Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 A Lesson For Detroit Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2348
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.25.177.194
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:05 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Ersatz Urban Renaissance

The Wall Street Journal

By JOEL KOTKIN
May 15, 2006; Page A14

Even amidst a strong economic expansion, the most recent census data reveal a renewed migration out of our urban centers. This gives considerable lie to the notion, popularized over a decade, that cities are enjoying a historic rebound. The newest figures are troubling on two accounts. Not only are the perennial losers -- Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Detroit -- continuing to empty out, but some of our arguably most attractive cities, like Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Chicago, have lost population since 2000. Even New York, where foreign immigration has managed to counteract large scale outmigration, seems to be slowing down.

Equally troubling may be the reasons why this population shift is occurring, and how profoundly clueless most mayors and city officials around the country seem to be about addressing the problem. Almost everyone notes that skyrocketing housing prices in urban areas, particularly on the coasts, have both masked and contributed to this phenomena. Cities with the highest rates of loss of domestic migrants -- San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Boston -- have also enjoyed (or suffered) some of the highest rates of housing appreciation in the nation.

To some urban boosters, this appreciation alone suggests the overall vitality of cities. Academic theorists like Richard Florida claim the outmigration stems from a surge of affluent, well-educated small households -- his much vaunted "creative class" -- pushing out middle-class families and others among the less gifted. This may be partly true, particularly in some coveted neighborhoods, but overall Dr. Florida's notion seems to me a play on Yogi Berra's remark about a place being so crowded nobody goes there any more. Cities now can claim to be successful since they are losing their people.

Part of this may be explained by the tapering housing bubble, which has created a false notion of an "urban renaissance" driven by, among other things, empty-nesters returning to the city. The outmigration numbers suggest this may not be as true, or as permanent, as the boosters think. In many urban cores, from New York to San Diego, large numbers of condo units, in some cases upward of a third, have been bought not by new urbanites but by speculators. Many others have been purchased by part-time residents. Much the same has occurred in other cities around the world -- from Toronto and Sydney to London and Paris -- where pied--terres and speculative buyers increasingly have influenced the trajectory of urban housing markets. So we have the odd phenomena of more housing units, at higher costs, but fewer full-time residents.

Extreme urban housing prices are also in large part the product of political constraints. As Harvard's Ed Glaeser has pointed out, regulatory restraints, neighborhood "nimbyism" and "smart growth" policies have played a large role in driving up housing prices by restraining supply, particularly outside favored downtown districts where, after all, there are few neighbors around to object to new construction.

Far more important, the notion that the upper income residents are to blame, or perhaps should take credit, for middle-class flight can only be applied to a handful of cities. After all, it's hard to credit yuppies for the continuing outmigration from places like Cleveland and Detroit. As the Brookings Institution's demographer William Frey suggests, "There aren't enough yuppies around to save Detroit."

Then there's the economy. Comparatively little has been said about the economic underpinnings of urban outmigration, particularly among the middle class. Yet the facts since the beginning of the decade are pretty plain. In virtually every region of the U.S., economic growth has been far more robust in the suburbs than in the cities. Take Philadelphia, whose "center city" renaissance has become the stuff of urban legend. Over the past decade, the city, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has lost 4.4% of its jobs. In contrast, the surrounding south Jersey suburbs have gained 23.2%. Even more disturbing, these job losses in Philadelphia and other urban centers have included those very fields -- finance, professional business services and information -- which ostensibly would employ the erstwhile members of Dr. Florida's "creative class." Since 2002 professional business service jobs in Philadelphia have dropped 2% and financial services by roughly 8.5%. In contrast, the south Jersey suburbs have enjoyed an 18.7% jump in professional business service jobs and a 10% increase in finance employment.

As a result, the gain in an affluent population in center city has clearly failed to revive the economy of Philly's core. Some estimate that since 1990 the number of jobs downtown has actually dropped as much as 15%. So central city residents increasingly "reverse commute" to where the jobs are, the surrounding suburbs.

The Philadelphia story is not unique. Other long-established elite business centers, including Boston, New York and San Francisco, have seen little or no growth in either financial or professional business services since the national recovery began to take shape three years ago. This is in sharp contrast to the late 1990s dot-com boom, which created a sizable, albeit ultimately fleeting, surge in high-end employment. Nationally the economic outmigration also parallels the demographic one. Like people, jobs are shifting from the high-tax, expensive Northeast and coastal California to relatively affordable locales such as Phoenix, Reno, Las Vegas, Ft. Myers-Cape Coral, Fla., Boise, Idaho, and Provo, Utah.

Housing prices appear to have played an important role here as well. Executives in places like greater Boston or the San Francisco Bay area now complain they cannot staff firms locally since well-educated workers, particularly those in their 30s, can no longer afford to buy houses in these traditional tech centers. Instead, they often opt to expand further out, to areas where a middle-class lifestyle is still within reach. This also explains the movement of professional service companies, for example, from San Francisco to Las Vegas, where not just the slots are ringing. Professional business service employment in that desert city has risen by a remarkable 30% since 2002.

Tony Hsieh, founder of online retailer Zapos, explains that he moved his company out of San Francisco in large part because he could not find qualified service representatives in a city where median housing prices top $700,000. In contrast, he found in Las Vegas, where he moved in 2004 and now employs some 350 people, a large pool of willing workers for whom a customer service job was "not a way station but a career." Other factors such as tax and regulatory costs have also contributed to the shift to cities like Las Vegas. City officials in San Francisco, Philadelphia or Los Angeles often seem to view businesses as geese to be fleeced; in Vegas, Phoenix and other growth areas, a successful entrepreneur or relocated company is more often likely treated as a local hero.

One good thing that can come out of the new census numbers would be a shifting away of urban priorities. Since the dot-com boom, many big city mayors -- such as Baltimore's Martin O'Malley and San Francisco's Gavin Newsom -- have placed their faith on selling their cities primarily as "hip and cool" for the "creative class." By luring talented singles, gays, artists and well-heeled empty-nesters, they hoped, their cities would prosper even as hoi polloi exited for the bland suburbs and exurbs. This explains the widespread enthusiasm among urban boosters for the construction -- often with city subsidy -- of concert halls, museums, fancy restaurants and boutique hotels.

The evidence we have today should suggest that a different approach may be in order. Instead of luring the "hip and cool" with high-end amenities, cities need instead to address issues that concern businesses as well as working- and middle-class families. These include such basic needs as public safety, maintenance of parks, improving public schools, cutting taxes, regulatory reform -- in other words, all those decidedly unsexy things that contribute to maintaining a job base and the hope for upward mobility.

Given the growing challenge posed by the emerging boomtowns as well as the suburbs and exurbs, wannabe "hip cool" cities need to realize they can't thrive merely as amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists. To remain both vital and economically relevant, they must remain anchored by a large middle class, and by families and businesses that feel safe and committed to the urban place.

Mr. Kotkin, an Irvine Senior Fellow with the New America Foundation, is author of "The City: A Global History" (Modern Library, 2005).
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulmcall
Member
Username: Paulmcall

Post Number: 672
Registered: 05-2004
Posted From: 68.40.119.216
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:10 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, what else is new?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 1645
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 69.219.103.109
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:12 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I stopped reading this one as soon as I saw Joel Kotkin's name on this piece. He knows even less about Detroit than Lindsey Lohan knows about sobriety.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dannaroo
Member
Username: Dannaroo

Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 209.254.56.226
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:30 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Given the growing challenge posed by the emerging boomtowns as well as the suburbs and exurbs, wannabe "hip cool" cities need to realize they can't thrive merely as amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists. To remain both vital and economically relevant, they must remain anchored by a large middle class, and by families and businesses that feel safe and committed to the urban place.




I can agree with that quote as a general conclusion for some cities, but being too hip and too cool should be the least of Detroit's worries right now.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rrl
Member
Username: Rrl

Post Number: 490
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 71.213.228.212
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 4:54 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Frank- you may have stopped reading, but seriously, do can you take issue with the comments in the article?

I think the ideas in the last paragraph of the article are key, and ones that the mayor's and council's offices don't think about often enough; they need to ponder and work towards these objectives daily.
Top of pageBottom of page

Apbest
Member
Username: Apbest

Post Number: 60
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 68.40.65.66
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

the operative statement is "city centers". Detroit has lost alot of people, but the urban area of Detroit has grown since the last census, not decreased its population loss, but actually increased its residents.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1446
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.32
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Las Vegas, now that's a city to model yourself after!

Oh, wait a minute...
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2449
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 128.36.108.81
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BV, lol!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimelnino
Member
Username: Jimelnino

Post Number: 451
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 68.248.42.22
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah I don't really see anything new here, people like suburbs, and they will continue to go live in them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1472
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes. One day, people woke up and said, "Fuck this. We like suburbs."
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2450
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 128.36.108.81
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Article makes good points and one troubling one:
[Philadelphia's recent drop in CBD jobs] is not unique. Other long-established elite business centers, including Boston, New York and San Francisco, have seen little or no growth in either financial or professional business services since the national recovery began to take shape three years ago. This is in sharp contrast to the late 1990s dot-com boom, which created a sizable, albeit ultimately fleeting, surge in high-end employment. Nationally the economic outmigration also parallels the demographic one. Like people, jobs are shifting from the high-tax, expensive Northeast and coastal California to relatively affordable locales such as Phoenix, Reno, Las Vegas, Ft. Myers-Cape Coral, Fla., Boise, Idaho, and Provo, Utah.
Another way to look at this is the Walmartification of the US economy now affecting even the highest sector jobs. Low-wage transient domestic employment has its costs ... If skilled workers can not afford to live in our nice cities perhaps our economy CAN NO LONGER AFFORD nice cities? Can our economy, where a mantra of "always low wages, always" has climbed up the economic ladder rung by rung and has now hit the middle management and skilled white collar, really afford the trappings of what had been considered sophisticated urban civilization? If so does this represent a cultural shift (an exurbanification of a previous suburban culture) or something even more troubling and simpler: a poorer nation --- we are just not a rich as we usedta be.

Yay Detroit! GENERATIONS ahead of the curve on this one!

(Message edited by rustic on May 15, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1020
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 69.129.146.186
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:33 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

heh - sounds like some folks are finally waking up to the problem
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 68
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 141.213.66.101
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What is New York's obsession with Detroit? We can't take a shit without one of them talking about how bad it smells...
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1473
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:47 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No, I think Kotkin makes some good points once in a while--like cities need to cater to middle-class people--but he never really explores the causes of flight to the suburbs. He just accepts it as fact, as if it were pre-ordained somehow.

I don't think, Rustic, that the problem is we can't afford "nice" cities. Our nation is wealthier than it ever has been, and we used to be able to afford "nicer" cities than we have now. And with less money. The problem with our cities is that we've dumped all our resources into building unsustainable suburbs, so that there are very little resources left to address the needs of our existing cities.

It's all a question of priorities and political will.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1021
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 69.129.146.186
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:54 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Our nation is wealthier than it ever has been



but the wealth is concentrated, the gap between wealthy and poor grows ever wider


quote:


MONEY AND BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK

Retraining, But for What?
By LOUIS UCHITELLE (NYT)
Published: March 26, 2006

(excerpt)

Saying that the country should solve the skills shortage through education and training became part of nearly every politician's stump speech, an innocuous way to address the politics of unemployment without strengthening either the bargaining leverage of workers or the federal government's role in bolstering labor markets.

But training for what? The reality, as the aircraft mechanics discovered, is painfully different from the reigning wisdom. Rather than having a shortage of skills, millions of American workers have more skills than their jobs require. That is particularly true of college-educated people, who make up 30 percent of the population today, up from 10 percent in the 1960's. They often find themselves working in sales or as office administrators, or taking jobs in hotels and restaurants, or becoming carpenters, flight attendants and word processors.

The number of jobs that require a bachelor's degree has indeed been growing, but more slowly than the number of graduates, according to the Labor Department, and that trend is likely to continue through this decade. ''The average college graduate is doing very well,'' said Lawrence F. Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. ''But on the margin, college graduates appear to be more vulnerable than in the past.''

The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics offers a rough estimate of the imbalance in the demand for jobs as opposed to the supply. Each month since December 2000, it has surveyed the number of job vacancies across the country and compared it with the number of unemployed job seekers. On average, there were 2.6 job seekers for every job opening over the first 41 months of the survey. That ratio would have been even higher, according to the bureau, if the calculation had included the millions of people who stopped looking for work because they did not believe that they could get decent jobs.

So the demand for jobs is considerably greater than the supply, and the supply is not what the reigning theory says it is. Most of the unfilled jobs pay low wages and require relatively little skill, often less than the jobholder has. From the spring of 2003 to the spring of 2004, for example, more than 55 percent of the hiring was at wages of $13.25 an hour or less: hotel and restaurant workers, health care employees, temporary replacements and the like.

That trend is likely to continue. Seven of the 10 occupations expected to grow the fastest from 2002 through 2012, according to the Labor Department, pay less than $13.25 an hour, on average: retail salesclerks, customer service representatives, food service workers, cashiers, janitors, nurse's aides and hospital orderlies.

The $13.25 threshold is important. More than 45 percent of the nation's workers, whatever their skills, earned less than $13.25 an hour in 2004, or $27,600 a year for a full-time worker. That is roughly the income that a family of four must have in many parts of the country to maintain a standard of living minimally above the poverty level. Surely lack of skill and education does not hold down the wages of nearly half the work force.

Something quite different seems to be true: the oversupply of skilled workers is driving people into jobs beneath their skills and driving down the pay of jobs equal to their skills.


Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2453
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DaninDC, if the suburbs contract, housing prices in the cities and inner rings burbs go even further through the roof. If you think prices in, for example, Park Slope, Brooklyn are ridiculous now, imagine if lower middle class buyers were competing for housing with people from Suffolk County as well as the displaced Manhattanites and Brooklyn residents.

Dan, look at your city. In greater DC lower middle class families with children are pretty much unable to live reasonably within walking distance to DCs magnificent public transportation system. Without making significant sacrifices (in either $$ or lifestyle), they are essentially priced out of being able to exploit a tremendous regional asset. Further, if they do live in the region without making these sacrifices they live in distant low quality nasty miserable suburbia where they can afford a home. Consider Arlington, once upon a time mostly a middle class/lower middle class bedroom community (ie. families). IT is now chock-a-block with high density development clustered about metro stops. The vast majority of residential development is NOT family friendly (in terms of size or ammenities) and it is dificult to imagine any senario where or how it could be since most available land has been developed already. What little family-friendly development exists (e.g. row houses with convenient parks) has insane prices (forget about the single family houses in Arlington). So, what happened to the sorta people who usedta live in Arlington ... well they sure can't afford Reston, Vienna or Maclean, right? ... what they are doing is they are living waaaay the hell out in BFE VA feeding the beast.

Dan, it seems the only way around this is to force policies of either mixed income/mixed development or directly subsidized housing in DC, otherwise inside the beltway will be simply for the very poor, the very rich and the fraction of the middle with circumstantially high disposable income (ie DINKS, young single profesionals, etc). And THAT touches on what I was talking about re not being as $$$ as we usedta be.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 122
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 68.166.44.44
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc --- "The problem with our cities is that we've dumped all our resources into building unsustainable suburbs, so that there are very little resources left to address the needs of our existing cities."

You live there Dan, do you really think Fairfax County & Montgomery County are unsustainable? These two are unequivocally the power centers of DC area. And 'force affordable housing' -- this is America, Dan.

What are you talking about?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1474
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:06 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Points well taken, Rustic. DC is a unique example because of the growing number of jobs and the highly educated populace. What about in the case of the Detroits and Clevelands, and a lot of other places in the U.S.? If a region's population hasn't grown in 30 years, I think you can easily justify cutting the subsidies for new suburban construction.

I'll readily admit, though, DC's policies on affordable housing are pretty nonexistent, and it stinks. That's not to say that everyone should be able to afford a 3000 sf house on 1/4 acre lot (within walking distance of the subway) that is the expected norm in outer suburbia, but middle class families should have options other than the boonies.
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 147
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 68.62.6.147
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've said it a ton of times every time housing comes up here.

Build suburban style neighborhoods in the city.

Put a little space between houses and put them on bigger lots.

You also need to build houses that people can afford mix in some houses and condos that cost 80-150,000. Everything being build in the city is 250,000 and up.

Add Detroits sky high taxes and insurance rates to that mortgage and your staying north of 8.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2380
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 68.230.22.99
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:08 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

321brian = best post today.
Top of pageBottom of page

Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd

Post Number: 628
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.242.214.106
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:25 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Everything being build in the city is 250,000 and up.




???

Most of the new housing being built in the city goes for much less than this. The new $250,000+ units are landmark projects that get most of the media attention, but there is plenty of new units going up cheaper than this.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 169
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 24.192.25.47
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:50 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some of us here know that, some do not. But I would be willing to bet the public collectively is not aware of cheap market-rate housing being built in Detroit.

I believe there's a failure in marketing by some of these developers. Small real-estate signs placed on E. Grand with arrows pointing "New homes this way" isn't what's needed. (for example)
Top of pageBottom of page

Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl

Post Number: 772
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 69.14.30.175
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:52 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

[Philadelphia's recent drop in CBD jobs] is not unique. Other long-established elite business centers, including Boston, New York and San Francisco, have seen little or no growth in either financial or professional business services since the national recovery began to take shape three years ago.




how many empty storefronts and decayed buildings does one see in any of these cities' cbd's?

i don't see how the limited vantage point of the author, and the selective quoting applied to it, construct a "lesson" for detroit?

again: a metropolis with a vibrant core calls its suburbs "expansion," while a metropolis with a core in distress calls its suburbs "sprawl."
Top of pageBottom of page

Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 1147
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 68.73.202.124
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 1:19 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

321brian = best post today.



Oh come on, it wasn't that good. Building suburban neighborhoods by itself won't get that many people to move south of 8 mile, why bother if you're already in a suburban style neighborhood? Of course, there is plenty of room in the city to build some suburban-scale housing, and some has been built, but there's not *that* much demand for it.

Granted, property taxes need to be lowered somewhat somehow, there aren't too many that disagree with that.


quote:

As the Brookings Institution's demographer William Frey suggests, "There aren't enough yuppies around to save Detroit."



I guess this is an interesting question... yeah, there probably aren't enough around to "save" the whole city, but there are easily enough in the region to help make some core areas viable (CBD, midtown, rivertown, what have you), along with other people, if they wanted to move here.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2385
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 68.230.22.99
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 1:38 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just a quick, geographically close comparison:

Thecarl (who needs to correct the spelling of what I presume is his first name:-)) says: "again: a metropolis with a vibrant core calls its suburbs "expansion," while a metropolis with a core in distress calls its suburbs "sprawl."

Think about Chicago - a vibrant downtown that 'burbanites yearn to visit. Downtown doesn't lament the burbs or vice versa. Each has its own qualities & detractions - and folks in the know move back and forth to enjoy the amenities of each unique place.

If only Detroit had been able to hold onto the same treasures.

(Just kidding, thecarl!)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 999
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.142.86.133
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 2:15 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its always about money. Its funny how it explains almost everything.

People can do the simple math that they get more house and more land for the same $ outside a city. They move there because the extra commute time and fuel costs, etc are outweighed by the gains. If they didn't out weigh them, they wouldn't live there.

Everything else is a side effect of this. At one time people's priorities were somewhat different.

On the other hand, it seems outward expansion from a center core has been happening since the beginning of time. Even just Detroit. Started downtown and migrated out. Its still migrating. Jobs that used to be downtown were then put on Grand Blvd, then Outer Drive, then 8 mile, then oakland/Macomb/Wayne county.

Nothings really new. Its always about value for the dollar.

Unfortunately it seems equilibrium cannot be met, and that despite the value of land and homes in Detroit, the value proposition seems better by moving the other way. Fix the taxes, safety, and schools and people will come back. Create value in Detroit.

Those who are still around either can't afford the expense to get out, or decide to stay for some other reason than their pocketbook.

But most people vote with their wallets. Eventually Royal Oak and Rochester Hills become "too expensive" and they'll move again.

I've said it many times, the ONLY way to stop this is to make the extra $ of commuting longer distances outweigh the value of a larger home and property. Only then will it stop.

Wherever people think is a better value, they'll go. That value might be based on home, property, school, safety, race, commute, whatever. But the bottom line is however those balance is where most people will chose to go.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2389
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 68.230.22.99
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 2:46 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speaking of burbs vs city centers, we must not forget a "deadly combo" that perhaps began the most significant migration to the burbs from the D.

It was Henry Ford who rebelled, not wanting to live with other wealthy folks in GP or with the young rich in Indian Village (including his only chlld) and built the most expansive part of Ford, along with his own estate, in then-rural Dearborn (see other threads for the many previous names of Dearborn) Ford wished for Dearborn to be self-sufficient, and throughout the '60's, long after his death in 1947) crops were grown on and around Fairlane (the Ford estate) and were visible from the intersection of Southfield Fwy and Michigan Ave.

The other part of the "deadly combo" was Ford's outrageously high wage of $5/day, allowing many of his own workers to buy his products) thus giving them the mobility to, among other things, move to the burbs.

A lot was going on even 'way back then that had huge implications for the eventual flow of folks into - and out of - the City of Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Steelworker
Member
Username: Steelworker

Post Number: 657
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 68.248.80.250
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 3:11 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ANNEXATION is the solution to it all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Themax
Member
Username: Themax

Post Number: 13
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 69.246.123.118
Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 6:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And there is the part of the WSJ piece that should speak to all the legislators champing at the bit to end the SBT:

"The evidence we have today should suggest that a different approach may be in order. Instead of luring the "hip and cool" with high-end amenities, cities need instead to address issues that concern businesses as well as working- and middle-class families. These include such basic needs as public safety, maintenance of parks, improving public schools, cutting taxes, regulatory reform -- in other words, all those decidedly unsexy things that contribute to maintaining a job base and the hope for upward mobility."
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 700
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.42.220.37
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 12:16 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I disagree with the article. Cities are no place for children. SF has the lowest percentage of persons under 18 years of any city in the country, probably the world.

Families are expensive for cities. For one thing you have to provide school. Then, you get a lot of 16-21 year olds commmitting crime.

What the cities need to do is absorb affluent childless knowlege workers and foist off the burden of child-rearing on the suburbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 3403
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.249.240.47
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 12:32 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Please don't give Karl an opening to his favorite subject.
Top of pageBottom of page

Phaggood
Member
Username: Phaggood

Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 66.93.92.40
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 2:01 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Arrived early at iTec yesterday, so I took the opportunity to drive around the former farmlands at Wixom and Grand River, stumbled across the WTVS Public TV building out there - it's next to a marsh, there's a nature trail with a screened gazebo.

I love downtowns like Toronto, Chicago, SF and NY where there's a different "scene" on almost every other block. D-town really doesn't have that walkability index like the aforementioned. So if all we have to compare Public TV's Second Ave neighborhood, three blocks south or one block west of some very dicey real estate, with is their quiet suburban property, well, which one is more attractive?

Plus, most jobs haven't been in Detroit since the malls went up and the factories broke out the city borders in the 40's.



Love that quote:
again: a metropolis with a vibrant core calls its suburbs "expansion," while a metropolis with a core in distress calls its suburbs "sprawl."
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1741
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought this article was interesting and might fit in with this topic.

http://paulgraham.com/siliconv alley.html

I'm not going to get into this discussion though. There are too many good points, misconceptions, interesting points of view, bullshit, and opportunities to learn, teach, and aurgue.

My head would explode or my figers would fall off if I jumped into the fray.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1051
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There's an idea floating around Ann Arbor about un-developing a natural floodplain area and turning it into a greenway - a 'linear park'.

With the riverwalk work and converting features like the Dequindre Cut something like this should be viable downtown, too. With the various derelict properties and a lot of open land now's the chance to get something like this going.
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 837
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 24.231.189.137
Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 4:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Karl- Ford's employees were only given the $5 dollar a day pay if they were Detroit residents

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