Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 331 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 12:55 pm: | |
Other cities experienced riots and fires or disasters like Detroit in 1967 (Chicago had the great fire). However, unlike ignorant Detroiters, they all didn't abandon the land in fear of another fire or hurricane (or in our case, Xenophobia. Look at how they're rebuilding New Orleans, and how people came back and rebuilt Chicago, they were and still are making better progress than we ever had in the past 40 years). I believe personally it's the fault of dumb SE Michigan citizens for seeing the glass half empty that caused Detroit's downfall. Then every second, I hear them say if Detroit was better off, they would move back in a heartbeat. That's BS. If you wanted Detroit to be better off than it was today, then why did you abandon it the way you did and not looking back at it twice? |
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 277 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:00 pm: | |
I think it's a substantial part of the reason. The others are the fact that we're a one-industry town, and our economy is highly volatile. In addition, prevailing attitudes in the 1950s and 1960s called for bigger houses, living farther away from the city as a sign of wealth, car-centered culture. Mix in a little racial strife, and the wholesale destruction of the city by its network of freeways and housing projects.... and there you go. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2514 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:02 pm: | |
I think you assume too much that SE Michigan's citizens would have preferred to stay in or near Detroit, but certain events caused them to move... While there's some truth to that, I think many saw the suburban lifestyle as a prestigious alternative to urban living. It came to be what people aspired to. If you could afford a home in the prestigious suburbs of Bloomfield Hills or Grosse Pointe and could afford the necessary automobile(s) to live in such a place, then you've made it. That was (and still is) the feeling of many in the region. |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10584 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:04 pm: | |
People and economic flight was occuring long before that. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back but the massive decline was well underway prior to 1967. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2515 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:06 pm: | |
"If you wanted Detroit to be better off than it was today, then why did you abandon it the way you did and not looking back at it twice?" Many of them don't really care one way or the other about Detroit being better off or worse off. Detroit isn't even an afterthought in the minds of many residents of Oakland County. To many, there's nothing useful in Detroit except a couple sports stadiums. Shoot, even the region's big businesses won't locate in Detroit; they're all up in Troy, Southfield and Auburn Hills. The fact that Detroit's most expensive skyscraper is filled with law firms (who only locate downtown to be close to the courts) should tell us something... |
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 275 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:07 pm: | |
The population of Detroit started to decline before the riots. The riots did touch off a precipitous decline, but it was not like Detroit was booming up until the riots and then went downhill fast afterwards. I believe that de-industrialization had a lot more to do with the decline of Detroit than the riots did. |
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 276 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:09 pm: | |
I was just reading about Henry Ford's "Village Industries". He was concerned about the population loss from the small towns because of people moving to Detroit. Seems ironic now... |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1391 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:13 pm: | |
I reckon if Chicago had burned to the ground in the 1950s, it wouldn't have been built back like it was in the 1870s. In the 1870s, people had no choice. Hell, you can see it in the city anyway. Why are there so many mansions on the near South side? Because all the rich people moved there while the North Side was rubble. |
Umcs Member Username: Umcs
Post Number: 295 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 2:17 pm: | |
The original question: "Should We Use The 1967 Riots As A Reason For Detroit's Downfall?" No. |
Chuckjav Member Username: Chuckjav
Post Number: 282 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 2:22 pm: | |
You probably had to be in school, or the parent of school-age children, to comprehend the full effect of events that transpired immediately after April 04, 1968. On that date, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sparked a wave of vicious race-related attacks and retaliatory assaults, in and around several Detroit junior and senior high schools; the violent assaults continued well beyond the spring of '68 - DPS officials were overwhelmed. Those events, combined with an uneasiness created by the '67 Riot, and Judge Roth's 1971 attempt at cross-district busing, pretty much sealed the fate of Detroit; the downward spiral was never abated. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1541 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 2:32 pm: | |
I guess you had to be black, or the parents of black children, to comprehend the 400 years before April 4, 1968. |
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 701 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 2:47 pm: | |
I personally think the riots had a big big effect on the downfall of Detroit. You can not point to population decline before that as decline in the city. The population decline in Detroit before the riots, was probably more just a demographic shift due to some areas that were overcrowded, and were just re adjusting by having some residents move away. Couple that with Detroit not expanding its borders to capture new growth. But that is not flight. that is just a normal extension of a growing city. But there is no doubt the riots had a major effect on the decline of Detroit. The excuses people moved out for the suburban lifestyle I really do not buy as an excuse. Most of inner city Detroit is suburban with the kinds of streetcar suburbs that commend high prices in other cities. Detroit residents were not living this super ultra urban high density overcrowded lifestyle in the least. Many of the depopulated neighbourhoods look down right suburban with big yards, driveways, etc. And I firmy believe the riot is what caused such a massive flight to the central city. White peopel got scared, and left. Look at cities that did not have riots or as much racial issues as Detroit. Like S.F., Seattle, etc. Those cities never fully fell and have remained vibrant to this day. And that is because residents did not flee out of fear or something. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2517 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 2:47 pm: | |
"I guess you had to be black, or the parents of black children, to comprehend the 400 years before April 4, 1968." Yes, because under those circumstances any rational person would conclude that destroying your own neighborhood and killing your own people is a swell idea! |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1542 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:01 pm: | |
"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the 'horrors' of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves." |
1953 Member Username: 1953
Post Number: 1474 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:22 pm: | |
The riots are a focusing event, as 9-11 is a focusing event regarding global tensions. Many indicators of decline were present in Detroit, as far back as the 1930's. The population continued to increase, however, until its peaked around 1953. The decline was apparent in the fifties and sixties, but not the center of attention until the riots - after which, decline grew exponentially, because of all the free marketing the riots helped it secure. |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 951 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:28 pm: | |
Miketoronto (post 701 above): Based on your 2nd paragraph, it appears Danindc is ghost-writing your posts. Gibberish. What in the world are you trying to say, and if what I read and think you may have said, where do you come up with that stuff? |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3553 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:35 pm: | |
Anyone remember when there used to be intelligent people on these boards? |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 6724 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:35 pm: | |
It's NOT just the 67 riots the lead into Detroit's downfall. It's Segregation, Xenophobia, Freeways, Suburban Sprawl, the election of Coleman A. Young, economic flight, black growth to once Detroit neighborhoods, accelerated white flight, black control of all city services after 1975, poor Detroit Public Schools, poor police force and city corruption, black flight to the suburbs. It's hasn't been the same since. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1975 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:41 pm: | |
Anyone remember when there used to be intelligent people on these boards? Nope. |
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 2004 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:46 pm: | |
"Should We Use The 1967 Riots As A Reason For Detroit's Downfall?" use? |
Warrenite84 Member Username: Warrenite84
Post Number: 155 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:47 pm: | |
No, but it contributed to it. Moving from a society that grew around the streetcars and inter-urbnans, to a society that embraced cars did much of the damage. People of the early 1900's found living on the outskirts less congested, quieter, yet they were still able to access the city amenities, so jumped at the chance. Businesses followed their customers, and factories built on the cheaper land in the outskirts also. The influx of outsiders to the area to build the WWII armament caused problems because the area wasn't prepared to house them. Thus the overcrowding ratcheted up cultural and racial tensions. This pressure caused more groups out. It became a sort of a relief valve. Once opened, it never closed, but widened dramatically after the 1967 riots, IMHO. (Message edited by warrenite84 on October 24, 2007) |
Gnome Member Username: Gnome
Post Number: 246 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:57 pm: | |
use? amen |
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4452 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:57 pm: | |
The riots were not responsible for the demise of Detroit but was instrumental in hastening its decline somewhat. Detroit was a boomtown for some three decades and thereafter fell into a stupor resulting into what it has become today. The boomdays for the city of Detroit were ending during the mid to late 1920s--when Detroit was experiencing times of recession prior to the big one, the Great Depression. During the summer of 1927, Ford moved its tractors out of the Rouge complex to HP and switched its Highland Park complex from making Model Ts to making Model As in Dearborn. The plans for erecting any more skyscrapers were put on perpetual hold because the money was already getting tight during the year or two leading to the Market Crash during October 1929. Detroit's boom had ended sometime around 1928 when the immigrants stopped getting hired and immigrated elsewhere, as if a better locale could be found. Detroit's all-time peak population probably occurred around 1928 at something over 2 million, putting its figure at a small bit larger than Philadelphia's at that time. But, unfortunately, the recession leading to the Great Depression was underway and its population declined before the 1930 Census enumeration. So Detroit's unofficial population peaked somewhere around 1928/1929, a year before the 1930 US Census. During the mid 1920s, the enrollment at Detroit's parochial schools were so high that class sizes were averaging 75 for Ste. Hedwig's, for example. By the 1930s, the class sizes were much smaller, reflecting the population loss in Detroit to the burbs or elsewhere (wherever work could be found--not near Detroit, BTW). Ask anybody still living about those times eighty years ago... Detroit then experienced another boom related to WWII manufacturing for the war effort. But that period's construction led to huge increases in capacity that could never be achieved again. So, within a very few years after WWII, metro Detroit was again closing many of its plants and many businesses were merging or going dark. With the death of the elder Ford in 1947, the privately owned Ford was contemplating selling out because of bankruptcy concerns, even then. Detroit's population peaked around 1953 to 1958 at around 1.85 million and declined rapidly due to white flight or moving closer to the factories and businesses in the burbs thereafter. By 1967, Detroit's decline was clearly underway. So, no. The roots for Detroit's decline were firmly in place before the 1967 riots. |
Iaintgotnostyle Member Username: Iaintgotnostyle
Post Number: 62 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:00 pm: | |
The racism did it for me and many others. |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 342 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:03 pm: | |
"The racism did it for me and many others." I just knew that would make it in here eventually. |
Iaintgotnostyle Member Username: Iaintgotnostyle
Post Number: 64 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:05 pm: | |
and what? I should not be honest? Be serious. If it offends you I apologize, but racism in Detroit is out of control and a huge contributing factor as too why people are leaving. |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 343 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:07 pm: | |
I didn't say you shouldn't be honest. I'm just saying everytime that is brought up, a thread goes downhill from there because others are offended. You are so right though. |
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4454 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:19 pm: | |
Earth to this thread: This thread already is way down the hill... |
Iaintgotnostyle Member Username: Iaintgotnostyle
Post Number: 67 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:19 pm: | |
"a thread goes downhill from there " and so did our great city. (because of it) I rest my case. |
Silverbeauty Member Username: Silverbeauty
Post Number: 39 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 9:32 pm: | |
"Should We Use The 1967 Riots As A Reason For Detroit's Downfall?" According to my dad, who does know everything, ;) it was the development of Northland Mall that pulled the retail out of the city, which in turn brought about the exodus out of the city. Not necessarily the riots. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2998 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 10:38 pm: | |
not Northland per se, but rather the Detroit version of this |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 500 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 11:20 pm: | |
bottom line, no. |
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 5261 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 11:44 pm: | |
^^ Lilpup.... |
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 528 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:32 am: | |
Just looking at some aerial views of Atlanta and noticing the major sprawl that took place there. And is still continuing to this day. Why doesn't sprawl there kill the city core? As Danin DC and Miketoronto keep blaming folks that left the city for it's demise, what differs/ed there? Of course there was never a major riot there. And we've pretty much established, the riot alone here did not initiate any sort of exodus, rather hasten it. Thoughts? Just what the hell did happen to Detroit? And please leave race out of it, both cities have or had an substantial population of Blacks and Whites. Poor leadership? beginning with what mayor? Poor police leadership? |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 505 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:40 am: | |
they still don't get it |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3002 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:56 am: | |
Does Atlanta have a dominant primary industry? Has Atlanta ever had a major boom period? What's Atlanta's population density relative to Detroit's? Atlanta had a "riot"/disturbance following the Rodney King verdict when Detroit did not. Why? |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 354 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 1:30 am: | |
^^^Atlanta (unlike Detroit) had a very diverse economy (Aeroplanes, Media [The Weather Channel, CNN, Turner, Coca-Cola], Bottling Companies [Coca-Cola], Telecommunications, Home Improvement [Home Depot], and they have the major presence of rich banks there [SunTrust, Equifax] and major Fast Food Companies there [Waffle House, Chick-Fil-A, Arby's] Not to mention they even had a industrialized economy way back when with the Ford Plant o nthe southside of the city and has the head branch for the Federal Reseve Bank of the SE.) (Message edited by Detroitrise on October 25, 2007) (Message edited by Detroitrise on October 25, 2007) |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 355 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 1:43 am: | |
However, the D makes up 2 Atlantas, so of course we would be obviously denser than them , but only by 2 or 3,000 more Square km. That's more than likely because Atlanta is a horrible sprawlsburg like Detroit. |
Michmeister Member Username: Michmeister
Post Number: 257 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 1:48 am: | |
The riots were a symptom, not the disease. The inability to reconcile and move on is the biggest problem. I think prejudice, not racism is the biggest problem-there is a difference. |
Reddog289 Member Username: Reddog289
Post Number: 30 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 2:45 am: | |
My family members who lived in Detroit left before the riots, except my grandparents. they all moved closer to there jobs. i have an uncle which did stay but then reilly left when the [mini riot] of 75 gutted his auto parts store on Fenkell his one in old redford shut down not long after. crime is everywhere. hopefully your just not there when it happens. |
Crash_nyc Member Username: Crash_nyc
Post Number: 1040 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 3:34 am: | |
Michmeister: The riots were a symptom, not the disease. True, and I think that Detroit was also a victim the 70's (oil crisis, etc.) & 80's (Japanese import invasion, etc.), neither of which bode well for the auto industry, Detroit, as a chiefly mono-industrial town, never really had a chance to get it's head back above-water after the riots. Also, Mayor Young, while one of history's greatest advocates of black empowerment, acted as more of a political divider than a uniter between the city & the suburbs. At a time when the city needed to keep the lines of political communication open across 8 Mile, Young intentionally and effectively shut them down. IMO, Young did just as much as much damage as he did good during his tenure as Mayor. However, Detroit's temporary downfall cannot be blamed on any one event, but more on an amalgamation of the riots, CAY, bad luck, and bad timing, with the auto industry as a constant presence in the foreground of Detroit's troubles. The following is an excellent article that I recently stumbled upon, from the Hartford Courant. Well worth checking out: It Looks Like Detroit Is Coming Back http://tinyurl.com/28u8z7 While growth is occurring in the core, the outer neighborhoods continue to decay and decant themselves to the surrounding suburban and exurban areas...This is a major problem for a city that ambitiously created infrastructure for 5 million residents, but only got halfway there during its heyday. Yes, Detroit is fighting an uphill battle, but at least it is now fighting. It has major hurdles to overcome in education, public transit and regional relationships. Nonetheless, Detroit stands a chance. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3560 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:44 am: | |
quote:Just looking at some aerial views of Atlanta and noticing the major sprawl that took place there. And is still continuing to this day. Why doesn't sprawl there kill the city core? As Danin DC and Miketoronto keep blaming folks that left the city for it's demise, what differs/ed there? I don't blame folks who left for the city's demise (in any city, for that matter). Those people made rational decisions based on where investment--both public and private--was directed. I would argue that Atlanta doesn't have much of an urban core. The downtown, for the most part, is a highly suburbanized complex of high-rises. There are major employers there--Coca Cola, CNN, Delta, among others, but yes, there is quite a bit of sprawl. There are some wealthier enclaves (Buckhead) to the north, but south of I-20 is essentially a Third World nation. Mind you, Atlanta is a city of only 400,000 or so people. It never lost half its population, and most of its growth happened after WWII, when Delta Airlines started pushing Atlanta as a convention destination as a means to sell more plane tickets. Georgia has directed a LOT of investment towards the Atlanta suburbs. It also built the MARTA system, though, for those who work in the core and don't care to sit in traffic. Georgia has also been threatened to be cut off from federal transportation funding for air quality non-attainment. They're starting to take an active look at developing a commuter rail system, and the new Atlantic Station project is a good first step toward establishing mixed-use urbanism. Other cities have had riots--DC, the Hough neighborhood in Cleveland, and Watts in Los Angeles, among others. I don't know enough about Watts, but Hough has started to make a comeback, and U Street in DC has definitely rebounded. I think it's disingenous to simply blame the riots for Detroit's downfall, as has already been stated. The riots only impacted a small geographic area. But, then again, you have to consider the context. The police were very aggressive at the time. It was a period of pent-up racial frustrations and hostilities, a tremendous push for civil rights, Viet Nam, the beginning of the decline of Detroit's economic fortunes. The riots were just the manifestation of a host of urban illnesses. Sorry for the ramble--a lot of random stuff going through my mind at the moment. |
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 529 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:15 am: | |
Stashmoo wrote: "Why doesn't sprawl there kill the city core?" DaninDC wrote: " I would argue that Atlanta doesn't have much of an urban core" Excuse me? The question is why did flight happen and have it's effect here and why did it not happen there? |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3565 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:34 am: | |
quote:Excuse me? The question is why did flight happen and have it's effect here and why did it not happen there? The reasons for flight and disinvestment are many, and heavily intertwined. This has been discussed on many other threads. I don't think you can argue Atlanta has been immune to the factors Detroit has suffered. I'd recommend reading Robert Bullard to gain insight into Atlanta. |
Expatriot Member Username: Expatriot
Post Number: 18 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 8:12 pm: | |
The decline of Detroit, like most cities in the US is the direct result of urban sprawl that began with the universal ownership of automobiles. As the headquarters of the auto industry, mass transit was not a political option and now the population is so dispersed as to make it an impossibility. Freeway construction demolished the tax base and allowed the most affluent residents to easily leave town. No American city avoided this depopulation. Detroit just managed to do it bigger and better. Places like NY and SF just managed to put the brakes on this destructive behavior earlier. |
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4345 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 9:13 pm: | |
Sprawl is a symptom of other problems. If Detroit would have continued to offer a good quality of life the suburbs would still exist but many would have stayed in the city. The people that leave today don't necessarily want to go, they just got fed up. |
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 448 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 12:12 am: | |
I think that Detroit's (and most of Michigan's) problem comes from half-glass-empty and the-grass-is-always-greener attitudes. And just the overall bad attitude. That attitude turns off businesses who are looking for a positive and productive culture, and it prevents those from starting here. And then even those that would start here, end up getting started in CA instead to be in a more positive environment. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3571 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 11:28 am: | |
quote:Sprawl is a symptom of other problems. If Detroit would have continued to offer a good quality of life the suburbs would still exist but many would have stayed in the city. The people that leave today don't necessarily want to go, they just got fed up. I don't entirely disagree, but there are plenty of metropolitan areas with healthy core cities surrounded by scads of sprawling suburbs. |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 368 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 12:24 pm: | |
^^^BINGO! That has been one of my main points on this thread. |