Hacker News Reader

Comment by nooron | Hacker News Reader

This is really cool, but I feel some skepticism. I grew up in metro Detroit, live nearby in A2, and commute to Detroit proper weekly for meetings. A lot of the people moving to Detroit are like me -- young, unmarried, working in creative, marketing or tech. We are able to have a lot of fun living there. But relatively few of us stay as we age and get married and build families, for fairly sound reasons, like poor quality of schools and poor quality of emergency services. I worry that we are building a place to be partied but not really lived in.

View on HN

I lived in Midtown for ~5 years in 2010. I've heard it described by disillusioned longtime residents as "two cities" at once--there's the flashy Greater Downtown developments that suburban outsiders and young transplants take advantage of--the million and one microbreweries, the great dive bars and concerts, the locally grown organic handmade (artisan shop|bakery|barbershop|restaurants), the low (if rising) rents, the incredible art museums, etc. There's brands like Shinola that completely base their marketing off the image of an "authentic", scrappy city fighting back, even.

But the actual longterm residents, especially the ones living in the vast majority of the city that falls outside of the Greater Downtown area, still have to deal with trying to commute with DDOT, the abysmal public infrastructure, and the horrifically underfunded public school system, etc, and those multifaceted and crippling issues don't see the same kind of widespread attention/praise/improvements because there's no sexiness there and no short term money to be made off of it. And no easy answers, either, it's not as simple trying to fix public transportation in the city as it is opening a coffee house on Palmer. There's attempts being made, but at least anecdotally they don't seem to generate the same press or have the same kind of investment behind them.

I don't think it's as simple as whether or not the city is coming "back"--there's a lot of layers to that. "Back" by what definition, and for who?

Thank you for telling your story. I think you are making very good points. I'm in favor of all the flashy development, and I don't think we should feel bad about building it. But the problems you cite here are the ones I worry we are neglecting, and I think your framing of the question at the end of your post is right on.

Yeah. I think we're on the same page. I think the flashy Greater Downtown development is generally positive, I don't mean to be down on it--that would be especially hypocritical of me, as a former Midtown young adult transplant--it's just that a lot of times it's portrayed through this lens where it's as if the city was this completely empty and barren wasteland and here is this new artisan coffee shop charging into the wilderness to save the world and Establish Civilization. When the city is not an empty wasteland. There are hundreds of thousands of people already living there, they've been living there for decades, and a fancy bakery is nice but probably isn't going to help them with any of the public infrastructure issues they've been actually struggling with and trying to get attention to for years and years now.

> There are hundreds of thousands of people already living there, they've been living there for decades

Detroit was a city of 2m at its peak. The budget crisis started when Detroit lost a bunch of Federal money when the 2004 census put the city population under 1m (~800k IIRC). No one thinks that it's a desolate wasteland (at least not that I've talked to). On the other hand, it's a city that was built to accommodate more then twice the current population (677k per Wikipedia). This is why there are a lot of open areas and abandoned neighbourhoods / buildings.

Of course, that's not what I'm trying to argue against. The fact that the city is vastly underpopulated per square mile is arguably one of the core sources of its public infrastructure issues. What I was trying to say is that there's still ~700k people already living there, who have been living there for decades, but the angle of a lot of the "Detroit comeback" press is to focus entirely on how happy the new transplants and the surburban visitors are, and on their wants/needs, and to ignore the hundreds of thousands of people that have remained in the city this entire time. I'm speaking in generalities of course, but anecdotally it's an angle that I've seen come up in a lot of the press cycles about new developments in the city.

Presumably what one wants to have happen is development that improves the tax base --> increased city revenues --> improved city services --> people returning to city --> repeat cycle. But bootstrapping that process isn't easy.

I grew up in Detroit and get back at least monthly. For the past five years all I've been hearing is that all the money is going into downtown and nothing is happening in the neighborhoods.

Well now things are beginning to happen in the neighborhoods. Huge amount of activity in Midtown (Cass corridor) with the new Red Wings/Pistons arena and the entertainment district being built around it. Lots of buildings also going up on Wayne State campus.

Now lots of buildings are also getting restored in the New Center area. The neighborhood around Marygrove College is being rebuilt. There's also a development of a neighborhood being re-imagined on 7 mile.

It took over forty years to decline and now people want it all rebuilt in less than ten years.

I can agree with this sentiment too.

Im having a tough time picking between: "Any development is good development and we should be happy and supportive" vs. "Dude just put a measly amount of money compared to the hundreds of millions required for a full restoration of the building". Not to mention that THAT particular neighborhood around the Packard has an extremely long way to go.

So while we can be happy that development is actually taking place, we also want to be conscious that there are many factors contributing to Detroit being "back".

I think the material point is that Rome wasn't built in a day. So why would any other city be built in a day?

I think it is unreasonable for people to expect a city to be built in a decade. Not only is that sort of building not sustainable, it also leads to flat out bad long term planning with respect to infrastructure and logistics.

One step at a time. In the meantime you're putting money in to the area, which funds development, which funds the next round of growth, which funds more development, etc. If you cut the process off at the beginning because you didn't get to the end-stage goal in one shot, you will never get there.

I agree with this, and I appreciate the sentiment you're espousing. But there have been a lot of very costly "This will REVITALIZE the city projects" that haven't panned out. And much of what happens in the city's core -- like the new Illitch stadium -- is funded via questionable means and produces dubious economic returns. I don't want to sound like a negative person or a bear on the city. I am generally positive, and am excited about its growth. I don't think asking tough questions about how we're trying to build Detroit should diminish our enthusiasm for the task, but we should ask them.

Yeah. I'd love it if there was some way to somehow ban politicians from "prestige" projects. It's impossible, since they would be the ones that would do the banning, and they won't and can't. The last thing Detroit needs right now is flashy silver bullets to bring prestige to its politicians; it needs sustained organic growth and the conditions that encourage that.

The problem is...

Rebuilding Detroit is, itself, a "prestige" project in the eyes of many.

Or, put more directly... your definition of "prestige" project may not line up with another's definition of "prestige" project. Which are to be funded? Which are not to be funded?

You'll get into never ending debates if you go down that rabbit hole.

I don't play the "I can't draw a mathematically-perfect line precisely separating the universe into two parts therefore you can't draw a line at all" game. That's just sophomoric philosophy masquerading as wisdom. I have absolutely no problem at all living with the idea that I know prestige projects when I see them, and that there may sometimes be borderline cases.

Now I'm curious: what about Detroit makes it attractive as a party town?

Look up the history of Theater Bizarre and go down the rabbit hole at your own leisure.

Edit: Sorry that feels very google it for yourself. I don't mean it that way. That's a good starting topic to find the other crazy things that happen here. The Dirty Show is another one.

I didn't take it that way. You offered up a ( in Amazon's parlance ) a Statistically Improbable Phrase, which presumably is a noun, and presumably has something to do with the parent topic. Not only that, you offered a helpful disclaimer which showed great respect for your reader's time. I award you 8 out of 10 points.

Cheap venues and next to no enforcement of last call or other alcohol laws, no ID checking, bar tenders and bouncers are often drug dealers... the list goes on.

To be over-dramatic, there's a big push with the young end of the millennial generation for 'authentic' and unique experiences. Shallowly, that's why restaurants like Chipotle are beating restaurants like TGI Fridays with this generation -- all that fake schlock all over the walls turns them off.

Since Detroit is so cheap and has such a rich history, there's a ton of room for people to create cool little niche businesses that connect with the city's past. There are distilleries in 1930s-era factories and pop-up restaurants started by Michelin-star chefs tucked in little corners. There's a much different atmosphere when you're at a gin bar in an old neighborhood to a nightclub in the suburbs somewhere. And if you like the more traditional bar scene, all four major sports teams will be downtown next year, with a huge new entertainment district coming to the Red Wings / Pistons' new arena.

Beyond that, people like to be the underdog. Detroit went through worse than almost any other American city in history and is starting to come out the other side now. Many of the people moving (or partying) downtown are from the suburbs or the surrounding area and take it personally that it's still regularly trash-talked nationwide. There's a very positive "us-against-the-world" energy to the city and I think a lot of people feel a responsibility to encourage the "comeback" by supporting the businesses that are helping the area.

Detroit is the birthplace of Techno and Techno artists have continued to emerge from Detroit even as it's status as a city has declined. Because of this the city is idealized among Techno fans across Europe. My guess is some of this development is trying to target this European base.

Detroit has sizable Russian and Polish populations

Reply on news.ycombinator.com