Is Detroit like Cleveland? (Warren, Dearborn: house, condos, rent)

[cardwellave]

Similar depressed cities. From what I can tell Detroit is better, and a lot eaier to navigate!

Cleveland = Mistake on the Lake

Detroit>Cleveland

[EugeneBKLYN]

If I had to live in the city proper of either Detroit or Cleveland, I'd pick Cleveland in a heart beat.

If I had to live in the suburbs of either Detroit or Cleveland, I'd pick Detroit.

I love the Red Wings. >_>

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by cardwellave

Similar depressed cities. From what I can tell Detroit is better, and a lot eaier to navigate!

Cleveland = Mistake on the Lake

Detroit>Cleveland

You've got to be kidding

[TheProf]

No way is Detroit even comparable to Cleveland, despite some similarities. Where to start.

First, while Detroit’s downtown is showing signs of comeback, it’s way behind Cleveland’s. Detroit has attempted to copy Cleveland’s downtown growth: moving football from the deep burbs to Ford field downtown, next to Comerica Park for the Tigers which is a direct copy of Jacobs field. Detroit is much more car oriented. I can only think of 2 honest-to-goodness reasonably vibrant walking districts in Detroit: Greektown, which is essentially a block or so long, and to a lesser degree, New Town up Woodward where there are restored theatres (including the magnificent Fox) and further up where there are some restaurants and a few new apts closer to Wayne State and the arts district. In Cleveland I can rattle off several, all of which are bigger than Greektown, alone: downtown: the Warehouse District and Gateway; East Side: University Circle and Little Italy next door; Shaker Square, Larchmere… West Side: Ohio City, Tremont, West Edge/Edgewater, Kamms Corner, and many smaller districts in between these.

A big difference is while Cleveland does have a decent (not huge, but highly adequate) rapid rail transit system (including the 1st line from the airport to downtown in America) Detroit has none, save that measly 2 mile elevated mini rail system called the People Mover (which is unmanned, very lightly used and often dangerous-seeming. Rapid rail in Cleveland connects many of those great walking districts named above and, overall, there’s just a significantly greater transit riding culture in Cleveland than Detroit, although I’ll admit more people own cars or desire to in C-town, too. But in Detroit, you don’t find many people at all using buses, even on its main corridors, like Woodward, and even during rush hour! Detroiters brag: it’s the Motor City; we don’t fool around with public transit; if you don’t have wheels… seems a little archaic and backward to me.

As a result, Detroit is so much more polarized from its suburbs than Cleveland. Freeways have scarred Detroit and kept suburbanites distant from the city – Detroit is the ultimate definition of the “doughnut city”; Cleveland has its share of poverty – like any American city, including Chicago – but not nearly as widespread as Detroit. Even near the edges of Detroit can you find poverty. Zoning seems almost non-existent. For example, along McNichol/6 Mile Road, in the space of a mile drive (westbound from I-75) you can drive past an auto junkyard (ubiquitous in Detroit), a stand of semi-luxury and burned out old apartments (at Woodward) and then $1Million mansions further west along the exclusive Detroit Golf Club. Its such a haphazard city.

And what does it say that THE most happening, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood in metro Detroit is deep in the burbs: Royal Oak, to be exact where apartment and condo high rises are sprouting left & right.

And there’s much more I could site – Detroit has got nice suburbs, but they’re so much more removed, distant than Cleveland’s…

… I rest my case.

[justine]

I live in Detroit now but have also visited Cleveland quite often for extended stays since I work for a company based in Cleveland

Similarities:

Both have a history of manufacturing industries. Many immigrant groups and people from the southern parts of United States migrated to these cities to work in the factories from the 1920's to 1950's.

Both cities are heavily Democratic, union oriented and somewhat liberal in politics, civil rights, etc.

Both had endowments from wealthy philanthropists which have resulted in established art museums and library systems.

Both have a state university within the city limits.

Both have suffered job losses in the manufacturing sectors and have large poverty stricken areas in the city.


Differences:

Cleveland started diversifying it's economy 20 years ago while Detroit remained stuck in the one industry (cars) mentality.

Cleveland built a very efficient light rail system which covers the whole county and connects pretty well with a bus system which mostly runs on time. Detroit has a weak and dilapidated bus system. There is small elevated rail system which serves a few blocks downtown. Detroit does not have a committment to transit nor does it have regional cooperation. Cleveland is currently building a new rail line down Euclid Ave.

For a small city, Cleveland has an excellent well-maintained park system which is much closer and easier to get to in the city than Detroit's metro park system. Much of Belle Isle (the large city park in Detroit) looks run down, (although there are signs of improvement).

Cleveland is way ahead in it's revitalization of downtown. Detroit did some improvement when the Superbowl came but it's only a very small area.

Cleveland is part of a state with slightly more progressive policies. The roads are better in Ohio, especially the Ohio turnpike. Ohio voters agreed to a smoking ban in all bars and restaurants. In Michigan, there is lots of smoking in the bars and restaurants and it is hard to escape it if you are a non smoker.

Detroit seems stuck at an impass between the suburbs and the city. The suburbanites really don't have much to do with the city and vice versa.

Detroit is much more violent than Cleveland.

[Cato the Elder]

Some good points but not totally accurate.

Originally Posted by TheProf

Detroit has attempted to copy Cleveland’s downtown growth: moving football from the deep burbs to Ford field downtown, next to Comerica Park for the Tigers which is a direct copy of Jacobs field.

I highly doubt that Detroit is directly looking at Cleveland as a role model for urban renewal. It's not as if Cleveland is the benchmark or pioneer for renewal.

Comerica is not a direct copy of Jacobs (not even close to the way Jacobs looked at Camden Yards). HOK Sports has largely designed all the MLB parks for the last 20 years so there are some similarities as the process has become formulaic, but Comerica "copied" Camden Yards if anything, just like Jacobs Field, Citizens Bank, Minute Maid Park, AT&T Park, etc.

Freeways have scarred Detroit and kept suburbanites distant from the city – Detroit is the ultimate definition of the “doughnut city”; Cleveland has its share of poverty – like any American city, including Chicago – but not nearly as widespread as Detroit. Even near the edges of Detroit can you find poverty. Zoning seems almost non-existent. For example, along McNichol/6 Mile Road, in the space of a mile drive (westbound from I-75) you can drive past an auto junkyard (ubiquitous in Detroit), a stand of semi-luxury and burned out old apartments (at Woodward) and then $1Million mansions further west along the exclusive Detroit Golf Club. Its such a haphazard city.

Freeways have scarred all the major cities of the US. Detroit is hardly alone in this or the most egregious offender by a longshot. Manhattan has suffered more as has Philadelphia, which like many cities has been separated from its waterfront by an interstate highway. A highway had to be built where Jefferson Ave is to match this blunder. It took billions of excess dollars to "fix" Boston. Etc., etc., etc.

I hardly find Detroit any more haphazard than any other US city. I find cities like Philadelphia to be much more "pockety" where you can regularly see neighborhoods change block by block.

And what does it say that THE most happening, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood in metro Detroit is deep in the burbs: Royal Oak, to be exact where apartment and condo high rises are sprouting left & right.

This would be strange if RO was planned to take the place of Detroit or if it only developed after the 60s as you are intimating. This is hardly the case. RO, like most towns along the Woodward Corridor, is a relatively old city that developed independently by an old trail along Woodward, followed by the construction of a paralleling railroad and streetcars down Woodward Ave, and finally, the automobile age - many decades before Detroit even started down the slope of decay. Even if Detroit had a vibrant and hip downtown, I'm sure RO would pretty much be the same town we see today b/c of its inherent character.

And there’s much more I could site – Detroit has got nice suburbs, but they’re so much more removed, distant than Cleveland’s…

I agree that the constrast between Detroit and Grosse Pointe/Oakland County is startling and that it is qualitatively removed, but the physical distance is not that far. It's less than 15 miles from downtown RO to downtown Detroit. You could hardly reach the 'burbs in that distance from downtown Chicago.

Yeah, Detroit has a long way to go, but Cleveland isn't that far ahead of it. Due to its unfortunate history, it's more that Detroit is just exceptionally crippled, not that Cleveland is THAT great. The development of Chicago in the last 20 years, now that's startling considering that it was in pretty good shape before this.

[TheProf]

^The point here isn't to rag on Detroit. I actually like Motown very much; have family and friends there. And yes, Cleveland is no model city, itself (I’d love to have a swath of those Detroit Palmer Park mega-mansions within Cleveland’s borders; or even some from Boston-Edison). And Detroit and Cleveland are 2 peas in a pod. The success (or failure) of one impacts the other -- their both so-called Rust Belt in flyover country in the 'boring' Midwest ... It too has many problems. I just had to react to the bulk of the posts touting Detroit over Cleveland in incorrect ways...

... I will take issue with something you've said. Freeways, yes, have scarred most cities in one way or another, but Detroit is much worse than most. Detroit developed as a great industrial city entering the 20th Century which had tons of immigrants, great arts, architecture, public transit, ... the whole 9. And all similar older, industrialized cities suffered similarly. But Detroit is THE poster child of doughnut cities where freeways have sucked the lifeblood from the urban hoods while pumping up the suburbs -- and industry and population all followed while leaving large chunks of town with no sense of order or zoning.

And I say the lack of rapid transit is THE singular factor holding Detroit back and, despite some promising proposals, the powers that be in the burbs continue to fight it tooth & nail, and city folks suffer. Detroit now has the dubious distinction of being the largest metro area in the nation; indeed, maybe the free, industrialized world, without rapid transit. So there’s no viable alternative to freeways. For downtown to thrive, people must drive (or take an arduously long ride on infrequent, rundown buses) to get there. Therefore, downtown must have parking lots and garages out the wazoo which, simultaneously, retards downtown development. And when there is a big event downtown, the psychological trauma of having to deal with the traffic is immense in Detroit as opposed to other towns that have transit alternatives…

And how could you even begin to compare Detroit freeways to Philly: one of the greatest public transit cities in the nation; even the world. Yeah, sure, the Schuylkill Expressway and I-95 block some of the waterfront but, if you’re referring to I-95 along the Delaware River, there are significant 95 chunks built underground. You can still bus, train or ferry to Philly’s waterfront and experience the ancient rowhouses.

Like I say, this isn’t, nor should it be, a rag-on-Detroit (or pump up Cleveland) or anyplace else forum. It’s a place to learn and share ideas.

[Cato the Elder]

Originally Posted by TheProf

... I will take issue with something you've said. Freeways, yes, have scarred most cities in one way or another, but Detroit is much worse than most. Detroit developed as a great industrial city entering the 20th Century which had tons of immigrants, great arts, architecture, public transit, ... the whole 9. And all similar older, industrialized cities suffered similarly. But Detroit is THE poster child of doughnut cities where freeways have sucked the lifeblood from the urban hoods while pumping up the suburbs -- and industry and population all followed while leaving large chunks of town with no sense of order or zoning.

And how could you even begin to compare Detroit freeways to Philly: one of the greatest public transit cities in the nation; even the world. Yeah, sure, the Schuylkill Expressway and I-95 block some of the waterfront but, if you’re referring to I-95 along the Delaware River, there are significant 95 chunks built underground. You can still bus, train or ferry to Philly’s waterfront and experience the ancient rowhouses.

I think we agree in principle on many things, but I think we can agree to disagree in the details. Yes, the history of race conflict has made freeways in Detroit an accomplice in helping flight to the suburbs, but I disagree with the entire "scarring more than most cities" description. Like I said, ask a regional planner to describe what the freeways have done to the physical landscape of Detroit, Manhattan, Philadelphia, and Boston, regardless of what purpose they've served to encourage urban flight. Philadelphia's most vibrant waterfront across from Society Hill, Old City, and Queen Village (Penn's Landing) is severed from the rest of the city, Boston's was to a great degree before the Big Dig, and check what the West Side Highway has done.

You must have never driven rush hour in Philadelphia. As anyone there will tell you, the Schuykill Expressway was obsolete the day they opened it. Now imagine all the buildup near King of Prussia, along I-476, and 202 over the lasty 50 years. The four lane Schyukill has to take care of all the commuters from this area.

I rode, or at least attempted to ride, Septa for 10 years - to say it's one of the best mass transit systems in the nation is laughable. The only people who ride are those who have no choice. There are those who have a choice and ride it at first (usually those who come from places like NYC, Boston, SF, etc. with reliable mass transit), but they stop once the first 3 month strike occurs. As we speak, another union is about to go on strike and Septa is hundreds of millions in the hole. Here comes the yearly local union strike and standoff between Septa and the state.

None of I-95 is underground except for a segment around 30 meters where I-676 crosses over. It is depressed in parts like I-696, but it hasn't been covered. It helps noise but still cuts the city off from it's waterfront. I lived in Queen Village for years, two blocks from the highway, and can attest to the day-to-day consequences of the highway.

The only ferry is a tourist boat from Camden to Penn's Landing. Philly is not the Bay Area by a longshot. Once you have lived in Philadelphia for a couple years, I think we can talk.

[TheProf]

SEPTA may be old, expensive and union-dragged (down), I'll agree. But there are fewer more comprehensive and interconnected sysems in this nation. The Philly expressway system IS archaic because public transit is so extensive and greatly used by the public. Are you saying Detroit's better off? Pullleeeze. Philly's one of the great pedestrian-oriented, people-scale cities in this nation. Many people don't own or utilize cars there, esp in Center City, which is home to around 100,000 people.

Detroit? with a similar sized metro-area? About 2-3,000 live downtown, and that's probably being generous... Even your zoo and major tourist museum (Greenfield Vill) are in the suburbs. How unhealthy.

... Detroit is geared solely towards cars and balkanization (race-wise, income-wise, you name it). It is the living example of how the destruction of, and lack of attention to, mass transit can help destroy the fabric of what once was a great city... Even Los Angeles is enjoying the fruits of expanded (and expanding) rail transit. And despite cat-calls from various sources who said Angelenos would never give up their cars (cat-calls mainly from Detroit auto-types safely ensconched in their distant, homogonous suburbs who rarely interact w/ Detroit, esp downtown), Angelenos are now loving transit, while building up density around transit nodes both downtown and in neighboring areas along the new rail lines.

Not to be insulting in anyway -- that's not my intent -- but unfortunately, your mentality of Detroit-is-great and circling the wagons while thumbing it's nose at the rest of urban world is precisely what got Detroit it's poster status as America's nightmare metropolis. It's time to shake that thinking and get moving so that all her greatness can be recaptured. And you simply will not do it thumbing your collective noses at mass transit. The auto will continue to strangle the life blood out of the city.

[Cato the Elder]

Your argument is a non-starter b/c you're basically saying that Septa is great b/c it exists. Philadelphia has by far the worst and least-ridden per capita mass transit out of the major cities in the old Northeast corridor. Think about it - Boston, NYC, Washington DC and Philadelphia - all with world-renowned and heavily-used mass transit except for Philly. Check the figures - Septa is not "greatly used by the public" unless you're directly comparing it to Detroit - apples to oranges. I lived in Center City for years, for cripes sake, in Rittenhouse Square. Where do you get your fantasy from? The majority of people who live in Center City and can afford it at any cost own cars. Considering the cost, traffic and density, it shows you how pitiful Septa is.

You put Philadelphia in its context and you'll see how pitiful it is, not by contrasting it with newer cities like Detroit or larger cities like Los Angeles. Philadelphia is far from the mass transit mecca you think it is; you would know this if you knew the history of mass transit in the city. If you see the master plan from the early 20th century, you will see that they built 20% of their light rail. Why didnt' they finish? B/c the citizens did not support it, in the golden age of light rail. Isn't it about the mentality of the people as you're moaning about? Philadelphia just happened to be lucky enough to still be at its height when mass transit was developed in the US while Detroit was barely a blip on the map.

Where do I say mass transit in Detroit is so great? I thought so. The only thing I said is that Septa isn't great contrary to your delusions and over aggrandized preaching. Please get your facts straight and stop using falsehoods to advance your agenda, no matter how well-meaning they are.