Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bsutter2

Interesting article about Super Bowl being hosted in poorest big city...

Recommended Posts


I'm not really sure what the purpose of the article is. But for some discussion of the Superbowl being in Detroit you can check out:

Urbanplanet - Detroit

Detroit YES! (a Detroit community forum)

Also, for crime stats, check out:

Reality vs. Perceptions: An Analysis of Crime and Saftey in Downtown Detroit (a .pdf)

And I'd have to argue against the citizens in the article. It's true that they don't have any direct benifit from the Superbowl, but hopefully the Superbowl will increase the tax base in the long term, by improving Detroits image, by the direct profits for business owners downtown, and by all of the improvements made downtown for the immeditate purpose of the superbowl (like facade repairs, street relandscaping, etc.). After there is more of a tax base, and more of a middle class, the city will have the money it needs to start up more city services. So in the longterm the superbowl will benifit the average citizen in Detroit, but right now, life goes by.

And of course the city does have it's problems, but none of them affect the Superbowl visitors, so as I said before, I'm not really sure what the point of the article is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is an interesting article and should be an embarrasment to the USA that such conditions exist in this country. It's another New Orleans from the point of a huge underclass that exists along side well off party goers who have little interest in the plight of their fellow citizens while they go on with their good times.

I think the city has it priorities wrong by wasting resources on the NFL when the end result is the money generated by the event will do little to help the city in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF? Did the author do this article ahead of the Superbowl in Miami and New Orleans as well? Both of those cities have high crime and poverty rates. Why should Super Bowl visitors care about the daily happenings on Van Dyke in the East Side.

Also, I don't think the author knows too much about the city of Detroit, especially if she thinks the neighborhoods on the East Side are what the majority of Detroit looks like. The East Side was the hardest hit area for abandonment and white flight. The majority of Detroit's neighborhoods are still very much intact. But that's not the image she was trying to paint. Who cares about all of the stable neighborhoods in Southwest Detroit or the West Side, Detroit could never be anything other than America's craphole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the city has it priorities wrong by wasting resources on the NFL when the end result is the money generated by the event will do little to help the city in the long run.

I've learnt that the Super Bowl also does alot with the community, by donating alot of money to charities and stuff. There are alot of charity events because of the Super Bowl too. And the homeless people are getting food and shelter while visitors are around, which is good and bad (all cities do this while hosting major events btw).

Plus there's what I said about it all in my first post (that I think you missed) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF? Did the author do this article ahead of the Superbowl in Miami and New Orleans as well? Both of those cities have high crime and poverty rates.

Or Atlanta for that matter, I think they have a higher crime rate than all of them and they host Super Bowls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learnt that the Super Bowl also does alot with the community, by donating alot of money to charities and stuff. There are alot of charity events because of the Super Bowl too. And the homeless people are getting food and shelter while visitors are around, which is good and bad (all cities do this while hosting major events btw).

Plus there's what I said about it all in my first post (that I think you missed) :)

Actually I did not miss it but I disagree with it. I would argue that a year from now the hungry will still be hungry in Detroit and the Super bowl will be just a distant memory. The results in other cities would tend to back this up. The city, if it spent anything, would have been better served if they would have invested it in something more substantial than what amounts to be a huge party for well off people. (many of which don't even live there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. It's even worse that the city of Detroit has used the Super Bowl as a handy excuse to bring in the bulldozers at every opportunity. Once the Super Bowl is over, Detroit will have llittle to show for it except fresh pavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relandscaping makes the area brighter,cleaner and more inviting to pedestrians and visitors in general, and those improvements will be there for a long time. Secondly, the improvements to the buildings facades are going to be there for a long time too. Having the improved facades will really boost business in the area. No one is going to start a business if their next door neighbor is abandoned and falling apart. With the improvements, some of the vacant storefronts downtown look better than occupied storefronts in the affluent suburbs.

And if Superbowls have negative impacts on the cities they go to, then why do the cities want them? If they were a bad thing, the cities would be refusing to host them, and obvioulsy that's not the case. The events draw in alot of money. After the Superbowl is over I'm sure that there will be some estimates on how much money the event brought in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone will argue the Superbowl brings in a lot of money which is the reason that many running the a city want them to come to town. It puts a lot of money into "some" peoples pockets. However that really isn't the point. The point is the investment of the city's limited resources in an endevor such as this when it does little good for the long term prospects of a center city. It has already been mentioned above that having a SuperBowl has done nothing to improve some of the other locales where it has been played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that they don't have any direct benifit from the Superbowl, but hopefully the Superbowl will increase the tax base in the long term, by improving Detroits image, by the direct profits for business owners downtown, and by all of the improvements made downtown for the immeditate purpose of the superbowl (like facade repairs, street relandscaping, etc.). After there is more of a tax base, and more of a middle class, the city will have the money it needs to start up more city services. So in the longterm the superbowl will benifit the average citizen in Detroit, but right now, life goes by.

How do city services not help the citizens? Schools can be improved, streets can be plowed, street lights can be turned on, more police officers can be hired, all with money. The money comes from taxing businesses and residents (and the Superbowl is attracting both). How does that not make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you completely those services are beneficial for the residents and will go a long ways to help the city. But does a single Superbowl event lead to those things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they do. At first it won't be noticable, but I think after time the benifits will start showing. In 5 years, if you ask a business owner in Downtown the main reasons they set up shop, they'd probably mention some of the projects that have been going on. If you ask a new resident in 5 years why they moved into that area, one of the reasons would probably be the businesses, and some of the projects that have been going on today.

And plus, one of the biggest problems Detroit has in terms of attracting new residents and businesses is the image problem, and the superbowl is definatly going to help the cities image. Alot of people who have heard all of this horrible stuff about Detroit will be in Detroit, or will see it on tv for the first time, and they'll think "wow, Detroit is actually pretty cool looking". Especially the kids who have never had any exposure to the city itself, and only stories and bad jokes from their parents.

I know what you're saying though. Why not spend all of the money on hiring police officers for a year, or adding it to the schools budget for a year (I don't think the money spent on the Superbowl would be able to do anything for more than a year or two). Those kinds of things would benifit the city more, but they are really expensive, and they need to be paid every year, over and over, and those things will only have an effect if it's maintained for a decent amount of time. The expenses for the superbowl on the other hand, only have to be paid once, and the benifits will last a really long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downtown Detroit needs to be revived before any work can be done in the neighborhoods. The Superbowl had done more to revive downtown in three years than everything else that happened in the previous 20 years combined. The new streetscapes and building facades aren't a temporary fix. These are things that needed to be done for twenty years and will last at least another twenty years. These improvements alone will help attract new businesses to the city. Contrary to popular belief the majority of the taxes a city collects comes from the businesses and corporations that operate in the city. The city of Detroit is lacking in those businesses and corporations. The improvements made downtown over the past few years helped attract new businesses (Compuware, GM, EDS, etc.) as well as kept the ones already downtown from moving to the suburbs. (Comerica, DTE, Little Caesar's, etc.)

The improvements have also sparked a demand for urban living, not only downtown, but in the surrounding districts (Midtown, Rivertown, Corktown, etc.)

So while the Super Bowl will not directly help those in the poorest neighborhoods, the effects of the revitalization will end up helping in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you completely those services are beneficial for the residents and will go a long ways to help the city. But does a single Superbowl event lead to those things?

I think what he means metro is that this is a start to bringing events and business to a dead area. He saying that the super bowl could possibly be a catalyst to start businesses to pay attention to the area. If people see how the superbowl was supported they might want to throw other events to bring in revenue. This is causing them to spend money to clean neglected areas up so its a positive thing. Once the city sees how this is a good impact they will try to clean these areas up to attract more....which in turn generates money to help those that are poor. The city needs a balance of poor, middle and rich class to bring it to a stable condition. Bringing the middle class back will do this. Cleaning the city up and making it more attractive will do this! :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's public relations & you have to spend money to do it right. Detroit is taking this opportunity, as Atlanta has, Charlotte has, & many other cities have to promote their city. It's the ultimate commercial - & though I do personally disapprove of municipal funding for professional sports, at least Detroit is taking full advantage of this opportunity. That even includes the numerous negative coverage - because it is still putting Detroit in people's minds.

I would just wish people would stop using Detroit as a scapegoat for our own country's & city's problems. For that matter not use any city as a scapegoat for 'sprawl', 'unsustainable development' or 'crime'.

As for the point about Detroit unwisely spending money that could be used for something else - what would the city spend the money on? Without additional investment, any money spent on parks or transit would be wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.