Decline of Detroit, did it have to be this bad?

[middetres]

I agree 100% They had to move up north to learn that you could get paid to not work.

Thank you for clarifying what I was meaning to say. I was referring to their lack of work history in Detroit. Anti-poverty initiatives, racism, et al deflated much of the wind in the sails of the incredible work ethic brought with them.

[De'troiter]

Thank you for clarifying what I was meaning to say. I was referring to their lack of work history in Detroit. Anti-poverty initiatives, racism, et al deflated much of the wind in the sails of the incredible work ethic brought with them.

oh ok, I see

[daft]

That story from Hour Detroit, while interesting, mostly cites actions that turned out poorly -- not instances of corruption. Cobo's building of freeways and elimination of streetcars? If corruption was involved, the article doesnt mention it... Cavanagh's city income tax? Maybe it was a bad idea, but nobody is suggesting he pocketed the tax money on the side... STRESS? That sure turned out badly, but it doesn't illustrate mayoral corruption... Even Coleman Young's affair with Calvert was a personal matter, not a Kwame-esque coverup involving city money... And city services worsened under Archer? OK, but he wasn't corrupt.

So back to the original question: Did it have to be this bad?

Other U.S. cities have had the same problems -- crime, declining schools, movement to sprawling suburbs -- but with less impact. One city had to be hit the worst, and Detroit was it. But why?

Why is Chicago so much better off? Similar climate, so that's not it. A mass transit system? Not likely a key factor; Detroit's buses were reliable, efficient and much-used [[at least through the late '60s, when I rode them daily). More diverse business and industry? That certainly helps.

But I wonder if there was some arm-twisting or other effort in Chicago that didn't exist here to keep businesses from moving to the burbs. The more things have sprawled here, the more difficult it has become for poor people in the city to find work -- and the more economically segregated we have become.

Once upon a time, and not all that long ago, white and blacks, well-off and poor rode those city buses together and went shopping and to work downtown. The swells may have ended up driving to work in offices and to shop in the more upscale stores, and working-class people maybe rode the bus to service jobs and to do their xmas shopping in Hudson's basement. But people all interacted -- as they still can do in Chicago.

[rid0617]

Detroit has always had a racist history I think because of the number of immigrants. My mother was born in Detroit in 1933, I was born there in 1951. She said growing up the Polish hated the Jews who hated the Germans who hated the Italians. Her father would go 5 miles out of the way to buy something not from a Jewish store.

But even in all this hatred Detroit managed to grow and get along for the good of the city. Now I think everyone only thinks for themselves, not the good of the city. And, she said Detroit had a corrupt city government even back then.

[animatedmartian]

Yes it did have to be this bad.

http://detroit1701.org/PopEnumerated.html

America is 72% White and you aren't going to a fill a major city with only one minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...an_populations

Detroit's Black population is equal to similar amounts in the northern cities, but those cities are still majority White with total populations over 1 Million.

What's the excuse now for Detroit? You get what you want and people don't want a healthy integrated city and region. So what we have is a segregated and money draining city that is already past the point where it is dependent on the region for growth. Ain't that the cold hard truth, brotha?

[canuck]

Once upon a time, and not all that long ago, white and blacks, well-off and poor rode those city buses together and went shopping and to work downtown. The swells may have ended up driving to work in offices and to shop in the more upscale stores, and working-class people maybe rode the bus to service jobs and to do their xmas shopping in Hudson's basement. But people all interacted -- as they still can do in Chicago.

That to me is a strikingly scary thing to watch. I see it in pictures of congregating people where there is not the mixing that exists in other cities.

It is interesting that you note the interaction people had in years gone by due to a shared transit experience. Shared transit experience on a vast scale that would see suburban and urban folks of all types congregate at the major shopping venues in the city is gone. Detroit is a strange city to the tenth power.

[Danny]

The Decline of Detroit starts with:

City government corruption, segregation, xenophobia, mistreatment of black and mexicans, race riots of 1943, suburban development, slum clearence on inner city slums and self displacement of blacks of Black Bottom and Paradise Valley, riot of 1967, accleration of white flight, the election of Coleman Young [[ Detroit's first black mayor), gang violence and higher murder rates, black takeover in most Detroit neighborhoods, destruction of Poletown neighborhood, poor Detroit Public School system, crack epidemic, King Kwame's manoogian parties and his text sex.

[iheartthed]

Other U.S. cities have had the same problems -- crime, declining schools, movement to sprawling suburbs -- but with less impact. One city had to be hit the worst, and Detroit was it. But why?

Why is Chicago so much better off? Similar climate, so that's not it. A mass transit system? Not likely a key factor; Detroit's buses were reliable, efficient and much-used [[at least through the late '60s, when I rode them daily). More diverse business and industry? That certainly helps.

But I wonder if there was some arm-twisting or other effort in Chicago that didn't exist here to keep businesses from moving to the burbs. The more things have sprawled here, the more difficult it has become for poor people in the city to find work -- and the more economically segregated we have become.

I think transit issues have played significantly into Detroit's decline. I was born in the 1980s, so I completely missed Detroit's heyday. But since I now live in New York, I can easily imagine what a nightmare traffic in the city of Detroit must have been in 1950, when there were two million people and no rapid transit alternative to buses and cars [[both constrained by the same physical limitations as opposed to a subway system). I imagine that moving the office to the greenfield on the urban fringe with the brand new, uncongested roads was a no brainer for business leaders of the era. I also imagine that the decision might not have been as clear cut if your employees depended on a rail line to get to work and moving to the greenfield meant that they would have to find an alternative way to get to work, which may have been the case in New York or Chicago.

I've learned, since moving to New York, that a dense city just does not operate well without diverse modes of transportation, including rail transit, to move around its population. This means leadership should pay as much attention to how people get around without a car as to how they do with a car. Detroit, for decades, hasn't paid much attention at all to how people get around without cars. For some reason, it seems that cities that do pay attention to stuff like that tended to have much more stable populations than Detroit*, despite also having to deal with issues like crime, racism, declining schools, etc.

*This actually isn't just specific to Detroit, but its indicative of Midwest/Rust Belt cities in general. Even Chicago has a subpar transit system for a city of its size, and the areas of Chicago that are hemorrhaging population tend to be those ill-served by mass transportation options.