Detroit's Decline in Perspective

[animatedmartian]

For one, LA was a major international port to the Pacific Ocean. Unlike the Bay Area, there was enough flat land in the basin to build up a large industrial area (LA is the largest manufacturing center in the US not a lot of people realize). So you're correct in that geography made a difference, but whether LA was warm or cold for part of the year I don't think would have affected it's overall growth.

NYC, Boston, and DC more or less are financial capitals. Though DC's wealth is more directly attributed to government spending. Nonetheless, Chicago is up there as well as being a financial center for both the Midwest and country. Also, with the exception of DC, these cities started off as industrial centers. But the difference between these cities and Detroit is the varying percentage of how much industry made up the economy over any given time period. All of these cities have lost their industrial manufacturing base but made up for it with world class colleges and an educated workforce leading to more diversified economies.

I'm still pretty unconvinced weather was a huge determining factor in any cities' growth or decline except for the tourism industry.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by one is lonely

Chicago's historic stature as the greatest Midwest city is all that really keeps it going, although it's lost almost as many people in sheer numbers as Detroit.

Yes, but Chicago only lost 25% of its peak population, which in the grand scheme of things isn't that much of a decline. The same things that made Chicago great in the 1950s didn't go anywhere. In fact, Chicago's core is healthier than ever.

Detroit's a completely different city now as a result of a decline, nothing like it was in the 1950s. The healthy core it had has been completely decimated, to put it bluntly.

[xfactor85]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Your post just seems overly pessimistic. You also seem to place more emphasis on weather than what people actually factor in. If people have a job and are getting paid, weather is not really that big of a deal. It's just something they'll have to adapt to.

Plus, attracting retirees doesn't really seem like that great of a benefit. Unless the retirees are wealthy, they aren't going to be spending a whole lot of money. You can get tax revenue out of them, sure, but you still need the young people who are going to walk the streets and spend the money.

I don't think I did make a huge deal. I mentioned weather with 1 line.
****ty weather makes things harder but not impossible.

[one is lonely]

Originally Posted by 313weatger

Yes, but Chicago only lost 25% of its peak population, which in the grand scheme of things isn't that much of a decline. The same things that made Chicago great in the 1950s didn't go anywhere. In fact, Chicago's core is healthier than ever.

I guess I should've explained more. Chicago's urban core was and is as good as any in the United States. That gave the city an extremely unique advantage it could leverage throughout the years. The South Side is basically the equivalent of Detroit, which makes it the equivalent of any other older, industrial Midwestern city of decent size. Meanwhile, Detroit's urban core just wasn't quite big enough to stand out from the pack, and that made it harder to sell once the city wasn't a boomtown anymore.

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

For one, LA was a major international port to the Pacific Ocean. Unlike the Bay Area, there was enough flat land in the basin to build up a large industrial area (LA is the largest manufacturing center in the US not a lot of people realize). So you're correct in that geography made a difference, but whether LA was warm or cold for part of the year I don't think would have affected it's overall growth.

LA had a strong industrial base, but for some reason it was able to add a strong creative economy to that while Detroit wasn't. Why do you think that's the case? LA was just smarter?

In my opinion, great weather and a great location is a huge draw for successful people that have choices. The reason Metro Detroit's workforce is so uneducated is because, historically, it's been the people without choices that flock here. It didn't matter if you were as dumb as a rock - the auto industry was hiring! So you worked the line, sent your kid to college with the money, and completely understood when your kid skipped town with that shiny degree in tow. Brain drain has always been a problem here, from the 1950s to today. Even our politicians admit it.

The only way a college-educated person stays is if a) they're not the type to leave home (every area has those people), or b) they're an engineer. And with b, I've noticed you generally have to be an engineer with specific mindset, either having grown up here or in a smaller area. When the Big 3 lands some big international hotshot, they inevitably end up complaining about the weather, the ugliness of the sprawl, and the lack of walkability.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by one is lonely

LA had a strong industrial base, but for some reason it was able to add a strong creative economy to that while Detroit wasn't. Why do you think that's the case? LA was just smarter?

LA's industrial base was slightly different than that of Detroit. Detroit's main focus was automobiles. LA had/has oil production and aerospace, in addition to automobiles. While manufacturing is a big part of those industries, much like GM's Tech Center, these sort of industries spend a lot on R&D which usually demands some amount of an educated workforce and usually benefits a sliver of the economy that is separate from manufacturing (like finance, high tech industry, etc.) which can eventually grow into an independent economy over time.

Just by LA having a larger and slightly more diverse industrial base than Detroit meant that it would draw a larger population and demand a greater number of educated workers. So yea, technically, LA was going to be smarter.

In my opinion, great weather and a great location is a huge draw for successful people that have choices. The reason Metro Detroit's workforce is so uneducated is because, historically, it's been the people without choices that flock here. It didn't matter if you were as dumb as a rock - the auto industry was hiring! So you worked the line, sent your kid to college with the money, and completely understood when your kid skipped town with that shiny degree in tow. Brain drain has always been a problem here, from the 1950s to today. Even our politicians admit it.

That still sounds like it has more to do with the overall economy rather than the weather. Unless you have a work-from-home type of job, most people still seem pretty limited in their choices. A great deal of jobs still require people to commute to an office or a facility and I don't think too many people are going to make daily trips from Florida to Detroit via airplane.

The only way a college-educated person stays is if a) they're not the type to leave home (every area has those people), or b) they're an engineer. And with b, I've noticed you generally have to be an engineer with specific mindset, either having grown up here or in a smaller area. When the Big 3 lands some big international hotshot, they inevitably end up complaining about the weather, the ugliness of the sprawl, and the lack of walkability.

Well, that's because there's something to complain about. Even in warmer climates, people seem to complain about the humidity, the unfriendliness of people, some sort of natural disaster, and of course the sprawl as well. You aren't going to find whole walkable neighborhoods in the South like you would in the North. And actually, I usually hear Detroit get compared to a Southern city because of the lack large densely populated neighborhoods. But still, weather seems like the lowest complaint and priority for most.