U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 11-12-2011, 09:24 AM
 
6,766 posts, read 4,461,937 times
Reputation: 4772
Detriot's problem, put quite simply, is that its genius "leaders" decided to double the land area despite a stagnant population. The leaders in Cleveland, Chicago, Pitsburgh, Buffalo, Philadelphia, or even Los Angeles didn't do this. Suburbanites do deserve blame for that much if anything.

I mean really, what was the logic in doing this? I still haven't heard anyone explain this reasoning. These folks who thought this was a great idea would fail urban/city planning right off the bat if they presented this as a way to develop a city.

 
Old 11-12-2011, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Maryland
17,115 posts, read 7,121,022 times
Reputation: 5328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieMirsade View Post
I just wrote a post in which I referred to Rio's shanty towns.

Rio's favelas were BUILT FROM SCRATCH, by their inhabitants. They actually invest in and take care of their communities. They don't have much, but they stretch whatever they have....to the max.

They didn't move into middle class condos on Leblon, and Ipanema, and then proceeded to trash and burn them.

I spent a huge chunk of my life in Brazil, and there is absolutely nothing in Brazil, or anywhere in the world for that matter, that compares to Detroit.

Even Chernobyl was a man-made disaster....but a nuclear one at that.

Detroit is a man-made disaster of "human nature".
Excellent post. I've tried to explain this to Black Americans who say "well this city in Africa is worst" . Certainly they are right but they miss the point that these Africans are entirely self sufficient and in many cases have substantially lower levels of crime.

In my view there should be no housing agency in Detroit if you can't afford to buy a home or a patch of grass for $2,000 and build it up than there is no hope for you. Then again some government bureaucrat would tell them it's not up to code and order it torn down. It's a vicious cycle.

If I was responsible for rebuilding Detroit, I'd make it like Hong Kong, allow for as much free wheeling capitalism as possible.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 11:16 AM
 
64 posts, read 58,196 times
Reputation: 56
Default aging factories

When the factories became obsolete it was easier and more economic to build them on vacant land in the suburbs.

The new factories were much larger and needed increased levels of power, water, etc. Larger parking lots and storage lots. Way too much of an increase in footprint. They also need to be on a railway.
When the big GM plant was built an entire neighborhood was condemned.
That was done by Mayor Young.

Another reason was to avoid the city government and its' taxes, fees, etc.
(extortion)
 
Old 11-12-2011, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Toronto
339 posts, read 321,745 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Excellent post. I've tried to explain this to Black Americans who say "well this city in Africa is worst" . Certainly they are right but they miss the point that these Africans are entirely self sufficient and in many cases have substantially lower levels of crime.

In my view there should be no housing agency in Detroit if you can't afford to buy a home or a patch of grass for $2,000 and build it up than there is no hope for you. Then again some government bureaucrat would tell them it's not up to code and order it torn down. It's a vicious cycle.

If I was responsible for rebuilding Detroit, I'd make it like Hong Kong, allow for as much free wheeling capitalism as possible.
Detroit's leaders can learn from Mandela.
The guy swallowed his rage, shelved all his resentment,
played a saint, and shrewdly proceeded to guide South Africa through a very difficult period, all without overtly alienating the powerful and educated, yet patriotic, Whites and Afrikaaners. He was no sell out, nor Uncle Tom; just plain smart.

Yeah, S.Africa has had some clowns in gov't since Mandela,
but so has the US of A.
Overall, it's a rising star on the African continent.
Yeah, the crime rate is higher than ever, AIDS is rampant, but S. Africa still attracts Whites, immigrants, and their knowledge and capital.

If the man had been a power-hungry, corrupt and vengeful fool, S. Africa could have ended up like Zimbabwe, and its Whites and Afrikaaners could have ended up dead, like the Tutsis in Rwanda.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Toronto
339 posts, read 321,745 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinStrong313 View Post
Maybe im confused. What do you mean by this?
Sixty years ago, Detroit was one of the most wealthy, powerful and important cities in the entire world.

Compare that to where it's at now.

It's best and most unique attractions now are:
the Auto Show and "Doomsday Tourism".
 
Old 11-12-2011, 03:54 PM
 
4,835 posts, read 5,406,242 times
Reputation: 3060
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock View Post
Significant parts of Detroit are nothing short of shocking in their current state. How a city that was once so mighty, so prosperous and so powerful became a shell of its former self, filled as it is with grinding poverty, outrageous levels of crime, astounding levels of abandonment and destruction, and paralytic social dysfunction is beyond me. I've been all over Gary, Indiana, and in the worst neighborhoods that Chicago has to offer, and never did I see anything in those two cities as messed up as Detroit.
Retroits post made some very good points.

I will add that Gary, IN is a lot smaller. Detroit proper is 7-8 times as big. So, of course there is going to be much more crime, abandonedment and destruction than in Detroit. Yet at the same time, Detroit has world class museums, theater, architecture, restaurants, beautiful neighborhoods with georgeous mansions and overall culture.

Now granted a city can have over 700,000 people in 140 square miles, so it can have all of theses things, and still have an area of blight/abandonment, crime, and poverty that is still 6 times the size of Gary.

As far as Chicago goes, well, the sell oiled political machine is VERY efficient in tearing down condemned properties before a block looks like a war zone. Chicago also has public transportation and a super wealthy section downtown and northwward, so those people from crime ridden, impoverished neighborhoods who have no car can take the red or green line and serve drinks and food for the huge mass of downtown workers. But, most don't ever rise even close to middle class.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 03:56 PM
 
4,835 posts, read 5,406,242 times
Reputation: 3060
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieMirsade View Post
Sixty years ago, Detroit was one of the most wealthy, powerful and important cities in the entire world.

Compare that to where it's at now.

It's best and most unique attractions now are:
the Auto Show and "Doomsday Tourism".


Detroits problems shouldn't ever be trivialized, but
If thats all that one knows about Detroit, then they are an idiot, and it is them that needs to learn more.

Fortunately some are doing that. Honestly, the changes within the past year in Detroit are very encouraging.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Toronto
339 posts, read 321,745 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post


Detroits problems shouldn't ever be trivialized, but
If thats all that one knows about Detroit, then they are an idiot, and it is them that needs to learn more.

Fortunately some are doing that. Honestly, the changes within the past year in Detroit are very encouraging.
I totally agree.
Especially encouraging are the changes at the community and grass roots level.
At least, and hopefully, what remains of the best of Detroit, can be salvaged and preserved for future generations.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Your computer screen.
5,710 posts, read 4,234,894 times
Reputation: 5318
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Detriot's problem, put quite simply, is that its genius "leaders" decided to double the land area despite a stagnant population. The leaders in Cleveland, Chicago, Pitsburgh, Buffalo, Philadelphia, or even Los Angeles didn't do this. Suburbanites do deserve blame for that much if anything.
I'd be interested in seeing the data on this. I doubt that Detroit grew very much more in area than the other cities mentioned. Even if you measure area growth per population growth, I don't think Detroit was much different. But I will stand corrected if you can support your claim. I've been to many American cities and the sprawl seems to be quite equal, maybe even greater in some of the newer cities (as compared to ones that reached their peak population during the era when housing lots were smaller).

Quote:
I mean really, what was the logic in doing this? I still haven't heard anyone explain this reasoning. These folks who thought this was a great idea would fail urban/city planning right off the bat if they presented this as a way to develop a city.
It was actually very logical from the point of view of the actual home buyers. You may be one who believes that the government should tell people where to live and that government should make people live in high density. But if you are someone like myself who can appreciate the free market and letting people live where they choose to live, it is quite understandable why most Americans (and not just white Detroiters) choose to live in newer (than the ones they grew up in) subdivisions.



I think the noticeable difference between Detroit and most other cities is that, although all other cities grew outward as much as Detroit, Detroit never maintained the core inner city population. This can be attributed to a few factors:
  • Lack of immigrant population, including Mexicans. Because immigrants generally are poorer, they choose to live in the older inner city neighborhoods (although they also tend to move out after a generation or two).
  • Poor government leadership, caused by the lack of racial diversity in that leadership which tended to isolate Detroit's problems (and solutions) from the suburbs.
  • Lack of continuity in the major employers in the city, i.e. when the factories left, the people left. Abandoned factories leave a big footprint that divides the community.
  • General dysfunction of the black culture, which Detroit is predominantly composed of. Many cities have more whites -- especially hispanics -- which moderate this.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 08:12 PM
 
6,766 posts, read 4,461,937 times
Reputation: 4772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
I'd be interested in seeing the data on this. I doubt that Detroit grew very much more in area than the other cities mentioned. Even if you measure area growth per population growth, I don't think Detroit was much different. But I will stand corrected if you can support your claim. I've been to many American cities and the sprawl seems to be quite equal, maybe even greater in some of the newer cities (as compared to ones that reached their peak population during the era when housing lots were smaller).
Chicago (metro) has doubled in population since 1960 (from 5 million to 10 million).

Los Angeles (CSA) has increased from 7 million in 1960 to 18 million today.

Even Philadelphia's MSA had 4 million in 1960 and is now at 6 million.

It's common knowledge that Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo never had as huge of an issue with sprawl, especially due to geographic and topographic factors, but I listed them as examples because their population never demanded it and they knew it didn't make sense to build excess infrastructure. If they had sprawl equivalent to Detroit their MSAs would be to Rochester, Youngstown and Erie right now.

Meanwhile in Detroit, back in 1950 and even 1960, everything west of Telegraph and north of I-696 was essentially forest and farmland while the Mack and Chalmers area was a bustling working class neighborhood. Now you can't even drive pass US-23 or M-59 without still being bombarded by sprawl (especially in Macomb County) while the Mack and Chalmers area is darn near a ghost town, even though the region still must bare the burden of maintaining the infrastructure at MAck & Chalmers AND the new infrastructure at 23 Mile and Garfield since there are still taxpaying residents and businesses to cater to in these areas, no matter how many or few.

This website explains it pretty well...

Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com

Anyways, your move!!!
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.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top