Detroit Is America’s Emerging Market
time.com
time.com
Detroit has poor infrastructure (responsible for recent flooding,) high taxes, no public rail transport, poor roads, rush-hour traffic congestion, poor parking, some of the worst schools in the country, corrupt local government, is full of blighted neighborhoods, and I am sure many other terrible things. I am trying to see the reason why anyone would think it was a good idea to live or work there in its current condition.
Comments such as yours (and the parent above it) seem to believe that Detroit is down and must stay down. That any negative in the town anywhere invalidates any positive elsewhere. But that is, of course, nonsense. Indeed, we heard exactly the same sort of noise about New York City in the 80s which, while clearly never hitting anywhere near the bottoms of Detroit, many wrote off as beyond repair, settled into a cesspool of crime and decay.
The "real" Detroit includes an invigorating downtown, growing investments, and an actual tech community. That, too, counts as Detroit, and it doesn't not count simply because you can point to negatives elsewhere.
It's not that it must stay down, but rather that it most likely will. The only reason it was a successful city at one point is manufacturing. Manufacturing has since left, and it's very unlikely that an equally lucrative industry is going to be able to fill the gap.
In general, it's much easier for small towns to become successful cities (as Detroit once did), than for decaying cities to make a comeback (as some people think Detroit will do soon).
By this measure, just about every American city is doomed. Except, I suppose, San Francisco, if we accept that every city is "winner takes all" (which it isn't and has never been).
Detroit is a metro area about 4 million strong. It is the gateway for millions of Canadians, and to the Toronto area. It is midway between a number of great cities. It has abundant energy, geological and political stability, limited pests, and so on. It has a very large workforce, and despite the reputation, a very large educated workforce.
I mean some of the commentary in here is just...weird. Someone else commented as if all industry is going to move South, as if winter is a significant economic factor (it isn't) to industry (aside from data centers and cooling, for that matter).
If you insist that Detroit is defined by its failing communities and not by its successful ones then Detroit will always, by definition, be failing. To argue that Detroit is not making a "comeback" you must claim that either the successful areas are not growing or that they will not continue to grow.
The cost for cheap, spacious housing and office space in Detroit is having to tolerate a phoenix city in the midst of an identity crisis; expecting something which resembles NYC or SF is silly. I grew up in Michigan and have been to Detroit numerous times, and what I've witnessed lately (in concentrated locations, of course) is exciting -- see http://techtowndetroit.org/. Granted, there are certainly depressing and desolate areas of the city, but again that should be expected for a city that has seen massive emigration and decreased revenue. I am optimistic about the future of Detroit.
If you're going to pay the very high price of doing business in the US, it might be a better plan to locate yourself somewhere a little less wrecked where it actually buys you something.
Your comparisons to traditional emerging markets are well taken, but your last sentence highlights my point perfectly. Detroit is much more than abandoned buildings and abject poverty. Of course those are the easiest things to focus on because they cater to strong emotions. Meanwhile, all of the positive aspects about Detroit are subsequently white-washed. Detroit is a massive city encompassing 143 square miles, and much of it is in dire condition, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Keep in mind that there are pockets of Detroit in which amazing people are building incredible and exciting things, typically in a highly bootstrapped fashion. Blanket statements like, "less wrecked" imply that Detroit in its entirety is wrecked. This is certainly not the case as illustrated by companies like Shinola and VC firms like Ludlow Ventures. For additional examples, see: http://www.growdetroit.com/detroit-startup-list/.
Of course I am biased as a native Michigander, but for life in general I much prefer to focus on silver linings than frayed seams.
Think about it.
There's no indicator, in the article at least, that anything is happening in Detroit to turn around job prospects since the car industry keeled over. So you wouldn't go there for work. Also, according to protonfish, Detroit has terrible infrastructure and sounds like a shitty place to live. So you wouldn't go there for the lifestyle.
All of which leaves me wondering: what's so great about Detroit that it should be considered an emerging market?
"Also, according to protonfish, Detroit has terrible infrastructure and sounds like a shitty place to live."
Just to contrast here, protonfish questions the motives of a billionaire who has moved thousands of his own employees, and made significant investments, in downtown Detroit. A man who, despite the financial capacity to live anywhere in the world, lives in Detroit. Invests in Detroit. Believes in Detroit.
Isn't that an incredible contrast? On the one hand you have someone taking strong actions, and on the other you have someone posting a comment on a message board. And you believe the guy posting on a message board?
I doubt protonfish knows anything about Detroit beyond some ruin porn they saw on a Reddit post.
Vibrant cities attract people in spite of their limitations. Detroit is defined by them. The best thing for Detroit would be to de-incorporate and start afresh.
A city comes back in spurts and not all at once. After fifty years of trending down at an accelerating rate I've been arguing for several years no one in the press was seeing the story of the city's revival. Yet there are critics snarking that the entire city isn't back yet. It didn't decline equally and it won't return that way. All those high paying jobs that are moving downtown are also creating jobs in security, health care and restaurants.
If you look carefully you can begin to see it happening elsewhere. Tear down those 70,000 blighted properties (which is beginning to happen) and you won't be able to deny in a few years that its happening all over.
Detroit is Michigan's Northern Star and until it returns to prominence neither will Michigan.
Compared to what?
(I ask, because viewed from the perspective of developed countries, that's how much of the United States looks)
> I am trying to see the reason why anyone would think it was a good idea to live or work there in its current condition.
It's interesting to think that's what a lot of the US looks like to foreigners.
The city has had its ups and downs, but things are on the rise. Take it from someone who has lived near the city for 17 years. I think there are a lot of assumptions about Detroit, but there are a few things that are true: We have a 14.5% unemployment rate, a post industrial culture (culture of employees expecting to work for the Big Three immediately, instead of a culture of entrepreneurs), a financial problem, and poor Detroit schools (however the schools in suburbs are much better).
I think that the combination of a lot of opportunity, and recent support from people like Dan Gilbert gave Detroit a huge start with the Madison Block, and that is the reason that people look at Detroit and what is happening in the city now.
I have to think that there are many US cities equal to or superior to Detroit in just about any balance of livability metrics one could produce, including cost.
Very abstractly speaking, I can't even see it being a local maxima for any particular basket of criteria...help?
People like stories of rise, fall and rise again. A city that is merely "better than Detroit" is not particularly interesting.
The anchoring bias is certainly at play here. I imagine others contribute as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
People also are interesting in the potential of Detroit. Detroit was founded where it was because it is on a river and the Great Lakes. It has good farmland (I'm guessing on that point). It is amidst other major cities. It has history.
So if Detroit recovers, there is a natural support structure around it that will make it an interesting city.
Also, I see many more negative articles about Detroit than positive. The city water fiasco that is currently ongoing comes to mind.
There's a real potential for Detroit to develop major bohemian settlements now that every major urban center in the US is squeezing that demographic out rapidly (SF, Brooklyn, Seattle, Portland, etc). There can be a spectacular cultural resurgence for the city.
Speculators are probably hoping they can turn this into a Brooklyn-type situation. Get an influx of artists and creatives attracted by cheap, plentiful space, and then flip said property to wealthy professionals who are more bohemian in their own heads than in reality.
The problem is that Detroit doesn't really have that strong of a white collar job base. You can get the broke artists in, but there isn't really a ready pool of professionals to flip to. In that sense it might be ideal - it's possibly an ungentrifiable fortress for creatives.
A cheap place for startups to set up shop at?
The water issue is much greater than just a few people experiencing water cut offs because of bills. Nearly 70,000 residential accounts are going to have their water cut off through the end of September. Why should such a huge portion of a cities population have their water cut off because of financial hardship? Water is essential to survival and removing access to water for these people is extremely cruel.
No they won't. Detroit faced an endemic issue where people simply felt that they didn't have to pay their water bills because there was no consequence. Now that they've instituted this plan, lots of people have found the ability to pay their bill, or to make arrangements to pay it eventually, or to credibly make a case for why they can't.
Pretty much every city charges for water, and pretty much every city cuts you off if you don't pay your bill.
(Seriously, though, unless Detroit has undergone some hard-core gentrification in the last decade, please don't do that.)
Houston's downtown, which has excellent office stock and is in the center of an exponentially stronger economy, has median rents at about $25 per square foot. Detroit's CBD median is $23 per square foot.
Plenty of cheap office space all around this country so I reject that this is the reason.
:D
http://www.slideshare.net/AmberRuggles/q1-2014-officemarketr...
In the US economy as a whole, Detroit would rate about a 2 or 3, Houston would be a 8 or 9.
Exponential is an obvious exaggeration if we're being literal, but given the disaster that is Detroit, overly strong words may make sense to do the mess justice.
Visit Downtown Houston... then compare it to Downtown Detroit... I think you would rather be in Downtown Detroit.
I live behind the gates on Sunset... and I'm sitting in the Museum District as I type this. So don't misunderstand me... there are a lot of nice places inside the 610 in Houston. Downtown is not one of them however.
I'm a Houston guy... but I have to say... if you ever actually visit Downtown Detroit, you will find it is MUCH more clean and attractive than Downtown Houston. It was a visit to Detroit that made a lot of people around here kick in to redo or demolish a lot of the eyesore abandoned towers in Downtown Houston. There are just too many of these abandoned buildings in Houston's Downtown right now... so it's slow going.
A solution could be asking immigrants to live there and giving them an accelerated citizenship schedule. If they live in Detroit for X years, they qualify to become citizens. That'll bring an influx of new people who will pay taxes, start new businesses and work at all levels of the economy.
Typically, immigrants move to places where jobs are plentiful. With a program like this, you are moving immigrants to a place, and then ASSUMING that jobs will follow. I'm not sure it works like this. I think places like San Fran, Chicago and Boston for instance, all draw a lot of immigrants because there are a large number of open jobs in these places. Historically speaking... setting up immigrant neighborhoods in the absence of jobs has proven to be a bad idea.
If you have to use governmental incentives, and I'm not saying you do, but if you are going to use governmental incentives... I think a BETTER approach would be to give the incentives to companies and startups. If companies and startups come to Detroit, then people will follow to fill any jobs these enterprises create. I don't think you need to put forth more governmental incentives to INDIVIDUALS to live in Detroit. (In fact, I think that's been a big problem in Detroit in recent history).
If you want healthy growth... it really does need to be predicated on a diverse and vibrant private sector.
Now if you are absolutely bent on providing incentives to individuals, then Detroit should provide the incentives to recent college grads, or other young people to come to Detroit to try to make a go of a startup. Everything from free healthcare to nearly-free office space in some of the many available buildings just outside the development zones, (or even inside of the zones???), could be offered to them on a first come first served basis. Such an offer would, I think, be well received by today's young people given the troubles they are experiencing in the job market.
With regards to "setting up immigrant neighborhoods in the absence of jobs has proven to be a bad idea." what's an example of this? I'm curious about what's been tried in the past.
hmm... Istanbul, Lagos and Mumbai are each the largest city and main commercial centres for large developing countries. Detroit less so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Au...
There is no longer any real benefit to dealing with the additional expense of the weather issues with current trade agreements. Add to that the continuing expansion of contract manufacturing in Mexico. It just doesn't make sense for companies compared to Texas, Alabama, Mississippi etc.
It's a great story, but I just don't see how it is possible beyond a small boutique city center for special cases.
This piece came across as a feel good piece, if anything its a familiar story. Town goes down the tubes, yuppies move in and renovate old housing and such pushing what few remaining stragglers there are left out and help recreate a few revitalized islands amongst the rest. Usually led by a few strong business interest who promote the idea to get further concessions and good will all the while the decaying neighborhoods on the perimeter of these areas just stagnate
(knock over the buildings because the neighborhoods you'd be buying hyper cheaply into - for $1,000 a lot - if you don't knock them over, you're going to have extreme problems with upkeep, vandalism, squatters, homeless people taking up residence, drugs, etc)