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.
You're right that I made a mistake by using family size instead of household size. The average household size in 1950 was 3.37, and as of 2010 it was 2.58. That gives us an adjusted baseline of 1,415,990 people. For the adjusted baseline to be at 1.3 million, you'd have to assume modern urban planning kicked over 100,000 people out of the city with highways and urban renewal projects. However, considering that many of the people dislocated by freeway construction in Detroit were, for example, moved to high rise housing projects, it's tough to gauge the impact. I-75 destroyed Black Bottom, but 10,000 people lived at the Brewster-Douglass Project alone at its peak.
Again......you are missing what I said. Change in family size PLUS (+) changes in society (Suburbanization). This is what I said were the factors behind Minneapolis drop of 27%. I then took Minneapolis drop of 27% as a healthy baseline as what was happening with HEALTHY cities and used that to create the baseline for Detroit's Healthy loss of 27% from its peak, which then gave me the approximate figure of 1.3 million as being a normal and healthy population for Detroit today. This means that .45 million of Detroit's decline was not abnormal. You keep ignoring what I said about changes in society related to the trend of suburbanization.
You are obsessed with one point to the degree that you have MISSED THE POINT.
Cincinnati has 5 Fortune 500 companies in the city alone, which is over half of the Fortune 500 companies in the region. Detroit has 2, one of which is a local utilities company. The other is GM. If my quick calculations are correct (I may have overlooked a company or two), 75% of the Fortune 500 companies in the Metro Detroit region are directly auto-related. That shows just how dependent the 4 million people in Metro Detroit are on the auto industry, and the outsized growth the industry promotes.
A brief scanning of Pittsburgh reveals that the city itself has 7 Fortune 500 companies. 7! While U.S. Steel is still the top company in the region, Pittsburgh has a diversified industrial base, from ketchup to paints and coatings. Detroit could only dream of such industrial diversity. Also, both Pittsburgh and Cincinnati have a major financial institution located in the city (PNC and Fifth Third, respectively).
Meanwhile, we're living and dying by the auto industry.
So Quicken Loans and Rock Financial are not big enough to qualify as "major"?
I do get what you're saying. I just disagree with your methodology, and I figured I'd express that by analyzing your finite numerical values. The term "suburbanization" as you define it is too broad and vague to be used to count for anything .
For example, let's look at peak population densities. Detroit had about 4,000 more people per square mile at its population peak than Minneapolis at its population peak (calculated using population and land area). In fact, Minnesota's peak population density is almost exactly the same as Ferndale's (a Detroit SUBURB). That's going to skew the numbers a lot. Also, just because Detroit and Minneapolis are older than 1950, it doesn't mean significant new housing wasn't built after that date on what was still vacant land in 1950. This map on Trulia, which was filtered to only show houses built from 1950-1980 (the smallest range allowed), shows how much of the far west side was in fact built up after 1950.
Last edited by one is lonely; 03-17-2014 at 03:23 PM..
So Quicken Loans and Rock Financial are not big enough to qualify as "major"?
No, not in comparison to a Fortune 500 financial services company. Just on the ground level, you can obverse that PNC and Fifth Third are the top leasers in skyscrapers all over the Midwest, including Metro Detroit. Quicken Loans doesn't even compare.
I do get what you're saying. I just disagree with your methodology, and I figured I'd express that by analyzing your finite numerical values. The term "suburbanization" as you define it is too broad and vague to be used to count for anything .
For example, let's look at peak population densities. Detroit had about 4,000 more people per square mile at its population peak than Minneapolis at its population peak (calculated using population and land area). In fact, Minnesota's peak population density is almost exactly the same as Ferndale's (a Detroit SUBURB). That's going to skew the numbers a lot. Also, just because Detroit and Minneapolis are older than 1950, it doesn't mean significant new housing wasn't built after that date on what was still vacant land in 1950. This map on Trulia, which was filtered to only show houses built from 1950-1980 (the smallest range allowed), shows how much of the far west side was in fact built up after 1950.
Yes...says YOU. Suburbanization was one of the NATIONAL TRENDS in post WWII America, the product of the GI Bill and the growth of superhighways in conjunction with autos. It was the NORM, in post 1950, for cities to decline. It was not a sign of DISTRESS, but rather, changes in society. Minneapolis and Detroit were, I believe, the first two areas to create suburban Malls. The percentage of metropolitan area populations coming from cities proper was declining as the result of the trends towards suburbs. That is simply a FACT and has nothing to do with it being "broad", but rather, a TREND. The point for me focusing on that is that if a trend is national in scope then its origin is not local, but rather policy changes on the national level that impacts the component parts. Hence, Detroit was destined to decline like nearly all other northern cities did that did not annex. Hence, a significant portion of the decline is NOT the product of the auto industry.
The most unique thing about Detroit is the degree in which whites left the city for the suburbs. I doubt that there is any major city that has lost over 90% of its peak white population. That is what separates Detroit from most other major cities and their population loss. That coupled with a dearth of immigrants to replace those fleeing whites.
It was not a sign of DISTRESS, but rather, changes in society.
It WAS a sign of distress. New York City was almost bankrupted in the 1970s, Cleveland defaulted on its debts in 1978, and many other urban cities were in a crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
Hence, Detroit was destined to decline like nearly all other northern cities did that did not annex. Hence, a significant portion of the decline is NOT the product of the auto industry.
The most unique thing about Detroit is the degree in which whites left the city for the suburbs. I doubt that there is any major city that has lost over 90% of its peak white population. That is what separates Detroit from most other major cities and their population loss. That coupled with a dearth of immigrants to replace those fleeing whites.
Yes, many, many big cities have declined since the '50s, particularly in the "Rust Belt". The question, however, is why Detroit is the worst. Because it IS the worst. Only Gary and East St. Louis can compare, and those are much, much smaller cities.
I think the answer to why Detroit is the worst city is the auto industry. For example, it was the up and down nature of employment in the auto industry, coupled with the fact that blacks were always hired last (at lower wages) and fired first as whites protected their jobs, that fueled the racial tensions that tore many Detroit neighborhoods apart. It led to injustices that created great animosity in the black population. Why else were there multiple riots (in the '40s and '60s, with another small riot in the '70s) when blacks were doing better in economic terms here than anywhere else in the country?
And riddle me this: why is Saginaw in far worse shape than Bay City and Midland?
It WAS a sign of distress. New York City was almost bankrupted in the 1970s, Cleveland defaulted on its debts in 1978, and many other urban cities were in a crisis.
Lol....and you are saying that this was and could only be caused by population decline?
Yes, many, many big cities have declined since the '50s, particularly in the "Rust Belt". The question, however, is why Detroit is the worst. Because it IS the worst. Only Gary and East St. Louis can compare, and those are much, much smaller cities.
Because white people left those cities in high percentages like Detroit. This is not rocket science.
Quote:
I think the answer to why Detroit is the worst city is the auto industry. For example, it was the up and down nature of employment in the auto industry, coupled with the fact that blacks were always hired last (at lower wages) and fired first as whites protected their jobs, that fueled the racial tensions that tore many Detroit neighborhoods apart. It led to injustices that created great animosity in the black population. Why else were there multiple riots (in the '40s and '60s, with another small riot in the '70s) when blacks were doing better in economic terms here than anywhere else in the country?
So blacks being hired last and fired first was something unique to Detroit? Do you know about the history of slavery and Jim Crow in America? Racism has been an issue everywhere in America. Racism in other cities, however, manifested with lines being drawn within the city to separate whites and blacks (this resulted in more whites remaining in those cities). For example, the North and South side of Chicago. In Detroit those lines were drawn between city and suburb as white exodus seems to increase with black majority populations and leadership during that era. Detroit was one of the first major cities to become majority black and to have a black mayor. Gary, Indiana was another city. Cities that had black mayors early witnessed major exodus of whites.
Quote:
And riddle me this: why is Saginaw in far worse shape than Bay City and Midland?
Because they do not have a lot of black people.....which means that whites have less of a reason to move from those cities. Benton Harbor, Muskegon Hts....none of those are auto towns and they have lost white population and the cities are distressed.
Its not losing people that makes cities distressed.....its losing people who have the most income and wealth and whites have, in America, over 10 times the wealth of blacks and 3 times less poverty rates. So the cities tax base takes a big hit when the white demographic (a microcosm there of) abandons a city.
This is not difficult. The auto industry played a major role in the decline and stagnation of metropolitan Detroit.....but is not one of the major causes of Detroit proper decline.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 03-17-2014 at 05:57 PM..
Why did Detroit have so many black people? Did they magically pop up out of thin air? No, the auto plants attracted blacks in an unprecedented numbers, which aggravated labor unrest. The boom cycles of the auto industry bring in a messy, chaotic, oversized workplace that strains apart during downturns. The stark racial divides in Detroit were a symptom, not a cause. Just like how Detroit electing a black mayor was a symptom of white flight, and not a cause.
Why did Detroit have so many black people? Did they magically pop up out of thin air? No, the auto plants attracted blacks in an unprecedented numbers, which aggravated labor unrest. The boom cycles of the auto industry bring in a messy, chaotic, oversized workplace that strains apart during downturns. The stark racial divides in Detroit were a symptom, not a cause. Just like how Detroit electing a black mayor was a symptom of white flight, and not a cause.
The auto industry brought whites to Detroit also. Its the reason that the region became such a major human settlement area. I will also agree that there were racial tensions but such was true for America. The issue of racial animosity in America run much deeper than what was happening in Detroit. During this same time, keep in mind, that blacks in the South were being killed and even kids were being killed in racial oppression against blacks and in an attempt to keep blacks from having civil rights and integration. MLK Jr marched in Cicero, Illinois and after that experience was stunned by the level of racism and hatred up North. Thus, I simply do not agree that racial tensions in Detroit was such an anomaly to the norms of America. LA had riots. Newark had riots and after King was assassinated riots broke out in nearly every city in America (except Detroit this time). It was during this era that white exodus ramped up all across America, while in some cities whites held their ground by keeping blacks out of certain sides of town. One could easily end up dead or badly injured if they ventured into the wrong side of town in the 70's in Chicago. Whites held onto the North side and let it being known that blacks were not welcome. If whites in Detroit had done that on the West Side then large number of whites would still be living in the city. Instead, whites fled to places like Deaborn, Warren and others and made it clear that blacks were not welcome. This drained the city of its white population.....unlike what happened in Chicago.
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.
