Nine reasons why Detroit failed

[EZZ]

Here's a prime example of an Urban Prarie. The railway is/was adjacent to Mt Elliot and is no longer in use. There are a handful of viable factories shown. Note the lack of houses. Go look at this area in person. It's a shocker.

[antongast]

IIRC that neighborhood was deliberately cleared by the city to be marketed as an "industrial park." You can see from the aerial view just how wildly successful George Jackson has been at attracting "economic development" to that area in place of the pesky, annoying Detroiters that used to live there.

[EZZ]

Compare the above to Hamtramck 3 minutes away. Not many factories any more but no lack of housing here:

[Parkguy]

Novine: Thanks for posting that link. I scanned through it and it looks very thorough.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Beachboy wrote:

"mostly-corrupt Mayor Jerry Cavanaugh"

Please cite anything that would indicate that Cavenaugh was a corrupt" mayor. in all my years working close to City government, I have never heard anything like that.

He might not have been, but Louis Miriani was, and a racist to boot.

[detroitjim]

Why Detroit failed is in its people who live, work and play in its neighborhood to its ghettohoods.

Cities either succeed or fail by the foundations of human nature.

You know that's right!! Juss look at the aireel photo of Hamtramck above.
They had all their eggs tied too manafactoring juss like detroit. Dodge main,Chevy gear n axle. Wheres the devastation up in there?
Mose them houses was built in them years 1900-1930 too.
How come they aint bulldozed like the ones surrounding it in Detroit ?[[norf of Carpenter to 6 mile,Eass of GTRR to Mt Elliot, Wess of I75)

Show Nuff ! "foundations of human nature" ........ zackly

[Islandman]

Seriously, you're Huck Finn/Tom Sawyer diatribe is tired and pathetic. The fact you had to "edit" this bullshit is even more sad.

[Hermod]

What about doctors? You can find lots of examples of doctors botching surgeries and such. Does that mean that the whole medical profession is "dead weight" and people should treat their ass cancer with bed rest and fresh fruit?

The problem with "urban planners" is that they are like "educators" in their mode of operations. They espouse a particular theory which is the "flavor of the month" for them. If it turns out to be a disaster, there are no consequences to them, they just move on to the next theory. It was the "planners" that chose to route the Chrysler Freeway up the middle of Hastings Street which was the current city planning theory of urban renewal. That alignment caused the Ford-Chrysler interchange to be more expensive because it had to incorporate the Dequindre yard bridge. Now the academic descendants of these same planners are bemoaning that fact that Hastings Street was obliterated. It was "planners" and not engineers or architects which conceived of such monstrosities as Pruitt-Igoe or its Detroit counterparts.

[Brian1979]

Detroit is a failure because of the majority of people that live there. The redevelopment of Detroit is way too slow, I thought they were coming back when Archer took over in the mid-90's but nope haven't seen much of anything to improve Detroit as a city. Sure you can build Midtown and Downtown up but this is a city of 139 square miles and the area's that are getting somewhat developed are only a few square miles, that leaves about 135 square miles that no one is doing anything with.

If Detroit had built a mass transit system and Mike Ilitch was never born there probably would be a great deal of development in Detroit by now.

[gnome]

Other than the layout of the major roads in the city, I would bet that there's been very little "planning" of Detroit. Most of the city developed before zoning law came into force. As the Urbanophile article discussed, by the 1920s when the US Supreme Court upheld the right of cities to zone, most of the city was already built out and the large tracts of vacant land that existed were already "planned" for residential development, although most of that land set vacant due to the Depression. Other than some site specific examples like the Riverfront and Poletown, if you compared land uses in 1920s Detroit to today, I expect you would likely find very little divergence between the two.

This paper made for an interesting read due to the inclusion of a lot of old maps. It helps highlight how little planning there was in the development of Detroit.

https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu...pdf?sequence=1

excellent source Novine, thank you,

[detroitjim]

Seriously, you're Huck Finn/Tom Sawyer diatribe is tired and pathetic. The fact you had to "edit" this bullshit is even more sad.

I reckon that you gonna be tellin all the other city folks the same thing....Huh?

The reason for editing was to be more pacific about locations. I aint wanted no one to include the depowerment zone that was cleared wess of mt elliot betwee
miller an huber..

[antongast]

The problem with "urban planners" is that they are like "educators" in their mode of operations. They espouse a particular theory which is the "flavor of the month" for them. If it turns out to be a disaster, there are no consequences to them, they just move on to the next theory. It was the "planners" that chose to route the Chrysler Freeway up the middle of Hastings Street which was the current city planning theory of urban renewal. That alignment caused the Ford-Chrysler interchange to be more expensive because it had to incorporate the Dequindre yard bridge. Now the academic descendants of these same planners are bemoaning that fact that Hastings Street was obliterated. It was "planners" and not engineers or architects which conceived of such monstrosities as Pruitt-Igoe or its Detroit counterparts.

That was fifty-some years ago. Since Hastings Street, two crucial things have happened to urban planning:

1. The Civil Rights Movement, which made obliterating black people's homes and businesses just for the hell of it much less acceptable as a public policy goal;

2. Jane Jacobs, who burst into the planning profession and said "hey, wait a second, what about the people in these neighborhoods? Have you asked them what they want? Have you taken time to understand their needs?" Jane Jacobs came up with a lot of interesting and revolutionary ideas, but perhaps the most important one is that planners need to get on the ground and learn firsthand how the city works, not just crunch numbers and apply theories.

To me, these are major evolutions of the profession, not fads. Caring about people isn't something that goes out of style. If planners have been responsible for disasters in the past, that means they need to learn from past mistakes and do planning better going forward, not that we need to fire all the planners and let cities plan themselves. And it damn sure doesn't mean we should put traffic engineers in charge of everything.

[Parkguy]

Good points, Antongast. The other thing that has happened, and is still in progress, is a shift in the way we think the world works. They've even given the different ways of thinking names. The old way [["structuralist") believes that there is a single right answer, and that there has to be a top-down hierarchy that imposes the correct solution, and that will bring order. They also believe that bigger is better. The new way of thinking says that there are many solutions, and that they should be carried out by many groups or individuals in a decentralized way, and not necessarily all at the same time. The old way gave us a certain kind of industry and a certain kind of government, and the new way will give us a different way of doing things. These two world views are totally at odds with each other, and Detroit is their playground. It might take three generations to finally settle down. Huge industrial behemoths vs. small entrepreneurial firms. Confrontational labor relations vs. cooperative problem-solving. At-large voting vs. district voting. 138 square mile projects vs. neighborhood solutions. Silver bullet vs. a thousand small actions. "Because I said so" vs. "Let's hear all of the ideas." Structuralism worked for centuries, and changed the world, but the changes it brought caused new problems that the old way couldn't solve, because the problems were built into the old way of doing things. Example: create a manufacturing structure that is so efficient that you don't need the structure [[or the infrastructure) anymore. Another: create a worldwide economic system that is so efficient that it threatens the economies that created it. Another: create a system that extracts and distributes fossil fuel energy so efficiently that it uses up the energy that it depends on for its own distribution channels, and creates economic growth in the developing world that there is even more demand for that energy.

Detroit was built on all three of those examples, and the system has fallen apart for the city.

[beachboy]

Beachboy wrote:

"mostly-corrupt Mayor Jerry Cavanaugh"

Please cite anything that would indicate that Cavenaugh was a corrupt" mayor. in all my years working close to City government, I have never heard anything like that.

1) Maurice Kelman Collection [[papers), Reuther Library, Wayne State U.

Box 1, Folder 28. Corruption allegations [[Cavanagh and the Mafia),
1968-69, 1974

2) On Cavanagh's involvement with the disastrous Model Cities program:
at http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/...ment_Stupidity

"Cavanagh's motives were political not moral.) He instated aggressive affirmative action policies at City Hall. And most critically, he greatly expanded the role of the government in Detroit, taking advantage of President Lyndon Johnson's "Model Cities Program" – the first great experiment in centralized urban planning.

Mayor Cavanagh was the only elected official to serve on Johnson's task force. And Detroit received widespread acclaim for its leadership in the program, which attempted to turn a nine-square-mile section of the city [[with 134,000 inhabitants) into a "model city." More than $400 million was spent trying to turn inner cities into shining new monuments to government planning. In short, the feds and Democratic city mayors were soon telling people where to live, what to build, and what businesses to open or close. In return, the people received cash, training, education, and health care.

The Model Cities program was a disaster for Detroit. But it did accomplish its real goal: The creation of a state-supported, Democratic political power base..."

On a positive note, Mayor Cavanagh tried to help black people and other minorities, and was energetic in pursuing objectives of urban renewal.

[detroitsgwenivere]

Wow Parkguy. That's the smartest shit I've read in this forum in weeks. I was beginning to lose all hope...

[stasu1213]

Yes! LaFayette Park is one of the best parts of downtown to live in and has been since it was built. Woodbridge is a relic of an era when houses were required to be designed by architects. I'm glad to agree with you by ignoring everything you wrote except a sarcastic declaration.

The city had neglected Lafayette Park for years. The grass was rarely cut and the sidewalks that goes through the park itself were not shoveled for years. The city not caring for it's residents and the areas that the residents lives in had contributed to it's demise. Too much focus had been on downtown which still doesn't have retail. Less focus had been on the neighborhoods

[Parkguy]

Thanks, detroitsgwenivere-- I don't know how smart it is. A lot of people, including many on this board, will say things like, "The problem with Detroit is..." and then make a statement based on what they believe. I guess I am doomed to do the same thing. If I say something about what my neighborhood needs, it may be perfectly true, but it is probably only true for my neighborhood and maybe only on my block. You can't take that same idea and put it to work on every block in the city. It will take 10 thousand different ideas working on 10 thousand blocks to reshape the city.

[corktownyuppie]

Good points, Antongast. The other thing that has happened, and is still in progress, is a shift in the way we think the world works. They've even given the different ways of thinking names. The old way [["structuralist") believes that there is a single right answer, and that there has to be a top-down hierarchy that imposes the correct solution, and that will bring order. They also believe that bigger is better. The new way of thinking says that there are many solutions, and that they should be carried out by many groups or individuals in a decentralized way, and not necessarily all at the same time. The old way gave us a certain kind of industry and a certain kind of government, and the new way will give us a different way of doing things. These two world views are totally at odds with each other, and Detroit is their playground. It might take three generations to finally settle down. Huge industrial behemoths vs. small entrepreneurial firms. Confrontational labor relations vs. cooperative problem-solving. At-large voting vs. district voting. 138 square mile projects vs. neighborhood solutions. Silver bullet vs. a thousand small actions. "Because I said so" vs. "Let's hear all of the ideas." Structuralism worked for centuries, and changed the world, but the changes it brought caused new problems that the old way couldn't solve, because the problems were built into the old way of doing things. Example: create a manufacturing structure that is so efficient that you don't need the structure [[or the infrastructure) anymore. Another: create a worldwide economic system that is so efficient that it threatens the economies that created it. Another: create a system that extracts and distributes fossil fuel energy so efficiently that it uses up the energy that it depends on for its own distribution channels, and creates economic growth in the developing world that there is even more demand for that energy.

Detroit was built on all three of those examples, and the system has fallen apart for the city.

Well thought out. Well said.

[beachboy]

[...] A lot of people, including many on this board, will say things like, "The problem with Detroit is..." and then make a statement based on what they believe. I guess I am doomed to do the same thing. [...]

Your analysis was well conceived and well put. Don't feel like your "doomed" to do anything ... this is a creative forum where we can share our ideas politely. That's part of what you called "let's hear all the ideas" and "10 thousand different ideas..." Participatory democracy, versus authoritarianism that doesn't work so well anymore.

Please keep thinking and sharing your ideas.

[Islandman]

Your analysis was well conceived and well put. Don't feel like your "doomed" to do anything ... this is a creative forum where we can share our ideas politely. That's part of what you called "let's hear all the ideas" and "10 thousand different ideas..." Participatory democracy, versus authoritarianism that doesn't work so well anymore.

Please keep thinking and sharing your ideas.

Agreed, keep it coming.

[ordinary]

Come on forumers. What's your know-it-all reasons why Detroit failed! I would like to write your side of the stories.

For what it's worth, the main problem seems to be that there is not enough employment in the city itself. I don't know the reasons, probably too many to count but I've lived in this area my whole life and I never envisioned Detroit as a destination city but more of a place where people come to work and that's what people stay here for. "Detroit works when Detoit works."

[Danny]

You can't stop the madness in Detroit with madness. Detroiters demand public municipal service even if their ghettohoods are turning into nothingless.

[Wesley Mouch]

The world doesn't care about Detroiter's demands, Danny. Sorry to break that to you.

The residents should get together and work on a solution.

Looking outside for a solution is a mistake. The problem is within.

Stop madness with sanity. Start acting responsibily. Stop blaming others.