can't find any jobs in their field around Detroit, and thus leave for the coasts. So we have two more problems, creating companies that can use people with advanced degrees as well as creating cities where such in-demand young people would like to live and work.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2942
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 1:33 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wouldn't bank on tourism as a major factor in the future success of Detroit. It could be a nice, little part of the platform, but it shouldn't be relied upon to do anything major for the region.

(Message edited by lmichigan on January 04, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Frank_c
Member
Username: Frank_c

Post Number: 391
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 152.163.100.195
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 2:43 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The "immortal Question"
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 2126
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.167.58.137
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 3:46 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Track makes a good point about real estate prices. They turn around in the early mid-90's. In some neighborhoods with quality housing, like where my house was, the prices doubled then tripled by 2000. Mind you the prices were absurdly deflated, but still it was clear that change had come. They haven't retreated.

Another thing one sees are the thousands of new housing units in the neighborhoods and downtown; this is a city that had had years with no residential permits being issued. By 1994 downtown was a dying Greektown with drab failed Trapper's Alley, a gloomy Ren Cen and a fledgling Fox Theater. Many times you could have shot a cannon down Woodward from GCP and not worried about hitting anyone.

Sure the population has declined in the C of D, but so it did, in even greater proportion, in Ferndale and Royal Oak' but that did not deter rise of those communities.

The developments that have occurred since can be measured in the tens of billions and are now clearly visible to all.

Crime, while still too much, nonetheless has steadily declined since then. The rates are far below those days and still going down.

The CofD still has problems because it has to shoulder the problems for all the other cities in the metro, but it is slowly but surely rising inspite of it all. The Detroit of Superbowl XL, particularly downtown, is different as day and night from that of 1994.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2945
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 4:53 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But population loss is still a major factor is determining a bottoming out. It's hard to make a case that a city bleeding population just as fast (if not faster if you believe current estimates) as in the 90's has already bottomed out. While central city booms are nice, this has very little to do with the city as a whole. There are still neighborhoods (many) that will almost certainly get worse before they start to get better. Central Detroit may have bottomed out a few years ago, but Central Detroit is but a very small chunk of the city, something like 26 square miles and 150,000-200,000 persons.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 2127
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.167.58.137
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 2:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well what about Ferndale and Royal Oak losing population at a higher rate than Detroit? Indeed the entire Woodward Corridor, every community from the straits through Birmingham, lost population in the last census. Even prosperous Birmingham, Huntington Woods, and Pleasant Ridge weren't immune. The bleeding population theory does not hold. Like Track notes, real estate prices and investment pace tell more.
Top of pageBottom of page

Brandon48202
Member
Username: Brandon48202

Post Number: 42
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 68.248.15.192
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 2:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Population loss in places like Birmingham and Royal Oak is largely related to kids moving out and household sizes shrinking.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 42
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 2:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sports venues and casinos are the major players in your investment scenario. When I witness a major retail, commercial district in Detroit, then I'll believe it. Kroger's newest store on Gratiot and Lappin has been closed for some time, as well as the K-Mart megamart (near 7 Mile & Myers) in the West side. Whoopy-doo, a drug store downtown, competing with the dollar stores...

Speculators could be buying residential real estate also, inflating its cost. Remember those suckers who paid $850/ounce for gold eons ago. They haven't recovered yet...
Top of pageBottom of page

Ilovedetroit
Member
Username: Ilovedetroit

Post Number: 1908
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 63.149.5.130
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 3:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the city hit rock bottom years ago. However, the region is going to be hitting bottom soon (GM is laying off hundreds of contract workers this week)...we need to start (and it is being done at some levels in the city) a plan to diversify what we offer. We need to build off the casinos into the entertainment sector. I think shipping is a great idea. We also need to get the downtown under a wireless system to appear more friendly and open to business and residences. I personally think the greatest assets in the region are 1. Our riverfront 2. The level of technically competent people who live in the region.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 43
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 3:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Re: shipping

When the former bankrupt Boat Yard reopened, the newspaper said it would utilize some 70 workers. What's 70 workers compared to the total unemployment figure? Besides, the people downriver who run the place probably brought their own workers there anyway, so there probably were no new workers hired.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 808
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.25.177.194
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 3:26 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Take a look at the city of Tempe, AZ which has recently made wireless internet available over the entire metropolitan area. The wifi serves not only the largest university in the country, but also the entire business & residential areas of the city. Very popular and definitely gives the city an upbeat, ahead-of-its-rivals image.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2472
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.184.154
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 3:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh gee, only 70 jobs on an unused or underutilized piece of property. Why even bother?

We should reject anything that doesn't offer at least a 1,000 jobs?

I see 70 more well-paid jobs in a City that needs every ONE it can get. Plus what about the spinoffs, clerks to track shipments for the buisinesses, truckers, etc.

Livernoisyard, your pessimism goes beyond belief.
Is there anything you appreciate about the City that many of us choose as our home?
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 44
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 4:30 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like to see Detroit come back, but I'm realistic in addition to being pessimistic. Receivership will be better in the long-term. That way the connections with the past special interests might get broken. I'm basically mirroring what Joe Harris, the former city auditor general kept saying the past year of his 10-year tenure. He said that the city essentially needs to be redone and that its current and past leadership - mayor or council wasn't doing enough to matter. He stated that the special interests that were bankrolling the candidates were to blame.

Why use a band-aid when a tourniquet or major surgery is required? Yes, any new business should be welcomed. But the sweetheart-deal moving the East-side riverfront cement silos was done at city, err taxpayer's, expense, etc.

But be advised, not everything the city does is beneficial or cost-effective. It hasn't yet tackled its public-sector employment problems. E.g., there are too many schools and teachers for a city its size, etc. Not everybody should have a nearby neighborhood school if the population density doesn't warrant it. The new school board is acting on this now.

Once prosperous Highland Park is under receivership, and it hasn't fallen off the map yet.

When investors and prospective residents sense that Detroit is living within its means, businesses and people will come back. Some here might not like that, because the hated "gentrification" will rear its "ugly head" when it occurs. That's what MidTown development will mean. The professionals at Wayne State, Compuware, and the Medical Center will move there. If you rent there, you may not be able to afford it. If you own property, you should be able to sell at a decent price or choose to remain.
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 955
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 5:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OK... realistically.. Detroit has a long way to go down. Sorry.. but its true. If 1 part is getting better but 7 are getting worse, is it a net gain? Thats the real issue. The CBD, although the most important, is not the City of Detroit as a whole. THe Eastside has the best chance for revival (and only the FAR eastside BTW) but the west side is falling farther and farther into the shitter, and unfortunatly that is where much of Detroit's $$ strength comes from.

Matty maroun is planning on expanding the shipyards in Detroit... and is planing on making Detroit the Great lakes shipping capitol of the mid west. THere are still plenty of goods comming over from europe and from brazil and such that are cheaper to send in from ship into Detroit than to unload several times in the south. Matty wants to expand intermodal operations here and this can have a very direct revenue impact on the city.

WHy is population important??? Because the biggest problem causing the city's decay is under utilization. WIthout more population, more schools will close, more services will not be provided for and more houses will be torn down. REMEMBER that the city was built for 2 million people, and needs that much to be fully occupied. REMEMBER that even with 2 million people in it, Detroit WASNT that densly populated... adding to a bigger dilema now that it has nearly one third that amount. ALso remember that if Detroit lost another 150,000 people... it would be the same as losing the city of Sterling heights.... ENTIRELY!. Population is important, because they are what will populate the desolate regions of the city. The city's future is in real estate people... and that means it needs population.


THE ONLY resource Detroit has is an over abundance of vacant housing and land. That means that Real estate is what can turn this city around since no other resources are avaible at the moment to provide the necessary revenue for a full recovery. No iron around, no auto jobs, no computers, nothing. FOR THE MOMENT, real estate is all the city has, so we need to use it. THat means adding transit to make that land more valuable to businesses, which in turn will make the housing stock around them more attractive, and so on.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.