Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » USA Today confident about urban future in the USA and Detroit... « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Frenchman_in_the_d
Member
Username: Frenchman_in_the_d

Post Number: 68
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 11:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello all,

I was reading through today's USA Today and stumbled on an article that Detroit and Detroiters have to pay particluar attention for a hopeful future.

The article tackles the unprecedented demographic growth in the US. Our population should increase by 100 million by 2040! The article stresses how the country will absorb this demographic boom. The solution, continues the article, is core-urban growth and cites Detroit as an example.

I just quoted some bullet points and paragraphs. I do invite you to read the ver interesting article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n ation/2006-10-26-100-million_x .htm

"How will the USA cope with unprecedented growth?

Brownfields. Industrial sites along river banks, abandoned warehouses near train depots and gas stations on street corners are becoming prized properties because they are rare patches of buildable land in urban areas. Developers are cleaning up land contaminated by hazardous materials and building housing — from affordable apartments in Portland, Ore., to luxury condos on Philadelphia's Main Line...

Infill. Every abandoned strip mall, boarded-up row house or underused parking lot is a potential house or condo or apartment...

Going vertical. Building up instead of out can accommodate more people on less land.

"As the population grows, there is increasing demand for high-rise construction," says David Scott, chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, based in Chicago...

Rail lines and transit villages. Cities that had let public transit wither are revitalizing it and encouraging development around transit stops. Metro areas better known for sprawl are hopping aboard the rail mania, including Dallas, Albuquerque, Houston, Minneapolis, Phoenix and Charlotte...

Ready-made cities. Detroit, Washington and St. Louis supported hundreds of thousands more residents in 1950 than they do today. Dozens of cities across the country are well past their heyday but still have all their streets, roads, power lines and water supplies in place. If only people would return.

Cleveland had a population of about 915,000 in 1950. Today, it has less than half (452,208).

"We have a unique opportunity here," says Joseph Marinucci, president and CEO of the Downtown Cleveland Alliance, which advocates investment downtown..."

What are your thoughts? Wil Detroit grasp this opportunity? Will the future lifestyles of Americans, which will be mostly urban, affect Detroit? Will the immigration inflow and dmographic boom lift Detroit way up?

Cheers
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4600
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 12:07 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Anything could happen? Who'd ever thought we'd see the near complete dominance of suburban America over urban America back at the turn of the century? I do fear, however, that we've let the genie out of the bottle on not only allowing but unequally subsidizing suburb over city at the complete expense of the city, and that the only way things are going to change is from a complete policy change at the local and state level evening the playing field between city and suburb, again. Land use policy should be one of THE issues in this country, right now, but it's not even close to the top. Until that changes, the only thing we'll be able to get are pockets of urban success in cities here and there. There will be no large-scale/city-wide urban improvements until we put central cities back on level playing fields with suburbs, which hasn't been the case in most areas of this country for going on 50+ years now. Urban America is currently completely at the mercy of Suburban America's voters, the same one's who now live by the philosophy "I got mine, now you gets yours."
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936

Post Number: 887
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 12:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The article notes population figures for 2040. In 2040 I'll be 104.

I got mine, now you get yours.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 811
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 1:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is all great news for Detroit and America.

Lmichigan, I think you're right, generally, how do you account for the dazzling success of Chicago? I lived there 10 years, and I was stupified on a recent trip back by the growth in center city Chicago.

As the population of cities becomes larger and more affluent, they will have increased political power.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4602
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 4:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chicago is an anomoly, just like NYC. These cities are losing just as many middle income whites as any, but that is offset by the tremendous amount of immigrants they are able to attract. Chicago and NYC continue to bleed their white population, but both are alpha cities for their region, and not to mention that NYC is one of the major cities of the world. BTW, center city Chicago's growth may look astounding, but that's not what turned around the dropping population. It was the large-scale and calculated Mexican population filling in the emptying out neighborhoods. Hispanics make up at least 25% of Chicago's population, one of the largest percentages of any Northern city, compared to Detroit's 5%. Chicago is a beachead for immigration, and it's the only thing that's saved it, that and it never relied as heavily on heavy industry as Detroit did, which easily relied on it more than almost any other major US city. People don't really get in how many different ways that Detroit is really a curiosity and exception for better or for worse.

(Message edited by lmichigan on October 30, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Frenchman_in_the_d
Member
Username: Frenchman_in_the_d

Post Number: 69
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 1:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lmichigan,

I don't claim to know more about Chicago than you do, but I think I will have to disagree with you on that one.
I was in Chicago a couple weeks ago to visit a French friend of mine architect and studying urban planning at Northwestern. He took me on a tour of Chicago to show me urban development projects.
I have never seen that many developments in a city other than Dubai and Pheonix. And here, we are talking about the inner city, right outside downtown.
Alex, my friend, showed me around the 'Ghetto project development' area, around McCormick center, south side. Within 2008, 4000 new condos will be available!!!! The whole 30 blocks are a mess, bulldozers and construction, all future high rise condos (we're talking 15 stories and up) and starting at the mid $200s! The whole 30-40 blocks are going to be a new very dense neighboorhood! How can a bleeding city afford to go into such folly when they are bleeding white pop? I'm maybe wrong but it seems that this type of housing is typically white/young/yuppie?
Literally, Chicago blew me away, and these projects don't even take into account the dramatic changes taking place in downtown!
This is open to debate Lmich, but my friend told me the exact opposite you stated.

I posted some pictures tolet some of you guys see what Detroit is missing on. I was, literally, taking these pictures within a 4 block walk. Immense development, huge condos, very dense neighboorhood to come. It's funny when we get all excited about a CVS or even a loft development that fails...

I really don't want to be negative, but it is after visiting Chicago on a very busy week-end that I realized how far behind Detroit is, and really, how lifeless downtown is.


















Top of pageBottom of page

Susanarosa
Member
Username: Susanarosa

Post Number: 1217
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 1:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Looks like Royal Oak.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1875
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting that USA Today would publish such an article, since not too long ago, Gannett moved from Rosslyn, VA to the suburban hellhole of Tysons Corner.
Top of pageBottom of page

Panson
Member
Username: Panson

Post Number: 803
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can you blame them? There's a Cheesecake Factory at Tysons II.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4604
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

French, if you go back and study the even recent modern history of this region, you will easily see why Chicago surpassed Detroit, and how different the two really are. The two just aren't that similar or comparable. What works for one won't necessarily work for the other. Chicago is more in league with NYC and LA, so it's not really fair to compare it with Detroit. Detroit is behind on a lot of trends, that's not even in question, but comparing most cities to Chicago isn't fair. Just as Detroit is unique in it's continued recession, Chicago is also among a very few older cities in this country growing like it is.

(Message edited by lmichigan on October 30, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe Chicago is in the midst of a rebirth because they're not paralyzed by a bunch of naysayers constantly harping about how "downtrodden" and "unable to progress" they are.

Secondly, the need for housing is an interracial issue. Companies don't build housing because "white people" or "hispanics" need them. They build because there is a demand for them. I hardly think 4,000 exclusively white people are going to plop in the middle of South Side Chicago.

(p.s. $200k isn't exactly high priced real estate in Chicago.)

(Message edited by yvette248 on October 30, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1876
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 2:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Chicago is more in league with NYC and LA, so it's not really fair to compare it with Detroit.




Please explain what is meant by this. Los Angeles and New York couldn't be more different cities.

Interesting that if you compared 1920s Chicago to 1920s Detroit, it "wouldn't be fair" to compare the two cities, with Detroit coming out much more favorably. Stop whining already.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 1062
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chicago remains a rail and air transit hub, which is what made it boom originally. Let's recall what a silly outpost it was when it began. The centralizing of rail lines to aid in the meat packing industry during the last quarter of the nineteenth century positioned Chicago well for the future. Its actually quite astonishing how Detroit, a city with limited geographic importance in the modern world, was able to grow and almost catch Chicago in the twentieth century. Credit is due to the ingenuity of Detroiters, like Ford, for that. Still, I think the modern paradigm of urban growth makes Detroit just as viable as Chicago, if we set ourselves to catch them. Place is no longer important - its environment that matters. With big city infrastructure and a large population, Detroit can compete with any other large city - barring, perhaps, the international finance centers, like New York and London. However, in time, we can catch even those cities, if we set our minds to it. Money, too, can go anywhere now - at the click of a mouse. Why not Detroit?
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 1063
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I reiterate - Why not Detroit?

(Someone should write a book with that title!)
Top of pageBottom of page

Frenchman_in_the_d
Member
Username: Frenchman_in_the_d

Post Number: 70
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 3:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

1953,

I totally agree with you.
I do think that we HAVE to compare Detroit and Chicago even if the two cities are diametrically contradictory (population, growth, economy), because Detroit should of been today's Chicago.

Nevertheless, to go back to the USA Today article, that hints much optimism for 'empty' cities like Detroit, I think that we are in a unique position: Detroit can become tomorrow's great city: with the right urban planners, and hopefully, us getting a share of immigrants, young adults and skilled workers from the rest of the USA too, we will be able to refurbish Detroit's rusting belts into thriving neighboorhoods.

I just would love to be alive and witness it!
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 568
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What I took from Lmichigan's statement was that even though all this development is going on in Chicago, and there are a lot of white people moving in, a lot of what is happening is simply migration within the city. Hispanics are taking over previously white-dominated neighborhoods as the whites migrate to the new developments (younger) or the suburbs (older).

I live in Chicago now, and it's to the point where nearly every neighborhood is AT LEAST 10% Hispanic, or so it seems, minus maybe Lincoln Park proper.

With Cabrini-Green being torn down, where will all those displaced blacks go? There are no more high-rise housing projects in Chicago. They'll likely end up partially responsible for repopulating the farther South and West Sides. In this regard, tearing down high-rises is great, as long as these people can find affordable housing in the neighborhoods. Parts of the near West and South Sides greatly resemble parts of Detroit, as far as urban prairie goes.

Sorry for the rambling, I'm not sure where my original point was going. Basically, there's a lot of people moving around, but people are moving out (or dying) just as fast as people (possibly younger people, good thing) are moving in.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit313
Member
Username: Detroit313

Post Number: 218
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting then we compare Detroit to Chicago. I do compare it. Detroit is in the early stages of a boom!

Cities aren't made over night. Detroit is poised to become a world class city again!

It will be in a better position than cities like Phoenix or Denver, because it still has it's old infrastructure (two million citizen before).

Even if/when Detroit grows to three million, traffic will not be as bad as other cities because of its extensive freeway system and street grid, not to mention those wide streets.313
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 571
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 4:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If Detroit grows to 3 million, traffic will be f-ing ridiculous because of the complete lack of reliable mass transit. Local buses alone (even when on schedule) do not count.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1878
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 4:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ask Atlantans how well their extensive network of freeways works--and the central city only has a population of 400,000!
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4605
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 4:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, I was talking about influence (i.e. banking, transportation, trade, and other services) and Chicago, NYC, and Los Angeles are the undisputed three giants of this country being the respective capitals of their regions. Detroit isn't and never was. It's always been a powerful industrial town, and at a time one of the most powerful of the industrial cities in the world, but it was never a Chicago in influence.

Focus, you read my post wrong. Chicago is bleeding its middle-income white population just like any city, but it's being replaced and actually added to by the huge Mexican migration to the city. Middle income whites are still fleeing Chicago neighborhoods faster than they are moving in, let's not kid ourselves. Just look at the census numbers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit313
Member
Username: Detroit313

Post Number: 219
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Atlanta doesn't have a street grid like Detroit. Look at Atlanta from the air and you can see that poor planning lead to its traffic problems.

Close Atlanta's freeways and see how difficult it would be to get from the north side of Atlanta to the airport.

Close Detroit's freeways..........and the service drives if you must and see how difficult it would be to drive from Southfield to the airport. 313
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1879
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 4:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Dan, I was talking about influence (i.e. banking, transportation, trade, and other services) and Chicago, NYC, and Los Angeles are the undisputed three giants of this country being the respective capitals of their regions.




I guess Charlotte, the nation's second-largest banking center doesn't count, then. Neither does Long Beach, which has a larger port than Los Angeles. I could go on, but you get the idea. Your claims are specious, at best.

How the hell do you measure "influence"? Sounds like a big excuse to me....
Top of pageBottom of page

Innovator
Member
Username: Innovator

Post Number: 35
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 5:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't think it's really fair to even mention Charlotte in the same breath as New York in terms of the FIRE industries - while Charlotte may be #2 in terms of banking, NYC is as large as the next five cities combined (in terms of banking assets. http://www.post-gazette.com/im ages4/20060625largest_bank_ctr s.gif)

And come on. Trying to make a huge distinction between Long Beach and Los Angeles? It's practically right next door - same metro area. It seems like it's your claims that are a little underhanded.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4606
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 6:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, what's your problem? If you want to make a case that Detroit and Chicago are easily comparable, than do it. If you don't want to make the distinction between Alpha cities and the rest, that's your prerogative. But, lay out your opinion instead of dogging me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Darwinism
Member
Username: Darwinism

Post Number: 563
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 7:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit shares a lot of characteristics with a lot of places, perhaps some more obvious than others.

Chicago tends to come up often because of proximity and of geographical resemblance. So does Cleveland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis, or even Buffalo and Milwaukee. I am sure we can learn some lessons from each of those places.

The USA Today article focuses on the issue of population and of the way Americans live in the near future. Essentially, we have already discussed here on DetroitYes some of what was presented in the write-up.

For example, brownfields and infill housing. We have seen quite a number of these happening in Corktown, Brush Park and so on. The other points made; Going Vertical and Rail Lines/Transit Villages, are perhaps on Detroit's 'to-do' list.

The last point made, Ready-made Cities, is perhaps what we should be thankful for. We have the infrastructure and are capable of accommodating the masses, if only the people would come. The people are out there, no doubt, more than 300 Million of them ..... they need to live somewhere, why not Detroit ? Entice them. With good paying jobs, with safe environments, with affordable cost and standard of living, with opportunities to better themselves in education, in entrepreneurship, with all the things that other places aren't offering them enough of.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitbill
Member
Username: Detroitbill

Post Number: 62
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 8:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chicago and Detroit area a very hard fit to compare,,They have dramatically different histories and consequences in the last 25 years. Chicago is obviously a boom city,, Detroit is trying very hard to redefine itself, Chicago is doing fine as evidenced but I do think Detroit is doing the best it can by making the downtown attractive, liveable and enjoyable for residents and suburbanites, This does not happen overnight but I keep having to refer to a common comment I make, When I lived downtown in 1989-1996 it was a very very unfriendly place to visit and only a few of us enjoyed living in it. Most of my neighbors were simply just planning how many months before they moved to the burbs. Now , having moved back downtown two years ago, I hear a very different vibe from most residents, many are talking about moving to a new development downtown, improving their current residence or talk about how exciting the new development downtown is... A very different picture from 1996.... Detroit I feel is doing the best is can given all the economic difficulties and I think doing extremely well downtown,, Many suburbanites I know come downtown on a regular basis, anxious to come back to the next new place. They themselves say they would never have considered this even three years ago.... Its a start for sure,
Now hopefully the neighborhoods can be worked on, many (not all)are in a sad position and need attention but I do agree that it is very important that the downtown becomes viable,This provides vital tax revenue, as well as a positive image for investments which can inturn be applied to repair the many other woes of the city. Its what most people judge a city on for survival.
Top of pageBottom of page

Illwill
Member
Username: Illwill

Post Number: 80
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 10:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Unfortunately, I don't think much will change in the city of Detroit until we're able to sustain a much stronger economy. Detroit is not a Chicago, however both face the same challenges such as race issues, high crime, poverty, filth, terrible schools, corruption etc...

But all that shit goes out the window when big time corporations pay out the big bucks. New York faces the same problems as Detroit, but yet, you never hear about how dangerous and dirty those cities are because it's over shadowed and offset by the big money being traded in those cities. In order for people to get past Detroit's image, Detroit will need to get a VERY strong and diverse economy as does Chicago.

Also, commenting about Chicago being bled by Whites and replaced by Hispanics, that comment is not so true. I agree that tons of people (Blacks, Asians, Spanish and Whites) who have spent their lives in Chicago and made their money or are cashing in on real estate are leaving the city. But, I can assure you that just as many people (probably more) are relocating into the city on a daily basis. Chicago has become a city like NYC in a way that people are practically dying to try to relocate there like there's no tomorrow. Also, a large number of people buying condos and townhomes within Bronzeville and the South Loop do happen to be Black.

Chicago is surely a fast forward city and there is no reason Detroit cannot be a fast forward city as well. However, until Detroit's economy does a 180, thousands of young Michigander's will continue to flee to other cities that happen to have the big businesses and perks that follow.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 211
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 11:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I dont think comparing Chicago to Detroit is fair Chicago compares more evenly to Toronto than us, NYC, or LA. After a trip to Philly this weekend I can say that minus the rowhouses and actual living city core, Detroit in my mind compares more evenly with Philadelphia. They are almost identical in size, 139 sq mi for Detroit and 142 for Philly. The peak populations were very similar for each city with just over 2 million for Philly and 1.85 for Detroit. Not to mention stature wise both cities are similarly important internationally for something us for automobiles and them for the birthplace of the US. But both cities are not as important "stature" wise as their nearby cities, Chicago for us and New York for them. Both have a very likeable grittiness to them and hell they both were important musically during the same time.

Obviously there are a lot of differences of which I am not going to type out but Philly is the only fair comparison to Detroit in the United States or North America for that matter. The potential of both cities in the 21st century especially Detroit is limitless I think. I also agree with the article that Detroit and cities that have declined like it will soon return to prominence as the population grows. We just have to work hard to make it happen.

BTW, the spell check is cool.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 1569
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Obviously there are a lot of differences of which I am not going to type out but Philly is the only fair comparison to Detroit in the United States or North America for that matter.




Philadelphia and Detroit both reached 2,000,000 residents once, but St. Louis is a better comparison historically and is demographically more similar (metro and city proper) to Detroit than Philadelphia.
Top of pageBottom of page

Shave
Member
Username: Shave

Post Number: 1235
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 11:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit is making slow yet steady progress. Slow and steady wins the race. The whirl-wind growth on the West Coast as well as the South/Southwest have created planning/land use issues that will certainly affect the future viability of cities in these areas. Older cities such as Detroit and Philly (for example) not only have well-designed infrastructure; the infrastructure is also very sturdy. The "newer" infrastructure in these faster-growing areas is very unstable as a result of being cheaply constructed and over-used. The individuals in these areas fight tooth and nail when it comes to forking over the necessary monies needed for infrastructure maintenance/repairs. It's just an awful, cluttered mess that is spreading more and more outward as the infrastructure design becomes weaker yet more expensive.

(Message edited by Shave on October 30, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 1570
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 11:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yep, that's true!
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 213
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 11:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is also as Shave mentions alot of this slow and steady infill almost everywhere in the city, for once not just downtown. There are so many new homes being built through out the city it amazes me I might take pictures of and post them the next time I am in the D if only I know how to html code.

Hysteria, I dont see the similarities of St. Louis and Detroit. St Louis at its best is a medium sized city like Baltimore and Boston, it never was considered a "large but not huge" city like Detroit and Philadelphia.

And Besides Screw St. Louis
GO TIGERS 2007 WORLD CHAMPS!!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Hysteria
Member
Username: Hysteria

Post Number: 1572
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 11:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mayor_sekou - of course Detroit was and is a much larger city than St. Louis, but the cities have a common history that is quite similar:


quote:

Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 3188
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 5:00 pm:

------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
I have always had a sympatico feeling for St. Louis as they have shared our fate, just on a smaller scale, of urban abandonment, post-industrial decline, economic and racial divide, and fabulous ruins. They also share a French name, great musical, baseball and history
heritages and sit astride important waterways.




Both cities have spectacular FOX Theatres ...
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4609
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 12:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

STL is easily one of the most comparable cities in history to Detroit despite their different sizes. They differ quite a bit in style and build, but they are very similar in their histories.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1881
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 9:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My point is that if Detroit wants to be little more than a second-or-third rate city, then by all means--don't compare Detroit to the Chicagos and New Yorks of the world. Every city in the U.S., especially Chicago and New York, has had its down times, not unlike what Detroit is seeing now. If you want to be great, you have to start emulating others who are great.

So many of you think a city becomes great thanks to its image. Well, the image is only as good as the substance behind it. Every time someone dares to suggest worrying about the substance, though, the peanut gallery starts to cry that "We're not Chicago!" That much is obvious--Chicago is a tough, resilient town. Most of you would rather have Detroit become like People magazine--glossy and shiny, all image and no substance.

And please get off this "regional capital" BS. It's such a meaningless term. Unless, of course, you can directly correlate the made-up terminology with the quality of the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 791
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 4:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Looks like Royal Oak.



I was thinking the same thing Susanarosa. They also remind me of the Ellington and the Lofts at Rivertown. This type of residential architecture seems to be all the rage. I hope it all stands the test of time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Illwill
Member
Username: Illwill

Post Number: 81
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 7:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:
Looks like Royal Oak.



I was in new york the other day and noticed the same type of construction all over there as well.

I guess it's more about cost savings these days than craftsmanship.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 589
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The South Loop area does indeed resemble Royal Oak, on a much larger scale, of course.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 797
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My concern is not the craftsmanship, it is the design and aesthetics becoming out of date. I think more classically designed buildings would stand the test of time better. Then again modernist Lafayette Park has stood the test of time quite well.

(Message edited by eastsidedog on November 01, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 315
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Frenchie, ya make it to the urban planning and architecture bookstore? Its not too far from that area, sort of behind the Hilton.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 592
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 11:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I much prefer what they're doing with new construction in Lincoln Park and Lakeview. A lot of the buildings, while built quite recently, are designed to fit into the streetscape quite well, unless you really look. Hell, one building that couldn't have been built more than 5 years ago has bay windows and a turret on the corner.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5147
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 9:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I went through the near west side area of Chicago before. See how they transformedare area from a once black and blighted area into a hip cool gentrified community is New Yorkesque megacondos and super skylofts. This thing could happen to Detroit.

The near west side of Chicago once had a overflow of city and government subsidized housing from the near west side to the south side. Until mayor Daley started to clean up the black mess by means of slum clearance of most subusidized buildings. Mean while at the near west side. Chicago's Cabrini Green Housing Project will be gone when those developers continue to make hip cool condos and lofts. Leaving most Chicago's poor out in the streets for good. The city is changing fast. White-folks from Chicagoland's tiny boring suburbs are coming back to Chicago to stay and raise their families. While most Black communities in Chicago's West and South side are shrinking fast, flighting to the its tiny suburbs.

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