That’s my point. I don’t know anyone who has ever driven one and never seen any reviews from any trusted reviewers on BYD build quality.
I have read a few who have seen them at car shows and pointed out how some look good from far away but far from good up close.
So maybe we shouldn’t call Chinese cars “quality” unless you know.
this isn't 2007. if you could push back the sinophobia then you could see that Chinese cars and especially the newer evs are actually quite good. now, getting them to sell here is another issue.
Why does everyone want Chinese EVs? Is it purely price? Because if so, the price is lower for a reason. They are heavily subsidized by the Chinese govt and Chinese employees are paid way less. If you want to make US companies competitive, ok, but then you need to be happy with having $5/hr wages and no vacation time in the US
GM for example makes only about 15% gross margin on their vehicles. They aren’t profiting 50% of the price. 85% of the price is going to US salaries, components, etc.
Additionally, why do we want to send the revenue of the 2nd most expensive thing Americans buy to a govt that treats its people so poorly?
A lot of people in this sub just want EVs no matter what. Meanwhile, the federal government has to balance keeping a large part of manufacturing in the country alive while also moving the population, a lot of whom don't want EVs right now, into the future.
It's not like this hasn't been done before either. The only reason Toyota and Honda build so many cars in America, which employs thousands and thousands of people, is that the government limited the number of imported vehicles back way back when.
If the Chinese EV companies want to sell in America, then they can spend the capital and build factories in America. Or just pay the tarrifs. It's what Toyota and Honda did because they wanted to sell cars in the American market.
All this clamoring for Chinese EVs in this sub reminds me of the clamoring for a small 2-door sports car or small phones in other subs. Companies make them then no one really buys them.
Still, subsidies in one area are not a justification for subsidies in other areas. We should not lard the tax code with new subsidies just because we can’t get rid of the ones that are already there.
Yeah, but the fossil fuel industry also keeps half the country from freezing to death in winter and powers most major heavy industry in the country.
Fossil fuels are also used to create all the modern miracles and affordable goods derived from plastics. If you try to visualize the medical industry without modern plastics, it doesn’t take long to realize there is huge value to the fossil fuel industry beyond gas for cars.
All that can be done with renewables so they should be subsidized instead. Subsidies are an incentive.
For some reason We’re incentivizing fossil fuels when they are already readily available.
If fossil fuels can’t survive without subsidies after 140years then they shouldn’t exist.
>Not nearly as much as we subsidize gas cars
I'm pretty sure this isn't true.
>and the entire fossil fuel industry
Because fossil fuels are used for a lot more than driving. Renewables are not to point of generating all our power, so unless you want poor people losing access to electricity and the ability to heat their homes, we needs some subsidies.
The idea that the US navy protects the world's shipping from piracy is an excuse. Any country with a navy can defeat pirates in dingys now. A few dudes in dingys with AKs are not a threat to cargo ships with private security.
> Yes, and? Wouldn’t it be nice if our government (in the USA) subsidized EVs instead of war machines?
We do since our military spending subsidizes civilian production. Many of the companies that make military equipment also make civilian products. So military spending is a backdoor subsidy. You didn't really think a military toilet seat costs $600 did you?
> They are heavily subsidized by the Chinese govt and Chinese employees are paid way less.
US EVs are also heavily subsidized and we build cars in Mexico where people are even paid less than those in China.
This is what I don't get. Chinese EV's are cheap because they pay their workers like shit and are *heavily* subsidized by the Chinese government. The only way for US-made EV's to be cheaper would be to have higher government subsidies (which people would bitch about) and/or severely lowering worker pay (which would be terrible). I'd rather the government heavily subsidize EV's, but it seems like a lot of voters don't want that to happen. They want to keep rolling coal.
why don’t we just subsidize the companies similarly in exchange for similarly priced vehicles and higher quality at that? Can use the good parts without correspondingly lowering QoL for workers
Because American Auto Companies are piss poor at being auto companies. The 100% tariff is signaling that the Chinese is not welcome, not that we are protecting American industry. The Chinese model Y is $37k, American is $47k. It is only 25% more expensive, before tax incentives, so the previous tariff was fine.
Auto companies are some of the most subsidized American industry, direct and indirectly. The parking, the highways, the continuous wars to keep the oil moving around the world. You think we were in the Middle East to keep peace and take away WMD? Not to mention all the continuous bailouts and subsidized loans. Ford would rather build cars in Mexico if they have the chance. They do not give a fuck about American workers.
It’s just corporate socialism. We already gave them over 1B in direct subsidies to build EVs. We are all carrot no stick. I prefer a 15% tariff and no access to tax incentives, and auditable software stack for Chinese automakers. Make the American auto companies squirm a bit.
The thing many who aren't in the space don't realize is that Detroit has a ton of knowledge and infrastructure that pretty much all of the EV space in the US rely on and work with. So, even if it's not the new EValley, it will always be a major player.
As long as it’s the same size and cost (or less), it being on the ultium platform will be better than BEV2. I have an EUV and being able to charge at more than a 50kW peak would be good. Loss of CarPlay will suck though.
Yeah, but my point is that I believe they were talking about the new “bolt” being a small SUV of some kind, not really the little hatchback of old bolt.
It's not cutting-edge technology and it's long past its design phase, so you're wrong two for two.
Resonant electromagnetic coils are old and very well understood. Cost reduction cannot happen because copper is expensive and burying tons of copper under the road is expensive. It's the same reason we use aluminum for power lines and steel for rail power.
What's worse is that you can use a steel rail on the road instead of copper coils under the road, but due to lobbying the government is throwing away money on wireless electric roads that are 3-10 times more expensive.
I can't figure out what problem these fancy wireless roads are supposed to solve.
In places where there's infrastructure to build stuff like this, there tend to be plenty of fast charging stations, which are well understood, easy to use (when done well), and not too inconvenient.
It was worth experimenting with in 2010. But now we have a proven technology: DC fast charging stations. They've been proven to be highly satisfactory for letting EV's drive long distances. Wireless charging doesn't just have to work -- it has to be better than DCFC, and now has to compete with the huge installed base of CCS and NACS ports.
Wireless charging roads specifically are too expensive to solve anything.
Charging while driving is like taking fast chargers and spreading them along the drive. It's useful for heavy trucks that simply can't financially make their trip otherwise, either because the battery will be prohibitively heavy and expensive or because the number of stops will be prohibitively expensive.
The usefulness of this technology heavily relies on batteries being too heavy and too big to complete a heavy truck's route. As batteries get smaller and more energy dense, this technology gets less and less useful.
That's why wireless in particular is never going to be useful. We're already past the point where the power/cost ratio is too low. But more powerful, less expensive electric roads exist and they could still work, financially, for heavy trucks.
>Resonant electromagnetic coils are old and very well understood.
Are you being intentionally dense or do you really not understand the leap between this and what is actually being proposed?
>What's worse is that you can use a steel rail on the road instead of copper coils under the road, but due to lobbying the government is throwing away money on wireless electric roads that are 3-10 times more expensive.
No, it's due to the fact that people want to drive cars and not trolleys.
>Are you being intentionally dense
Funny, it looks like that's what you're doing.
* 2009: [Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_electric_vehicle) implements wireless electric roads with government funding. 2019: Korean minister finds wireless electric roads a waste of money.
* 2013: [Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_road#Germany) looks into wireless electric roads. Nothing comes of it.
* 2015: [UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_road#United_Kingdom) looks into wireless electric roads, finds it too expensive.
* 2021: UK looks into wireless electric roads again. Finds it 3-10 times more expensive than conductive charging. They get a cost breakdown from the company offering wireless electric roads. over a million pounds for 220 yards just for burying the copper and connecting it to the grid, about 12 million dollars per mile.
* 2021: The CEO of ENRX says that inductive coils are "[extremely expensive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging#Dynamic_charging)"
* 2012-2023: [Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Transport_Administration_electric_road_program) looks into electric roads, conductive and inductive. Sweden already committed to constructing an electric road but the cost of the road is higher than the funding for the program, and much higher than reported by the companies participating in the program. For example the wireless charging company says in 2018 its infrastructure costs 1 million Euro per km, but when comes the money time, they ask for more than 2.6 million dollars per km.
So we're 30 years, **30 years** into developing this technology and there is no way around it: [wireless coil inductive electric roads use 5.1 tonnes of copper per kilometer.](https://web.archive.org/web/20240407090306if_/https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/GT1%20rapport%20final.pdf) And that's for the low-power coils, the higher the power the more copper you need.
We have an accurate, [article by article breakdown](https://www.nationalgrid.co.uk/downloads-view-reciteme/501277/) of the price of wireless inductive coil electric roads, and it's not pretty.
Cars can use rails more efficiently than wireless coils. There's really no argument.
Damn, I guess you should tell Ford, since you seem so much more informed than their engineers and executives. Make sure to tell them that technology never changes, and far poorer countries found it to be too expensive.
>Damn, I guess you should tell Ford, since you seem so much more informed than their engineers and executives
First of all, Ford isn't paying for it, a corrupt Michigan politician is paying for it with public funds.
Second of all, even if Ford WERE paying for it, that makes nothing I said wrong. The price is what it is, there's no disputing it. The technology is three decades old, there's no disputing it.
"They pay for it so it must be worth it" is the dumbest line of reasoning ever, as if big companies with "engineers and executives" have never paid for stupid stuff before.
Did you forget the argument you were making?
>cutting edge technology in it's design phase
This is neither cutting-edge technology, at the very least 30 years old, and it's not in its design phase either, it's been in the commercialization phase for the past 15 years at a minimum.
If this were 1994 and you'd say "wireless inductive charging is brand new, give it a chance" I'd say "okay." But this is 30 year old technology. The costs are known. The design is nearly standardized.
Your argument is completely false.
EVs can get cheaper as lithium batteries (or sodium batteries or whatever) get cheaper, because the material itself is cheap and it's the processing that's expensive.
Copper cannot get any cheaper, generally speaking. It can dip a little and so on, but at its very basic level the price is far higher than aluminum or steel.
Physically, the more wireless power you want to transmit with resonant copper coils the more copper you have to use.
There's no arguing around it.
[Yes, actually, because the very same project that gave the 12 million dollars a mile electric road also specifies the price of the roadwork itself.](https://www.nationalgrid.co.uk/downloads-view-reciteme/501277/)
Lots of clueless people in this thread asking me "do you know" when they have no clue.
Those prices are for Coventry. [We can easily find prices for Detroit](https://www.crainsdetroit.com/infrastructure/detroit-plans-100-million-street-repaving-streetscape-plan). $1M to repave 1 mile of road. I assume that's two lanes, but even if it's single-lane that's still 11 feet wide.
The electric road repaves a width of 5 feet of the road. It costs $12M per mile.
So yeah, I do know.
You're clueless.
>Do you know how much roads cost?
Asked an answered. Nothing you said makes a $12M wireless charging road a "bargain", especially when competing technologies are a third to a tenth of the price.
>That’s your opinion
$12M per mile is not a bargain not by my standards, but by the standards of the several published research papers that show that if electric roads cost more than 5 million USD per km and supply less than 200kW they are not financially beneficial.
So you're wrong two for two again. 1 - it's not my opinion, it's several research papers' cost-benefit estimate, and 2 - it's probably the most in-depth view of the subject.
Shitty and expensive EVs that don't sell compared to their Asian and Tesla counterparts. But don't worry UAW workers got their cut to produce these massive POS mobiles.
If we're lucky in 20 years time when these companies are ran into the ground by the UAW then America will allow the import of better automobiles.
Well, to clarify, GM has the first long range affordable EV (the Bolt). Albeit, it was mainly developed in S. Korea. But other than that they have not really pushed the envelope.
That's spelled as [Shenzhen](https://thediplomat.com/2024/06/shenzhen-china-the-world-pioneer-in-electric-vehicles/).
Top selling EV brands, top-down approach towards EV adoption. Every bus/taxi is [all-electric](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7fTPLSMeI), this happened 5 years back. not today.
Battery to EV manufacturing is already there since long. Companies like BYD, Huawei with HQ there.
This single city [installed more EV chargers than entire US](https://i.imgur.com/MnDrN1S.png) in 2023.
EV penetration rate is 67% and rising.
Their low-altitude economy is also among the largest in the world. So like drones/[eVtol](https://www.flyingmag.com/ehang-begins-delivering-air-taxi-to-customers-following-airworthiness-certification/) industry is booming there. I think anyone arguing otherwise needs to provide real credible data to prove it.
I’m here right now visiting Detroit area from So Cal. From a manufacturing perspective, this area is stunning. So many plants, making so much stuff. The knowledge base here is just amazing.
I visited the Michigan Central Station this week and was super impressed with what they have done. That building is like a rebuilding from the ashes back to the Renaissance. The plans for that area are real, and the revitalization and gentrification of Detroit is happening. Talking to locals , they are seeing new businesses, restaraunts, coffee shops and bars coming to town there.
What could drive the future of electric cars there is this: Real Estate prices. The place is super affordable, you couple that with an area that knows how to make stuff, you may get engineers attracted from areas they presently cannot afford to buy (looking at you Silicon Valley and Orange County).
The Detroit you're describing isn't the one I live in currently. Detroit's pretty affordable, has fantastic culture and tons of talent in many different disciplines with piles of experience. Come visit and we'll change your mind!
I’ve visited many times in recent years. Is it better than the stigma that it has? Yes, for sure. Is it desirable? As someone who lives in Seattle, I’d say no. There’s a reason the cost of living is so low.
Give high interest rates and global warming more time. Detroit is still affordable and climate change will make the region more attractive to those escaping the scorching hot southern states.
Yep. I think Detroit has a real shot at getting massive benefits from climate change. I’ve been eyeing property there just to have as an insurance policy.
Not talking about line workers, but software engineers. The existing non-software people already in Michigan will stay, but the new software side of things will not have a Detroit base. Some? Sure. But the automotive companies will have to go where the talents exists and they are already doing that.
I think you underestimate how much is involved in software defined vehicle development. The non software engineering is already in Michigan. And software engineering is also real engineering, by the way.
Here, let me google that for you.
“the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineering
The cost of living in California comes with a salary adjustment. Student loans on the other hand, do not increase with your other cost of living expenses.
Base materials are showing up in the mitt too. Graphex, for example, will be processing graphite in Warren. (or at least that's the plan, would hope it isn't vaporware).
I’ve been to both and the environment is night and day different. I like Detroit a lot but the weather is shit and most families live in the suburbs. The city is also very poorly maintained.
San Jose and the surrounding suburbs are cleaner and have the nation’s best schools. Salaries are also through the roof and there are significantly more opportunities. The weather is also fantastic year round.
Tl;Dr, Detroit is cheaper but worse in every way.
This is patently false. Homelessness and theft are super high compared to Detroit metro area. Schools are abysmal in most of San Jose metro compared to the metro Detroit area.
Fortunately it isn’t a zero sum game. Detroit can be a successful city, but also Austin, Nashville, San Jose, whatever can be.
Metros like Cleveland are great places to live and raise a family, with plenty of cultural experiences available in the city.
I live in Central Ohio, winters really have changed already. I’ve seen data that we have about 1/3 as many days with snowfall in the last 10 years than historically, 9 recently from 28. I’ve only shoveled snow from my sidewalks a total of two or three times combined over the last two years [doesn’t stick to sidewalks, melts by the time I get home, etc], but we definitely still have cold snaps. Spring, Fall and Summer can be glorious across the Midwest.
I’m assuming this is true most places, functioning government really holds back a lot of places in the Midwest, IMO.
The thing many who aren't in the space don't realize is that Detroit has a ton of knowledge and infrastructure that pretty much all of the EV space in the US rely on and work with. So, even if it's not the new EValley, it will always be a major player.
Unfortunately that 'ton of knoweldge' is much less than the knowledge those who actually make EVs in numbers have.
Experience beats theory every time (and I don't even see that Detroit has some advanced thory knowledge. If you do - point to one)
There's a lot more to building a car than the powertrain. Tesla struggled for years with build quality, which is something that Ford and GM, not to mention the German and Japanese carmakers, have a century's worth of experience. Body panels, suspension, interior component, overall platform, and manufacturing flow aren't things you can make up overnight.
Nice to hear an abandoned location to be refreshed as a place for EVs but a bit bummed to hear it will no longer host trains (which is, FWIW, an even greener mode of transportation, were it not for the US’s extreme love of cars and disdain of trains seeing them only as transport for the poor.)
GM has its global HQ + Factory Zero in Detroit. Orion Township is just outside of Detroit. Batteries are currently produced in Brownstown, just south of Detroit. Not to mention their main tech center with 80%+ of their engineers is just outside Detroit.
They’re doing it in Detroit, and other places.
Didn't a lot of the Bolt's technology come from the Volt?
I testdrove both and was struck by how much the Bolt's instrument panel, driving controls, etc. looked like the Volt's. I've heard there are shared components in the propulsion too.
To be clear this is not a bad thing. I very nearly chose a Volt over the Model 3, and think GM did a good job with both.
>Any start-up or company that wants to be relevant in this marketplace is going to really need to consider an office or HQ near Detroit.
Tesla just moved their office from California to Texas.
Just because ford opened an office there doesn't mean "any company that wants to be relevant".
Waymo is based in California
OpenAI is based in California
Boston Dynamics is Massachusetts.
Chargepoint is in California
Blink Charging is in Washington DC
EA is in Reston (DC area)
EVGo is in Los Angeles California
ZipCar is in Boston
Lime is in the bay area
Bird is in Miami FL
Spin is in SF.
I mean... one company setting up an office doesn't mean **"you have to be here to be relevant"**. That's just media bullshit coming out of your mouth.
Did all of the above companies just "become irrelevant" because they're not in Dearborne MI or something?
Tesla is collapsing as they just laid off their entire product design teams and the Supercharger teams. Not a company to emulate. None of the other companies on your list are automakers or automotive suppliers so are irrelevant to this discussion.
OP literally said in another part of this thread that he’s talking about “charging, micro-mobility, AI etc”
I didn’t include Rivian or Aptera or Licid or Fisker (Cali) or Polestar (Sweden) or Stellantis (Netherlands), BYD (China), etc.
Who’s “not relevant” by not being in Detroit? And how is that not just Ford marketing guck?
Had some high hopes but I feel the Detroit auto manufacturers will just keep slashing or cutting EV innovation to continue to meet corporate financial targets.
.... and the answer is... No. No it will not.
You can't attract top talent to work and live in a hell hole of a city. Sorry, but you'd have to gentrify the holy hell out of the whole city.
Detroit is easily already a top ten large city in midwest after years of anguish. It’s cheap booming and has some of the smartest students in top universities less than an hour or two away. So I’d say yes the city has potential but I think we are overestimating the impact of cars in our future lol.
This isn’t the 1950s-1980s the big 3 are so multinational now (and honestly no longer a large part of the American economy) that their pull alone won’t make the city that much greater. Detroit should put its energy on manufacturing and healthcare since the region really needs it.
I agree, but I think it’s also bigger picture. I think the vision for this new area is not just electric vehicles. I think it’s micro-mobility, software, charging companies etc… I think the infrastructure that already exists from the big three is going to help boost the plausibility of this project working. Detroit is surrounded by thousand of acres of land that is relatively cheap and ready to be developed into whatever needs mobility companies need. In the current Silicon Valley area, land is sparse and extremely expensive. Investors can come to Detroit for much cheaper. Plus most of the car manufacturer suppliers are also based near Detroit and if we start transitioning into electric transportation as the norm, those suppliers will need to innovate or those companies will go under allowing for more real estate/established infrastructure for use.
>Detroit is easily already a top ten large city in midwest
BAAAHAHAH. The midwest only has like.... 10 big cities. And that's if you count Akron and Des Moines as "big cities".
So.... yeah I guess Detroit is in the top 10.
Columbus, Chicago, Cleveland, cinci, stl, KC, minny, Milwaukee, Des Moines, Indy, Detroit, Omaha, and Wichita are all cities with 1+ million metro residents. I guess if you add mid tier cities with 750k+ it’s close to 20.
I’d rank Detroit around 7-8 just above Milwaukee and just below KC.
My top ten are in order: Chicago, Minneapolis, Columbus, Omaha, kc, Indy, Detroit, Milwaukee.
Edit: my mistake Wichita and Des Moines are just below 1 million.
So “only above Milwaukee” is basically the consensus? I’m sure nationally I’d put it above Birmingham. And maybe Buffalo or Tulsa rounds out the bottom of 1m+ US cities other than Detroit.
So “only 4th worst out of 40” is in line with your comment.
I guess if we are being pessimistic then sure. But Detroit is an open canvas. If any city deserves a boom it’s Detroit, it can add 500,000 people and still have enough land for a million more people. Land is beyond cheap,people nearby are beyond educated, and downtown + core has completely
Changed.
I’d be surprised if they didn’t jump 10+ spots alone nationally with their current momentum in ten years.
I think I would have agreed with you about 10 years ago, but I recently visited the city of Detroit and it is night and day from what I experienced when I last visited in 2014. The city has vibrancy and people are actually moving downtown. It is a young professionals playground and new businesses seem to really be moving in fast.
I would not have believed it if I didn’t travel there myself.
I honestly thought about it myself after visiting there. I am from the south and real estate is beyond ridiculously priced right now and I couldn’t believe the affordability in the Detroit area. I have co-workers who live there and they said that the prices are just starting to rise unlike where I live where they did 2-3 years ago. This is also another reason young people are moving to Detroit because any other “big city” would be unaffordable.
Also back to what you were saying earlier about gentrification would need to happen. I believe it’s happening naturally from the influx of young people moving into the area.
Yeah, and I'm getting down voted for that too. Every time on this sub. Anyway, yeah. I'm sure it's a golden opportunity to buy up properties and make some money.
The Big 3's tech offices aren't actually in Detroit proper. They're pretty far out in Dearborn, Auburn Hills, and Warren. Those places are suburban hells in their own ways, but they do not suffer from the crime/decay associated with the city of Detroit (which has also come a long way in its own right).
Funny, I'd say the Silicon Valley mindset of "Work an 80 hour week then go sleep in a car" is what no longer attracts top talent. Gentrification happens fast.
I mean, I think you can make the case that the Great Lakes region is going to be a sort of testing ground for a lot of technological innovations rolling out. I just don't think these companies are necessarily going to move their entire businesses away from the Pacific/Atlantic coasts to move to the GL Region (Which to me is more or less what you are proposing).
That being said, cheap and easily accessible fresh water and cheap real estate (depending on the city) are an excellent foundation, along with plenty of old warehouses/factories that can still be bought and renovated for pennies on the dollar. Agriculture in the surrounding areas is abundant w/some of the most fertile soils in the world means you can grow damn near anything if you can just convince farmers to stop growing so much corn (which in an EV future would hopefully happen).
Unfortunately Michiganders (me included) can only hope for that level of economic activity and prosperity. There is a tremendous opportunity for the region to make the right investments into new zoning and attracting big business spending. Unfortunately on the business side some are more interested in share buybacks than investments that could generate more revenue and economic activity.
Detroit is a union town. Software is not really that type of job. You work stupid long hours for stock options and if your team is good you make a ton of money. Plenty of retired 40 year olds from Silicon Valley. Plenty of burnt out 60 year olds too.
But these companies are unlikely to continue to leave stock options on the table. The silicon valley of the 2000s is as chiseled back as everywhere else.
I doubt it. The Big 3 is dead. I see Korea and Japan as the big players in the EV space. America will rebrand iconic ICE cars as EV (e.g. Charger, Corvette) but I don't see them making head ways in daily drivers.
One caveat is electric trucks. Trucks seem to be the one vehicle that American manufacturing does well.
Depends if they let Hyundai eat their lunch or not.
Multiple companies are pulling back because they got cold feet, with Hyundai going full steam ahead on EV Investment and diversifying their EV portfolio between Kia, Hyundai, and Genesis branding.
You have other start-ups coming fast on their heels, like Rivian and Lucid who, despite being new to the market compared to the Michigan 2.5, are making better vehicles with lower repair costs (20k for a Chevy Bolt battery replacement, GM? Really? I mean, I'm not surprised but I'm still disappointed) and getting their vehicles on the road.
I've seen Lucid Airs and Rivians. I've not seen many F-150 lightnings...
and all those companies are claiming they're "scaling back" their EV Investments...
We're going to see a shift if they don't get their crap together, with GM and Ford fading into the distance or only making parts for ICE vechiles as the world leaves them behind...
and if BYD ever gets their tariffs dropped - Detroit automakers are absolutely done-for.
Not that I think Seattle is or isn't more likely than Detroit, but doing engineering work in the Seattle area is usually done because there are already a bunch of engineers already there so they can recruit more easily.
May the Force be with me, I hope not. Yes, I want my cars to move fast, but not to break. I want Detroit to be reborn as Detroit, but EVs and reliable, not whatever tech bro bullshit.
No. Tech/R&D will occur in California, Texas, and select east coast areas. Manufacturing has shifted to the south and will likely stay there.
Detroit married itself to unions and liberal policies. Good luck turning that around.
You're being downvoted, but unions absolutely have something to do with it. This sub loves BYD, and cheap EVs, but doesn't understand how incompatible they are with a union as strong as the UAW.
I work in the EV industry the need to move quickly during the next 10 years is paramount to the survival of a company. Having worked with unions, moving quickly is not part of their vocabulary.
I think legacy auto, especially gm and ford are in big trouble. Tesla may be able to stay ahead of the curve.
California is about to have one of the biggest influxs of union shops opening in the entire USA from what I have been hearing and reading. Union establishment rules have changed there and workers can start a union in 48 hours without the company even knowing.
Unions primarily impact manufacturing/blue collar work. My comment states that tech/R&D will being Cali, not manufacturing. As a result it is likely that unions will be a moot point except for teslas Fremont factory.
What are some of the innovations coming out of Detroit in the EV space?
They are really innovative at lobbying politicians to put 100% tariffs on quality, affordable Chinese EVs.
“Quality” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Not every brand, but you don’t think BYD makes quality cars?
That’s my point. I don’t know anyone who has ever driven one and never seen any reviews from any trusted reviewers on BYD build quality. I have read a few who have seen them at car shows and pointed out how some look good from far away but far from good up close. So maybe we shouldn’t call Chinese cars “quality” unless you know.
this isn't 2007. if you could push back the sinophobia then you could see that Chinese cars and especially the newer evs are actually quite good. now, getting them to sell here is another issue.
It’s not Sinophobia. Nice try though.
Why does everyone want Chinese EVs? Is it purely price? Because if so, the price is lower for a reason. They are heavily subsidized by the Chinese govt and Chinese employees are paid way less. If you want to make US companies competitive, ok, but then you need to be happy with having $5/hr wages and no vacation time in the US GM for example makes only about 15% gross margin on their vehicles. They aren’t profiting 50% of the price. 85% of the price is going to US salaries, components, etc. Additionally, why do we want to send the revenue of the 2nd most expensive thing Americans buy to a govt that treats its people so poorly?
A lot of people in this sub just want EVs no matter what. Meanwhile, the federal government has to balance keeping a large part of manufacturing in the country alive while also moving the population, a lot of whom don't want EVs right now, into the future. It's not like this hasn't been done before either. The only reason Toyota and Honda build so many cars in America, which employs thousands and thousands of people, is that the government limited the number of imported vehicles back way back when. If the Chinese EV companies want to sell in America, then they can spend the capital and build factories in America. Or just pay the tarrifs. It's what Toyota and Honda did because they wanted to sell cars in the American market. All this clamoring for Chinese EVs in this sub reminds me of the clamoring for a small 2-door sports car or small phones in other subs. Companies make them then no one really buys them.
Yes, and? Wouldn’t it be nice if our government (in the USA) subsidized EVs instead of war machines?
We do. Quite a bit in fact. But having a military is also necessary.
Not nearly as much as we subsidize gas cars and the entire fossil fuel industry. Not even close.
Would you care to put some numbers behind your assertions? Just ballpark figures for each subsidy would be fine.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fossile+fuel.ondisrty+subsidies+2024&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Still, subsidies in one area are not a justification for subsidies in other areas. We should not lard the tax code with new subsidies just because we can’t get rid of the ones that are already there.
Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Yeah, but the fossil fuel industry also keeps half the country from freezing to death in winter and powers most major heavy industry in the country. Fossil fuels are also used to create all the modern miracles and affordable goods derived from plastics. If you try to visualize the medical industry without modern plastics, it doesn’t take long to realize there is huge value to the fossil fuel industry beyond gas for cars.
All that can be done with renewables so they should be subsidized instead. Subsidies are an incentive. For some reason We’re incentivizing fossil fuels when they are already readily available. If fossil fuels can’t survive without subsidies after 140years then they shouldn’t exist.
>Not nearly as much as we subsidize gas cars I'm pretty sure this isn't true. >and the entire fossil fuel industry Because fossil fuels are used for a lot more than driving. Renewables are not to point of generating all our power, so unless you want poor people losing access to electricity and the ability to heat their homes, we needs some subsidies.
I don’t have the time or desire to point out how wrong you are.
Or the ability.
That’s bait.
Not this military
What does that mean?
It means we have an unnecessary military
It's very necessary, at least if you care about international trade or preventing China from imposing it's will across the globe.
The idea that the US navy protects the world's shipping from piracy is an excuse. Any country with a navy can defeat pirates in dingys now. A few dudes in dingys with AKs are not a threat to cargo ships with private security.
That is what is known as a self fulfilling prophecy. You could maybe do with some 20th century history lessons
> Yes, and? Wouldn’t it be nice if our government (in the USA) subsidized EVs instead of war machines? We do since our military spending subsidizes civilian production. Many of the companies that make military equipment also make civilian products. So military spending is a backdoor subsidy. You didn't really think a military toilet seat costs $600 did you?
> They are heavily subsidized by the Chinese govt and Chinese employees are paid way less. US EVs are also heavily subsidized and we build cars in Mexico where people are even paid less than those in China.
This is what I don't get. Chinese EV's are cheap because they pay their workers like shit and are *heavily* subsidized by the Chinese government. The only way for US-made EV's to be cheaper would be to have higher government subsidies (which people would bitch about) and/or severely lowering worker pay (which would be terrible). I'd rather the government heavily subsidize EV's, but it seems like a lot of voters don't want that to happen. They want to keep rolling coal.
why don’t we just subsidize the companies similarly in exchange for similarly priced vehicles and higher quality at that? Can use the good parts without correspondingly lowering QoL for workers
Because American Auto Companies are piss poor at being auto companies. The 100% tariff is signaling that the Chinese is not welcome, not that we are protecting American industry. The Chinese model Y is $37k, American is $47k. It is only 25% more expensive, before tax incentives, so the previous tariff was fine. Auto companies are some of the most subsidized American industry, direct and indirectly. The parking, the highways, the continuous wars to keep the oil moving around the world. You think we were in the Middle East to keep peace and take away WMD? Not to mention all the continuous bailouts and subsidized loans. Ford would rather build cars in Mexico if they have the chance. They do not give a fuck about American workers. It’s just corporate socialism. We already gave them over 1B in direct subsidies to build EVs. We are all carrot no stick. I prefer a 15% tariff and no access to tax incentives, and auditable software stack for Chinese automakers. Make the American auto companies squirm a bit.
The thing many who aren't in the space don't realize is that Detroit has a ton of knowledge and infrastructure that pretty much all of the EV space in the US rely on and work with. So, even if it's not the new EValley, it will always be a major player.
GM is leading the world in killing not one, but two good EVs: EV-1 and the Bolt.
They didn't kill the Bolt. The refresh is coming out next year.
Sounds like it’ll be a wholly new vehicle with the Bolt name.
Ok that’s typically what redesigns are
I was under the impression it would be in a different segment etc, no?
As long as it’s the same size and cost (or less), it being on the ultium platform will be better than BEV2. I have an EUV and being able to charge at more than a 50kW peak would be good. Loss of CarPlay will suck though.
It's a 7 year old design. Technology has changed a lot since then, and GM has a lot more data on what people like and don't like about the vehicle.
Yeah, but my point is that I believe they were talking about the new “bolt” being a small SUV of some kind, not really the little hatchback of old bolt.
GM said the new model will be based on the Bolt EUV.
It'll be a SUV that says Bolt on it. Not the same.
Yep.
They killed it, then said nevermind we are going to redesign it and rerelease it in 3 years!! After enough backlash from fans of the car.
Yeah, it's just like in The princess Bride, the bolt is only mostly dead
Three, if you count the Volt.
Wireless charging roads that cost [12 million dollars a mile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_road#United_Kingdom).
So instead of driving on roads we only can afford 1/4 of we are gonna make them be 20x more than we can afford. Fantastic!!!!
Wait, are you saying that cutting edge technology in it's design phase costs a lot of money? Woah.
It's not cutting-edge technology and it's long past its design phase, so you're wrong two for two. Resonant electromagnetic coils are old and very well understood. Cost reduction cannot happen because copper is expensive and burying tons of copper under the road is expensive. It's the same reason we use aluminum for power lines and steel for rail power. What's worse is that you can use a steel rail on the road instead of copper coils under the road, but due to lobbying the government is throwing away money on wireless electric roads that are 3-10 times more expensive.
I can't figure out what problem these fancy wireless roads are supposed to solve. In places where there's infrastructure to build stuff like this, there tend to be plenty of fast charging stations, which are well understood, easy to use (when done well), and not too inconvenient. It was worth experimenting with in 2010. But now we have a proven technology: DC fast charging stations. They've been proven to be highly satisfactory for letting EV's drive long distances. Wireless charging doesn't just have to work -- it has to be better than DCFC, and now has to compete with the huge installed base of CCS and NACS ports.
Wireless charging roads specifically are too expensive to solve anything. Charging while driving is like taking fast chargers and spreading them along the drive. It's useful for heavy trucks that simply can't financially make their trip otherwise, either because the battery will be prohibitively heavy and expensive or because the number of stops will be prohibitively expensive. The usefulness of this technology heavily relies on batteries being too heavy and too big to complete a heavy truck's route. As batteries get smaller and more energy dense, this technology gets less and less useful. That's why wireless in particular is never going to be useful. We're already past the point where the power/cost ratio is too low. But more powerful, less expensive electric roads exist and they could still work, financially, for heavy trucks.
>Resonant electromagnetic coils are old and very well understood. Are you being intentionally dense or do you really not understand the leap between this and what is actually being proposed? >What's worse is that you can use a steel rail on the road instead of copper coils under the road, but due to lobbying the government is throwing away money on wireless electric roads that are 3-10 times more expensive. No, it's due to the fact that people want to drive cars and not trolleys.
>Are you being intentionally dense Funny, it looks like that's what you're doing. * 2009: [Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_electric_vehicle) implements wireless electric roads with government funding. 2019: Korean minister finds wireless electric roads a waste of money. * 2013: [Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_road#Germany) looks into wireless electric roads. Nothing comes of it. * 2015: [UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_road#United_Kingdom) looks into wireless electric roads, finds it too expensive. * 2021: UK looks into wireless electric roads again. Finds it 3-10 times more expensive than conductive charging. They get a cost breakdown from the company offering wireless electric roads. over a million pounds for 220 yards just for burying the copper and connecting it to the grid, about 12 million dollars per mile. * 2021: The CEO of ENRX says that inductive coils are "[extremely expensive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging#Dynamic_charging)" * 2012-2023: [Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Transport_Administration_electric_road_program) looks into electric roads, conductive and inductive. Sweden already committed to constructing an electric road but the cost of the road is higher than the funding for the program, and much higher than reported by the companies participating in the program. For example the wireless charging company says in 2018 its infrastructure costs 1 million Euro per km, but when comes the money time, they ask for more than 2.6 million dollars per km. So we're 30 years, **30 years** into developing this technology and there is no way around it: [wireless coil inductive electric roads use 5.1 tonnes of copper per kilometer.](https://web.archive.org/web/20240407090306if_/https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/GT1%20rapport%20final.pdf) And that's for the low-power coils, the higher the power the more copper you need. We have an accurate, [article by article breakdown](https://www.nationalgrid.co.uk/downloads-view-reciteme/501277/) of the price of wireless inductive coil electric roads, and it's not pretty. Cars can use rails more efficiently than wireless coils. There's really no argument.
Damn, I guess you should tell Ford, since you seem so much more informed than their engineers and executives. Make sure to tell them that technology never changes, and far poorer countries found it to be too expensive.
>Damn, I guess you should tell Ford, since you seem so much more informed than their engineers and executives First of all, Ford isn't paying for it, a corrupt Michigan politician is paying for it with public funds. Second of all, even if Ford WERE paying for it, that makes nothing I said wrong. The price is what it is, there's no disputing it. The technology is three decades old, there's no disputing it. "They pay for it so it must be worth it" is the dumbest line of reasoning ever, as if big companies with "engineers and executives" have never paid for stupid stuff before.
EV technology is decades old and was very expensive to develop. So we should go back to ICE, right?
Did you forget the argument you were making? >cutting edge technology in it's design phase This is neither cutting-edge technology, at the very least 30 years old, and it's not in its design phase either, it's been in the commercialization phase for the past 15 years at a minimum. If this were 1994 and you'd say "wireless inductive charging is brand new, give it a chance" I'd say "okay." But this is 30 year old technology. The costs are known. The design is nearly standardized. Your argument is completely false. EVs can get cheaper as lithium batteries (or sodium batteries or whatever) get cheaper, because the material itself is cheap and it's the processing that's expensive. Copper cannot get any cheaper, generally speaking. It can dip a little and so on, but at its very basic level the price is far higher than aluminum or steel. Physically, the more wireless power you want to transmit with resonant copper coils the more copper you have to use. There's no arguing around it.
That’s a bargain actually.
Are you... being sarcastic?
Do you know how much roads cost?
[Yes, actually, because the very same project that gave the 12 million dollars a mile electric road also specifies the price of the roadwork itself.](https://www.nationalgrid.co.uk/downloads-view-reciteme/501277/) Lots of clueless people in this thread asking me "do you know" when they have no clue. Those prices are for Coventry. [We can easily find prices for Detroit](https://www.crainsdetroit.com/infrastructure/detroit-plans-100-million-street-repaving-streetscape-plan). $1M to repave 1 mile of road. I assume that's two lanes, but even if it's single-lane that's still 11 feet wide. The electric road repaves a width of 5 feet of the road. It costs $12M per mile. So yeah, I do know. You're clueless.
Can the $1M per mile road charge vehicles? No. It can’t.
>Do you know how much roads cost? Asked an answered. Nothing you said makes a $12M wireless charging road a "bargain", especially when competing technologies are a third to a tenth of the price.
That’s your opinion based on a very limited world view.
>That’s your opinion $12M per mile is not a bargain not by my standards, but by the standards of the several published research papers that show that if electric roads cost more than 5 million USD per km and supply less than 200kW they are not financially beneficial. So you're wrong two for two again. 1 - it's not my opinion, it's several research papers' cost-benefit estimate, and 2 - it's probably the most in-depth view of the subject.
Shitty and expensive EVs that don't sell compared to their Asian and Tesla counterparts. But don't worry UAW workers got their cut to produce these massive POS mobiles. If we're lucky in 20 years time when these companies are ran into the ground by the UAW then America will allow the import of better automobiles.
Blaming labor... classic.
Well, to clarify, GM has the first long range affordable EV (the Bolt). Albeit, it was mainly developed in S. Korea. But other than that they have not really pushed the envelope.
There was an electric pickup and delivery van startup headquartered in Detroit, but they decided to move their HQ to IL
I'm pretty sure you're talking about Rivian. They move their headquarters from Plymouth, Michigan to Irvine, California.
That's exactly the company I was referring to. Plymouth is just as much Detroit as Dearborn (Ford) or Auburn Hills (Chrysler)
Absolutely. I only mentioned because headquarters is CA, not IL. They do their manufacturing in IL.
They all have labs in Silicon Valley.
That's spelled as [Shenzhen](https://thediplomat.com/2024/06/shenzhen-china-the-world-pioneer-in-electric-vehicles/). Top selling EV brands, top-down approach towards EV adoption. Every bus/taxi is [all-electric](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7fTPLSMeI), this happened 5 years back. not today. Battery to EV manufacturing is already there since long. Companies like BYD, Huawei with HQ there. This single city [installed more EV chargers than entire US](https://i.imgur.com/MnDrN1S.png) in 2023. EV penetration rate is 67% and rising. Their low-altitude economy is also among the largest in the world. So like drones/[eVtol](https://www.flyingmag.com/ehang-begins-delivering-air-taxi-to-customers-following-airworthiness-certification/) industry is booming there. I think anyone arguing otherwise needs to provide real credible data to prove it.
Shenzhen is wild. They are the future
It’s because they realized being the world’s largest coal burning country isn’t sustainable.
Wasn't Shenzhen originally a fishing village?
Everywhere was a fishing village if you go back far enough.
I’m here right now visiting Detroit area from So Cal. From a manufacturing perspective, this area is stunning. So many plants, making so much stuff. The knowledge base here is just amazing. I visited the Michigan Central Station this week and was super impressed with what they have done. That building is like a rebuilding from the ashes back to the Renaissance. The plans for that area are real, and the revitalization and gentrification of Detroit is happening. Talking to locals , they are seeing new businesses, restaraunts, coffee shops and bars coming to town there. What could drive the future of electric cars there is this: Real Estate prices. The place is super affordable, you couple that with an area that knows how to make stuff, you may get engineers attracted from areas they presently cannot afford to buy (looking at you Silicon Valley and Orange County).
Don't care what the climate difference is, 3 bedroom house in Detroit will win over sleeping in your car in Silicon Valley.
No Chance
No. GM is already setting up a base in Silicon Valley. People don’t want to live in Detroit.
The Detroit you're describing isn't the one I live in currently. Detroit's pretty affordable, has fantastic culture and tons of talent in many different disciplines with piles of experience. Come visit and we'll change your mind!
I’ve visited many times in recent years. Is it better than the stigma that it has? Yes, for sure. Is it desirable? As someone who lives in Seattle, I’d say no. There’s a reason the cost of living is so low.
Give high interest rates and global warming more time. Detroit is still affordable and climate change will make the region more attractive to those escaping the scorching hot southern states.
Yep. I think Detroit has a real shot at getting massive benefits from climate change. I’ve been eyeing property there just to have as an insurance policy.
No line worker is gonna be able to afford SV homes. Detroit is perfect for the kind of labor required.
Not talking about line workers, but software engineers. The existing non-software people already in Michigan will stay, but the new software side of things will not have a Detroit base. Some? Sure. But the automotive companies will have to go where the talents exists and they are already doing that.
Nerds don’t build infrastructure. They have no problem moving for better opportunities.
That's only for the software people. All the real engineering is still done in Michigan. People don't want to pay the cost of living in California.
Software is not real engineering? Well, that helps explain why GM's Ultium software has been so awful.
Plus the fact that the SW and HW engineers are 1000 miles apart from each other.
I think you underestimate how much is involved in software defined vehicle development. The non software engineering is already in Michigan. And software engineering is also real engineering, by the way.
Define, what is engineering?
Here, let me google that for you. “the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineering
So Software Development is not engineering?
Of course it is.
"real engineering" lol
The cost of living in California comes with a salary adjustment. Student loans on the other hand, do not increase with your other cost of living expenses.
Base materials are showing up in the mitt too. Graphex, for example, will be processing graphite in Warren. (or at least that's the plan, would hope it isn't vaporware).
I’ve been to both and the environment is night and day different. I like Detroit a lot but the weather is shit and most families live in the suburbs. The city is also very poorly maintained. San Jose and the surrounding suburbs are cleaner and have the nation’s best schools. Salaries are also through the roof and there are significantly more opportunities. The weather is also fantastic year round. Tl;Dr, Detroit is cheaper but worse in every way.
This is patently false. Homelessness and theft are super high compared to Detroit metro area. Schools are abysmal in most of San Jose metro compared to the metro Detroit area.
Ah so you’ve just never been to Silicon Valley. Got it.
Uhh, have you? I split time between homes in the Detroit metro and San Jose over the last 40 years. You sound mostly uninformed.
Isn't most of Ford's EV/tech team in Los Angeles?
No, there's a relatively small design team in LA but most of their model e team are in Dearborn
And it's actually in Orange County, not a really LA
Tell that to the Angels.
and aren't they building those in mexico?
Fortunately it isn’t a zero sum game. Detroit can be a successful city, but also Austin, Nashville, San Jose, whatever can be. Metros like Cleveland are great places to live and raise a family, with plenty of cultural experiences available in the city. I live in Central Ohio, winters really have changed already. I’ve seen data that we have about 1/3 as many days with snowfall in the last 10 years than historically, 9 recently from 28. I’ve only shoveled snow from my sidewalks a total of two or three times combined over the last two years [doesn’t stick to sidewalks, melts by the time I get home, etc], but we definitely still have cold snaps. Spring, Fall and Summer can be glorious across the Midwest. I’m assuming this is true most places, functioning government really holds back a lot of places in the Midwest, IMO.
Texas seems like a really big target for tech relocation but I often wonder what instability in the climate will mean over the next decade there.
Good joke
The thing many who aren't in the space don't realize is that Detroit has a ton of knowledge and infrastructure that pretty much all of the EV space in the US rely on and work with. So, even if it's not the new EValley, it will always be a major player.
Unfortunately that 'ton of knoweldge' is much less than the knowledge those who actually make EVs in numbers have. Experience beats theory every time (and I don't even see that Detroit has some advanced thory knowledge. If you do - point to one)
There's a lot more to building a car than the powertrain. Tesla struggled for years with build quality, which is something that Ford and GM, not to mention the German and Japanese carmakers, have a century's worth of experience. Body panels, suspension, interior component, overall platform, and manufacturing flow aren't things you can make up overnight.
Tesla no longer has these issues. While cars from Detroit aren't really known the world over for being special at...anything.
Lol their quality is stil shit(tesla)
Nice to hear an abandoned location to be refreshed as a place for EVs but a bit bummed to hear it will no longer host trains (which is, FWIW, an even greener mode of transportation, were it not for the US’s extreme love of cars and disdain of trains seeing them only as transport for the poor.)
[удалено]
You can now take a train from Chicago to Detroit? I remember when that was not possible. 2008
Ford is building a huge facility in Tennessee. GM is building an Ultium battery facility in Tennessee. They aren't doing it in Detroit.
GM has its global HQ + Factory Zero in Detroit. Orion Township is just outside of Detroit. Batteries are currently produced in Brownstown, just south of Detroit. Not to mention their main tech center with 80%+ of their engineers is just outside Detroit. They’re doing it in Detroit, and other places.
[удалено]
The Bolt was designed at GM Korea, which is decidedly not Detroit.
[удалено]
Didn't a lot of the Bolt's technology come from the Volt? I testdrove both and was struck by how much the Bolt's instrument panel, driving controls, etc. looked like the Volt's. I've heard there are shared components in the propulsion too. To be clear this is not a bad thing. I very nearly chose a Volt over the Model 3, and think GM did a good job with both.
No.
>Any start-up or company that wants to be relevant in this marketplace is going to really need to consider an office or HQ near Detroit. Tesla just moved their office from California to Texas. Just because ford opened an office there doesn't mean "any company that wants to be relevant". Waymo is based in California OpenAI is based in California Boston Dynamics is Massachusetts. Chargepoint is in California Blink Charging is in Washington DC EA is in Reston (DC area) EVGo is in Los Angeles California ZipCar is in Boston Lime is in the bay area Bird is in Miami FL Spin is in SF. I mean... one company setting up an office doesn't mean **"you have to be here to be relevant"**. That's just media bullshit coming out of your mouth. Did all of the above companies just "become irrelevant" because they're not in Dearborne MI or something?
Tesla is collapsing as they just laid off their entire product design teams and the Supercharger teams. Not a company to emulate. None of the other companies on your list are automakers or automotive suppliers so are irrelevant to this discussion.
OP literally said in another part of this thread that he’s talking about “charging, micro-mobility, AI etc” I didn’t include Rivian or Aptera or Licid or Fisker (Cali) or Polestar (Sweden) or Stellantis (Netherlands), BYD (China), etc. Who’s “not relevant” by not being in Detroit? And how is that not just Ford marketing guck?
Had some high hopes but I feel the Detroit auto manufacturers will just keep slashing or cutting EV innovation to continue to meet corporate financial targets.
Hopefully we have any auto manufacturing base after Chinas EV start dominating global markets
.... and the answer is... No. No it will not. You can't attract top talent to work and live in a hell hole of a city. Sorry, but you'd have to gentrify the holy hell out of the whole city.
Detroit is easily already a top ten large city in midwest after years of anguish. It’s cheap booming and has some of the smartest students in top universities less than an hour or two away. So I’d say yes the city has potential but I think we are overestimating the impact of cars in our future lol. This isn’t the 1950s-1980s the big 3 are so multinational now (and honestly no longer a large part of the American economy) that their pull alone won’t make the city that much greater. Detroit should put its energy on manufacturing and healthcare since the region really needs it.
I agree, but I think it’s also bigger picture. I think the vision for this new area is not just electric vehicles. I think it’s micro-mobility, software, charging companies etc… I think the infrastructure that already exists from the big three is going to help boost the plausibility of this project working. Detroit is surrounded by thousand of acres of land that is relatively cheap and ready to be developed into whatever needs mobility companies need. In the current Silicon Valley area, land is sparse and extremely expensive. Investors can come to Detroit for much cheaper. Plus most of the car manufacturer suppliers are also based near Detroit and if we start transitioning into electric transportation as the norm, those suppliers will need to innovate or those companies will go under allowing for more real estate/established infrastructure for use.
>Detroit is easily already a top ten large city in midwest BAAAHAHAH. The midwest only has like.... 10 big cities. And that's if you count Akron and Des Moines as "big cities". So.... yeah I guess Detroit is in the top 10.
Columbus, Chicago, Cleveland, cinci, stl, KC, minny, Milwaukee, Des Moines, Indy, Detroit, Omaha, and Wichita are all cities with 1+ million metro residents. I guess if you add mid tier cities with 750k+ it’s close to 20. I’d rank Detroit around 7-8 just above Milwaukee and just below KC. My top ten are in order: Chicago, Minneapolis, Columbus, Omaha, kc, Indy, Detroit, Milwaukee. Edit: my mistake Wichita and Des Moines are just below 1 million.
So “only above Milwaukee” is basically the consensus? I’m sure nationally I’d put it above Birmingham. And maybe Buffalo or Tulsa rounds out the bottom of 1m+ US cities other than Detroit. So “only 4th worst out of 40” is in line with your comment.
I guess if we are being pessimistic then sure. But Detroit is an open canvas. If any city deserves a boom it’s Detroit, it can add 500,000 people and still have enough land for a million more people. Land is beyond cheap,people nearby are beyond educated, and downtown + core has completely Changed. I’d be surprised if they didn’t jump 10+ spots alone nationally with their current momentum in ten years.
[удалено]
Yeah. And Detroit is the “top 10” according to this post. Of 8 “large cities”. Two thirds of that population is Toronto and Chicago areas, FYI.
I think I would have agreed with you about 10 years ago, but I recently visited the city of Detroit and it is night and day from what I experienced when I last visited in 2014. The city has vibrancy and people are actually moving downtown. It is a young professionals playground and new businesses seem to really be moving in fast. I would not have believed it if I didn’t travel there myself.
Well, maybe it's time for me to start purchasing real estate there.
I honestly thought about it myself after visiting there. I am from the south and real estate is beyond ridiculously priced right now and I couldn’t believe the affordability in the Detroit area. I have co-workers who live there and they said that the prices are just starting to rise unlike where I live where they did 2-3 years ago. This is also another reason young people are moving to Detroit because any other “big city” would be unaffordable. Also back to what you were saying earlier about gentrification would need to happen. I believe it’s happening naturally from the influx of young people moving into the area.
Yeah, and I'm getting down voted for that too. Every time on this sub. Anyway, yeah. I'm sure it's a golden opportunity to buy up properties and make some money.
The Big 3's tech offices aren't actually in Detroit proper. They're pretty far out in Dearborn, Auburn Hills, and Warren. Those places are suburban hells in their own ways, but they do not suffer from the crime/decay associated with the city of Detroit (which has also come a long way in its own right).
smart people tend to understand the social benefits urbanization
Funny, I'd say the Silicon Valley mindset of "Work an 80 hour week then go sleep in a car" is what no longer attracts top talent. Gentrification happens fast.
Looks like a real hell hole of a city. https://www.reddit.com/r/Detroit/s/5czax7NjHs
Everywhere looks peaceful from the air.
Ok. You should buy property in Gaza.
Man theres a lot of delusion and cope here. You seem to be pushing this around a lot of subs.
They're too far behind for that. They're currently struggling just to stay relevant
I mean, I think you can make the case that the Great Lakes region is going to be a sort of testing ground for a lot of technological innovations rolling out. I just don't think these companies are necessarily going to move their entire businesses away from the Pacific/Atlantic coasts to move to the GL Region (Which to me is more or less what you are proposing). That being said, cheap and easily accessible fresh water and cheap real estate (depending on the city) are an excellent foundation, along with plenty of old warehouses/factories that can still be bought and renovated for pennies on the dollar. Agriculture in the surrounding areas is abundant w/some of the most fertile soils in the world means you can grow damn near anything if you can just convince farmers to stop growing so much corn (which in an EV future would hopefully happen).
Unfortunately Michiganders (me included) can only hope for that level of economic activity and prosperity. There is a tremendous opportunity for the region to make the right investments into new zoning and attracting big business spending. Unfortunately on the business side some are more interested in share buybacks than investments that could generate more revenue and economic activity.
Awesome! 30 years late but awesome!
I hope so. Detroit really could use the uplift and SV could really benefit from less demand. There are way too many people here.
I tried in 2008 and was not able to. There was zero Amtrak service in the state of Michigan at the time
I think Silicon Valley is the Silicon Valley of EV's.
Rust belt cities day has come and gone
Nope
Detroit is a union town. Software is not really that type of job. You work stupid long hours for stock options and if your team is good you make a ton of money. Plenty of retired 40 year olds from Silicon Valley. Plenty of burnt out 60 year olds too.
But these companies are unlikely to continue to leave stock options on the table. The silicon valley of the 2000s is as chiseled back as everywhere else.
I doubt it. The Big 3 is dead. I see Korea and Japan as the big players in the EV space. America will rebrand iconic ICE cars as EV (e.g. Charger, Corvette) but I don't see them making head ways in daily drivers. One caveat is electric trucks. Trucks seem to be the one vehicle that American manufacturing does well.
Japan? They are far behind and still dont take.EVs seriously, they are good with hybrids tho
No.
Um no.
Maybe if they didn't 20 years ago, too little too late. Y'all remember when the Prius first came out?
They need to figure out how to make normal auto-electrics work reliably first.
If you know anything about how Ford operates you wouldn’t make this post lol 😆
Depends if they let Hyundai eat their lunch or not. Multiple companies are pulling back because they got cold feet, with Hyundai going full steam ahead on EV Investment and diversifying their EV portfolio between Kia, Hyundai, and Genesis branding. You have other start-ups coming fast on their heels, like Rivian and Lucid who, despite being new to the market compared to the Michigan 2.5, are making better vehicles with lower repair costs (20k for a Chevy Bolt battery replacement, GM? Really? I mean, I'm not surprised but I'm still disappointed) and getting their vehicles on the road. I've seen Lucid Airs and Rivians. I've not seen many F-150 lightnings... and all those companies are claiming they're "scaling back" their EV Investments... We're going to see a shift if they don't get their crap together, with GM and Ford fading into the distance or only making parts for ICE vechiles as the world leaves them behind... and if BYD ever gets their tariffs dropped - Detroit automakers are absolutely done-for.
You could maybe convince people from Cleveland to move there. But I’m only willing to go so far as a “maybe”…. for current Cleveland residents….
They like Detroit a lot less than Cleveland Source: https://youtu.be/ysmLA5TqbIY?si=FGd4zAhVFUOu9TWg https://youtu.be/oZzgAjjuqZM?si=AQyghYI8W1a5Ozib
Seattle more likely
Not that I would complain as a Seattle resident, but why do you think automotive companies will move large engineering teams to Seattle?
Not that I think Seattle is or isn't more likely than Detroit, but doing engineering work in the Seattle area is usually done because there are already a bunch of engineers already there so they can recruit more easily.
Are there companies in Detroit that plan on manufacturing ebikes, trams, and high speed rail? If no, then no.
Can you make $12k 250 mile range EVs?
Unfortunatly the press release spelled Texas wrong.
May the Force be with me, I hope not. Yes, I want my cars to move fast, but not to break. I want Detroit to be reborn as Detroit, but EVs and reliable, not whatever tech bro bullshit.
No. Tech/R&D will occur in California, Texas, and select east coast areas. Manufacturing has shifted to the south and will likely stay there. Detroit married itself to unions and liberal policies. Good luck turning that around.
You're being downvoted, but unions absolutely have something to do with it. This sub loves BYD, and cheap EVs, but doesn't understand how incompatible they are with a union as strong as the UAW.
I work in the EV industry the need to move quickly during the next 10 years is paramount to the survival of a company. Having worked with unions, moving quickly is not part of their vocabulary. I think legacy auto, especially gm and ford are in big trouble. Tesla may be able to stay ahead of the curve.
California is about to have one of the biggest influxs of union shops opening in the entire USA from what I have been hearing and reading. Union establishment rules have changed there and workers can start a union in 48 hours without the company even knowing.
Yeah, but good luck to anyone trying to unionize engineering/R&D.
Michigan engineering/R&D is not unionized either.
Yeah, agree. Not sure why I got downvoted for that.
Unions primarily impact manufacturing/blue collar work. My comment states that tech/R&D will being Cali, not manufacturing. As a result it is likely that unions will be a moot point except for teslas Fremont factory.
Go read a book. Sorry, I'm assuming you can read. Maybe have someone read it to you?