"There is a large area that is in very dire shape... but is no worse than it was 20 years ago"
This is absolutely untrue. I live in Detroit and work with its property data on a daily basis. The physical state of the city has deteriorated significantly since the financial crisis of 2008-9.
The downtown that is resurgent encompasses 7.2 of 139 square miles. Most of the city has not bottomed out. People continue to leave, properties continue to burn, and the news of Detroit's resurgence remains greatly overstated.
Take a look here to see how Detroit has fared since 2008:
I agree with you. My father grew up in Detroit and I still have plenty of family there. What people don't understand is the scale of the problem and how far it has gone. I really can't see the situation changing unless Detroit either consolidates with some of its healthier suburbs or divests the massive amount of land that's currently draining its very limited resources. I don't think we can declare the city to be in rebound just because a kernel of affluence is reemerging. There's a looong way to go.
Those are interesting photos, but how do we know whether they are representative of an overall trend? Those locations seem to be selected manually to show houses in decay -- it's not a random sample, and it's probably not a representative sample.
Nobody doubts that there are decaying buildings in Detroit, but to see how Detroit has faired overall, you would need to look at the big picture, including properties that have been restored or rebuilt, but that weblog doesn't show that.
If you're having trouble relating to the numbers, here's a great episode of Parts Unknown that shows how bad Detroit is now, hosted by a guy who really likes Detroit. http://www.cnn.com/video/shows/anthony-bourdain-parts-unknow... (not so much the videos, but the text below.)
I suppose I do take a more macro level view, and have essentially written off many of the neighborhoods (what the banks and others should have done long ago). There are detached little islands of residents trying to make a stand, but -- as that blog shows -- they can't. Much of Detroit the urban area should be returned to nature and then, in a planned and considered fashion, built out again. To some degree this is happening, and it's interesting that many of the blog posts show houses in a very high level of disrepair, followed by an empty field: For the good of Detroit, the empty field is often a better state, and the bail-out Detroit should have gotten is billions to tear down houses and remediate lands that are long past the point of no return.
The resurgence does absolutely have to do with the sense of pride in the city, and the sense that it is a city for doing business, both required for the city to come back. Neither of those help houses neglected for decades on remote strips of perilous streets with no rational civic services.
This is absolutely untrue. I live in Detroit and work with its property data on a daily basis. The physical state of the city has deteriorated significantly since the financial crisis of 2008-9.
The downtown that is resurgent encompasses 7.2 of 139 square miles. Most of the city has not bottomed out. People continue to leave, properties continue to burn, and the news of Detroit's resurgence remains greatly overstated.
Take a look here to see how Detroit has fared since 2008:
http://goobingdetroit.tumblr.com/