Discuss Detroit » Archives - January 2008 » What Really Caused Detroit To Fall? « Previous Next »
Archive through December 10, 2007Detroitrise30 12-10-07  8:43 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 1224
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 8:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ray1936 wrote, "Because the city was on the northern edge of the county it is in, the C of D could not annex additional lands as they might have were the core city in the center of Wayne County."

Not sure what you mean by this. The city spread from the river northward to the northern edge of the county, encompassing most of the land in the center of the county. Yes, it couldn't annex parts of Oakland County, but I don't see how that is affected by where you judge the "core" of Detroit to be.
Top of pageBottom of page

Adm70
Member
Username: Adm70

Post Number: 15
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 8:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I disagree on LA. I lived in DT LA until moving to Laguna last year. There are a lot of housing startups in DT LA, but there is little else (unless you count skid row and the surrounding area). People drive around DT LA, not into it.

DT LA just landed a small but hugely subsidized grocery store. LA LA Live is intended to pump life into the area, but the nights I spent in DT Detroit were much MUCH more lively than anytime I spent in LA.

People see West LA and the valley on TV and in the movies and don't realize that A LOT of LA that they don't see is a complete dump, and it's not just LA - it's northern Orange county, Long Beach, Burbank, etc.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 2351
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 9:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

L.A. was never as densely populated as Detroit was in its heyday. It isn't even that much more densely populated today than Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2

Post Number: 745
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 9:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^ huh? In some areas of LA, it has one the highest densities in the country. Maybe because LA is so large and there is a lot of open space in the hills the statistics are thrown off.
Downtown LA is still a dump at night with not much nightlife (except the homeless).
Must be the all the sunshine the keeps the economy chugging.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 314
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 9:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gsgeorge has nicely codified the reasons for the deline of Detroit in his "six reasons". I would add a seventh. (Detroit once had seven sisters, you know).

7. Completely incompetent city government and courts (1972-present)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit313
Member
Username: Detroit313

Post Number: 572
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 9:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Have you ever seem a satellite image of Los Angeles? From the Pacific ocean, LA is the largest urban area in the country. (may not have more people than NYC, but it has twice as much sprawl) Also look at Chicago; it looks like it is the next largest from the air. And if you really look close, Detroit is right behind them.

Or really close to being as far SPRAWLED as NYC. Except Detroit isn't build up like NYC

<313>
Top of pageBottom of page

Lukabottle
Member
Username: Lukabottle

Post Number: 120
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 9:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Killed our retail too. Northland was the first indoor mall. No one needed to come downtown for anything.

Another good book is Detroit Divided
Top of pageBottom of page

Frank_c
Member
Username: Frank_c

Post Number: 1443
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RACISM
Top of pageBottom of page

Hamtragedy
Member
Username: Hamtragedy

Post Number: 23
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The fact that virtually all new auto plants (and other industries) were built in the suburbs starting around WWII was a huge factor that hasn't been mentioned yet, more important than the loss of streetcars."

Was there any room left to build these new plants other than the suburbs? Was Detroit was a victim of it's own success?
Top of pageBottom of page

Neilr
Member
Username: Neilr

Post Number: 615
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hamtragedy, as I understand our history, Detroit was the Arsenal of Democracy during WWII. After the war, the idea was to spread the plants over a larger area to lessen the chances of them being bombed out in any possible future war.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1050
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Looks like they were bombed out anyway with or without a war.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hamtragedy
Member
Username: Hamtragedy

Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 12:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I understand, but given the fact that even in the last 25 years, parcels were so small and so fragmented, that luring industry back (as complicated as that is for this area), was nearly impossible. I can only imagine that in 1950 with 2 mil and already aging factories, there wasn't a large availability of land on which production technology could readily keep pace.

Even today, without eminent domain, find large cleared parcels of land other than the old missing neighborhood east of Mt. Elliot south of Lynch road. (Add more areas here please, and no, Blightmore doesn't count) They are just not, and I suppose, have not been readily available for a long time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeduncan
Member
Username: Jeduncan

Post Number: 154
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 2:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The big 3, specifically GM and Yellow Coach (their company) definitely played a role in de-railing our streets.

In fact, GM was actually indicted before in conspiracy to derail other cities. It wasn't an accident, and neither was detroit. It would only make sense that we were the model for the auto-centric region.

Such decentralizing and auto-centric lifestyles definitely played a role in not only the sprawling and hollowing of metro detroit, but it definitely played a role in deteriorating our region. Automation and outsourcing (albeit inevitable) threw our economy into a whirlpool of unemployment and inequality..

I agree that we should all be reading sugrue's book, also, pick up a copy of The Geography of Nowhere, it'll put things into perspective about how sprawl and decentralization can be detrimental to our cities and regions on a whole.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeduncan
Member
Username: Jeduncan

Post Number: 155
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 2:15 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

also, we could have used our water department to curb an exodus from the city. Instead, attempts to do so were overthrown by pressured city and state leaders.

So now, the city is catering to places as far as genessee county, and it only aids furthering sprawl. In addition, to clear arguments between suburbs-cities, the city sells water to burbs at bulk prices... the average markup for water prices in municipalities is sickening... the city of warren pays less than 6 bucks per some 7500 gallons of water, and they then charge their residents approximately 13 bucks for the same unit.

cities like warren and livonia try to spin this to make it seem like the city is being unreasonable, but if you ask me, these municipalities are getting a bargain. Additionally, any expansions to the fringe should be directly funded by those living on the the fringe and the developers building these useless "neighborhoods." in 1955 the chief of the water department tried to limit the services of the water dept. to the 43 communities (including detroit) who were being catered to by detroit, now it's over 100 municipalities. I strongly doubt these cities have a clue what it takes to run the water and sewerage department that boasts the largest sewage treatment plant in the country.

I'm not doubting that the city could manage these services better, or that the state should be overseeing the ongoings, but I definitely think that the city has a huge burden to bear, and the suburbs are clueless.

(Message edited by jeduncan on December 11, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Hans57
Member
Username: Hans57

Post Number: 243
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 3:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, What Justin Said!
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 2448
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As Americans we, too often, discard that which is worn and old and look for something new. Why live in an old city, filled with poor and homeless people when we can live in a brand-spanking new house in a new subdivision with new schools, and new stores just a drive around the corner and few, if any, poor and homeless people?

In the cities of Europe, the problems of the big city exist, but the people enjoy and take advantage of the many amenities these cities have to offer. Americans want the amenities but don't want to be reminded or confront the negative aspects of a big city and want to create utopias in the cornfields, whenever possible.

Because of the car and the desire to avoid the negative aspects of the city, Detroiters fled to the new utopias built in the cornfields. They started communities in Warren and Livonia. However, these communities, after 50 years and not so new any more, are seeing declines in their populations and you see people moving to Green Oaks Township and Macomb Township.

Americans will always run to greener pastures. That's what our founding fathers essentially did when they left England and started these United States. That's what Americans did in the 1800s when folks headed west. Now, since we've reached the Pacific Ocean and California, Americans are moving to the cornfields outside the initial places of settlement. With the exception of a few American cities like NYC, Boston, and DC, Americans are continuing to look for that next utopia. In Detroit, they were able to get to the cornfield utopias faster because of the car, and very few have even wanted to look back. Celebrating the old is not the American way. Use, ditch, and start anew is.

(Message edited by royce on December 11, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Dkhbike
Member
Username: Dkhbike

Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ah, the good old US of A. Proud pioneer of the disposable city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3808
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So Royce, what would you say the reason is that people on the East Coast, Chicago, San Francisco "don't like new". Is it genetic? The water? What? Because frankly, such an oversimplified response seems to ignore quite a bit of readily-available information.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeduncan
Member
Username: Jeduncan

Post Number: 156
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Unfortunately the American way is not sustainable, and extremely costly. There's a reason that it's commonplace to see deficits in city books across the country, it's because the infrastructure costs more than we can generate.

Sprawl requires massive infrastructure construction, and overhaul of the old. I'm not denying, though, that the American way has been to diffuse to lower density. Suburban life definitely has it's perks (which could have been flipped around had sprawl not been so aggressive in the first place).

Suburbs provide:

-Safer streets
-distance from industry and noise
-distance from typical inner city blight and crime
-small plots of property
-a cave to put your car in
etc.

And yes, as early as 1800, there was already an exodus from the American city, but it's a tradition that will eventually cost us dearly.

All it'll take is another oil crisis and our whole way of life will be turned around. People's wallets can only bend so much before they break.There arises a problem with virtually our only effective mode of transportation becomes too expensive for us to use anymore. Places with better transit will be better geared for an instance like this, whereas places like metro Detroit will be nearly immobilized.

I know a lot of people on this board are anti-land policy, pouting "Don't tell me what to do with my land," but it's clearly an effective way to preserve not only an inner city, but a region as a whole. Look at Portland, Minneapolis, Grand Rapids... land policy has helped (not the only factor, of course) turn those cities around immensely since the 80's. Metro Detroit's land policy, however, is uncapped, haphazard and detrimental to the areas it leaves behind (just like it always was). The problem is that people are not seeing it in that light.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 2457
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 8:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc, the fall of Detroit is complex, but human nature isn't. People look out for themselves and their families. If they can move into a new house in the suburbs that doesn't contain asbestos or lead paint like thousands of homes in Detroit do, then they'll do it to protect their families. If they can move into a school district that is solvent enough to offer their children a good education, then they'll leave the city to send their children to those schools. If the crime rate is considerably lower outside of the city than in the city, then families are going to leave Detroit to go where it's safe.

Looking out for one's family's best interest is what American life is all about, and it has been what American life has been about since the first settlers came to this country. All major U.S. cities have crime, poor public schools, and poor people. Those that can leave usually do. However, what makes Detroit different from cities like Chicago, DC, and NYC, is that the wealthy and the middle class have left Detroit at a disproportional amount than in those cities.

In those cities you have a large concentration of wealth in certain areas: NYCs east side(Manhattan), Chicago's gold coast and north side, and DC's Georgetown and Dupont Circle.
Detroit's wealthy neighborhoods, Sherwood Forest/Palmer Park, Indian Village, and Boston-Edison are very small and the areas around them are mostly low-income and poor. Also, these areas have very little retail attached to them, which prevents outsiders from taking an interest in coming to the area(think Birmingham's retail district attracting people from all over).

Again, let me just say that Detroit's fall is complex but human nature isn't. Detroit's reputation as a gritty blue collar town has a lot to do with why the wealthy chose to leave as opposed to staying like in the other cities that I mentioned. That attitude of, "Lets get away from the poor" has been a huge reason for Detroit's downfall as any of the other reasons for its downfall.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 1498
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 9:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Air conditioning killed Detroit, by enabling suburban malls to enclose themselves.
Top of pageBottom of page

Peachlaser
Member
Username: Peachlaser

Post Number: 143
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 9:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We moved from New Center in the spring of '52 and the place hasn't been the same since!

Seriously, 1953 has a point about Air Conditioning. I asked an uncle who is now 93 (and used to work in the auto plants and later drove a Detroit bus) what he thought the greatest invention of the 20th century was? He didn't think very long and immediately said, "Air Conditioning!"

As an addition to the Fisher body, A/C would make it easier to commute in your car and move to the 'burbs.

What year did A/C become standard in most cars?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge

Post Number: 468
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

And yes, as early as 1800, there was already an exodus from the American city, but it's a tradition that will eventually cost us dearly.



Hasn't it already cost us dearly, Jeduncan?
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 2381
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 11:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

What year did A/C become standard in most cars?



Not until the late 80s/early 90s...
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeduncan
Member
Username: Jeduncan

Post Number: 158
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 12:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

oh, absolutely.
Top of pageBottom of page

Det_on_nation_365
Member
Username: Det_on_nation_365

Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 3:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have a reason that hasn’t been mentioned thus far, how about good ole “government controlled” capitalism. I whole heartedly believe in free market economics. But the American way of practicing free market values has often left me perplexed and confused.

Yes, the auto and housing industry played a huge role in solidifying Detroit’s undoing but it amazes me that the behind it all there was government. The so called practice of “red-lining” would have never been possible without government authority. Housing values in the Detroit would have never plummeted so quickly with out the use of FHA standards which controlled housing values by restricting blacks and visible minorities. African-American and other visible minority home buyers were a virtual diseconomy for their white neighbors in the 50s, 60’s and 70’s and it was backed by government policy. The government helped created a thriving market for whites in the suburbs and the trend has not turned back since.

Now is that really “free market??” If there were better standards by FHA, the US housing industry would certainly be less polarized today. In additional, Detroit and other urban cities across the country would likely have taken a different course.
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 599
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 12:16 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Livonia SMART bus reductions of November 2006. The big three are now Wal-Mart of Livonia, Livonia City hall and McDonald's and the new mass transit is now buy a car or walk or wait for a DDOT bus and freeze your ass off, if it late or does not show up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules

Post Number: 280
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 8:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well for starters stories like this is what made Detroit fall.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20071221/UPDAT E/712210453

Racism is at the root of all evil in Detroit. My wife and I get tired of being in the burbs or meeting non-Detroiters who are shocked that we live in the City.
Top of pageBottom of page

Missnmich
Member
Username: Missnmich

Post Number: 633
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 9:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A/C contributed to the decline of Detroit and other Northern areas by making the South more attractive. I could never live in the so called Sun Belt from May to October otherwise!
Top of pageBottom of page

Larryinflorida
Member
Username: Larryinflorida

Post Number: 1066
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 11:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The word "Japan" is contained nowhere on this page.
Til now.

In the early 70's, Japanese imports took off.
Seems like that's when the ship started turning.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2

Post Number: 828
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 10:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

- Competition for lower wage manufacturing jobs elsewhere, states competing for companies.
- Failure to diversify to different industries.
- Auto mobility to burbs (as someone pointed out)
- People moving out because of racism, true, but also crime, schools new opportunities outside of manual labor work.
Like the whole rust belt, capitalism and freedom to choose had people voting with their feet.
Top of pageBottom of page

Silas
Member
Username: Silas

Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Monday, December 24, 2007 - 11:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Houses being burglarized, store stick ups, street crime, carjacking, thugs, devils night, pan handlers, pimps, prostitutes, dangerous neighborhoods, fireworks beatings and shootings, teenage gangs, chip on the shoulder attitude of many, blaming others for their predicament, drugs, drive buys, violent public schools… other then that, it’s a nice place to live and raise a family.
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 78
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 1:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Silas said: "Houses being burglarized, store stick ups, street crime, carjacking, thugs, devils night, pan handlers, pimps, prostitutes, dangerous neighborhoods, fireworks beatings and shootings, teenage gangs, chip on the shoulder attitude of many, blaming others for their predicament, drugs, drive buys, violent public schools… other then that, it’s a nice place to live and raise a family."

Those are some good points. What I've always wondered is where all that came from, because at some point Detroit was a paradise. Silas, in your opinion, what caused Detroit to go from a bastion of happiness to such abhorrent crime and poverty?
Top of pageBottom of page

Alsodave
Member
Username: Alsodave

Post Number: 821
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 1:23 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Drive buys"--due to the proliferation of dollar stores in the city?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1190
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Silas and Crumbled_pavement, I said reasons why DETROIT fail. All cities face issues like that and still didn't encounter as huge of a downfall as Detroit. Those are the worst, most stereotypical reasons I've ever heard.

Personally, I agree with the suburban exodus, lack of transit, racial reasons and overall abandonment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ravine
Member
Username: Ravine

Post Number: 1769
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 2:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, Detroitrise, those other ugly things are more the after-effects of the fall of a city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 79
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 3:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitrise said: "Personally, I agree with the suburban exodus, lack of transit, racial reasons and overall abandonment."

Sorry, Detroitrise. I was going off topic and trying to ask a question I've been aching to ask without creating a new topic for it. I have read many threads where Detroit's woes are only blamed on crime, so this makes me wonder, well where did all this crime come from? The only thing in your list that is unique to Detroit may be lack of transit. Racial strife has been felt in all major cities as well.

(Message edited by Crumbled_pavement on December 25, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1191
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 3:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Racial strife has been felt in all major cities as well."

Is that so Crumbled_pavement?

Well name me another city Detroit's size that has a city center with 85% or more of one race and 85% or more another race in its surrounding cities/suburbs?

Crime was hardly an issue during Detroit's renaissance. Ravine summarized that reason perfectly. If anything, an over-protective police department could have an insult to Detroit's fall (I.E. the 12th street Riot).



(Message edited by DetroitRise on December 25, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Ravine
Member
Username: Ravine

Post Number: 1770
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 4:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Obviously, there are numerous answers to the original question. I'm not going to attempt to slap together an essay which would touch on all of them, but, at least for now, I do have one comment.
After The Riot, parts of the city which were ravaged by the riot were, pretty much, left to rot. "White Flight" was already in progress, but I think it is safe to say that it accelerated at that point. Most of the black folks who remained were, well, not exactly rich.
When the folks with money get up and split, leaving the folks who (generally) have no money, that's all, folks.
I'll try to get back to this topic, later!! The Missus says the food is ready... gotta go, before I get The Mean Face!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 80
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 6:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitrise said: "Well name me another city Detroit's size that has a city center with 85% or more of one race and 85% or more another race in its surrounding cities/suburbs?"

None, but Detroit didn't start out with that racial mix. The question is what happened unique in Detroit to create that racial mix. There have been riots in L.A., Chicago, and other major cities, but whites didn't completely abandon those cities. I don't think Detroit was only abandoned because of racial issues.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1192
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 8:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

True, but what was the main reasons? Could it have been Metro Detroiers decided to run from those problems instead of face them? Chicago and LA citizens decided to rebuild their city and everything instead of abandoning it.

Let's list all the positives. At the time, Detroit had/was:

-Good Schools
-Overly Good Police
-(for a major city) decent civic services
-Dense, Lively neighborhoods (some even resembled parts of NYC)
-World Class Acknowledgement
-Centralized Employment (even if some of the Industrial jobs left the city before riot, it was only a small amount compared to what was still in the city of Detroit. Not to mention, our downtown was dense, vibrant, hustling and bustling with high end stores, one of the best finance districts in the country and unique culture.

That only leaves Racial issues, taxes and overall trends in lifestyle. The suburban trend was also occurring here and elsewhere, but it was Xenophobia that sped it up here in Detroit and how we carelessly left areas to rot instead of fixing the problems and making the areas better. Taxes may have been high, but so was the cost of living in the D. That was the case everywhere.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert

Post Number: 39
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 9:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One factor is that the lack of population growth in the metro area has greatly reduced the need to reuse declining areas of the core, in contrast to places like Los Angeles, Chicago, DC, or NYC. As a result, the better-off people who have left have either not been replaced at all, or have not been replaced by people of comparable means.

There is not much likelihood that metro Detroit's population is going to increase significantly in the near future. On the other hand, people's preferences seems to be shifting toward more urban living, which I believe is already altering the composition of Detroit's population slightly. Improvements, real or perceived, in the many other problems mentioned elsewhere in this thread would presumably speed the movement of potential city-dwellers into the core.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 2805
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 11:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

444 murders so far this year in Detroit and detroit rises chooses to dismiss crime as a significant factor in why Detroit fell(it's still falling). Crime is the overwhelming reason for Detroit's continuing downward spiral. At some point, I don't know when; Detroit decided to not focus on crime. We all have heard the stories. Repeated break ins , vandalism, cars stolen or broken into, assaults, robberies........it really is intractable and has been for decades. Sure Detroit lost population starting in the fifties, but the significant loss began in the seventies and continues.

Silas said it best.And a few people over on the NPR thread Gannon started as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1196
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 12:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think we can all agree that the upswing in crime came well after Detroit tripped over its biggest crack. I'm not trying to dismiss it, just stating that it's an after-effect when you have your middle class residents exiting the city in tidal waves for who knows what.
Top of pageBottom of page

Middetres
Member
Username: Middetres

Post Number: 11
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ravine makes a good point. Detroit had a very healthy middle-class, well-off compared to other big cities, but also woefully under-educated. They left in greater numbers because they could afford to leave. That wasn't an option in other cities that experienced racial strife. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but it helps to explain it
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 2437
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 1:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Ravine makes a good point. Detroit had a very healthy middle-class, well-off compared to other big cities, but also woefully under-educated. They left in greater numbers because they could afford to leave. That wasn't an option in other cities that experienced racial strife. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but it helps to explain it



Government subsidized sprawl also aided in them being able to afford to leave so easily.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zulu_warrior
Member
Username: Zulu_warrior

Post Number: 3259
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 2:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Poor Planning by Poor Planners

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.