Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've recently taken and interest in Detroit and I'm looking to get a feel for how urban it is.
So take a city of comparable size I am familiar with, Seattle, and compare it to Detroit: Which do you think is more urban?
Which is more organized around an urban core (downtown), how lively is that downtown, how compact is the metro, which has more urban cores outside the city limits, which has better transportation, density, etc.
IMO they're not really that comparable. The City of Detroit is home to over 900,000 people in a metro area of 5.5 million people with a density of 6,571.0/sq mi, while Seattle is 600,000 in a metro of 3.5 million with a density of 7,136/sq mi. HOWEVER, Detroit's population peaked at around 2 million in the 1950's, which would have given the city an astounding 14,000/sq mi population density, give or take. Detroit (similar to other Rust Belt cities like St. Louis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh) has a much larger core infrastructure and overall built environment than one would expect due to having a much larger population in the past, compared to the present. Now much of Detroit sits abandoned and uncared for. I hear there are plans to demolish a lot of the really blighted areas and turn them into green space.
The Seattle area is twice as spread out encompassing 8,186 sq mi, versus 3,913 sq mi in the Detroit area.
Seattle most definitely has better public transportation. What else would you expect from the city that's home to the U.S. auto industry?
From what I know, Greektown in Downtown Detroit is pretty hopping as far as nightlife and such. And I know there's an MGM Grand there too, otherwise I have no idea. Regardless, I think Seattle is the obvious winner in the lively downtown department.
Overall, Seattle would probably still be more urban despite the case I layed out above about older cities whose populations peaked along time ago. Detroit has so many empty areas and sketchy parts of town that it drastically decreases the urbanity of the city. The buildings might be tall and close together, but it doesn't matter if they're sitting empty.
I've recently taken and interest in Detroit and I'm looking to get a feel for how urban it is.
So take a city of comparable size I am familiar with, Seattle, and compare it to Detroit: Which do you think is more urban?
Which is more organized around an urban core (downtown), how lively is that downtown, how compact is the metro, which has more urban cores outside the city limits, which has better transportation, density, etc.
Great documentary which basically tells the entire history of the city.
It's stuff like this that really makes me wanna move to Detroit though (or at least a close in suburb where I won't be murdered). I like the fact that Detroit seems to have a blank slate, like I could have some say in the city's future if I went there. I'm not trying to 'rescue Detroit' lol, I just think being able to leave a mark on a city like that is an exciting opportunity. Besides, Detroit has a phenomenal history with music innovations so it has to have an active creative class. For that reason alone Detroit appeals to me.
But from the looks of it, Detroit is disappointingly not urban.
Great documentary which basically tells the entire history of the city.
Damn, that's really depressing and embarassing for our society. I went to Detroit a few years ago, and I have to admit a large part of me was very curious to see "just how bad it is". Then I got there and drove around, not even that much, and felt terrible that those areas were and are HOME to a lot of people. Things went to hell, and 90% of the country just stands back in vague curiosity to see how it plays out. Making fun of it all and saying mindless disrespectful things without any care of the human aspect of it all. Like people who grew up in, live in, and love Detroit and Michigan are dumb or to blame for everything.
This might be the first time ever I agreed with Killakoolaide.
City of Detroit has started bull dozing the vacant homes, and it's city is shrinking. Supposedly it's fallen 80,000 since the last census, we will see next year when the new census comes out.
I'm visiting the city for 2 days next week. I want to see it for myself and how much it's changed since the last time I went (2 years ago).
Your visiting Detroit? I really hope you have family there, because if not than visiting would not be a wise idea.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by gogetta
Your visiting Detroit? I really hope you have family there, because if not than visiting would not be a wise idea.
Grandparents live in one of the furthest suburbs from the city possible, it's almost closer to Ann Arbor than it is to Detroit. And I used to go to school at Ann Arbor (UMich) for my first year before transferring to UT-Austin.
Why would you say it's not a wise idea? Because I'm spending a day with my grandparents but the next day I'm going into the city to downtown to stroll the streets on my own and check the city out. Then heading back to Chicago the next day.
I would recommend anyone take a look at google earth shots of Detroit. It is absolutely amazing and devasting how many neighborhoods have been bull-dozed. Many close in former neighborhoods now look like green parks from space, but of course, they are not. They are simply vacant lots that used to be vibrant neighborhoods. Quite sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.