[animatedmartian]

One thing I want to point out is the contrast in developmental style between Olympia (Mike Illitch's company) and Bedrock (Dan Gilbert's company).

Gilbert has sought out historical buildings, renovated them, and filled them with workers and residents. However this often came with financial incentives and and tax breaks. Illitch has sought out historical buildings and demolished them, but using private monies. In fact, outside of the Little Ceasers Arena, most of Illitch's projects don't use incentives or tax breaks.

Gilbert has stated that he takes a loss on his projects in the first few years but is optimistic that he will get his returns. Olympia on the other hands opts for the easy revenue generator that is parking at the loss of historic (or at least very old) architecture. In the long-term they may start to actually build some worthwhile projects though that's being optimistic.

I think in the end, both billionaire giants want the same thing, but the methods they're using to achieve that are opposite one another and shows in their projects. To me, they're two sides of the same coin.

I can't say whether this is good or bad for Detroit either way, but I honestly feel more like Detroit is still limited by other factors that disincentives developers from developing what people actually want. I believe a lack of transit is a big reason why parking is so lucrative but also why it's hard to justify expensive new construction and large scale renovations. Detroit is making progress for sure, but there's still a lot more than could be done and I believe transit is at the foundation of that.

Anyway, my feelings here were kinda sparked by people (justifiably) criticizing Olympia for its demolitions and parking lot mania, but I see it as a symptom of Detroit's (still present) inefficiencies and not necessarily just the greed of a single company.