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

[Detroitnerd]

Nothing. which is my point. The region will likely massively shrink, eventually settle to a natural equilibrium and become just another backwater, 4th tier, has-been region.

I'm not advocating for it, I'm just pointing out reality.

Excuse me.. .by "Detroit" I was speaking of the international family of communities., not just Detroit proper.

50 years of retarded regional urban planning are not going to be reversed by a street level people mover on Woodward that might get built 25 years from now.

With "solutions" like yours, I'll take the problems any day.

[iheartthed]

Nothing. which is my point. The region will likely massively shrink, eventually settle to a natural equilibrium and become just another backwater, 4th tier, has-been region.

I'm not advocating for it, I'm just pointing out reality.

Excuse me.. .by "Detroit" I was speaking of the international family of communities., not just Detroit proper.

50 years of retarded regional urban planning are not going to be reversed by a street level people mover on Woodward that might get built 25 years from now.

Well, what you were saying before is that the suburbs don't have much use for Detroit proper. Now you're acknowledging that while the suburban communities might function as if they don't have use for Detroit, in reality the fate of their continued existence is tied to the viability of Detroit. Because the viability of Detroit is why the region exists in the first place. Right?

So your point may have been that the Detroit area is past its expiration date, but that isn't what you were saying.

[bailey]

Well, what you were saying before is that the suburbs don't have much use for Detroit proper. Now you're acknowledging that while the suburban communities might function as if they don't have use for Detroit, in reality the fate of their continued existence is tied to the viability of Detroit. Because the viability of Detroit is why the region exists in the first place. Right?

So your point may have been that the Detroit area is past its expiration date, but that isn't what you were saying.

No. you're confabulating my statements. I'm saying [[perhaps inarticulately) that Detroit has, by and large,become mostly irrelevant to the suburbs and most of the regional population.. I am also saying , the region has, by and large, become irrelevant to the rest of the country. I'm most definitely not saying the later is the direct result of the former.

If the auto industry had not dropped off a cliff would we be having this conversation? No, Oakland, Macomb and most of Wayne would still be humming along, and Detroit would still be declining with even fewer people caring. Pulte would still be building sprawl divisions at 56 mile. Ferndale, Royal Oak and B'ham would have all those loft and condo developments that got shelved. Should the auto industry or manufacturing rebound to pre-2008 levels [[unlikely) or 90s levels [[unlikelier still) , it would be true again.

The downturn in the suburbs is less about "Detroit" and more that the state and region have tied their fate to a dying industry and steadfast refusal to do anything about it. My further point is that, no matter how much devotees to Richard Florida might say its true, there is no requirement that for the region to recover or stabilize, Detroit MUST be the center of that recovery simply because it used to be the center of the region. 50 years of sprawl have altered that dynamic.

80% of the regions population chooses to live outside of Detroit and cluster around "suburban" downtowns. The great many of those people and virtually all of the major employers, have not rejected urban style living and they aren't all racists, they have simply rejected Detroit, City of. They've rejected Detroit because it offers them nothing they need or want. That isn't going to change in our lifetimes even if they do manage to put in a train.

[iheartthed]

No. you're confabulating my statements. I'm saying [[perhaps inarticulately) that Detroit has, by and large,become mostly irrelevant to the suburbs and most of the regional population.. I am also saying , the region has, by and large, become irrelevant to the rest of the country. I'm most definitely not saying the later is the direct result of the former.

If the auto industry had not dropped off a cliff would we be having this conversation? No, Oakland, Macomb and most of Wayne would still be humming along, and Detroit would still be declining with even fewer people caring. Pulte would still be building sprawl divisions at 56 mile. Ferndale, Royal Oak and B'ham would have all those loft and condo developments that got shelved. Should the auto industry or manufacturing rebound to pre-2008 levels [[unlikely) or 90s levels [[unlikelier still) , it would be true again.

The downturn in the suburbs is less about "Detroit" and more that the state and region have tied their fate to a dying industry and steadfast refusal to do anything about it. My further point is that, no matter how much devotees to Richard Florida might say its true, there is no requirement that for the region to recover or stabilize, Detroit MUST be the center of that recovery simply because it used to be the center of the region. 50 years of sprawl have altered that dynamic.

80% of the regions population chooses to live outside of Detroit and cluster around "suburban" downtowns. The great many of those people and virtually all of the major employers, have not rejected urban style living and they aren't all racists, they have simply rejected Detroit, City of. They've rejected Detroit because it offers them nothing they need or want. That isn't going to change in our lifetimes even if they do manage to put in a train.

I can't think of a single city, American or otherwise, whose economy is dominated by the same industry that it was dominated by 100 years ago... Except Detroit. So yes, it is true that suburban Detroit could hypothetically keep operating without the city, if the auto industry were hypothetically as profitable as it was 50 years ago, but that is unrealistic. Industries go through cycles, and industries die. It is usually the environment of the cities that allow the economies to reinvent themselves. For this the suburbs would hypothetically need the city. No?

It's like being on the freeway with a half tank of gas in your car. You don't need the gas station now, but sooner or later you'll need the gas station for more gas.

[ghettopalmetto]

I can't think of a single city, American or otherwise, whose economy is dominated by the same industry that it was dominated by 100 years ago... Except Detroit. So yes, it is true that suburban Detroit could hypothetically keep operating without the city, if the auto industry were hypothetically as profitable as it was 50 years ago, but that is unrealistic.

I don't know that I agree with this. Regardless of the health of the auto industry--or any other industry in Detroit--you have a geographically-expanding population that still has to carry the burdens of infrastructure and concentrated poverty that have been "abandoned" in the mad rush to the suburbs. It's become a fiscal albatross around the neck of the region and the State of Michigan that isn't going to go away if you simply pretend that it's not there.

[bailey]

I don't know that I agree with this. Regardless of the health of the auto industry--or any other industry in Detroit--you have a geographically-expanding population that still has to carry the burdens of infrastructure and concentrated poverty that have been "abandoned" in the mad rush to the suburbs. It's become a fiscal albatross around the neck of the region and the State of Michigan that isn't going to go away if you simply pretend that it's not there.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm not in any way advocating that Detroit and the metro region are some utopia of suburban living. I would bet that a majority of metro residents simply view the irrational asset and resource allocation as a cost to be incurred to avoid Detroit.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm not pretending anything. I'm not in any way advocating that Detroit and the metro region are some utopia of suburban living. I would bet that a majority of metro residents simply view the irrational asset and resource allocation as a cost to be incurred to avoid Detroit.

So people in suburban Detroit willingly pay excessive tax dollars to prop up a failed city and don't expect any economic productivity for their investment?

Whatever helps you sleep at night....

[DetroitPlanner]

All of this snipping is percisely the reason why planning fails. Planners try to build concensus among stakeholders. All this one-upsmanship makes planning futile. Planner's worst issues are planning advocates with hidden agendas.

[Detroitnerd]

Boo-freakin'-hoo. Conflict should be a part of the discussion. It shows that important issues are coming to the front. The Detroit way -- letting the money bubble to the top and just doing what the folks up there want -- ain't working.

[bailey]

So people in suburban Detroit willingly pay excessive tax dollars to prop up a failed city and don't expect any economic productivity for their investment?

I think it's viewed as a sunk cost and any effort to change things would be good money after bad.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I understand you have some pathological need to be snarky with anyone that doesn't agree with you but, I lose no sleep over the dysfunction in this area as I knew it was a clusterfuck backwater when I came back here, I knew that it was not going to change for the better on any macro scale during my time here [[or likely on this earth), but the I got a pay-bump for coming back here, so that was nice. I am comfortable with making my little part of the area a better place for me and taking advantages of what amenities are available so as to enjoy my life as much as I can. Impotently railing against 50 years of inertia and bad decision making is not my idea of fun. Deluding oneself that anything will change in the near term...and basing my happiness upon those changes happening would cause me to lose sleep.

[ghettopalmetto]

All of this snipping is percisely the reason why planning fails. Planners try to build concensus among stakeholders. All this one-upsmanship makes planning futile. Planner's worst issues are planning advocates with hidden agendas.

No, the reason why planning fails is you have folks like Bailey who are really only interested in their own pleasant corner of the universe. That's their prerogative, and that's just fine.

But when those same folks brandish pitchforks and get to decide what the City of Detroit needs to do to improve itself, it becomes utter bullshit. You don't see hood rats demanding that Troy open more check cashing places....

I believe the word you planners use is "stakeholders"--people like Bailey and George Jackson aren't them.

[bailey]

No, the reason why planning fails is you have folks like Bailey who are really only interested in their own pleasant corner of the universe. That's their prerogative, and that's just fine.

But when those same folks brandish pitchforks and get to decide what the City of Detroit needs to do to improve itself, it becomes utter bullshit. You don't see hood rats demanding that Troy open more check cashing places....

I believe the word you planners use is "stakeholders"--people like Bailey and George Jackson aren't them.

...but we do live here. What does that make you?

[Retroit]

Sorry I couldn't bring myself to click on this thread yesterday. Good job, bailey, trying to talk sense into these folk. I never though about a "cleansing fire" before, but it did work for Chicago.

But when those same folks brandish pitchforks and get to decide what the City of Detroit needs to do to improve itself, it becomes utter bullshit. You don't see hood rats demanding that Troy open more check cashing places....

Do you really think that most Detroiters would object to Detroit looking like the suburbs? In fact, if it were not for the crime and property neglect in Detroit, I think Detroit would look a lot like the suburbs. It's not like Detroit is filled with multi-storied apartment buildings and as soon as you cross into the suburbs, there are 3000 sq. ft. McMansions on 5 acre lots.

I think many of you are trying to evade the real issue here. Detroit being a bad place to live has nothing to do with infrastructure, home sizes, lot sizes, store sizes, etc. It has to do with the people, their culture, their social mores, etc. If you took the people in Detroit and you put them in the suburbs, and you took the people in the suburbs and put them in Detroit, what do you think would happen? Urban planning is irrelevant.

And before the apologists of Detroit's social ills start blaming economics, I ask: how much does it cost to not commit crimes? How much does it cost to go to a free public school and graduate? How much does it cost to pick up trash around your house and do some basic home maintenance? How much does it cost to discipline your kids? How much does it cost to not have children that you can not afford to raise? How much does it cost not to take drugs? How much does it cost not to firebomb the home of someone you don't like? How much does it cost not to buy fancy tires, hubcaps, and stereo systems that cause minor earthquakes?

The future of the City of Detroit is in the hands of its residents, and our debates over the viability of Detroit vs. the suburbs is not going to change that. When the people of Detroit decide that education, family values, clean neighborhoods, healthy lifestyles, and obedience to the law are important, Detroit will become a thriving city again, with or without multi-unit apartment houses or light rail lines.

[masterblaster]

Light rail is just a small piece of the puzzle. Having rapid transit would make the city more attractive to those who seek that lifestyle. It has greatly enhanced the urban quality of life in cities that previous had no rapid rail - Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Denver. As I stated on this forum a year ago, when I visit on-line forums of other cities, I observe that posters seeking urban lifestyles in other cities decide where to live in those cities based not only on safety, not only on affordability, but on walking distance to rapid transit lines. It is a big factor.

READ BELOW

The future of the City of Detroit is in the hands of its residents, and our debates over the viability of Detroit vs. the suburbs is not going to change that. When the people of Detroit decide that education, family values, clean neighborhoods, healthy lifestyles, and obedience to the law are important, Detroit will become a thriving city again, with or without multi-unit apartment houses or light rail lines.

You are correct, sir. It is up to me and my other Detroit residents to convince the good, hardworking, education-seeking people that are left not to flee the city. The city won't get any better if all the good people flee LIKE YOU DID. Instead, we need to tackle the problems of the city by engaging our fellow citizens, holding our elected officials accountable, supporting our police's efforts,and not tolerating those things that bring our communities down.

And these problems will never be solved if we all just flee to the suburbs and absolve ourselves of the responsibility of the city's problems like you, professorscott, bailey, stosh, softtailrider, jerrytimes, thames, 2blocksaway, and a host of other outsiders [[or your parents) did.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Why are the neighborhoods off Jefferson the most decayed in the city? Where's the freeway? How about Blightmoor? Don't see a freeway. 7 Mile/Hayes? Dexter/Davison? Nope.

Why is NW Detroit the best neighborhood in the city? It should be the pits! Two giant freeways running through these neighborhoods.

Why is SW Detroit the only growing neighborhood in Detroit? Tons of freeways!

And downtown and midtown should be awful. They have the most freeways, by far.

Duh...... I-96 runs parallel of Blightmoor, as you call it. Get your facts straight.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

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 don't believe it. You finally said something that makes sense.