 
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 926
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 9:50 am: |    |
Ihearthed, as I'm sure you are well aware, many DetroitYESers believe that the City of Detroit is all good, and that suburbia (and exurbia and sprawl-urbia and all the other derogatory terms for the area outside of Detroit) are all evil. I don't see it that way. I think of the whole Metropolitan Detroit area as Urbia and the City of Detroit as a sub-Urbia.
Idealy, if you were going to design a city from scratch, it would make sense to locate its center near the center of population or the center of commercial activity. However, we all know (including my dumb self) that cities don't always develop this way, and that is okay because most of those cities learn to deal with the fact that its "center" is off-center, and it poses no noticable detriment.
But Detroit, or more specifically downtown Detroit, has not been able to retain its core of people or commerce or industry. Detroit is a city of transition. Its "center" has already moved off center whether you like it or not. Although this "center" does not have a downtown, in the traditional sense, it does have a geographical point. Whether that is its center of population, or center of wealth, or center of commerce & industry is debatable. And how this central point relates to the nominal downtown is the dialogue that I was attempting to elicit.
Now to address the specific points that you raised in an apparent attempt to discredit me:
1. "Your argument was that the "downtown" of Metro Detroit should not be downtown Detroit because it is not the center of population.": Did I say that? I thought I said that "people believe that since downtown Detroit is the Center or Core or Heart, it must be given preferential treatment". And furthermore, to clarify my point to Eastsideal, I said " I didn't say that it DOES get, I said that people believe it MUST get. In other words, people say 'We must save downtown because it is the core of the city", even though it really may not be.'" And I said to Dcmorrison12 that "I really don't think it is necessary to re-locate downtown." Now if these comments are not clear enough for you, I will use your own words: I do not believe that the "downtown" of Metro Detroit should not be downtown Detroit because it is not the center of population. Is that clear enough?
2. "You reply with the flawed reasoning that Detroit is not Chicago.": How is it flawed logic to state that Detroit is not Chicago? Is Detroit Chicago? Are all cities the same? Can you not bring yourself to acknowledge that Chicago has very different characteristics from Detroit?
3. "The question was whether it made sense to have a downtown that was not at or near the center of population for the region. So to answer your question, yes.": No, the answer is that a downtown should be wherever it makes sense to be. If a downtown is off-center, but it works, leave it there. If a downtown is off-center and it doesn't work, either move it or built another co-downtown, or revitalize it, or do something else, or do nothing. But regardless of what you do, in order to improve Detroit, we need to change our way of thinking. This is the discussion I was trying to raise.
I think a lot of DetroitYESers, although admirable for their love of the City of Detroit, neglect the fact that 3/4 of the people in the Metro area live outside the city and they don't think of Detroit as the "heart" of the Metro area; they think of it as the "cancer" of the Metro area. Metro Detroit does not revolve around downtown. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 10:19 am: | |
Since you proposed the geography game, let's stick to the geography facts. Detroit's population is roughly 900,000 people in an area of about 140 sq. miles. That's a little less than four 36 sq. mile geographic townships. Not one of the communities in the surrounding area comes anywhere near the density or population of Detroit even if it was equal in size to Detroit. As Mikeg's map showed, the distribution of population in the Metro area is centered in and around the city of Detroit. It doesn't matter if 75% of the population in the area isn't within the city limits. It's so widely distributed (sprawling is the term that comes to mind) that locating a "downtown" anywhere else makes very little sense. |
Eastsideal
Member
Username: Eastsideal
Post Number: 266
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 10:26 am: | |
So, somewhere around the south part of Southfield convenient to traffic, like, say, around the Lodge, Greenfield, and 9 Mile, we should build shopping, office buildings, hotels, and restaurants and they'll all be successful. Glad you thought of that! Oh, no, wait a minute... |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 11:10 am: | |
Okay, Retroit, here's the deal: I'll keep going downtown when I want to take advantage of the cultural attractions offered there, or when I'm trying to catch a bus to another part of the city. You can reinvent the wheel at 7 and Schaefer, or 9 and Greenfield, or wherever you think "downtown" ought to be. Let us know how that works out, and say hi to Drew Sheard for me.
Seriously, do you really think it's a good idea to completely abandon the 300-year-old existing downtown and build a new one in an already-built-out urban neighborhood that wasn't designed in a way that is at all conducive to that kind of development, or are you just trying to stir the pot on "DetroitYes" by presenting an almost comically anti-Detroit perspective? You seem intelligent enough to realize that this idea has no merit whatsoever, so it baffles me why you continue to plug it unless you're just trying to get a rise out of people. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3725
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 11:21 am: | |
Another reason why it would be stupid to "move" the center of Metro Detroit is that the entire state of Michigan is surveyed starting from downtown Detroit. Hell, even the Illinois/Wisconsin state line is surveyed from downtown Detroit. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1759
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 11:22 am: | |
I might add, since I don't think anyone has, that the center of population of metropolitan Chicago is far to the west of downtown Chicago.
If we're talking about, scientifically, the actual center of population, as described well and correctly by Mikeg.
If you're talking about the "psychological center of population", then you are using a phrase which is not well defined, so you can argue all week about it and I'll shut up. But in scientific terms, if a region exists on one side of a natural boundary, its population center must be some distance from that boundary. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3451
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 11:47 am: | |
There are very different centers of the population when you divide it for black and white. Has always been that way. |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 772
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 11:54 am: | |
quote:There are very different centers of the population when you divide it for black and white
Which leads us to where we got in this predicament in the first place. Stunning. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3453
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 11:57 am: | |
I remember seeing a study from years back showing the "orbit" and "center" of white and black. It was telling. Can't recall the book now, though. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1760
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 12:49 pm: | |
Actually, I'd be surprised it the center of population of African Americans is very far from the overall center. The population dispersal is dramatically different, but the center may not be so different.
A friend of mine, in the early 1980s, studied in detail the population migration of African American people in the metropolitan region. The conclusion he reached, without making any attempt to find a cause for the conclusion, was:
1. Before the Federal fair housing laws, African American outmigration closely followed Jewish outmigration, and spread outward from those corridors; so before 1964 it was possible to tell where African Americans would live in the future by looking at where the Jewish people were living at the time.
2. After the Federal fair housing laws, the African American outmigration closely followed Jewish outmigration, and spread outward from those corridors.
He did not bother to say - but from that result it's glaring - that the real conclusion is that metro Detroit has ignored, and continues to ignore, Federal law which has now been on the books nearly a half century.
Any African American who has tried to buy a house in Berkley or Sterling Heights or Grosse Pointe can probably tell you how the game works, since they've been through it. The Prof is white, but has seen variations by asking around. This is flagrantly illegal, and a very serious civil rights violation, but it persists and we ignore it. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:06 pm: | |
The map below uses shades of red to show the relative percentage of African-Americans in each census tract (darker=greater percentage, 2000 US Census data). It does not indicate the relative population density of the tracts, so it would need to be used together with the previous map to extrapolate a true African-American "center of population". Allowing for the lower population densities in the Southfield area, one can conclude that the African-American "center of population" is pretty close to the total tri-county "center of population".
|
Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:08 pm: | |
The Free Press published this in about 2001 after the census data was calculated. It marked the first time ever the center of SE MI population was not in the city of Detroit. It was just across 8 Mile in a lot for Waste Management on 8 Mile near Evergreen I believe. They also showed a map showing the center over previous decades. It went from about 6 and Schaefer in the 50s and has moved NW ever since then. By 2010 I imagine it will be near 9 and Telegraph. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3457
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:09 pm: | |
See? That map doesn't look segregated at all. It makes perfect sense that the white and black populations would have the same center. :P |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 773
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:17 pm: | |
Depending on the losses in population region wide, who really knows where the center will be, or whether it really matters or not.
SEMCOG data suggests that Detroit's population is 854,899 as of January 2009. Estimated.
Other stats at:
http://semcog.org/Data/Apps/co mprof/people.cfm?cpid=5 |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 929
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:31 pm: | |
For the Nth time and as clearly as I can possibly state it: I do not think that downtown should be abandoned and/or that a new one should be built.
The fact is that downtown has already been largely abandoned, and that a new one does not need to be built because a downtown is really not necessary. It is an outdated concept to believe that all businesses and all people need to be compacted into a dense core. I think sprawl has worked just fine (haha, laugh all you want), and if any place is problematic, its downtown. And I don't see what the big fascination is with having a downtown since, in Detroit's case, it is neither central nor vital to the survival of the Metropolitan area. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3460
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:38 pm: | |
"It is an outdated concept to believe that all businesses and all people need to be compacted into a dense core."
I'm sorry, but, to say this very respectfully: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 20
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:42 pm: | |
Retroit, I've figured you out. At first I would read your responses and think to myself "my god, is this person truly believing what he says?" You've blown my mind, made my jaw drop and you've pissed me off. But you know, I got it now. You truly don't believe anything that you say, it's just a bunch of B.S that you preach to us just to piss us off, and no more. There's not intellectual thought process in your head when you spray this crap onto the forum. Retroit, leave the forum... come back when you have something worth while to say |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 1:47 pm: | |
"It is an outdated concept to believe that all businesses and all people need to be compacted into a dense core."
Strawman. No city exists without suburbs save for geographic outliers like San Francisco, Hong Kong or Venice. Who has argued for "all" of anything? |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1761
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 2:27 pm: | |
Fareastsider said: "It was just across 8 Mile in a lot for Waste Management on 8 Mile near Evergreen I believe."
If I told my peeps back in Noo Yawk that the center of population for metro Detroit is in a Waste Management lot off Eight Mile, they would nod and say "yep". |
Detx
Member
Username: Detx
Post Number: 255
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 2:28 pm: | |
"And I don't see what the big fascination is with having a downtown since, in Detroit's case, it is neither central nor vital to the survival of the Metropolitan area."
The key word in your urban model is "survival". Which is the only thing the Metro Detroit region is doing- surviving. As opposed to "thriving". The faux growth we've seen in Oakland County over the last 50 years is merely the outflow of jobs and dollars from Detroit northwards. Now all the money has left Detroit. As a result we have a region with 4 million people and no synergy, going every which way, and, increasingly, these days, out of state. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 2:34 pm: | |
Heck, Detx, we aren't even surviving. Take any reasonable metric on success of an urbanized region, take the top 25 or 30 by population in North America, and we will be in the bottom two or three. We are, in fact, drowning.
At least these days we have some people - very few, but some - in positions of leadership who recognize that we are drowning, and are willing to try different things. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 930
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 3:04 pm: | |
If you can not discuss the topic at hand, please post your personal attacks on the appropriate thread that has been provided for your exclusive use.
I live in Sprawlville and I love it! And I am not ashamed of myself for contributing to the demise of downtown or the inner city because of where I live. It may be difficult for some of you to imagine that people can actually be happy living anywhere other than downtown or in a "high-density area", but my fellow Sprawlers, including a growing list of ex-Detroiters, is proof that I am not making this up. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3461
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 3:08 pm: | |
Retroit is totally *not* feeling defensive about his decision. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1764
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 3:15 pm: | |
Retroit, I agree with you that you can live wherever you like; not everyone needs to live in a central city, and I'm glad you're happy where you live.
What I question is this part of your thesis: "And I don't see what the big fascination is with having a downtown since, in Detroit's case, it is neither central nor vital to the survival of the Metropolitan area."
I would argue that the metro area is not, in fact, surviving at all, and I would like to see an example of any thriving metropolitan region with an abandoned central core. I don't think it's possible. If you know of one, tell me, and I'll be happy to revamp my own opinion.
Now, I don't know where you live, let's say Shelby Township. Shelby Township, on its own, may be doing perfectly OK at the moment. But the region, as a whole, is hemhorraging jobs and people, and if it continues to do so, Shelby Township eventually won't be OK. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3728
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 3:19 pm: | |
quote:I live in Sprawlville and I love it! And I am not ashamed of myself for contributing to the demise of downtown or the inner city because of where I live. It may be difficult for some of you to imagine that people can actually be happy living anywhere other than downtown or in a "high-density area", but my fellow Sprawlers, including a growing list of ex-Detroiters, is proof that I am not making this up.
Nobody claimed that you weren't happy there. But what I am claiming, and I think many of us feel as such, is that it is not healthy for everybody to live in sprawl-burbia. Not only that, but certain forces in Michigan have made it so that sprawl-burbia is the most attractive option for everybody, even those who might otherwise opt to live in a denser environment.
Just to be clear, I am by no means anti-suburb. I think there is a balance that can be struck between urban and suburban, but Metro Detroit has long since passed that healthy balance and moved off towards the fringe.
Because of this, Metro Detroit as a region is at a competitive disadvantage when it competes for resources against regions like Chicago, Boston or NYC, that have found a healthier balance, and therefore, are more attractive for people of all preferences to locate. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 933
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 4:19 pm: | |
Ihearthed, I think you expressed what I've been trying to say with these words: "Metro Detroit has long since passed that healthy balance..." THAT is my point!
Does Detroit have a chance of ever being the 4th largest city in America like it once was? I think not. Big Business gravitates toward Chicago or NYC and Detroit is smack-dab between them. If it weren't for the Big3 sticking around, we would be in much worse condition.
So my point is: given the situation we find ourselves in, is it realistic to believe that we can ever recreate downtown. How many casinos and stadiums and hotels can we keep building without a commercial core. And if it is not a central "passing point" for the population, who is going to go there? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3730
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 4:48 pm: | |
quote:Ihearthed, I think you expressed what I've been trying to say with these words: "Metro Detroit has long since passed that healthy balance..." THAT is my point!
But this can be corrected, so why not do it? It isn't set in stone that Detroit has to be this way forever. If Atlanta can double in size in 10 years, then surely Detroit can compete too with the right plan.
As for Detroit depending on the Big 3, my opinion is that Detroit has depended on it too much. The Big 3 cannot remain big forever, and more than likely they won't be around as three separate companies for much longer. So should Detroit just die along with them? Detroit was a city long before it was the Motor City. Why tie its fate to one single industry? |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 935
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 5:16 pm: | |
Why not do it, and why do it? That is the question(s).
Atlanta is a poor example because it would prove my point about the "center" being in the center.
"So should Detroit just die along with them?" Isn't this inevitable if they go out of business? Have we prepared for this eventuality?
What other industry should we tie our fate to? Should it be expected that it will be centered downtown? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3731
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 5:25 pm: | |
quote:Atlanta is a poor example because it would prove my point about the "center" being in the center.
Atlanta's "center" is in the center because Atlanta was formed around a railroad junction. Detroit was formed against a strait. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 939
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 6:28 pm: | |
Atlanta's "center" stayed its center because it is the center. Detroit's center failed to stay its center because it is no longer the center.
If downtown Detroit had initially been placed where Southfield is, wouldn't it be more likely to have developed more than it has?
Let's say downtown Detroit has a 8 mile wide ring, or donut, around it which is completely abandoned, as the current trend indicates may happen. Is it viable to expect people to traverse this no-man's-land to get to downtown?
I'm trying to make a long term (50 to 100 year) evaluation of Detroit. If we could re-create Detroit (keeping some things, eliminating some things, and changing some things), what would those things be? Would we insist that downtown Detroit MUST be built up? Could we accept its current size? Could we accept it much smaller, and still have a great city? |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 6:43 pm: | |
quote:Atlanta's "center" stayed its center because it is the center. Detroit's center failed to stay its center because it is no longer the center. What are you basing this on? I don't think that's necessarily true. I think Detroit's center is as disinvested as it is now because government policies encouraged racial segregation and automobile dependence, and a lot of people decided we didn't need a center anymore. BTW, I don't think your assertion that "Detroit's center failed to stay its center" is accurate. It's still more of a center than anywhere else around here, it just isn't on the scale that it should be for a metro of this size.quote:If downtown Detroit had initially been placed where Southfield is, wouldn't it be more likely to have developed more than it has? No. Downtown Detroit was initially placed where it was because the easiest way to get around SE Michigan in 1701 was by boat. If Cadillac had decided to build his city in the middle of the wilderness 15 miles from the river, it would maybe have lasted a month or two. It was placed where it was for a reason, and I think there are still advantages to it being near the river and Canada.
I read somewhere that when Philadelphia was first built, it had an elaborate master plan that placed its center in the center. Except that's not how it developed, because everyone wanted to be near the river, so the densest and oldest development ended up there, while the "center" specified by the plan remained largely rural for decades afterward. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 940
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 7:29 pm: | |
Bearinabox, you answered your own question. You ask why I think that Detroit's center failed to stay its center? Then you say, correctly, that because of government policy and peoples' decisions, it is no longer the center. THAT IS MY POINT! It is no longer the center!
But just to clarify, one more time: Detroit's downtown failed to stay the focal point of the region because as the population shifted away from downtown, they found other areas to locate their businesses and build their homes.
If there was an inland waterway, let's say Conner River for example, that was navigable and extended to Southfield, and the city was founded there, do you think that maybe it would have retained and attracted more business and people to it then our current downtown?
And what are the advantages of having downtown near the river and Canada? At one time there was an incredible amount of water traffic. Not any more. And how much does Canada contribute to downtown that it couldn't contribute if downtown were 10 miles away? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3732
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 7:31 pm: | |
quote:Atlanta's "center" stayed its center because it is the center. Detroit's center failed to stay its center because it is no longer the center.
Please refer to the Chicago example above. Atlanta's "center" is in the center because it is surrounded by (cheap) land. It was developed in all directions because it isn't against an aquatic or international border. If you look at Detroit from a satellite and forget that it is against an international border, you will see that downtown Detroit is completely surrounded by densely developed land. That's because people built from downtown Detroit outwards, on both sides of the border. Same thing happened to Atlanta.
Furthermore, Atlanta is interesting because population wise it is much smaller than Detroit, but the metropolitan areas are similar in size. So Atlanta residents make up a smaller percentage of the population of Metro Atlanta than Detroit residents do the population of Metro Detroit. Boston and San Francisco are like this too. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 941
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 8:01 pm: | |
But, Ihearthed, Detroit didn't develop equally on both sides of the border. Plus, as an international border, there is less "flow" than if it were not a border. So, how much of a factor is Windsor in keeping downtown anchored where it is? I understand historically why this is so, but will this paradigm apply 100 years from now when the population of Metro Detroit is 15 million?
You raise another good observation: the ratio of the area size of the city proper to the area size of the metro. If Detroit were just one big municipality, it would be drastically different from what it is now. Would there be a disconnect between "inner" and "outer" Detroit like we have now with Detroit and the suburbs? Who would be the mayor and councilpersons? This is a thread topic in itself! |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3734
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 8:29 am: | |
quote:So, how much of a factor is Windsor in keeping downtown anchored where it is? I understand historically why this is so, but will this paradigm apply 100 years from now when the population of Metro Detroit is 15 million?
One hundred years is a long time to project. A lot can change in terms policy and migration trends. Case in point, fifty years ago everyone thought that Detroit would have 5 million residents by now. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 754
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 10:06 am: | |
Interesting debate. Retroit many would argue downtown is more important than ever in today's tech age, because people are craving a common centre. That is why suburbs are trying to build downtowns now.
Even during the golden age of downtowns, not all business was in the downtown core. A large percentage, but not all. And that is the key, you have to have a balance.
By ignoring downtowns and saying they are not needed, you lost out on all the synergy that is created by having so many business and people in one area.
A study was done on the "future" of downtown Toronto. And you know one of the big points that came out of it? That having a healthy downtown with a mix of business, creates a synergy that most American cities have lost, because their downtowns have depopulated. The report basically said we were at an advantage because of that, because at the end of the day people like face to face contact.
There will always be a centre and it will be vital.
You may not think it is vital, but downtown Detroit still contains the largest amount of jobs in the region, and the greater downtown area contains many institutions that really need to be in a central area like the Detroit Medical Centre. Sad that for most they have to be sick to go downtown now.
By not having a vital downtown area you lose out on alot, because many business need to be in a busy central area that attracts people from all around a region. That is why shopping is better for example in a smaller city like say Montreal than Detroit. Because of a busy downtown, Montreal can support 3,000 stores in the downtown alone with every kind of item you can think of. What do you have in Metro Detroit? Sommerset with 300 stores you can find anywhere else?
You suffer from a lack of business, selection, etc because of a lack of a common meeting place.
If you want to rise, then focus on making a downtown that creates synergy between different business. |
Bragaboutme
Member
Username: Bragaboutme
Post Number: 597
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 11:49 am: | |
I think the most perfect example of how to destroy an area is Highland Park. When Chrysler moved to Auburn Hills it killed the idea of synergy in this area. Bill Davidson built the Palace and others followed to build many of the towers you see today. If this were a practical situation and the synergy was directed to Downtown Detroit then we wouldn't be discussing this today and we wouldn't have to rely on the Big three to compete, as a matter of fact many cities would have to compete with Detroit.
Fastforward to today and you have an area that looks to the outside world as a region in dis-array fighting not only to keep their core population in tact, but their suburbs as well. When people ask from the outside they ask "why can't Detroit get it right?", when they say Detroit that includes the whole region not just the city. I don't expect a mass exodus to Downtown, but I do expect all future buisiness leaders to understand that building downtown would be the best move for Detroit and Michigan. That synergy alone would change the mindset of this whole region moving forward. It would put the focus on teamwork as a region, not city vs suburb. How can we fight to compete in the world if our suburbs is fighting us to stay alive? |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 755
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 4:51 pm: | |
From the Future of Downtown report done for Toronto. This applies to all downtowns.
---
Despite these changes, the emphasis is increasingly on clustering together in the search
for agglomeration economies. Increased communication has not resulted in a greater
dispersal of activity, as some had predicted, but paradoxically, greater concentration. The
need for face to face contact, access to skilled labour, access to business customers and
proximity to competitors has propelled firms to increasingly concentrate those activities
that rely most on knowledge, innovation and technological advances.
----- |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.