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

[Retroit]

No, they wouldn't have, because they would've had to commute into the city every day. Ever wonder why the city never grew very large in area when the only available means of commuting to work was a "donkey down a dirt road?"

Places of work can be located anywhere. Businesses would have left regardless of modes of transportation. Mass transit can bring people out of the city just as easily as it brings them into the city.

In functional cities, the poorest neighborhoods tend to be on the outskirts.

Huh? Please provide an example. I can't think of any that will prove this point.

And what do you mean by "not enough commercial activity?" Ever see a picture of Woodward in the 20s?

Almost all the commercial activity that was downtown could be [[and was) easily replicated in the suburbs. I doubt the same could be done in New York.

I'm going to leave this part alone. I can hardly make sense of it, let alone figure out how it relates to the rest of your post. It does, however, reaffirm my conviction that your opinions are largely informed by seething bigotry rather than facts or logic.

I think I'm beginning to understand why people think I'm racist. People think I am stating my personal views when I am merely making a statement of historic fact. It is common knowledge that the rapid influx of black southerners contributed to white flight from Detroit. How you can attribute this to my non-existent bigotry is beyond me, but...if a large percentage of a population is displaced by a group of people that are "less desirable" [[in their opinion, not mine) due to race, wealth, language, custom, etc., that would be analogous to what happened in Detroit. So, if you made New York a one industry city and imported a large number of people who were considered "undesirable" [[by their standard, not mine), people would flee Manhattan just as they've fled Detroit. Make sense?

[Detroitnerd]

Just read that book by Thomas Sugrue. When you've learned a little bit more about what happened after World War II, come on back and talk to us. You'll likely be a bit better educated and won't sound so bigoted.

[Bearinabox]

Places of work can be located anywhere. Businesses would have left regardless of modes of transportation. Mass transit can bring people out of the city just as easily as it brings them into the city.

Transit has a fixed route. Cars do not. Transit systems are usually structured so that all the lines converge at the city center, meaning that the city center can be reached easily from any point on the system. In a city where most people are transit dependent, this makes the city center an attractive location. In a city where there is no mobility whatsoever [[ie, dirt paths and donkeys if you can afford a donkey), there will be little growth outside the core.

Huh? Please provide an example. I can't think of any that will prove this point.

Perhaps you've heard of Paris? It's a large city in north-central France. Look it up sometime.

Almost all the commercial activity that was downtown could be [[and was) easily replicated in the suburbs. I doubt the same could be done in New York.

Sure it could be done in New York. There are geographical constraints because of New York being located on islands, but if you replaced the plethora of small corner stores in the city with massive big-box chains and shopping malls, you could still conceivably serve the same number of people. Of course, you'd have to completely redesign the entire city for it to work, and the result of such a redesign, as in Detroit, would likely not be very pleasant.

I think I'm beginning to understand why people think I'm racist. People think I am stating my personal views when I am merely making a statement of historic fact. It is common knowledge that the rapid influx of black southerners contributed to white flight from Detroit. How you can attribute this to my non-existent bigotry is beyond me, but...if a large percentage of a population is displaced by a group of people that are "less desirable" [[in their opinion, not mine) due to race, wealth, language, custom, etc., that would be analogous to what happened in Detroit. So, if you made New York a one industry city and imported a large number of people who were considered "undesirable" [[by their standard, not mine), people would flee Manhattan just as they've fled Detroit. Make sense?

Um, you're still racist. Sorry.

[Retroit]

Transit has a fixed route. Cars do not. Transit systems are usually structured so that all the lines converge at the city center, meaning that the city center can be reached easily from any point on the system. In a city where most people are transit dependent, this makes the city center an attractive location. In a city where there is no mobility whatsoever [[ie, dirt paths and donkeys if you can afford a donkey), there will be little growth outside the core.

Tansit runs both ways. It can bring people away from downtown just as easily as it brings them toward downtown. People were moving away from downtown even during the streetcar/interurban era. If Manhattan had declining industry like Detroit, the subways would bring people to work in other areas.

Perhaps you've heard of Paris? It's a large city in north-central France. Look it up sometime.

I admit, I did not know that the poor neighborhoods of Paris are all on the outskirts of that city. Are there any AMERICAN cities that would follow this example?

Sure it could be done in New York. There are geographical constraints because of New York being located on islands, but if you replaced the plethora of small corner stores in the city with massive big-box chains and shopping malls, you could still conceivably serve the same number of people. Of course, you'd have to completely redesign the entire city for it to work, and the result of such a redesign, as in Detroit, would likely not be very pleasant.

Again, a failure to comprehend just how different the industries of Detroit and Manhattan are. Stores and shopping malls are not what makes a city; they are secondary industries and only exist at the mercy of the primary industries. Detroit has one primary industry, and it is not facilitated by a large downtown. Manhattan is a financial, trade, and corporate epicenter for the world. Building an expressway through it or putting in a Wall Mart on 5th Avenue will not change that.

Um, you're still racist. Sorry.

And how did you come to that conclusion? Do you disagree that white people left Detroit because they didn't want to live near black southerners that were moving in. I, too, would suggest you read Sugrue's book, or any number of others. What happened in Detroit could have easily happened in Manhattan, regardless of whether an expressway was built or not.

[ghettopalmetto]

What happened in Detroit could have easily happened in Manhattan, regardless of whether an expressway was built or not.

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?

[Bearinabox]

Tansit runs both ways. It can bring people away from downtown just as easily as it brings them toward downtown. People were moving away from downtown even during the streetcar/interurban era. If Manhattan had declining industry like Detroit, the subways would bring people to work in other areas.

It can't bring them away from downtown for employment unless they live downtown. It can't bring them away from downtown to live unless they work downtown. Either way, downtown is the center. You don't get Crooks/Long Lake-style office parks with a transit-based model. This is the last time I'm going to try to explain this to you. Your skull is clearly made of granite.

I admit, I did not know that the poor neighborhoods of Paris are all on the outskirts of that city. Are there any AMERICAN cities that would follow this example?

Are any American cities functional? I don't get why the discourse about how to fix American cities is always focused so firmly inward. Why not try to learn from places that actually have vibrant, desirable, centralized cities with excellent mass transit?

Again, a failure to comprehend just how different the industries of Detroit and Manhattan are. Stores and shopping malls are not what makes a city; they are secondary industries and only exist at the mercy of the primary industries. Detroit has one primary industry, and it is not facilitated by a large downtown. Manhattan is a financial, trade, and corporate epicenter for the world. Building an expressway through it or putting in a Wall Mart on 5th Avenue will not change that.

When you mentioned downtown "commercial activity," I assumed you were referring to retail. Did you mean offices? How are Detroit's offices any different from New York's offices, other than that there are fewer of them? The major difference that jumps out at me is that New York's offices are mostly reached by transit, while Detroit's are mostly reached by car.

And how did you come to that conclusion? Do you disagree that white people left Detroit because they didn't want to live near black southerners that were moving in. I, too, would suggest you read Sugrue's book, or any number of others. What happened in Detroit could have easily happened in Manhattan, regardless of whether an expressway was built or not.

I think your explanation is too simplistic and is only part of the truth. White people initially began leaving Detroit in large part because the combined effect of a variety of federal, state and local policies created an economic incentive for them to do so. As people started leaving, the city started to decline, which made more people want to leave. It certainly had nothing to do with millions of Haitians invading Manhattan.

[Retroit]

It can't bring them away from downtown for employment unless they live downtown. It can't bring them away from downtown to live unless they work downtown. Either way, downtown is the center. You don't get Crooks/Long Lake-style office parks with a transit-based model. This is the last time I'm going to try to explain this to you. Your skull is clearly made of granite.

If a person lives downtown, or near downtown and they decide to move further from downtown, or to a suburb, they are going to do it regardless of whether they take a car on an expressway there or whether they take a streetcar there. If a factory owner near downtown decides to expand but he can't because he is landlocked, he is going to move away from downtown, whether that means his employees are going to have to take the streetcar to get to work or drive their cars on expressways to get to work.

Are any American cities functional? I don't get why the discourse about how to fix American cities is always focused so firmly inward. Why not try to learn from places that actually have vibrant, desirable, centralized cities with excellent mass transit?

Well, we can pretend that we live in the ideal world [[France, I suppose) and keep scratching our heads because we just don't understand why Americans are so backward. Or we can learn why Detroit is the way it is and move on from here without making these illogical comparisons to New York and Paris.

When you mentioned downtown "commercial activity," I assumed you were referring to retail. Did you mean offices? How are Detroit's offices any different from New York's offices, other than that there are fewer of them? The major difference that jumps out at me is that New York's offices are mostly reached by transit, while Detroit's are mostly reached by car.

"other than there are fewer of them" There's your answer.

I think your explanation is too simplistic and is only part of the truth. White people initially began leaving Detroit in large part because the combined effect of a variety of federal, state and local policies created an economic incentive for them to do so. As people started leaving, the city started to decline, which made more people want to leave. It certainly had nothing to do with millions of Haitians invading Manhattan.

Those federal, state and local policies were largely based on racism. Now to explain the Haitian reference. The blacks that moved into northern cities 50-70 years ago were not accepted by whites because they were from the south, poor, largely uneducated, spoke differently, etc. If millions of Haitians moved to Manhattan, they would probably not be accepted for the same reasons [[assuming the conditions there were like Detroit 50-70 years ago, as the premise of Ihearted's initial post would suggest).

[Bearinabox]

If a person lives downtown, or near downtown and they decide to move further from downtown, or to a suburb, they are going to do it regardless of whether they take a car on an expressway there or whether they take a streetcar there. If a factory owner near downtown decides to expand but he can't because he is landlocked, he is going to move away from downtown, whether that means his employees are going to have to take the streetcar to get to work or drive their cars on expressways to get to work.

I can't address this point without repeating myself [[again). Read my previous posts in this thread and then use your fucking brain.

Well, we can pretend that we live in the ideal world [[France, I suppose) and keep scratching our heads because we just don't understand why Americans are so backward. Or we can learn why Detroit is the way it is and move on from here without making these illogical comparisons to New York and Paris.

I'm not pretending that we live in the ideal world, I'm explaining to you how cities are supposed to work, because you don't seem to have a fucking clue. If you want to know how cities are supposed to work, look to Europe. Europe is not a perfect place by any means, but their cities tend to function a lot better than ours do.

"other than there are fewer of them" There's your answer.

That doesn't explain why ours are in the suburbs.

Those federal, state and local policies were largely based on racism.

Some of them were, some were not. Either way, there's a lot more to the story than "blacks moved in, whites moved out because they didn't like blacks."

Now to explain the Haitian reference.

Please just let that go.