Would you invest in Detroit?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There are a lot of things that need to go right for Detroit, but I think we can all agree that its potential rebound can be epic. There really isn't another city in the world right now whose resurgence has the potential to make waves like Detroit's.

I really wonder what'll happen with all the nearly empty zones where you have an average of 1-2 remaining houses per block. I think the City might have to forcibly relocate these people and turn vast zones into parks for the time being - removing most of the street grid. I wonder what the locals think...?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by lio45

I really wonder what'll happen with all the nearly empty zones where you have an average of 1-2 remaining houses per block. I think the City might have to forcibly relocate these people and turn vast zones into parks for the time being - removing most of the street grid. I wonder what the locals think...?

You mean like this area? It's right outside of downtown, street grid, walkable neighborhood [assuming it's redeveloped] you can even see The RenCen from here. There are sidewalks, but they've nearly been overtaken by the weeds and grass, electrical wires, plumbing, street lights etc.

https://goo.gl/maps/aga7SoBvTupCcmJ8A

I don't know if it makes sense to scrap the old infrastructure and start anew, or to keep it with the hope that investors come in and start redeveloping.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

I really wonder what'll happen with all the nearly empty zones where you have an average of 1-2 remaining houses per block. I think the City might have to forcibly relocate these people and turn vast zones into parks for the time being - removing most of the street grid. I wonder what the locals think...?

They shouldn't. It's a really terrible idea that doesn't address the actual flawed policy that created the situation.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

You mean like this area? It's right outside of downtown, street grid, walkable neighborhood [assuming it's redeveloped] you can even see The RenCen from here. There are sidewalks, but they've nearly been overtaken by the weeds and grass, electrical wires, plumbing, street lights etc.

https://goo.gl/maps/aga7SoBvTupCcmJ8A

I don't know if it makes sense to scrap the old infrastructure and start anew, or to keep it with the hope that investors come in and start redeveloping.

Ironically, this was one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in Detroit during the mid-20th century. The population density of this census tract was somewhere in the 50K people per square mile territory, maybe more. Detroit's conundrum is that it needs to rebuild areas like this as densely populated neighborhoods because of the proximity to downtown.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by lio45

I really wonder what'll happen with all the nearly empty zones where you have an average of 1-2 remaining houses per block. I think the City might have to forcibly relocate these people and turn vast zones into parks for the time being - removing most of the street grid. I wonder what the locals think...?

I think a good idea is to rezone those areas for mini mansions and the like to be developed. It's not really dense, but little density is better than none and it allows the benefit of having a lot of housing and yard space in an urban environment.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They shouldn't. It's a really terrible idea that doesn't address the actual flawed policy that created the situation.

I'm interested in a honest discussion of what the solutions would be... what's your take?

The problem right now is that the few remaining residents of these areas are causing the costs per capita for street maintenance, sidewalks, street lights, sewer, water, electric, police, fire, etc. to be astronomical. The density must almost be borderline rural caliber, with one house per block like that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I think a good idea is to rezone those areas for mini mansions and the like to be developed. It's not really dense, but little density is better than none and it allows the benefit of having a lot of housing and yard space in an urban environment.

"Crazy" idea - take one neighborhood (say, the square between Chene, Forest, Mount Elliott and I-94), remove the residents by trading them nicer houses outside the zone, fence the zone (with ICE and Border Patrol watching), eliminate any zoning, and accept 500,000 Syrian refugees that we put in it.

The deal would be that after certain conditions are met, the fencing is removed and everyone inside becomes regular American citizens.

(There would have to be gates, of course, as there would be trade going on between the zone and the rest of the city, state, and country. You can't expect the zone to be perfectly self-sufficient.)

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm interested in a honest discussion of what the solutions would be... what's your take?

The problem right now is that the few remaining residents of these areas are causing the costs per capita for street maintenance, sidewalks, street lights, sewer, water, electric, police, fire, etc. to be astronomical. The density must almost be borderline rural caliber, with one house per block like that.

They would still need to maintain sewer, water, electric, police, and fire... And maybe even street light infrastructure. The problem is that these neighborhoods are at the center of the entire Detroit Metro area's utility grid. You can't just take them offline.

[uaarkson]

Leave the dead zones as they are. Eventually they'll fill in - mark my words.

[bnk]

I could see someone investing in a reviving down town area.

But there is so much abandonment on such a large vast scale I have no idea if the dead zones will ever become more than an urban prairie.


• Video Link

Detroit was one a model city of the World. The Paris of the Midwest.

[uaarkson]

Do you guys really think that the core of a 4.5+ million person metro is going to remain as urban prairie forever? Come on now. Give it 20 years.

[DetroitSky]

What's happening currently is the more popular parts of the city are filling up and developments are starting to push into the adjacent rundown neighborhoods. The central part of the city - downtown, midtown, new center, corktown - are starting to spread into the adjacent neighborhoods of The North End, North Corktown and Core City. Same can be said about The Villages on the eastside - redevelopment is starting to spill eastward into Islandview and northward up Van Dyke Street.

The city has other desirable neighborhoods as well that are seeing more and more investment. I have no doubt that this trend will continue. Detroit will never be what it was, but I do feel like it can be a healthy city again.

As far as closing off desolate parts of the city, this has already happened at least once. A desolate eastside neighborhood was converted into large industrial properties. We've also had a large section of a desolate neighborhood demolished for a new international bridge. As far as removing utilities goes, I personally think that'd only be a wise decision if the land is to become a large park or something that requires little to no utilities.

As far as the original question in the OP, I'd invest in the neighborhoods that are adjacent to the most thriving neighborhoods. Chances are you won't be able to invest in downtown, Midtown or New Center because its so pricey. But if you bought something in Islandview that's a few blocks away from West Village, you'd be making a very wise investment, I'd say.

Someone brought up investing in the northwest section of the city. Personally, that'd be something I'd avoid. It's a well populated area, yes, but more people means more crime. Neighborhoods closer to downtown tend to be pricier and that tends to keep 'the wrong crowd' away.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by lio45

I really wonder what'll happen with all the nearly empty zones where you have an average of 1-2 remaining houses per block. I think the City might have to forcibly relocate these people and turn vast zones into parks for the time being - removing most of the street grid. I wonder what the locals think...?

That would be unethical, stupid and a colossal mistake. You do not start ripping up good urban grid infrastructure for no reason especially since this grid is nearly impossible to replicate today with how development occurs in subdivisions. The locals and leaders would think you're an idiot.

There are much more people still living in even the most vacant blocks of the city than you realize.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, people in California are free from that...I bet everyone who moved to Texas from California can't wait to enjoy traffic in another state with much higher gas prices when they move back after Texas stops doing what every other state does(just does it better).

Also, are we assuming all the companies that moved there are just WAITING patiently to move out at some predetermined time in the future?


Let's face it. I don't like California because of its liberalism. You don't like Texas because of its conservatism. You want Texas to fail because it will prove conservative economics don't work, just as I keep seeing liberals bring up Kansas(LOL) as proof. If Texas goes down the drain you guys will have a field day.

I'm not sure where you assumed half of this but whatever.

Are you saying you want liberal areas to fail so you can feel better?

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pittsburgh proper is objectively healthier than Detroit proper, by almost any measure.

But Metro Detroit is objectively healthier than Metro Pittsburgh by most measures.

Pittsburgh never lost being the hub of employment in their region. The suburbs never drew many professional jobs out of the city even when manufacturing jobs in steel were just disappearing.

The Detroit region was most likely always more affluent especially in Oakland County. The Pittsburgh region doesn't have anything like Oakland County. There are pockets of suburban affluence...Fox Chapel, Sewickely, Mt. Lebanon, Upper St Clair and Cranberry Twp...but not on the wider level of suburban Detroit.

What saved Pittsburgh is that it had something else to fall back on once the Steel mills closed. The old J & L Steel Mill used to be next to the Parkway East as you headed toward Downtown Pittsburgh. It was torn down and It's now a high tech center. Pitt and Carnegie-Mellon were able to fill the void with Eds and Meds to prop up the city economy as J & L and US Steel jobs withered away.

Detroit didn't have the same luck. Nothing really came in to replace the auto factories that either moved to the suburbs or shut down completely.

I really root for Detroit to get the ship completely turned around.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ wow, I had no idea that L. Brooks Patterson had died.

It's generally poor form to speak ill of the dead, but he really was a terrible leader.

As for the new transit plan, it looks pretty solid to me.

L Brooks Patterson basically had his foot on Detroit's neck for 27 years.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Do you guys really think that the core of a 4.5+ million person metro is going to remain as urban prairie forever? Come on now. Give it 20 years.

Some areas of Detroit could potentially remain as such if there's no new demand for development.

Detroit on a metropolitan level doesn't have a lot of population growth other than from natural increase. Domestic migration and foreign immigration is woefully low compared to other major cities. Most of the growth of the suburbs comes from out-migration of the core plus natural increase. Maybe one in a dozen families are ever actually from somewhere outside of Southeast Michigan. This isn't expected to change anytime in the near future so it's safe to assume that parts of Detroit are unlikely to ever be redeveloped in any meaningful way.

Food for thought; Detroit had a peak population density of 14,000 ppsm or when it's population was 993,000 but the city was only 77 square miles as of the 1920 census. For Detroit to reach the same population density today with its current size, the total population would need to reach around 2 million people. Easy to assume much of the city's vacant land would be developed at this point. However, to reach this point, the city would need to grow with at least 30,000 people annually for the next 44 years. That sort of annual growth is on par with cities in Texas or other Sun Belt states that have heavy domestic migration and foreign immigration.

Obviously something pretty dramatic would have to occur in Detroit for a Texas-style boom to occur, so it's easier to assume that it won't.

[Sun Belt]

An observation:

Judging by the very small sample size from contributors in this discussion thread -- the number of responses that were a "No" along with the other responses [some from local Detroit residents] that very skeptical of an outsider showing any interest in possibly investing in Detroit -- are perhaps the reason why Detroit declined and then continued to decline for decades up until right about now...

[Jasoncw]

If I had the money I would definitely invest.

The way I would describe my attitude towards it would be to say that most of the city (or at least the areas that I could ever afford to buy in in this hypothetical situation) does not have good prospects, and that my investment would need to create its own prospects in order to protect itself.

So I would want my investment to be concentrated into as contiguous of an area as possible.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Easy to assume much of the city's vacant land would be developed at this point. However, to reach this point, the city would need to grow with at least 30,000 people annually for the next 44 years. That sort of annual growth is on par with cities in Texas or other Sun Belt states that have heavy domestic migration and foreign immigration.

Obviously something pretty dramatic would have to occur in Detroit for a Texas-style boom to occur, so it's easier to assume that it won't.

Good point. Detroit regularly grew by 50-60k per year for several decades in the early 20th century. I think Los Angeles is the only city to sustain anywhere near that type of growth for at least a decade post-1950s. And even then it was only able to sustain it for a decade. OTOH, one thing that helped NYC recover from its massive decline in the 1970s is that much of the regional population growth is pushed into the city because of strict land development controls. If Michigan gets rid of those pro-sprawl policies then Detroit could easily start growing again.