  Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 680 Registered: 07-2004 |
Everyone goes on about malls, riots, suburban flight for killing our downtowns. But what about putting some of the blame on the department store and other big business leaders? I read an interesting little article the other day, that basically said big business is the main reason for the decline of American cities. And if you think about it, they could be right. Who told Hudson's or any other big stores, that they had to open branch stores, and kill off the traffic to their main stores? Whole told big business leaders they had to move their headquarters out of the centre of the city? Residents would not have been so fast to pick up and leave, if big business had kept their hold and faith in the central city. When people cry about Hudson's downtown closing, maybe the question that should be asked is why did Hudson feel he had to build branch stores in the first place??? And ontop of that, why did he have to built such large branch stores at that? The article was also interesting because it mentioned that many department store chains stopped updating and keeping their downtown department stores attractive. Bon-Ton is famous for this, and has basically closed every downtown department store they have aquired, by letting it fall into decline and then closing it. It seems the department stores and big business wrote the decline of our downtowns themselves. (Message edited by miketoronto on October 21, 2007) | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2965 Registered: 06-2004 |
Hudson's downtown held out for as long as possible. A multi-million resident metropolis should be able to support more than one location. The big business employers that left Detroit were the auto plants after the war. They relocated because the plants were becoming obsolete and property for new plants was less expensive out of the city. Once they moved the workers followed. Right now downtown Chicago has two Macy's and new York City supports many stores. Does the article you read focus primarily on cities that were heavily industrialized or were one-industry cities? A tangent while I think of it - what caused the growth of inner city LA? Was it an area that was wealthy then declined or has it always been poor? | ||
Spiritofdetroit Member Username: Spiritofdetroit Post Number: 662 Registered: 11-2006 |
Automobile manufacturing jobs in the city of detroit at peak: 165,000 automobile manufacturing jobs in the city of detroit today: 6,000 | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2966 Registered: 06-2004 |
and add another 75,000-100,000 at the nearby Rouge alone, plus all the suppliers | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 6168 Registered: 11-2004 |
Sometimes I wonder if Hudson's was more of a symptom than a cause. Detroit releid so heavily on the golden era of car manufacturing it seemed to have fogotten to diversify its financial base. And when the bottom fell out, a lot of other things besides Hudson's went AWOL from downtown. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1941 Registered: 04-2006 |
Yes, it was a big business that killed downtown, but no, it wasn't Hudson's... | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1232 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: I think the facts suggest a much different scenario. Auto plants were built outside Detroit prior to the war as early as 1937 (Dodge truck plant in Warren). Others were built in response to the Lend-Lease war production effort beginning in 1940 and later after the US entered the war. They were built there because there was no more large vacant industrial parcels in Detroit on which they could build. The post-war growth in automobile sales fueled the building of additional plants and the older plants were kept in production to help meet the demand. Yes, auto workers followed, but overall auto employment was still growing through the 1960s. The functionally obsolete, multi-storied auto assembly plants located in Detroit were not taken out of production until the late 1970s and early 80s (except for those belonging to companies like Packard which had gone bankrupt earlier than that). What you describe is more applicable to the multitude of small and mid-size automotive suppliers, not the major auto manufacturers. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2968 Registered: 06-2004 |
"overall auto employment was still growing through the 1960s." not *in* the city quote: | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1233 Registered: 12-2005 |
I didn't say *in* the city. Are you trying to say that those auto manufacturers that "went under" should be included with "big business employers that left Detroit... after the war"? They may have left Detroit but they didn't take any production somewhere else! Despite the fact that "Between 1945 and 1957, the Big Three auto companies built twenty-five new plants in metropolitan Detroit, all of them outside the city", exactly how many Big Three plants inside the city were closed during that same period? | ||
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger Post Number: 474 Registered: 05-2006 |
Joe Hudson Jr. definitely deserves a place on the top ten list of the people responsible for the decline of downtown Detroit. The J.L. Hudson Co. could have started redeveloping their building in the 1960’s. They could have invested in the downtown store to make it unique and more attractive to changing tastes; instead, they allowed it to steadily decline. Throughout the 70’s they continued to downsize and move more and more departments to their suburban stores until the downtown store became irrelevant. When Joe eventually sold out to the highest bidder, the downtown store was a shell of its former self. It was a simple business decision for Dayton Corp., a company with no ties to Detroit, to finally close the store. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 312 Registered: 09-2007 |
This is a randomly dumb topic for so many reasons. Miketoronto, you know why Hudson's closed their Flagship store. One reason was because the city wasn't making them or their fellow band wagon along Woodward feel very welcomed (with the rising taxes and the government). Not to mention, with the Riot, the Crime epidemic and the racial Xenophobia, Hudson's wasn't attracting the amount of shoppers it needed to stay open. As Lilpup said, they held out for as long as they could. It's all basic Business choices (like what Comerica did). Of course when making business choices, you will always have to hurt someone something to help someone or something. And like the others have mentioned, they can serve more people if needed. That would have to open several more locations away from the flagship store in a region as big as ours without Mass Transit or sufficient parking near the flagship store. However, I think Hudson's made a mistake when they started to keep their more popular items better stocked at the branches rather than the flagship store. May be if they had did it the other way, Hudson's as we know it today could be riding down a different tunnel (and the city of Detroit). Anyway, back to the big businesses. It's all basic business choices. These people don't care about cities and how they are built. They only care about the money. They only look out for themselves. It's the same reason why TV is crap. Many big businesses hurt many American cities, just not Detroit. It's all Economics involved in this. Businesses only go where the money is and apparently the businesses felt these city centers weren't providing the money for them. This is because of the stinking residents who place themselves away from the businesses and expect THE BUSINESSES TO FOLLOW THEM. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 514 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "Who told Hudson's or any other big stores, that they had to open branch stores, and kill off the traffic to their main stores?" It's the old chicken and egg problem again. Hudson's more than likely expanded to the suburbs because they had to. It wasn't an act of aggression against the city core as you're suggesting. Businesses rarely do what they want to do, they do what they have to do to survive. As customers left the area, it's realistic to think the revenues went with them. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 452 Registered: 07-2007 |
blame blame the same old game look in the mirror it will tell you the same. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 600 Registered: 04-2006 |
i think any major retail CEO would say that if they they could have 1million shoppers at ONE location they would choose that over 1million shoppers at 3 locations. it just makes economic sense. Also, I would argue that no retialer would PREFER to build more locations unless it meant expanded business. I think hudsons simply decided that they could attract more shoppers by expanding... now, not keeping up the downtown store is a different matter... bleh... (post 600!) | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2970 Registered: 06-2004 |
After so much money left for suburbia, keeping up the downtown store (which was HUGE compared to the others) was no longer cost-effective. Remember, Hudson's wasn't the neighborhood discounter, it was the top tier store here. (Message edited by lilpup on October 21, 2007) | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2706 Registered: 07-2004 |
A murder took place outside of Hudsons(stabbing).Of course that was nit an isolated incident.Rampant crime and employee theft make for not very lucrative business. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2972 Registered: 06-2004 |
Which, of course, is why downtown Ann Arbor has also lost all it's "normal" stores - department store, drugstore, dimestore, etc.. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2707 Registered: 07-2004 |
Specious and bullshit reasoning lilpup. Ann Arbor lost it's small downtown dept stores, Klines and Goodyears because the bldg owners could get more money.As the Hudsons bldg stood empty the bldgs that housed Goodyears and Klines were continually occupied. If you et,al want to pretend crime has not devastated detroit go right ahead...........btw detroitin addition to losing close to million residents has also lost 15,ooo businesses. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3492 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Well, there's that, and then there's Briarwood Mall.... Familiar sounding story, Detroiters? Sucks that not everyone on these forums understands cause-and-effect. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1381 Registered: 02-2006 |
Kalamazoo was called "Mall City" for awhile. When I was growing up, in a city (Portage included) of around 120,000 residents, there were 4 indoor shopping malls. Slowly but surely, these malls, combined with some other factors, were responsible for closing the downtown department stores Jacobson's and Gilmore's. They hung on into the '90s though. Not surprisingly, only one of those 4 malls remains, though all of the others have been revitalized as strip malls or "power centers". | ||
Dalangdon Member Username: Dalangdon Post Number: 146 Registered: 03-2006 |
I think a big part of the problem was simply the sheer size of Hudsons. Styles changed, people moved to the suburbs, but perhaps a smaller Hudsons could have still done nicely. But a 25 story building, built in phases, full of drafty windows, inefficient lighting and heating systems, mostly empty, could not pencil out financially. Same problem the Statler and Cadillac had: As your business shrinks, but you still have the same size facility, how can you make any money? | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 515 Registered: 02-2007 |
Another reason these major retailers are leaving the downtown's is the competition from internet based retailers. Everybody I know, myself included does most of their shopping on the web. You can buy literally anything you want, have it delivered to the door the next morning and don't even have to start the car. These retailers can't afford these expensive outlets in expensive areas anymore, and selling at web prices. All of them in the last five years have made a huge web presence. It isn't because they're anti-city. Just the direction it's going. I was in Sears in Livonia the other day and it's got that "don't upgrade, just keep it running until further notice" look too. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 468 Registered: 07-2007 |
mom's are scared to shop where they might be mugged, BOTTOM LINE. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2708 Registered: 07-2004 |
Crime is the cause Danindc.If you don't want to admit that then fine don't. Northland was built in the fifties.The flagship store closed in about '83. So for damn near thirty years after building the 1st suburban mall Detroit still had a downtown dept store.And other similar malls were built in that time fram as well, westland, eastland, etc..........yet Hudsons maintained the flagship. The crime wave of the seventies that carried to the eighties which has never really been confronted in an effective manner was a major cause of the 15,000 businesses including Hudsons that have lef the city............not the only cause but a major one. Similar growth or sprawl patterns ocurred in almost every older U.S big city.Almost all of those cities; Philly, Chicago, NYc Pittsburgh et,al kept their downtown retail to some extent; Detroit did not_ it can't all be evil businesses and racism because those things(racism) existed in every big city(police dept). Detroits failure to control crime is a major factor. As for AA there can be no comparison.AA was not and is still not a big city.AA never had a downtown dept store anything like hudsons or even crowleys. AA had Klines and Goodyears. These were clothing stores with bargain basements, small cafes and a few household items........not major dept stores. Frankly until Briarwood was built people from A2 and much of Wash co had to go to Westland or downtown Hudsons when the wanted to go to a big dept store. Briarwood was a welcome entity. | ||
Karl_jr Member Username: Karl_jr Post Number: 138 Registered: 06-2007 |
"This is a randomly dumb topic for so many reasons." - Amen Thats like saying Henry Ford is actually responsible for the "flight to the suburbs" because he didn't stay on Bagley. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5550 Registered: 08-2004 |
It wasn't just crime that did away with Hudson's. Just look at the facts. Before Target Corp. (formerly Dayton Hudsons) sold off the Dayton-Hudsons-Marshall Fields, they only comprised 14% of the sales of the Target Corp. Department stores in general were losing customers to smaller discounters. The days of the big department stores were numbered for reasons beyond the fact that it was Detroit and crime. It was a nationwide phenomenom. Although NYC still has their Herald Square store in Manhattan, most American cities have lost their downtown department stores. Even smaller towns have lost their big stores. Just look at Dearborn and Rochester. It wasn't crime that closed Mitzelfeld's in Rochester! | ||
Transitrider Member Username: Transitrider Post Number: 25 Registered: 01-2007 |
Here's an interesting take on malls, Taubman, and Hudson's cannibalizing itself by opening in Northland. The story of Victor Gruen is fascinating and sad. The last few paragraphs are telling. "The Terrazzo Jungle," Malcolm Gladwell (html or pdf) http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2 004_03_15_a_malls.html http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/ma lls.pdf "If Victor Gruen invented the mall, Alfred Taubman perfected it." | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6709 Registered: 02-2004 |
You do all think that Hudson's departure from Downtown Detroit cause the decline of other downtown retail stores? How about blaming Kerns, Crowley's, Sears, Woolworth's, Ward's and Federal's. They all close their Downtown Detroit dept. stores and left. Today Downtown Detroit doesn't have a single flagship store and the future of developing a new dept. store in Downtown Detroit rests in our leaders and the people and security. Right now everyone get use to it. There are still more retail stores left in Downtown Detroit and newer one are sprouting up like mushrooms. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2484 Registered: 06-2006 |
ugh...this topic has been beaten to death on this forum... Basically, according to the yahoos on this forum, EVERYBODY is responsible for Detroit's decline, except Detroit's residents... Go figure | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 487 Registered: 07-2004 |
Fantastic article there, Transitrider! This here pretty much sums up how we got to the sprawl-tastic land of suburbia we all love today: quote: |
