Talk:Planning and development in Detroit/Archive 1

Move

Propose moving of page to Recent developments in Detroit--Loodog 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The New Detroit title is a good one, its actually historically accurate. Lets leave it. Don't be so rough on the new guy, he's has good ideas. Thomas Paine1776 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a matter of I couldn't find anything in a google search on that term so it seemed OR.--Loodog 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also a buzzword with positive connotations.--Loodog 22:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions,but i really think this is a good name for it and as you said it's a buzzword.Like I have said many times we are far different from other cities so New Detroit is a good term because it was for a long time in the dumps.I'm glad I started it and im glad people are adding and editing because I do need all of your help and Ideas! TheCoolOne99 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how Detroit actually is, the title needs to be Neutral Point of View (NPOV), as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming. New York is a great city, but we wouldn't move it to "The life of the country" or "Thriving New York", just because someone had used the term. Again, I maintain that the article should be moved. "New Detroit" can stil redirect here. You can still mention that recent invigorated downtown is called "New Deroit" in the article, but I can't see how the current title is consistent with wikipedia policy on article naming.--Loodog 16:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The history has been documented. Its a legitmate term. Would you propose changing 'Empire State Building' to just 'State Building', or 'United Nations' to DisUnited Nations, that would seem to be closer to the point you are making? The PC slant itself is pov. Question pessimism. New Detroit/Urban development in Detroit. The New Detroit name is a good one, it has a history, its fine. Urban development in Detroit would also be good. Recent developments in Detroit is not quite there. Thomas Paine1776 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No. "New Detroit" is an acceptable name for an article about the term's usage in late 1960s as an urban renewal catchphrase. "Urban development in Detroit" or "Recent developments in Detroit" are acceptable names for an article about present developments in Detroit. What has recently happened downtown is not New Detroit. New Detroit is an advertising slogan with historical precedent that has been commandeered for present usage. Actually, come to think of it, I have yet to see one source showing that "New Detroit" has been used in this manner. The only related "New Detroit" I've found in the first three pages of a google search is for the nonprofit organization founded in 1967 --Loodog 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Edits and opinions everyone!New Detroit is a term being used and it has a definition and this article describes it.It should stay because it's commenly used and deserves it's title and article

Articles aren't named after what they "deserve".--Loodog 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Urban development in Detroit would be a good name to avoid confusion with the original group New Detroit, which dwelves into other purposes. However, the New Detroit name is sometimes used for urban development and I'm not opposed to it.Thomas Paine1776 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is ok,but I still like New Detroit Better,but we don't want to start conflict because there are parts of Detroit that havent even been touched since the riots.So thanks for leading it in the right driection guys.Glad I started this it seems to get alot of feedback=)TheCoolOne99 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC) -Eliot

POV

The tone of this article seems rather biased. I'm not much of a wiki editor but I could see large sections of this article being written by Detroit Renaissance or someone in Mayor Kilpatrick's office. I am very much a booster of Detroit but this seems just a little too sunny for my tastes. --97.84.194.121 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I could do without the current intro: A decade of planning and new visions have brought the City of Detroit to a new century. The city is experiencing accelerated development. New developments along the river, in the downtown, and on the east side have all prompted growth and a new wave of prosperity in the Motor City.--Loodog 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Constant complaining and advocating stale language is more of the same pessimism. Accelerated progressive development is taking place in the city. The person who created the article asked for conveyance of the new changes, the article has been discussed. The Detroit News and its sources are just as descriptive, if not more. And what would be wrong with a Mayor's plans in America? The city is experiencing accelerated development, yes, this is a new century, yes, there are new visions, yes, there is a wave of prosperity, yes. Thomas Paine1776 01:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"more of the same pessimism". I'm sorry, but what you just said openly acknowledges breaking Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one of the Five pillars of wikipedia. Now, the article has to be rigorously defluffed.--Loodog 03:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to be specific or make suggestions. The descriptions are accurate, so unless you have specifics you are not making sense. Thus far you've really not made any clear points. case. You object to planning and new visions? You seem uninformed. The city had a new course, a new change in its plans part of which included casino resorts and the riverfront vision. Selected examples are documented in the article of planning even from 1996. Thomas Paine1776 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy here is not in question. POV is. You've openly acknowledged there to be bias, so material of the same accuracy with neutral wording is now necessary. "An economic shift" conveys the same information as "A new course for the city" without the propaganda.--Loodog 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific phrases violating POV:

1. New visions
2. Bringing Detroit to a new century
3. Accelerated development (for development to be accelerated, more projects would have to be underway now than at any other time in history).
4. Wave of prosperity

--Loodog 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've admitted the article is accurate. And BTW, there was no admission of bias, the point was the reverse, that unwarranted pessimism would be a bias. I will make changes for courtesy. But the terms used aren't non-neutral per se. Accelerated development refers to accelerated from the prior decades, or from any recent time, there would not be a requirement for it to be 'at any time in history'. A new course for the city is not propaganda as you suggest, its an accurate description. Don't be so senstive to market economic terms, or terms used in free democratic societies. The USA is a free, democratic society with a market economy. Development has risen to a high degree, grand scale, large areas, more than a typical situation or a normal pace, that is an accelerated development. The scope encompasses large areas, so its not an exaggerated description if that is what you are implying. Again, the terms are accurate. It seems you would object to the term "Roaring twenties" to describe the 1920s, which conveyed a much higher degree than 'accelerated'. Thomas Paine1776 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Roaring twenties" is a phrase that has withstood the test of time (80+ years to be exact), and is now so commonly accepted across the country that it is included in history textbooks. Allow me to propose in place of the above phrases:

1. "A decade of planning, as well as newer proposals..."
2. "...have had a appreciable impact on the economic character of the city's downtown."
3. If we're comparing relative development paces of cities, we'd need a source. Cities across the country (and indeed across the world) are all experiencing building booms. We have no reference to show Detroit's is any more accelerated.
4. Wave of prosperity is a poorly defined (and unconvincing) peacock phrase, compared to an actual statistic like, "The effect has been that unemployment is down 2% in the last two years", or "The effect has been that tourism has increased 2% in the past two years." See the example given in Wikipedia: Avoid peacock terms for more on this.

--Loodog 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Point of this article is that we Are in a new century

I would like to keep the sort of ubeat path of this article.New Wave,new vision,new century are all terms I like to hear in this article.They wouldn't let me do it in the Detroit,MI article so I moved here.It is especially important that those terms are used for Detroit because people have very scorned perceptions of Detroit. TheCoolOne99 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, see the above discussion before repeating what you've already said.--Loodog 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro again

"As a result, the city is experiencing a significant increase in development."

The word "significant" is vague, unimpressive, and often overused. It makes a far better article to replace this with some sort of statistic. See my change to the "Casino Resorts" section for an example. Statistics automatically remove OR, settle POV disputes, and sound more impressive than peacock words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loodog (talk • contribs) 15:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Dollar values for revitalization projects are listed with in the article, so the use of significant has specifics. Its not necessary to place every dollar value in the introduction. It is also dynamic, there are new projects accumulating. The point is to give a brief explanation of the plan. If there is a relevant statistic available, I'll include it. As it is the paragraph properly describes the plan. The city already has a great deal of infrastructure, so even complementary improvements and revitalization provides synergies beyond the norm. There many new plants and new jobs in the city as well. American Axle has a new headquarters in the city, and Chrylser has a relatively new plant in the city. Thomas Paine1776 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of something that could summarize that, like "As a result $x billion have been invested into Detroit's economy in the last y years." or "Tourism is up z% in the last y years."--Loodog 18:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some numbers like that, I'll see if I can find them again. Agree it would be nice to show them. We've provided in the Detroit articles more specifics and statistics than most of the cities. BTW, the data keepers show that the Detroit area dominated the metro commercial development lists through 2001 [1] and through 2004, adding multitude of new and refurbished manufacturing and plant facilities. The Detroit area is one of the world's most innovative and pre-eminent manufacturing areas, lots of amazing things and new technologies there. Something to keep in mind, the Detroit area is constantly updating its plants, the big three automakers collectively manage more revenue than the Pentagon. The area has tremendous economic potential, capacity, and R&D, one aspect of what makes it so facinating to examine. The city's focus on new and revitalized residential construction and lofts is likely yield many surprises in the ensuing years that are already being recognized.[2] Also, the development numbers for the city don't even include the complete 2005 rebuilding of I-94, I-375, M-39 and current project which is completely rebuilding of the Lodge Freeway. BTW, prosperity is not a peacock word. Don't be so sensitive free market terms, the USA has a free market economy. Manufacturing output in the US steadily rises, though there have been trade issues since 9/11. [3] The types of manufacturing employment fluctuates. There are many new types of manufacturing jobs in the Detroit area, eg. producing industrial lasers, generating new assembly processes, producing pharmaceuticals, alternative energy technologies, new expansion of oil refinery capacity to accomodate Canadian oil sands, new cement plants, and so on. Thomas Paine1776 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Prosperity: "the condition of being successful or thriving; especially : economic well-being". The word has no relation to the restrictions a market has. A socialist country could be prosperous, just as a free market one, a highly restrictive one, etc... The word does have connotations of success and universal affluence while not specifically saying anything, hence a peacock word.--Loodog 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is really no thriving socialism in the world that isn't funded by a prosperous and successful free market. So prosperity is at its core a free market term. Free markets and free democracy are the essence of advanced economic well being. A socialist program cannot be prosperous without a free market to prop it up. eg. France has elements of socialism for its health care, but it could not afford it without its vibrant free market economy. France has lower corporate income tax than the USA. France places a high value on its capitalistic free market economy in order to pay for its needs. The Marxist/Leninist/Communist model is a dead ideology, its failing all over the world. Sadly, the last to realize the complete failure of communism have been the far left movements in the West whose proponents live lavish lifestyles and enjoy the prosperity of the free market themselves, the so called 'limosine liberals'. Marxist theories of doom, gloom, social conflict, and pessimism for human economic interaction are a failure. The former Soviet Union is learning about the free market. The free market is a wealth generator. If the noble goal is to have a healthy public sector that can promote social welfare, then the reality is it must be funded by a prosperous free market economy; this was also the wisdom of America's founders, and its more true than ever. Thomas Paine1776 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my point has been missed. There is nothing intrinsic to the word relating it to a free market. I'm sure Louis XIV was had a prosperous estate; it doesn't make him the king of a free market country. Whitey Bulger has lead a very prosperous life in racketeering. The term has poppycock to do with a free market.--Loodog 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And okay, it seems you have missed my point. Royals are not an example of economic prosperity in a society, theirs are individual riches which accumulated from tax collections from peasants. Prosperity by implication cannot be racketeering. The examples you are citing would be examples of greed, not prosperity. They are very different terms. Usury would be an example of greed. American Justice with common sense regulation keeps the free market free and not racketeering. Even gaming casinos in America have a high level of budgetary auditing to keep them honest. America's prosperity or the prosperity of a free market democratic society arises from equity markets, and not from the excess of borrowing or lending. Its results from wealth creation, from achieving a greater rate of return on the asset through innovation. Thus, both the lenders and the public bureaucrats depend directly on the free market's prosperity with its wealth creation, production, innovation, and equity markets. The general prosperity is an inherent free market concept which underpins the U.S. Constitution's emphasis on promoting the general welfare. Consider the latin for despair and prosper to help you understand the concept. Hope and confidence (faith) are placed in a free market just as investor confidence aids the free market. Thomas Paine1776 21:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Starting over: "prosperity" as a word in the English language has nothing to do with free market. prosperity. So, in anticipating my objection to the word, you guessed wrong.

WP:PEACOCK says that peacock words are those that "merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information", which "prosperity" does.--Loodog 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New Detroit and J.L. Hudson

J.L. Hudson could not have had any part in the 'New Detroit' committee as he passed away in 1912 (the committee was formed after 1967). --Locano 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation says it was J.L. Hudson, Jr.; article changed accordingly.--Scottr76 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History

With respect to this diff[4] -- when something happens in 2010, it does not make what happened in 1970 go away. There was planning for urban development prior to the present. The article is about urban development, not about Business Leaders for Michigan; a roster of of its most prominent members belongs in a separate article about them, not in the lead of this one. That's WP:Coatrack, WP:Undue and to some extent maybe WP:Peacock. Just doesn't belong. Let WP:BRD go forward, and see if others have views on the question. DavidOaks (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I wrote the 1970 stuff so what's your beef. The 1970 stuff is no longer relevent for the intro since the city is moving at a much faster pace at demolition and construction. It might belong in the history section, but don't think it should be in the intro any longer. Your terms of peacock, undue and coatrack appear to be just posturing. An encyclopedia is not a soapbox drama. This an article about urban development not a dumping ground for anti-detroit feelings and soapboxes. Detroit Renaissance was renamed Business leaders of Michigan, that was the purpose for the updated term, not as you suppose to make an article about BLM. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who wrote the material on the earlier efforts at urban renewal. There were organized efforts at urban renewal in 1967 and 1970. You are quite correct to write about the efforts of 2010 -- but what happened forty years ago still happened. And it had a historical context that also needs to be preserved. The earlier efforts were in repsonse to racial conflict. The newer committee is focussed mainly on the results of shifts in the nature of the economy. The article is for an encyclopedia, not a newspaper -- we're concerned with the past as well as the present. Someone seeking information on urban renewal in Detroit needs to know that things were tried earlier, and in response to different (but ongoing) problems. DavidOaks (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I reject the "anti-Detroit" tag. I lived there a long time and love it. But an encyclopedia article cannot be engaged in boosterism, promotion, whitewashing, putting a positive -- or negative -- spin on things. Like any big city trying to adjust to the end of heavy manufacturing and still dealing with issues of racial inequality, it has problems, and it would be irresponsible to minimize them. Like all big cities it has tried various ways of addressing these issues, and continues to do so, and articles must address that. Good things, bad things, everything. DavidOaks (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And about negativity: let's note that urban renewal is not undertaken when and where things are just fine. It happens in response to decline, disruption, decay. It's healthy, but it's in response to something unhealthy. And the article must reflect that.DavidOaks (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested merge

It has been suggested that Urban Economic Development Initiatives in Detroit be merged into this article. My76Strat 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)