They will both weather things out and reclaim their rightful place.
Printable View
Detroit has one important advantage going into the future that will set it apart from cities like Toronto, Los Angeles and New York. It's already been downsized, or "right-sized" to use James Howard Kunstler's words, so when the long economic contraction of the 21st century hits it's peak the city won't be left with a lot of excess office, retail and residential capacity. A city full of 50-storey condo towers won't function very well in a future of scarce natural resources and punishing climate change.
Unless Detroit becomes the main military manufacturer of the world, I don't believe that Detroit will reach the level of wealth that it once had. however it is important to remember that Detroit was still a major city before it became the motor city, so with that in mind, I do think that the city can become fairly big again
We'll see how well all those "wonderful" urban experiments like Vancouver, Seattle and Manhattan function in a future where everything from capital for new construction to manufactured building components to oil and natural gas become scarce or non-existent and the aging electricity grid begins to wobble and fail. Rome went from being the administrative capital of a giant empire with a population of one million in the first century AD to an agricultural backwater of 15,000 by the 15th century,
Predicting the demise of well-functioning cities in 1,500 years? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Right now, yes, those urban experiments are wonderful, and what differs from Rome is that there's a lot of intelligent people attempting to resolve the scarcity issue rather than living like unsustained gluttons.
When Detroit actually has the wherewithall to implement a curbside recycling program, as a start, then you can start throwing stones.
Predicting the end of Vancouver, Seattle, and Manhattan is probably premature. Not to mention that even when the availability of materials and energy become low, all three cities have the eco-systems to adapt to changing environments...something we in Detroit could use a little more of.
We do have curbside recycling, but it's not offered by the city. $15/mo. not too shabby, though, and I'm glad to support a new business here.
If you're environmentally concious, you can always drop off your recyclables here: http://www.recyclehere.net/ They're open several days a week, it's free, a great bunch of people, and you're helping a small Detroit-based business. [[and the environment).
Yes, I know Matt Naimi and the outstanding program he undertakes.
And I apologize for my previous comment, because I said it knowing full well about this program. But I was attempting to offer up a comparison point: every one of the cities that the commenter mentioned -- Vancouver, Seattle, and NYC -- has waste management and resource preservation ingrained in its citizens' minds [[NYC a little less so, but still). Detroit isn't there, and even Recycle Here has its resource limitations.
My understanding is that the only curbside program in Detroit, at the moment, is in the Detroit Works Demo Area 1.
It all depends on many factors. Essential in the argument is whether we restore a fairly dense urban core, or just continue to attempt to make the city as another member here so eloquently put it "another shitty suburb."
The idea that major urban centers are unsustainable due to a scarcity of resources is fairly ridiculous. The scarcity of resources is much more likely to destroy inefficient single dwellings and cripple individual fossil fuel transportation than multi-resident buildings and mass transit. It may be true that living in a rural bunker provides the best option for survival no matter whether we run out of everything, an asteroid crashes into us or zombies start eating people... but the likelihood is that you'll just be living a solitary life and die sheltered and alone.
I personally feel the more Detroit would concentrate on building walkable neighborhoods with mass transit options the healthier it will be. We can already see what drivable neighborhoods with individual homes offers.
I agree with your entire comment, but especially this part. What sets Detroit apart from "functioning" cities is that functioning cities manage their resources much more efficiently, whether it be land, energy or transportation. New York is one of the most efficient cities in the country, if not the entire western world. Efficient use of resources doesn't seem to have ever been part of Detroit's ideology...
Honestly? And I hope I don't offend you, [[or anyone else for that matter), Detroit has some SERIOUS issues, and recycling isn't one of them. Funding City services is. Until some some cash flow gets going, and it truly becomes a place where established people with money would consider moving to, everyone is just blowing smoke with these pie-in-the-sky ideas and discussions. Why doesn't the City provide multiple colored recepticles, so all I have to do is look @ them and know what goes where?????
No offense taken, HT -- the discussion around recycling is a subset of the "city resource utilization" discussion we're having, I think. Cities with more effective resource management can find a lot of wins wrt cost reduction; recycling is one of many programs part of that effort.
It's tangential, sure, but not orthogonal to the topic at hand.
One real positive Detroit has is that there is a name recognition that is worldwide. You say "Detroit" and people want to know more. If Detroit ever gets itself together the world will notice. You can't say that about every city down on its luck.
In fact, it's odd that outside of Detroit there tends to be more positivity about Detroit than in this area. I dare say that the biggest hurdle Detroit must overcome is entirely centered in and around the city itself.