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

[Detroitnerd]

I always distrust people who say they know that if A didn't happen, they can conclude exactly what would have happened. These are the least credible kind of statements.

[Bearinabox]

Are the expressways entirely to blame for Detroit's decline? If the expressways were never built, would the exodus from Detroit have been prevented?

Let's go back in time before the expressways to the days of the interurban. Many Detroiters were drawn to live outside the city because of exposure provided by the interurban. Let's say that instead of building expressways, an extensive interurban system was built. Would this have been less of a means for exodus?

The essential difference is that expressways destroy the neighborhoods they pass through, while streetcar and interurban lines strengthen them.

In cities that have extensive rail networks, retail and housing tends to concentrate near rail stops, and areas not served by rail tend to be relatively undeveloped. This is not the case with expressways, since driving a mile to an entrance ramp is a lot less inconvenient than walking a mile to a transit stop.

The expressways didn't only provide a means for people to live further from the city, they also sliced and diced city neighborhoods, cut them off from their commercial strips, and forced many homeowners out. If you lived a few blocks off Grand River and walked there to shop and catch the streetcar downtown, and then the Jeffries was built between you and Grand River, your lifestyle would become impractical.

Also, if people are driving to work, it makes sense for companies to locate outside the city, where there is plenty of parking, rather than downtown, where there is good transit access. Transit helps keep jobs in the city, even if you don't accept that it helps keep residents there.

I propose that the exodus from Detroit would have occurred regardless of the expressways and regardless of the interurban. Detroiters would have left if they had to leave on a donkey down a dirt road.

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?"

Detroiters didn't leave because of a failure of Civic Planning. They left because there was a demand for their housing from blacks that were moving into Detroit from the South coupled with the availability of cheap land outside the city. And, unlike New York or Chicago, there was not enough commercial activity to make living there advantageous.

In functional cities, the poorest neighborhoods tend to be on the outskirts. And what do you mean by "not enough commercial activity?" Ever see a picture of Woodward in the 20s?

If an expressway was built through lower Manhattan, it would still be a densely populated city because it is the largest city in the most prosperous country on Earth and is the main financial and commercial hub of the planet. Reduce it to one industry, import millions of blacks from Haiti, and watch the people flee the city... by subway.

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.

[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.

[iheartthed]

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.

You give him more credit than me. I thought he pulled that last gem straight from his ass crack. It showed a complete ignorance of post war American history and migration trends.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[skyl4rk]

I am copying this response, because it is the appropriate response to 37% of all posts on this forum.

[Todd_Scott]

I would suggest the lack of regional land use planning is at the core of our problems. It's led to sprawl, an over-extended road network [[that we can no longer afford to maintain), and a failing urban core. No one is fessing up to it because it's still a problem. Our state, county, and SEMCOG officials have simply failed to lead on this issue.

Our land use planning is based on the price of a gallon of gasoline.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

Retroit, what percentage of employment in Southeastern Michigan would you say is related to the automobile industry?

You seem to be saying that Detroit looks and functions the way it does strictly because of the presence of the automobile industry. Employment levels in this one industry do not determine the built form of the city. To wit, the American automakers employ far fewer people than they did in the 1950s. Yet the City of Detroit continues to suburbanize in its built form. The population has remained stagnant for 35 years, but until the economy crashed, has expanded geographically outward at an exponential rate. What does any of this have to do with 20% of the people in Southeastern Michigan employed in the automobile industry?

[Retroit]

Retroit, what percentage of employment in Southeastern Michigan would you say is related to the automobile industry?

You seem to be saying that Detroit looks and functions the way it does strictly because of the presence of the automobile industry. Employment levels in this one industry do not determine the built form of the city. To wit, the American automakers employ far fewer people than they did in the 1950s. Yet the City of Detroit continues to suburbanize in its built form. The population has remained stagnant for 35 years, but until the economy crashed, has expanded geographically outward at an exponential rate. What does any of this have to do with 20% of the people in Southeastern Michigan employed in the automobile industry?

First off, we're not just talking about today. The originating post from Ihearthed referenced the 1950s. That was the period I was focusing on. But to answer your question, I think we need to go back even further, to the beginning of the auto industry. Detroit was a growing city before the auto, but without the auto or some other substitute industry, it never would have achieved its tremendous growth. I don't know the exact percentage because it depends what you want to include. Does a restaurant across from a factory that serves factory workers almost exclusively count as auto industry employment? How about a landscaper that cuts the grass for an auto executive? The list goes on and on.

The reason for sprawl despite no growth in total population is because there is no need or desire for people to live near downtown. The city's primary industry has largely moved out of the city. People don't want to live in areas with a large percentage of criminals, ostensibly attributed to the loss of jobs. And because we are such a mobile city due to the influence of the automobile, there is no reason to live where you don't want to.

[ghettopalmetto]

The reason for sprawl despite no growth in total population is because there is no need or desire for people to live near downtown. The city's primary industry has largely moved out of the city. People don't want to live in areas with a large percentage of criminals, ostensibly attributed to the loss of jobs. And because we are such a mobile city due to the influence of the automobile, there is no reason to live where you don't want to.

So what caused people and business to leave downtown in the first place? Did a wave of criminals suddenly appear downtown in the 1940s? Did people wake up one day and say "Hey, this sucks! Let's move to the suburbs!"?

It's true the auto industry began to disperse in the 1940s, but there was still substantial employment in the inner city during that period. It's not as if the automakers spontaneously closed all the factories in Detroit on a specific day. This has been a gradual process over time, and you're pinpointing symptoms along this process as root causes.

[Retroit]

So what caused people and business to leave downtown in the first place? Did a wave of criminals suddenly appear downtown in the 1940s? Did people wake up one day and say "Hey, this sucks! Let's move to the suburbs!"?

It's true the auto industry began to disperse in the 1940s, but there was still substantial employment in the inner city during that period. It's not as if the automakers spontaneously closed all the factories in Detroit on a specific day. This has been a gradual process over time, and you're pinpointing symptoms along this process as root causes.

Pardon me if what I am about to say is elementary, but bear with me as I repeat it once again. When industry expanded during WWII, there was a great demand for workers. This led to an immigration of blacks and whites from the south. Although a lot of the war industry was not auto-related per se, it was the auto factories and the assembly line know-how that helped foster these war industries. Growth continued in the prosperous post-war years.

As the newcomers moved in, there was a lot of friction between them and the long established residents, black and white. After the war, the tensions became even greater as the soldiers came home and found out that their pre-wartime jobs had been filled by the newcomers, and the homes in their neighborhoods were being occupied by people who weren't like them. As you said this wasn't an overnight phenomenon; it happened over a few decades.

During this time, the auto factories in Detroit became antiquated due to the advancement in technologies and the need for more space. Add to this the desire to find cheaper labor, the automakers moved out of the city, along with secondary industries. This happened over decades as well.

To tie this in with the thread topic: If Detroit had not built expressways [[which would be implausible considering we were so auto-centric), all of these things would still have happened. It's true that the expressways accelerated the displacement of people and factories, but over time, the net result would have been the same. No new expressways have been built in Detroit proper in a long time. And the exodus hasn't stopped since then.

[ghettopalmetto]

Pardon me if what I am about to say is elementary, but bear with me as I repeat it once again. When industry expanded during WWII, there was a great demand for workers. This led to an immigration of blacks and whites from the south. Although a lot of the war industry was not auto-related per se, it was the auto factories and the assembly line know-how that helped foster these war industries. Growth continued in the prosperous post-war years.

As the newcomers moved in, there was a lot of friction between them and the long established residents, black and white. After the war, the tensions became even greater as the soldiers came home and found out that their pre-wartime jobs had been filled by the newcomers, and the homes in their neighborhoods were being occupied by people who weren't like them. As you said this wasn't an overnight phenomenon; it happened over a few decades.

During this time, the auto factories in Detroit became antiquated due to the advancement in technologies and the need for more space. Add to this the desire to find cheaper labor, the automakers moved out of the city, along with secondary industries. This happened over decades as well.

What you summarize was also true in St. Louis, Chicago, Gary, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toledo, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Baltimore.

[crawford]

What you summarize was also true in St. Louis, Chicago, Gary, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toledo, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Baltimore.

Not at all. You're just grouping every city in the Northeast and Midwest together. Gary has nothing whatsoever to do with NYC. For starters, NYC was never a center for heavy manufacturing, and was always a white collar town.

The fact is that every American city has a huge freeway network, yet basically none are as decentralized and emptied-out as Detroit.

It is therefore extremely odd to blame freeways as a major contributor to metro Detroit's dispersal. Why did the same thing not happen in every other city?

[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.