Why is Detroit shrinking?

**orpearl** · May-05-12, 08:20 PM

Hello!

I am an architecture student in Innsbruck, Austria. As a part of my degree I am currently doing a study about Detroit, at which I am trying to figure out what were the main factors which contributed to its astonishing [[economic and demographic) growth [[approximately until 1950) and what are the main reasons for its unfortunate shrinking since then.

I was wondering if you could help me with a couple of useful links to researches that were made on this subject. Texts, graphs, pictures - anything would be highly appreciated.

Thank you very much in advance!

-Alexander

**canuck** · May-05-12, 08:34 PM

I will jump in and offer Thomas Sugrue's "The Origins of the Urban Crisis", which I am sure many folks on this forum will recommend.

**313WX** · May-05-12, 08:49 PM

And also, Reynolds Farley's "Detroit Divided."

**EastsideAl** · May-05-12, 11:17 PM

The astonishing growth is pretty easy to explain - the enormously fast growth of the American automotive industry, and ancillary industries. Detroit was the greatest boomtown of the American industrial revolution.

The shrinkage story is more difficult and complicated. The decline of the American auto industry, and the lowering labor intensiveness of auto manufacturing in general, is only one piece of the story.

**Chicago48** · May-06-12, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

The astonishing growth is pretty easy to explain - the enormously fast growth of the American automotive industry, and ancillary industries. Detroit was the greatest boomtown of the American industrial revolution.

The shrinkage story is more difficult and complicated. The decline of the American auto industry, and the lowering labor intensiveness of auto manufacturing in general, is only one piece of the story.

At one time Detroit was somehwere around 70-80% African American, due to the growth of the middle class and the auto industry. Blacks migrated from the south to the north -- Detroit and Chicago because of the jobs. Around the 1960s, 1970s, the Civil Rights Act was passed and the govt started hiring blacks. Blacks were postal workers [[govt jobs), auto workers, business people [[think, funeral homes, hair salon, lawyers), preachers/churches, quite a lot of black middle-class and upper class money. When the auto industry left / declined, it effected black people. Homes went into foreclosure, no credit. Lots of welfare and unemployment.
Also you have an older population in Detroit. Migration took place. People just left the city for jobs and to live with family outside the city.
Bad politics and political leaders who didn't see the handwriting on the wall and plan for the future.

**Mikeg** · May-06-12, 08:57 AM

**iheartthed** · May-06-12, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by orpearl

Hello!

I am an architecture student in Innsbruck, Austria. As a part of my degree I am currently doing a study about Detroit, at which I am trying to figure out what were the main factors which contributed to its astonishing [[economic and demographic) growth [[approximately until 1950) and what are the main reasons for its unfortunate shrinking since then.

Detroit's growth wasn't really that astonishing if you put into context. All of America's major industrial centers had very high growth rates from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century -- probably similar to what China is experiencing now. Los Angeles is the most stunning example of it, having grown from a non-descript town to America's second largest city in just a few decades. The difference with Detroit is how poorly it transitioned into the American "post-industrial" era.

**professorscott** · May-06-12, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit's growth wasn't really that astonishing if you put into context. All of America's major industrial centers had very high growth rates from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century -- probably similar to what China is experiencing now. Los Angeles is the most stunning example of it, having grown from a non-descript town to America's second largest city in just a few decades. The difference with Detroit is how poorly it transitioned into the American "post-industrial" era.

Detroit transitioned poorly into the post-industrial era because it never made any attempt to do so. The State built expressways and the City extended water and sewer lines which made it possible for millions of people to leave the City and live in suburbs; then at the same time [[1950s-60s) the City dismantled the remains of what had once been a very extensive system of public transportation on rails. That system had been one of the things the City could offer that the suburbs could not [[the suburban rail lines having mostly gone out of service by the mid 1930s). Schramm and Hennings give an excellent account of this latter phenomenon in their monograph taken from a series of articles they wrote for the Bulletin of the Central Electric Railfans' Association.

Then after doing all that - building infrastructure to make suburban living possible, and shutting down one of the advantages the City once had - the City from then on, and still today, was astonished that people actually did what the City itself had helped make possible.

And in Michigan we seem to have this diseased thinking that if we only wish hard enough the automotive jobs will come back. In fact Michigan probably makes about as many cars and trucks as it ever did; it just doesn't take as many people to make a car as it once did.

It was that fantasy of the returning automotive jobs that led us to ignore what was happening in the rest of the world, and to flee from the concept of "creative destruction" that most other cities were forced to embrace a long time ago.

All this of course is IMVHO but if you get a copy of the Schramm-Hennings work you can at least get a feel for the transportation side of things.

**orpearl** · May-06-12, 06:56 PM

Thank you ALL very-very-very much!

**nain rouge** · May-06-12, 07:15 PM

As an architecture student, I think there is a side to Detroit's failure that you need to know, one that is too often ignored - namely, that poor urban planning had doomed a lot of the city almost as soon as it was built up. It's not that Detroit's design in and of itself was that bad, it's just that it didn't offer an urban enough of an experience to truly differentiate itself from the inner ring suburbs.

Here are two telling quotes from Jane Jacobs, which date from the early '60s:

“Detroit is largely composed, today, of seemingly endless square miles of low-density failure.”

"Virtually all of urban Detroit is as weak on vitality and diversity as the Bronx. It is ring superimposed upon ring of failed gray belts. Even Detroit’s downtown itself cannot produce a respectable amount of diversity. It is dispirited and dull, and almost deserted by seven o’clock of an evening."

Some inner ring suburbs, today, have greater population densities than Detroit. Even if we go back in time to when Detroit had 1.8 million people, the population density was only around 13,000 people per square mile, while many inner ring suburbs had densities of 8,000-9,000 people per square mile at peak population levels. If you were to take out the Downtown and Midtown area, which was always more urban, you'd probably find that the inner ring suburbs and Detroit had almost identical population densities.

The inner ring suburbs were designed very similarly to many Detroit neighborhoods outside of the Downtown and Midtown area [[and that area really isn’t that big, unfortunately). You had "mini-Downtowns" along the main thoroughfares like Woodward and John R, and the neighborhoods all had their own corner stores and bars. There was some density, but most people still had their own yards and their other little slices of the American Dream.

So, as social problems stemming from racial and class inequality became greater in Detroit [[and just about every big city in America), it's not hard to see why people of means fled their Detroit neighborhoods for the inner ring suburbs. It didn't really change their immediate quality of life to do so, except now it took an extra 5-10 minutes to drive to Downtown in your car. Plus, you got to get away from all the political and social problems that were slowly dragging down Detroit's schools, police departments, and other critical institutions.

It was a win-win for suburbanites. 100,000s of people left for the inner ring suburbs, robbing Detroit of its middle classes. Ever since then, Detroit has been on its deathbed, dying a slow, agonizing death.

In the 2010 census, one of the few spots in Detroit that saw some positive growth was the Midtown and Downtown pocket, precisely because those areas offer a unique urban experience that a certain segment of the population absolutely craves. Those who want the "urban suburb" environment the rest of Detroit offers would sooner relocate to Ferndale or Grosse Pointe, where you get a similar lifestyle without the baggage of Detroit.

Most of Detroit simply didn’t offer a compellingly unique enough urban experience to weather the storms of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Most big cities lost population during that period, but then recovered somewhat after the various political and social issues responsible for the decline stabilized [[some more than others). The “creative class” stormed cities like New York, Chicago, San Franciso, and etc., in search of the diverse, cultured living experiences large cities can offer. Even in the late ‘70s and ‘80s, you can see areas in Midtown Detroit like the Cass Corridor becoming a hotspot for artists. However, the rest of Detroit’s problems eventually suffocated that pocket, which is now finally enjoying a recovery again - but for how long?

**Hermod** · May-06-12, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

So, as social problems stemming from racial and class inequality became greater in Detroit [[and just about every big city in America), it's not hard to see why people of means fled their Detroit neighborhoods for the inner ring suburbs. It didn't really change their immediate quality of life to do so, except now it took an extra 5-10 minutes to drive to Downtown in your car. Plus, you got to get away from all the political and social problems that were slowly dragging down Detroit's schools, police departments, and other critical institutions.

It was a win-win for suburbanites. 100,000s of people left for the inner ring suburbs, robbing Detroit of its middle classes. Ever since then, Detroit has been on its deathbed, dying a slow, agonizing death.

One item that people often overlook was that unlike New York, the majority of Detroiters did not work downtown. They worked in an industrial belt built around the belt line railroad or in Henry Ford's Dearborn industrial mecca. In the 1950s, many employment centers themselves moved to the suburbs. The hub and spoke commuter pattern just wasn't there for Detroit and it isn't now.

**masterblaster** · May-07-12, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Some inner ring suburbs, today, have greater population densities than Detroit. Even if we go back in time to when Detroit had 1.8 million people, the population density was only around 13,000 people per square mile, while many inner ring suburbs had densities of 8,000-9,000 people per square mile at peak population levels. If you were to take out the Downtown and Midtown area, which was always more urban, you'd probably find that the inner ring suburbs and Detroit had almost identical population densities.

In the 2010 census, one of the few spots in Detroit that saw some positive growth was the Midtown and Downtown pocket, precisely because those areas offer a unique urban experience that a certain segment of the population absolutely craves. Those who want the "urban suburb" environment the rest of Detroit offers would sooner relocate to Ferndale or Grosse Pointe, where you get a similar lifestyle without the baggage of Detroit.

To nain rouge: although Downtown was "urban", it did not have a large residential population. The people lived in the neighborhoods. [[This I learned from an editorial by George Cantor of the Detroit News over a decade ago.) So downtown did not contribute to the population density of Detroit.

Also, predominantly single-family house cities like Portland, Seattle, and Atlanta are quite desirable to hipsters. If it wasn't for the rampant crime [[or perception of), lack of rapid transit, and lack of economic diversity, I don't see why neighbhorhoods like Grand River/Oakman and Jefferson/Chalmers wouldn't have been preserved and gentrified long ago.

**nain rouge** · May-07-12, 10:55 AM

I'm actually gonna have to disagree with you here. De-industrialization did hurt the suburbs, but more in a frog boiling in the pot type of way. Regional growth rates plummeted, and even suburban property values are depressed in relation to comparable properties in other major cities that had smoother post-industrial transitions. And now the older suburbs are losing tax base just like Detroit has been doing for the past six decades.

I won't argue with much of that. But Metro Detroit's economy seemed fairly vibrant as a whole all the way through the '90s, and somehow this region has managed to support a population of 4.2-4.4 million for over four decades now. Yes, it's obvious now in hindsight that the writing was on the wall for this region as early as the '50s or '60s. But to the average Metro Detroiter in the '90s, Detroit's problems felt more like an anomaly than a harbinger of things to come. Most suburbs were [[seemingly) humming along quite nicely. The patterns of white flight in this region created a much quicker death for Detroit than we would have seen otherwise, all things being equal.

**DetroitPlanner** · May-07-12, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

[/COLOR]

I won't argue with much of that. But Metro Detroit's economy seemed fairly vibrant as a whole all the way through the '90s, and somehow this region has managed to support a population of 4.2-4.4 million for over four decades now. Yes, it's obvious now in hindsight that the writing was on the wall for this region as early as the '50s or '60s. But to the average Metro Detroiter in the '90s, Detroit's problems felt more like an anomaly than a harbinger of things to come. Most suburbs were [[seemingly) humming along quite nicely. The patterns of white flight in this region created a much quicker death for Detroit than we would have seen otherwise, all things being equal.

You are showing your young age here. The area had a horrible period beginning in the early 1970's that continued through about 1988. By the time 1990 rolled around, retail and much of 'Midtown' was dead with the exception of the Fox and greektown, there was little life in the central city. The last 20 years has sucked the life out of the neighborhoods to pay for developments in this once blighted area, making much more of the city blighted in the process than it ever was previously.

**iheartthed** · May-07-12, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

[/COLOR]

I won't argue with much of that. But Metro Detroit's economy seemed fairly vibrant as a whole all the way through the '90s, and somehow this region has managed to support a population of 4.2-4.4 million for over four decades now. Yes, it's obvious now in hindsight that the writing was on the wall for this region as early as the '50s or '60s. But to the average Metro Detroiter in the '90s, Detroit's problems felt more like an anomaly than a harbinger of things to come. Most suburbs were [[seemingly) humming along quite nicely. The patterns of white flight in this region created a much quicker death for Detroit than we would have seen otherwise, all things being equal.

The devil is in the details. The region grew to 4.2 - 4.4 million in 1970 and essentially stopped growing. It fell from a top 5 region in 1970 to 12th place today and is on the verge of losing second largest status in the Midwest to Minneapolis.

**nain rouge** · May-06-12, 07:28 PM

To strengthen my point, check out this photo of Ferndale from the 1960s: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kbreenb...57594053119338

It looks like a typical Detroit neighborhood did at the time.

**nain rouge** · May-06-12, 07:35 PM

One item that people often overlook was that unlike New York, the majority of Detroiters did not work downtown.

Correct. I didn't mean to imply that most people worked downtown. I'm just saying that it didn't move them much farther from the amenities of downtown, if they still wanted to experience that. Going to an inner ring suburb didn't make your drive to a Tigers a lot longer, for example.

**EASTSIDE CAT 67-83** · May-06-12, 08:04 PM

The 1967 riot and riots in all urban centers nationwide put the nail in the coffin for declining population, white flight and then much later Middle class African American flight to greener pastures left what you have now. You will always have the upwardly mobile young white urban-its that experiment with city living because its the hip and fashionable thing to do at that post college grad age, but once the 2.5 kids and a dog come along.... they all of a sudden need a functional school system and they boogie on down the road.

**nain rouge** · May-06-12, 08:27 PM

To complete my argument [[because I left a hole that is now nagging me), I'll quickly give you a rundown of why I think Detroit had such extraordinary social ills.

The numerous auto factories and other industrial factories in Detroit paid low-skill workers high wages and often had rather nondiscriminatory hiring practices for the time period. This essentially created a huge sign over Detroit that read: "Historically disenfranchised? Move here. We're hiring." It was these factories that created much of Detroit's wealth.

While it worked out well and good when the economy was soaring, industrial economies are notorious for suffering from a boom/bust cycles. And whenever Detroit's economy went bust for 5 years, those giant, historically disenfranchised classes [[mainly blacks and poor white southerners) that moved into Detroit lost their jobs and had for some time would have few prospects for gainful employment. This led to restlessness and agitated the historical divides between the different classes, giving Detroit a reputation as a "tough town" or crime-ridden area that people with means sought to escape from, resettling in supposedly idyllic suburbs.

Truly, "white flight" had begun in Detroit as early as the '30s or '40s, depending on how you want to look at it. It just took until the '60s for the tipping point to be reached, and then it became a visually dramatic spectacle that ruined the city. By the '70s the historically disenfranchised outnumbered the enfranchised.

**maverick1** · May-06-12, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

"The numerous auto factories and other industrial factories in Detroit paid low-skill workers high wages and often had rather nondiscriminatory hiring practices for the time period. This essentially created a huge sign over Detroit that read: "Historically disenfranchised? Move here. We're hiring." It was these factories that created much of Detroit's wealth."

"Most of Detroit simply didn’t offer a compellingly unique enough urban experience to weather the storms of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Most big cities lost population during that period, but then recovered somewhat after the various political and social issues responsible for the decline stabilized [[some more than others). The “creative class” stormed cities like New York, Chicago, San Franciso, and etc., in search of the diverse, cultured living experiences large cities can offer."

These two statements really make me wonder if this region or the city can really can come out of its current state. Is this really what or who we are? It seems like we have the opportunity to be on the level of Chicago, DC, etc. but the two quotes above restrict us from moving forward.

**Lowell** · May-06-12, 08:43 PM

Great posts Nain Rouge!

**corktownyuppie** · May-06-12, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Great posts Nain Rouge!

Agreed. We don't always agree, but I appreciate your dispassionate, thoughtful analysis.

**douglasm** · May-06-12, 08:57 PM

Question for the masses.....

How much growth could be atributed to the war effort iduring WW II? Did it effect Detroit in the same way as, say, Ypsilanti, which doubled in population between 1940 and 1950, and garnered the nickname "Ypsitucky" in the process.....

**iheartthed** · May-07-12, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by douglasm

Question for the masses.....

How much growth could be atributed to the war effort iduring WW II? Did it effect Detroit in the same way as, say, Ypsilanti, which doubled in population between 1940 and 1950, and garnered the nickname "Ypsitucky" in the process.....

Not that much. Detroit already had over 1.6 million people by 1940 and officially topped off at 1.85 million in 1950.

**Hermod** · May-07-12, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not that much. Detroit already had over 1.6 million people by 1940 and officially topped off at 1.85 million in 1950.

New arrivals were probably more than 250K since there was quite a bit of "leakage" to the inner suburbs like Warren and Ferndale during the late 1940s [[GI Bill).