Two very different articles about Detroit came up in my Facebook feed today, one right after the other. The pair couldn't better illustrate the competing ideologies in our region right now. Which Detroit do we want to be?
(Click on each image to read the article.)
* * * * *
Oh, sprawl. I could have sworn we all agreed this was a very bad thing. Like a decade ago. Then I moved to Michigan, and I was astonished there were people like Mr. Patterson who still actively defended it.
So last summer, I was heartened when a metro-Detroit businessman named Andrew Basile, Jr. decided to take on sprawl as his personal mission. His open letter, written in the form of an ultimatum, made the rounds via email and got many of us talking.
So last summer, I was heartened when a metro-Detroit businessman named Andrew Basile, Jr. decided to take on sprawl as his personal mission. His open letter, written in the form of an ultimatum, made the rounds via email and got many of us talking.
"Why doesn't he move his firm into the city?" some of us city dwellers asked. If more smart folks like him would commit to moving downtown and building greater density in our urban core, then maybe we'd actually have a chance at reversing this trend, no?
Months later I would end up meeting Mr. Basile at a holiday party. He said his letter had made him a few enemies, and I thanked him for that. Then, honestly, I forgot all about it until this spring, when Rustwire.com published his letter and James Howard Kunstler dedicated an episode of his podcast to the subject. (Click here to listen.)
I thought the podcast was great, so I followed up with Mr. Basile to ask how his efforts were going. I said if I could knock on the doors of every policymaker and executive in metro-Detroit to listen to this podcast along with me, I would. Then I would ply them with donuts and ask them to please, please consider moving their offices downtown.
Mr. Basile was quick to reply. He said he thought this sprawl v. density issue was a generational thing and suggested we direct our efforts to younger folks. "People over 50 just can't seem to comprehend any of this," he explained. "They just can't imagine that anyone would want to live in a city, much less Detroit."
As for moving his own firm downtown, Mr. Basile said he wanted to but had encountered four really tough hurdles with his staff: 1) A longer commute (most live closer to Troy than to Detroit), 2) Income tax, 3) Safety concerns (especially for women leaving work late and walking to their cars), and 4) Cost of parking.
I thought this was really interesting. Three out of the four were really about transportation -- even the "safety" issue. You can say all you want about real or perceived danger in the city, but the truth is this: Downtown's crime rate is much lower than national, state and metro averages. Criminals are not the problem; cars are the problem. They've created an urban condition that makes a lot of folks afraid to even walk outside. It's scary when the sidewalks are empty.
The answer to empty sidewalks is not more proximate or affordable parking. The answer is more walking, biking and transit. More foot-traffic and more eyes on the street create better walkability & safety. (That's not opinion, that's fact. Jane Jacobs taught us that. Like decades ago.)
Mr. Basile is right: these hurdles need to be addressed. To my mind, part of that is promoting city living (to mitigate the commute issue). Part of that is building mass transit (also to mitigate the commute issue). And the other part is getting more employers to return to urban centers so that transit, safety and all of the other services & amenities people need and want will follow.
I've heard it a million times in my store and elsewhere: "When the City does this" or "If the City would do that. Then I would definitely consider moving my home or office downtown." The list of things people are waiting for is long. More retail & grocery options. Lower insurance & tax rates. Better police protection. Quality public education.
"And how do you expect that's all gonna change without you here?" I often want to ask.
I think we need to put the cart before the horse more often. Reverse the accepted order of things. Not "if they build it, we will come," but "if we come, we can help build it."
I know that's a lot to ask. Especially for the over-50 set. They're comfortable. They may have lost their own children to other metro-areas. They may have lost new talent to other firms. But it's too late for them to radically change their lifestyles. Once you spread out, it's hard to contract. It feels like a compromise, a sacrifice, a concession.
Brookings fellow Jennifer Bradley recently addressed this in an op-ed for The New York Times called "Promoting Ungrowth":
The answer to empty sidewalks is not more proximate or affordable parking. The answer is more walking, biking and transit. More foot-traffic and more eyes on the street create better walkability & safety. (That's not opinion, that's fact. Jane Jacobs taught us that. Like decades ago.)
Mr. Basile is right: these hurdles need to be addressed. To my mind, part of that is promoting city living (to mitigate the commute issue). Part of that is building mass transit (also to mitigate the commute issue). And the other part is getting more employers to return to urban centers so that transit, safety and all of the other services & amenities people need and want will follow.
* * * * *
I've heard it a million times in my store and elsewhere: "When the City does this" or "If the City would do that. Then I would definitely consider moving my home or office downtown." The list of things people are waiting for is long. More retail & grocery options. Lower insurance & tax rates. Better police protection. Quality public education.
"And how do you expect that's all gonna change without you here?" I often want to ask.
I think we need to put the cart before the horse more often. Reverse the accepted order of things. Not "if they build it, we will come," but "if we come, we can help build it."
I know that's a lot to ask. Especially for the over-50 set. They're comfortable. They may have lost their own children to other metro-areas. They may have lost new talent to other firms. But it's too late for them to radically change their lifestyles. Once you spread out, it's hard to contract. It feels like a compromise, a sacrifice, a concession.
Brookings fellow Jennifer Bradley recently addressed this in an op-ed for The New York Times called "Promoting Ungrowth":
"What we need is a new mindset. Physical growth has been a powerful American narrative, embodied in huge public expenditures from the Louisiana Purchase to the Interstate Highway System and the mortgage interest deduction. The nation now needs a parallel commitment to physical ungrowth. Ungrowth is not surrender but a phase of urban evolution.""Surrender" is such an interesting word, isn't it? So un-American. Certainly, this is what Mr. Patterson must have in mind when he defends sprawl. Surrender sounds too much like failure. Or worse, complicity in Detroit's decline.
So instead, he throws stones:
"The next time somebody rubs your face in the word sprawl, take a long, hard look at that person. Too often you will see some limousine liberal who long ago fled our cities. Now, they want others to go back and take their place. They want to use the power of government to force you back into a city, or a neighborhood, or a housing type they chose not to live in themselves. They want to force you back to the city to help purge themselves of their perceived sin of abandonment."No force necessary. If Mr. Basile is right, then "limousine liberals" don't need to do anything. We can all just sit back and watch sprawl drive people away.
