Why hasn't Detroit ever owned up to its urban planning blunders?

[crawford]

I-94 is north of the worst decline on the East Side.

The decline in Detroit has little to with freeway placement.

It declined because of deindustrialization, necessary suburbanization of remaining manufacturing, postwar upward mobility, the federal mortgage interest deduction, and the tensions brought by the Great Migration.

If one could wave a magic wand, and the freeways were to magically disappear [[at least thouse within city limits), I would argue that Detroit would be in far worse shape than it is today. Downtown, which is completely reliant on easy access from distant suburbs, would become almost useless.

[313WX]

I-94 is north of the worst decline on the East Side.

I'm almost certain 48205 is north of I-94.

[Melocoton]

If one could wave a magic wand, and the freeways were to magically disappear [[at least thouse within city limits), I would argue that Detroit would be in far worse shape than it is today. Downtown, which is completely reliant on easy access from distant suburbs, would become almost useless.

Obviously you've proposed a totally hypothetical [[and impossible) scenario, but it's sometimes necessary to remind Detroiters that the suburbs haven't been here since the beginning of time. If there were no [[or simply less) freeways--ie if they hadn't ever been built--there wouldn't be suburbs to commute from in the first place.

The bigger point is that the blight caused by freeways is not necessarily right next to the highway. Their effects on suburbanization extend a lot deeper than that.

[Detroitnerd]

Sounds like a fun piece of satire:

A CONCISE HISTORY OF DETROIT

Detroit was founded in 1701 by a Frenchman. That's why it was a terrible place to live, filled with warring Indians and mismanaged by the French. Luckily, the natives enjoyed French pastries, so the small town was relatively peaceful.

Then, after the War for Independence, the Americans quickly took over and built the city, with its sprawling and beautiful suburbs all around it. Everything was great for 150 years.

Then, in the 1940s, large populations of black people started moving into the city, scaring the orderly white residents who began to think about moving to the suburbs. Around this time, the orderly construction of freeways began. The freeways were great and nobody felt bad about dumping the old streetcar system.

Then, in the late 1960s, the bad blacks started burning down the city and the white people decided to leave. Naturally, they headed to the beautiful suburbs that had been built in the 1810s. To this day, Detroit remains a depraved land of lawless, rioting blacks. This condition has nothing to do with the quality of mass transit, the G.I. Bill, redlining, white supremacy, broad-brush zoning or the kleptocracy that suburbanites have been content to see run the city over the years.

SATIRE SATIRE SATIRE SATIRE SATIRE

[iheartthed]

Sounds like a fun piece of satire:

A CONCISE HISTORY OF DETROIT

Detroit was founded in 1701 by a Frenchman. That's why it was a terrible place to live, filled with warring Indians and mismanaged by the French. Luckily, the natives enjoyed French pastries, so the small town was relatively peaceful.

Then, after the War for Independence, the Americans quickly took over and built the city, with its sprawling and beautiful suburbs all around it. Everything was great for 150 years.

Then, in the 1940s, large populations of black people started moving into the city, scaring the orderly white residents who began to think about moving to the suburbs. Around this time, the orderly construction of freeways began. The freeways were great and nobody felt bad about dumping the old streetcar system.

Then, in the late 1960s, the bad blacks started burning down the city and the white people decided to leave. Naturally, they headed to the beautiful suburbs that had been built in the 1810s. To this day, Detroit remains a depraved land of lawless, rioting blacks. This condition has nothing to do with the quality of mass transit, the G.I. Bill, redlining, white supremacy, broad-brush zoning or the kleptocracy that suburbanites have been content to see run the city over the years.

Literally, I'm L.O.L.ing.

[Retroit]

So why doesn't Manhattan bear any resemblance to modern Detroit? Dumb luck? Or are New Yorkers just less racist?

Numerous cities in the United States have faced the same influential policies and challenges as Detroit has. Why should any of these cities be any better or worse off than Detroit? In other words, what has happened in Detroit to place it into such an economically weak position?

Let's go back to the original post by Ihearthed. He makes the conclusion that if Detroit hadn't built the expressways, that we would have a more vibrant city like Manhattan [[is that a fair assessment?). I have attempted to explain that the dynamics of the 2 cities are very different, namely 1) Manhattan has a very well-established dense/extensive/interconnected financial/commercial/corporate/trade foundation while Detroit has one transitory industry, and 2) Manhattan has a very diverse demographic and was more accepting of immigrants while Detroit was a more homogeneous white city prior to the influx of poor, less educated, southern blacks.

So to answer your first question: Manhattan is not like us now because it was not like us 60 years ago. If it were identical to Detroit 60 years ago and Detroit built expressways while Manhattan didn't, then they still would be identical. Why? because the mode of transportation will not change the underlining fundamentals [[see points 1 & 2 above). People will move where they want to move whether it is by subway, light rail, bus, car, horse and buggy, etc.

Now, why is Detroit worse off than "numerous other cities"? Let's make a distinction between the cities we are talking about. Cities like New York and Chicago are in one category due to their extensive business dimension that is lacking in Detroit [[point 1). In another category we have most other cities: Cleveland, Buffalo, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, etc. These cities do not have the extensive business dimension, but also are not as singularly dependent on one industry like Detroit. Detroit is a unique case. It was once home of nearly the entire automobile capacity of the world, but has since divested itself of most of this industry.

To address the racial issue [[one last time, hopefully) which Detroitnerd thinks is a matter of satire: if anyone does not think that many white people left Detroit because blacks moved in, I really don't have anything else to say to you except "study history". I was not one that fled. I do not hate black people. I am not afraid of black people. I don't think that white people are superior to black people. I am merely reiterating a widely accepted fact of history. I do not condone the beliefs or actions of others.

[ziggyselbin]

To get back to the original intent of this thread I think that it all can be summed up to bad luck and misguided planning. And perhaps to the idea that in Detroit the city fathers simply went along with the latest and greatest;multiple expressways whisking us all around.

There is no doubt that I-96 did much to hamper retail on Grand River. I have heard that James Couzens was done in by the Lodge. In fact from what I have read here on the forum in one of the older formats is Couzens was a beautiful boulevard.

Maybe some visionary's will reclaim and restore. I don'thold out much hope.

[Retroit]

The very fact that the expressways are extensively used would seem to argue against reclaiming and restoring. People will always need an easy way to traverse Detroit.