Dearborn is on the southwest side of Detroit, not the north as given in the beginning of the Understand section. (It is, however, a wonderful place to eat.)
All the places given for mansions in the Understand section are outside of Detroit proper. There are many beautiful mansions within the city in Palmer Park, Boston Edison, Arden Park and Indian Village, to name a few.
Ford's first assembly line
Was not in Detroit, it was in Highland Park, which is surrounded by Detroit. http://www.ford.com/en/heritage/history/default.htm You cannot visit the building, but you can drive by it on Woodward Ave.
Get in - air
Windsor's airport is closer to the northern suburbs (and much of Detroit) than Metro Airport. Nearby airports are Flint Bishop, Toledo and Lansing.
Get in - car - street layout
Detroit is a grid on a wagon wheel because of the Great Fire. http://forums.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=205&category=locations
Eat section completely leaves out the Lebanese restaurants in Warrendale and Dearborn, Hamtramck's Polish restaurants, Jacoby's downtown, Sinbad's, etc. It also includes chains (why on earth would anyone come to Detroit and eat in a P.F. Chang's?) The Roostertail (next to Sinbad's) is only open these days for parties.
None of the Detroit area restaurants liked by the foodies on eGullet are here. Nor is any idea of price given (restaurants listed are on the expensive side).
- Thanks for the feedback, but please plunge forward and edit the page yourself! Jpatokal 01:24, 2 October 2006 (EDT)
Detroit certainly has some districts that I think deserve separate mentioning and description (e.g. Downtown, Midtown, New Center, Corktown, Greektown, etc - Hamtramck and Highland Park also, even though they are not municipally part of the city). We should at least get a map together of where these districts are to start with. --Locano 16:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)
- Seems like this article is about ready to district-fy. It's a lot of work, though. You'll need to come up with a list of proposed districts - I recommend starting low, and continuing to subdivide them as they fill up. Cleveland has three, which are nicely done, but there are others that have too many, and the useful information gets spread too thin for travelers to use. On Chicago, we started with about half of the ones we currently have. There's some useful discussion here. Gorilla Jones 02:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)
- Ah, thank you for your guidance. I definitely didn't realize how much work this might be. No time to start like the present! --Locano 20:48, 18 November 2007 (EST)
In the interest if district-ifying Detroit, here is the list of districts that I am thinking of creating.
Under the suggestion of this talk page, first the information will be divided into districts on the Detroit page, and as the section gains more information it can be split into its own article. Comments, suggestions? --Locano 21:18, 18 November 2007 (EST)
- Doesn't seem excessive, and no objections have been raised - plunge forward! Gorilla Jones 12:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Since it seems that User:Locano is no longer active, I guess I will start working on the district pages. Local hero 14:10, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
- Feel free... do you think that Locano's proposal above is a reasonable breakdown, keeping in mind that we don't want too many districts for most cities? – cacahuate talk 14:52, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think its a great proposal, except Midtown and the New Center could probably be made into one page, since they are very similar places and both terms are often used to describe the area north of Downtown. Local hero 15:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
The districts for the Detroit area need to be treated as metro districts. People don't travel by municipal boundary. They don't care where the dividing line is when they travel. There are too many significant sites scattered within municipal boundaries which are within minutes of one another for the Detroit area. The districs then need to include metro southwest, metro east, and metro northwest. That's the way its handled by every major travel guide for Detroit. 126.96.36.199 12:37, 27 December 2008 (EST)
- This travel guide is supposed to be about the City of Detroit. That's what people expect to find when they come to this travel guide. Other cities in the region that have attractions can be listed in the "Get out" section. --Local hero 14:15, 27 December 2008 (EST)
- You both have a very good point. I think the mentality of American cities is if they live in one of these suburbs to just say "We live in Oklahoma City" or "We live in the suburbs of Boston" kind if thing. I think if there is very little way people traveling will think it is a city on it's own then it should be apart of the city itself. Stuff like that could never happen in Canada, as we over emphasize the fact if we live in a suburb just outside the city, eg Edmonton and then Sherwood Park. So you will probably get the vibe of it being a different city, or people thinking it, despite it being in the same metropolitan area. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:23, 27 December 2008 (EST).
The term 'Detroit' does refer to the greater Detroit area. The Detroit Pistons play in Auburn Hills, the Detroit Zoo is in Royal Oak for example. Grosse Pointe is within a few blocks of the city limit. People don't travel or book hotels in a vacuum. Major destinations in detroit bill hail themselves from the Detroit area. The official convention and visitors bureau for the area is called Visit Detroit and its doenn't confine itself to the city limits. It was only proposed to make the districts, when the content reached a high level, and that content included the key points of the metro area. Those trodding into the topic obviously gave no respect to that or to the work of others. The districts should be treated as Metro Northwest, Metro Southwest, and Metro East, and probably should be renamed as such if some going to quibble about it. Travelers have a common understanding of it as the Detroit area. Thomas Paine1776 14:54, 27 December 2008 (EST)
- It's not about understanding the concept, Thomas, we all very well know what you are talking about. Anyways, you make very valid points to include metro Detroit into this, but Local hero has been doing a lot of work so maybe he should givean opinion. I personally don't know. On one hand it may feel very very very very odd because you will get the feeling "Oh gosh this isn't really Detroit" and thinking "What if they [people using the website] think the same??" that would be a big mixup because they wouldnt know and potentially find us unreliable. Of course, that is an extreme. I guess we are looking at, Do Detroiters think Grosse Pointe as in Detroit or just in Metro Detroit? If they think it apart of Detroit, then I believe we should go with the metro thing. Again, the format it is in now is fine because it is the formal boundaries. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:02, 27 December 2008 (EST).
- Yes, the term does often refer to the entire area. But, it seems confusing that we would include attractions not within the city of Detroit in the Detroit travel guides. The "Get out" could handle all attractions outside the city limits. I did give respect to other people's work. I would never delete all that stuff, I simply moved it to the articles where it belonged. After all, those articles exist for a reason. --Local hero 15:04, 27 December 2008 (EST)
- Good point, cant we say in "Get out" Detroit Pistons are a ____________ and play in Auborn Hills _________ from the city. That way it's still in the article but leads users to the article. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:06, 27 December 2008 (EST).
The 'get out' section in travel guides means way out of the area, not within the Detroit area. I would go along with Ann Arbor being in the get out section, so let's be reasonable. But the tri-county area should be fair game for the 'Detroit area' from a travelers perpective. From a travelers perspective, its a the 'Detroit area'. Having a Northwest side, Southwest, and East side as a travel districts which includes predominantly residential neighborhoods makes no sense whatsoever as some are attempting to limit it, since these areas don't necessarily contain hotels or even restaurants per se, they have families living in them. The districts for travel and tourism for Detroit are more properly Downtown, Midtown, Metro Southwest, Metro East, and Metro Northwest, and Hamtramck/Highland Park can stay if you want since they are an oddity. The way its being limited here is not really proper for the Detroit area, and makes navigation difficult for the user.Thomas Paine1776 15:12, 27 December 2008 (EST)
- The get out section can be for a place 2 metres from the city or 20 kilometres. It doesn't matter. It is just what you make with it. In Edmonton there is a few metro area listings. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:17, 27 December 2008 (EST).
- Not sure what your're suggesting. Would go along with Windsor being in the 'get out' section (although it could be a district itself) but Belle Isle, Grosse Pointe, Dearborn, Royal Oak, and Southfield aren't getting out of the Detroit area, they are just getting away from the downtown proper. The tri-county area is predominantly considered the Detroit area for travelers, and focal points are key tourist area districts for Downtown, Midtown-New Center, Metro Southwest, Metro East, and Metro Northwest, and Hamtramck/Highland Park. Its makes for a better travel guide to have a Metro Northwest district article to give the overview for what's in the local municipal cities for example. This makes it more user friendly. Thomas Paine1776 15:24, 27 December 2008 (EST)
- Getting out doesn't mean leaving the area, it means leaving the city/district. For example, Dearborn would go in the "Get out" section of Southwest Side, Grosse Pointe would go in the same section of the East Side article, and Royal Oak and Southfield would go in the Northwest Side "Get out" section (Belle Isle is already in the East Side article). We cannot assume that travellers consider Detroit to be all of the tri-county area. You do have a good point about there not being many hotels in the Southwest, East, and Northwest Sides. So, we could say "There are few hotels in [insert district name here]. Neighboring [insert neighboring suburb name here] has a wide variety of hotels within a close proximity to this area". I would even be okay with listing hotels outside the city in these district articles. Only hotels though (and maybe restaurants). --Local hero 18:07, 27 December, 2008 (EST)
- Including information on areas outside of the city limits within the Detroit article is a straightforwardly bad idea. It's difficult enough as it is to keep content organized on the site, and to direct readers to the information they are looking for. The appropriate place to highlight attractions outside of Detroit from this article is the "Get out" section. This is standard across the entire site, and ignoring that standard for one article would be a bad way to organize our content. Well developed prose in a Metro Detroit article could also help direct visitors to the appropriate suburbs to see important attractions. --Peter Talk 01:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)
First, a bunch of relevant districts discussion can be found here. Second, it doesn't look like there's a whole lot to write about for either the Northwest or the West sides (especially the latter). Perhaps it would make sense to combine them into one "West Side" article? --Peter Talk 04:14, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
- I'd be okay with the two being merged. There just isn't much to see in the West Side. --Local hero 19:16, 25 March 2009 (EST)
The situation in Detroit
Okay, so a lot of what I've read suggests that Detroit is not in good shape. I realize the point of a travel guide is to paint a positive picture of the location, but wouldn't it be useful under Understand to let people know that there are some problems there? For example, I would want to know whether crime was a problem there, and if there were neighborhoods that were safe/unsafe. Potential visitors who aren't aware of the situation in Detroit might go there and then be a bit disappointed.188.8.131.52 08:04, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think a brief mention of crime and less brief treatment of Detroit's difficulties connected to the downward slide at GM is appropriate in the understand section, but the vast majority of crime information belongs in the dedicated "Stay safe" section. "Understand" should be pretty limited to background, history, and a little travel-related boosterism. --Peter Talk 16:06, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
- Detroit is a great city and its seen trememdous progress and redevelopment in the past decade. Detroit is in very good shape, nearly all of its freeways have been recently upgraded and revamped, its airport is one of the nation's newest. Its hotels are some of the nation's best. Its also a safe city, just as safe as any other major city. The city is a fun travel destination with some of America's best attractions. Economic issues and the gas crisis are affecting the whole country. Side issues and auto company problems are not relevant to a travel guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
- Agreed that Detroit is a great city and a fun travel destination (especially for music!), but disagreed that it is just as safe as any other major city, and that the auto industry's problems are irrelevant. The auto industry is central to Detroit's history, and to ignore it and it's recent history would be a serious omission in background information. It would also be a basic omission in sightseeing information—one of the highlights of my last mini-vacation there was seeing all of GM's new models. --Peter Talk 17:02, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Detroit has low crime in areas frequented by tourists. It's just as safe as any major city. I travel to several of them. Detoit's crime has declined drastically from three decades ago. Even areas of higher crime emanate from certain limited locations which are not tourist areas anyway. Detroit has much larger and vibrant crowds for events and in its downtown than many other cities. An example is the unbelievably large size of weekend suburban crowds at Tri-Centennial State Park on the Riverfront. Agree of course, that the auto industry is central to Detroit's history. The auto industry has seen a rough year, however, the outlook is positive with restructurings and cost savings which are yet to be reflected. Locally produced vehicles, such as the G6, the Malibu, and Cadillac are generally adding shifts. Company's quarterly business cycles/fuel spikes (which are subsiding) and accounting write downs are side issues and not really important for a travel guide. Indications are that Detroit automakers view their own circumstances much more favorably going forward than outsiders know yet. Manufacturing in Michigan itself rose 6 percent from 2001 to 2006. New business grads I know there, are receiving multiple job offers in their field. Even middle income folks I know there are well off and have plenty of work. Financial firms in Michigan are not affected by the credit crunch as are those New York, Texas, Florida, and California. Most of the complaints come from those who were doing fantastic but are lately just very well off. Educators, which are plentiful in Michigan, are the second highest paid in the nation after California which has a higher cost of living. Further, the region has recently received committments for 4,800 new jobs from new investments, including and $11 billion joint venture from K-DOW chemical. The region has a healthy number of current job openings in a variety of fields and the midwest in general typically has a higher percent of its population employed than other parts of the country. Detroit Casinos are seeing gains while their counterparts in other cities are not. The economic impact of the current War has affected tourism nationwide, and moreso in areas like Tampa, Miami, Orlando/Disney and Las Vegas. Comparatively, Detroit's travel industry has faired reasonably well during the period and even seen gains.220.127.116.11 11:02, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Detroiters out there?
Local hero has been working so hard on Detroit article(s) and I was wondering if anyone else lived in the metro area to help edit. All help appreciated! I myself will try and help a little bit (though never been). Keep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 14:26, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Is the do section really necessary, in that, it's lengthliness? It's quite long. If it isn't only keep the necessary ones, if it is district it because it looks so boring to look at. Keep Smiling, edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:30, 22 November 2008 (EST).
I really am confused about this article. The key defining characteristic of Detroit is that half of the houses and two thirds of the commercial buildings are abandoned. People strip aluminum siding and yank out plumbing fixtures to buy heroin, guns and drugs are rampant everywhere, and real unemployment rates are likely close to 50%. Detroit is the closest thing we have in this country to the mid-19th Century Five Points in New York -- except it's an entire city's worth. This article seems to have been written in some fantasy land where Detroit's just like any other major city with minor problems. That simply isn't the case -- Detroit is a festering pit of despair from which anyone with half an intellect flees at the first opportunity. Having grown up there, I know this first hand -- there were more abandoned houses on my block than occupied houses, and the situation has only gotten worse in the last few years. I'm at a loss as to why 90% of this article isn't dedicated to how Detroit is a terrible place that nobody should ever go to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- 90% of the article is not dedicated to Detroit bashing because that would not be helpful to travelers visiting the city. More, and sophisticated, information in the stay safe section on which sections of the city are either more or less safe would be welcome. The warning box you are adding is totally over the top (I'm pretty sure you already realize that) and is borderline vandalism. Please do not edit war—if this continues I will protect the article. If you would like to rant about bad experiences you have had in Detroit, there are plenty of other forums in which it would be appropriate to do so. --Peter Talk 19:27, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
- It's not Detroit bashing -- I grew up there, like I said. People really, truly, legitimately need to be warned away from visiting the place. I'm not going to get into an edit war because obviously that's not appropriate behavior on a wiki site, but the fact remains that this article is delusional. There's a ten block area around the RenCen that's decent, and everyplace else is an absolute nightmare, but this article is somehow totally counterfactual. And, ok, yeah, the warning box is probably over the top the way I put it in, since that was just a cut and paste, but warning boxes certainly are necessary here. I live in New York City now, and it would be entirely appropriate to put a tag on places like East New York or Bushwick that they're actively dangerous, and that non-essential travel should be avoided at all costs, while other areas of the city are obviously much safer. It's the same with all parts of Detroit other than the immediate downtown, and it bothers me that somebody with a "homer" attitude (Local Hero) has decided to make this page his own delusion rather than the realistic warning that people need. Someone could get killed reading this page and thinking it's an accurate portrayal of the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- And, just so we're clear, I'm not some lunatic intent on vandalizing a legitimate article. But the article that currently exists is so overwhelmingly biased and inaccurate (and created almost entirely by one individual who obviously loves his city and wishes to make everyone ignore its obvious, overt flaws) that something really needs to be done about it. Helpful information to travelers would involve places to stay in the Northern Suburbs when you absolutely have to visit on business, and a stern warning not to ever go there otherwise. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just honest. 126.96.36.199 19:39, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
- Your view of visiting the city still does seem a bit extreme to me, no doubt based on some bad personal experiences, but all interested parties can work that out and come to a more mutually acceptable solution. Personally, I felt very safe Dowtown, Midtown, and parts of the East Side—that said, I am definitely not a representative sample of tourists! I've written a lot about sections of Chicago that most people would not feel comfortable visiting, which may or may not have good examples of how to write a useful stay safe section (e.g., Chicago/Far West Side#Stay safe, User:Peterfitzgerald/Chatham-South Shore). Stay safe sections in Detroit's district articles would especially be useful, as safety can vary block to block around significant attractions (like the Heidelberg Project in East Side), and I'd encourage you to get them started. (Just try to tone it down a bit ;) ). --Peter Talk 19:54, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Okay, I don't know where to start! Your words are incredibly offensive and untrue. I currently live in Detroit and I have yet to be attacked, much less killed. I have yet to receive an award for putting my life on the line each day I live here. I acknowledge that many parts of Detroit are unsafe, but nothing compared to a war zone. I obviously made this article to favor Detroit. I see it fair as all other coverage of the city seems to make it seem as dead, worthless excuse for a city that should just be forgotten. But then again, I haven't got half the intellect of you since I decided to stay in Detroit. Your statistics are completely off. I have to question when the last time was that you were here? A lot has changed in the past decade. If everyone in this world was as ignorant as you, then Detroit wouldn't have hosted the Super Bowl, the MLB All-Star game, or continue to host the auto show every year. We're also hosting the NCAA Final Four soon. And, just so we're clear, I do believe you are some lunatic intent on vandalizing a legitimate article.Local hero 19:54, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
- My words may be offensive to somebody who obviously loves the city, but I'm being realistic here and trying not to be biased or a homer. I've inserted the following paragraph in the "stay safe" section, with citations: "Detroit is the single most dangerous city in America . While the immediate downtown area of Detroit is largely just as safe as the downtown area of any other major American city, most other parts of the city are among the most unsafe areas in the the United States. The overall crime rate in Detroit is more than double the national average; the violent crime rate is nearly five times the national average; and the murder rate in Detroit is nearly seven times the national average . If you must travel to Detroit, it is highly recommended that you stay close the downtown / riverfront area, and that you not travel to other parts of the city alone or (especially) at night." That still gives people the general idea and knowledge that it's not all roses and sunshine like you claim, but it's not so obtrusive as to bother or offend you with your pro-Detroit agenda. 188.8.131.52 12:52, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
- By the way -- are you the same guy who's made all the Detroit - related articles on Wikipedia unnaturally slanted towards a pro-"Detroit is safe" bias? I've noticed that there, and a lot of people have commented on it. 184.108.40.206 12:56, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
- I do not mind at all that you want to include warnings to people about the city's dangerous parts. But dude, a warning box? That's why I took offense. I'm fine with the paragraph you inserted, except for the first and especially the last sentence. I know its not all roses and sunshine, and I don't have a pro-Detroit agenda either. I am telling people what their is to see, do, and eat in my city. I don't edit on the Detroit articles much on Wikipedia, but it did get featured article status. Local hero 15:53, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
- About your paragraph, no one can make a claim Detroit is the most dangerous city in America. That's an opinion. I took out the last sentence of your paragraph because anywhere a tourist would stay would almost surely be in downtown or midtown. I also took out other parts that are mentioned in other parts of the same section. Local hero 16:01, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
- Well, I mean, the comment about Detroit being the most dangerous city was cited with a quote from an MSNBC article -- pretty reputable source -- with the headline "Detroit Named Nation's Most Dangerous City" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21870766/), based on a statistical analysis of crime data. And I find it curious that you'd say that the areas tourists are most likely to visit would be safe -- the area I grew up in, around Ryan and Outer Drive, is nowhere near the worst area of the city, and it's pretty damned unsafe by most any other city's standards. Other than the casinos and sports venues -- granted, in the pretty much only relatively decent area of town -- I would imagine most people visiting Detroit are doing it either on business or meeting friends and family, and so a relatively high percentage of visitors would be going to less savory areas of town (compared with other cities that actually attract tourists). 220.127.116.11 12:29, 8 May 2009 (EDT)
- I tend towards thinking that calling a place "the most dangerous city in the country" is too unsophisticated (not to mention sensational). City of what size? Per what definition of dangerous? What crimes are included in this analysis? What weights are they given? It's worth noting, too, that pretty much the entire article you linked was devoted to criticism of the analysis, by the FBI, American Council of Mayors, American Society of Criminology, etc.
- In any rate, as I suggested earlier, I would strongly encourage you to work on providing sophisticated stay safe information for the district articles. That is going to be a good deal more productive than making sweeping statements about the city, much of which the average traveler will not see. --Peter Talk 16:35, 8 May 2009 (EDT)
It seems some of this info. might be better suited to Wikipedia, as it's a bit long. Zepppep 20:48, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Poorly organized. Instead of listing 50 different companies, perhaps talk about major industries in general, provide a gov't employment, or talk about some of the more famous companies and trends. Anyone else agree? Zepppep 20:48, 22 October 2009 (EDT)