America's jobs are moving to the suburbs

[southen]

I find it ironic mentioning making excuses when that is all Detroit has done for 40+ years. It's racism because any white person who choses to live in the suburbs instead of Detroit is racist. It's the freeways fault for allowing people to leave the city. We should've put measures in place to force people to stay in Detroit. Then it's mortgage interest deductions for Detroit's decline or the government doesn't give Detroit enough subsidies. Detroiters continue to blame the suburbs and white folks and then wonder why they won't come back. It's not like they left all at once. Detroit had over 1 million people as late as 1990.

so white people didn't abandon the city in droves? has any other city you've listed ever dealt with the kind of disinvestment experienced by Detroit by its former white inhabitants? it's what happened, not an excuse. sorry if you aren't comfortable with that fact or if stating it keeps you and other white people away.

[Shollin]

so white people didn't abandon the city in droves? has any other city you've listed ever dealt with the kind of disinvestment experienced by Detroit by its former white inhabitants? it's what happened, not an excuse. sorry if you aren't comfortable with that fact or if stating it keeps you and other white people away.

This is the difference between Detroit and other cities. Instead of asking why people left, they just blame the people who left. Detroit had decades to stop people from leaving. Disinvestment and white flight happened in Cleveland, New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Buffalo and I could go on. Only Detroit continues to use it as an excuse.

[southen]

This is the difference between Detroit and other cities. Instead of asking why people left, they just blame the people who left. Detroit had decades to stop people from leaving. Disinvestment and white flight happened in Cleveland, New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Buffalo and I could go on. Only Detroit continues to use it as an excuse.

see I thought we already knew why they left. enlighten me.

so if a group of people leave the city for racial reasons its the city's fault for their bigotry and fear of black people? can't blame the white people, just the city for not keeping them? white flight was universal once suburbia was created but no city experienced it like Detroit, why is that?

[Shollin]

see I thought we already knew why they left. enlighten me.

so if a group of people leave the city for racial reasons its the city's fault for their bigotry and fear of black people? can't blame the white people, just the city for not keeping them? white flight was universal once suburbia was created but no city experienced it like Detroit, why is that?

So why are the blacks leaving Detroit? Why are there at least a dozen of these racist suburbs that are now more racial diverse than Detroit? Lots of cities experienced white flight. I just listed a handful. Keep blaming whites who left the city 40 years ago. Lets do another 40 years of blaming whites and point the figure at the suburbs and wonder why they don't want to invest in Detroit. Also, why is it racist of whites want to live in white neighborhoods? Are Arabs racist for living on the east side of Dearborn? What about Mexicantown? Were the poles racist for moving to Hamtramck?

[illwill]

Speaking of what people don't know, the fastest growing cities in the US are Raleigh, Austin, Las Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte, Riverside, Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas. Among the 10 slowest growing cities, Chicago and New York. None of the 10 fastest growing cities would be considered urban or short of sprawl.

This is actually a very good point. Some of the greatest cities in the country quite simply "aren't" the fastest growing cities in the country. So the so-called "urban landscape" isn't necessarily where today's generation wants to be. As Shollin pointed out, the fastest growing cities are in sprawl locations. There's so much to what makes a place desirable. I'm sure jobs help but If you think of the fastest growing cities, they're very educated, health conscious, clean air, offer great outdoor activities, have mass-transit, very liberal, have progressive environments and are pretty affordable.

Why do you think New York & Chicago are trying to cater to this crowd that has found greener pastures. The bike lanes, green spaces, technology, recycle, buy local etc.

The reason these Great Northern cities are still relevant in my opinion is because they already have the unique and natural urban fabric that those other sprawl cities cant offer or duplicate. The grit, the edge, the glamour, the skyscrapers, the mass-transit system, historic buildings, the grand parks, large bodies of water, history etc... even aside from bad weather.

These cities are unique because of their time in history but they were also able to survive the storm and remain intact. Same as Philly, Pittsburgh, D.C., and Baltimore. You can't build these places anymore so they'll always have their charm.

[southen]

So why are the blacks leaving Detroit? Why are there at least a dozen of these racist suburbs that are now more racial diverse than Detroit? Lots of cities experienced white flight. I just listed a handful. Keep blaming whites who left the city 40 years ago. Lets do another 40 years of blaming whites and point the figure at the suburbs and wonder why they don't want to invest in Detroit. Also, why is it racist of whites want to live in white neighborhoods? Are Arabs racist for living on the east side of Dearborn? What about Mexicantown? Were the poles racist for moving to Hamtramck?

you cant ignore how what happened 40 years ago crippled the city. you named other cities with white flight while ignoring how much more extreme detroits situation was. they aren't equal, is that hard to grasp?

do Arabs live in Dearborn out of fear or hatred of another race?

still didn't tell me why all the white people left...

[Shollin]

The outrageous crime, lack of jobs, poor schools, poor services, corruption in the city government, aging housing stock, taxes, but of course in your view any white person who doesn't live in Detroit is an obvious racist.

[southen]

The outrageous crime, lack of jobs, poor schools, poor services, corruption in the city government, aging housing stock, taxes, but of course in your view any white person who doesn't live in Detroit is an obvious racist.

thats why white people left 40 years ago? interesting.

ive never once said that btw. my argument the entire time has been that white people got the ball rolling. you, for whatever reason, use detroits current state as a justification for everything that has ever happened in the city.

[Shollin]

thats why white people left 40 years ago? interesting.

ive never once said that btw. my argument the entire time has been that white people got the ball rolling. you, for whatever reason, use detroits current state as a justification for everything that has ever happened in the city.

40 years ago was 1973 and in 1974 Detroit had risen to murder capital of the US. Unemployment rate in the city was on the rise. Schools were on the decline. People in the 60's and 70's wanted a house with a yard and a garage, not shoehorned in the top floor of a two story flat. By now the housing stock in the inner part of Detroit was nearing 50 years old.

Again, the whites didn't just leave all at once. It was a decline that took decades and Detroit did nothing to stop it. That's the difference. You still haven't explained why blacks are leaving the city and choosing to live in these suburbs where all the racists apparently live.

[southen]

40 years ago was 1973 and in 1974 Detroit had risen to murder capital of the US. Unemployment rate in the city was on the rise. Schools were on the decline. People in the 60's and 70's wanted a house with a yard and a garage, not shoehorned in the top floor of a two story flat. By now the housing stock in the inner part of Detroit was nearing 50 years old.

Again, the whites didn't just leave all at once. It was a decline that took decades and Detroit did nothing to stop it. That's the difference. You still haven't explained why blacks are leaving the city and choosing to live in these suburbs where all the racists apparently live.

ok I can see you're just going to skip over what caused them to leave which led to conditions you describe and just blame the city.

everyone who leaves the city now leaves for more stable neighborhoods, I think that's well known. with that white folk have kept pushing the boundaries of the metro... I wonder why that is.

I should have known a conversation with you would go nowhere.

[Shollin]

ok I can see you're just going to skip over what caused them to leave which led to conditions you describe and just blame the city.

everyone who leaves the city now leaves for more stable neighborhoods, I think that's well known. with that white folk have kept pushing the boundaries of the metro... I wonder why that is.

I should have known a conversation with you would go nowhere.

I just told you why they left. I guess you're going to skip over reading. Detroit had one of the highest murder rates in the nation in the 70's. In the 50's the big 3 spent over 7 billion on new facilities and none in the city of Detroit because there was nowhere to expand in the city. In the 60's and 70's the city had rising unemployment. The decline of Detroit public schools started in the 60's. Also there was a move to a ore suburban lifestyle that was happening in more cities than just Detroit. People wanted to be next to their job in a new house in the suburbs. Also don't forget that middle class blacks were also leaving Detroit in the suburbs to places like Southfield but that never gets mentioned.

[Shollin]

We haven't even mentioned Coleman Young. Found this article from the 80's. He was still at it. Blaming the suburbs. Coleman Young obviously wasn't a racist. Only whites are racist.

"Mayor Young himself once angrily remarked during a press conference last fall that he wouldn`t approve a handgun ban in Detroit as long as the city is surrounded by ``hostile white suburbs.``

[ghettopalmetto]

The outrageous crime, lack of jobs, poor schools, poor services, corruption in the city government, aging housing stock, taxes, but of course in your view any white person who doesn't live in Detroit is an obvious racist.

Considering that middle-class flight began in the 1940s, would you say that all of these factors existed at that time?

Or is it possible you've confused your Causes and Effects?

[Shollin]

Considering that middle-class flight began in the 1940s, would you say that all of these factors existed at that time?

Or is it possible you've confused your Causes and Effects?

No it's possible you're confused when white flight actually happened. Detroit experienced growth in the 40's and the 40's were probably the best decade for Detroit. Large middle class neighborhoods in Detroit weren't even developed in the early 40's. Where would these whites be moving to? In the mid 50's you had the closures of Packard, Studebaker and the Highland Park Ford plant. Along with that you had billions of dollars of investment by the big 3 and none of that in Detroit. People started moving to where the jobs were at. I know that will be a shock to some considering most here think if you have streetcars and walkable neighborhoods people will live there regardless if they're employed. Crime started to increase in the 60's further pushing people out of Detroit and the riots didn't help. Schools declined in the 60's. Slums started to develop. People were seeking a different lifestyle in the 60's. It was happening everywhere. The 70's the crack epidemic hit the city and crime was wide spread and services were declining and the city still hadn't recouped jobs. White flight didn't happen overnight. Of course to some any white person who left Detroit was a racist.

[ghettopalmetto]

No it's possible you're confused when white flight actually happened. Detroit experienced growth in the 40's and the 40's were probably the best decade for Detroit. Large middle class neighborhoods in Detroit weren't even developed in the early 40's. Where would these whites be moving to? In the mid 50's you had the closures of Packard, Studebaker and the Highland Park Ford plant. Along with that you had billions of dollars of investment by the big 3 and none of that in Detroit. People started moving to where the jobs were at. I know that will be a shock to some considering most here think if you have streetcars and walkable neighborhoods people will live there regardless if they're employed. Crime started to increase in the 60's further pushing people out of Detroit and the riots didn't help. Schools declined in the 60's. Slums started to develop. People were seeking a different lifestyle in the 60's. It was happening everywhere. The 70's the crack epidemic hit the city and crime was wide spread and services were declining and the city still hadn't recouped jobs. White flight didn't happen overnight. Of course to some any white person who left Detroit was a racist.

Detroit was still growing--AS A WHOLE--in the 1940s, but people were already leaving the City for the suburbs by that point. Why is that? Well, I think VA loans for returning GIs--in which only brand-new housing qualified-- might have played a role. You can see this in the current housing stock in the inner-ring suburbs. You make it sound as if no one at all left the city limits until 1956, when suddenly crime and bad schools showed up out of a dark alley.

But here is where you contradict yourself: Previously, you claimed that people moved out of Detroit due to crime, bad schools, poor services, and high taxes. You yourself state that people began to leave as early as the 1950s due to new plants in the suburbs [[We'll ignore Ford Rouge for the sake of argument). Then in the 1960s, people apparently "wanted something different" [[Which survey are you citing, by the way?). And on and on. In other words, you have a new excuse for each decade. But you're only scratching the surface.

Crime, high taxes, bad schools, and poor services are symptoms of something very systematic and dysfunctional. You haven't even attempted to discern where that dysfunction originated, aside from something superficial and unsubstantiated as "People wanted something different". Well, WHY did they want something different? Did everyone's desires change overnight on a whim? Or were there documentable economic forces at work?

[mwilbert]

I really don't think that there is one reason why people moved from Detroit to the suburbs. I can assure everyone here that some people moved because they were trying to get away from black people. I knew some of them. Some people moved for other reasons. I knew some of them too. None of this is unique to Detroit.

What makes Detroit relatively unusual is that so few people have moved in. And if you look at Detroit for the past 40 years, with unusually high crime, unusually bad schools, unusually few services, unusually high taxes, and unusually few jobs in the core city [[let's have some kind of connection to the thread topic) you don't really need to look much farther than that to understand why that might be. Racism simply isn't required to explain why people might avoid living in Detroit post-1970, not to say it isn't a factor.

The really interesting question is what was going on between 1950 and 1970. A lot of it was clearly the result of policies that favored new construction and the overcrowded conditions that existed in Detroit after the war. But why didn't other people move in to take advantage of the relatively cheap, relatively well-located housing stock? I think redlining was clearly part of it. Steering by real estate agents was another part. And while those both have racist elements, I suspect there may actually have been some racist feelings on the part of potential homebuyers as well, which wouldn't really be very surprising given the time period under discussion.

[mwilbert]

The 70's the crack epidemic hit the city and crime was wide spread and services were declining and the city still hadn't recouped jobs. White flight didn't happen overnight.

The crack epidemic didn't hit until the 80s.

[iheartthed]

This is actually a very good point. Some of the greatest cities in the country quite simply "aren't" the fastest growing cities in the country. So the so-called "urban landscape" isn't necessarily where today's generation wants to be. As Shollin pointed out, the fastest growing cities are in sprawl locations. There's so much to what makes a place desirable. I'm sure jobs help but If you think of the fastest growing cities, they're very educated, health conscious, clean air, offer great outdoor activities, have mass-transit, very liberal, have progressive environments and are pretty affordable.

There's a difference between a place being fast growing and it being a migration magnet. You can achieve fast growing through high birth rates too. You can also be a slow growing migration magnet, which describes places like New York and Boston. Detroit is neither fast growing or migration magnet.

A place like Houston is probably fast growing because of a mix of economic opportunities, high birth rates and its proximity to our country's largest source of immigrants for the past half century. But Detroit was once fast growing for similar reasons. Houston could very well be the next Detroit in 50 years should those sources of new population dry up.

[Shollin]

Detroit was still growing--AS A WHOLE--in the 1940s, but people were already leaving the City for the suburbs by that point. Why is that? Well, I think VA loans for returning GIs--in which only brand-new housing qualified-- might have played a role. You can see this in the current housing stock in the inner-ring suburbs. You make it sound as if no one at all left the city limits until 1956, when suddenly crime and bad schools showed up out of a dark alley.

But here is where you contradict yourself: Previously, you claimed that people moved out of Detroit due to crime, bad schools, poor services, and high taxes. You yourself state that people began to leave as early as the 1950s due to new plants in the suburbs [[We'll ignore Ford Rouge for the sake of argument). Then in the 1960s, people apparently "wanted something different" [[Which survey are you citing, by the way?). And on and on. In other words, you have a new excuse for each decade. But you're only scratching the surface.

Crime, high taxes, bad schools, and poor services are symptoms of something very systematic and dysfunctional. You haven't even attempted to discern where that dysfunction originated, aside from something superficial and unsubstantiated as "People wanted something different". Well, WHY did they want something different? Did everyone's desires change overnight on a whim? Or were there documentable economic forces at work?

I did mention the economy and the investment by the big 3 earlier. If you chose not to read it that's on you. The inner ring suburbs weren't built in the 40's. Very few were. My parents house in Eastpointe was built in 1952. My house in Harper Woods was built in 1951. Not many inner ring suburbs predate 1950. Probably only Dearborn and Ferndale and cities along Woodward. Detroit benefited from the GI bill. My former house in NE Detroit was built in 1948. Large sections of the outer rim of Detroit were built in the 1940's.

The Ford Rouge is in Dearborn. The Tech Center was built in 1949. Many of the plants along the Mound corridor in Warren and Sterling Heights were built in the 50's. Not sure how one plant in Dearborn has any relevance. My house in Warren was built in 1964. Most of the entire neighborhood was built in the late 50's early 60's. Economy was booming after the war and more people wanted automobiles and larger houses with yards to raise families, hence the baby boom. Inner cities like Detroit didn't offer that. These cities that people still wax on about still don't offer that.

[ghettopalmetto]

I did mention the economy and the investment by the big 3 earlier. If you chose not to read it that's on you. The inner ring suburbs weren't built in the 40's. Very few were. My parents house in Eastpointe was built in 1952. My house in Harper Woods was built in 1951. Not many inner ring suburbs predate 1950. Probably only Dearborn and Ferndale and cities along Woodward. Detroit benefited from the GI bill. My former house in NE Detroit was built in 1948. Large sections of the outer rim of Detroit were built in the 1940's.

Take your personal circumstances and extrapolate to the whole metropolitan area? That's some sound scholarly research. The word "probably" is the first indication that you're just guessing. Now go pick up Sugrue's book.

Economy was booming after the war and more people wanted automobiles and larger houses with yards to raise families, hence the baby boom. Inner cities like Detroit didn't offer that. These cities that people still wax on about still don't offer that.

There weren't any large houses with yards in Detroit in the 1940s? You KNOW what people wanted back then--who did you ask?

And the baby boom happened because people wanted large houses???

[Hermod]

Then in the 1960s, people apparently "wanted something different" [[Which survey are you citing, by the way?). And on and on.

Anecdotal, but th houses in Detroit [[except for the most high end) were all built with a single bathroom. We had seven people in the house with a single bathroom [[and it was a real PITA getting ready for church on Sunday). The little 1200 square foot ranch houses out there in Warren and Roseville all had at least 1-1/2 and in some case 2 full bathrooms. Most had the luxury of two car garages. They were competitively priced with Detroit houses.

Up until the sixties, DPS was far better than most of the suburban districts. People in the burbs used to send their children to Detroit high schools [[and pay tuition to do it) because of the far broader range of courses offered by DPS schools. I moved during high school from Denby HS to Rochester HS [[1954) and by any measure you would want, Denby was superior to Rochester [[buildings, athletic facilities, vocational facilities, course offerings. After 10 years in DPS [[Wayne, Jackson, Denby), I went to school with African-American kids for the first time when we moved to Rochester.

I really think that housing [[and open space) and not race was the 40s and 50s motivator for people moving to the suburbs. My father bought five acres of former farm land out north of Rochester, and for 45 years he loved to walk around his property in the early morning and restock his many bird feeders. He just wanted to live in the country.

[Shollin]

Take your personal circumstances and extrapolate to the whole metropolitan area? That's some sound scholarly research. The word "probably" is the first indication that you're just guessing. Now go pick up Sugrue's book.



There weren't any large houses with yards in Detroit in the 1940s? You KNOW what people wanted back then--who did you ask?

And the baby boom happened because people wanted large houses???

The baby boom caused people to buy larger houses with yards. It was clearly mentioned. The inner ring suburbs weren't nearly developed in the 40's. You know what Warren's population was in 1950? 727. Whites did live in the outer rim of Detroit. I lived in NE Detroit and it wasn't until the 80's until there was a sizeable black population. White flight started from the inside out. Many neighborhoods along 8 Mile stayed white into the 90's.

[Bham1982]

with that white folk have kept pushing the boundaries of the metro... I wonder why that is.

This may have been true 30 years ago, but not today. If you look at who is actually pushing the sprawl outward with new McMansions it tends to be a very multiethnic, polyglot crowd, and usually much less white than old-school suburbs like Royal Oak or Livonia. New subdivisions in places like Novi, South Lyon, Northville Twp, Oakland Township, etc. tend to have a ton of Asians, and a fair number of African Americans, which is less true in most 50's/60's era suburbia. It's class and economics, not race, driving these changes, IMO. Lots of nonwhites have more resources than whites.

[Shollin]

When I was a kid we lived on the Hamtramck border in the upstairs of a 2 story flat. We only had one car because it was impossible to have two cars. There was nowhere for me and my sister to play. We used to play in the alley but then it became a place for seedy people to hang out and sell drugs. The neighborhood was still mostly white. My parents ended up moving us to 7 mile and Morang in a bungalow built in the 40's *gasp* with a driveway and a yard. Now we could own 2 cars and we had places to play. My dad was now working at Ford's in Utica. Still lived in Detroit and commuted to Utica until he retired.

[Eber Brock Ward]

"Shollin" and "m b v" are trolls.

Save the anguish of responding, folks.