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.
Yeah the roads were something I noticed really quickly. I used to whine about Chicago's roads being full of car-sized potholes, but the roads there were mostly repaved with frequency every couple of years. Suburbs around Detroit have roads that are simply patched, repatched and repatched.
The problem with public transit is that you need it to be safe and clean for the suburbs to participate. You can't just extend an inner city transit line in to a suburb and expect people to take that. In Chicago, there are two systems, the CTA and Metra, the latter being the commuter rail for people in the suburbs to go to work downtown. The Metra is very clean, on-time, and safe. It has minimal stops inside the city of Chicago. Detroit would need a system like Metra, not like some showcase light rails I see in some Southern cities that travel two blocks in one part of downtown: pointless.
I agree with this. And I think I've read that Detroit's old interurban railroad lines are still intact? Or at least the right of ways are still there.
You can set up a commuter rail system like Metra for way cheaper than putting in light rail too. Light rail can run anywhere from $30 - $50 Million per mile, heavy commuter rail on existing ROW's is more like $10 Million per mile.
Austin Texas has a cool hybrid of both, a light rail looking train that is diesel instead of electric, that runs on previously freight rail lines:
Another idea that Denver did way back before they started their light rail system is run "nice" shuttle buses from the burbs into downtown and the big employment areas. It was a huge success, which got people on board for when light rail was introduced.
These so called "isolated incidences" are becoming more and more common everyday. Murders in Ferndale, Ann Arbor, Farmington Hills......everyday there seems to be some shooting in the metro.
We are a year away from the murder rate in the burbs being on par with Detroit.
These so called "isolated incidences" are becoming more and more common everyday. Murders in Ferndale, Ann Arbor, Farmington Hills......everyday there seems to be some shooting in the metro.
We are a year away from the murder rate in the burbs being on par with Detroit.
This is a straight troll job. The numbers don't even come close to what you're suggesting. Not. Even. Close.
This is a straight troll job. The numbers don't even come close to what you're suggesting. Not. Even. Close.
I agree. Detroit is in a class of its own for murder rate. 386 murders last year for 700,000 population (?) Grand Rapids had 16 for 200,000 people I believe? Lansing had 13 for about 114,000 people.
The suburban areas that border declining areas are targets for quick smash and grab robberies, etc.. But actual data in this situation would be helpful to make a good comparison.
Ferndale would need 10 murders to match Detroit's rate, Ann Arbor would need 60, and Farmington Hills would need 50. All of these cities at most only have 1 or 2 every few years.
The "dangerous" suburbs of Detroit average around 10 murders a year; ie Pontiac and Inkster which both are former industrial suburbs that suffered massive declines after the 1960s. Both have high unemployment and poverty rates.
I know Pontiac specifically doesn't even have it's own police force (or didn't at one point), because of its financial situation. They depend on the Oakland County Sheriffs. That's a pretty big factor in crime deterrent.
The UP has an average of 5 murders per year with a population of 300,000 (42% of Detroit's population). From 1980 to 2008 (28 year time period) there were 141 murders. People will scoff at my idea, but I think that Detroit needs to install cameras up and down every major street to help in solving murders.
These so called "isolated incidences" are becoming more and more common everyday. Murders in Ferndale, Ann Arbor, Farmington Hills......everyday there seems to be some shooting in the metro.
We are a year away from the murder rate in the burbs being on par with Detroit.
Of course the original post is absolutely insane. As for the city of Detroit, one of the true great American cities: its tragedy is mainly one not of its own making. America did in Detroit with the movement of auto industry jobs first to the right-to-work (talk about an oxymoron) southern states, then outsourced overseas. The emptying of the city to the suburbs took place on interstate highways built by the federal government that literally bled our great cities.
of course, Metro Detroit has also shot itself in the arm. Its lack of an effective mass transit system (in part, I'm sure, due to the holy position of the automobile in the area) literally disconnected city from suburbia and made a vibrant, inviting central city impossible to pull off.
Race is endemic to all of America, all American cities; sadly few things define the United States or disable it more than the issue of race. But metro Detroit had its own issue on race that may have made it even a thornier issue than in other metro areas: those high paying auto jobs greatly benefited the European ethnics that defined the city during the mid-20th century. Large waves of African Americans came to Detroit during that same era, trying to raise themselves by the same jobs with the Big 3. Unfortunately for them, when they entered this work force, the unraveling of the American automotive industry was taking place. Few places tie race to economics to the degree that metro Detroit does.
Thus you had a high concentration of blacks in the city of Detroit, a massive movement of whites to the suburbs, and no transit system to connect them and include everybody in the mix.
I life-long resident of Chicago (born there; have lived in the suburbs for many years), a city with its own sad history of race relations, arguably the most segregated in the nation. And a city that shared a lot with Detroit up to that mid-20th century time I mentioned: two industrial giants of the Midwest.
But Chicago differed from Detroit in a lot of ways. The downtown core, the Loop and environs, was and is a major white collar center and it was white collar that could and did survive when blue collar went to pieces. Also, there was a tremendous institutional investment in Chicago's core. And finally, of course, there was that outstanding mass transit system.
Chicago was at its worst when it spun on a white/black axis. But the city's (and metro area's) ability to become a key point in the global economy changed the demographics. With the influx of hispanics and Asians, the old white-black axis lost a lot of its meaning. sure, Chicago still has race problems today and no one can doubt the insanity of the split of large swatches of the black community from the rest of the city and area exists. But it still works as a very functional metro area where the suburbs (for all the life of their own) are inticately connected to the city and benefit from it.
and that's where the real issue of Detroit comes up, the real issue for the future:
How does a metro area survive in the 21st century when it is built basically on the concept of a doughnut, with the suburbs being the doughnut and the city (for all the good that still happens there) the hole in its center?
No issue is more important to Metro Detroit than this one. the reality is that nobody benefits from the city/suburban divide, by the vibrancy of the suburbs compared to the despair in the city. Unless an attitude of "we're all in it together" takes place, Metro Detroit will not die but it may fade to insignificance.
and that would be shame because you folks live in a great metro area with (underneath all the despair) a great city at its core.
Of course the original post is absolutely insane. As for the city of Detroit, one of the true great American cities: its tragedy is mainly one not of its own making. America did in Detroit with the movement of auto industry jobs first to the right-to-work (talk about an oxymoron) southern states, then outsourced overseas. The emptying of the city to the suburbs took place on interstate highways built by the federal government that literally bled our great cities.
of course, Metro Detroit has also shot itself in the arm. Its lack of an effective mass transit system (in part, I'm sure, due to the holy position of the automobile in the area) literally disconnected city from suburbia and made a vibrant, inviting central city impossible to pull off.
Race is endemic to all of America, all American cities; sadly few things define the United States or disable it more than the issue of race. But metro Detroit had its own issue on race that may have made it even a thornier issue than in other metro areas: those high paying auto jobs greatly benefited the European ethnics that defined the city during the mid-20th century. Large waves of African Americans came to Detroit during that same era, trying to raise themselves by the same jobs with the Big 3. Unfortunately for them, when they entered this work force, the unraveling of the American automotive industry was taking place. Few places tie race to economics to the degree that metro Detroit does.
Thus you had a high concentration of blacks in the city of Detroit, a massive movement of whites to the suburbs, and no transit system to connect them and include everybody in the mix.
I life-long resident of Chicago (born there; have lived in the suburbs for many years), a city with its own sad history of race relations, arguably the most segregated in the nation. And a city that shared a lot with Detroit up to that mid-20th century time I mentioned: two industrial giants of the Midwest.
But Chicago differed from Detroit in a lot of ways. The downtown core, the Loop and environs, was and is a major white collar center and it was white collar that could and did survive when blue collar went to pieces. Also, there was a tremendous institutional investment in Chicago's core. And finally, of course, there was that outstanding mass transit system.
Chicago was at its worst when it spun on a white/black axis. But the city's (and metro area's) ability to become a key point in the global economy changed the demographics. With the influx of hispanics and Asians, the old white-black axis lost a lot of its meaning. sure, Chicago still has race problems today and no one can doubt the insanity of the split of large swatches of the black community from the rest of the city and area exists. But it still works as a very functional metro area where the suburbs (for all the life of their own) are inticately connected to the city and benefit from it.
and that's where the real issue of Detroit comes up, the real issue for the future:
How does a metro area survive in the 21st century when it is built basically on the concept of a doughnut, with the suburbs being the doughnut and the city (for all the good that still happens there) the hole in its center?
No issue is more important to Metro Detroit than this one. the reality is that nobody benefits from the city/suburban divide, by the vibrancy of the suburbs compared to the despair in the city. Unless an attitude of "we're all in it together" takes place, Metro Detroit will not die but it may fade to insignificance.
and that would be shame because you folks live in a great metro area with (underneath all the despair) a great city at its core.
Thanks for the insight from another big-city perspective. Most trolling seems to come from outstaters with little real knowledge, or disgruntled suburbanites with an axe to grind.
Other major cities like Chicago have always had different, or more diversified, economic bases than Detroit and that has saved their bacon. Can't think of any other major city tied to a single industry like Detroit has been, but many small communities with similar narrow dependencies (but off the media radar) have gone bust and become ghost towns.
And yes, freeways were built probably to spur auto sales, regional mass transit was fought tooth-and-nail by the suburbs, and the possibly by the auto industry. Lots of stuff between industry and government probably went on behind closed doors, but residents are left to speculate. The huge auto industry in truth answers to no one.
Doesn't sound to me like anything comparable in Chicago or other big cities.
And yes, freeways were built probably to spur auto sales, regional mass transit was fought tooth-and-nail by the suburbs, and the possibly by the auto industry. Lots of stuff between industry and government probably went on behind closed doors, but residents are left to speculate. The huge auto industry in truth answers to no one.
Doesn't sound to me like anything comparable in Chicago or other big cities.
thanks for you comments; much appreciated. as for comparison to "other big cities", don't forget LA and the dismantling of the trolly (big red) system after WWII (the theme of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit), the plot on the part of big oil and the auto industry to destroy public transit and open the way to the city of the freeways to become the true symbol of the automotive age.
But LA sure has seen the errors of its way. That poster child of the automobile now has a modern and expanding rapid transit system, as well as a more urbanized, walkable nature, and, in truth, places like Las Vegas or Phoenix or Houston are much more "LA like" than LA itself.
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.