Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Detroit is finally turning around. Detroit has more big city feel. Hopefully with all of the refocused energy it will be a vibrant city again.
How does Detroit have more of a big city feel? Is it the sprawl? It certainly wouldn't be in comparing the 2 downtowns or vibrant neighborhoods. I'm not attacking you because you're entitled to your opinion. I would just like a little more explanation.
I’ve been to both in the past two years and prefer Cleveland right now. Detroit is more spread out with a lot more wasted space throughout the city. Cleveland’s great neighborhoods are spread out too, but easier to go between. Just a more enjoyable city to visit while Detroit’s offerings are still mostly in the suburbs.
It goes without saying. Just look at the pre WWII population. Detroit was a much bigger city and still feels it, even with all the blight and tear downs. And downtown still has so many vacant or half vacant towers in Detroit and I honestly feel downtown Detroit feels just as vibrant as downtown Cleveland today ( I realize not everyone will agree with me but I have spent alot of time in both downtowns in the last few years). When those vacant towers fill up as they are starting to do, Detroit will be on a whole new level.
Detroit is a metro over TWICE the size of Cleveland and it looks and feels it. Forget CSA. I have seen folks from Cleveland scoff on here being compared to cities 50% smaller, yet they want to be compared to a much bigger city almost 2.5 times bigger.
Pound for pound, per capita, I do think Cleveland beats Detroit. But due to Detroit being essentially over twice as big, it has bigger pants to fill and if it ever does, watch out. That's why the ceiling is lower in Cleveland.
It goes without saying. Just look at the pre WWII population. Detroit was a much bigger city and still feels it, even with all the blight and tear downs. And downtown still has so many vacant or half vacant towers in Detroit and I honestly feel downtown Detroit feels just as vibrant as downtown Cleveland today ( I realize not everyone will agree with me but I have spent alot of time in both downtowns in the last few years). When those vacant towers fill up as they are starting to do, Detroit will be on a whole new level.
Detroit is a metro over TWICE the size of Cleveland and it looks and feels it. Forget CSA. I have seen folks from Cleveland scoff on here being compared to cities 50% smaller, yet they want to be compared to a much bigger city almost 2.5 times bigger.
Pound for pound, per capita, I do think Cleveland beats Detroit. But due to Detroit being essentially over twice as big, it has bigger pants to fill and if it ever does, watch out. That's why the ceiling is lower in Cleveland.
Fair points. A couple things:
I love Detroit, it's history, culture, spirit and solid urban bones. I would never rag on it and my stating its need for improvement (like I constantly do for hometown Cleveland) should not be interpreted as doing so (I know you're not, Peter; just sayin'). But it's not a knock, but fact, to note that Detroit has more serious issues than most with its large swaths of rundown neighborhoods, terrible mass transit and the concomitant general lack of neighborhood walkability.
Regarding an urban experience, bigness should not necessarily be equated with quality. I know you're from/a fan of Louisville. Although I've never been there, I have been to a similarly-sized KY city: Lexington, and although Lexington is a smaller urban city, I love it. It punches well above its weight class because it's got many of the appealing aspects of a bigger city: culture, lots of active youth (UK and Transylvania U are located right near downtown), a bustling downtown for its size, with a number of major hotels, classic old neighborhoods with lots of Victorian/pre-Victorian row homes and detached mansions which give the city a well-established character and vibe, and mini-mansions, lots of shopping, etc... I understand Louisville shares many of these characteristics. And the relaxed, informal, more accessible nature of Lexington, compared to the giant cities, was also appealing... Thus I don't necessarily need bigness to enjoy quality urban experiences.
Buffalo is somewhere between Cleveland and Louisville/Lexington, but I feel Buffalo is a more appealing town than Detroit at this time in terms of urban experiences. Why? Buffalo, too, has lots of arts, culture and quality dining experiences, exciting, bustling close-in, walkable (don't say gentrified) old neighborhoods near downtown (like Allentown and Elmwood Village), a rapidly improving downtown area including the great new Canalside, which echoes Cleveland's Flats, and has a couple high-end hotels to boot... and despite its modest big-city size, Buffalo has rapid transit -- a real one, not just a mile or 2 cutesy streetcar line like Detroit, Cincy, KC and others -- 35 years ago Buffalo had the audacity to build an LRT subway line right up the gut along Main Street (I wish it had continued through downtown rather than surfacing for one of those transit-mall things, but whatever), and now Buffalo is taking steps to double the size of its rail line reaching deep into suburban Amherst and the outer UB campus.
Detroit is bigger with much bigger problems than most cities, and one of its biggest is its ongoing refusal to build any serious rail rapid transit line a metro area of its size absolutely needs for distribution, cohesion and true walkability.
I disagree that Downtown Detroit is just as vibrant as downtown Cleveland, but that's an opinion (though I feel many would agree). And to your comment that Metro Detroit is "twice the size" of Metro Cleveland ... OK, and? Several posters have noted Detroit's quality suburbs. OK, many cities have some quality suburbs; Detroit's, in places, are very good, like downtown Royal Oak, Birmingham, W. Bloomfield's wealth, Grosse Pointe, etc., but I put Cleveland's on par with any cities. And the advantage of being smaller is that Cleveland's burbs are considerably more accessible than Detroit's (with the exception of Gross Pointe, which is just across Detroit's close-in eastern border. Royal Oak's and Birmingham's bustling downtowns are 12 and 16 miles out from downtown Detroit, respectively. And to have to escape so large a city for these urban-ish, walkable suburbs because of a lack of similar quality neighborhood experiences inside Detroit city -- excepting Midtown, Indian Village and, to a lesser degree, city-ish Hamtramck -- doesn't connote to a better overall urban experience, at least compared to similar Rust Belt, though rapidly-improving, city like Cleveland. Not to me, at least...
I disagree that Downtown Detroit is just as vibrant as downtown Cleveland, but that's an opinion (though I feel many would agree). And to your comment that Metro Detroit is "twice the size" of Metro Cleveland ... OK, and? Several posters have noted Detroit's quality suburbs. OK, many cities have some quality suburbs; Detroit's, in places, are very good, like downtown Royal Oak, Birmingham, W. Bloomfield's wealth, Grosse Pointe, etc., but I put Cleveland's on par with any cities. And the advantage of being smaller is that Cleveland's burbs are considerably more accessible than Detroit's (with the exception of Gross Pointe, which is just across Detroit's close-in eastern border. Royal Oak's and Birmingham's bustling downtowns are 12 and 16 miles out from downtown Detroit, respectively. And to have to escape so large a city for these urban-ish, walkable suburbs because of a lack of similar quality neighborhood experiences inside Detroit city -- excepting Midtown, Indian Village and, to a lesser degree, city-ish Hamtramck -- doesn't connote to a better overall urban experience, at least compared to similar Rust Belt, though rapidly-improving, city like Cleveland. Not to me, at least...
I think your post is exquisitely articulated. Obviously I'm a Michigan homer since I live in Grand Rapids. I've been familiar with Detroit my whole life as that's where my folks are from. Even as a kid I was obsessed with the city of Detroit, it's history and it's decline. I can say going down there right now and seeing over $5 billion in renovations and construction is stunning. It's something I'd never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Seeing major retailers negotiating for a presence on Woodward is fantastic, again I didn't think I'd see it in my lifetime.
With all of that there's this impression Detroit is further along in its renaissance than it is. Detroit is still toward the beginning of it's re-invigoration. Almost all of it's resurgence is happening in the core neighborhoods, while the vast majority of city neighborhoods are still very much in a state of abandon. Still to me this makes sense since no city can have healthy neighborhoods without a healthy core. As the core continues to heal and become attractive that reinvestment will trickle out to the neighborhoods as well. This is how it's happened in every rebounding city (including Grand Rapids).
While long term I do think Detroit may have more potential than Cleveland, I think it would be remiss to claim that Detroit is ahead of Cleveland in its current state. Your point about regional transit cannot be stated enough. In the 1970's and 80's during the peak of Detroit's decline, the suburban governments simply walled the city off and ignored it. They sucked tax base and residents out of the city to the point of Detroit's collapse. This dysfunctional regionalism created an economic doughnut that disproportionately affected 140sq mi. It resulted in a region that had more in common with sunbelt cities(weak core/strong suburbs/auto dependent/sprawl friendly), than the legacy cities Detroit grew with. If the Detroit region is ever to fully regain it's footing with it's larger metro counterparts the region as a whole will need transit solutions. The state of Michigan will have to invest big dollars to catch up, vs these half ass attempts at competing that don't move the needle(re: Q-line).
I think your post is exquisitely articulated. Obviously I'm a Michigan homer since I live in Grand Rapids. I've been familiar with Detroit my whole life as that's where my folks are from. Even as a kid I was obsessed with the city of Detroit, it's history and it's decline. I can say going down there right now and seeing over $5 billion in renovations and construction is stunning. It's something I'd never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Seeing major retailers negotiating for a presence on Woodward is fantastic, again I didn't think I'd see it in my lifetime.
With all of that there's this impression Detroit is further along in its renaissance than it is. Detroit is still toward the beginning of it's re-invigoration. Almost all of it's resurgence is happening in the core neighborhoods, while the vast majority of city neighborhoods are still very much in a state of abandon. Still to me this makes sense since no city can have healthy neighborhoods without a healthy core. As the core continues to heal and become attractive that reinvestment will trickle out to the neighborhoods as well. This is how it's happened in every rebounding city (including Grand Rapids).
While long term I do think Detroit may have more potential than Cleveland, I think it would be remiss to claim that Detroit is ahead of Cleveland in its current state. Your point about regional transit cannot be stated enough. In the 1970's and 80's during the peak of Detroit's decline, the suburban governments simply walled the city off and ignored it. They sucked tax base and residents out of the city to the point of Detroit's collapse. This dysfunctional regionalism created an economic doughnut that disproportionately affected 140sq mi. It resulted in a region that had more in common with sunbelt cities(weak core/strong suburbs/auto dependent/sprawl friendly), than the legacy cities Detroit grew with. If the Detroit region is ever to fully regain it's footing with it's larger metro counterparts the region as a whole will need transit solutions. The state of Michigan will have to invest big dollars to catch up, vs these half ass attempts at competing that don't move the needle(re: Q-line).
Appreciate your comments, mjlo... My heart sank when Detroit area voters rejected the regional transit plan in 2016. The good news is progressive leaders are back with a newer version but it's not clear it will make the November ballot. In my mind, Detroit can never be truly great unless they address this issue, get on board with modern cities and build rapid transit lines. Locals' 'We're the Motor City' bravado viz mass transit is soooo outdated.
Appreciate your comments, mjlo... My heart sank when Detroit area voters rejected the regional transit plan in 2016. The good news is progressive leaders are back with a newer version but it's not clear it will make the November ballot. In my mind, Detroit can never be truly great unless they address this issue, get on board with modern cities and build rapid transit lines. Locals' 'We're the Motor City' bravado viz mass transit is soooo outdated.
The people around here will tell you:
- the Detroit Metro area is not densely populated enough for a rapid Transit system.
-the Detroit Metro area is too poly-centric (jobs location-wise) to justify paying for a rapid transit system
- in 20 years, autonomous vehicles will be up and running and there will be no need for transit, and will render trains obsolete and outdated
- Improved public transit will only benefit the city, and not the suburbs, so the suburbs should not have to pay for something that doesn't benefit them
-I am never going to use transit, why should I pay an additional tax to expand transit?
- There are so many empty buses, so we don't need any more buses, let alone trains.
- transit is only for poor people.
- Uber/Lyft eliminate the need for expanded transit
Last edited by usroute10; 06-07-2018 at 01:19 AM..
It goes without saying. Just look at the pre WWII population. Detroit was a much bigger city and still feels it, even with all the blight and tear downs. And downtown still has so many vacant or half vacant towers in Detroit and I honestly feel downtown Detroit feels just as vibrant as downtown Cleveland today ( I realize not everyone will agree with me but I have spent alot of time in both downtowns in the last few years). When those vacant towers fill up as they are starting to do, Detroit will be on a whole new level.
Detroit is a metro over TWICE the size of Cleveland and it looks and feels it. Forget CSA. I have seen folks from Cleveland scoff on here being compared to cities 50% smaller, yet they want to be compared to a much bigger city almost 2.5 times bigger.
Pound for pound, per capita, I do think Cleveland beats Detroit. But due to Detroit being essentially over twice as big, it has bigger pants to fill and if it ever does, watch out. That's why the ceiling is lower in Cleveland.
Actually, almost all of Detroit’s vacant towers have now either already been renovated, or are slated to be renovated, but yeah, once they are all completed and filled, the vibrancy will be even greater than it is now! Detroit’s renaissance just keeps getting stronger and stronger every year that passes!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
