  Kathleen Member Username: Kathleen Post Number: 1207 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.122.57 |
"Christopher Leinberger, one of the nation's gurus of downtown redevelopment, told Detroiters on Wednesday that their downtown can become one of the nation's best. A visiting scholar at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, D.C., as well as a professor of real estate at the University of Michigan, Leinberger suggested several strategies to the annual meeting of the Downtown Detroit Partnership, a civic and business leadership group. ..." http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060317/BUS INESS04/603170332/1017/BUSINES S | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 516 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 209.240.205.61 |
One of the nation's best? As far as comparable to THE best like San Fran, Chicago and NYC, never of course. But I think we could be comparable to Seattle, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and MAYBE Boston. The architecture and critical mass of SE Michigan are already here to build a powerhouse downtown. | ||
Sfdet Member Username: Sfdet Post Number: 74 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 75.0.171.39 |
the brookings institute is a left leaning think tank. be suspicious of any so called "guru' from this organization who's answer to everything tends to be bigger government and higher taxes. how to encourage development downtown and turn it into one of the nations best? make it a place where businesses want to locate and developers want to develop. create an enviroment where businesses can prosper and be profitable. imo, more than anything else, that means revising the city's tax burden so that it's competitive with the suburbs. until the city's overall tax burden becomes competitive, just watch. the only large business to move into to the city will be the ones who receive the big tax breaks, the big tax incentives. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 554 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 192.122.250.250 |
Downtown could definately be at least as good as Boston. It'll take a little more time until we can talk about taking Chicago, and such. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 519 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 209.240.205.61 |
Well tetsua, Detroit and Boston are very close in terms of metro population, but downtown Boston far outshines Detroit's downtown now. First of all, Boston has less than 100 annual homicides usually. At least 240k people work in downtown Boston, which is served by extensive and efficient rail transit. Finally, in the most exclusive neighborhoods near and in downtown Boston, condos and private homes can fetch over $10 million. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1347 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
You, my friend, have just created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why can't Detroit have a great downtown? Wasn't it the most beautiful city this side of Paris once-upon-a-dream? Sheesh. Sometimes I think the biggest problem with Detroit is the low expectations people have. | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 428 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 64.79.90.206 |
I heard Leinberger speak yesterday. One thing he emphasized is that "Water is gold" - and also, in contrast to other re-emerging downtowns, Detroit has the advantage of already possessing a daily office population. He specifically said that Philly and several others have critically low corporate employee populations, and is trying to make up the gap. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 10 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 12.47.224.7 |
That's an interesting comment about Detroit's office populations. Downtown's got what 100,000 office workers? I'm surpised about what he said about Philly. I know people from Philly (I've never been there) who say it's downtown is very thriving. The problem with Detroit has been that folks flee to the suburbs at 6. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2202 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245 |
Sfdet, it is ironic that the nation's "best" cities as you indicated (SF, NYC, CHI) are far and away dominated by "left leaning" and "bigger government" policies and gosh even some higher tax policies too. Maybe we'd be wise to pay attention to Brookings eggheads on this. Even DC presently dominated by a nominally right-leaning federal gvt has benifited stunningly from a huge influx of, frankly, purt near out-of-control, tax dollar-spurred growth. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 520 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 209.240.205.61 |
Eastsidedog, I think downtown Detroit's office worker population is between 70,000 and 80,000. I haven't seen any up to date figures for about 5-6 years. Although one fairly recent article stated a VERY high number, somewhere north of 140,000. That had to be including midtown and New Center as there is no way 140k work in the traditionally defined downtown that is one sq. mile. SWmap, that Leinberger may have been off base. Most other major downtowns in the U.S. have office worker populations near or above 100k, although this is probably in an area much larger than downtown Detroit's one sq. mile. I know Center City Philly, which is what they call downtown Philly, has a huge downtown residential population of at least 70k, and probably many thousands more now that they are building a lot of condo towers. DanDC, I already think dwtn Detroit is great. I suppose I should never say never, but I don't think Detroit can or will compare to incredible world cities like Chicago or New York. I think dwtn Detroit will continue to improve, possibly even beyond anything I may have expected. Just trying to be realistic and not set myself up for disappointment. | ||
220hendrie1910 Member Username: 220hendrie1910 Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 20.137.2.50 |
I agree with Rustic on this. Contrary to what Sfdet says, cities that have reclaimed their downtowns invariably do so with healthy helpings of government assistance - the Invisible Hand rarely acts to help the far-gone. There is some logic to the comparison of Detroit's natural gift to those of San Francisco, New York, and Chicago. With appropriate controls on waterfront setbacks (which Toronto forgot, alas), views of the River could serve as an attraction for tens of square miles of new urban developments. Naïvely complacent in Ottawa. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1348 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I'd be careful with the your assessment of DC, Rustic. True that the National Capital Region is booming in no small part because of federal spending, the District itself has a liberal (but fiscally conservative) Mayor and Council. I'm not lecturing--most people just don't understand the difference between "Washington" and "DC". ...and yeah, we benefit from federal largesse, but we also don't collect taxes from the government either! A lot of the boom in the DC anyway, is people who are tired of commuting an hour each way every day. Apparently the 9% marginal income tax bracket isn't enough to discourage people from buying $500,000 condos in town. If you think about it, though, most American cities, including those named above, have been through crisis phases, especially in the 1980s! It's really only been the past 10 or 15 years that we've started to rediscover our cities. The only thing holding back Detroit is the willpower to find a solution. | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 429 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 64.79.90.206 |
Mind-field: Leinberger did say that philly has a large residential population. He also seperated the residential from the employee population and said that the day-time employee base was low compared to Detroit's. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1349 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
That's interesting, considering Center City Phila. has a residential population exceeding 100,000. Last I heard, the worker population in Detroit's CBD was just over 50,000. If what is posted above is true, this would imply that unlike most other American cities, Philadelphia's downtown is disproportionately residential. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 767 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
I (unfortunately) spent a lot of time in Philadelphia a couple of years ago and they're experiencing a lot of urban sprawl. Almost all of the new dot.com firms or company headquarters were locating outside of the city and instead near King of Prussia. There was a staggering amount of brand new office parks and brand new multi-lane highways and freeway construction out that way. Of course, there were also new apartments and condos going up in that area to give the workers somewhere to live instead of almost an hour away in the city center (traffic there sucks). | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2205 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245 |
DaninDC I agree with what you said re DC vs Washington ... and what you said re American cities. Re PHI, perhaps it could be that the Center City revivial is a bit thinner than it looks. PHI is chock full of some truly atrocious housing to the north and south (and across the river to the east if ya wanna count that). Old, poverty stricken rundown ... as horrible as anything in Balt, Wilmington, DC ... and OCCUPIED -- that might represent a hard limit on how far PHI CC rivial can spread -- it might have reached it's limits. (I used to live in center city PHI SW of Rittenhouse Square (actually closer to Fitler Square for those who know PHI).) | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 768 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Rustic, I agree that the housing stock is pretty horrible but the thing I like about the city of Philadelphia is that they're pretty good at tearing down old, abandoned buildings and even blocks upon blocks of rowhouses. That's how they use a lot of the CDBG money. The new rowhouses aren't much better than the old ones, but at least they're not falling apart (at least not yet). As I know you know from living there, there is also still a lot of corner-store retail that seems to keep folks in those neighborhoods, too. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1275 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 141.213.173.94 |
Eastsidedog, downtown and Old City Philadelphia are awesome. It has a density that most of downtown Detroit could never get. I agree with Danindc's assessment...we were designed to be a stunning downtown, a very European-style creation. We have a pretty average level of density downtown, but there are plenty of sweeping open areas like Madison and Cadillac Sq., and then there are the spokes like Gratiot and Michigan which are wider than your average street. I'd really like to see downtown with about half as many surface parking lots as it has right now to get a sense for what our density could be. Hopefully I'll live to see that. The ideas in that piece aren't bad. I like how Gallagher said "tax-adverse" when he meant "tax-averse." | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 17 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 12.47.224.7 |
Mackinaw, unfortunately, without good mass transit Detroit will continue to become more and more like LA. More sprawling, disconnected, segregated and car dependent. Some people have told me that, Detroit is pretty east coast (I've always lived here so I don't have much perspective, I'm referring to it's ethnic mix, edginess, the way people carry themselves). I think Detroit has the potential to become more like Boston or Philly, but the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Lots of money is made on sprawl (it's subsidized). If someone figures out a way to make lots and lots of money on urban revitalization, then Detroit will become a thriving urban center in no time. In fact the tax breaks in Detroit are really just another subsidy fashioned to help the city compete with the suburbs for new housing. Hence the boom in new housing in the city. Notice how there's no such boom in people buying existing homes in the city. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1276 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 141.213.173.94 |
Well the good news is that there is a boom and investment expansion at least when it comes to living in the center of the city. I don't see Detroit as very much like an east-coast city. Yes we have a lot of fine old buildings, but we don't have: 1) mixed diversity 2) expansive inner-city middle class districts 3) high density, narrow streetscapes based on grids 4) have much pre-1900 architecture left, nor do we have many row-houses and high-density residential. You won't find anything like Elfreth's Alley in Detroit. And we are still rust belt, unlike a city like Pittsburgh which has shaken that off. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 19 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.79.122.143 |
Mackinaw, when I talk about being east coast I'm referring to the people not the architechture. Well at least in the city. People are very different in the suburbs - softer, friendlier, more midwestern. It the city they tell tell it like it is. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 828 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
I always find it interesting that whenever anyone talks about the future of the city or downtown, mass transit is always mentioned. We really need to fix this. | ||
Detrola Member Username: Detrola Post Number: 6 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.14.28.209 |
Perhaps we should first set our sites on being better than cleveland, milwaukee or minneapolis. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1892 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.6.200 |
One of Philadelphia's biggest mistakes was the destruction of ALL their downtown movie palaces in 60's-70's. The best was the 4,717 seat Italian Renaissance style Mastbaum Theatre, one of the largest and most magnificent theatres in the country, pounded to rubble. So they don't even come close to Detroit when it comes to a theatre district. | ||
Sfdet Member Username: Sfdet Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.146.66.222 |
Rustic, you're right. nyc, boston, and sf are dominated by left leaning politics. but there's a difference between those downtown's and detroit's. in the case of the other downtowns, there are other powerful economic reasons for a business to locate in the city center - the reasons vary but include things such as an proximity to an educated workforce, proximity to major international ports, central location relative to the metro area, and transportation. downtown detroit has few of these types of economic advantages right now relative to its suburbs. And if you think you can compensate for downtown detroit's disadvantages relative to its suburbs by having a higher tax burden for businesses in the city, you're kidding yourself imo. detroit's overall tax burden on its business must be competitive with its suburbs or the city will continue to see an overall level of disinvestment. that's my point. (Message edited by sfdet on March 18, 2006) | ||
Tomoh Member Username: Tomoh Post Number: 99 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.40.205.183 |
Re: Boston. Mind_field, 100 homocides in a city half the size of Detroit is significantly better but not much to write home about either. Downtown Boston (the CBD) is absolutely dead in the evenings. Good luck finding any bar that's open that will stay open past midnight-one o'clock. The surrounding areas, though, are densely residential and vibrant. Plenty of office jobs downtown but all the new high tech jobs are being created way out in the suburbs in the Route 128 corridor. Re: Philly. Danindc, I know that Philly has like 78k people living "downtown", defined in this case as an area of 4.3 square miles (we could call Midtown, New Center, and the riverfront downtown too). Detroit, IMO, does have the potential to have that kind of density throughout the greater downtown area with the way the east riverfront is developing, the loft conversions downtown, midtown, and in New Center, and new townhouse construction. How long would it take to add 30k more people? Get 5k more on the East Riverfront (a good chunk already under proposal), 10k in the CBD, 10k in Midtown (including thousands of WSU dorms), 5k in New Center (including north to Boston-Edison, east including Milwaukee Junction, and just west of the Lodge)? Offset the amount of growth needed by any growth in Eastern Market, densification in Corktown and new developments north of Michigan Ave, and anything that could happen west of the CBD and possibly along the west riverfront. Is just half of one percent of the region's 6 million people willing to move "downtown" in the next 10 years? The greater downtown of Chicago, btw, is not nearly as dense as the greater downtown of Philly or even Boston. The Brookings Institute studies urban issues and downtown issues quite a bit, more than any institution I know of regardless of perceived left-right lean. | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 642 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.42.220.37 |
This is exciting feedback. Did anyone catch the artilce in the free press about out of state developers. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20060309/BIZ/6 03090358/1001 Thank God the outside developers are coming to our rescue with the fresh ideas, wordly sophistication and urban sensiblities. Sometimes its seems Detroit's problems are really the product of a collosal failure of regional political and business leadership, including the local development community, who by and large over the last 30 years could be most kindly generalized as a pack of parochial, uninspired retards. | ||
Naturalsister Member Username: Naturalsister Post Number: 528 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.169.65 |
I agree Ray, until we overcome our internal squabbles (Wayne-vs-Oakland and etc) we will not see development that equals the potential as we compare ourselves to other cities that have what we have in place. The waterway, downtown layout, and international border - those things would make any other city one of the top in the nation. ... and then there is us. later - naturalsister |
