Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » Cool Cities/Urban Renewal « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Laidie125
Member
Username: Laidie125

Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Urban Renewal and Cool Cities Analysis

There are many differences between the “cool cities” approach to revitalizing Detroit and the previous efforts at “urban renewal” – such as “The Detroit Plan.” However, I feel that there are two key distinctions between these two approaches. The first key distinction is that previous efforts at “urban renewal,” like the Detroit Plan, focused on attracting white middle class families to move into the city, while the “cool cities” initiative focuses on attracting the diverse creative class. The second key distinction is the way in which the two approaches go about attracting these different groups. While the previous plans attempted to revitalize the city with expensive destruction and then rebuilding, the “cool cities” initiative attempts to revitalize the city by preserving, not destroying, historical cultural destinations and the rebuilding of arts districts. Previous “urban renewal” plans attempted to attract white middle class families back into the city by literally destroying the slums and building new, affordable (for middle class families) housing units – that were often much too expensive for the blacks that had lived in the slums to afford. On the other hand, the “cool cities” initiative attempts to attract the diverse creative class through the revitalization and maintaining of arts districts and cultural destinations.
In his speech, “An Urban Age in Detroit: The Case for State Reform and Community Renewal,” Bruce Katz proposes that the Detroit LISC and their communities allies make school reform their central focus and priority. Although I agree that the “school oriented development” could be successful in attracting more middle class families to the city, or at least keeping the families that live within the city limits today, I do not feel as though it would be near enough to truly revitalize the city, just as simply providing nicer housing has proven to not be enough to revitalize Detroit. However, if the “school oriented development” were to be complemented by the “cool cities” initiative and an initiative that focused on rebuilding communities together they could be very successful. The reason that the “school oriented development” plan would not be sufficient in revitalizing the city is that it is too family oriented. A good school system alone is not enough to attract large masses of people to move back into Detroit. This is because numerous suburbs surrounding the city offer great school systems along with nice housing and a great community. Detroit is obviously going to have difficulty attracting these families that are already accustomed to suburban life. Instead, Detroit needs to first focus on attracting young people who tend to be more attracted to urban life than married couples with children. Attracting young people, especially those within the creative class who are likely to be more entrepreneurial and take bigger risks, through the rebuilding of arts districts and cultural destinations as proposed by the “cool cities” initiative is the key to the revitalization of Detroit. These people will be more motivated to make the city their own, to work at revitalizing their own communities and build an increasing number of creative businesses. Once Detroit has found a way to attract and keep young, talented, creative people living in the city limits, it can then focus on how to better the school systems so that these young people continue to live in the city upon marriage and having children.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bussey
Member
Username: Bussey

Post Number: 311
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 10:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This wont be pretty...
Top of pageBottom of page

Tomoh
Member
Username: Tomoh

Post Number: 266
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 11:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Welcome to the forum, Laidie125. Quite a heavy first post. I do agree with the point that, for the price, focusing on schools will not be enough to revitalize the city, and that it's not the best facet to compete with the suburbs with. Young people and people of the creative class are the low hanging fruit, the ones that are easier (read: cheaper) to attract and harder to repel despite the schools and whatever else.
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 71
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 11:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

(and public transportation wouldn't hurt either.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 127
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 12:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The problem with "cool cities" is it seems to have the equation backward. The only way to attract middle class people to an area is if there are good jobs available, a low crime rate, good schools for the kids, decent stores, and nice homes or condos which is not the case in Detroit.

In order to provide this, you must be able to attract private investment. The majority of the business community seems to have decided that Detroit is not the best area to locate or expand their business. Government programs that issue grants to local communities to make cosmetic changes are only feel-good window dressing.

If you go to the "Cool Cities" web site (which is an embarrassing piece of trash) there is much talk about community gardens, art shows, pot-luck dinners and various other crap that have nothing to do with economic development. I don't think business leaders give a damn about pumpkin carving contests and the like when they are making decisions about expanding their business.

This program is a bunch of liberal tripe and pandering that will never end up creating a meaningful number of jobs in any community. Granholm brags about creating 1000 jobs here and 600 jobs there, which even those numbers when analyzed are false, and we lose that many in one afternoon in this area.

Private industry creates jobs, not the government, so you have to make the BUSINESS environment better not spending money on pot-luck dinners and art shows for libs. Christ, there is even a news item on the cool cities web site about Benton Harbor where 12 new jobs are being created. That’s TWELVE jobs! Amazing! Even those 12 jobs are minimum wage.

We need a total top-to-bottom re-vamping of our strategy in terms of business in this state. The tax code, the labor laws (we need to be a right-to-work state if we ever hope to get a Nissan, Honda or Toyota plant here) reduced government regulation, tort reform, infrastructure improvements, and reduced state government. Granholm’s blaming of George Bush for all of our woes does not wash as most other states are doing much better. As a software engineer, I am being offered large sums of money to leave this state every day because other areas are flourishing, even in the “rust belt.” Sadly even if I wanted to leave, which I don’t I couldn’t sell my house.

The MEDC, which is being touted every 3 minutes on OUR airwaves (why not out of state?) by Liberal actor Jeff Daniels is nothing more than a campaign vehicle for Granholm. There is not 2 billion dollars available as Granholm says, and even if there were government has a horrible record in terms of picking winners and losers in the business community. They would be better off keeping the money and getting rid of the personal property tax, which penalizes any business who wishes to invest in new equipment.

Sorry to respond to your post with an anti-Granholm diatribe, but the “Cool Cities” crap gets me wound up! There are 10,000 home foreclosures in Oakland county, once one of the richest counties in the country! We need more than a few low-paying Google jobs in Ann Arbor and “Cool Cities!”
Top of pageBottom of page

Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster

Post Number: 1832
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 8:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are you in the same class at U-M as Vandykenjefferson?
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 618
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 3:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PG, sorry, but I think that you have it backward. "Private investment" just doesn't magically appear because it has been decided that that's what is needed. You may think that the "creative class" approach is some kind of cliche, but the pattern in every urban area in the country that has enjoyed a significant comeback from disinvestment as serious as that seen in Detroit has involved creating residential options for this "creative class" as a first option. Things like high paying jobs and successful schools may or may not follow. But right now, Detroit is unable to win very many contests to attract capital based exclusively on economic factors. However, it can offer a quality of life that is attractive to a certain demographic (creative class types) that has shown a willingness to invest its private capital in what most consider "risky" locations. It is these "risky" investments that can stabilize disinvested neighborhoods and plant the seeds, if you will, for more substantial economic growth. The Granholm administration has recognized this pattern and attempted to promote it with the Cool Cities programs.

Detroit has made good progress in the past decade. But its complete rebirth and recovery will take a long time. If it happens at all it will take a couple of generations to again become the co-equal of its suburban neighbors in employment and educational opportunities. In the meantime, the pursuit of the "creative class" demographic will be the most effective way to attract investment and residents.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4136
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 4:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What happened to all of those galleries along Library, Grand River, Woodward and Capitol Park that existed 10-15 years ago?

Oh, yeah, white suburbanites thought those areas were dangerous and if a Detroit artist wasn't exhibited (or they hadn't slept with them) in Birmingham they were not "Cool".

Detroit may be a work in progress, but it is not something that suddenly appeared, to be "saved" by the "Creative Class" or by a light rail system.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster

Post Number: 1840
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 4:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh is that what happened, Jams?
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 129
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 5:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit was once the heart of the industrial revolution, and people came from all over the world to work here. That opportunity was created by entrepreneurs who felt Detroit offered a good environment for their business. It had little to do with the “creative class” and the number of art galleries in the area.

There were good-paying jobs available thanks to the unions and so new investment sprang from that with massive developments for housing, schools, retail and so on. As the area matured, it became apparent that Detroit was not as an attractive place to expand your business, especially after 1967.

The unions ended up negotiating agreements (under the threat of walkouts) that made the domestic auto industry non-competitive. So, the big 3 started putting new plants in other states and eventually in other countries.

Foreign automakers, not wanting an adversarial environment between management and employees, did not locate here either because the business climate was not attractive any more and they saw what that process was doing to their competitors.

Meanwhile the quality of life declined steadily in Detroit under incompetent Liberal Democrats, most notably Coleman Young, who took an adversarial approach to the suburbs, the very people who had the money to invest in the city. The crime rate soared, the quality of schools declined, and the residential areas and shopping districts went to hell.

Now it comes that all we need to do is to get some “creative” people in the area and all of these fundamental issues will somehow be resolved. The fact is that business will come in now for the same reasons they did before. Unfortunately that environment no longer exists here. Not only that, we have learned nothing from the mistakes that got us here.

We seem to vote increasingly for more of the same policies who got us into this mess in the first place. More government programs are not the answer. We need to reform our tax code, labor laws, and regulatory practices to make this an attractive place to do business. As an example, I have been offered jobs in Detroit but I turn them down because I would have to pay city tax although I would have no representation in City Government because I do not live in the city.

Sadly the image Detroit has world-wide is horrible, yet Detroiters continue to elect incompetent mayors and city council members. Meanwhile the union crowd is chasing every last remnant of automotive employment from the area. As these people vote with the Democrats, politicians like Granholm, Levin and Stabenow pander to them instead of telling them the brutal truth.

In the current environment, we can’t even compete with South Carolina much less Mexico. There are more cars made in the US than in any time in history, although the names have changed on the buildings. Yet, we are losing 100’s of thousands of jobs, despite having a ready, trained workforce. It isn’t the lack of art fairs that is causing these problems…
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 621
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 5:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

As an example, I have been offered jobs in Detroit but I turn them down because I would have to pay city tax although I would have no representation in City Government because I do not live in the city.


Yeah, that 1.25% income tax is a real ball-buster for most suburban residents. It's not like they're consuming any city services during the 2000 plus hours they are present in the city every year. And heaven forbid that a taxpayer residing in one of the hundreds of municipalities in this region pay a tax to another municipality. After all, if one starts paying taxes to folks that he or she can't vote for, that money just gets flushed right down the toilet, right? One might as well agree that regionalism is a good thing. Heck, you might as well endorse socialism.

And Jams, you're too literal. The creative class isn't just about artists. Far from it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccastudent
Member
Username: Ccastudent

Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 5:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Everyone,

I'm new to the board but wanted to contribute to this thread. I'm not from Detroit, I live in San Francisco but I am actually engaged in a project concerning the artistic life within Detroit.

I've been looking into the creation of the Detroit Land Bank as well as reading a lot about urban renewal efforts. As exhibited on this thread and in my research - there seems to be a split between community-based and fiscal-based redevelopment efforts. I am a believer that local, inner-city communities MUST be supported and organized as a first step to redevelopment efforts and that this step often involves the sustainability of an artistic community. I don't believe that attracted big-businesses is going to save any city - the implication of that strategy being that the urban center is only an ECONOMIC resource and not a place to build a social or cultural core.

So far on this post we have people talking about art-galleries being shut down and also talk about community centers hosting what seem to be really great events - although that particular post seemed to believe that kind of thing does not ignite redevelopment. As someone not from Detroit, I want to know if there is a cohesive and organized artistic community that is local and grassroots? Have these communities affiliated themselves into an organization that could have a voice is redevelopment efforts? Most importantly, do the members of this community OWN the places where they live and work?
Top of pageBottom of page

Tomoh
Member
Username: Tomoh

Post Number: 267
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 6:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't think Detroit's image worldwide is horrible. It's the image of Detroit that suburban Detroiters have and have spread throughout the country that is horrible.

And it's a mistake to say there's only one way to attract a middle class, just as there's not one giant homogenous middle class. There's more than one kind of business and more than one kind of business owner. And expensive tax-cutting programs to try to attract new manufacturing companies may fail in doing that as well as not target high-paying entrepreneurial creative class jobs at all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2055
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 6:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nice attempt at revisionist history, PG. Let's turn on the truth detector and sort it all out.

quote:

That opportunity was created by entrepreneurs who felt Detroit offered a good environment for their business. It had little to do with the “creative class” and the number of art galleries in the area.



Yes, it wasn't the creative class that drove industrial development in Detroit in the early part of the 20th Century. Back then, development of the automotive industry happened in Detroit because the city had a lot of underutilized manufacturing capacity since it's principle industries (cigars, wood burning stoves and railroad cars) were all suffering at the same time that demand for automobiles began to grow.

However, the economy is fundamentally different today. There isn't any part of the U.S. that is booming when it comes to manufacturing. Most of those jobs have gone overseas where the cost of labor is so low that even if we eliminated every tax there is and abolished every regulation in existence, we still couldn't compete with them.

Workers in China, after all, can actually exist on $4 a day. Americans cannot. Therefore, there is an inherent unfairness in the global marketplace.

The only way to compete then is to offer something that cannot be outsourced to someone who is willing to work for less money than you are: raw human talent and ingenuity.

And if you derive your value as an employee by contributing that then you are a member of the creative class, even if your work never shows up in an art gallery.

quote:

As the area matured, it became apparent that Detroit was not as an attractive place to expand your business, especially after 1967.



Yes, Detroit became a much less attractive place to do business after the 1967 riots just as it did after the other three riots that happened here during the 20th century.

The problems there, however, weren't liberal politics amuck as your posts alludes to. Rather it was unsafe or unfair working condition in the case of the first two riots in Detroit and blatant mistreatment of Blacks that led to the third and fourth riots.


quote:

The unions ended up negotiating agreements (under the threat of walkouts) that made the domestic auto industry non-competitive. So, the big 3 started putting new plants in other states and eventually in other countries.



Actually, when the automotive companies opened their plants in other states, those new factories operated under the same union contracts that factories in Michigan did.

Our current round of economic problems comes from the fact that Ford, GM and D-C haven't figured out how to build a car that consumers want to buy.

For example, much of their business plan calls for the sale of trucks and SUVs, in spite of the fact that gas prices are expected to continue a strong upward price trend.

quote:

Meanwhile the quality of life declined steadily in Detroit under incompetent Liberal Democrats, most notably Coleman Young, who took an adversarial approach to the suburbs, the very people who had the money to invest in the city. The crime rate soared, the quality of schools declined, and the residential areas and shopping districts went to hell.



Coleman Young took an adversarial approach to the suburbs. The suburbs took an adversarial approach to him. You can blame that just as much on Liberal Democrats like him as you can on Conservative Republicans like L. Brooks Patterson.

And the decline pre-dated Mayor Young's election. There were simply a lot of folks who saw a northward progression of their clientele (driven both by race and economics) and decided not to rebuild in Detroit after the '67 riots.

quote:

Now it comes that all we need to do is to get some “creative” people in the area and all of these fundamental issues will somehow be resolved.



#1. Creative folks are the ones who are most likely to move to Detroit anyway. In business terms, targeting them is called a "customer-driven approach".

#2. Creative industries, as well as creative approaches to old industries, are the only sectors of the economy that are experiencing any growth.

quote:

Unfortunately that environment no longer exists here. Not only that, we have learned nothing from the mistakes that got us here.



A fact that is only exacerbated by nitwits who want to rewrite history in order to better make their arguments.

quote:

As an example, I have been offered jobs in Detroit but I turn them down because I would have to pay city tax although I would have no representation in City Government because I do not live in the city.



Yes, and when I visit Chicago, Toronto or New York, I pay taxes to those governments as well. Regardless, they don't let me vote in their elections either.

I'm sure each of those cities are going to come crashing down at any moment now.

quote:

There are more cars made in the US than in any time in history, although the names have changed on the buildings. Yet, we are losing 100’s of thousands of jobs, despite having a ready, trained workforce.



Wow! Isn't it amazing what happens when you build a product that your customers actually want to buy and then market it properly?

The way you were talking, it's as if Rick Wagoner's name was on the ballot instead of Granholm's or DeVos'.

As it is, we can sit around and wait for Mr. Wagoner to retake Econ 101 at some community college so he can start managing his company better or we start to adapt our economy to better include those areas of that are actually growing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 131
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The results we see in the city of Detroit today make my case for me, so I won't bore myself by addressing your reply point-by-point. If you think that the city is going in the right direction and that liberal policies have served the area well, then that is your choice.

Unfortunately thousands of people each year leave the city and there is no end in sight. Keep opening those art galleries and maybe someday corporate America will take notice and start expanding in the area. Sadly Detroit will be in receivership by then.

I know it is foolish that they would consider the cost of doing business here when making there choices but it is a fact. Clearly there is alot of manufacturing going on in the states as witnessed by Toyota, Nissan and Honda. The reason they are beating the big 3 is that they lack the legacy costs and can put more money into the product, a direct result of the burden the unions have created.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 363
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 9:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

However, the economy is fundamentally different today. There isn't any part of the U.S. that is booming when it comes to manufacturing.




What rubbish! I challenge anyone who is tempted to believe that comment to look at the data on US Manufacturing Production and judge for yourself whether it is booming or not. The chart shows that measured in constant dollars, US Manufacturing output has increased 99.58% since 1986, with the steepest increases coming in 1991-1999 and 2003-2006.


quote:

Back then, development of the automotive industry happened in Detroit because the city had a lot of underutilized manufacturing capacity since it's principle industries (cigars, wood burning stoves and railroad cars) were all suffering at the same time that demand for automobiles began to grow.




Spare us all the "truth detector" BS!

Development of the auto industry did not happen in Detroit because of underutilized manufacturing capacity in unrelated industries. It came about because numerous creative types called entrepreneurs had ideas plus ready access to capital (mostly from Boston bankers) and together they were willing to risk their time, energy and money to create new products and new jobs in the process. Detroit was a good location for these folks to place their bets since it possessed cheap and ready access to lumber, iron ore and shipping. The demand for labor that grew as the demand for autos grew was satisfied in large part by Eastern European immigrants, not displaced cigar and stove works employees.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2056
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 10:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

What rubbish! I challenge anyone who is tempted to believe that comment to look at the data on US Manufacturing Production and judge for yourself whether it is booming or not. The chart shows that measured in constant dollars, US Manufacturing output has increased 99.58% since 1986, with the steepest increases coming in 1991-1999 and 2003-2006.



Manufacturing output has increased. However, manufacturing jobs have decreased. Only 14.2 million Americans were employed in the manufacturing sector as of October 2006. That represents a drop of 27.2% from its peak in 1979; a drop that been going on since the 1980s and that shows no sign of stopping any time soon.

In addition, not only are the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector dropping but so are the number of hours worked.

BTW, the only sectors of the economy that are gaining jobs are in the service sector where creativity is the difference between prosperity and bankruptcy.

SOURCE: http://www.bls.gov/news.releas e/empsit.nr0.htm

quote:

Detroit was a good location for these folks to place their bets since it possessed cheap and ready access to lumber, iron ore and shipping.



Gee, and why was the infrastructure for shipping present at the time?

Most of the iron ore came from Pennsylvania. Why was there an existing system for taking said iron ore and delivering it to factories?

Why, it was as if there was an existing industrial infrastructure that was already in place. One that the early automotive companies were able to quickly plug-in to their operation.

quote:

The demand for labor that grew as the demand for autos grew was satisfied in large part by Eastern European immigrants, not displaced cigar and stove works employees.



When the auto industry reached its full stride, the demand for new labor was filled by immigrants. Before that happened, however, you had the early factories. Those early factories were manned by magical fairies.

Or folks who came from other industries.

Whichever you think is more likely.

quote:

Clearly there is alot of manufacturing going on in the states as witnessed by Toyota, Nissan and Honda. The reason they are beating the big 3 is that they lack the legacy costs and can put more money into the product, a direct result of the burden the unions have created.



You could bring your legacy costs all the way down to zero and it won't make a bit of difference if you insist on building a product that consumers aren't interested in.

Funny how that works. It's almost as if we lived in a free market economy or something.

quote:

Keep opening those art galleries and maybe someday corporate America will take notice and start expanding in the area.



If you think a creative class is about opening art galleries then you, quite frankly, are simply hopeless.

As I said above, a creative class is about making something that can't be outsourced to some guy in China or India who is willing to work for a fraction of minimum wage. You can either accept it or go find a nice, comfy spot in the unemployment line.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 2699
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 11:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you, F.
Do you mean to say that members of the "creative class" do more than make pretty pictures?
I went to the Russell Industrial Center open house a few weeks ago and saw lots going on, so I'd have to say "yes".
Quote:
"Meanwhile the quality of life declined steadily in Detroit under incompetent Liberal Democrats, most notably Coleman Young"

I agree that the quality of life declined steadily during Young's tenure, but does this mean that when conservative republicans ran the city, the quality of life improved? And did the quality of life decline in Wayne County in general (also run by liberal democrats)

" Unfortunately thousands of people each year leave the city and there is no end in sight".
What part of the city do you live in PG?
I live in Southwest Detroit, which has had a noticeable increase in population and new businesses in the last ten years (although it was certainly more populated 50 years ago) and my street boasts 10-20 new homes. Nearby is the CBD, which is showing a huge increase in residents.
But again, what part of the city do you live in?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 364
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 1:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Manufacturing output has increased. However, manufacturing jobs have decreased.




No s**t Sherlock - it's supposed to work that way! That's the result of productivity growth and without it, our standard of living decreases.

Nothing you have added supports your spurious claim that "There isn't any part of the U.S. that is booming when it comes to manufacturing."


quote:

Gee, and why was the infrastructure for shipping present at the time? Most of the iron ore came from Pennsylvania.




A more accurate response would have stated that post-Civil War manufacturing in Detroit benefitted from the city's location on the Great Lakes, the opening of the Soo Locks and the expansion of the railroads. Most of the raw materials (iron ore, limestone and charcoal) for Detroit's early iron and steel making came from Michigan ports. Pennsylvania's iron ore never made it any farther west than the iron works in Pittsburgh, where it was then shipped out as milled iron and steel. However, I'm sure that over the years Detroit's iron and steel works used many millions of tons of coal from PA and OH mines.

The regional "shipping infrastructure" provided low-cost shipping for any industry that chose to locate in Detroit from the late 1850's onward. Nowhere did I state otherwise, so I don't know why you are challenging my reference to the fledgling auto industry's access to cheap shipping. However, it's not like Detroit's cigar/stove/railcar manufacturers developed that infrastructure and the auto industrialists just took advantage of their misfortune. The non-lakes portions of that infrastructure were all developed by the Federal and State Governments through the use of public land grants.

To get back onto the thread subject, just let me say that the late 19th and early 20th century creative types who created jobs in Detroit didn't need a "Growing Cities" government program to make it happen. The government provided for the needed infrastructure projects and then got out of their way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 3243
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 1:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ccastudent, welcome to the forum. However, your post is slightly out of step with this thread. May I suggest you start such as a separate thread in the future.

Regarding the part about the artistic community... As far as it being organized or cohesive, that is almost by definition an impossibility among artists here or anywhere. However, there is a cohesion in that the artistic community in Detroit is somewhat of an 'everybody knows everybody' scale and artists of all disciplines frequently intermingle in many venues. It's kind of an 1890's Paris style thing, a big community but not so big that is fractured. It is one of the nice things about the Detroit art scene.

As for artist's ownership of their studios/homes, I would guess that it is far greater here than most places. The abundance of low priced properties make this possible. The ruins aren't bad for artists. Artists can have really nice spaces and houses for a fraction of what one would pay in SF or NYC. More time making art and less time making rent gives us a big edge.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2057
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 5:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Nothing you have added supports your spurious claim that "There isn't any part of the U.S. that is booming when it comes to manufacturing."



If you're consistently losing jobs and the remaining workers are working fewer hours, you're not booming.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2058
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 5:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

No s**t Sherlock - it's supposed to work that way! That's the result of productivity growth and without it, our standard of living decreases.



Oh, and by the way, there is no "productivity growth". Worker productivity is actually down.

http://www.bls.gov/news.releas e/prod2.nr0.htm
Top of pageBottom of page

Nyburgher
Member
Username: Nyburgher

Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 7:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The fact that this thread has raised so many issues and that I am not from and have never been in Detroit makes it hard to get into this. But, I have two major points.

1) I have no real knowledge of the particular "cool cities" initiative but, the general concept is far more grounded in the real experiences of other cities than previous aproaches. My personal experience from NY, was that after the major period of white flight etc... Suburban types proved to be the hardest and the last people to believe in the city and invest in it. Likewise the revival of the city did tend to be a process of attracting singles, gays ( or any other social minority ) immigrants and then gradually rich workaholics etc... Only now does one see a major influx of white families into the city. The improvement of the school system seemed more a byproduct of revival than the reverse. The rich used and started private schools, and then one had a gradual school by school process. NY's pioneering of magnet schools was a factor. Density makes choice easy.

2) I think that the writers with the "jobs, jobs, jobs, view are pretty backward in understanding the highly fluid nature of the job market and the reality that a lot of high skill, and creative types are able to sort of make thier own work online, feelance etc...

3) The issue of taxes, regulations, business costs is highly relevant to attracting almost any group.

4) Decent, functioning, convenient cities are very popular so there is a huge opportunity there if Detroit can get it's act together.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 822
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 11:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mikeg, you write with eloquence and authority, but you are wasting your time with facts and logic. These have no effect on public opinion in Southeast Michigan.

In re cool cities, it's a nice initiative and I hope it works. I do wish, however, that people would just be honest about cool cities and admit the the fundamental fact of urban life, which can be verified by anyone who has ever lived in a cool city or at least watched Sex and the City, and which is as follows:

Children are not cool. There is nothing cool about them. They drool. They are expensive. And they keep you chained at home when you'd rather be out with your friends. Here is what is cool: blowing all day Sunday at Starbucks reading the New York Times; going out until 4:00 am at a place that charges $9.00 for a drink; having sex on a first date with a former underwear model; the symphony; really great jazz clubs; having an office with a water view on the 57th floor; watching them film a TV series on the street by your apartment; meeting interesting people from all over the world.

None of these activities involve children.

That is why children are to be found in such relatively small numbers in really cool places like SF, the near North Side of Chicago and Manhattan. And that is why affluent, highly educated urban dwellers couldn't care less about public schools and playground.

Now, eventually many of these urban dwellers succumb to marriage and then have kids. Then, once junior is in preschool, it's off to Willmette, or Rye or Novi or whatever suburban purgatory they choose. Becuase, their days of cool city living are over.

Let's just be honest about what makes these great cities great and why people live there. Sex, excitement, going out, stimulation, having fun, working hard, making money. Cities are not places for families.

Here in Michigan, we have this sort of unresolved conflict between the desire to have a big vibrant city like Chicago and our very noble populist inclination toward families and social justice. But these are conflicting or at least unrealated goals.

If you don't believe me, well, here's what we should do. When you leave the office this Tuesday, say around 10:30 at night, take a taxi over to our favorite bar, and we'll discuss this over drinks while we try to pick up drunk European flight attendants. Wait... sorry! Wrong city. Wrong decade! Oh well. Maybe we can have coffee after the PTA meeting instead.



(Message edited by ray on November 12, 2006)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.