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 see Detroit as a viable infrastructure waiting to be re-populated, and I believe it would be without the fear of crime. Why build new infrastructure elsewhere when it is already available in a strategic spot with facilities already in place?
I guess I just get confused when one speaks of "returning Detroit to its former greatness" or "Detroit's come back."
Here's how I see it.
Can Detroit and the region become a functional, livable, and even an attractive region again to those outstate? Absolutely. It could become a very decent mid-sized city/region, maybe another Seattle or Minneapolis.
Are Detroit's best days behind it? IMO, absolutely. Even if the economy was diversified and the city's finances/government was in order, the city will never have 1.8 million people again (maybe not even 1 million people again), and definitely will not offer the standard of living that was offered during the mid-late 20th century.
The automobile industry is far more short-term in its orientation than most industrial sectors. It is supposed to respond to consumer tastes (which are fickle, and tend to run against the "pop wisdom" of environmental and other concerns). In addition, it is nowhere near as "rooted" -- a big part of it has always revolved around logistics, the assembly and consolidation of parts. Some of the guys is studied (Bus Logistics) with at Penn State forty years ago who went into the auto industry made some of the best salaries, but they also pointed out that the industry often had to turn its plans upside down due to changes in Federal mandates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ram2
If the auto industry brought down the city of Detroit, why didn't it also bring down the suburbs just as bad? First of all, only 1 of the Detroit 3 was headquartered in the city of Detroit - GM, but it's main engineering facility has been in Warren since 1955. Chrysler was in Highland Park (now in Auburn Hills) and Ford has been in Dearborn for many decades. The Detroit 3 have had assembly plants all over the US, so why is the auto industry blamed for the ills in the city of Detroit?
Who's blaming the auto industry? I'm commemting on a political climate that, as usual, tried to have it both ways -- environmental concerns and a product which the public actually wants to buy (The much-maligned SUV is a creature of politics).
The natural balance of supply and demand has always been the force which kept the dreamers in line; political interference merely moves the pressures somewhere else. Got any idea who's going to be blamed when the chickens come home to roost?
The point I seek to make is that the natural mechanisms of a free economy and the technology it spawns will always make use of what's available, if the politicains don't interfere too much. The auto industy developed where it did in large part becuse of its predecessors -- carriage makers and foundries that used to specialize in cast-iron stoves, What's more the practice of "consolidating" the mriad of parts used to mass-produce just about any technical consumer good were refined into what's now called "supply chain management" by the automakers.
Unfortunately, such progress depends largely upon politically-connected and -motivated opposition not bing allowed to get in the way. The city's collapsemay have brought about the demose of some of the worst of it, but there remains a panful period of adjustment, and I have my doubts as to whether the local population has the will power to "stay the course" or even to understand the reasoming behind it.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-07-2013 at 11:22 PM..
This is certainly a criticism specific to Detroit. When you hear about or see people walking around in other cities, it is not automatically assumed that they are looking for/causing trouble. In fact, some (vibrant) cities pride themselves on how walkable their cities are. You guys are probably tired of hearing it by now, but this was particularly a strength in Denver. In fact, their downtown had an outdoor pedestrian mall that drew several thousands of people on any given night with its retail shops, bars, cafes, and restaurants. Heck, there were even a ton of people strolling in the evening in the residential neighborhoods and you wouldn't have thought twice about it.
I'll admit, it does look strange to see pedestrians in suburban Detroit. Riding public transport here is also not considered "cool;" I remember reading in a book years ago, may have been Edge City by Joel Garreau but don't hold me to it, that in SE MI, those riding the bus here are considered to be "life failures." In lesser areas, a lot of people aren't riding those bicycles for exercise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlymouthMI
Looking over this thread, I think some of the Detroit advocate posters here either don't live in Metro Detroit, or haven't in a very long time, as their uber positive image of the metro area is borderline delusional.
Crime IS spreading to the suburbs. My area, which some would consider affluent and probably was at one time, has been the victim numerous home invasions as well as auto thefts within September alone! Something that if you told me 10 years ago, I would have called your crazy.
1. Detroit love is a defense mechanism, after hearing so much negative in the media all these years. Old English Ds on the backs of suburban cars, "Detroit Hustles Harder," all that sort of stuff. Funny thing is, nearly all the Detroit lovefest is perpetuated by suburbanites whose exposure to Detroit is usually limited to sporting events, casinos, and maybe the Wayne State area.
2. Crime IS spreading to the burbs, just not all of them. Some of it is a changing perception of crime, but the inner-ring could definitely be safer.
Can Detroit and the region become a functional, livable, and even an attractive region again to those outstate? Absolutely. It could become a very decent mid-sized city/region, maybe another Seattle or Minneapolis.
In the early 1970s, Seattle had huge unemployment because Boeing laid everybody off. Seattle was a 1-horse town. Now look at Seattle. Detroit could do the same.
Minneapolis does not attract outside businesses to the city. The companies in Minnie are home-grown.
I'll admit, it does look strange to see pedestrians in suburban Detroit. Riding public transport here is also not considered "cool;" I remember reading in a book years ago, may have been Edge City by Joel Garreau but don't hold me to it, that in SE MI, those riding the bus here are considered to be "life failures." In lesser areas, a lot of people aren't riding those bicycles for exercise.
1. Detroit love is a defense mechanism, after hearing so much negative in the media all these years. Old English Ds on the backs of suburban cars, "Detroit Hustles Harder," all that sort of stuff. Funny thing is, nearly all the Detroit lovefest is perpetuated by suburbanites whose exposure to Detroit is usually limited to sporting events, casinos, and maybe the Wayne State area.
2. Crime IS spreading to the burbs, just not all of them. Some of it is a changing perception of crime, but the inner-ring could definitely be safer.
I still would like to see any data about "crime spreading to the suburbs."
If the contention is that former residents of Detroit are moving into suburbs and introducing crime, perhaps in a few cases, but I think a lot of Detroiters have moved out of state, I remember reading there was a big exodus to down south.
I still would like to see any data about "crime spreading to the suburbs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnynonos
If the contention is that former residents of Detroit are moving into suburbs and introducing crime, perhaps in a few cases, but I think a lot of Detroiters have moved out of state, I remember reading there was a big exodus to down south.
Always read these things with a careful eye. Read it twice and pause to think what they are saying. A few retirees are moving south, as usual. Nothing new there.
Crime in the suburbs is largely if not exclusively (for all intents and purposes) confined to the immediate inner suburbs and further out, and interestingly, confined to islands of ACORN settlements created in the past 10 years, in areas so remote from city crime (26 Mile and Van Dyke; Chesterfield Twnshp; Taylor's far end, SW Troy, for example) that people here wonder what's going on? ACORN is the answer, but you will never hear that on the news. I got the story from some banker friends of mine who were in on it (and made a ton of dough in the process). A heck of a lot of stuff went on in the past 15 years that most people haven't a clue. By the way, guess who is buying up all the now back-to-bubble-priced peoperty in NE Oakland and NW Macomb county. Clue: Ain't Americans.
Always read these things with a careful eye. Read it twice and pause to think what they are saying. A few retirees are moving south, as usual. Nothing new there.
Crime in the suburbs is largely if not exclusively (for all intents and purposes) confined to the immediate inner suburbs and further out, and interestingly, confined to islands of ACORN settlements created in the past 10 years, in areas so remote from city crime (26 Mile and Van Dyke; Chesterfield Twnshp; Taylor's far end, SW Troy, for example) that people here wonder what's going on? ACORN is the answer, but you will never hear that on the news. I got the story from some banker friends of mine who were in on it (and made a ton of dough in the process). A heck of a lot of stuff went on in the past 15 years that most people haven't a clue. By the way, guess who is buying up all the now back-to-bubble-priced peoperty in NE Oakland and NW Macomb county. Clue: Ain't Americans.
Interesting theories; would like to see some data.
Honestly without sounding too jaded, the demise of Redford and similar places in one sense or another was probably inevitable. What are they? They were towns in name only, places where a sh*t ton of houses were thrown up to accomidate whites fleeing from the city and buying into the idea that owning a house in the burbs was the American dream.
Those people who grew up there are moving out, nothing would stop them from moving out, and nothing is going to bring people, except poor people who are again fleeing the city, this time black, into those tiny, old homes.
I think that the Detroit area is the most self-deprecating area that I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing. That self-deprecation has been going on for decades unabated and historically the deprecation was hyperbole but eventually became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Throw in the suburbs attempt to cut off the nose to spite the face and the media's hyper fixation on the negative and you have the making of a marketing plan on how to destroy or undermine one of the most significant human settlement areas of the nation.
I am SICK of the self-deprecating negativity! Within a 50 mile radius of Detroit there are about SIX MILLION people, this, despite decades of population stagnation and terrible economies. Within a 100 mile radius of Detroit are about TEN MILLION people. The reason that the Detroit area no longer ranks in the top ten nationally is based solely upon commuting patterns and not actual population footprints. Most metro areas have the hub and spoke structure with their downtown areas serving as a hub for employment, entertainment, culture and the like, which is fed by hundreds of thousands of commuters daily from near and far suburban counties. Thus, when a county reaches a certain commuter percentage with the core counties, it is then counted as part of the metro area.
Hence, the problem with Detroit is that it has a weak hub or downtown and hence it does not attract commuters from far flung suburbs. Also, nearby cities such as Ann Arbor, Flint and Toledo have their own gravity which pulls people from commuting to Detroit….even if there was something to commute to. It’s important to note that the square mile footprint used to define many Southern metro areas, like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, if superimposed over the Detroit area, would include Flint, Ann Arbor, Windsor and Toledo. Some of those metro areas have over a 10,000 square mile footprint used to define their population. The Detroit metro area's footprint is only about 3,900 square miles, which aggregates together 4.2 million people. Most people do not know this because most people do not know how they determine metro populations. There are few jobs to commute to in Central Detroit and hence fewer suburban commuters daily traversing to the city.
Everyone can go down south and see the massive new skylines, compared with Detroit, of places like Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami and the like,, along with their massive highways and spread out area and think they are so much more than Detroit….when they really are not. If you compare same size footprints the Detroit area is right up there with them all in population, if not greater. Another thing is that if you live in Metro Detroit outside of Detroit proper, you probably live in one of the safest big city suburbs in the nation. Well over half the violent crime of the Metro area is concentrated in the city of Detroit. If you move to a large southern city and move to the suburbs you will find yourself facing a lot more crime than you do in the suburbs of Detroit as over half of the violent crimes in many southern cities takes place outside the central city, and you will also find a lot more bad schools in the burbs. For example: The city of Atlanta only had 89 murders last year while the Metro area recorded 333. If those murders were not in the city then that means there were in the suburbs.
That said, Oakland County is still one of the richest counties in America. Oakland County is larger and more prosperous than the main county in the Minneapolis-St Paul area, which is Hennepin. As far as the Twin Cities go, there is NOTHING outside the Twin cities for MILES. The largest nearby metro area is Duluth and it’s about 150 miles away with only a couple of hundred thousand folks. Everyone in the area has to commute to Minneapolis or St Paul because there are no competing job areas within 50 miles nearby…. un like there is in the Detroit area and Detroit is also an International Metro area with a Canadian city right across the river. You can go a weekend get away to many different large cities....or stay in the area.
In conclusion, even with all the problems of the city of Detroit the region is still one of the largest and strongest Regions in the country. A key metric is population within 100, 200 and 300 square miles. Detroit Is a top ten area in at least 2 out of three of those metrics, for major cities. It’s a metric for business location and distributors. Detroit may fall to the league of Minneapolis or Seattle in logical metrics, but Detroit will remain well above those areas in physical metrics. When I say logical I mean the number are based upon a logical formula to determine population by using commuting percentages and are not physical comparison of populations based upon the same physical geographic footprints.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 10-10-2013 at 01:40 PM..
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.
