# Detroit Struggles to Add Retail for Downtown Residents



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Downtown Detroit retail lags despite rise in residents *
5 May 2007










DETROIT (AP) - Downtown has nearly everything 30-year-olds Derek and Naomi Oglesby want -- access to great restaurants, entertainment, major sports teams and a short drive to work. 

But like many downtown dwellers, they still have to venture outside the city to shop. 

The Oglesbys' experience mirrors what market studies and city leaders already know: Downtown is ripe for retail development. But so far, no major companies or chains have moved in, despite an increase in downtown housing in recent years. 

"I'm a mom, and for families the shopping isn't downtown. The shopping downtown is more for business and nightlife," says Naomi Oglesby, whose husband is an investment portfolio manager. "I'm used to the drive to the suburbs, but it would be heaven if there was no drive." 

The Oglesbys bought a loft condo two years ago on the fringes of downtown. Their unit was among 2,400 developed in the downtown area since 2000. 

In fact, high-end residential development in and near downtown Detroit is booming. 

Major projects include the Riverfront Condominiums, the Westin Book-Cadillac and condos on the top 10 floors of the historic Vinton Building. Former Detroit Piston basketball great Dave Bing recently unveiled a new development of 80 units along the riverfront scheduled to open in two years. 

A Brookings Institution market study indicates there will be demand for another 1,700 residential units through 2011, adding to the 6,500 people the Downtown Detroit Partnership says already live downtown. 

But retail hasn't kept pace, says partnership President Ann Lang. 

Studies done by the Brookings Institution and others suggest that 125,000 square feet of grocery space is needed to serve downtown residents, while 389,000 square feet is needed for shops that sell clothing, furniture, appliances, and building and garden equipment. 

But finding adequate parking and available land for full-service groceries and stores would be difficult. Lang says it would be easier to find available land for smaller grocery outlets like a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe's.

So far, none has come calling, prompting members of the Detroit Economic Growth Corp. to call them. 

"We have a whole list of grocery stores we are attempting to get," says Mary Grace Wilbert, an account manager on loan from DTE Energy to the Detroit Economic Growth Corp. "We do need a major or independent market downtown. We are trying to talk to stores like Whole Foods." 

More than 80 companies have moved into the lower Woodward area south of Grand Circus Park since 2002 but they don't include grocers, Wilbert says. 

Her organization has started a telemarketing campaign to sell grocers, clothing and other retailers on the merits of opening in downtown. 

Detroit officials compare its efforts to what is working in cities such as Baltimore. 

The Downtown Partnership of Baltimore reports that 38,000 people live downtown with demand for more than 7,000 new residential units. 

Those residents have 2.1 million square feet of existing retail space to shop in with another 208,000 square feet under construction, said Nan Rohrer, retail development director for the Baltimore partnership. National retailers such as SuperFresh, Whole Foods and Filene's Basement already have opened in downtown Baltimore or are planning to do so. 

Those are the kinds of stores that Nichole Ahmad, 27, would like to see in downtown Detroit. Ahmad and her husband, Rashad, moved from Pontiac to the Leland Lofts on Gratiot about two years ago. 

She occasionally shops at a small neighborhood grocery several miles away near Wayne State University and a Farmer Jack farther east. 

"But neither have everything that I need," she says. "I can't go there and get baby wipes, diapers, lotions and cleaning supplies. I hate to do it, but I have to go outside Detroit. I have to spend my money in Madison Heights, Taylor or Dearborn because they have the stores I need." 

It's all part of the growing pains downtown Detroit is feeling as it moves to more of a mix of residences and businesses, says Jim Rogers, data center manager for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, a regional planning group. 

Rogers says a full-service grocery store will be needed downtown when the population increases enough to support it. A hardware store and improved bus service also should be considered. 

"There is more housing being developed all of the time downtown," he says. "You need services that people depend on, especially if you are talking about people who want to be able to walk around." 

Before it closed for good in the early 1980s, the J.L. Hudson department store on Woodward Avenue was a major draw and it helped support other retailers such as Crowley's. Many smaller stores were forced to close as fewer people shopped downtown, heading instead to indoor, suburban malls. 

The opening of three Detroit casinos, baseball's Comerica Park, football's Ford Field, and Compuware's world headquarters over the past decade all helped signal the current turnaround. 

The entertainment venues have helped attract more than two dozen new restaurants and bars in and around downtown. And the city known for its hip hop, Motown, jazz and blues music has its share of popular night clubs. 

J.C. Penney Co., which has plans to anchor an $80 million mall several miles north of downtown on Woodward Avenue, could become the first major department store in Detroit since the 1990s. 

But major department stores or big box retailers may not be the answer for downtown, Rogers adds. 

"People are willing to drive a pretty long distance for a big retailer," he says. "But the shoe shops, quick dinner places, the pizza shops, are all the things people want easy access to. All those things support neighborhoods." 

David Di Rita of the Detroit-based Roxbury Group real estate development company says if opportunity is there, retailers will take advantage of it. 

"The real question is: What is it going to take to bring retail to residents who love living downtown and want to shop down here?" Di Rita says. "The real answer is to bring more residents, and that's what we are doing."


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Downtown Detroit was one of the most depressing in the US especially during the late 20th century. Now it is slowly changing.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Detroit's downtown still has a lot of abandoned buildings, but things have changed a lot for the better. There is a fairly nice stretch of waterfront. GM's HQ is still downtown, albeit fairly alone when the other auto makers are in the suburbs.

More photos of Detroit on my website : http://www.globalphotos.org/detroit.htm


----------



## zachus22 (Dec 4, 2006)

Detroit's downtown is dead boring. I'd rather be across the border in Windsor on a Friday night. That's not to say I don't like its suburbs though.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

zachus22 said:


> Detroit's downtown is dead boring. I'd rather be across the border in Windsor on a Friday night. That's not to say I don't like its suburbs though.


Ann Arbor which is a suburban town an hour away from Detroit has a more vibrant city and shopping centre.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> Ann Arbor which is a suburban town an hour away from Detroit has a more vibrant city and shopping centre.


You don't even need to go that far out. The suburbs where the other car makers are based have their share of big box stores and are lively communities.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

It's exciting to see Detroit going in the right direction, especially with residential growth Downtown. 

At the same time, let's be realistic about what this means for retail. With a few thousand residents in the 1000 acres, there's not much demand outside business hours. When the number of residents is 10,000, or 20,000, or 30,000, then you can expect much more retail.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Downtown Detroit is doing the best it has done in years, if not decades.

But most Detroit neighborhoods are still in decline, and the city as a whole is declining and losing population. 

With Michigan's economy, I would not expect much of a recovery, either.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Just build a Wal-Mart downtown, and the problems are over. :lol:


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

Wow! I am surprised to hear that Detroit is attracting residents to live in downtown area. That is sign of Detroit is slowly recovering from the depression.

I think City of Detroit should learn the lessons from my city, Seattle. Little over a decade ago, downtown Seattle was almost dead. Nothing to do there... Very few residents... Fewer stores... Just bunch of office towers (filled tenants) One of these mayors (I am not sure which one) took the office and wanted to turn downtown Seattle into 24/7 center. He encouraged developers to built high density shopping malls (Westlake Center, Pacific Place, and City Center) and Nordstroms Flagship move in the abandoned department store. Also he encouraged developers to redevelop Belltown (once known as one of most dangerous area of downtown Seattle area) into yuppie neighborhood and one of most safest downtown neighborhoods across the nation. It included dozens of new apartment/condo/loft towers. Few years later, downtown Seattle became very vibrant and one of busiest shopping districts. Also it is becoming very crowded in downtown Seattle area. Soon it will get much better once new light rail and streetcars open to the public. Detroit can learn it from Seattle's successions. I hope Detroit will get much better within few years from now.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

rotten777 said:


> Just build a Wal-Mart downtown, and the problems are over. :lol:


Hahaha! Wal-Mart won't make any better for downtown Detriot since Wal-Mart will drive every business in downtown Detroit out of business.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I think City of Detroit should learn the lessons from my city, Seattle. Little over a decade ago, downtown Seattle was almost dead. Nothing to do there... Very few residents... Fewer stores... Just bunch of office towers (filled tenants) One of these mayors (I am not sure which one) took the office and wanted to turn downtown Seattle into 24/7 center. He encouraged developers to built high density shopping malls (Westlake Center, Pacific Place, and City Center) and Nordstroms Flagship move in the abandoned department store. Also he encouraged developers to redevelop Belltown (once known as one of most dangerous area of downtown Seattle area) into yuppie neighborhood and one of most safest downtown neighborhoods across the nation. It included dozens of new apartment/condo/loft towers. Few years later, downtown Seattle became very vibrant and one of busiest shopping districts. Also it is becoming very crowded in downtown Seattle area.


Not really. Even at our worst we had a better downtown than most mid-size US cities. And the revival has spanned several mayors and about 27 years by my count. 

Downtown Seattle has always had more residents than the downtowns of most of our peer US cities. In our central 700 acres or so (Denny/I-5/Kingdome), we bottomed out at about 10,000 residents in the 80s. I think this is in the 25,000 to 30,000 range now, with much of the growth 15-20 years ago. First Hill and the near end of Capitol Hill, parts of greater Downtown, have always had large populations. 

We also had decent retail even at our worst. We always had Nordstrom and Bon Marche, now renamed Macy's. Westlake Center opened around 1988 and City Center in 1989. We always had the Pike Place Market. Before Pacific Place we had a retail-heavy Rainier Square since 1977. The bottom was 1994-1998 -- Fredericks and I-Magnin closed in 1994, and the bigger Nordstrom and Pacific Place opened in 1998. 

The first big modern non-office boom was in 1982, when our hotel room count doubled virtually overnight, and several high-end condos towers opened all at once. I think Charlie Royer (8 years) was mayor when Belltown's zoning was changed in 1985 to encourage residential use. This caused a major housing boom in the late 80s and early 90s. Mayors Norm Rice (8 years) and Paul Schell (4 years) were both advocates of downtown growth, like Nickels.


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

Detroit needs to take full advantage of that waterfront setting if it is to really succeed. there is so much potential there.


----------



## intervention (Aug 26, 2002)

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Wow! I am surprised to hear that
> I think City of Detroit should learn the lessons from my city, Seattle. Little over a decade ago, downtown Seattle was almost dead. Nothing to do there... Very few residents... Fewer stores... Just bunch of office towers (filled tenants) One of these mayors (I am not sure which one) took the office and wanted to turn downtown Seattle into 24/7 center. He encouraged developers to built high density shopping malls (Westlake Center, Pacific Place, and City Center) and Nordstroms Flagship move in the abandoned department store. Also he encouraged developers to redevelop Belltown (once known as one of most dangerous area of downtown Seattle area) into yuppie neighborhood and one of most safest downtown neighborhoods across the nation. It included dozens of new apartment/condo/loft towers. Few years later, downtown Seattle became very vibrant and one of busiest shopping districts. Also it is becoming very crowded in downtown Seattle area. Soon it will get much better once new light rail and streetcars open to the public. Detroit can learn it from Seattle's successions. I hope Detroit will get much better within few years from now.


Seattle has the wealth and developers that Detroit doesn't. I mean look at Union (or something to that effect), the developer bought out a huge acerage and is creating an exclusive high-income area. Its driving out the poor and frankly, that's not a good model for Detroit to follow.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

intervention said:


> Seattle has the wealth and developers that Detroit doesn't. I mean look at Union (or something to that effect), the developer bought out a huge acerage and is creating an exclusive high-income area. Its driving out the poor and frankly, that's not a good model for Detroit to follow.


Well... Bring the wealth along mean bring jobs to town. Detriot will need gain its wealth for tax revenue, attracts retailers/restaurants to downtown area and create jobs for Detriot people.


----------



## Jaybird (Sep 8, 2003)

I don't think it's surprising that retail in downtown Detroit is struggling right now, but just give it time and it will boom. It's already done a lot over the past 5 or 6 years and will continue to do more once people keep continuing to move downtown. I tell what downtown needs, a GROCERY STORE!!! I think if Mike Ilitch (owner of the Tigers and Red Wings) gets his way, he will put one downtown, maybe. There's certainly a demand for one!


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

It would be great to see downtown Detroit continue to reclaim it's central core. That urban hipsters are being drawn to this area is a good sign. It might take many years, maybe never, but I hope it happens. There is a good stock of beautiful old commercial buildings in the downtown. 

Other parts of Detroit maybe more vibrant, but none offer the vast potential that downtown Detroit can offer. There is no reason that Detroit's central core could not resemble a scaled down version of Toronto's in 20-30 years time.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

If I were a grocerer, I wouldn't hesitate to go downtown. I mean, a retailer might have more risks, but anyone who lives downtown needs groceries.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

> There is no reason that Detroit's central core could not resemble a scaled down version of Toronto's in 20-30 years time.


Well, aside from Michigan's crap economy and population loss...


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm curious... Why does Michigan economy continue declines for many years? Why not anyone in Michigan try to be creative and find new ways to rebound the economy? 

In my opinion, City of Detriot shouldn't depend on automobile for economy... Detriot need backup economy systems than just automobile such as high tech or biotechnology or something like that.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Michigan works hard at economic development. But economic development is extremely difficult for a declining state. You need: 
--positive attributes that will be attractive (eager workforce?)
--careful identification of economic niches that might grow
--a successful marketing plan, possibly including incentive funds
--luck
--more luck

Michigan might have success in a narrow portion of biotech. But overall, biotech is the worst possible industry to pursue. Every god damn state is pursuing it, meaning you fight tooth and nail and invest heavily for every little win. It's better to pursue industries with fewer states in competition. 

Here's the worst part: True economic development isn't attracting companies through incentives that will simply leave when the incentives run out. It's achieved by being a state companies naturally want to be in. There's no easy answer -- not the "less taxes" idea and not the "spend more" idea, because both hurt you in profound ways. 

Unfortunately, short of magic, the only easy answer is for a mega-billionnaire to donate most of his money. Then you can lower taxes while maintaining services. A billion per year would go far.


----------



## Backstrom (Apr 26, 2006)

samsonyuen said:


> If I were a grocerer, I wouldn't hesitate to go downtown. I mean, a retailer might have more risks, but anyone who lives downtown needs groceries.


But do you really think that grocery is the type of retail that Detroit is looking for?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Of course downtown Detroit is looking for a grocer. The closest thing you have to a grocery store in the immediate downtown area is a large CVS pharmacy. People can go to Eastern Market twice a week and get just about anything they need as far as meat or fresh fruit and vegetables are concerned, but a small grocer would be great.

BTW, the reason why Detroit's "downtown" doesn't have a "huge" population is that the downtown is defined more or less as the financial district. There aren't any residential neighborhoods in "downtown" in the same way there are in other cities. For example, the "financial district" of Seattle really only had about 10,000 people in the 2000 census. The rest of the "downtown" population lived in residential neighborhoods surrounding the financial district. Nearly all of the 6,500 people who live in "Downtown" Detroit live either in newer apartment highrises or in old commercial buildings.


----------



## ChunkyMonkey (Sep 11, 2002)

mhays said:


> Michigan might have success in a narrow portion of biotech. But overall, biotech is the worst possible industry to pursue. Every god damn state is pursuing it, meaning you fight tooth and nail and invest heavily for every little win. It's better to pursue industries with fewer states in competition.


Ain't that the truth, I'm so tired about hearing (insert city here) will be the next biotech hotspot. For the most part, biotechs want to be near other biotechs, big pharma, hospital/educational institutions and venture capitalists. I don't think Detroit can compete in this area. 

However, the city should take advantage of its location, if it hasn't already. It's proximity to Canada and its location in the center of the most populated portion of the north american continent could be a potential for international trade and logistical businesses.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Detroit already has the world's largest tissue bank, and there has been a push to move the federal tissue bank to Detroit as well, so it's not like Detroit's biotech/life sciences involvement is something to sneeze at.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

To go back to the Seattle analogy again (for better or worse), one thing that really hit the city hard in the 70's was when it's biggest employer (Boeing) was almost bankrupt. They used to have billboard up that said "will the last one to leave Seattle please turn out the lights." But Boeing rebounded, an the region also started to add other big fortune 500 companies (i.e. Costco, Microsoft, amazon.com, Starbucks, etc.). As long as it's not Enron, a couple money making fortune 500's can do wonders for a city. I think once the American auto makers start to get their acts back together (ford already on this path, GM is trying... sortof..., Chrysler is just hopeless) and maybe with some new big guys, maybe Detroit could turn itself around.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

BoulderGrad said:


> To go back to the Seattle analogy again (for better or worse), one thing that really hit the city hard in the 70's was when it's biggest employer (Boeing) was almost bankrupt. They used to have billboard up that said "will the last one to leave Seattle please turn out the lights." But Boeing rebounded, an the region also started to add other big fortune 500 companies (i.e. Costco, Microsoft, amazon.com, Starbucks, etc.). As long as it's not Enron, a couple money making fortune 500's can do wonders for a city. I think once the American auto makers start to get their acts back together (ford already on this path, GM is trying... sortof..., Chrysler is just hopeless) and maybe with some new big guys, maybe Detroit could turn itself around.


GM could turn around if they stop shutting factories down and opening new plants in Mexico. GM is biggest reason why Detroit is falling apart. Also Ford is leaving Detroit for Altanta, GA for a couple of reasons. That doesn't help Detroit at all. I think Kmart corporation is gone for good since Sears bought Kmart a while ago. I am not sure.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Detroit city has some very dismal education statistics. Look at the percentage of city residents with either college or graduate degrees, for example. Unless the state of Michigan was suspending all my taxes and giving me special breaks, I would NOT re-locate my business to Detroit. It just wouldn't make good business sense. Detroit also has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. It's just not a good place to live, compared to other options. 

Combine that with Michigan's current budget problems - and the possibility they will RAISE taxes - and the decision to stay away is obvious. 

I don't mean to be so downbeat, but I used to live near Detroit, and the economy is a shambles. Downtown is retrenching a bit, but as a whole, Detroit is still losing population and is literally crumbling, as more and more housing stock is lost to decay or arson. 

Retailers have a very hard time staying open in Detroit due to "shrink." Not just minor shoplifting, but coordinated efforts by gang members to infiltrate the employee pool and make off with truckloads of inventory. That doesn't really happen in other cities.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

^^ I agree. Crime is biggest issues for Detriot just for now. If they solves these crime problems, once Detroit become safer again, its might attract developers and businesses to town just like what happened to Miami.


----------



## Dr Dooms Love Child (Jun 9, 2007)

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ I agree. Crime is biggest issues for Detriot just for now. If they solves these crime problems, once Detroit become safer again, its might attract developers and businesses to town just like what happened to Miami.


however, Detroit doesnt have tropical beaches.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

Dr Dooms Love Child said:


> however, Detroit doesnt have tropical beaches.


That is not the point.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Downtown Detroit has one of the lowest crime rates among major city downtowns. Also, Detroit's property crime rate isn't that high. In fact, in 2005, it ranked 75th on the list of cities with 100,000 or more. Miami, Austin, Tampa, Albuquerque, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Phoenix, Nashville, San Antonio, Charlotte, Portland, Cincinnati, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Columbus, Kansas City, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Orlando, St. Louis and more all had higher property crime rates than Detroit. 

Also, as far as college degrees goes, Detroit still ranks in the top 10 among metros with well over 1 million college graduates. Even though the percentage of people is lower than some other major metros (though it still ranks higher than the national average), the idea that you won't have a large, highly educated workforce to draw from is ridiculous. Also, Detroit's University Research Corridor that includes the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), Michigan State University (Lansing), and Wayne State University (Detroit) is on par with or superior to similar university partnerships in other states such as Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

BoulderGrad said:


> To go back to the Seattle analogy again (for better or worse), one thing that really hit the city hard in the 70's was when it's biggest employer (Boeing) was almost bankrupt. They used to have billboard up that said "will the last one to leave Seattle please turn out the lights." But Boeing rebounded, an the region also started to add other big fortune 500 companies (i.e. Costco, Microsoft, amazon.com, Starbucks, etc.). As long as it's not Enron, a couple money making fortune 500's can do wonders for a city. I think once the American auto makers start to get their acts back together (ford already on this path, GM is trying... sortof..., Chrysler is just hopeless) and maybe with some new big guys, maybe Detroit could turn itself around.


Yeah, but there was only one year when the Seattle region didn't gain population. The constancy of our growth is seen in any apartment district, where buildings from every decade stand together.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

hudkina said:


> Downtown Detroit has one of the lowest crime rates among major city downtowns. Also, Detroit's property crime rate isn't that high. In fact, in 2005, it ranked 75th on the list of cities with 100,000 or more. Miami, Austin, Tampa, Albuquerque, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Phoenix, Nashville, San Antonio, Charlotte, Portland, Cincinnati, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Columbus, Kansas City, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Orlando, St. Louis and more all had higher property crime rates than Detroit.


That's REPORTED crime. My understanding is that the higher a city's violent crime rate, and the less trust and faith there is in the police force, the fewer people report property crimes.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

^^ Only one year? Are you sure?


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

> Also, as far as college degrees goes, Detroit still ranks in the top 10 among metros with well over 1 million college graduates.


We're talking about Detroit city, not the metro area. As you point out, companies are more likely to look elsewhere in the metro area than Detroit for locating their businesses. Pontiac, Bloomfield Hills, etc. But not Detroit city.



> Downtown Detroit has one of the lowest crime rates among major city downtowns.


Downtown Detroit also has fewer residents and a smaller area than most other major downtowns. For the size of the whole Detroit metro area - slightly over 5.4 million - downtown Detroit is miniscule. You can walk across all of downtown in a matter of minutes. 

If you drive in on a weekend morning, you'll find ample parking right in front of major skyscrapers. Downtown Detroit has its charms - I used to buy things from Eastern Market, stroll around Campus Martius/Hart Plaza, go to the music shows at night, see sports games, and eat some good food there - but it is a small enclave amidst a sea of decay. Really, just drive a few minutes away from downtown, eastbound on Mack Ave. You'll see just how much of an enclave it is. You have to drive through some "depressed" neighborhoods just to get to the Belle Isle bridge - and that's not even very far from downtown.

Michigan does have a good university system, but an increasing number of young graduates flee the state after getting their degrees. Michigan's economy isn't producing enough high-paying jobs for them to pay off those student loans. Michigan was also one of the only states in the entire nation to lose population in 2006 (according to estimates). The university system (aside from University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, which has its own large endowment and revenue streams) is very reliant on state funding. State funding in Michigan is in crisis right now, because of a large gap in the state budget. Michigan is already cutting deeply into PRIMARY schools, and universities are not going to be exempt from the cutbacks. This may also lead to tax increases - exactly what a struggling economy DOESN'T need.

Last year, Detroit city had an astounding and depressing 417 murders in a city of perhaps 850,000 people. That implies a murder rate of about 49 per 100,000 people. Compare that to the US national average of 5.6 per 100,000, or Canada's rate of 2.1 per 100,000. It's staggering. Not only that, but the unemployment rate in the city of Detroit is even higher than that of Michigan - which is already one of the highest in the US.

Link to story about the murder rate in 2006. 

I like a lot of things about Detroit and the Detroit area, but I'm also a realist. It's definitely not the place where I would put my business. Things are very "zero-sum" in the area right now. That means that when Detroit gains a business, another Michigan city loses a business. The 'size of the pie' is not increasing economically, and the fallout from the subprime mortgage issue and the auto cutbacks has not even fully hit yet.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

mhays said:


> Yeah, but there was only one year when the Seattle region didn't gain population. The constancy of our growth is seen in any apartment district, where buildings from every decade stand together.


From 1960 to 1980, the population of Seattle dropped from its previous high of about 550,000 all the way down to 490,000. It has since shot all the way back up to its new high of 575,000. Seattle was lucky enough to be part of the big .com boom in the 90's that gave us Amazon.com, and Micosoft. Its a wonder what adding 2 rather large fortune 500 companies to your metro area does for your economy.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Seattle has a lot of structural advantages that Detroit and the Detroit region lack. For one thing, Seattle is a "destination city" for young, educated people. It has an enviable location on the water, and has Mt Rainier for a backdrop. Seattle is seen as offering a good "quality of life" for new residents. You can send your kids to many of the public schools without concern. A young professional would be horrified at the notion of sending kids into Detroit public schools, and for good reason. Read the news from Detroit. DPS schools perform terribly - and to make matters worse, they aren't even secure. Kids are even robbed to and from school. 

The parents I knew in Detroit paid good money to have thier kids educated in suburban private schools. Detroit really isn't a 'destination city.' It is seen as offering a rather poor quality of life. It is seen as a city of the past, with job-seeking young people relocating to better markets - including Seattle and nearby Portland. I've seen the trend myself. Go to a job fair at the University of Michigan. Look at how many of the companies represent "outside" interests, looking to "poach" students FROM Michigan. And then look at how successful they are (very).

Seattle's economic problems in the 1970's and early 80's were not structural in the same way that Detroit's problems are structural. Seattle transitioned from a logging/Boeing economy into a new tech-based economy, partly because the American west in general was a growth location. People with ideas and money saw it as a new and exciting place to make their mark and put down roots. People don't see Detroit in that way. And I'm not sure how Detroit can amend those facts.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

BoulderGrad said:


> From 1960 to 1980, the population of Seattle dropped from its previous high of about 550,000 all the way down to 490,000. It has since shot all the way back up to its new high of 575,000. Seattle was lucky enough to be part of the big .com boom in the 90's that gave us Amazon.com, and Micosoft. Its a wonder what adding 2 rather large fortune 500 companies to your metro area does for your economy.


Actually Seattle has 581,000 people now. I just read it yesterday newspaper.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

BoulderGrad said:


> From 1960 to 1980, the population of Seattle dropped from its previous high of about 550,000 all the way down to 490,000. It has since shot all the way back up to its new high of 575,000. Seattle was lucky enough to be part of the big .com boom in the 90's that gave us Amazon.com, and Micosoft. Its a wonder what adding 2 rather large fortune 500 companies to your metro area does for your economy.


I was talking metro. 

Also, while Seattle's pop declined, it was gaining more occupied units almost constantly. The average household size shrank faster than the pop declined. 

PS, we bottomed out at 486,000 in 1986.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Detroit has made so many bad urban planning decisions over the last 50 years I don't know if it will ever come back in a meaningful way. 
It's lack or decent transit not to have any form of rapid or rail transit in the entire western world despite its size. 
It has almost no large scale shopping in its core yet other northern cities do like Cleveland. There are so many other affordable cities in the north that offer superior services and a more positive and liveable downtown, likt Cleveland that Detroit's reputation may never leave her. 
je m it {to


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Cleveland's metro area actually lost population between 2000 and 2006 (Detroit's metro area gained a tiny amount), so, that area has its own serious problems.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

They should definately find another resource of income apart of the automobile industry.


----------



## Dr Dooms Love Child (Jun 9, 2007)

But why isnt Detroit planning to build all these towers? Why is Miami? Um, I think the ocean and the weather has something to do with that. This will always be a draw for people around the country. Detroit's miserable winter weather will never be a draw. 

Its obvious that Detroit will have to work harder to add downtown retail and residents than Miami will. Especially considering the reputation Detroit has. Both cities have terrible poverty and high crime rates--yet Miami is still seen as a "cool city". Media potrayal might have something to do with that--as Detroit is the cold, dangerous ghetto. Miami is the sexy beach city with its glamorous, cool coke barons. Nobody sees or hears about Miami's dangerous side. When you do, its in some sexy, big budget Hollywood movie/show like Miami Vice, Scarface, CSI, 2 Fast 2 Furious, or Bad Boys. Detroit is potrayed by Robocop, Four Brothers, Assult on Precinct 13, Beverly Hills Cop, the Crow, and 8 Mile as an industrial hellhole. Rarely shown is the stately old homes of Detroit, as well as its healthy and vibrant neighborhoods. 

Simple things like that make a big impression on people in this country. One can look at my own city (Milwaukee) and hear the endless Laverne and Shirely/Happy Days b.s. People dont know shit about Milwaukee--aside that we brew beer, make motorcycles, and are supposedly fat, German slobs (which couldnt be farther from the truth).


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Detroit does have a rapid transit system, and it's pretty extensive. The problem is that the system is controlled by two different organizations, one for the city (DDOT) and one for the suburbs (SMART). Also, Detroit doesn't have a rail system yet besides the People Mover Downtown, but that will definitely change over the next decade. Already there are plans to build a suburban rail line between Howell and Ann Arbor and there has been an ongoing study to build another line between Detroit and Ann Arbor.

BTW, there was a story in the news recently that Macy's was studying a possible downtown location and while no location was listed, many people thought they might move to the old Hudson's block. Ironically, Macy's now controls the company that used to be Hudson's...


----------



## elkram (Apr 1, 2006)

tablemtn said:


> Seattle is a "destination city" for young, educated people. It has an enviable location on the water, and has Mt Rainier for a backdrop.


But my question in response to all these flattering boasts would be, 'for how much longer?' (sorry, Détroit).


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Seattle will always have the water and Mt. Rainier. Those are structural factors, not temporary ones.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

People move to Seattle because that is where certain jobs are located. Nobody would move there if all of the tech jobs in the region evaporated. I don't mean it in the sense that Seattle isn't a nice place (it's actually a very nice place), but people go where the jobs are. If Seattle didn't have jobs, people wouldn't move there.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

Hehe, I'm guilty of this too, but why do we keep bringing up Seattle when this is a thread about Detroit? Yes, it's good to make comparisons, but Seattle is about the only other city thats been mentioned (besides one for Cleveland I see above). 

How bout another major city near by that has had very different fortunes? Chicago is in a very similar part of the country, with a similar landscape (at least more similar than Seattle's landscape). What has happened to make Chicago the third largest city in the country (and still growing) and Detroit's economy in the pits? Auto Industry is the first thing that comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others. No more Seattle talk for at least 5 posts ;-).


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

hudkina said:


> People move to Seattle because that is where certain jobs are located. Nobody would move there if all of the tech jobs in the region evaporated. I don't mean it in the sense that Seattle isn't a nice place (it's actually a very nice place), but people go where the jobs are. If Seattle didn't have jobs, people wouldn't move there.


Actually, it is not just jobs... Many people are also moving to Seattle for colleges since Seattle has many colleges including University of Washington (three campuses), Seattle University, Art Institute of Seattle, Cornish College (few campuses), several art schools, community colleges, and religion colleges. I moved to Seattle for college but at same time I fell in love with Seattle and want to stay here after graduation. Also many people I know who lives in Seattle moved here because they love how Seattle is not just job or education. Everyone has own reason to live in anywhere on this planet.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

BoulderGrad said:


> Hehe, I'm guilty of this too, but why do we keep bringing up Seattle when this is a thread about Detroit? Yes, it's good to make comparisons, but Seattle is about the only other city thats been mentioned (besides one for Cleveland I see above).


We mentioned Miami too.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

People move to Michigan for the colleges as well. University of Michigan and Michigan State University are two of the top public universities in the country. Even the city of Detroit has several colleges and universities including: Wayne State University (Michigan's third largest University), University of Detroit-Mercy (Michigan's largest Catholic University), Marygrove College (a smaller catholic liberal arts college), the College for Creative Studies (one of the leading arts education institutions in the nation), and Wayne County Community College (the downtown branch of Wayne Count's community college district). People move to Ann Arbor or East Lansing and fall in love, but then have to move elsewhere to find jobs in their field.

The same would happen to Seattle if there were no jobs. You can move there for college, but if you can't find a job after you graduate, you're going to have to move away no matter how nice the area is.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

hudkina said:


> People move to Michigan for the colleges as well. University of Michigan and Michigan State University are two of the top public universities in the country. Even the city of Detroit has several colleges and universities including: Wayne State University (Michigan's third largest University), University of Detroit-Mercy (Michigan's largest Catholic University), Marygrove College (a smaller catholic liberal arts college), the College for Creative Studies (one of the leading arts education institutions in the nation), and Wayne County Community College (the downtown branch of Wayne Count's community college district). People move to Ann Arbor or East Lansing and fall in love, but then have to move elsewhere to find jobs in their field.
> 
> The same would happen to Seattle if there were no jobs. You can move there for college, but if you can't find a job after you graduate, you're going to have to move away no matter how nice the area is.


Yes I heard of these colleges before. Great schools though. I am surprised that these colleges didn't help boost Detriot economy much. Having colleges in Seattle metro area, its helps boost economy alot. It should do the same thing for Detriot.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Wayne State University has helped boost Detroit's economy. It has created several initiatives that have done wonders for the surrounding neighborhoods and the city at large. WSU is a leading research institute, especially for not being a national university.

You might want to check out these sites to see how much the surrounding neighborhoods have improved:

http://detroitmidtown.com/
http://www.techtownwsu.org/
A PDF featuring several articles on the Midtown Renaissance

These are a few pics in and around WSU midtown Detroit campus:

This is the actual location of Techtown:








©mike_w40

Many of the structures in WSU's campus were designed by Detroit architect Minoru Yamaski, designer of the WTC in New York as well as several other major buildings.








































©Walt K









©pinehurst19475









©spaceinvader32









©rvrabel









©DA2Brian









©StSaling









©rhjmcgin









©Digital Sextant









©DangeRus









©DA2Brian

This is a shot towards WSU's Medical Campus in the heart of the Detroit Medical Center:








©ifmuth

The actual medical campus:


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Well, I have a degree from the University of Michigan. I lived in Ann Arbor for a few years, and spent quite a bit of time in Detroit. But, like most students in my program, I worked outside of Michigan during the summer, and I moved away immediately after I graduated. This was recent, too, so I can comment on the mood on campus about the state of Michigan.

The mood is very poor. There is a feeling that the economy is about to get even worse. If things are bad now, when the US as a whole is doing well economically, how will they be if the US economy ever slows down? That would be catastrophic. 

So, I'd say that people do indeed relocate temporarily to Michigan for schooling, but they are quite prone to relocate back out without even considering Michigan as a place to stay. 

My classmates left Michigan for Phoenix, Seattle, NYC, Atlanta, Portland, Louisville, Los Angeles, San Jose, Chicago, Toronto, Shanghai, Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas, Charlotte... many places, but not Detroit. 

I'm not sure what the solution is. Part of the problem is that the region is still so close to the auto industry. Not just car makers, but all the hundreds of related supply companies and logistics companies that make the auto industry possible. They are all in trouble. That sinks a giant chunk of the economy.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Actually, it is not just jobs... Many people are also moving to Seattle for colleges since Seattle has many colleges including University of Washington (three campuses), Seattle University, Art Institute of Seattle, Cornish College (few campuses), several art schools, community colleges, and religion colleges. I moved to Seattle for college but at same time I fell in love with Seattle and want to stay here after graduation. Also many people I know who lives in Seattle moved here because they love how Seattle is not just job or education. Everyone has own reason to live in anywhere on this planet.


Seattle has a relative lack of colleges despite the UW's prominence. We do better importing college graduates.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

> What has happened to make Chicago the third largest city in the country (and still growing) and Detroit's economy in the pits?


I read a book that addressed this very question once. The argument seemed to be that Chicago has a much, much better location, which helped lead to much greater economic diversification early in the city's history. Detroit hitched its wagon to the car industry, so to speak, and that was more or less all they had. It wasn't a bad bet during the industrial era, but now, well, ouch.


----------



## Lmichigan (Aug 23, 2002)

Yes, Chicago isn't the best comparison to Detroit. For Chicago to have gotten as large as it did can be traced exactly to its prominent location that really showed its importance when rail was opened up to the rest of the country making Chicago an infinitely important interior port on many levels (rail port, Great Lakes Shipping port, ect...) allowing for a more varied economy to set up.


----------



## Freddy C (Apr 7, 2005)

Lmichigan said:


> Yes, Chicago isn't the best comparison to Detroit. For Chicago to have gotten as large as it did can be traced exactly to its prominent location that really showed its importance when rail was opened up to the rest of the country making Chicago an infinitely important interior port on many levels (rail port, Great Lakes Shipping port, ect...) allowing for a more varied economy to set up.


I think in the LONG term view Michigan will be sitting pretty because of one simple factor.....FRESH WATER from the Great Lakes. People don't realize it now but Fresh Water will be a major economic issue in the not to distant future.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

It depends. Desalination technology keeps getting better and cheaper; Dubai and Saudi Arabia already use mass desalination, and California will probably eventually follow along. It would be a lot easier to put in pipelines from the Pacific Ocean than for people to either relocate to Michigan, or to build pipes from Michigan to the southwest.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

mhays said:


> Seattle has a relative lack of colleges despite the UW's prominence.


Please elaborate.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

hudkina said:


> Wayne State University has helped boost Detroit's economy. It has created several initiatives that have done wonders for the surrounding neighborhoods and the city at large. WSU is a leading research institute, especially for not being a national university.
> 
> You might want to check out these sites to see how much the surrounding neighborhoods have improved:
> 
> ...


That's great to hear that!  How long do you think Detroit will be back in great shape again? A decade or two?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Please elaborate.


Washington sends more people out of state to go to college than we take in from other states. The State simply does't fund enough enrollment slots. 

While the UW is important nationally as a research institution and in some areas of instruction, like medicine, it's not a national draw for most academics. We don't have an academic school that draws heavily from outside the region, like a Stanford. 

Conversely, the Seattle area takes in more recent college graduates than we send away. We're on a short list of cities considered meccas for this group, based on lifestyle, catchet, and job opportunities.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

mhays said:


> Washington sends more people out of state to go to college than we take in from other states. The State simply does't fund enough enrollment slot.


Hmmm Interesting... As the college student, I never heard about that. Can you please give me the references for that? Thanks!


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Hmmm Interesting... As the college student, I never heard about that. Can you please give me the references for that? Thanks!


I looked it up on Google and damned if the best link wasn't Skyscraperpage! 

Evergrey posted this link and the list I've copied here: http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/show_nedrc.asp?rt=p&tableID=3138. 

Enrollment, residence, and migration of all first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students graduating from high school in the past 12 months enrolled at Title IV institutions, by state: fall 2004: 
1. Pennsylvania 12,540
2. Florida 11,194
3. North Carolina 8,032
4. District of Columbia 7,023
5. Indiana 5,477
6. Massachusetts 4,676
7. Arizona 4,099
8. Utah 4,090
9. Alabama 3,564
10. Iowa 3,493
11. South Carolina 3,481
12. Rhode Island 3,190
13. Virginia 3,186
14. Louisiana 3,143
15. West Virginia 2,696
16. Kentucky 2,613
17. Oklahoma 1,880
18. Kansas 1,863
19. North Dakota 1,778
20. Vermont 1,696
21. Mississippi 1,645
22. Arkansas 1,617
23. Missouri 1,572
24. Delaware 1,453
25. Tennessee 1,219
26. Wyoming 1,074
27. Colorado 916
28. Georgia 686
29. Idaho 607
30. Oregon 251
31. Wisconsin 225
32. New Hampshire 198
33. South Dakota 155
34. Montana 12
35. Michigan -8
36. Nebraska -98
37. New Mexico -194
38. Nevada -393
39. Hawaii -826
40. Alaska -1,110
41. Maine -1,119
42. Washington -1,289
43. Ohio -1,361
44. New York -1,551
45. Connecticut -2,347
46. Minnesota -2,779
47. California -3,383
48. Texas -5,743
49. Maryland -7,581
50. Illinois -10,511
51. New Jersey -22,443

Good discussion of this topic: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/archive/index.php/t-128001.html


----------



## CrazyAboutCities (Feb 14, 2007)

^^ Interesting... It said 2004. This is 2007. I think it might changed. I like to see 2007 report. 51 states? I thought we have 50 states? :lol:

The reasons why I find it very hard to believe because of my college classes, little more than half of students of each my classes are Washington natives or grew up in Seattle/Puget Sounds. Also I know many students who attend to Seattle University, Seattle Central Community College, Cornish College, and University of Washington (three campuses) are all from Seattle area or Washington state too. Also the fact that if you're Washington resident for little over a year, you get lower tuition rate, it should be very wise for many students from Washington who can't afford to attend out of state schools because of higher tuition rates. 

Anyway, let's go back to the subject.


----------



## elkram (Apr 1, 2006)

tablemtn said:


> Seattle will always have the water and Mt. Rainier. Those are structural factors, not temporary ones.


Silly, I'll refashion my point so that you can learn that Mother Nature (blessèd be Her) is restless and likes going about refurbishing places like Seattle . . . "structural factors", _are_ you for real?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Vacant land becoming asset as development returns to Detroit*
28 April 2019
_Excerpt_

DETROIT (AP) — When Fiat Chrysler began considering where to build its next assembly plant, the automaker didn't have to look far to find land.

A short walk from its Jefferson North plant on Detroit's east side is 200 acres (80 hectares) of land the company is eyeing as part of a $1.6 billion investment to convert its Mack Avenue Engine Complex into a new facility.

Decades of residential flight, disinvestment and abandonment have left the Motor City with something many others just don't have: stretches of available real estate. Unlike many big cities where space is tight and most new buildings must be vertical, Detroit's sprawling empty spaces appeal to some developers.

Detroit is now working to secure the land needed for Fiat Chrysler. Some is home to an old power plant. A tree-planting operation is on another part. A large chunk is privately owned and leased to the automaker as a lot for new vehicles.

Mayor Mike Duggan said in late February that Detroit had 60 days to pull those acres together or the deal with Fiat Chrysler could sputter. Much of the land has been secured, with negotiations continuing with businessman Manuel "Matty" Moroun's family for one section, according to city spokesman Tim Carroll. The Detroit City Council is expected to discuss the city's land acquisition plan as early as Monday.

A new plant is expected to add 3,850 jobs. Fiat Chrysler plans an additional 1,100 new jobs at its adjacent Jefferson North Assembly plant.

The effort is seen as more good news for the city that is still rebounding after its 2014 exit from the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. Bolstered by auto and other manufacturing jobs, Detroit nearly was bursting at its seams by the 1950s when the city's population rose to about 1.8 million. But white people started to leave the city for the suburbs. The outbound tide swelled following a 1967 race riot. The black middle class followed.

More : https://www.apnews.com/89bfa6aa9167480dbf2568674ce560d2


----------

