I spent a few days in Detroit to report on how Dan Gilbert has driven a stunningly rapid urban renaissance in one of America's greatest and most troubled cities, as well as on the class and "corporate welfare" criticisms of the way he's done it theglobeandmail.com/world/us-polit…
I was vaguely aware for years of what Gilbert and his companies were doing in Detroit, along with some broad concern at the idea of private business amassing so much influence over a city. But it wasn't until I went there that I understood how striking the juxtapositions were
Much of the city centre looks fantastic, in no small part because Gilbert's company is far more sophisticated than the average developer. They genuinely get the importance of mixed-use, complete streets, fine-grained development and the results are obvious
Crowds of people on the sidewalks and in the parks, a solid mix of businesses, cool bars and coffee shops, gorgeously restored heritage buildings, and all the urban verve you want in a downtown. Made all the more impressive by how quickly the area had turned around
But step just a few blocks outside downtown, and Detroit still looks like the burned-out-houses-boarded-up-stores-urban-prairie stereotype you probably imagine
And the census data backs up the perception on the ground -- the income and race divides across the city are stark
Maybe most interestingly, though, community leaders I met were of two minds about Gilbert, and corporate development generally. While they wished its benefits would spread outside downtown, they were wary of the displacement and centralised control that inherently accompany it
A lot of Detroiters prefer a more decentralised, bootstrapping process for rebuilding their city
(I have to interrupt this brief urban affairs digression to cover an impeachment hearing, but will try to pick it up again later. In particular, others have written some fascinating pieces on this topic from vastly different angles that I would like to shout-out)
I'm not the first to delve into this fascinating story. If 2,800 words on Detroit urban development isn't enough for you, this longer BI piece from last year is a good read with more perspective from the companies and people benefiting businessinsider.com/quicken-loans-…
This is the ProPublica story on Gilbert's relationship with Trump and the federal tax status given to parts of Detroit propublica.org/article/how-a-…
...and this is a website Gilbert's people set up to say that ProPublica is wrong (basically, they say they did nothing to influence the federal government's tax program) oppzonefacts.com
The Detroit Free Press, meanwhile, delved into the subsidies and tax incentives the Michigan state government has given Gilbert's companies freep.com/in-depth/news/…
On issues of social class and exclusion, I found Gilbert's people mostly conceded that their critics have a point, and they talked a lot about doing better -- putting more new developments in outlying neighbourhoods, for instance
But on the question of subsidies, they were adamant that most of this development would have been impossible without them. And you can easily see why the state and city agreed to it
Detroit is such an exceptional case that it's hard to draw universal lessons from what Gilbert is doing. But I think this story speaks to the larger tension between corporate development and community bootstrapping...
...as well as the questions of how much civic power it's okay to cede to the private sector in exchange for investment -- something Toronto is dealing with in a different context with Sidewalk Labs -- and when it's permissible to offer up government subsidies
Mostly, it's a fascinating moment in the life of a great American city, and a good reminder there's an entire country here outside of Trumpworld
