Good ideas. Better cities.
City roll call
Discussion
Article: Everything Is Going To Be Alright by Robert and Andrew Linn (read article.)
15 comments +
Add your comment
Have an account? Login. Need an account? Register.
Good ideas. Better cities.
Article: Everything Is Going To Be Alright by Robert and Andrew Linn (read article.)
Moy in Chicago
Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:49pm
Detroit is Dead.
like a coal with nothing left to burn, only ahses remain, these riminders too will be gone with time.
Dave Reid in Milwaukee, WI
Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:16pm
Yea it is a shame that many older buildings are torn down to become surface parking lots and simply further destroy the urban fabric. Further it is these old structures that need to be utilized as small business opportunities as they should have significantly lower rents.
Robert in Detroit
Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:33pm
Detroit is a victim of its own failed policies. A city that was once over 1.8 million is barely scratching at 800,000. The City lacks leadership, vision, and credibility. We watch their petty fights and corruption on the news every night. The city needs a real leader- not a hip-hop mayor and a council that is the joke of every city in America. Until there is a change in leadership, we will never see Detroit as anything more than a corrupt City where we drive to watch sporting events, cross over into Canada and send our tax dollars by the truckload to support failing policies.
Robert Linn
Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:36pm
Moy, I’m afraid that you might be missing the point of the article: On the surface some areas of the city may seem to be in extreme disrepair, and even decay, however, these same structures and neighborhoods are proving to be fertile soil for young professionals, new families and artists. The examples we cite, such as The HUB, or MOCAD are not signs of a city’s death, but of a new wave of young people being lured by inexpensive rents.
Have you ever been to Detroit, Moy?
Nina B
Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:42pm
I have to say, the MOCAD neon sign is my favorite thing in the City. I tell people so all of the time - I literally feel a tug at my heartstrings when I pass by it all lit up at night. Great article, guys.
Andrew Linn in Detroit
Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:30pm
Moy, as Rob has said, i’m afraid you have missed the point of the article. The new life in the city is just that, new life. Young entrepreneurs who have great ideas and are taking advantages of the lack of barriers to entry in Detroit. These are not “coal with nothing left to burn,” as you might like others to believe, but rather young people who are moving to Detroit from the suburbs and are rebuilding where others have given up hope. Maybe in 100 years time we will look back and see that Detroit has not regenerated, despite these exciting young people, but your comment that “only ashes remain” is rather immature and typical of the uneducated outsider who likes to comment on Detroit based on their viewing of Fox News.
Thanks for reading the article Nina!
Tom in the D in detroit
Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:22am
Dear Andy and Rob-
I’ve read your article 4 times. I’ve read your above comments 4 times. I am confused by both.
Someone either replaced all your words with someone else’s or you guys really have no idea on how to form an article.
I had no idea the point of view of the article was about creative re-use of properties in Detroit. Really, I live here. I see what folks have done in Corktown and Woodbridge and even in DelRay, but if you actually think your article had anything to do with, “Young entrepreneurs who have great ideas and are taking advantages of the lack of barriers to entry in Detroit” I am shocked.
You provide a couple of examples where people used exceptional (read unusual) financing options to build their businesses. The example of MOCAD, which you point out would not exist without a Charitable Foundation behind it, highlights what is wrong with Detroit: only charity can save Detroit. Like only the money gods can save Detroit. I understand that point of view, but it certainly doesn’t jibe with your stated objective.
I just wonder who edits your stuff. Your article is not supported by your comments or vis versa.
mimi in new york
Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:22pm
Robert and Andrew - great article. I’ve spent a lot of time in Detroit and read your piece with great interest. Tom, I’m confused about why you’re confused and why you sound hostile. I’m sure the editors of NAC edited the article; I doubt anyone edited the comments. It was clear to me that the article was about adaptive reuse as an alternative to demolition in Detroit. I think in their comments, above, the authors were expanding on the article. Moy, your comment is simplistic and uninformed.
Cheers Robert and Andrew!
Andrew T. Linn in Detroit
Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:04pm
Tom, I understand your position, but must disagree. Though they may not be aparent to the average outsider, young people (read 20s-40s) are taking great advantage of Detroit’s low barriers to entry.
You might be interested in checking out some of these Detroit establishments that I just thought of off the top of my head. All opened in the last few years, all owned by young first time entrepreneurs, all made possible because of, as we said in the article, low barriers to entry:
UFO Factory
Bohemian National Home
Scrummage University
Wheel House
HUB
Avalon
OSLO
Urban Bean CO
Bureau of Urban Living
Canine to Five
Detroit Evolution Labratory
Goldengate Cafe
Sole Sisters
Good Girls Go To Paris
Motorcity Brewing Works (public bar space)
Mezzanine
BCK
Slow’s Barbecue
O’Conner Realty
Mercury Coffee Bar
People’s Records
These are just a few. I think the way in which this list just scratches the surface of new “young” development in Detroit / less barriers to entry, shows the hope found in these types of developments.
As a small business owner myself, I can testify to some of the advantages, of which there are many, of doing business in Detroit.
Robert Linn
Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 3:44am
Tom In the D-
I take your allegations seriously and personally, and I’d be happy to explain any aspect of my comment or the article.
However, in the mean time, I ask that you look to our non-MOCAD examples (most notably The Hub and Avalon International Breads) before alleging that our examples received unusual sources of funding. The HUB featured a “soft grand opening” to save capital, and Avalon sold “bread bucks” to raise capital. We used three contrasting examples to highlight a variety of approaches. I don’t think you’re doing the article justice to cite one of our examples while ignoring the others. Would you read the article a 5th time? I think it might do the trick.
HK in Detroit
Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 4:38pm
For starters - Moy - Detroit is not dead. It is alive and kicking and open for business. Of course it’s not Chicago (my hometown, incidentally and I see that’s where you are), but most cities don’t compare to the thriving 3rd largest city in the country.
I moved here last year and commute to the subirbs for work while living DOWNTOWN DETROIT. After almost a year and a half, I can still say I love it. I love my neighborhood - the great restaurants, bars, the beautiful riverfront and a great clothing store right down the street that I shop frequently. I am a 30-something, educated person and I appreciate renting a great loft for $1 a square foot! I would be living in a shoebox in Chicago or in one of the not-so-great neighborhoods there at that price. Let’s not pretend Detroit is the only city with problems.
Yes, our local government is a mess, but with some house cleaning we can take care of that. Detroit has a long way to go and no one is denying that, but more importantly, there is great opportunity here. And by the way - my favorite part about Detroit is seeing something new pop up almost every day! (Thanks Andrew for listing some of those great places!)
You can read my Downtown Detroit Living Blog here if you want to keep up with all of the great experiences to be had by someone like me in Detroit:
http://cw50detroit.com/random/downtown0701.2.762161.html
R in the Balt in Baltimore
Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 5:30pm
R + A -
For starters, you guys shouldn’t take ad hominems on the comment thread of your article so personally—certainly not to the point that you’re leveling insults back at your readers ("your comment is...rather immature and typical of the uneducated outsider who likes to comment on Detroit based on their viewing of Fox News."). I mean, what better way to alienate your readership and shame your publication than attacking a commenter who didn’t even really attack you, with condescending language? Frankly, you sound like an elitist who cries more over the knocking-down of an Albert Kahn building than over the collective economic fate of city ruined by disinvestment.
But I digress. My main question is—how can you seriously make the argument that the city’s fee structure creates incentives for demolition/rebuilding over renovation, when the fees are so inconsequential? It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions, to demolish a building, and then millions more to build a new one. It generally costs in the 10s, 100s of thousands, and often millions of dollars range to renovate a large-scale building. Given these types of costs, how could a paltry sum of $100 versus $7,000 ever make a difference?
If you want to peg Detroit’s blight and inability to preserve its building stock to a policy issue, why not spend some time discussing Kwame Kilpatrick’s complete inability to attract business to the city and replace some of the vibrancy that left with the collapse of the Motown auto industry?
Furthermore, why are you quoting 24-year old “lifelong Detroiters” on how painful it is to see historic buildings demolished? Why not quote someone with some historic perspective or architectural credentials, like a historian, or a preservationist, or an architect? What do I care what some just-out-of-college “resident” who you accosted on a street corner has to say about what it’s like to see buildings knocked down? That graf seemed like really lazy reporting to me.
- R in the Balt
Robert Linn
Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:11am
R in the Balt-
Thanks for your comment - nothing makes me happier then to see others express interest in the article.
As the article is written, I completely agree that both of those points you raise may seem faulty, however our original draft included them in a different manner. The article draft that we submitted was over the word limit, so unfortunately, some of our paragraphs and specific phrasing got knifed in order to meet length restrictions.
We originally stated that the permit fee structure example was merely a symbol of broader policies. Also, however, we don’t discuss any million-dollar developments, the HUB, for example, had an opening budget of a few thousand… the more than $6000 difference is nothing to sneeze at if your capital totals $20,000. .
We cited the “life-long Detroiter” quote in an effort to get at how this is effecting ordinary citizens - architecture buffs and preservationists would clearly have a relatively predictable response. Additionally, many of the buildings that we looked at were relatively insignificant architecture-wise, (i.e. MOCAD is housed in a old car dealership,) and so would have negligible architectural value. Lastly, we choose someone in their mid-20’s because we were primarily discussing the potential of these structures for younger residents, new families, and artists. Ms. Brown is all three.
Thanks for reading the article. If you have any more questions, please feel free to post them here - I’ll do my best to respond.
Ben Chodoroff
Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 3:42pm
A lot of what this article says about The Hub of Detroit is untrue.
We are not a new small business: The Hub is a non-profit and owned by nobody in particular. It is a product of eight years of community-building and organizing.
Also, we don’t own our location: we rent, at an extreme subsidy, from another non-profit.
This is relevant because our business model is drastically different than most of the other businesses listed here. We are not a “start-up” because we’ve built our organization in tandem with a community. Our project is what we see as a necessary service in a seriously hard-up city.
I personally don’t think that many of the above-listed businesses are relevant to the future of the city in the same way that a caring community of non-profit services is.
I think that, as a society, we have to reevaluate how capitalism and business is treated as a panacea for societal problems. Small business is great in some ways, but it is by no means a general solution for economic downfall. Detroit can have a coffee shop and sushi bar on every corner, but it doesn’t matter if the majority of people can’t afford to buy their products.
JocobSF in Southfield Michigan
Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:03am
BC, that ain’t what i heard ‘bout tha hub, but i’ve only been there a couple o’ times.