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

[ziggyselbin]

Predictably these threads almost always devolve into petty arguments.

So I would ask what to do now? Forger about demonizing the car; it is here to stay. To many of us a car is needed. Reasonable people would see a place for mass transit and the automobile.

What ideas do you all have that envision Detroit the way you would have it?

A few years ago in A2 the Calthorpe co was hired to help citizens work on what they would like the city to look like. People went to city hall sat with other citizens and designed their vision of certain area's.

What ideas are there here? The uppermost imo is safety. Nothing of significance will happen w/o big reductions in crime.

[Retroit]

Yes, Detroitnerd, everyone has a different perspective on the facts. I do understand where you and others are coming from. I respect your desire to have a dense city full of high-rises and mass transit. I have merely been trying to expose you to how most people that I know out here in the "evil" suburbs think. Personally, I would like to see the city of Detroit become more like the suburbs of Detroit than like Manhattan: safe, clean neighborhoods with single family homes; expressways maintained in current configuration to provide ease of movement; WallMarts and shopping malls so Detroiters don't have to travel all the way out to the suburbs to shop; along with all the other benefits that we superbanites enjoy [[good schools, fairly well-run and accountable representation in city hall, etc.)

Thank you, crawford, for your input. I agree with you on just about everything. As far as the expressways in Manhattan, I somewhat see Ihearthed's initial post that Manhattan [[and to a great extent, Brooklyn) had been better preserved by building the expressways around the periphery [[along the water). This was allowable due to their geography and would not have been possible in Detroit. I-94 couldn't have been built along the waterfront, as that would have necessitated destruction of factories/warehouses along the river in Detroit and the mansions in Grosse Pointe. I suppose if Woodward were a river [[like the East River), I-75 and the Lodge could have bordered that instead of cutting through a landmass. Proves once again that you really can't compare New York and Detroit. But I'm sure it will be only a matter of days before a DetroitYESer tries it again. Oh well... gives us someone to argue with.

[iheartthed]

No, none of these roads are remotely congested. They are all basically free-flowing compared to other major cities around the world.

One can get from downtown Detroit to Troy in 20 minutes. During rush hour, no less.

You can get to Troy from downtown in 20 minutes because there aren't many people going from downtown to Troy. If 696 is "free-flowing" during rush hour, especially between Orchard Lake Rd. and 275, then a lot has changed since I've been away.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, Detroitnerd, everyone has a different perspective on the facts.

Acknowledging the facts is the first step. Call me when you get there.

[ghettopalmetto]

Personally, I would like to see the city of Detroit become more like the suburbs of Detroit than like Manhattan: safe, clean neighborhoods with single family homes; expressways maintained in current configuration to provide ease of movement; WallMarts and shopping malls so Detroiters don't have to travel all the way out to the suburbs to shop; along with all the other benefits that we superbanites enjoy [[good schools, fairly well-run and accountable representation in city hall, etc.)

What's the point of making Detroit look and function exactly like its suburbs? Is that supposed to attract people to live in the City of Detroit? To me, that's a competitive disadvantage, as you have two identical-looking products, but one of them has lower taxation, lower crime, and better services. If Detroit is going to compete, it needs to capitalize on the advantages it does have--not replicate Pleasantville. Bear in mind--educated Michiganders are leaving for Chicago, New York, and DC over Detroit, not Sterling Heights over Detroit.

How does it follow that an automobile-oriented design produces "good schools, fairly well-run and accountable representation in city hall, etc."?

So, shop for Chinese junk at Walmart, plan your daily errands around traffic jams, and marvel at the beauty of the vinyl siding on your home. Just don't force that jive plastic lifestyle onto one of the few places in Michigan that hasn't fully embraced the generic suburban vernacular.

[Retroit]

Acknowledging the facts is the first step. Call me when you get there.

It's not so much what took place that I disagree with you on, it's why it took place. You [[and others) seem to be implying that the civic planning of Detroit's transportation infrastructure was contrived by some evil overlords intent on destroying Detroit. I think they were simply reacting to the trend at the time toward of greater use of the automobile and expansion of suburbs, which MOST people at that time wanted. True, this caused some disruptions, for example, when expressways were routed through black neighborhoods, those blacks were relocated to unwelcoming white neighborhoods, etc. But in the broad view from our current position, I think that the expressways were necessary [[sure some minor changes could have been made), and that Detroit is better off transportation-wise than it would be with no, or much less, expressways. The problems that Detroit faces are not due to the auto-oriented transportation infrastructure. We have to accept the city we've inherited, whether we like it or not, and move on from here [[not from a 1950's city that "could-have-been").

[Danny]

The old Jewish community at Black Bottom FAILED because the Jews wanted more space.

The old Jewish community at Hasting Street FAILED because the Jews wanted more and more space.

The Jewish community along Oakland St, Woodward from Grand Blvd, Midtown, New Center Area and up to Webb Streets FAILED because the Jews wanted more and more and more space.

The Jewish community at northwest Detroit FAILED because the Jews wanted more and more and more and more space. Therefore they moved to Oak Park, Southfield, Lathrup Village, Franklin, Beverly Hills, Bloomfield Hills, West Bloomfield TWP. Commerce TWP. Farmington, Farmington Hills and Novi.

Polonia FAILED because the Poles in Detroit lower east side wanted more space. Therefore they moved to Hamtramck, Warren, Hazel Park, Sterling Heights, Clinton TWP. Center Line, Shelby TWP, Utica and up to Macomb TWP. and Washington TWP.

Germantown in Downtown Detroit FAILED because the Germans wanted more space. So they followed the Poles and moved to Hamtramck, Warren, Hazel Park, Sterling Heights, Clinton TWP. Center Line, Shelby TWP, Utica and up to Macomb TWP and Washington TWP.

The Germans in Warrendale community FAILED because they wanted more space so they moved to Dearborn [[west), Dearborn Heights, Westland, Garden City and Redford TWP. Canton TWP, Plymouth, Plymouth TWP, Northville, Northville TWP and Livonia.

The Italians in the Polonia district in Detroit's lower east side FAILED because they wanted more space.

The Italians in the Calcalupa district in Detroit's upper east side FAILED because they wanted more and more space.

The Italians in the Little Italy district in Detroit's Northeast side FAILED because they wanted more and more and more space. Therefore they moved to Eastpointe [[ East Detroit) St. Clair Shores, Grosse Pointe Park, Grosse Pointe,Grosse Pointe Farms, Grosse Pointe Woods, Grosse Pointe Farms, Harper Woods, Roseville, Harrison TWP, Macomb TWP, Sterling Hieghts, Clinton TWP, Utica, Washington TWP.

The Hungarians in Delray district at Detroit 's Southwest side FAILED because the need more space. Therefore they moved to River Rouge, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Wyandotte, Melvindale, Trenton, Grosse Ille, Woodhaven, Taylor, Allen Park, Southgate, Brownstown TWP, Riverview, Gibraltar, Flat Rock and Rockwood.

Ethnicity in Detroit created these urban blunders not just because of political corruption, the growing migration of blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans and Arabs, poor schools and city services, freeways segregation and xenophobia. It's because of people wanted more space after they got a car.

[ghettopalmetto]

It's not so much what took place that I disagree with you on, it's why it took place. You [[and others) seem to be implying that the civic planning of Detroit's transportation infrastructure was contrived by some evil overlords intent on destroying Detroit. I think they were simply reacting to the trend at the time toward of greater use of the automobile and expansion of suburbs, which MOST people at that time wanted. True, this caused some disruptions, for example, when expressways were routed through black neighborhoods, those blacks were relocated to unwelcoming white neighborhoods, etc. But in the broad view from out current position, I think that the expressways were necessary [[sure some minor changes could have been made), and that Detroit is better off transportation-wise than it would be with no, or much less, expressways. The problems that Detroit faces are not due to the auto-oriented transportation infrastructure. We have to accept the city we've inherited, whether we like it or not, and move on from here [[not from a 1950's city that "could-have-been").

Anyone who has actually studied this issue, however, knows that the highway planners of the 1950s never imagined the massive sprawl, disinvestment of central cities, and ridiculous levels of traffic that we have today. It was once thought that the Chrysler Freeway in Detroit was going to permanently solve all the transportation woes of Southeast Michigan. It was once thought that people would live in the outer parts of the city and the suburbs, but would continue to work and shop downtown.

You can accept the city you've inherited and the outdated 1950s ideas on which it is predicated. OR you can realize that you're a smart-enough person, and that maybe we've learned a thing or two in the 60 or so years hence.

[Danny]

The Greeks in Downtown Detroit stayed because they took pride in their city.

The Chaldeans [[ espacially in W. 7 Mile Rd from Woodward Ave to John R. Rd.) stayed in Detroit because they took pride in their city.

The East Indians in Conant Gardens in the Northeast side stayed in Detroit because they took pride in their city.

The Arabs Muslims at Lonyo, McGraw, W. Vernor HWY. near Patton Park, Warrendale and Mt Elliot area. stayed in Detroit because they took pride in their city.

The Mexicans of Southwest side stayed in Detroit because they took pride in their city.

The Irish in Corktown stayed in Detroit because they took pride in their city.

These group of ethnic people didn't asked for more space, They would fight blunders and crime for their ghettohoods. Most of them even help poor black Detroiters get themselves back their feet.

These are the group of ethnicities make Detroit their home and I'm really proud of these groups.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Detroit is NOT dead!

[Detroitnerd]

It's not so much what took place that I disagree with you on, it's why it took place. You [[and others) seem to be implying that the civic planning of Detroit's transportation infrastructure was contrived by some evil overlords intent on destroying Detroit. I think they were simply reacting to the trend at the time toward of greater use of the automobile and expansion of suburbs, which MOST people at that time wanted. True, this caused some disruptions, for example, when expressways were routed through black neighborhoods, those blacks were relocated to unwelcoming white neighborhoods, etc. But in the broad view from out current position, I think that the expressways were necessary [[sure some minor changes could have been made), and that Detroit is better off transportation-wise than it would be with no, or much less, expressways. The problems that Detroit faces are not due to the auto-oriented transportation infrastructure. We have to accept the city we've inherited, whether we like it or not, and move on from here [[not from a 1950's city that "could-have-been").

It's all part of some nefarious plan? Dude, you really have me confused with somebody else. Maybe you just scan what I type and impute my motives to it. That would explain how irrelevant some of your responses have been to what I'm saying.

OK, expressways make metro Detroit better, transportation-wise. Um...

How about this for another perspective. Cities are places where everything is located centrally. That means that you don't NEED to drive all over creation to put together tonight's dinner, do laundry, get a bite, buy a newspaper, etc. That's what urbanity is: Many different kinds of people, doing many different kinds of jobs, offering many different kinds of goods and services in one place. You don't need the car in the best environments, at all. And that's the kind of lifestyle that is ascendant right now.

See, in a real city, you're better off living-wise. It's all there.

Take when I was living in Brooklyn. My subway stop was a block and a half away. Within three blocks of my apartment, I had a butcher, a baker, an ethnic grocery, two green grocers, a burrito shop, a coffee shop, a supermarket, a diner, a bodega, a dry cleaner and a host of other businesses. I didn't have a transportation problem because I didn't need to travel much.

But, here, since we've decided to build everything so spread out, you NEED a car. Or else you have a transportation problem. So you say you're better off transportation-wise, but, actually, what you have is a life that is impossible without a car. Metro Detroiters are forever shuttling here and there, from big box to pizza shack, from burger hut to drive-thru dry cleaners, spending much more time, money and energy on errands than somebody in a city.

Now, that may just be peachy-keen for you. But a growing segment of the American public is sick of that shit. They demonstrate that by voting with their feet. They actually want that little apartment in an old-fashioned neighborhood with local businesses. Imagine that!

[Retroit]

What's the point of making Detroit look and function exactly like its suburbs?

Where are people from the City of Detroit moving to? Answer: The suburbs.
How do you prevent people from leaving the City of Detroit? A: Make Detroit just like them so that there is no reason to leave.

Is that supposed to attract people to live in the City of Detroit?

Is what the City of Detroit currently doing attracting anyone? Answer: No.

To me, that's a competitive disadvantage, as you have two identical-looking products, but one of them has lower taxation, lower crime, and better services.

Yes, that is why people move.

If Detroit is going to compete, it needs to capitalize on the advantages it does have--not replicate Pleasantville.

And it's advantages are? Answer: None

Bear in mind--educated Michiganders are leaving for Chicago, New York, and DC over Detroit, not Sterling Heights over Detroit.

Where are Detroit residents moving to? Answer: The suburbs.

How does it follow that an automobile-oriented design produces "good schools, fairly well-run and accountable representation in city hall, etc."?

That was not my point. I merely mentioned that to show that it was not solely transportation infrastructure issues that were causing people to leave Detroit. I wanted to be clear that that was not what I was arguing.

So, shop for Chinese junk at Walmart, plan your daily errands around traffic jams, and marvel at the beauty of the vinyl siding on your home.

I will inform all the ex-Detroiters [[and many current ones) that they now have your approval.

Just don't force that jive plastic lifestyle onto one of the few places in Michigan that hasn't fully embraced the generic suburban vernacular.

Yes, I wouldn't want to destroy the beauty and tranquility of Detroit's neighborhoods.

[Retroit]

Ethnicity in Detroit created these urban blunders...

The immigrants [[and their descendants) caused the population to grow. That is not a blunder. The immigrants outgrew their neighborhoods. That is not a blunder. The immigrants desired a "better life" out in the suburbs. That is not a blunder. Automobiles, which provided many of those immigrants with a livelihood, enabled them to live where they want. That is not a blunder.

[[unless I completely missed your point )

[Detroitnerd]

Retroit: What you fail to grasp is that regions work because city, suburb and country are all doing what they do best, appealing to those who enjoy a certain lifestyle, and profiting from each others' excellence. The effort to have suburbs at the expense of cities is, so far, not very successful. Other cities look at metro Detroit as a backward place, not because of Detroit, but because the region doesn't work together. We have some very nice suburbs, true, but they don't have downtowns. We have a nice downtown in Detroit, but awful neighborhoods. And the country? You have to drive for a goddamn hour to get into the country here, as we've spent the last 20 years filling it up with junky exurban places that will probably be empty in another 20 years. It's a goddamn mess. And it's because, once a person moves to Novi or Farmington Hills, they say, "To hell with everybody else. Fuck them. I've got mine. Let them fight for theirs." And that's the philosophy that's sinking us, regionally.

But it's changing. Even right-wing jerkoffs like Patterson get it these days: The destiny of the city and its suburbs are tied together. And no amount of suburbanite chest-thumping will change that. Based on your comments, I take it you're a classic example of somebody who either fears, distrusts, hates or misunderstands what cities are. And no efforts to educate you about the issues will change that, because, at a certain point, your suburban triumphalism will just take over and you'll start happily burbling about expressways and home values and how all these people are moving to the suburbs, neglecting to mention that the reason they're moving there is that they're fleeing a disorganized, underfunded wreck of a city that you cheerfully live next to without a qualm in the world.

[Retroit]

Anyone who has actually studied this issue, however, knows that the highway planners of the 1950s never imagined the massive sprawl, disinvestment of central cities, and ridiculous levels of traffic that we have today. It was once thought that the Chrysler Freeway in Detroit was going to permanently solve all the transportation woes of Southeast Michigan. It was once thought that people would live in the outer parts of the city and the suburbs, but would continue to work and shop downtown.

If the "blundering" urban planners at that time thought that Detroit's expansion would magically stop where the expressway ends, then they were very shortsighted... in the direction opposite to those who claim that no expressways should have been built.

You can accept the city you've inherited and the outdated 1950s ideas on which it is predicated. OR you can realize that you're a smart-enough person, and that maybe we've learned a thing or two in the 60 or so years hence.

Learning things isn't going to remove the expressways or the need for them. Detroit is what it is. Make a list of things in Detroit that need to be changed. If the elimination of automobile transportation is in the top 100 of your list, you are not making an honest assessment of life in Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

Haha. That's hilarious reductionism. Yes, Retroit. We all want to take away all your expressways and your car too. And burn down your garage. Jesus, I never saw anyone expend more energy in avoiding the point.

[Retroit]

These group of ethnic people didn't asked for more space, They would fight blunders and crime for their ghettohoods. Most of them even help poor black Detroiters get themselves back their feet.

These are the group of ethnicities make Detroit their home and I'm really proud of these groups.

You are quite off on your assessment of the Ethnic groups in Detroit. Many of the groups you mentioned have moved out, are moving out, and will move out as they, too, outgrow their neighborhoods and as new groups of immigrants take their place.

[Bearinabox]

If the elimination of automobile transportation is in the top 100 of your list, you are not making an honest assessment of life in Detroit.

Nobody is arguing for the elimination of automobile transportation. Every city in the world has cars. What I'm arguing for is a choice. Right now, the kind of lifestyle you seem to enjoy is the only choice anyone really has in metro Detroit, which is why everyone who likes any lifestyle other than that one is moving out of state. Your personal preference aside, you can't reasonably argue that metro Detroit can be successful by only catering to one type of person, where other metro areas offer something for almost everyone.

[Retroit]

It's all part of some nefarious plan? Dude, you really have me confused with somebody else. Maybe you just scan what I type and impute my motives to it. That would explain how irrelevant some of your responses have been to what I'm saying.

Detroitnerd: "The freeways were built to move people out of the city and to develop the land outside it to make enormous profits. In the beginning, the lobbies didn't get rich because they were doing the people's bidding. They helped grease the wheels of the system for a bonanza of their own making. And it was all made possible with the people's money."

OK, expressways make metro Detroit better, transportation-wise. Um...

How about this for another perspective. Cities are places where everything is located centrally.

"Located centrally"? We're all supposed to go downtown for all our daily needs?

Answer: No,

That means that you don't NEED to drive all over creation to put together tonight's dinner, do laundry, get a bite, buy a newspaper, etc. That's what urbanity is: Many different kinds of people, doing many different kinds of jobs, offering many different kinds of goods and services in one place. You don't need the car in the best environments, at all. And that's the kind of lifestyle that is ascendant right now.

See, in a real city, you're better off living-wise. It's all there.

Yes, it is good to have our daily needs to be met nearby, and not downtown.

Take when I was living in Brooklyn. My subway stop was a block and a half away. Within three blocks of my apartment, I had a butcher, a baker, an ethnic grocery, two green grocers, a burrito shop, a coffee shop, a supermarket, a diner, a bodega, a dry cleaner and a host of other businesses. I didn't have a transportation problem because I didn't need to travel much.

But, here, since we've decided to build everything so spread out, you NEED a car. Or else you have a transportation problem. So you say you're better off transportation-wise, but, actually, what you have is a life that is impossible without a car. Metro Detroiters are forever shuttling here and there, from big box to pizza shack, from burger hut to drive-thru dry cleaners, spending much more time, money and energy on errands than somebody in a city.

Now, that may just be peachy-keen for you. But a growing segment of the American public is sick of that shit. They demonstrate that by voting with their feet. They actually want that little apartment in an old-fashioned neighborhood with local businesses. Imagine that!

Well, I lived in Queens for a while, and I unequivocally HATED it. Way too congested. Way too claustrophobic. Too noisy. Quite run down and dirty. Had to rely on public transportation. I would bet that most superbanites of Detroit would find living there a steep decline in quality of life. True, maybe for a young person out to see the world, it may be a change of pace for awhile. But they'll get sick of it.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd: "The freeways were built to move people out of the city and to develop the land outside it to make enormous profits. In the beginning, the lobbies didn't get rich because they were doing the people's bidding. They helped grease the wheels of the system for a bonanza of their own making. And it was all made possible with the people's money."

That's not some nefarious plan. It's a fact. It's the American political system. You have a bunch of businesses that see an opportunity to make money and they work with government employees [[some credulous, some corrupt, some clueless) and everybody makes a ton of money. Where in that statement do the "evil overlords intent on destroying Detroit" make their appearance?

"Located centrally"? We're all supposed to go downtown for all our daily needs?

Maybe I didn't word it the best, but you are really trying to miss the point, I think. Yes, you have a downtown, which is the place where the most and greatest variety of goods, services and businesses are. But then you have neighborhoods in the city, where things are close at hand. This allows you to get some things near where you work [[books, gourmet foods, hard-to-find equipment, etc.) and some things at home [[groceries, dry cleaning, etc.) In 1920s Detroit, the downtown would be Detroit, and the neighborhood could be in the city or even as far as Birmingham. In fact, Birmingham was then a streetcar suburb, which is part of the reason it looks so pleasing today.

When I lived in Brooklyn, this system worked fine for me. I never had to walk more than a block and a half to get on the subway, go into Manhattan [[most of which is one big "downtown"), get what I needed on my lunch break, go home, do same, and then settle in for the night. Anyway, jeez, what's so bad about going downtown? I work down here. It's fine. Hell, I can bike to work I live so close.

Well, I lived in Queens for a while, and I unequivocally HATED it. Way too congested. Way too claustrophobic. Too noisy. Quite run down and dirty. Had to rely on public transportation. I would bet that most superbanites of Detroit would find living there a steep decline in quality of life. True, maybe for a young person out to see the world, it may be a change of pace for awhile. But they'll get sick of it.

Not everybody has been cloned from your DNA, Retroit. In fact, it's quite the other way around. After dominating life in the United States for decades, the auto-centered way of life is losing its appeal. And places that have been built just for it are struggling to adapt. Saying that everything is fine, that people will move away but get sick of it, may make you feel better, but it's just another example of your refusal to understand the change this country's going through.

My advice to you? Stay in your safe suburban home. Go on living the life you like. You may be perplexed by people who don't feel the same way you do. But, please, refrain from offering your opinions on how cities work, what will improve them, or how desirable they are. Do what you do best. Mow that lawn. Buy that Slurpee. Drive all day, every day. But don't talk about cities, OK? You're not qualified.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, I lived in Queens for a while, and I unequivocally HATED it. Way too congested. Way too claustrophobic. Too noisy. Quite run down and dirty. Had to rely on public transportation. I would bet that most superbanites of Detroit would find living there a steep decline in quality of life. True, maybe for a young person out to see the world, it may be a change of pace for awhile. But they'll get sick of it.

But I'll betcha even the poor people in Queens don't spend 3 hours a day, each way, on buses commuting to a minimum wage job in the suburbs 10 or 15 miles away. And they certainly don't have to connive someone to give them a ride to go shopping for food, or to see a doctor.

[Detroitnerd]

Oh, Ghetto. Give up.

Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes.

[Retroit]

Retroit: What you fail to grasp is that regions work because city, suburb and country are all doing what they do best, appealing to those who enjoy a certain lifestyle, and profiting from each others' excellence.

That is very true Detroitnerd, but I think you are overestimating the number of people that want to live in downtowns or "dense" areas, and you're underestimating those who want to live in quiet suburbs.

The effort to have suburbs at the expense of cities is, so far, not very successful.

The suburbs are very successful. Most of us are quite happy out here, even recent ex-Detroiters. Detroit is not failing because it doesn't have enough high-rises and subways. It's failing because of the way people live [[crime, destruction, lack of morals, not holding elected officials accountable, etc.)

Other cities look at metro Detroit as a backward place, not because of Detroit, but because the region doesn't work together.

...not because the region doesn't work together, but because the people within the city don't work together.

We have some very nice suburbs, true, but they don't have downtowns.

And don't want downtowns, at least not on the order of downtown Detroit. We want peace and quiet.

We have a nice downtown in Detroit, but awful neighborhoods.

Not quite true [[but improving), and quite true.

And the country? You have to drive for a goddamn hour to get into the country here,...

Who cares? What are you going out there for? Fresh air?

...as we've spent the last 20 years filling it up with junky exurban places that will probably be empty in another 20 years.

For your information [[I know you know, of course), the City of Detroit was once largely farm land. We started filling up the farm land a long, long time ago...and will continue filling it up...unless you have a way of convincing people not to reproduce.

It's a goddamn mess.

Some parts are, some parts aren't. The City of Detroit is [[mostly), and the suburbs aren't [[mostly). Take your pick.

And it's because, once a person moves to Novi or Farmington Hills, they say, "To hell with everybody else. Fuck them. I've got mine. Let them fight for theirs." And that's the philosophy that's sinking us, regionally.

What is wrong with people creating a place that they enjoy living. Are you suggesting that people in Novi and Farmington Hills should dictate how others should live? Let everyone decide where and how they want to live.

But it's changing. Even right-wing jerkoffs like Patterson get it these days:

I think you completely misunderstood Brook. He has always been willing to work with Detroit. Can the opposite also be said. The Detroit Shitty Clown Show is not going to take the advice of Brook. They know better. Didn't you know that?

The destiny of the city and its suburbs are tied together.

True.

And no amount of suburbanite chest-thumping will change that.

And no amount of urban chest-thumping will change that. Agreed?

Based on your comments, I take it you're a classic example of somebody who either fears, distrusts, hates or misunderstands what cities are.

Fear? No, unless you mean the crime. Distrust? No, unless you mean the politicians. Hates? I would hate living there, but I don't hate the fact that they exist. Misunderstands? No, I just prefer not to live there.

Can YOU say that YOU don't fear, distrust, hate, or misunderstand the suburbs?

And no efforts to educate you about the issues will change that, because, at a certain point, your suburban triumphalism will just take over and you'll start happily burbling about expressways and home values and how all these people are moving to the suburbs,..

How else am I going to convince you that you're wrong?

... neglecting to mention that the reason they're moving there is that they're fleeing a disorganized, underfunded wreck of a city...

And whose fault is that? You Detroiters create a city that I would like to live in, and I will move there.

...that you cheerfully live next to without a qualm in the world.

What power do I have to change it. If I walked down the streets of Detroit with a bullhorn yelling "Do not steal, do not kill, do not have sex if you are not willing to deal with the consequences, go to school, don't take drugs, clean up your property, discipline your kids", how do you think that would go over?

[Retroit]

Okay, Detroitnerd, I'll continue to enjoy living in my suburb if you promise to start enjoy living in your city. If you want a bunch of high-rises, "centrally located" stores, and light rail lines, please feel free to build them. Who knows maybe one day when the people of Detroit get their act together, they will build a city that people would actually like living in.

But, PLEASE, stop blaming the suburbs for all the problems in the city. Please stop denigrating how I and 3/4 of the people in metro-Detroit choose to live. Please stop blaming things that can not be changed [[cars, expressways, past "urban planning blunders", etc.), and start focusing on things that can be changed [[improving the way of life for people with social improvements instead of infrastructural improvements).

[Detroitnerd]

You think I'm overestimating the number of people that want to live in downtowns or "dense" areas as opposed to suburbs? I don't think I've given any estimates, per se, but it's a demonstrated fact that tastes are changing. Today's young people are not the same generation that hated cities, went through a Depression and a World War, and then wanted some sleepy place to retire to. A growing segment prefers cities. It's just a fact.

When I note that efforts to have good suburbs at the expense of cities isn't working, you burble on about how "The suburbs are very successful. Most of us are quite happy out here, even recent ex-Detroiters." Umm, that's not the point. The point is that our regional plan is to have great suburbs and let the inner city waste away. The old suburban game of blaming Detroiters for the state of Detroit is a silly one. We all know that our regional vision is to treat Detroit as a repository for everything bad so that the other areas stay good. People with a lot more power than Detroiters make sure things stay that way.

You say the suburbs don't want downtowns. That's funny. I read an interview with the mayor of Troy who said, as he was leaving office, that he wished Troy had developed a real downtown. It's also funny because regional mall operators have taken to building miniature downtowns for suburbanites to shop at. And, come to think of it, suburbanites without downtowns love going to other cities' downtowns, whether it be Toronto or Royal Oak. The facts are there. You do your suburban neighbors a disservice by speaking for them.

You say: "For your information [[I know you know, of course), the City of Detroit was once largely farm land. We started filling up the farm land a long, long time ago...and will continue filling it up...unless you have a way of convincing people not to reproduce."

Um, the only problem is that our population has been nearly stagnant for decades. So, all we're doing is building out more stuff without any additional residents. So, yeah, reproduction has nothing to do with it.

Most of what's now Detroit was farmland in the 1850s. Much of Detroit was farmland up until the 1930s. Troy was all farmland in the 1950s. In the last 60 years, we've eaten up so much land for suburbs that, yeah, you can't even drive out into the country without a half-tank of gas. In Windsor, you're in the country in 10 minutes. And that's pretty awesome, yeah.

About that "I got mine. Fuck everybody else." attitude, you reply: What is wrong with people creating a place that they enjoy living?"

No, I'm saying that if that's the attitude we have, we're doomed as a region.

Then you say: "Are you suggesting that people in Novi and Farmington Hills should dictate how others should live? Let everyone decide where and how they want to live."

Which just proves that you have AGAIN missed the point.

Brooks Patterson is a drunkard and a bigot.

As for me being an urban chest-thumper, that's hilarious, dude. I'm the one who brought up regionalism as a solution. I'm the one who concedes suburban environments can be attractive. Where's all this coming from? Defensiveness?

"Can YOU say that YOU don't fear, distrust, hate, or misunderstand the suburbs?"

Haha. Sure. I'm from Dearborn, dude.

Anyway, your responses don't seem to demonstrate any willingness to examine the issues, as summed up in one of your final parting shots: " How else am I going to convince you that you're wrong?"

If that's your purpose, you really need to do some reading and open your mind to other ways of living. Because you don't have the facts at your command to convince anybody of anything they don't already believe.

Go ahead. Keep playing the blame game. It's all Detroit's problem, right? Then again, why are you perfectly willing to live next to a city like that?

Wait a second. Don't answer. I'd rather spend my time debating people with a bit more knowledge.

[Detroitnerd]

Okay, Detroitnerd, I'll continue to enjoy living in my suburb if you promise to start enjoy living in your city. If you want a bunch of high-rises, "centrally located" stores, and light rail lines, please feel free to build them. Who knows maybe one day when the people of Detroit get their act together, they will build a city that people would actually like living in.

But, PLEASE, stop blaming the suburbs for all the problems in the city. Please stop denigrating how I and 3/4 of the people in metro-Detroit choose to live. Please stop blaming things that can not be changed [[cars, expressways, past "urban planning blunders", etc.), and start focusing on things that can be changed [[improving the way of life for people with social improvements instead of infrastructural improvements).

This is what happens when you try to bring up regionalism, talk about working together, and explaining why cities and suburbs have a common destiny. So defensive!