[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Retroit

And they believe that the economic problems stem from the social problems, not because the suburbs are depriving Detroit of anything. (I realize I don't speak for everyone.)

All cities suffer from the same social problems as Detroit, including NYC and Chicago.

The difference is, they didn't see the solution as simply abandoning the core.

[Retroit]

I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ of suburban parents would not approve of their children going into Detroit. I remember when I was a teenager and had to go into Detroit, my mother gave me $5 to give to anyone who might try to rob me.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

All cities suffer from the same social problems as Detroit, including NYC and Chicago.

The difference is, they didn't see the solution as simply abandoning the core.

I don't think anyone is proposing the abandonment of the core as "a solution" to anything. It is quite natural for cities to grow outward and for the inner core to deteriorate to some extent. Chicago and NY were able to build up a sizable wealthy inner city population before the rest of their inner cities began to decline. That's primarily what saved them. Much of inner city NY outside of Manhattan is nothing to brag about. And Chicago has its South Side which is not much better than Detroit. Both cities also headquarter many Fortune 500 companies anchored to their downtown which helped prevent them from going the way of Detroit. Otherwise, they would have had the same abandonment as Detroit. But it wasn't a conscious decision for the people of those cities to save their inner core. More like the inner core never had a chance to need to be saved. This was due to the different growth patterns that each city unconsciously undertook.

I still think you are trying to make this a conspiracy.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Not quite. It's not some white elite conspiracy. It's a natural result of a city's growth. Every city grows outward and the wealth moves outward (possible exceptions; NY... and Chicago to some extent). Not a conspiracy, and thinking of it as such only makes matters worse.

BTW, as far as your claim that "every city grows outward and the wealth moves outward", I should clarify that the difference between every other city (other than a few exceptions) and Detroit is that Detroit hasn't grown. It has been stagnant (economically and population-wise) since the early 1970s, yet its land area has doubled.

Think of it as a room of chairs. While other cities are adding chairs to their room (and simply spread to another part of the room as one part reaches its capacity of additional chair), Metro Detroit is simply shuffling its same number of chairs from one part of the room to another.

Detroit was just as strong of a urban core with many Fortune 500 companies like NYC and Chicago in the 1950s. Much of Oakland County (with the exceptions of areas SE of a Telegraph-I-696 line) was nothing but farm land. During that era, you would have been hard pressed to not hear Detroit spoken in the same breath as NYC and Chicago.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

BTW, as far as your claim that "every city grows outward and the wealth moves outward", I should clarify that the difference between every other city (other than a few exceptions) and Detroit is that Detroit hasn't grown. It has been stagnant (economically and population-wise) since the early 1970s, yet its land area has doubled.

Think of it as a room of chairs. While other cities are adding chairs to their room (and simply spread to another part of the room as one part reaches its capacity of additional chair), Metro Detroit is simply shuffling its same number of chairs from one part of the room to another.

Fair point. But even with stagnant population, people desire to live in newer homes on larger plots of land, closer to lakes and state parks, etc. I'm not arguing on behalf of these people, (hell, I live in Eastpointe), but just trying to point out that this is how many people feel. And I would be willing to bet that a large majority of Detroiters would be delighted to leave their small, pre-WWII, non-energy-efficient home in Detroit on a 40' wide lot and move out to a 2000sq.ft. modern home on a nice-sized suburban lot out in such-and-such township if they could afford to.

Detroit was just as strong of a urban core with many Fortune 500 companies like NYC and Chicago in the 1950s. Much of Oakland County (with the exceptions of areas SE of a Telegraph-I-696 line) was nothing but farm land. During that era, you would have been hard pressed to not hear Detroit spoken in the same breath as NYC and Chicago.

Not even close, honestly. Detroit had/has the Big 3 (4 with AMC), but not much more. Can you name any non-automotive Fortune 500 companies that were based in Detroit? Very limited by the auto sector which additionally is very cyclical. NY had the financial sector which is always making money. Chicago had the retail sector, which is very broad.

True Detroit was once the 4th largest city. It even had its own stock market. But without the auto sector, it would never have been mentioned in the same breath as NY & Chicago.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Retroit

True Detroit was once the 4th largest city. It even had its own stock market. But without the auto sector, it would never have been mentioned in the same breath as NY & Chicago.

Fair enough to the bolded.

Granted, in retrospect, I view the auto industry as a base regional leaders had to build upon (in terms of diversifying the economy, building up the urban core with things such as a comprehensive mass transit system, etc.), which they failed to do. Detroit was the 2nd wealthiest city in the country with arguably stronger assets than even Chicago and Philadelphia (a larger theatre district with the Fox Theatre being the 2nd largest theatre in the country besides Radio City in NYC, larger shopping district with Hudson's being larger than Marshall Fields, Belle Isle Park, being located along an international border, one of the largest Farmer's Markets in the country, etc.)

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

Fair enough to the bolded.

Granted, in retrospect, I view the auto industry as a base regional leaders had to build upon (in terms of diversifying the economy, building up the urban core with things such as a comprehensive mass transit system, etc.), which they failed to do.

That's an oft-repeated sentiment, but I don't think it is a fair criticism. Should Las Vegas be faulted for not building up the non-gambling sector? Should Washington, D.C. be faulted for not building up the non-governmental sector? Should Orlando be faulted for not building up the non-tourism sector? Should Dallas and Houston be faulted for not building up their non-petroleum sector? Cities grow for their own unique reasons. It is an "organic" thing that can't really be pre-planned. There was not a meeting among "the elite" to make Detroit the automotive capital or an auto-only capital.

Every city would like to have a diverse economy, but if the conditions don't exist for it, it is impossible, or very difficult, to make it happen.

As for building up a comprehensive mass transit system...well, you can see why automotive companies would not want to do that (although both Ford and GM built buses). I've always believed the federal government should have allowed and encouraged the big 3 and even locomotive companies to work together to develop a light-rail industry here in America so we wouldn't have to rely on foreign suppliers.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Every city would like to have a diverse economy, but if the conditions don't exist for it, it is impossible, or very difficult, to make it happen.

What "conditions" are needed exactly to attract new industries? What did NYC and Chicago have at the time that Detroit didn't (besides a decent transit system)? Just curious...

I'm thinking it was more so just a lack of will power. We have urban planners for a reason, and most successful cities today were strategically planned to become that way.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

What "conditions" are needed exactly to attract new industries? What did NYC and Chicago have at the time that Detroit didn't (besides a decent transit system)? Just curious...

I'm thinking it was more so just a lack of will power.

Well, aside from writing a book on the matter, which would be necessary to fully explain it, I'll throw out some random points:

• Mass transit played a very small, perhaps insignificant, factor overall. Detroiters could get around fine without subways. Maybe not so nowadays for poor inner city folks, but they are not the drivers of the economy.
• Lack of will power was not a factor. You think people in any city don't want their city to succeed? No, it is the lack of opportunity or necessary contributing factors, not the lack of will.
• NY is the entry and exit point between America and Europe. This made it the largest city and also provided it with the money to build a financial sector which then funded other sectors. Immigrants from Europe often settled right there and built companies and industries that they had in Europe. Also somewhat centrally located in the northeast, between Boston and Philidelphia.
• Chicago was the gateway to the west (despite St. Louis's claim) and grew from the grain and meat-packing which the west provided and the east needed. Thus grew other retail industries, Sears to name the largest. The city also drew on the talent from the west and midwest.
• Both cities had their size to their favor. If you have three equal cities in a row, let's say Chicago, Detroit, and New York (I realize they were never quite equal), it is logical that the two outer cities would eventually grow more because any wealth or talent passing through all three cities would first have to stop in one of the outer 2 first and potentially stay there or possibly skip the center one altogether. It could be argued that Detroit's central location at one time helped to bridge the gap between NY and Chicago, but now it is superfluous. We are "fly-over country" so to speak.
• Lastly, no one ever thought that Detroit would not be able to rely on its auto sector to sustain itself. Who in their right mind in 1920 or 1945! would have thought that Japan would kick our butts by making inexpensive, quality cars? So why would you develop other industries that are not needed?

[green_mariner]

Going to far? Sounds like pure hatred to me. Well, there is a video to state why the "drop dead" assessment is not a good idea.


Detroit, more than just automobiles Why geography is very important for Detroit - YouTube