Printable View
An interesting piece appeared on the Urbanophile this week about the different forms of gentrification in different American cities, and why we should not judge each form the same. Detroit does very much seem to fit the typology proposed here, but I wonder what other localized factors we might think about when applying this line of thinking to our community.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/08/19/a-typology-of-gentrification-by-pete-saunders/
1953
A very careful planting of his feet on all sides of the issue.
Gentrification is generally viewed as a negative term for redevelopment.
Therefore anything that is seen as a threat or unwanted by the status-quo can be labeled as gentrification.
The map in the article seems to be very general and regional, not particularly on a case-by-case basis.
If it fixes up old houses and promotes the establishment of exquisite little boutiques and charming cafes, it is good.
If it raises the rents and cost of living and encourages the poor to move elsewhere, it is eeeeeeevullllllllllll.
One thing that gets missed about Detroit and gentrification is that the most development here has been in places that most people left. Yes there were people there that were moved but nothing in comparison to Brooklyn or D.C. Second, not taking crime into account, there is more than enough affordable housing for people with a decent wage in Detroit. Middle class folks can barely or can't afford to stay in Brooklyn and D.C. I think this has to be discussed when talking about Detroit and gentrification. There is more than enough neighborhoods with great infrastructure for development.
Fascinating article, thanks for sharing!
I've been fascinated by the different development patterns in the Detroit that existed pre-1900 and the Detroit that was built largely on auto jobs. This article seems to support the idea that we really have two cities here - the older, walkable urban core, and the rest of the city, which is a more auto-dependent, sub-urbanized residential district. Until we do something about the later, our revitalization seems like it is going to be limited only to the older parts of the city.
Back when, Detroit's neighborhoods each had a retail center that could be reached by Shank's mare. Fenkell and Outer Drive/Lahser, where Scotty Simpson's is, had a 5 & 10, a supermarket, a drugstore and doctor's offices, dry cleaners and more. Grand River and Lahser, just a mile up the road, had a bakery, movie theater [[the Old Redford, still there), a Woolworth's and more. Grand River and Greenfield had Wards, Federal's, Crowley's, Winkelman's and more. The Grand River bus ran every 15 or 20 minutes, regular as can be. From Old Redford all the way downtown, there were places to stop and shop. We weren't so auto dependent as you might think.
Old Redford was one of the old villages, so its different. Following the anticipated trend, there is more life in Old Redford today that in any of the surrounding area.
That's an interesting analysis. But I wonder if for old form cities that the choosing of 1970 to measure the black population might be too arbitrary? For instance, in the 1950 census blacks made up 10% of New York City's population and 16% of Detroit's. Not exactly a huge disparity, and both cities would decline in population over the next decade.
I think that choosing 1970 as the single data point that the analysis might be missing some other nuances.