U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2016, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
27,749 posts, read 65,558,358 times
Reputation: 32915

Advertisements

There are others who jumped on the bandwagon recently (Farbman, DiRita, Higgins, Princeton Enterprises, and several others), but it is really Gilbert who spawned the recent boom. Illitch has been working towards this end for a long time, but Gilbert really touched things off by not only restoring and building buildings but:
1. Hiring young people and encouraging them (financially) to live downtown.
2. Providing fun things for said young people to do downtown.
3. encouraging (financially) new bars and restaurants to make the area more appealing to said young people.
4. Paying for a train (Illitch too) for the same reason.


While stadiums help, they do not really bring people to live in downtown. People come for a game and leave. You need an every day draw to keep people downtown rather than just visiting. Gilbert is the primary person providing that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2016, 01:53 PM
 
2,952 posts, read 4,345,492 times
Reputation: 2238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
There are others who jumped on the bandwagon recently (Farbman, DiRita, Higgins, Princeton Enterprises, and several others), but it is really Gilbert who spawned the recent boom. Illitch has been working towards this end for a long time, but Gilbert really touched things off by not only restoring and building buildings but:
1. Hiring young people and encouraging them (financially) to live downtown.
2. Providing fun things for said young people to do downtown.
3. encouraging (financially) new bars and restaurants to make the area more appealing to said young people.
4. Paying for a train (Illitch too) for the same reason.


While stadiums help, they do not really bring people to live in downtown. People come for a game and leave. You need an every day draw to keep people downtown rather than just visiting. Gilbert is the primary person providing that.
True, but its kind of a chicken and egg thing. The people who knock the power of the stadiums show just how limited academic studies generally are through dispensing of common sense, like comparing plopping the stadiums downtown in Detroit versus building a new stadium in NYC.

The two situations are completely and utterly different.

If you flash back to pre-Comerica Park, the reasons to visit downtown Detroit were pathetic. You had the same theaters, restaurants and cultural institutions that had been knocking around for 20 years.

The building of the stadiums massively, massively revitalized the city center IMO.

And frankly if it hadn't been for Illitch keeping that little corner of the Fox going for so long, then adding on the stadium, there would have been virtually nothing.

Gilbert has been kicking a$$ but you cannot overlook Illitch's building of the new stadium and surrounding development, either.

The Fords also deserve credit for putting their unbelievably lousy football team down there too.

These elements brought the traffic, glamour and crowds in a way that only a stadium could; it was like a shot of adreneline into a heart attack victim.

I know a billion people will disagree with me because they hate the idea of publicly funded stadiums and resent that wealthy people use public funds to get even wealthier, but having been through the mix and on the groundfloor in that exact area both before and after, that is my absolute opinion, and nothing will ever change it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
27,749 posts, read 65,558,358 times
Reputation: 32915
The problem with stadiums is they bring only occasional and temporary crowds. They do not get people to move in and they do not support restaurants and bars. Until people started living downtown again there were few bars or restaurants and they were struggling. While the stadiums undoubtedly helped some, they really did not provide a regular ongoing incentive to come/live downtown. In fact, that area is not all that active except when there are tiger games. I do not see people from Ford Field out and about during events there. I think they park watch and go. The theaters provide as much of a draw for permanent residents as the stadiums do. It is all about what they can find to do on a regular basis. attending a few sporting events once in a while is not enough for people to live downtown, and not many young people have time or money for season tickets (and they are not going to be able to attend all the home gmes even if they did have tickets). So a stadium provides only a limited number of entertainment opportunities to a limited number of likely residents. Mostly, they draw people temporarily from the suburbs.

The stadiums have been there for quite a long while and they did not support much restaurant/bar business and no retail. They may have been part of the draw for a portion of the people who moved in and created the basis for the current surge of restaurants, bars, and retail, but they are clearly not the cause or even a primary cause.

Personally, I would love to live downtown, but the stadiums are at best a tiny bit of the draw. It might be neat to be able to walk over for a game once in a while, but at $75 per ticket, I would not go often. Only two tickets costs $150 (plus food), and my whole family would cost over $500 to go to one game (plus food). In fact, I would likely go only when scalpers were selling left over tickets at massively reduced prices. I am actually not sure whether they are a draw or a negative due to the huge crowds of drunken idiots they bring in. I certainly would not want to live near one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 12:49 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,291,983 times
Reputation: 1864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnynonos View Post
The growth in downtown/midtown is explosive. It's incredible. It's reached the point where you can't even really keep up with everything new.

It will be interesting (well, actually boring) to see how the stadium naysayers diss the stadiums' contribution to the revitalization of downtown.

There is always some academic with a chart ready to try to spin conventional wisdom on its head, but IMO the stadiums contributed an incalcuable amount to the rebirth.

Neck and neck is the single-handed force of Dan Gilbert, who people still like to poo poo for whatever deeply ingrained bitter reason.

Finally, the bankruptcy freed up necessary funds to get city services back to a somewhat even keel.

So, there you have it. Although there have been many, many admirable individual contributions (e.g., Karmanos, DiChiera) to the rebirth of Detroit over the last two decades, it is mostly the result of the single-handed efforts of two men: Mike Illitch and Dan Gilbert.

Unbelievable!
Also, don't overlook Peter Karmanos, the (shortsighted?) demolition of the Hudson's Department store, the construction of the Compuware Building and the concurrent construction of Campus Martius, and the Greektown and MGM casinos. These also brought folks downtown as well as the stadiums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 06:19 AM
 
2,952 posts, read 4,345,492 times
Reputation: 2238
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10 View Post
Also, don't overlook Peter Karmanos, the (shortsighted?) demolition of the Hudson's Department store, the construction of the Compuware Building and the concurrent construction of Campus Martius, and the Greektown and MGM casinos. These also brought folks downtown as well as the stadiums.
totally agree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 06:27 AM
 
2,952 posts, read 4,345,492 times
Reputation: 2238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
The problem with stadiums is they bring only occasional and temporary crowds. They do not get people to move in and they do not support restaurants and bars. Until people started living downtown again there were few bars or restaurants and they were struggling. While the stadiums undoubtedly helped some, they really did not provide a regular ongoing incentive to come/live downtown. In fact, that area is not all that active except when there are tiger games. I do not see people from Ford Field out and about during events there. I think they park watch and go. The theaters provide as much of a draw for permanent residents as the stadiums do. It is all about what they can find to do on a regular basis. attending a few sporting events once in a while is not enough for people to live downtown, and not many young people have time or money for season tickets (and they are not going to be able to attend all the home gmes even if they did have tickets). So a stadium provides only a limited number of entertainment opportunities to a limited number of likely residents. Mostly, they draw people temporarily from the suburbs.

The stadiums have been there for quite a long while and they did not support much restaurant/bar business and no retail. They may have been part of the draw for a portion of the people who moved in and created the basis for the current surge of restaurants, bars, and retail, but they are clearly not the cause or even a primary cause.

Personally, I would love to live downtown, but the stadiums are at best a tiny bit of the draw. It might be neat to be able to walk over for a game once in a while, but at $75 per ticket, I would not go often. Only two tickets costs $150 (plus food), and my whole family would cost over $500 to go to one game (plus food). In fact, I would likely go only when scalpers were selling left over tickets at massively reduced prices. I am actually not sure whether they are a draw or a negative due to the huge crowds of drunken idiots they bring in. I certainly would not want to live near one of them.
Well, I doubt one thing in particular drives people to live downtown, whether it's a stadium or a symphony. But the stadiums are massive anchors of traffic and commerce. We can sit here and debate all day whether to what degree they are responsible for new bars and restaurants, but in the case of Comerica and Ford they were massive new heavily trafficed attractions that replaced in some cases abandoned and in other cases hugely underutilized buildings in the city core.

Additionally, the revitalization of a city is not solely reflected by the amount of people living downtown. Most cities have a financial district that is essential to their well-being but not heavily residential.

No one likely moved downtown to be near the Fox Theater or even the DIA specifically either. It's about what an area has to offer as a whole.

In terms of living near one, you may not want to, but Broderick Tower and I am sure many other similar properties seem to be doing very well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Ann Arbor MI
2,103 posts, read 1,347,071 times
Reputation: 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnynonos View Post
The people who knock the power of the stadiums show just how limited academic studies generally are through dispensing of common sense,
The knock on public funding of stadiums is fair. The "problem" is that studies show discretionary income doesn't change when tax payers help build an arena or stadium. So once the construction is done and the thing is running the money spent in and around the arena isn't new money, its money not spent somewhere else. Maybe a movie theater, a restaurant across town, a play in royal Oak, whatever, becomes a loser.
So when tax payers help fund these arenas or stadiums they may give a shot in the arm to business in close proximity but its at nearly direct, dollar for dollar, loss for somebody else.
That is the knock on public money for arenas/stadiums. The product they sell is a discretionary income product and they just move those purchases from one place to another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 10:49 AM
 
2,952 posts, read 4,345,492 times
Reputation: 2238
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig11152 View Post
The knock on public funding of stadiums is fair. The "problem" is that studies show discretionary income doesn't change when tax payers help build an arena or stadium. So once the construction is done and the thing is running the money spent in and around the arena isn't new money, its money not spent somewhere else. Maybe a movie theater, a restaurant across town, a play in royal Oak, whatever, becomes a loser.
So when tax payers help fund these arenas or stadiums they may give a shot in the arm to business in close proximity but its at nearly direct, dollar for dollar, loss for somebody else.
That is the knock on public money for arenas/stadiums. The product they sell is a discretionary income product and they just move those purchases from one place to another.
You could say the same thing about a tax spent on virtually anything. That is the entire premise of Hazlett's "Economics in One Lesson."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Ann Arbor MI
2,103 posts, read 1,347,071 times
Reputation: 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnynonos View Post
You could say the same thing about a tax spent on virtually anything. That is the entire premise of Hazlett's "Economics in One Lesson."
No most taxes at the local level are still spent on what most people consider core Government functions. We need roads, bridges, water an sewer, health departments, police and fire, we don't NEED to build buildings designed for private business. Further more there is a fundamental difference between deferring taxes to encourage business and actually "writing a check".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 01:24 PM
SQL
 
Location: The State of Delusion - Colorado
1,337 posts, read 899,316 times
Reputation: 1492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
Allow me to rephrase then:
...so as us youngsters age and start having families and owning property, and we compare the quality of life 70k a year affords us in a metro like Detroit vs. a metro like LA, and realize that a $180,000 home in Royal Oak sure sounds a lot nicer than that same home in Burbank, but instead for $650,000, because then we can afford to go to MLB games and yell, "Go Tigers!"

COL and quality of life are huge factors. I live in Denver at the moment, but I'm seriously considering my exit plan to a cheaper COL area. Housing costs are out of control here. The people who have lived here for some time are absolutely loving it, that they've literally had to do nothing and they're houses are worth double or triple or quadruple what they paid for them 20+ years ago. The young professionals are getting shafted, however, as rents have sky rocketed, and home ownership has become a pipe dream. And all that for a little pot and some mountains. People are quickly realizing that it's simply not worth it, and so they'll spend a few years here before either returning home or going to the next up-and-coming cool city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top