Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Simfan34]

Yes, finally someone who gets it.

Actually, Inks seems to be directly contradicting you about whether it's a good idea to demolish things

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we can agree that stuff like this can go:



However some houses, depending on their state and locale, can be and are being restored, even if they seem far gone:



It's a right shame that this stuff is gone, though. In a fantasy of mine, similar houses would be (re)built.



But there's no reason stuff like this should be destroyed. It's what makes the city. If it had been torn down, it would have never been restored:

[Simfan34]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

[Simfan34]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

But has there been any discussion in Lansing?

Oh, God no.  That would be political suicide for politicians both from Detroit (who would be seen as "destroying their town", as if it isn't doomed already) and for politicians outside Detroit (who would be seen as helping Detroit and therefore tainted).

Well, if not actual breakup, then I'd say just devolution.

I'm from Lincoln Park, just south of Detroit.  And on the topic of buildings - buildings that are beyond repair need to be torn down.  Old buildings that have historic value should be kept.

Places like Fort Wayne Michigan Central Station need to be fixed up, not just left to rot.  As many buildings as can be saved should be saved.

Yes!

If I had money, I'd buy up a bunch of houses in Brush Park, fix them up, and sell them to Chinese millionaires looking to park some cash.

[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/index.html
[4] http://www.historicbostonedison.org/
[5] http://www.detnews.com/article/20100304/OPINION03/3040437/1409/Does-DPS-leader-s-writing-send-wrong-message?