Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snarky sarcasm aside, please... if you had free range as an emergency budget manager of the city of Detroit, what would you do to balance its budget and revitalize the city?

I'd try to work with state and federal officials to work on a buy-out program for people living in blighted areas of the city.. especially those with very low population density.  Tear down the homes and rip up the streets and let those areas revert to forest/urban prairie.

I'd focus resources on more vibrant areas of the city in order to keep those people there.  I'd make major staffing cuts to all departments save fire and police.  I'd beg the state or feds for some extra money to increase police presence and visibility.

I'd focus development in and around downtown and along main thoroughfares exclusively, encouraging mixed income neighborhoods with some subsidized housing and neighborhood charter schools, bypassing the local public schools in those areas completely.  I'd allow the teachers union to set up charter schools of their own.  This is a good idea because it preserves the union while making the union accountable to the kids/families.  If they aren't doing a good job, the parent can send their children to another non-union charter school.

I'd actively court the auto makers for private funding for some infrastructure within the city.

The problem now is that resources are spread way too thin in Detroit.  The city is only about 40-45% of its peak population.  Blighted areas need to be actively abandoned and completely torn up.  Then when things are in better condition from a budgetary perspective and we've stemmed the gushing blood, we can work on redeveloping those areas from scratch.

But the number one priority needs to be basic infrastructure and police.  If garbage collection only comes around once a week or even less, that's better than cutting police officers.  Also, invest in some damn street lights.  Light that city up.  Nothing reduces crime like naked visibility.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Some situations, I honestly wouldn't know what to do first. This is even worse since it's the city of my home state. The place just seems to be one huge clusterfuck of a situation. There is of course the big question of what you try to solve first, the economy or the deficit? Just thinking about it, non-sarcastically, the easiest solution might be to just burn everything down and start from scratch. Sad, sad situation. I'll try to think of a more serious and optimistic response later.

[tpfkaw]

Congrats Snowy, you just described exactly what the City of Detroit (or rather, it's overlords) have done for the last 30 years.  Well, except for the cutting staffing part.

If I were running Detroit I'd secede from the US and abolish all taxation, zoning laws, etc.  That'd probably attract back businesses.  Literally nothing else would.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Tariffs on China. We're long overdue on finally taking them on.

[Simfan34]

I love Detroit. I've never actually been there, but I love it none the less. My ideas:

STOP TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS (certain ones, at least): seriously, why are they doing this? I've been following Detroit since the fourth grade, and every time I think this city has turned the corner, they go and tear down some new skyscraper. Seriously, they go and reject bids for development and tear these stuff down. The city even helps "developers" tear down buildings in defiance of courts (see the Madison-Lenox case in 2005- was it so long ago?¹). The historic building stock is one of Downtown Detroit's strong suits, and it's a shame that it's being lost. It's shooting yourself in the foot. Tear down the rotting houses in the outer city! I'd place a moratorium on all demolitions in the city center.

URBAN FARMING? PAH!: One of the big ideas I hear these days is this "urban farming" on the "urban prairie", i.e., vacant lots. So, let me see, it's suggested that you have a half-deserted urban core, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by suburbia, surrounded by farmland again? You're only going to further the isolation of Downtown Detroit from the hinterland. Rather than farmland, why not extend the suburbia into the city? Southeast Michigan- ideally "Metro Detroit"- needs to be integrated further, and so I propose:

TAKE BACK THE CITY, ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT A TIME: Detroit will not repair itself overnight. We all know that. What needs to be done is to re-urbanize the city, ideally at a population of 1,500,000-2,000,000 people. This could be accomplished by focusing on certain neighborhoods and areas for development in stages- such as the New Center, Eastown, Brush Park and the areas south of Jefferson Ave. from Downtown to just past Belle Isle. Following the principles of New Urbanism, these regions could become fairly large "towns" themselves (well, the New Center would be a Jersey City-esque edge city²). Development would spread out radially from those areas, which would see particular investment in security, education, and general quality-of-life-improving services, until the city is generally covered.

A FEDERAL DETROIT: This new Detroit would be divided into wards with great deal of autonomy in regards to education, policing, and the like. This would allow the districts to redevelop at their own pace and not be dealt with misguided investment. It would also be helpful towards regional integration, which is sorely needed.

PUB-PUB-PUBLIC TRANS-PORT-PORTATION: It might be as foreign to conservatives as is Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan, but what Detroit needs is public transportation. Give the Big Three a monopoly on providing the transports, sure, but the Woodward Light Rail project not only needs to be built, but expanded. I want to see Hub-Hub service, and local services in the new "towns". And, for God's sake, fix up Michigan Central Station³. It just is really depressing to look at. I imagine a city full of young, crunchy types, who would love public transportation. I would to- as long as the trolley goes to Boston-Edison⁴.

KILL THEM ALL!: I'd lay off 80% of the city staff, and hire back half the amount. The city is full of patronage posts, the result of 30 years of cronyism (only stalled by Dennis Archer's term, and then resumed with a fury under Kilpatrick- ask my dad how much I despise that guy). Crack the unions' backs, fire the the illiterate DPS chief⁵ (let's gun for Michelle Rhee, or maybe just Betsy DeVos), and reorganize the whole thing.

[1] http://www.forgottendetroit.com/madlen/index.html
[2] http://www.newcenter.com/images/home/New_Center_night.jpg
[3] http://detroiturbex.com/content/downtown/mcs/mcs.html
[4] http://www.historicbostonedison.org/
[5] http://www.detnews.com/article/20100304/OPINION03/3040437/1409/Does-DPS-leader-s-writing-send-wrong-message?

[courts]

Deregulate business as much as possible (cut zoning, licensing, other ordinances and block new ones), fire staff en masse, decriminalize drugs & other victimless crimes, try to set up charter schools/vouchers.

[Simfan34]

Deregulate business as much as possible (cut zoning, licensing, other ordinances and block new ones), fire staff en masse, decriminalize drugs & other victimless crimes, try to set up charter schools/vouchers.

I want unique solutions, not anarcho-libertarian talking points.

[courts]

Deregulate business as much as possible (cut zoning, licensing, other ordinances and block new ones), fire staff en masse, decriminalize drugs & other victimless crimes, try to set up charter schools/vouchers.

I want unique solutions, not anarcho-libertarian talking points.

I am neither of those things, troll.

[Yelnoc]

Deregulate business as much as possible (cut zoning, licensing, other ordinances and block new ones), fire staff en masse, decriminalize drugs & other victimless crimes, try to set up charter schools/vouchers.

I want unique solutions, not anarcho-libertarian talking points.

I am neither of those things, troll.

Then you are not pitching yourself very well

[ilikeverin]

I love Detroit. I've never actually been there, but I love it none the less. My ideas:

STOP TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS (certain ones, at least): seriously, why are they doing this? I've been following Detroit since the fourth grade, and every time I think this city has turned the corner, they go and tear down some new skyscraper. Seriously, they go and reject bids for development and tear these stuff down. The city even helps "developers" tear down buildings in defiance of courts (see the Madison-Lenox case in 2005- was it so long ago?¹). The historic building stock is one of Downtown Detroit's strong suits, and it's a shame that it's being lost. It's shooting yourself in the foot. Tear down the rotting houses in the outer city! I'd place a moratorium on all demolitions in the city center.

URBAN FARMING? PAH!: One of the big ideas I hear these days is this "urban farming" on the "urban prairie", i.e., vacant lots. So, let me see, it's suggested that you have a half-deserted urban core, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by suburbia, surrounded by farmland again? You're only going to further the isolation of Downtown Detroit from the hinterland. Rather than farmland, why not extend the suburbia into the city? Southeast Michigan- ideally "Metro Detroit"- needs to be integrated further, and so I propose:

TAKE BACK THE CITY, ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT A TIME: Detroit will not repair itself overnight. We all know that. What needs to be done is to re-urbanize the city, ideally at a population of 1,500,000-2,000,000 people. This could be accomplished by focusing on certain neighborhoods and areas for development in stages- such as the New Center, Eastown, Brush Park and the areas south of Jefferson Ave. from Downtown to just past Belle Isle. Following the principles of New Urbanism, these regions could become fairly large "towns" themselves (well, the New Center would be a Jersey City-esque edge city²). Development would spread out radially from those areas, which would see particular investment in security, education, and general quality-of-life-improving services, until the city is generally covered.

Are you insane?!?!  Detroit needs to concede.  The city itself is never going to get its mojo back.  Programs like urban farming and destroying city blocks are the only solution to deal with what is right now a tremendous under-crowding issue.  If hordes aren't swarming back into the city with its ridiculously cheap housing market right now, you just have to realize that you can't ever get things back to the way they were.  Of course the suburbs should move back into the city, but that's never going to happen, thanks to the lovely racist sentiment still en vogue in the suburbs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Snarky sarcasm aside, please... if you had free range as an emergency budget manager of the city of Detroit, what would you do to balance its budget and revitalize the city?

Burn it down. All of it. Seriously; in its current physical state it can't be saved and its very existence makes a mockery of America. In its place, build a new city (well, city core or whatever) based largely on what the inhabitants would like. You would have to do it in stages, I guess. Because the city is actually underpopulated there shouldn't be much of an overspill, which means that everyone who wants to live in the new city will be able to. Also, if there are any buildings worth saving (and I doubt that; Detroit was always an ugly city), the move them (brick-by-brick) to some warehouse or other on a temporary basis.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course the suburbs should move back into the city, but that's never going to happen, thanks to the lovely racist sentiment still en vogue in the suburbs.

It also won't happen because they are (in reality) part of Detroit. The 'city' is really just one huge slum district of a large urban creature. It's like it exists to prove Lewis Mumford right about the Necropolis or something.

[courts]

I love Detroit. I've never actually been there, but I love it none the less. My ideas:

STOP TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS (certain ones, at least): seriously, why are they doing this? I've been following Detroit since the fourth grade, and every time I think this city has turned the corner, they go and tear down some new skyscraper. Seriously, they go and reject bids for development and tear these stuff down. The city even helps "developers" tear down buildings in defiance of courts (see the Madison-Lenox case in 2005- was it so long ago?¹). The historic building stock is one of Downtown Detroit's strong suits, and it's a shame that it's being lost. It's shooting yourself in the foot. Tear down the rotting houses in the outer city! I'd place a moratorium on all demolitions in the city center.

URBAN FARMING? PAH!: One of the big ideas I hear these days is this "urban farming" on the "urban prairie", i.e., vacant lots. So, let me see, it's suggested that you have a half-deserted urban core, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by suburbia, surrounded by farmland again? You're only going to further the isolation of Downtown Detroit from the hinterland. Rather than farmland, why not extend the suburbia into the city? Southeast Michigan- ideally "Metro Detroit"- needs to be integrated further, and so I propose:

TAKE BACK THE CITY, ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT A TIME: Detroit will not repair itself overnight. We all know that. What needs to be done is to re-urbanize the city, ideally at a population of 1,500,000-2,000,000 people. This could be accomplished by focusing on certain neighborhoods and areas for development in stages- such as the New Center, Eastown, Brush Park and the areas south of Jefferson Ave. from Downtown to just past Belle Isle. Following the principles of New Urbanism, these regions could become fairly large "towns" themselves (well, the New Center would be a Jersey City-esque edge city²). Development would spread out radially from those areas, which would see particular investment in security, education, and general quality-of-life-improving services, until the city is generally covered.

Are you insane?!?!  Detroit needs to concede.  The city itself is never going to get its mojo back.  Programs like urban farming and destroying city blocks are the only solution to deal with what is right now a tremendous under-crowding issue. 

^^^
This too, obviously although that was sort of implied I think.

[LastVoter]

I think the best idea is to create Urban parks out of the low density neighborhoods, and once you take out the bad parts hope that the land will be in demand again 20 or 30 years.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think the best idea is to create Urban parks out of the low density neighborhoods, and once you take out the bad parts hope that the land will be in demand again 20 or 30 years.

The whole 'city' is 'bad parts'. And it will never be in demand again because it is an urban wasteland.

[LastVoter]

I think the best idea is to create Urban parks out of the low density neighborhoods, and once you take out the bad parts hope that the land will be in demand again 20 or 30 years.

The whole 'city' is 'bad parts'. And it will never be in demand again because it is an urban wasteland.

Well the Central Buisness district is still there. So you could try building around that and convert 50% of the other land into parks and try growing from the district outward. But looking at the Google Earth map it is  disgusting.

[King]

Give it to Peter Thiel to create a libertarian paradise.

[Simfan34]

I love Detroit. I've never actually been there, but I love it none the less. My ideas:

STOP TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS (certain ones, at least): seriously, why are they doing this? I've been following Detroit since the fourth grade, and every time I think this city has turned the corner, they go and tear down some new skyscraper. Seriously, they go and reject bids for development and tear these stuff down. The city even helps "developers" tear down buildings in defiance of courts (see the Madison-Lenox case in 2005- was it so long ago?¹). The historic building stock is one of Downtown Detroit's strong suits, and it's a shame that it's being lost. It's shooting yourself in the foot. Tear down the rotting houses in the outer city! I'd place a moratorium on all demolitions in the city center.

URBAN FARMING? PAH!: One of the big ideas I hear these days is this "urban farming" on the "urban prairie", i.e., vacant lots. So, let me see, it's suggested that you have a half-deserted urban core, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by suburbia, surrounded by farmland again? You're only going to further the isolation of Downtown Detroit from the hinterland. Rather than farmland, why not extend the suburbia into the city? Southeast Michigan- ideally "Metro Detroit"- needs to be integrated further, and so I propose:

TAKE BACK THE CITY, ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT A TIME: Detroit will not repair itself overnight. We all know that. What needs to be done is to re-urbanize the city, ideally at a population of 1,500,000-2,000,000 people. This could be accomplished by focusing on certain neighborhoods and areas for development in stages- such as the New Center, Eastown, Brush Park and the areas south of Jefferson Ave. from Downtown to just past Belle Isle. Following the principles of New Urbanism, these regions could become fairly large "towns" themselves (well, the New Center would be a Jersey City-esque edge city²). Development would spread out radially from those areas, which would see particular investment in security, education, and general quality-of-life-improving services, until the city is generally covered.

Are you insane?!?!  Detroit needs to concede.  The city itself is never going to get its mojo back.  Programs like urban farming and destroying city blocks are the only solution to deal with what is right now a tremendous under-crowding issue.  If hordes aren't swarming back into the city with its ridiculously cheap housing market right now, you just have to realize that you can't ever get things back to the way they were.  Of course the suburbs should move back into the city, but that's never going to happen, thanks to the lovely racist sentiment still en vogue in the suburbs.

We have young people. Downtown Detroit is doing fairly well, and is blessed with a decent, attractive building stock- if they save it. I'm all for destroying swaths of houses- but why skyscrapers? It's not necessary. They're all destroyed for parking lots. Detroit isn't safe. Detroit has poor schools. Fix those, and then people will be willing to come. That is not hard, it just requires guts. I love Detroit, and I've never even been there. I can't be the only one who likes the place. Even local children flock to suburban town centers seeking the city high life.¹ People would come the city, especially in safe, contained, neighborhood. Educated blacks would come there. Hispanics, Chaldeans, Levantines- they would, and already are, coming! Racism isn't the problem, poor governance is.

I, for one, believe in Detroit.

[1] http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/crowds-of-teens-taking-over-downtown-birmingham

[All Along The Watchtower]

Steal monies from the suburbs.

[© tweed]

Steal monies from the suburbs.

^^^

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well the Central Buisness district is still there. So you could try building around that

But you can't because the CBD is effectively a just a colony of the outside world (and a massive, massive failure as a piece of so-called 'urban renewal'). Urban growth never 'naturally' flows out from that kind of place anyway. Besides, blight spreads.

[Link]

I think the best idea is to create Urban parks out of the low density neighborhoods, and once you take out the bad parts hope that the land will be in demand again 20 or 30 years.

The whole 'city' is 'bad parts'. And it will never be in demand again because it is an urban wasteland.

I'm curious.  Have you actually ever spent a substantial amount of time in Detroit?  I haven't but a lot of people I know who have lived there like the place.  I've interrogated them about it several times because my assumption was it was a bombed out wasteland of little worth.  They tell me its actually pretty cool and they would move back there.  These people were all professionals with graduate degrees.  They were white and black.  I dunno.  I just don't think that place is the 100% write off we've been led to believe.

[Simfan34]

Well the Central Buisness district is still there. So you could try building around that

But you can't because the CBD is effectively a just a colony of the outside world (and a massive, massive failure as a piece of so-called 'urban renewal'). Urban growth never 'naturally' flows out from that kind of place anyway. Besides, blight spreads.

Then improve upon it. Focus upon it, concentrate your efforts there. Stop demolishing its buildings, and start building infill. Soon it will be filled. Move to the New Center, move to Eastown, move to Palmer Park. Build those up. There's security in numbers. Make those places the hubs of growth.

Heck, that's the only way urban growth spreads- from city centers. What are you saying?

I think the best idea is to create Urban parks out of the low density neighborhoods, and once you take out the bad parts hope that the land will be in demand again 20 or 30 years.

The whole 'city' is 'bad parts'. And it will never be in demand again because it is an urban wasteland.

I'm curious.  Have you actually ever spent a substantial amount of time in Detroit?  I haven't but a lot of people I know who have lived there like the place.  I've interrogated them about it several times because my assumption was it was a bombed out wasteland of little worth. They tell me its actually pretty cool and they would move back there.  These people were all professionals with graduate degrees.  They were white and black.  I dunno.  I just don't think that place is the 100% write off we've been led to believe.

Wow, today really is a good day in terms of our agreement on many issues.

[courts]

Well the Central Buisness district is still there. So you could try building around that

But you can't because the CBD is effectively a just a colony of the outside world (and a massive, massive failure as a piece of so-called 'urban renewal'). Urban growth never 'naturally' flows out from that kind of place anyway. Besides, blight spreads.

Then improve upon it. Focus upon it, concentrate your efforts their. Stop demolishing its building, and start building infill. Soon it will be filled. Move to the New Center, move to Eastown, move to Palmer Park. Build those up. There's security in numbers. Make those places the hubs of growth.

Maybe if you made them "Green Zones," if you get my meaning. The city doesn't have the tax base at all to do what you're talking about, at this point they're so poor they might as well do what Arizona proposed and sell/rent out government buildings. If we were talking about another (less foregone and still somewhat charming) hellhole like say, Miami I might agree with you on some points but...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We have young people.

Most of the young people in Detroit are armed, barely literate, unemployed, unemployable and on crack. And no one from the outside world would want to move there. Of course, I suppose you could use it as a sort of gulag for hipsters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On what planet does the Detroit CBD have an 'attractive' building stock? It is also very clearly not doing well as a service centre for the city, which is the whole point of a city centre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because they are pointless and because they have failed. Burn them down. Only a cleansing fire can save Detroit now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahahaha. The city is falling to bits. The houses are unfit for human habitation. You can't fix the bloody place until you fix that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the problem is that the city is effectively an inhabited ruin. But the core problem is also different; industrial decline. In any event, the tragedy (and so the problem) isn't really Detroit itself, but the people that live there. No one should have to live in a ruin. But all you care about (or so it seems) is the protection of glass-and-concrete penises.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's even less rational than me believing that my team - Sunderland - will win the Premiership.