An Urban Revival in the Rust Belt

[EuphoricOctopus]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Considering you said decades, that implies that we're going back to at least 1994, correct? You don't think the Greater Downtown area has seen a fairly decent amount of new construction since 1994??

There have been literally dozens of projects built in the last two decades in the Greater Downtown area, ranging from single-family homes to the Compuware Building, the stadiums, the casinos, etc. Sure we may only be talking about three or four projects per year, but considering that the priority has been renovating existing structures, I would say the new development story hasn't been too shabby. And that's not even counting infrastructure improvements like the streetscaping, Campus Martius, streetcar, Rosa Parks bus terminal, Riverwalk, Dequindre Cut, etc.

Or that Dan Gilbert is buying downtown, renovating the buildings, and actually filling them with businesses. I know he was speaking of new development, but I think the fact that downtown Detroit went from a ghost town to a vibrant growing area in only 5 years is very impressive.

Gilbert owns more than 60 properties — buildings and parking structures — totaling more than 9 million square feet. He has invested more than $1.3 billion buying and renovating property in the city, mostly in the central business district.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...n-capitol-park

[Chef]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

but as for downtown developments, if any of those cities have a bigger downtown mega-project under construction than cleveland's massive $1B+ underground convention center/hotel/med market/bridge project i'd like to hear about it.

The transformation of Downtown East in Minneapolis probably qualifies, although technically it is multiple interrelated projects, not one (the new stadium, the Wells Fargo campus, a new park and a tower over the stadium parking ramp). All together it covers five full blocks plus the footprint of the Metrodome. It is turning a sea of parking lots into a neighborhood. I'm not sure which is a bigger project, this one or the one in Cleveland, but they are both really big deals.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=206520

[AccraGhana]

I think one has to note population shifting within a metro area as not necessarily a sign of economic struggle. If one takes a closer look at the demographic trends of the last 15 or so years, it reveals the increased rate of suburbanization of the African American population. The housing bubble really opened up the suburbs to African Americans like nothing before and when blacks became a solid percentage of certain suburbs population, the slow trend is that these communities will eventually become majority black, populated by former city residents.

Detroit is the largest majority black city in the nation. Hence, if there is a regional, if not national, trend for suburbanization for African Americans, the city that is positioned to lose the most people are those with the higher percentage black populations already. Thus, Detroit population decline in the city is not reflective of the fact that the city is struggling, necessarily, but simply reflects a population shift taking place within the metro. In fact, the region was economically strong during much of the city’s population decline during the 60’s and 70’s, aside from normal cycles of booms and recessions nationally.

The Detroit area is one of the most underrated areas in the nation and its weak central city mask a heavily populated human settlement area. MSA and CSA are all commuter rate driven. Commuter rates are highest in areas with strong central cores downtown, which attracts workers from 40 and 50 miles outside the city. Detroit’s does not count well because its downtown is anemic and does not offer enough employment to attract high percentages of people in outlying areas. Also, outside of Detroit you have real cities, like Ann Arbor, Detroit, Flint, Windsor and Toledo…..all of which would be part of metro Detroit if one used the MSA foot print of Houston or Atlanta and superimposed it over Southeastern Michigan. However, since these areas are independent cities with their own job centers….there is no need for them to commute to Detroit for work….but still….they are in that “radius” area that defines cities like Atlanta, Dallas and Houston....which are now seen as some of the largest metros in the country.

Most great cities are located adjacent to large bodies of water. Detroit, location wise, has a lot going for it. It also has great bones and great potential for infill. I really believe that Detroit is rounding the curve of an inflexion point in its history. I made a predication, about 5 years ago, that if the national economy does not collapse in the next 10 - 15 years that Detroit and Michigan would have a relative boom again. I still hold to that predication.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by AccraGhana

I think one has to note population shifting within a metro area as not necessarily a sign of economic struggle.

There's more than just a reshuffling between city and suburb taking place, though, because the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor CSA continues to decline in population. The Census Bureau says the region was less populous in 2013 than it was in 2010 (and less populous than it was in 2000, 1990, 1980 and even 1970). This decade's decline hasn't been big, but despite all the births across the region, it clearly is not retaining enough local residents to stave off decline. And I don't buy the idea that the region's economic problems have played no role in the ongoing decline.

The Detroit area is one of the most underrated areas in the nation and its weak central city mask a heavily populated human settlement area. MSA and CSA are all commuter rate driven. Commuter rates are highest in areas with strong central cores downtown, which attracts workers from 40 and 50 miles outside the city. Detroit’s does not count well because its downtown is anemic and does not offer enough employment to attract high percentages of people in outlying areas. Also, outside of Detroit you have real cities, like Ann Arbor, Detroit, Flint, Windsor and Toledo…..all of which would be part of metro Detroit if one used the MSA foot print of Houston or Atlanta and superimposed it over Southeastern Michigan. However, since these areas are independent cities with their own job centers….there is no need for them to commute to Detroit for work….but still….they are in that “radius” area that defines cities like Atlanta, Dallas and Houston....which are now seen as some of the largest metros in the country.

First, Ann Arbor and Flint are indeed within Detroit's CSA.

Second, the size of some other, randomly chosen CSA like Houston's has nothing to do with anything. There's a uniform formula used to define all CSAs, as you noted. It's not just about CBDs, strong or weak--it's about core counties drawing a sufficient number of commuters from outlying counties to meet the prescribed threshold. The size of other CSAs, and the existence of independent metros like Toledo within a certain randomly-chosen radius, is neither here nor there. Detroit's CSA isn't as large or populous as Houston's...because it isn't as large or populous.

Most great cities are located adjacent to large bodies of water. Detroit, location wise, has a lot going for it. It also has great bones and great potential for infill.

When I think of the term "great bones," I think of existing infrastructure that is currently unused or underutilized and in poor but repairable condition, which can be readily utilized in the future when needed: homes and commercial properties, transportation networks, water and sewer pipe networks, electrical grids, schools and libraries, etc.

Detroit is planning to eliminate water service to thousands of occupied properties--won't most of those just get added to the current tally of 80,000 abandoned properties planned for demolition, and remain without water service for the foreseeable future? What happens to the pipes when they're unused for years, or decades? What about the streetlights that were removed, the roads that don't get repaired, the crumbling schools, the electric wires that don't serve any properties? Great bones aren't great if they are removed, or allowed to splinter.

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by fflint

There's more than just a reshuffling between city and suburb taking place, though, because the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor CSA continues to decline in population. The Census Bureau says the region was less populous in 2013 than it was in 2010 (and less populous than it was in 2000, 1990, 1980 and even 1970). This decade's decline hasn't been big, but despite all the births across the region, it clearly is not retaining enough local residents to stave off decline. And I don't buy the idea that the region's economic problems have played no role in the ongoing decline.

I am not sure what data you are looking at....but this data disputes that http://blog.datadrivendetroit.org/20...ons-by-county/

Keep in mind also that large northern metros population gains or population stability is being maintained basically from immigration over the last few decades. The Detroit region has not been a magnet for immigrants and that sets it apart from the New York, Chicago, Boston, Philly crowds...whose population would have declined if not for immigration as well.

First, Ann Arbor and Flint are indeed within Detroit's CSA.

But Windsor and Toledo are not.

Second, the size of some other, randomly chosen CSA like Houston's has nothing to do with anything. There's a uniform formula used to define all CSAs, as you noted. It's not just about CBDs, strong or weak--it's about core counties drawing a sufficient number of commuters from outlying counties to meet the prescribed threshold. The size of other CSAs, and the existence of independent metros like Toledo within a certain randomly-chosen radius, is neither here nor there. Detroit's CSA isn't as large or populous as Houston's...because it isn't as large or populous.

Uh...thanks for that lesson....but I already integrated that information when I formed my opinion...which still stands. No doubt the rules are the rules and those areas that still maintain a strong hub and spokes configuration and that sit relatively isolated in a region, a hundred miles or more away from any significant human settlement area, tend have the most distant commuters, because one has few options for employment when you are 50 miles outside of Dallas....but to travel into the core counties, which creates high commuter percentages in distant counties. Detroit's "hub" in the hub and the traditional hub and spoke configuration, was decimated and hence there is no need for the spokes to all point to the center.

You say that such information has "nothing to do with anything". Well, you are wrong. It has to do with the point I was and am making about the region being underrated when it packs a population punch similar to Atlanta, Houston and Dallas using those areas footprints. Those areas are basically...."the only show playing in the region", while Detroit is in a region with nearby shows playing.....as are most mega region areas cities. Hence, people have options concerning where to commute for work or culture. Someone in Monroe, Michigan might choose to work or be entertained in Toledo as opposed to Detroit.

When I think of the term "great bones," I think of existing infrastructure that is currently unused or underutilized and in poor but repairable condition, which can be readily utilized in the future when needed: homes and commercial properties, transportation networks, water and sewer pipe networks, electrical grids, schools and libraries, etc.

Detroit is planning to eliminate water service to thousands of occupied properties--won't most of those just get added to the current tally of 80,000 abandoned properties planned for demolition, and remain without water service for the foreseeable future? What happens to the pipes when they're unused for years, or decades? What about the streetlights that were removed, the roads that don't get repaired, the crumbling schools, the electric wires that don't serve any properties? Great bones aren't great if they are removed, or allowed to splinter.

Well....you are talking about something that has not actually happened. What about when the great sunbelt cities run out of water from aquifers and they cannot divert water from other regions to sustain their existing population, not to mention support future growth? If you want to talk about what MIGHT happen to Detroit good bones, then lets be fair and mention the threats that exist out there for many sunbelt cities. Right now, 20 years out things look bleak...concerning water....for many areas of the country....but not Michigan.

Like I said...and I hold to it.....people are going to be surprised at Michigan in 10 years time. Rumors of its demise has been greatly exaggerated. It has all been focused on the city of Detroit proper.....but that was a situation largely related to race....and these are different times.

[hudkina]

You won't convince fflint of anything other than that Detroit is a sack of shit that needs to die already.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pittsburgh is still shrinking, so it's hard to imagine there's some huge boom.

Pittsburgh has begun posting small gains to the metro and city population for the last few years, but the construction boom is mainly coming from a flip flop in demographics. The metro is becoming younger and more affluent very quickly as older, less affluent (blue collar) generations are passing away and being replaced by incoming people. You're not really getting a huge change in the overall numbers, but when you look deeper into them it is pretty drastic. These groups are demanding a different level of housing product that didn't really exist before, so we're getting a rush to build that now.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

These groups are demanding a different level of housing product that didn't really exist before, so we're getting a rush to build that now.

I think it's more a matter of where the housing is. Few newcomers (some artists in Braddock, Millvale, and to a lesser extent Homstead aside) want to live in the outlying mill towns. Basically no one wants to live in the ring of postwar suburbs surrounding the city. The demand is very much doughnut shape - the neighborhoods in and around Downtown and Oakland, and then almost no demand for new construction all the way out to the exurbs.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think it's more a matter of where the housing is. Few newcomers (some artists in Braddock, Millvale, and to a lesser extent Homstead aside) want to live in the outlying mill towns. Basically no one wants to live in the ring of postwar suburbs surrounding the city. The demand is very much doughnut shape - the neighborhoods in and around Downtown and Oakland, and then almost no demand for new construction all the way out to the exurbs.

Location is a given. But when you see projects like Bakery Living, Cork Factory, Lot 24, Brix at 26, Skyvue, etc popping up on every other block – brand new apartment complexes renting at $1,600 + for a 600 square foot space, that strikes me as something that didn't really exist before. At least not in large quantities.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Location is a given. But when you see projects like Bakery Living, Cork Factory, Lot 24, Brix at 26, Skyvue, etc popping up on every other block – brand new apartment complexes renting at $1,600 + for a 600 square foot space, that strikes me as something that didn't really exist before. At least not in large quantities.

This is true to an extent. The old urban, 19th century neighborhoods are all rowhouse based, with very little designed multi-family housing. Then the city shifted to detached single-family housing. There were smatterings of apartments which were built in the early to mid 20th century, but besides North Oakland and a few enclaves in Squirrel Hill, we never developed any true apartment districts.

That said, I think there would be a lot of people who would prefer renting a similarly nice old rowhouse and/or unit in a subdivided house if available. It's more about there just not being a lot of rental units in general, and the economics of rental making the most sense with modern larger-scale apartment complexes than anything.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think it's more a matter of where the housing is. Few newcomers (some artists in Braddock, Millvale, and to a lesser extent Homstead aside) want to live in the outlying mill towns. Basically no one wants to live in the ring of postwar suburbs surrounding the city. The demand is very much doughnut shape - the neighborhoods in and around Downtown and Oakland, and then almost no demand for new construction all the way out to the exurbs.

That is true, but it's not entirely the case with all the postwar suburbs. I know it's the case with Baldwin (born and raised), Whitehall, Brentwood, and a few other places in the South Hills communities. However, places like Mt. Lebanon and recently Green Tree (Parkway Center Mall) are seeing some (or about to see) new development. I think it also depends on the local politics of those municipalities, but don't get me started with that!

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

That is true, but it's not entirely the case with all the postwar suburbs. I know it's the case with Baldwin (born and raised), Whitehall, Brentwood, and a few other places in the South Hills communities. However, places like Mt. Lebanon and recently Green Tree (Parkway Center Mall) are seeing some (or about to see) new development. I think it also depends on the local politics of those municipalities, but don't get me started with that!

Absolutely. But Mount Lebanon was mostly built out long ago, and full of NIMBYs, so there's a limit to new dense development which can happen there. There are of course TOD projects planned in Dormont and Castle Shannon, and major new developments in Oakmont, but these tend to be exceptions for obvious reasons (some combination of on transit lines, walkable downtowns, and longstanding upper-middle class status).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Detroit population
city / metro
951,270; 4,441,551 - 2000 census
713,777; 4,296,250 - 2010 census


city and metro dropping by the hundreds of thousands. Supposedly , Allegedly. There is simply no proof.... except for the massive open urban prairies with with prancing antelope where a city used to stand.

I'm late to the party so someone else might have mentioned this already... But how is Detroit an outlier here? Every major city in the Great Lakes continues to decline in population.

[memph]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm late to the party so someone else might have mentioned this already... But how is Detroit an outlier here? Every major city in the Great Lakes continues to decline in population.

But not as fast as Detroit, especially if you look at the 2010-2013 estimates (according to which a couple cities are now growing slowly)

I think only Buffalo and Cleveland are still losing population at a significant rate but it's still slower than Detroit.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by fflint

Detroit is planning to eliminate water service to thousands of occupied properties--won't most of those just get added to the current tally of 80,000 abandoned properties planned for demolition, and remain without water service for the foreseeable future? What happens to the pipes when they're unused for years, or decades? What about the streetlights that were removed, the roads that don't get repaired, the crumbling schools, the electric wires that don't serve any properties? Great bones aren't great if they are removed, or allowed to splinter.

The water intake for the region is in Detroit, along the Detroit River. That will probably never change, since it is cost prohibitive for the suburbs to build out their own system. The only other alternative would be for northern suburbs to join to an intake being built in Flint, but that is very unlikely.

And you seem to be confusing shutting off water service with permanently disconnecting buildings from the water and sewage system. I don't think they ever disconnect a building from the sewage system.

But this was all just political posturing. This was a negotiation term in order to pacify the suburban counties that are being forced to lease control of the system from the city, which they have always refused to do. The bankruptcy judge and governor basically gave the suburban counties the option of negotiating a lease, or having a less favorably alternative forced onto them.

[hudkina]

Detroit is different in the sense that the vast majority of its population lives outside the city limits. Where you might still have a large southern white working class enclave in Cleveland or Buffalo, those people primarily migrated to the Downriver communities. Where you might have a few ethnic enclaves in Cleveland or Buffalo that are still seeing new immigrants, for Detroit most of those immigrants are moving to places like Dearborn, Hamtramck, Sterling Heights, Canton, etc.

The city of Detroit will continue to lose its black middle-class population, as they are finding the inner-ring suburbs like Westland, Warren, etc. more appealing and cheaper... What's interesting about the city of Detroit is that it is a much younger city than most of the other rust belt cities and young adults tend to be far more mobile than their parents and grandparents. Many of those young, black residents don't have the same issues with moving to the suburbs that their parents did. They are moving closer to their jobs in the suburbs. They are moving to cities where the cost of housing is lower. Within a few decades Detroit will have over a dozen suburbs that are majority black. The historic suburban black enclaves like Inkster, Southfield and River Rouge will be joined by cities like Romulus, Wayne, Westland, Oak Park, Pontiac, Belleville, etc. as the new black enclaves. That's not to say that Detroit won't maintain its status as having one of the largest middle-class black populations in the nation.

One other thing I find interesting is that hispanics are now bypassing Southwest Detroit in favor of the Downriver communities. Throughout the 90's Southwest Detroit was seeing a decent amount of hispanic immigrants, but that slowed to a trickle during the recession. As the economy started turning around, many new hispanic immigrants are finding more options of where to start out. Within the next few decades, I can see Melvindale, Ecorse, and Lincoln Park as being a majority hispanic. Even the more middle-class Downriver communities of Allen Park and Southgate are seeing a decent spike in their hispanic populations.

What that means is that while the inner-city will continue to grow and diversify over the coming decades, the loss of Detroit's black population will continue to hit the city population for years to come. I personally don't find that to be a big deal. Detroit needs to be a more diverse city in the future in my opinion.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by memph

But not as fast as Detroit, especially if you look at the 2010-2013 estimates (according to which a couple cities are now growing slowly)

I think only Buffalo and Cleveland are still losing population at a significant rate but it's still slower than Detroit.

Eh, whatever you need to say to feel good about yourself... Bottom line is that they all have similar problems with similar causes.

Detroit has seen a ton of development in its core over the past 5 years and has a lot in planning. I was born there and visit often so I have a long memory of what it was like before, but can also still see the city with fresh eyes. The problems are deep but if you don't recognize that the city has major upwards momentum going right now -- probably the most buzz in the urban Midwest -- then you're either being dishonest or don't know what you're talking about.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But how is Detroit an outlier here? Every major city in the Great Lakes continues to decline in population.

it's not the fact that detroit has a declining population that makes it an outlier, it's the degree of the population loss, though cleveland had a really ugly census 2010 result as well.

great lakes cities 2000-2010 population gain/loss

1. Milwaukee: -0.4%
2. Chicago: -6.9%
3. Toledo: -8.4%
4. Buffalo: -10.7%
5. Cleveland: -17.1%
6. Detroit: -25.0%

and for the record, the census bureau is now estimating that chicago and milwaukee are growing ever so slightly in population.

great lakes cities 2010-2013 population gain/loss

1. Chicago: +0.86%
2. Milwaukee: +0.73%
3. Buffalo: -0.90%
4. Cleveland: -1.69%
5. Toledo: -1.70%
6. Detroit: -3.51%

what's more, SEMCOG's latest 2014 estimates (more pessimistic that the census bureau's) have detroit's loss at -8.5% so far this decade!

it's this continued population free-fall, along with the much publicized bankruptcy, that drives the national media and popular perceptions that detroit is a dying city.

[hudkina]

Detroit's loss between 2000 and 2010 may have more to do with the count from 2000. Chances are that the 2000 population was an over statement of the actual population within the city. The loss between 1990 and 2000 was only 7.5%. The reality is that Detroit probably had a much lower population in 2000 than the official numbers stated. That's not to say Detroit's loss between 2000 and 2010 wasn't astounding. But keep in mind this is just a case of musical chairs. The vast majority of the people who moved out of the city during that time ended up in the suburbs. Yes, it's true that many people in the metro area did indeed move away entirely, but a change in population from 5.3 million to 5.2 million is not as statistically significant as many people on this forum might think, especially when you consider much of that loss has been reversed in the few short years since the recession ended.

If you look at it from a metropolitan view, Detroit has been in much better shape over the last 60 years compared to the rest of the Rust Belt cities. (i.e. Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc.)

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and for the record, the census bureau is now estimating that chicago and milwaukee are growing ever so slightly in population.

great lakes cities 2010-2013 population gain/loss

1. Chicago: +0.86%
2. Milwaukee: +0.73%
3. Buffalo: -0.90%
4. Cleveland: -1.69%
5. Toledo: -1.70%
6. Detroit: -3.51%

what's more, SEMCOG's latest 2014 estimates (more pessimistic that the census bureau's) have detroit's loss at -8.5% so far this decade!

it's this continued population free-fall, along with the much publicized bankruptcy, that drives the national media and popular perceptions that detroit is a dying city.

Didn't the census bureau estimate Chicago to be growing before 2010 showed it to have lost significant population?

No one knows better than me the perception of Detroit as a dying/dead city. But the midwest in general is perceived to be a dying region, so I don't see the purpose of arguing over who's less dead.