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

[Bearinabox]

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?

It did happen in every other city. Most every central city in America has lost population, and grown poorer and less white, since WWII. It happened to a greater extent in Detroit than in a lot of other places, but that doesn't mean that the construction of expressways [[and, more to the point, the shift from rail-based public transit to private automobiles as the primary means of getting around town) didn't have a decentralizing effect on every city where it occurred. The main reason Detroit hasn't recovered, IMO, is that it has the misfortune of being run by short-sighted idiots, and of being located in a region and state that are run by short-sighted idiots. The demise of the auto industry hasn't helped either, though Detroit was in trouble long before the Big Three were.

[iheartthed]

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?

NYC absolutely was a heavy manufacturing center. Ever heard of the meatpacking district? The garment district?

[Detroitnerd]

Trying to argue with Retroit is like trying to argue with a dining room table. Forget it.

[ghettopalmetto]

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?

I presume you don't travel much.

[Danny]

Chinatown in Detroit's Skid Row and Cass Corridor area FAILED! Becuase of language speaking conflicts and lack of a ethnic community centers.

Asian Village FAILED because it was set up in the waterfront instead the in a local neighborhood where there are houses, trees and friendly neighbors.

Ethnic communities in urban areas begin when groups of families set up their own different businesses and community centers. Then it could grow and bring predestrian life. Without these requirements, then the proposed ethnic community will die.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET!

What more blunders did Detroit have that lead into the urban prison for mostly black folks?

In Memoriam: Neda Soltani

[digitalvision]

I think there's this false perception that downtown was EVER full of residents. It wasn't.

Detroit has ALWAYS been a bedroom city - multi-unit dwellings like Chicago or New York has in scale, were consistently prohibited by a racist city council, because in general, multi-units attracted all types of minorities. Most of Detroit outside of the grand neighborhoods was built in matchstick-style, poor construction. I know, I've torn down houses that are old but are functionally useless [[no one is buying a 700 square foot home nowadays, yes, 700 square feet, built in the 1920's).

Downtown has never had the population of those areas - most of those buildings, even those that are NOW residential, were all commercial and people commuted to, in general, from their single-family homes. Detroit has NEVER been a dense city like those areas - it's always been neighborhoods, duplexes, etc. Detroit's culture even in it's heyday was single-family homes - so it's no surprise we spread out.

Now, as to the reasons for moving - the freeways helped but were NOT the cause. The real reason is race-motivated policies of realtors and insurance companies. In short, if you got back from the war, the feds told you where you could build your new house -and you couldn't use it to rehab existing housing. Also, insurance at the time did not cover the replacement value, it covered the depreciated value - so, if you lost your fridge in a fire that was 8 years old, you would only get a percentage of the money required to buy a new fridge. They'd give you the money as if you sold that fridge used.

So, with that insurance being the case, people had additional incentive to leave quickly any area that was starting to fall apart - because they financially couldn't risk losing their stuff, as the insurance companies wouldn't cover them, whereas they could get full replacement value living in white areas.

[Detroitnerd]

Digital, downtown was full of residents. In the 19th century. Yet another proof that your timeline doesn't go back into history nearly as much as it should.

[Danny]

Detroitnerd,

Digitalvision is right on the money with its comments. MOST of the buildings is Downtown Detroit were commercial [[ I think 'it' was talking about the 20th Century concept of Detroit blunders) When the Downtown Detroit experienced building boom, the developers are looking forward of commercialization rather than making fancy apartments. The apartment plan goes to Book families who designed once New-York esque those fancy apartments and mom and pop retails along Washington Bvld and all the way to Park St.

[mwilbert]

I really think that people are not looking at this the right way. Detroit has and has had a number of aspects that differ from other cities, but freeways aren't really one of those. However, that doesn't mean that if the freeways had not been built, that development patterns might not have been very different, and likely to the advantage of the core city.

People would still have spread out and moved to the suburbs, but the overall density would have declined much more slowly, the relative cost of living in the suburbs would have been higher, and as a result the city would probably have retained a higher proportion of both businesses and population.

[Detroitnerd]

Geography isn't to be ignored. There are few natural boundaries to hem in Detroit, for instance.

[Retroit]

Yes, Bearinbox, I think we've reached an impasse. You seem more concerned with proving that Detroit was destroyed by a lack of civic planning and I'm more concerned about proving that no amount of civic planning could have prevented what happened in Detroit. You might be able to force spineless socialists to live in designated areas of a city, but we Americans are going to live where we choose. If you don't like that, I would respectfully suggest that you get used to it. Peace!

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

I agree partly with both crawford and Bearinabox. It did happen to some extent in all these cities but, like Bearinabox said, it is the EXTENT to which it happened, not whether or not it happened. Detroit was very dominated by "dirty" heavy manufacturing industries [[not to be confused with meatpacking and garments). Again, we have to be careful lumping all cities together. Let me attempt to put the cities you listed in order from most adversely affected by decline in "dirty" heavy manufacturing industries to those least affected: Detroit, Gary, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toledo, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, New York, Boston. I'm not going to argue over the order, as I'm not an expert; my only point is that it is a matter of degree.

Again, to bring this back to the main point of this thread: building an expressway through each of these cities would not have affected the depopulation rates of these cities. Outward migration in Detroit didn't happen because of the expressways [[except, obviously those who lived in their paths). In fact, Detroit density declined only slowly after those expressways were built. Depopulation was much greater affected by the industrialization and racial conflict that I've enumerated above. Contrarily, look at Boston: they just built an expressway right through the heart of the city. How many people are fleeing Boston due to this "evil" expressway?

Excellent points, digitalvision. Detroiters did not have as much desire to live densely close to downtown like other cities [[mainly Northeast coastal cities and Chicago). This also encouraged the spread [[sprawl) of Detroit, and necessitated the expressways rather than was caused by the expressways.

Detroitnerd, if my arguments are too strong, steadfast, and useful for you, please feel free to eat on the floor.

[bailey]

Yes, Bearinbox, I think we've reached an impasse. You seem more concerned with proving that Detroit was destroyed by a lack of civic planning and I'm more concerned about proving that no amount of civic planning could have prevented what happened in Detroit. You might be able to force spineless socialists to live in designated areas of a city, but we Americans are going to live where we choose.

...as long as the cost for building roads, infrastructure, and the like are socialized to enable the freedom to live where one chooses.

[Bearinabox]

You might be able to force spineless socialists to live in designated areas of a city, but we Americans are going to live where we choose. If you don't like that, I would respectfully suggest that you get used to it. Peace!

No, we Americans live where the government decided to give us incentives to live. Our development model is as much the result of government policy as is the development model anywhere else, if not more so. If you honestly think that good urban planning is socialist, and that poor urban planning is not, allow me to respectfully suggest that you learn the difference between reason and ideology.

[Detroitnerd]

Haha. How old is Retroit? Like, 12?

[Retroit]

I really think that people are not looking at this the right way. Detroit has and has had a number of aspects that differ from other cities, but freeways aren't really one of those. However, that doesn't mean that if the freeways had not been built, that development patterns might not have been very different, and likely to the advantage of the core city.

People would still have spread out and moved to the suburbs, but the overall density would have declined much more slowly, the relative cost of living in the suburbs would have been higher, and as a result the city would probably have retained a higher proportion of both businesses and population.

Well said - with calm-headed reasonableness! I will concede that the expressways aided expansion [[rather than caused it). But the allegation that if expressways were not built in Detroit, Detroit would be like Manhattan, or if expressways had been built in Manhattan, they would be just like us is the point I'm arguing against. Yes, the availability of mobility or the lack thereof will aid or hinder outward expansion, but that motive for outward expansion is derived from other factors.

[crawford]

NYC absolutely was a heavy manufacturing center. Ever heard of the meatpacking district? The garment district?

What? Neither meatpacking nor the fashion industry has anything to do with heavy industry.

And the meatpacking district, when it existed, had nothing to do with "industry" whatsoever. It was never stockyards or anything.

It was just refrigerated warehouses filled with trucked-in meat that served Manhattan restaurants and other institutions with needs for wholesale purchase. Manhattan's enormous concentration of restaurants necessiated such a locale on the island itself.

NYC never had a particularly large manufacturing or industrial base relative to other Northeastern or Midwestern cities. It certainly had some industry, but never steelworks, manufacturing plants, or other such heavy industries.

[Retroit]

bailey, Bearinabox: there is a difference between a technocrat determining how a city should be ordered and a government responding to the needs of people. Without getting into an ideological debate [[yes, I believe in as little government as possible and you seem to believe that a supreme civil planning czar can cure all our ills), the government funding and policy have largely been a reflection of the will of the people, not the creation of a miss-guided idiotic civil planner. People wanted to build homes out away from the city [[and yes, away from blacks. Both the people and their elected representatives were racially motivated). People wanted to drive their cars everywhere instead of taking public transportation.

You have every right to believe that rail transport is better than road transport, or that dense housing is better than non-dense housing, but the great majority of Detroiters would not agree with you. My intention is not to defend them, just to show that they think different than you that you have a very formidable task ahead of you if you intend to convince them all.

[Detroitnerd]

NYC never had a particularly large manufacturing or industrial base relative to other Northeastern or Midwestern cities? It certainly had some industry, but never steelworks, manufacturing plants, or other such heavy industries?

Haha. You guys don't know your history or your present. You never heard of Brooklyn Navy Yard? Or the Camden Yards? Or any of the factories that used to be Soho? You perhaps think Manhattan was always just a forest of office towers? The shores of Jersey, Manhattan and Brooklyn were a keyboard of piers, with refineries, tanks, factories and shipbuilders. It wasn't near enough the copper or the coal for steel works, but it made millions of pounds of exportable goods for years and years. And manufacturing has always been part of the city, and is a vital part of it today, lighter and more diversified.

Take it from a guy who lived there and studied the history. You have no right to say what New York never had.

[iheartthed]

I think there's this false perception that downtown was EVER full of residents. It wasn't.

Detroit has ALWAYS been a bedroom city - multi-unit dwellings like Chicago or New York has in scale, were consistently prohibited by a racist city council, because in general, multi-units attracted all types of minorities. Most of Detroit outside of the grand neighborhoods was built in matchstick-style, poor construction. I know, I've torn down houses that are old but are functionally useless [[no one is buying a 700 square foot home nowadays, yes, 700 square feet, built in the 1920's).

Downtown has never had the population of those areas - most of those buildings, even those that are NOW residential, were all commercial and people commuted to, in general, from their single-family homes. Detroit has NEVER been a dense city like those areas - it's always been neighborhoods, duplexes, etc. Detroit's culture even in it's heyday was single-family homes - so it's no surprise we spread out.

Now, as to the reasons for moving - the freeways helped but were NOT the cause. The real reason is race-motivated policies of realtors and insurance companies. In short, if you got back from the war, the feds told you where you could build your new house -and you couldn't use it to rehab existing housing. Also, insurance at the time did not cover the replacement value, it covered the depreciated value - so, if you lost your fridge in a fire that was 8 years old, you would only get a percentage of the money required to buy a new fridge. They'd give you the money as if you sold that fridge used.

So, with that insurance being the case, people had additional incentive to leave quickly any area that was starting to fall apart - because they financially couldn't risk losing their stuff, as the insurance companies wouldn't cover them, whereas they could get full replacement value living in white areas.

Original poster's note: I did not mean to imply that freeways are the sole reason for Detroit's decline. I actually would like for there to be a more holistic discussion of all ill-advised urban planning decisions by Detroit, of which freeway construction is only one [[albeit one of the biggest blunders).

But let's look at Philadelphia. Philadelphia is almost identical to Detroit in geographical size. They both peaked at nearly identical populations, both had similar peak densities... But now Philadelphia is about 500 to 600 thousand residents larger than Detroit. Both had issues of racism. Both had issues of white flight. Both had crime issues. Both had faltering regional economies. Both had extreme levels of divestment by the business community. Yet, Philly's shrink rate is much less stark than Detroit's. I'm not the most knowledgeable about Philly's history, but I do know that they don't have freeways bisecting neighborhoods to the extent that exists in Detroit. [[Philly also has a transit system that is light years ahead of Detroit's.)

Another thing that I would like to point out is that every city has a transient population. The people who lived in Chicago, NYC and Philadelphia 30 years ago are not necessarily the same residents who live there today. But there are conditions in these places that made those cities attractive to new residents who came in to replace those who moved away. Detroit's problem is that the flow of people is only going one way - out.

[Retroit]

Haha. How old is Retroit? Like, 12?

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion or are you content taking cheap shots at me? I frankly don't know whether you disagree with anything I've said, or if you just need someone to pick on. If I am so offensive to you, let me acquaint you with the Ignore function: click "User CP", "Settings & Options", "Edit Ignore List".

I do appreciate your levity, but your obsession with harassing me is leaving me feel a little uncomfortable and pitying of you.

[Detroitnerd]

Actually, you guys are doing a good job of answering the thread question. Why hasn't Detroit owned up to its urban planning blunders?

1) It doesn't see them as blunders.
2) It actually wants to kill its central city and live in a massive sea of urbanoidity, including big box stores, fast food shacks, miles and miles of concrete and ever-more-expensive cookie-cutter fiefdoms
3) It doesn't know its history
4) It doesn't know what a city is
5) It is inherently segregationist, and sees diversity as a threat to the status quot
6) It is soaked in denial and half-truths
7) Most importantly, any discussion of the issue elicits a defensive rage response, obscuring critical thought and a yammering, chattering stream of rhetorical yowling.

Can we just send you all out to the U.P. and get on with people who want a city to function?

[Retroit]

NYC never had a particularly large manufacturing or industrial base relative to other Northeastern or Midwestern cities? It certainly had some industry, but never steelworks, manufacturing plants, or other such heavy industries?

Haha. You guys don't know your history or your present. You never heard of Brooklyn Navy Yard? Or the Camden Yards? Or any of the factories that used to be Soho? You perhaps think Manhattan was always just a forest of office towers? The shores of Jersey, Manhattan and Brooklyn were a keyboard of piers, with refineries, tanks, factories and shipbuilders. It wasn't near enough the copper or the coal for steel works, but it made millions of pounds of exportable goods for years and years. And manufacturing has always been part of the city, and is a vital part of it today, lighter and more diversified.

Take it from a guy who lived there and studied the history. You have no right to say what New York never had.

While all you said is true, you've failed to acknowledge that while all these industries were declining, there was a rapidly growing commerce/finance/trade/marketing sector. Detroit did not have this capacity.

[Detroitnerd]

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion or are you content taking cheap shots at me? I frankly don't know whether you disagree with anything I've said, or if you just need someone to pick on. If I am so offensive to you, let me acquaint you with the Ignore function: click "User CP", "Settings & Options", "Edit Ignore List".

I do appreciate your levity, but your obsession with harassing me is leaving me feel a little uncomfortable and pitying of you.

I think the main thing that makes you sound like a 12-year-old is that you have not yet developed the ability to critically examine your own ideas. All that comes out is a torrent of pop mythology. Demonstrate that you can do otherwise and you'll sound more adult.

Or, instead of jamming your fingers in your ears whenever people try to tell you what's wrong with your theses, maybe YOU should use the forum's ignore function. You're already using it in your mind.

*JAMMING FINGERS IN EARS*

Wahhhhhh! People don't agree with my unresearched nonsense!

Wahhhhhh! I wish I was only talking to people who agreed with me!

Wahhhhhh! I don't want to do any research or reading!

Wahhhhhh! Wahhhhhh! Wahhhhhh!

[Detroitnerd]

While all you said is true, you've failed to acknowledge that while all these industries were declining, there was a rapidly growing commerce/finance/trade/marketing sector. Detroit did not have this capacity.

Haha. Detroit had its own stock market, one of four in the nation. It was the fourth-richest city in the United States. It had and still has huge marketing companies, advertising firms and all the other appurtenances of a financial center. Again, you are making points without any knowledge to back them up. Aren't you tired of this yet?

[iheartthed]

What? Neither meatpacking nor the fashion industry has anything to do with heavy industry.

And the meatpacking district, when it existed, had nothing to do with "industry" whatsoever. It was never stockyards or anything.

It was just refrigerated warehouses filled with trucked-in meat that served Manhattan restaurants and other institutions with needs for wholesale purchase. Manhattan's enormous concentration of restaurants necessiated such a locale on the island itself.

NYC never had a particularly large manufacturing or industrial base relative to other Northeastern or Midwestern cities. It certainly had some industry, but never steelworks, manufacturing plants, or other such heavy industries.

I thought you were a real estate person. Don't you even know what Williamsburg was before it became the Hipster Capital U.S.A.? You're either being ignorant or disingenuous to say that NYC was always a primarily white collar town.