Why is Detroit shrinking?

[Don K]

If deindustrialization was the true reason for Detroit's fall, you would've seen the suburbs fall as well. But Metro Detroit's economic base wasn't destroyed. The wealth just moved to new locations outside the city limits.

Thanks, nain, for bringing this up. The fact of the matter is that, even after 30 years of auto industry shrinkage, the population of metro Detroit [[including St Clair, Lapeer, Livingston, and Washtenaw counties in addition to the traditional big three counties), is up 40% from 1950, which is pretty comparable to metro Philadelphia's 43% growth. By contrast, Detroit proper is at 39% of its 1950 population, while Philly seems to have stabilized at around 73-74%.

I think your posts have outlined a pretty good diagnosis of what went wrong in Detroit that didn't go wrong in, e.g., Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston, among the top ten cities of 1950.

[DetroitPlanner]

Deindustrialization is not just seen in Detroit proper, it is a regional phenomena. You will see closed factories all over the metro. Yes you do have fighting between all cities in the area to keep or to take jobs from one another, but the bottom line is that there are a lot less manufacturing jobs period. Deindustrialization is a byproduct of people buying overseas imports and a modernizing workplace.

Lets take this example: the Model T plant in HP employed tens of thousands of workers to make a relatively simple automobile. Compare that to a car such as the Focus that is much more complicated and its plant only has a couple of thousand workers. Both plants make/made Ford's base car.

Detroit lives and dies by the auto. We are not innovative in other sectors of the economy.

[masterblaster]

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.

[iheartthed]

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]

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).

[iheartthed]

See, I disagree. Yes, deindustrialization hurt Detroit, just like it hurt almost every major city at the time.

But the truth is, many local companies disinvested in Detroit way before globalization really took off. By the early 1960s, it was already recognized that Detroit had been neglected by corporate investors for a long time - magazines like Time had even written stories about it. One of the main ideas behind the urban renewal efforts in Detroit was to inspire a sense of hope in its citizens again by building new skyscrapers and "better" housing.

Fact is, corporations knew just as well as the average Joe did that the writing was on the wall for Midwestern cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis - these cities had major social and institutional problems [[yes, such as taxes) and were no longer technically necessary thanks to the automobile. People with the means could simply move and not have their quality of life affected in any serious way. In fact, they actually benefited majorly from the move if safety, low taxes, and good schools where their primary concerns, since the suburbs allowed for people to create fenced off middle and upper class bubbles, which the a huge city couldn't compete with on such terms.

If deindustrialization was the true reason for Detroit's fall, you would've seen the suburbs fall as well. But Metro Detroit's economic base wasn't destroyed. The wealth just moved to new locations outside the city limits.



Well, yes, because at this point we're knee deep in a negative feedback loop that has moved us far away from the initial causes from Detroit's downfall.

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.

[nain rouge]

masterblaster: I actually knew that Downtown didn't have much population. I was more referring to the high-rise apartments built around Downtown than in Downtown specifically [[like Lafayette Park). However, interestingly, there has been positive population growth in Downtown recently, as more residential spaces have been opened up to feed the regional desire for urban living. Still, I should have clarified fully what I meant.

I do agree that the neighborhoods you're talking about would see gentrification if factors like crime and economic opportunity improved. It's one thing to have some crime, but to see your attempts to gentrify your home looted almost as soon as you're fixing it up is just too much [[which happens more the farther away from Midtown you go). Better bus service and more creative class jobs would help drive gentrification, too. As it is, we're in a feedback cycle where many potential "gentrifiers" are lost to Grosse Pointe, Ferndale, Royal Oak, and etc. Those areas offer what many Detroit neighborhoods offer, but with less hassles.

Yes, Portland, Seattle, and Atlanta all have their own nice suburbs, and it's not killing off gentrification. Part of the reason is that those cities have much smaller populations - maybe a third of what Detroit's was at its peak. That may have made the problems there more manageable.

Portland and Seattle also benefited from not having to deal with the kind of racial strife that plagued many major Midwestern cities. They never had serious blockbusting, racially motivated crimes, and other nefarious activities in a way even remotely comparable to Detroit.

Atlanta, on the other hand, did have its share of racial strife, but you still didn't see the same level of disinvestment as you did in Detroit. Over 200,000 commute to work in Atlanta each day, and the city only has a population of 420,000. That has major positive effects on the city. Imagine if Detroit still had 350,000 commuters coming downtown every day. Only about 90,000 or so work downtown now.

Poor urban planning didn't necessarily kill Detroit, but it did create another weak point in a city already being overrun by weak points.

[DetroitPlanner]

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.

100 percent agreement. Too many people see this as an us vs them thing. The collective us is hemmoraging industrial jobs. Until we can figure out a way to diversify our economy base and still provide autos a place to do business we will continue on this spiral.

[nain rouge]

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]

[/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.

[nain rouge]

DetroitPlanner: I was talking about Metro Detroit as a whole, which includes the 3 million+ that lived in the suburbs outside the city. The city was going down but the much larger [[in terms of population and size) suburbs were going up. In retrospect, it's clear that much of that success was in fact because the suburbs were essentially picking off the carcass of Detroit, but that doesn't really affect my argument that Detroit could've been a decently successful city for much longer if the middle class didn't flee for the suburbs from the '40s all the way through the '70s.

[Wesley Mouch]

...<snip>...

If deindustrialization was the true reason for Detroit's fall, you would've seen the suburbs fall as well. But Metro Detroit's economic base wasn't destroyed. The wealth just moved to new locations outside the city limits.

Well, yes, because at this point we're knee deep in a negative feedback loop that has moved us far away from the initial causes from Detroit's downfall.

Agreed, but what on earth does that mean? To me, each individual move from the City isn't based on some 'feedback loop'. Its based on individual and personal goals and aspirations. Better quality of life overall. Schools, safety, community being the main reasons. And everyone one of the was African American and worked in the City.

[iheartthed]

[/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]

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.

We know this region is on the decline. But come on, everyone who lives here knows that the suburbs haven't been doom and gloom ever since the '70s or even '80s. Technically speaking, Metro Detroit's population kept growing all the way until the 2010 census. Before the '90s, almost all the bleeding was concentrated in Detroit and some of the inner ring suburbs, while the outer suburbs and exurbs were booming [[look at Hall Road). If you're going to willfully ignore all of this, I don't see what point there is in continuing this discussion.

[iheartthed]

We know this region is on the decline. But come on, everyone who lives here knows that the suburbs haven't been doom and gloom ever since the '70s or even '80s. Technically speaking, Metro Detroit's population kept growing all the way until the 2010 census. Before the '90s, almost all the bleeding was concentrated in Detroit and some of the inner ring suburbs, while the outer suburbs and exurbs were booming [[look at Hall Road). If you're going to willfully ignore all of this, I don't see what point there is in continuing this discussion.[/COLOR]

The point is that it wasn't growth, it was displacement. Metro Detroit has not added any meaningful growth in nearly half a century.

[DetroitPlanner]

Nain I think you are confusing de-industrialization with sprawl. Both have happened, but they are not inter-related. Iheartthed is correct. With the exception of 2000, the census has been flat, zero growth, yet the city still pushes people away due to the lower costs of living in the suburbs, and its inability to get off the auto-center teat. As long as we as a region stay auto-centered, we will continue to lose jobs.

[nain rouge]

With the exception of 2000, the census has been flat, zero growth, yet the city still pushes people away due to the lower costs of living in the suburbs, and its inability to get off the auto-center teat.

Just because the Metro Detroit region as a whole was destined to decline, it doesn't necessarily explain Detroit's calamitous fall in the '60s and '70s. In the '70s, we were erecting skyscrapers in Troy and Southfield and building auto factories in numerous suburbs. There was plenty of investment going on. It's not like investment immediately stopped alongside the population numbers. We chose to kill the city for various reasons.

Now, let's get to the bottom of this debate. Would you agree or disagree with this statement: White flight, along with the Big 3 and other corporations moving most operations from Detroit to the suburbs, did not accelerate Detroit's decline.

I would disagree with that statement, and I think most others would, too.

Look: If you took out the GM Tech Center, the GM Warren Plant, and the Chrysler-Warren Stamping Plant out of Warren, for example, don't you think that would hurt Warren in a major way? And if you moved those places to Detroit, would it not help Detroit? Yes, Metro Detroit as a region was destined to decline, but Detroit's decline wouldn't have been nearly as devastating and swift if we would have kept more of the region's investments in the city. What if all those businesses in Southfield's skyscrapers were in Detroit's skyscrapers? Maybe then the Broderick Tower would still be an office space instead of a residential space. And I could go on and on with similar scenarios...

To be honest, I find the version of our region's history some people in this topic are trying to create to be insanely revisionist and ludicrously reductive.

[canuck]

I would add to Nain Rouge's point with which I agree, that if the region had been more cohesive, the blight on Detroit would not have happened the way it did. The political blind eye to the core city's woes will extend misery outward.


And also about the wealth in GDP that exists in metro Detroit relative to other cities like Minneapolis St Paul; the metro still has a lot to fall back on revenue wise.

[Mikeg]

...... White flight, along with the Big 3 and other corporations moving most operations from Detroit to the suburbs, did not accelerate Detroit's decline.

I would disagree with that statement, and I think most others would, too.

Look: If you took out the GM Tech Center, the GM Warren Plant, and the Chrysler-Warren Stamping Plant out of Warren, for example, don't you think that would hurt Warren in a major way? And if you moved those places to Detroit, would it not help Detroit? Yes, Metro Detroit as a region was destined to decline, but Detroit's decline wouldn't have been nearly as devastating and swift if we would have kept more of the region's investments in the city.......

Of your three examples, only the Tech Center housed jobs that were at one time located in Detroit. A simplified description of what happened is that the Tech Center was initially populated with internal departments and organizations whose employees had previously worked in the Argonaut Building. Over time, those departments and organizations grew along with the rest of GM and eventually doubled in number of employees, reaching a peak total in the late 1970s of about 25,000 employees at the Warren site.

Chrysler's Warren Stamping was part of the new greenfield manufacturing complex that was constructed in the late 1930s to stamp and assemble the increasingly popular Dodge trucks, since there were no similarly-sized parcels available with the right zoning and rail access in Hamtramck or Detroit. For much the same reasons, the GM Warren plant was originally located and built to manufacture artillery shellls for WW II. It was originally operated by Hudson Motor Car and later on, GM took over the plant to build those shells, along with Hydramatic transmissions and other automotive metal components.

[iheartthed]

I would add to Nain Rouge's point with which I agree, that if the region had been more cohesive, the blight on Detroit would not have happened the way it did. The political blind eye to the core city's woes will extend misery outward.

I don't think you can separate the two. I have a very hard time envisioning the leadership building all of that infrastructure in the outer rings of Detroit and not also realizing that the economy had stagnated. Maybe they didn't realize it during the first round of physical expansion but no way they were still aloof by the second and third rounds. If not at the local level they didn't realize it they sure as hell DID realize it at the state level. I personally think the sprawl was an economic crutch that allowed them to ignore the deficiencies in the local economy.

To put it in other terms, if the city of Detroit had strong annexation powers -- where there was less of a financial incentive for outer municipalities to urbanize -- Metro Detroit's development zone probably would not have extended too far past 14 Mile Rd going north and Middlebelt Rd going west. There was simply no incentive at the regional level to build out that far without the complementing regional economic expansion that has been absent for the past half century.

[Hermod]

To put it in other terms, if the city of Detroit had strong annexation powers -- where there was less of a financial incentive for outer municipalities to urbanize -- Metro Detroit's development zone probably would not have extended too far past 14 Mile Rd going north and Middlebelt Rd going west. There was simply no incentive at the regional level to build out that far without the complementing regional economic expansion that has been absent for the past half century.

I hate to rain on your parade, but there is a racial component to expansion. Ever since the early 70s, judges have ruled down annexations if it would dilute the political power of a protected minority. Somewhere along the line Coleman Young, as a "community organizer" would have objected to annexation of more white voters which would impede his march to the mayor's office. He would have gone to court and the judge would reject the annexation effort.

[iheartthed]

I hate to rain on your parade, but there is a racial component to expansion. Ever since the early 70s, judges have ruled down annexations if it would dilute the political power of a protected minority. Somewhere along the line Coleman Young, as a "community organizer" would have objected to annexation of more white voters which would impede his march to the mayor's office. He would have gone to court and the judge would reject the annexation effort.

Who cares? That has nothing to do with my point.

[Hermod]

Who cares? That has nothing to do with my point.

It has everything to do with your point that Detroit could have annexed its way out of difficulty and prevented development north of 14 Mile. Even without home rule, Detroit's annexation days would be done by 1971.

[iheartthed]

It has everything to do with your point that Detroit could have annexed its way out of difficulty and prevented development north of 14 Mile. Even without home rule, Detroit's annexation days would be done by 1971.

If Detroit had strong annexation powers then what difference would it have made for them to build past 14 Mile even if they were trying to escape court mandated integration? Detroit would've still eventually annexed them and it would've been a big waste of money.

[Mikeg]

.......if the city of Detroit had strong annexation powers -- where there was less of a financial incentive for outer municipalities to urbanize -- Metro Detroit's development zone probably would not have extended too far past 14 Mile Rd going north and Middlebelt Rd going west. There was simply no incentive at the regional level to build out that far without the complementing regional economic expansion that has been absent for the past half century.

Those very same annexation powers enabled Detroit to expand unfettered until the Great Depression strangled its "growth machine", yet they weren't strong enough?

During the first third of the 20th Century, the City of Detroit through its annexations and the Detroit Board of Water Commissioner's liberal policy of water and sewer expansion created a situation such that when new residential construction in Detroit finally took off again shortly after the WWII rationing of building materials was lifted, those new homes were tapping into water and sewer lines that had been installed back in the 1920s.

Furthermore, in reaction to that situation, beginning in 1938 and lasting until 1956, the Detroit Board of Water Commissioner's official policy was to not extend the reach of their system and to service only what they already had. This policy alone would have made it impossible for the City of Detroit to attempt further annexations since they needed to be able to provide those services that the existing suburban units of government could not provide.

By the time the DWSD reversed its policy and embarked on its massive water service expansion in the late 1950s, they were signing up suburban communities that in the interim had already installed and expanded their own water systems and were switching over to Detroit water strictly for cost and quality reasons.