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.
...And so I suppose I should add these ungenerous race-tinged theories – corrupt black leadership and government largesse killed Detroit – which are obviously wrong in that Detroit became a Chocolate City as a result of its decline, not the other way around. Blacks didn’t seize power in Detroit. White people left. They began leaving the city when it was still affluent, and kept leaving and leaving until Detroit was a black majority city with a black mayor, by which time affluent black Detroiters were also leaving in large numbers. Detroit’s Black leaders, corrupt and inept as they’ve been in their disastrous mix of machine politics and identity politics, have merely been feasting on a dying corpse. The horrific Detroit riots were in 1967. Coleman Young became Mayor in 1973. Detroit’s population began its steady decline in 1950. And steady it was. The population graph of Detroit marks a relentless downward plummet that shows no special dips of acceleration for such cataclysms as the riots or the more recent disaster ’07-‘08. And, to repeat, every other big American city has had racial divisions, and yet these problems didn’t kill them.
Moderator cut: quote shortened, copyright protection
...For a long time I’ve thought an underappreciated factor in Detroit’s demise was this mix of housing, or, this lack of a mix of housing. The city is a virtual monoculture, residentially speaking, 140 square miles of detached, owner-occupied, single-family homes. Being a monoculture made it vulnerable to a particular pathogen that infected many large cities, but not so thoroughly as it did Detroit, the run on real estate known as white flight. If you were renting an apartment in a dense patch of, say, Chicago, in the 1950s or early 60s, the distant sound of whites fleeing areas to the south and west perhaps foretold a change in your neighborhood, which you may or may not have welcomed, but it didn’t make you panic that your biggest investment was heading for a collapse in value, because you were just renting. And so those who did own houses on the leafy back stretches of your cross-street could take your relative equanimity, and of the whole clot of other renters you’re part of, into account. Not everyone would be reacting to the same cues. Change would be slower and less total. It might be worth it to stay put....
Moderator cut: quote shortened, copyright protection
I think that blog peace was a case study in the art of intellectual masturbation. Although I agree with some points, to some degree, overall it just seems like self stimulation and gratification.
Here are the primary reasons that Detroit does not have 1.8 million people:
1.) Decline in household size in America. (The nuclear family has changed size and structure)
2.) Decline in the white population. (Partly the result of GI bill, super highways, the automobile and race)
3.) Decline of the areas economy (Detroit would be in much better shape if the industries were)
4.) Not attracting immigrants. (See Detroit's foreign born rank )
There is nothing unique about what happened in Detroit.....only in the degree in which it happened. I do not think that any of the 10 largest cities in 1950 still have as many whites today, as they had back then. Most northern cities lost a large percentage of their peak white population. None lost them to the degree that Detroit has, though. However, even with the loss of white population, Detroit would still be a city of over a million if the economy of the region was healthy over the last several decades, which would have attracted more immigrants to the area seeking opportunity and resulted in less attrition of residents who move for economic reasons. The ranking of foreign born population of cities does not do the role of immigration justice because it just reflects first generation immigrants and not second. Many of these foreign born people have children that are not counted, but would not be in those cities if not for their immigrant parents. Most people in Detroit are like 10 or more generation Americans. This is a nation of immigrants and Detroit has lost the immigration race, due to the areas perennially bad economy.
The future of this country, in terms of population growth and stability, are minorities. The white population is stagnant and or soon to be declining overall in America, although they will still disproportionately posses the economic wealth and power in the nation. Detroit needs to appeal to the white money interest and the minority and immigrant interest, like whats happening in other large cities. I think the white money interest is already being revitalized in the city. Once the economy starts humming then the City will become very attractive to immigrants. Housing is usually the biggest expense of a household. It eats up the budget. Ones disposable income is greatly increased, therefore, from cheap housing offered in Detroit. That cheap housing means nothing when there are no jobs.....which is partly why its so cheap. When jobs return Detroit will be a steal until the demand starts increasing property values. Of course that change will come from the center and grow outward from the core areas and will not be evenly distributed throughout the city. Parts will continue to decline while others start to boom in value and residents.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-15-2013 at 10:14 AM..
I think that blog peace was a case study in the art of intellectual masturbation. Although I agree with some points, to some degree, overall it just seems like self stimulation and gratification
I'm just curious.
What points made in the blog entries did you disagree with, and why?
Last edited by 313Weather; 12-15-2013 at 10:29 AM..
This is true to an extent. Clearly Detroit doesn't get as many immigrants as say Chicago. But when it comes to immigrants in Detroit, they head straight to the suburbs from what I've seen. Compared to other parts of the Midwest (besides Chicago), I'd say that Metro Detroit (the Metro, not the City) actually does attract a fair share of immigrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
I think that blog peace was a case study in the art of intellectual masturbation. Although I agree with some points, to some degree, overall it just seems like self stimulation and gratification.
Here are the primary reasons that Detroit does not have 1.8 million people:
1.) Decline in household size in America. (The nuclear family has changed size and structure)
2.) Decline in the white population. (Partly the result of GI bill, super highways, the automobile and race)
3.) Decline of the areas economy (Detroit would be in much better shape if the industries were)
4.) Not attracting immigrants. (See Detroit's foreign born rank )
There is nothing unique about what happened in Detroit.....only in the degree in which it happened. I do not think that any of the 10 largest cities in 1950 still have as many whites today, as they had back then. Most northern cities lost a large percentage of their peak white population. None lost them to the degree that Detroit has, though. However, even with the loss of white population, Detroit would still be a city of over a million if the economy of the region was healthy over the last several decades, which would have attracted more immigrants to the area seeking opportunity and resulted in less attrition of residents who move for economic reasons. The ranking of foreign born population of cities does not do the role of immigration justice because it just reflects first generation immigrants and not second. Many of these foreign born people have children that are not counted, but would not be in those cities if not for their immigrant parents. Most people in Detroit are like 10 or more generation Americans. This is a nation of immigrants and Detroit has lost the immigration race, due to the areas perennially bad economy.
The future of this country, in terms of population growth and stability, are minorities. The white population is stagnant and or soon to be declining overall in America, although they will still disproportionately posses the economic wealth and power in the nation. Detroit needs to appeal to the white money interest and the minority and immigrant interest, like whats happening in other large cities. I think the white money interest is already being revitalized in the city. Once the economy starts humming then the City will become very attractive to immigrants. Housing is usually the biggest expense of a household. It eats up the budget. Ones disposable income is greatly increased, therefore, from cheap housing offered in Detroit. That cheap housing means nothing when there are no jobs.....which is partly why its so cheap. When jobs return Detroit will be a steal until the demand starts increasing property values. Of course that change will come from the center and grow outward from the core areas and will not be evenly distributed throughout the city. Parts will continue to decline while others start to boom in value and residents.
It's really difficult to retain citizens down there. An acquaintance of mine just told me that one of the rooftop bars in Greektown might be closing soon. It was attracting too many "thugs", so they raised the cover for men to $40 at the door. Now apparently the bar is on the brink of closing because it can't attract any good business.
It's just one example, but I hear about this sort of thing all the time. I really feel for the businesses that try to get established down there.
Every single-industry town goes through a sucky period when the monopoly finally goes belly-up. The city is NOT dead. Downtown is reverting to something like a cross between the pre-Columbian forest and a post-apocalyptic movie set, but people are buying up the property and planting farms on it now; movies are being made even after some of the perks were taken away; new businesses are opening up at last, in decent numbers. Even Pontiac and Highland Park are finally gentrifying. People who hang onto those single-family homes are going to be very happy they did in a few years.
It's really difficult to retain citizens down there. An acquaintance of mine just told me that one of the rooftop bars in Greektown might be closing soon. It was attracting too many "thugs", so they raised the cover for men to $40 at the door. Now apparently the bar is on the brink of closing because it can't attract any good business.
It's just one example, but I hear about this sort of thing all the time. I really feel for the businesses that try to get established down there.
Actually, Greektown has been dwindling for a while and the casino hasn't really helped much. You'd think it would, but in fact the way it's designed really keeps people from venturing out into the street. It might have been too much riffraff, but either way, the 'revitalization of downtown' hasn't really done much for Greektown. Maybe Dan Gilbert will improve it in the coming years? We'll have to see.
As an ethnic community, Greektown is becoming more of a name rather than an actual place full of Greeks. I wish Detroit had an influx of immigrants to create some new ethnic neighborhoods, but it doesn't seem too likely as of present.
Actually, Greektown has been dwindling for a while and the casino hasn't really helped much. You'd think it would, but in fact the way it's designed really keeps people from venturing out into the street. It might have been too much riffraff, but either way, the 'revitalization of downtown' hasn't really done much for Greektown. Maybe Dan Gilbert will improve it in the coming years? We'll have to see.
As an ethnic community, Greektown is becoming more of a name rather than an actual place full of Greeks. I wish Detroit had an influx of immigrants to create some new ethnic neighborhoods, but it doesn't seem too likely as of present.
One idea I could see to create a "Chinatown" is to give Asians incentives to move to a certain area and populate it full of Asians as well as give Asian businesses huge incentives as well.
I've thought about that too, though it'd seem unfair to give the incentive to one ethnic group. I would frame it more as a "diversity ordinance" where incentives are given to anyone who wants to open an authentic ethnic restaurant or business while also setting up social services (like job training or something) in certain areas so that it's more likely that immigrants would collect in specific neighborhoods rather than spreading out. In theory, it should be self-sustaining if the flow of immigrants remains constant after a while.
Then again, it's probably easier to let it naturally happen by improving the economy since that's usually a magnet for immigrants. At some point, groups of them would likely open their own businesses and more than likely start to locate near each other.
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.
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.
