Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?

[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 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...

Selling city properties might be a good idea- oh, oops. No money? I'm talking about private development. Perhaps they could use your tax cuts.

[ilikeverin]

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.

The people you met were from the suburbs.  When they were talking about "Detroit", they were talking about the suburbs.  No one likes Detroit Detroit.

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.

Shh, don't tell people from Warren that it's just as miserable as Detroit is.

[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...

Selling city properties might be a good idea- oh, oops. No money? I'm talking about private development. Perhaps they could use your tax cuts.

I never mentioned tax cuts. The city is way past the point where tax credits or other gimmicks can turn things around, and I tend to find such policies to be ineffectual at best. And the distinction at this point between private and public is not all that relevant outside of what the courts say (or don't, as you have pointed out), the city is losing money regardless because it costs less to bulldoze than attempt to maintain them (fire, police, etc.).

[Simfan34]

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.

Don't tempt me. But seriously, I'm talking about other young people, the types who I mentioned were left with downtown Birmingham, MI, to walk around. If you were right, the Bowery, SoHo, and Williamsburg would all be ghettoes. So yes, gulag for hipsters actually isn't too far off.

Downtown Detroit is doing fairly well, and is blessed with a decent, attractive building stock- if they save it.

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.

The planet Earth.

http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/detroit14.JPG
http://detroiturbex.com/content/downtown/broderick/img/2.jpg
http://www.dailywealth.com/images/charts/2007/may/20070524-chart_a.jpg
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/attachment.php?attachmentid=8672&stc=1&d=1296087701
http://www.lcfpd.org/html_lc/changingtheskyline/michigan/r72769.jpg
http://detroiturbex.com/content/downtown/freep/img/2.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Alboholic45/Detroit%20Projects/Book_Cadillac.jpg
http://www.michigan.gov/images/Statler_12-05_from_Kales3_149891_7.jpg
...

I'm all for destroying swaths of houses- but why skyscrapers? It's not necessary.

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

I beg to differ. What good is land? "A piece of land formerly known as Detroit?"

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.

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.

I know. Tear them down. But save the worthies

Racism isn't the problem, poor governance is.

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.

[/quote]

Then restore the ruins worth saving, and then tear down the ones not worth saving. I'm not talking about the Swiss Re tower, anyways.

I, for one, believe in Detroit.

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

The Lions are winning games now. Anything can happen.

If Detroit was so universally despised, companies wouldn't be showing their association with it as a selling point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh6T-SUyDvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg4lSGGOfzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKL254Y_jtc - see 0:50

[Torie]

It needs to segue to a field of dreams, growing what urban markets want - like good bud! 

In other news, if Detroit can curb its crime, and have adequate public schools, they will come. I mean, you can buy a home for basically a zero price. You have a safe neighborhood, and decent schools, and can buy a home for nothing, and have no mortgage, I mean that is a deal isn't it for those in strapped circumstances in particular?  If ...  don't hold your breath absent major change agents gaining considerably more influence.

[TJ in Oregon]

Urban farming is actually a wonderful thing. It helps to provide impoverished families with the ability to support themselves and obtain access to higher quality foods than they would otherwise get. It's not ideal but better than leaving vacant land sit vacant. I'll admit here I'm thinking more in Cleveland terms than in Detroit terms and we've torn down far fewer buildings. We have a different strategy in this city that isn't about just flattening everything. We certainly do tear some down, but not nearly to the extent of Detroit.

The real key is to spur development in places. You can do that by targeting areas that have a fighting chance of being desireable in the near future. Cleveland has the University Circle and Euclid Corridor areas that have each experienced a ton of development in recent years, not because they were chosen at random but because they have assets that make them desireable.

Corruption is a huge problem in many governments. When you have an impoverished area, having competent leadership makes a world of difference. I'm calling it right now, in 5 years we'll be reading about how much East Cleveland has improved and developed. Why? Because for the first time in my life they have a competent mayor. Previous regimes have left millions of dollars of federal and state money on the table because of sheer incompetence. When you are a poor city that lost 34% of its residents in the last 10 years, you just can't afford that type of thing. But, putting the right person in charge makes a world of difference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fight like hell against guest workers and "free" trade agreements.  Show companies how they'd actually save money by choosing Detroit over India. Tear down some of the worst neighborhoods. Crack down on corruption and cronyism. Legalize some drugs, and tax them.

[freepcrusher]

I would fix it by changing the economy. Make it more like Boston. Make it more walkable, build a subway system and bulldoze sh**tty parts of the city and replace it with lofts and funky restaurants/stores.

[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.

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.

Look at Google Earth maps, and you will go, oh sh**t...
Before I opened this thread I thought Detroit was ed, but then I decided to look at google maps and i realized it's pretty much FUBAR'd. Like you need radical solutions for all the empty low density populations, urban gardens sounds good, but I think creating parks/potential recreation areas will make the land price surrounded by that go up a lot.

[phk]

Pay people to leave. Destroy the rest.

[Platypus]

Make it the only entry-exit point from Canada. Border town boom times.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Detroit wants to die. It's going to die. Trying so hard to stop what is so natural is completely bizarre to me.

[Simfan34]

Urban farming is actually a wonderful thing. It helps to provide impoverished families with the ability to support themselves and obtain access to higher quality foods than they would otherwise get. It's not ideal but better than leaving vacant land sit vacant. I'll admit here I'm thinking more in Cleveland terms than in Detroit terms and we've torn down far fewer buildings. We have a different strategy in this city that isn't about just flattening everything. We certainly do tear some down, but not nearly to the extent of Detroit.

The real key is to spur development in places. You can do that by targeting areas that have a fighting chance of being desireable in the near future. Cleveland has the University Circle and Euclid Corridor areas that have each experienced a ton of development in recent years, not because they were chosen at random but because they have assets that make them desireable.

Corruption is a huge problem in many governments. When you have an impoverished area, having competent leadership makes a world of difference. I'm calling it right now, in 5 years we'll be reading about how much East Cleveland has improved and developed. Why? Because for the first time in my life they have a competent mayor. Previous regimes have left millions of dollars of federal and state money on the table because of sheer incompetence. When you are a poor city that lost 34% of its residents in the last 10 years, you just can't afford that type of thing. But, putting the right person in charge makes a world of difference.

Excellent. Limited urban farming is a good idea, but what isn't is reverting large swathes of the city to agriculture permanently. But Detroit HAS to stop tearing down it's biggest asset- it's buildings. Like this:




TO



TO


Mind you, this building has an owner- who is trying to let it be destroyed so he can tear it down! The city lets this happen! Sickening.

I would fix it by changing the economy. Make it more like Boston. Make it more walkable, build a subway system and bulldoze sh**tty parts of the city and replace it with lofts and funky restaurants/stores.

They had plans for a subway back in the 20s, I want to say some work was done under Campus Martius in Downtown. But that's a money issue. Detroit will probably never have a subway. I'm content to dream of a revived system of streetcars. Remind me why they got rid of again?

But seriously, do so many people think that Detroit legalizing drugs will be the way to save it? Really? I think it'd make it a mini-Juarez- like it can afford to get worse. We'd see large tax evasion and minimal revenue. It's also profiting over sickening people. Nonsense.

[opebo]

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.

Detroit isn't what does that.  America is worse than just Detroit.  America is a horror from sea to shining sea, with every rat caught in the middle carrying the horror in his desperate, trapped little heart.   Burning Detroit down wouldn't chance a single thing about the horror.

What would help Detroit, and America, would be the guillotine, applied liberally upon the upper classes.   Burn down Palm Beach, not Detroit.

[courts]

But seriously, do so many people think that Detroit legalizing drugs will be the way to save it? Really? I think it'd make it a mini-Juarez- like it can afford to get worse. We'd see large tax evasion and minimal revenue. It's also profiting over sickening people. Nonsense.

Many totally legal things in this country amount to 'profiting over sickening people' (alcohol, tobacco, processed foods, HFCS, daytime tv ). I don't really see how that's relevant to a discussion about a place that's so utterly bankrupt that the scenario outlined by actually isn't that far from reality. It's just a cost/benefit analysis, it doesn't make sense to commit resources to attempt to bust people for something recreational particularly when police are so ineffectual to begin with. I'm sure jfern thinks the same. Not that you really could legalize them since we're just talking about one city, but you could halt/de-prioritize enforcement or simply hand out fines.

Urban farming is actually a wonderful thing. It helps to provide impoverished families with the ability to support themselves and obtain access to higher quality foods than they would otherwise get. It's not ideal but better than leaving vacant land sit vacant. I'll admit here I'm thinking more in Cleveland terms than in Detroit terms and we've torn down far fewer buildings. We have a different strategy in this city that isn't about just flattening everything. We certainly do tear some down, but not nearly to the extent of Detroit.

It's not particularly hard to convert vacant malls to greenhouses or anything like that either, as you mentioned it's already going on over in places like Cleveland just on a much smaller scale than what's being discussed here.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I have to agree with Al here. The only real way to "fix" Detroit is to raze the central business district along with the most severely dilapidated neighborhoods around it and start from scratch. The core of the city has no appeal to outside residents, even without the crime and poor education system, beyond the low price of housing/cost of living.

I think it would be more beneficial to the non-wasteland neighborhoods to have designated drug districts in the post-Armageddon neighborhoods of Detroit where the sale/use of drugs is explicitly permitted as opposed to just permitting it across the city. Paramedics would be on stand-by there and clean needles would be available to make sure that complications are minimized. Yes, I stole this idea from the Wire. You have to admit it's pretty novel.

[LastVoter]

I have to agree with Al here. The only real way to "fix" Detroit is to raze the central business district along with the most severely dilapidated neighborhoods around it and start from scratch. The core of the city has no appeal to outside residents, even without the crime and poor education system, beyond the low price of housing/cost of living.

I think it would be more beneficial to the non-wasteland neighborhoods to have designated drug districts in the post-Armageddon neighborhoods of Detroit where the sale/use of drugs is explicitly permitted as opposed to just permitting it across the city. Paramedics would be on stand-by there and clean needles would be available to make sure that complications are minimized. Yes, I stole this idea from the Wire. You have to admit it's pretty novel.

Open buildings rather than Areas where drug use is allowed, and have medical staff in them. Something like Insite in Vancouver but with drugs being sold there. Also add security there so that nobody leaves the area with hard drugs. I am not sure what's up with the hate on CBD though, they are ugly to a certain degree in every city. Why raze it if people want to use it? Better off trying to rebuild Detroit from CBD with medium density buildings stretching outward. Something like Copenhagens 5 fingers plan with wilderness or parks in between the fingers.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I have to agree with Al here. The only real way to "fix" Detroit is to raze the central business district along with the most severely dilapidated neighborhoods around it and start from scratch. The core of the city has no appeal to outside residents, even without the crime and poor education system, beyond the low price of housing/cost of living.

I think it would be more beneficial to the non-wasteland neighborhoods to have designated drug districts in the post-Armageddon neighborhoods of Detroit where the sale/use of drugs is explicitly permitted as opposed to just permitting it across the city. Paramedics would be on stand-by there and clean needles would be available to make sure that complications are minimized. Yes, I stole this idea from the Wire. You have to admit it's pretty novel.

Open buildings rather than Areas where drug use is allowed, and have medical staff in them. Something like Insite in Vancouver but with drugs being sold there. Also add security there so that nobody leaves the area with hard drugs. I am not sure what's up with the hate on CBD though, they are ugly to a certain degree in every city. Why raze it if people want to use it? Better off trying to rebuild Detroit from CBD with medium density buildings stretching outward. Something like Copenhagens 5 fingers plan with wilderness or parks in between the fingers.

That would kind of defeat the purpose of using the change in policy to save money, no? I agree that systems like Insite is a great idea and that we should take it to the next level here. Case studies in Europe have shown that it works splendidly because use is reduced dramatically through them (it's no fun to do drugs in a medical facility, apparently) and fatalities are non-existent.

So that Detroit can have a change in image that's conducive to attracting new residents of course! Detroit's CBD in particular looks/feels like an industrial wasteland and because of that, there's no impetus for neighborhoods around the core to develop as attractive residences.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Absolutely.  The infrastructure of public transit needs to be reformed, and by that I mean we need more than buses, and the buses that we do have need to run ON TIME.

The blight needs to be removed - plain and simple.  Not just remove/rebuild those buildings, but those buildings need to be occupied.

The corruption NEEDS to stop - people like Monica Conyers are disgusting, but because they have name recognition, got elected.

The us vs. them attitide of the city council needs to go.  Not every issue has a black vs. white component of it.  Stop treating it like it does, and accept outside help instead of sticking to the attitude that you can fix it yourselves - clearly you cannot.

[TJ in Oregon]

The problem with legalizing drugs (even if it were otherwise possible to do in one city) is that by legalizing them you send the message to at-risk youth that drug use is acceptable. Part of trying to fix an area is getting young people to make good life decisions and encouraging drug use is something that is not going to increase their chances of succeeding in college and integrating into larger society. Sure you could save a couple bucks by targeting police enforcement elsewhere, but does anyone really think the violent drug dealers and kingpins in a highly impoverished area like Detroit will become model citizens once you legalize drugs and build a junkie centers? The drugs are a means not an end for many. Most of the people on here are probably suburban white kids who support drug legalization because they have enough financial support that if they screw up their life, they’ll end up getting bailed out by family or end up in a rehab center. If I mess things up, I think my parents would intervene before I end up living under a bridge somewhere. The urban poor don’t have the resources to make poor decisions and escape poverty. By legalizing drugs, you might think you’re helping them, but you’re not; you’re indenturing them.

The real way you fix a city is through development. You need to have some ideas to create growth and employ more people. Detroit needs to get companies to blossom from within and keep young educated individuals around. If you can do that much, the rest will slowly follow because those jobs will rely on lower income, unskilled labor to make the high-level jobs meaningful. You might not get everyone on a huge income right away but you have to start somewhere. The best way to get people off the streets is to get them jobs. Yet, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Some people will fall back to the streets and into their addictions. That’s part of life. But every job you do create is another person who can help support himself.

Cleveland is showing some incredible signs of hope right now on these fronts. About ten years ago, someone pointed out that despite millions of dollars’ worth of research, patents, and discoveries at Case, none of it was making the leap to entrepreneurial development. So, the state of Ohio, through the Third Frontier Program joined with Case, the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, and the VA Hospital to form BioEnterprise, a not-for-profit company whose entire purpose is to take research breakthroughs and act as an incubator for small start-up companies. Over the last ten years they’ve helped to build over 200 small companies in the greater Cleveland area. Not only that, they’ve also managed to get about half the companies to locate themselves along a two mile stretch of Euclid Avenue, formerly a decaying abandoned thoroughfare that was originally the home of Cleveland’s Millionaires Row (all that’s left of it now is a few broken down tenement houses).

The city of Cleveland proper has benefitted from a government that for the last decade has spent very little money on anything they didn’t have. We have a budget surplus, believe it or not. Our mayor might not be an incredibly popular figure, heck he can barely speak English, yet he is very good at finding ways to make ends meet.

On the other hand, East Cleveland (a “suburb” that’s worse than most of the city itself) is in a different budgetary situation because it’s lost 34% of its population in the last ten years and the previous two mayors had ‘issues’ to say the least. They finally new, dynamic mayor who has a vision for fixing that city. East Cleveland looks a little like how you would expect a rich suburb to look in an apocalypse movie. It’s full of Victorian era mansions now in disrepair. One random backstreet even has Roman columns and archways along it. John D. Rockefeller lived in East Cleveland. It has an incredible amount of potential, the world headquarters of GE Lighting, Rockefeller’s estate, close proximity to University Circle and Little Italy, and a Level 1 Trauma Center in Huron Hospital. Yet, it’s in disarray. I think it’s very salvageable because it has so many valuable assets.

Anyways, I think the key to fixing these places is to project strong, competent leadership and use common sense in maximizing the value of every asset you have available. Focus on areas that have the most potential first and branch out from there. Don’t waste valuable resources on stupid pet projects and fire people who do. It took the FBI to wake up the people of Cuyahoga County to some of the things our former leaders were doing off of public resources and we have learned quite a bit. Many of the people we once entrusted to run this town are in prison—where they belong. It’s not about Democrats and Republicans, it’s about competent leadership.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nuke it. Rebuild it.

[ilikeverin]

The us vs. them attitide of the city council needs to go.  Not every issue has a black vs. white component of it.  Stop treating it like it does, and accept outside help instead of sticking to the attitude that you can fix it yourselves - clearly you cannot.

I absolutely don't deny that the attitudes of the city council are disturbing, but as far as racial issues go it's hard to argue that anyone but the whites started it and whites are still the main perpetrators now.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The us vs. them attitide of the city council needs to go.  Not every issue has a black vs. white component of it.  Stop treating it like it does, and accept outside help instead of sticking to the attitude that you can fix it yourselves - clearly you cannot.

I absolutely don't deny that the attitudes of the city council are disturbing, but as far as racial issues go it's hard to argue that anyone but the whites started it and whites are still the main perpetrators now.

Wholeheartedly agree.  But the council has the ongoing view that anytime somebody outside of Detroit tries to step in and help, that they're trying to take control away from the black population and have some kind of white takeover.

[Simfan34]

Absolutely.  The infrastructure of public transit needs to be reformed, and by that I mean we need more than buses, and the buses that we do have need to run ON TIME.

The blight needs to be removed - plain and simple.  Not just remove/rebuild those buildings, but those buildings need to be occupied.

The corruption NEEDS to stop - people like Monica Conyers are disgusting, but because they have name recognition, got elected.

The us vs. them attitide of the city council needs to go.  Not every issue has a black vs. white component of it.  Stop treating it like it does, and accept outside help instead of sticking to the attitude that you can fix it yourselves - clearly you cannot.

Yes, finally someone who gets it. Unsurprisingly, a Michiganian. At least they got rid of Kilpatrick, but L. Brooks Patterson is a scumbag as well. The whites might have started it, but the blacks turned it into the semi-third world corrupt mess that it is.

Where do you live, generally?

And please, tearing down the CBD would do Detroit no good. We want to save the city, not destroy it. Did any of you look at my pictures? What good would be gained by tearing such buildings down?

The problem with legalizing drugs (even if it were otherwise possible to do in one city) is that by legalizing them you send the message to at-risk youth that drug use is acceptable. Part of trying to fix an area is getting young people to make good life decisions and encouraging drug use is something that is not going to increase their chances of succeeding in college and integrating into larger society. Sure you could save a couple bucks by targeting police enforcement elsewhere, but does anyone really think the violent drug dealers and kingpins in a highly impoverished area like Detroit will become model citizens once you legalize drugs and build a junkie centers? The drugs are a means not an end for many. Most of the people on here are probably suburban white kids who support drug legalization because they have enough financial support that if they screw up their life, they’ll end up getting bailed out by family or end up in a rehab center. If I mess things up, I think my parents would intervene before I end up living under a bridge somewhere. The urban poor don’t have the resources to make poor decisions and escape poverty. By legalizing drugs, you might think you’re helping them, but you’re not; you’re indenturing them.

Excellent. Really good points you made in your post, especially here.

[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?

It might do you well to reread this.