Are suburbanites aware of how unattractive living in Metro-Detroit is to outsiders?

[iheartthed]

We don't have enough population to be considered a major Metropolitan area with a "core city/downtown" structure. Again, there are only a handful of cities in the USA that remotely qualify for this status.

What gave you that idea? Population-wise, Metro Detroit is in the same league as every metro on the either coast except New York and Los Angeles. But places like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco, etc., manage to maintain a strong core city.

[Hermod]

What gave you that idea? Population-wise, Metro Detroit is in the same league as every metro on the either coast except New York and Los Angeles. But places like Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco, etc., manage to maintain a strong core city.

I would submit that Detroit never really had a "strong core city" in that you went downtown for special purpose shopping [[you had your own local shops), doctors, and lawyers. As the doctors and lawyers left the central city for professional buildings with parking and the suburban malls like Northland and Eastland were built, the need to go downtown for most people just went away. Back in the 40s and 50s, trips downtown were always for a special purpose. You didn't go downtown just to "hang out".

The other cities had one or more reasons for their downtown which was strong enough to survive the decay of the city around them. Detroit just didn't have that. Downtown wasn't the major employer in the area. Downtown didn't have irreplaceable buildings [[see how the large office buildings like the Broderick Tower were abandoned).

Washington DC central city would suffer the same fate as Detroit if it were not for the "federal area" at its core.

[ghettopalmetto]

Washington DC central city would suffer the same fate as Detroit if it were not for the "federal area" at its core.

I'd like to submit a gentleman's amendment that despite the "federal area" at the core of DC, it still suffered the same fate as Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s. The difference is, they decided to DO SOMETHING about it.

Later today, I'll dig up some survey stats from blogs [[CEOs for Cities and the like) that show just how many people Detroit is alienating by strictly focusing on the outdated stupid-ass American Dream of the suburbs in lieu of a healthy central city and region.

[jcole]

'd like to submit a gentleman's amendment that despite the "federal area" at the core of DC, it still suffered the same fate as Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s. The difference is, they decided to DO SOMETHING about it.

Yes, Anacostia is beautiful this time of year

[gameguy56]

Yes, Anacostia is beautiful this time of year

I don't get this attitude. Anacostia is a single neighborhood of DC. There are large swaths [[20+ square miles) of Detroit that will never have the population density and economic activity of Anacostia.

[iheartthed]

I would submit that Detroit never really had a "strong core city" in that you went downtown for special purpose shopping [[you had your own local shops), doctors, and lawyers. As the doctors and lawyers left the central city for professional buildings with parking and the suburban malls like Northland and Eastland were built, the need to go downtown for most people just went away. Back in the 40s and 50s, trips downtown were always for a special purpose. You didn't go downtown just to "hang out".

The other cities had one or more reasons for their downtown which was strong enough to survive the decay of the city around them. Detroit just didn't have that. Downtown wasn't the major employer in the area. Downtown didn't have irreplaceable buildings [[see how the large office buildings like the Broderick Tower were abandoned).

Washington DC central city would suffer the same fate as Detroit if it were not for the "federal area" at its core.

Well, I said "core city" not downtown. And there is a pretty strong correlation between a declining central city and a declining region.