From the street pattern to the architecture to the music to the sports to the blight to the crime to the history. Those who love it love it for exactly what it is.

Some other places tend to be more interchangeable, even if they are objectively "nicer." This is especially true for places that grew in the 70s-90s, like Indy, Columbus, and a lot of places in the South.

By introducing new investment, some may feel that unmistakable character is being lost. Even in the case of a vacant building being replaced by something occupied and vibrant, some people are frustrated by what they feel is a loss of history. There will be an example of this phenomenon as the arena construction gets underway and the fate of these two buildings (which I referenced in another post, labelled as Number 4 on the picture in the original post) becomes clear:

It is likely those will be torn down, for obvious reasons. But there are people who remember when they were luxury hotels that made Detroit's Park Avenue rival New York's. Or at least they want to try to hold onto that era.

Frankly, I think we're a long way from losing the soul of the city. Especially because the people investing right now are doing it out of a love of the City. Also there is a potent combination of cheap land and rapidly rising demand not seen elsewhere, but Dan Gilbert and Mike Ilitch aren't pouring billions into development because a real estate analyst told them to. They're investing because they want to see Detroit become the best Detroit it can be.

I don't know anything about Indy, either. I haven't been there since I was ten. That's a line borrowed from a friend who lives in Detroit. I think Indianapolis is a placeholder that could apply just as well (or better) to Laclede's Landing or Navy Pier. Faux Irish bars, big expensive grocery stores, Bubba Gump's, Dave n' Busters, etc.

Some want to Detroit to re-emerge in the image of those who stayed or moved in. Some mix of Brooklyn and Harlem, Wicker Park and Bronzeville.

There are also others, who often hold City Council seats, who are reflexively opposed to anything that might threaten their power or fail to enrich them. Detroit doesn't have problems for no reason.

I get this sense anecdotally, but I've read some odds and ends. I'll try to dig up some links.

It's different for every DDA in Michigan (and there are A LOT of them). The Detroit DDA actually expanded its boundaries in order to encompass the arena site, which gives all the entities that have revenues captured by the DDA an option to opt out. I haven't heard of any doing so, which is actually kind of surprising.