Would you invest in Detroit?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Suburban Detroit has a ton of money, and it is somewhat encouraging to see the Dan Gilbert's of the world at least trying to invest back in the city. But things appear utterly broken in Detroit- politically, economically, racially. From an urban development perspective, much of the city lacks the appeal that other run down cities have, as much of the housing stock is pretty similar to that of the inner burbs, and there is no transit or even much in the way of walkable neighborhoods. Outside of Midtown and Downtown, are there any viable commercial corridors or business districts? Other than people who are interested in investing in the city just because they want to, why would someone choose to live in a non-core (Midtown and Downtown) neighborhood in Detroit? I hate to be a downer, and I honestly would love nothing more than to see the city and its people healthy and prospering. Almost all of my mom's family migrated to Detroit from eastern Ohio and West Virginia in the WWII years- lived in the city (and a couple aunts in Hamtramck) and worked industrial jobs until saving up enough money to move out to working class burbs like Warren. I love the area, but it's increasingly tough to feel like any real sizable comeback is possible for much of the city.

The problem with this is that Detroit is a real place with real people who have real lives. It's not some PBS documentary. This is a very condescending thing to say.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Paris is a good example of why commuter stations don't need to be in the middle of the prime Central Business District. I think Gare du Nord is the busiest commuter station in all of Europe, and it's not exactly smack dab in the middle of a cluster of corporate HQs.

In NYC, Grand Central is close to the Park Avenue investment banks and hedge funds, but Penn Station is the busier station - busiest in North America - and until recently it was located in a corporate dead zone.

Gare du Nord is in the heart of Paris. And re. Penn Station, given Midtown job density, there are probably more jobs within a mile of Penn than any equivalent radius on the planet. And you're comparing these places to a one-platform Amshack three miles from downtown Detroit?

At this point this discussion is beyond absurd. Yes, obviously location matters, or the LIRR wouldn't be spending $13 billion tunneling to Grand Central, and NJ Transit-MTA wouldn't be spending twice that tunneling to Penn. Might as well save $40 billion and just end the lines in Jersey or Queens.

[edale]

Originally Posted by The North One

Oh yes we know, everybody who's seen a thinkpiece or half witted documentary is an armchair Detroit expert who knows just about everything. I encourage you to be the same way!

I don't pretend to be an expert on Detroit. But I do know that the level of disinvestment there is far beyond what is present in any other major American city, and it's spread throughout the entire city. North to South, East to West, inner city neighborhoods, neighborhoods on the edge of the city boundaries--- you simply don't see this other places. St. Louis and Chicago both have pretty bombed out areas, but they are confined to one side of those cities, and other sides are either moderately successfuly (STL) or booming and extremely wealthy (CHI).

The reason I brought up my thoughts after watching that documentary is in response to thinking like 'all Detroit needs is some commuter rail and voila, the city will be booming like it's 1940 all over again! That's simplistic and misguided, imo. There is no silver bullet for Detroit. It's a totally different situation than many other cities that face disinvestment issues and on a totally different scale. It's not like Cincinnati where you have amazing architecture and walkable urbanism just waiting to be rehabbed while the outer neighborhoods are stable. If the rest of Detroit was in OK shape and Midtown and Downtown just needed a shot in the arm, I'd say sure, introduce some rail, land some key rehabs and new construction projects, and get the revitalization ball rolling. I'm not sure how one even starts in Detroit other than what they're doing now- which is focusing on a very small geographic area. The reliance on the auto industry is still there, the racism is still there, the incredibly wide and ugly thoroughfares are still there, the buildings and historic charm are getting lost all the time...I don't know the answer. I think the narrative of Detroit 'coming back' is simplistic and not really rooted in reality.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The problem with this is that Detroit is a real place with real people who have real lives. It's not some PBS documentary. This is a very condescending thing to say.

Hm? What point were you attempting to make here?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Gare du Nord is in the heart of Paris. And re. Penn Station, given Midtown job density, there are probably more jobs within a mile of Penn than any equivalent radius on the planet. And you're comparing these places to a one-platform Amshack three miles from downtown Detroit?

At this point this discussion is beyond absurd. Yes, obviously location matters, or the LIRR wouldn't be spending $13 billion tunneling to Grand Central, and NJ Transit-MTA wouldn't be spending twice that tunneling to Penn. Might as well save $40 billion and just end the lines in Jersey or Queens.

Of all the things that would make commuter rail not-viable in Detroit, it isn't the location of the train stations.

You often act as if there is only one opinion to be had, and it's either agree with yours or it's "beyond absurd." That is extremely annoying.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Hm? What point were you attempting to make here?

I think I made it. For some reason people are comfortable making points about places that they don't really know/haven't really spent much time. Recommending that someone watch a PBS documentary and walk away understanding a very complex city is "beyond absurd."

You're not going to tell me anything about Detroit that I don't already know. Neither is a PBS documentary.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Paris is a good example of why commuter stations don't need to be in the middle of the prime Central Business District. I think Gare du Nord is the busiest commuter station in all of Europe, and it's not exactly smack dab in the middle of a cluster of corporate HQs.

In NYC, Grand Central is close to the Park Avenue investment banks and hedge funds, but Penn Station is the busier station - busiest in North America - and until recently it was located in a corporate dead zone.

I can't even believe this needs to be said, but Paris and NYC have extensive subway networks that allow for movement of people from the commuter rail stations to their final destinations. Both also face extreme issues with traffic, congestion, and availability of parking. None of these issues are present in Detroit, and Detroit doesn't have the transit network in place to connect people from Grand Central to their final destinations. If you're going to convince suburbanites to leave their cars and often free or discounted parking behind, the alternative has to be better. Taking a train to a station in the middle of nowhere and then connecting to a bus or single streetcar line isn't gonna do it. Plus, the Detroit region is pretty decentralized, and the downtown there doesn't have the same pull as a downtown that represents a larger share of the total office market. I agree with Crawford here 100%.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

I can't even believe this needs to be said, but Paris and NYC have extensive subway networks that allow for movement of people from the commuter rail stations to their final destinations. Both also face extreme issues with traffic, congestion, and availability of parking. None of these issues are present in Detroit, and Detroit doesn't have the transit network in place to connect people from Grand Central to their final destinations. If you're going to convince suburbanites to leave their cars and often free or discounted parking behind, the alternative has to be better. Taking a train to a station in the middle of nowhere and then connecting to a bus or single streetcar line isn't gonna do it. Plus, the Detroit region is pretty decentralized, and the downtown there doesn't have the same pull as a downtown that represents a larger share of the total office market. I agree with Crawford here 100%.

The commuter rail isn't for suburbanites.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think I made it. For some reason people are comfortable making points about places that they don't really know/haven't really spent much time. Recommending that someone watch a PBS documentary and walk away understanding a very complex city is "beyond absurd."

You're not going to tell me anything about Detroit that I don't already know. Neither is a PBS documentary.

I was expressing my take away from an extremely well done documentary that highlights not only the macro trends and events that have shaped Detroit, but also the personal tails of a mail carrier in the city for 29 years. You should check it out- you never know what you don't know.

I don't claim to be an expert on Detroit. I am a trained urban planner and have studied urban development and history extensively, so I can speak on that with some authority. The point I was trying to make was that Detroit's situation is very complex and contains many layers. Simply suggesting commuter rail line as a fix is naive. To really fix Detroit, the country probably needs to issue reparations, just to start.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The commuter rail isn't for suburbanites.

lol ok so who is commuting into the suburbs via commuter rail? People from Chicago? Words mean things. Quick definition for you:

Commuter rail, also called suburban rail, is a passenger rail transport service that primarily operates between a city centre and middle to outer suburbs beyond 15 km (10 miles)[citation needed] and commuter towns or other locations that draw large numbers of commuters—people who travel on a daily basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail

Cue the 'but wikipedia isn't a reliable source" in 3...2...1...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

lol ok so who is commuting into the suburbs via commuter rail? People from Chicago? Words mean things. Quick definition for you:

Commuter rail, also called suburban rail, is a passenger rail transport service that primarily operates between a city centre and middle to outer suburbs beyond 15 km (10 miles)[citation needed] and commuter towns or other locations that draw large numbers of commuters—people who travel on a daily basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail

Cue the 'but wikipedia isn't a reliable source" in 3...2...1...

None of the serious proposals for commuter rail are for implementing a commuter system from Oakland or Macomb Counties into Detroit, which constitute the bulk of Detroit's suburban population. Most are focused on connecting Detroit Metro Airport and Ann Arbor to Detroit. The only serious proposal not focused on Ann Arbor is focused on Toledo. Ann Arbor and Toledo are not suburbs of Detroit, and phase 1 of either proposal would have very few stops in Detroit's actual suburbs.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't pretend to be an expert on Detroit. But I do know that the level of disinvestment there is far beyond what is present in any other major American city,

You're already wrong right there hahaha

How's Pittsburgh's rebound? last I checked it has one of the lowest percentages of job rate growth in the country.

[DZH22]

What do we mean here by invest? Does it mean actually moving and establishing roots in Detroit, or just buying property and hoping something good happens? (I wouldn't trust that with that weird squatters laws)

Short answer: No
Longer answer: Nope

However, to be fair, I love the area I live and wouldn't want to go anywhere else, Detroit or otherwise.

[edale]

Originally Posted by The North One

You're already wrong right there hahaha

How's Pittsburgh's rebound? last I checked it has one of the lowest percentages of job rate growth in the country.

Pittsburgh has absolutely nothing resembling the abandonment Detroit has. It has a top tier university (CMU) and a highly regarded large public university (Pitt) in its municipal boundaries. It has numerous highly successful and vibrant neighborhoods outside of its core. Does Detroit have any neighborhood business districts that can even come close to places like this:
Shadyside
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4515...7i13312!8i6656

Squirrel Hill
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4380...7i13312!8i6656

Southside
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4288...7i13312!8i6656

Oakland
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4406...7i13312!8i6656


Demographically, Pittsburgh continues to lose population as a city and a region, but I think it's far healthier and less reliant on a single industry than Detroit. It also doesn't have nearly as much racial toxicity or the suburban/urban bullshit that Detroit has. Not sure that's an argument you want to make...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Pittsburgh has absolutely nothing resembling the abandonment Detroit has. It has a top tier university (CMU) and a highly regarded large public university (Pitt) in its municipal boundaries. It has numerous highly successful and vibrant neighborhoods outside of its core. Does Detroit have any neighborhood business districts that can even come close to places like this:
Shadyside
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4515...7i13312!8i6656

Squirrel Hill
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4380...7i13312!8i6656

Southside
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4288...7i13312!8i6656

Oakland
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4406...7i13312!8i6656


Demographically, Pittsburgh continues to lose population as a city and a region, but I think it's far healthier and less reliant on a single industry than Detroit. It also doesn't have nearly as much racial toxicity or the suburban/urban bullshit that Detroit has. Not sure that's an argument you want to make...

I would caution against making such an assessment based off of a small period in time. Prior to the last census, Detroit was doing a bit better than Pittsburgh by many measures. It was only in the 2010 Census that Detroit passed Pittsburgh (and some other Rust Belt cities) in population loss against peak population. And I believe Metro Detroit still hasn't matched the levels of decline that Metro Pittsburgh has gone through. Not a knock against Pittsburgh, a place I've visited quite a bit and am fond of... but glass houses, ya know?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Could've fooled me on the congestion part. I've had some poorly timed trips through Detroit where I caught traffic around 5pm and would have pulled off the freeway for an alternate route if the surrounding area didn't dissuade me.

I would have thought the big reason was that most of the white-collar jobs are closer to where the executives actually live in Birmingham, Royal Oak, etc., since they probably don't get the same benefits of locating in a Downtown core as you would in other metros.

Some of the worst (if not the worst) "traffic jams" I've ever been in were in Detroit (Ambassador Bridge crossing).

It was so bad I never cross there anymore. It's either Sarnia or else I enter into Vermont here.

And yes, it's not really a fair example of congestion, I know

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by edale

Oakland
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4406...7i13312!8i6656

"Quaker Steak and Lube" What the hell kind of restaurant is that????

Quakers and lube are not two things that I associate going together with each other.

[uaarkson]

For anyone who has spent time on the ground in Detroit, especially someone who knows the history of the city and what it used to look like - it's hard to make the argument that any other city in the country has experienced abandonment and disinvestment on the same scale. Say what you want about this city vs. that city on paper, if you open google maps it's plainly obvious that Detroit is a decimated place with no rival.

We're all well aware of this in Michigan. I'm not going to get into the game of trying to predict Detroit's future trajectory anymore - it could go one way or another, but the potential is clearly enormous.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not a knock against Pittsburgh, a place I've visited quite a bit and am fond of... but glass houses, ya know?

I'm not from Pittsburgh, nor have I ever lived there. The North One tried to deflect from any perceived criticism of Detroit by throwing Pittsburgh into the mix, I guess because he thought I am from there? But since he brought up PGH, I thought ok, let's go with this. In my opinion, the city is far more functional than Detroit. At a metro level, it gets a little trickier to compare, as metro Detroit is in another league than PGH. It's a much larger city and metro area.

[uaarkson]

Detroit's one and only true comparison is the south side of Chicago, if we're talking about areas similar in size. And even then, the south side of Chicago is significantly less bombed out.