How to Be Pro-Detroit

AN ARGUMENT

I've noted an aversion in town, among some, to positive publicity about Detroit coming from New York City and other big media centers. For instance, articles which showcase Detroit as a haven for artists.

Is Detroit a perfect town for artists, writers, and other DIYers? Of course not! The recent arrest of graffiti artist Shepard Fairey says it's not. The question is whether there's ever been a perfect city for artists to live in and work. History says not.

In the 1950's when Kenneth Rexroth and the Beats were revolutionizing poetry and prose in San Francisco, they faced constant harassment from police and other legal authorities. But they also had a few sympathizers. They had the atmosphere of the city at that time to draw on for their art (long before dot.com'ers from Silicon Valley took the town over). They also had themselves.

I was in a recent twitter debate (@DetroitLiterary) with the former editor of Detroit's main freebie newspaper about this very topic. She found laughable the idea that Detroit could become the new center of publishing in the U.S. I positioned the discussion in terms of "Detroit versus New York"; terms she didn't like.

Yet it's a legitimate way to present the challenge. Manhattan and its "Big 5" monster publishing conglomerates dominate the book business. To not acknowledge this would be like a new car company not noticing the presence and clout of automakers based in Detroit.

There are solid reasons for auto manufacturers to be located in and around Detroit-- the Great Lakes; St. Lawrence Seaway; and geographic position as a major gateway transit point among them. (The location of the industry here wasn't an accident.)

There are equally compelling reasons for the publishing industry to NOT be located in New York.

The economic facts can't be wished away. Right now Manhattan is a ridiculously expensive place in which to live and do business. (Think office leasing rates, for starters.) On top of this, the Big 5 publishers cling to what has become a fatally flawed, top-heavy, vertically-organized business model. In this time of print-on-demand and e-books; when an entrepreneur can create a virtual office at a coffeeshop; "economies of scale"-- the rationale for monopoly and size-- has become an irrelevant concept.

The person I discussed this matter with claimed advantages for New York, but didn't state what they are. Access to chi-chi Manhattan restaurants? An abundance of Ivy League grads? She also claimed disadvantages to operating out of Detroit.

No doubt Detroit CAN be a tough place in which to live. I know this well, having lived in Detroit's Cass Corridor in the 1990's, when it truly was the Cass Corridor. (An experience I've written about, including in an essay referenced here.) However, a writer or artist who has things too easy-- who doesn't exist in an environment with some edge to it-- tension to stimulate the senses-- will produce pablum. As we've seen out of the Big 5 the past so-many years.

(For a famous movie scene which makes a similar argument, see this.)

(For a discussion of publishing timidity, see my interview with John Colapinto of The New Yorker magazine. Note his final answer.)

Why Detroit versus New York? Why not? A city is in competition with other cities for jobs, investment, and talented individuals. If a spate of pro-Detroit articles in the New York Times or Vanity Fair spurs talented people to move to Detroit, this is a good thing. If the articles are part fact, part fiction,, it means nothing, because in time the myth of Detroit as an artist's city will necessarily become full reality. For much of the world right now, "Detroit" is a creature of the imagination. This is a unique opportunity to be used.

What Detroit needs more than anything else is people, of all kinds. The city has the geographical size and infrastructure for a population of two million. The city limits currently contain a third of this.

Notice the way the city is laid out. The gap between downtown and the New Center, for instance. In the 1920's, when the city was growing swiftly; when it was one of the richest cities on the planet; city planners envisioned a new New York.

Given that entrepreneurs like Dan Gilbert are investing huge sums of money on the prospect of a revived Detroit, there needs to be enough reasons for more people to move here, to keep the comeback going. Real estate deals alone won't cut it. You need people living in those condos and houses-- or on land that now sits vacant. Organic arts movements in a city make that city an appealing place for artists, tourists, and young professionals alike. People want to be part of a dynamic happening. They want to visit and live in a magical, mythical city that stimulates the imagination. (See Paris of the 1920's.)

In creating such a scene, writers are as important as artists, because they'll write about, publicize, mythicize that time and that place.

All that's needed for Detroit to become the center of new publishing is for people in Detroit and the world to believe it's possible.

Bad Week for Detroit Metro Times?

Is the Detroit Metro Times simply having a bad week?


FIRST, there's the cover story about Dan Gilbert and his Quicken Loans empire. I like a good takedown on occasion. I've written a few myself in my life, and been a subject of more than one. What has to be said about Ryan Felton's long article about/against Dan Gilbert is that he doesn't make his case.


The impression given to this reader after plowing through the piece is that A.) after 40,000+ transactions, a handful of bad loans were made. (None of them mind-boggling. On the order of an applicant claiming income of $14,000 a month when it was actually $8,000-- which for most people is still impressive.) In this complicated universe it's impossible to achieve perfection. B.) Dan Gilbert's biggest fault according to Felton is being in the loan business, period. Which is like condemning all ships because the Titanic went down.


Again, this is the impression Felton's trying-very-hard article gives out. In it he asks why Gilbert and his p.r. staff are spending so much time with him. When one reads Ryan Felton's article, the question answers itself.


SECOND is the essay by Ari LeVaux titled "Hipstocracy," a defense of hipsters via discussing their brunch habits.


Who is Ari LeVaux? Apparently Ari LeVaux is an upscale food columnist based in Albuquerque!


Uh, Metro Times-- Michael Jackman and Company: Is this really the person you want discussing the hipster phenomenon in a Detroit-area periodical?


On the issue of hipsters in cities like Detroit, Arizona food columnist Ari LeVaux misses the target. (Lots of missed targets scattered around the MT offices right now.) The question of hipsters and why some people don't like them isn't about brunch. (Brunch!) It's about gentrification. From Brooklyn to South Philly to, now, Detroit, hipster invasions bring with them an inevitable steep increase in rents and prices.


Previous influxes of young whites into Detroit's inner city, from Plum Street hippies in the 1960's to the punks and anarchists, starving artists and writers of the 80's and 90's, sought to blend in with the colorful diversity of the Motor City. Not displace it. In the Cass Corridor of the 90's, watering spots like Third Street, the Bronx, even Cass Café were diverse in every possible way. Which was the point. One sat at a bar alongside prostitutes and professors, the homeless, crackpot philosophers, or bikers, of every color, class, and age demographic.


Speaking of brunch-- a couple weeks ago I happened to visit on a Sunday morning a noted hipster hangout. My brother, who lives in northern Macomb County-- in no way an upscale individual-- dropped in on me downtown. In his car we took a tour of the area, looking for an open spot for coffee and a donut. "There's a place!" A waitress sat us at a table. We took one look at the menu. "Uh, let's sit at the bar!" we said. Maybe we were there at the wrong time-- but for brunch, the small establishment was thoroughly segregated by class, age, and race. Not very urban.


I'm talking about impressions in this post. I was given the impression of young gentry bringing their tastes along with them. An image entered my head of British Imperialists of the 1890's, imposing home upon their quite different new neighborhoods.


I have nothing against hipsters. I know a few of them-- here and on the east coast. Good people, all in all.. I also know a few quirky young low-rent artists types. What makes a city is having a mix of types. Segregation, including self-segregation, is something many of us ran away from.


Detroit's strength is its authenticity; its edginess. Its diverse mix.


Or: If Detroit is to become just another Brooklyn, how depressing is that?