The REAL reason for Detroit's decline: not enough projects?!?!

I know, I know... you're all rolling your eyes, waiting for the punchline. But hold on a minute! In the early 1950s, Albert Cobo pushed through an aggressive urban renewal plan that demolished "slums" [[typically defined as any black neighborhood) and ignored all pleas to build public housing projects for the displaced residents.

Though the original Detroit urban plans had called for many public housing projects, Cobo believed the public would be better served by private development, and even ran his campaign on protecting single-family [[typically white) neighborhoods from "the projects."

In a series of events that should surprise no one, private developers were reluctant to build low-income housing units/ The crowning success of Cobo's approach was Lafayette Park, a successful luxury high-rise that nonetheless did nothing to address the lack of decent low-income housing. So where did everyone from Black Bottom - where the Lafayette Towers now gleamed in the sun - go, exactly?

The short answer: everywhere. Thousands of poor blacks spilled into Detroit's neighborhoods, squeezing in wherever they could. This unsurprisingly unnerved middle class residents, and white flight/middle class flight [[as many blacks moved to in or near the inner ring suburbs as soon as it was possible) began in earnest. From 1950 to 1960, Detroit lost almost 200,000 people while racial tensions and crime increased. The city sort of hung on in the 1960s as the less socially mobile clung to their investments, but then the riots killed that. You'd like to think that the world was/is ready for mixed income neighborhoods, but the statistics often prove otherwise.

On the other hand, we have New York City and Chicago, which were much more proactive in constructing public housing. And though these projects were often hotbeds for crime and widely decried for that, it somewhat isolated the issues from the rest of the city. Both New York City and Chicago have fared much better than Detroit.

However, we've seen something interesting in New York City and Chicago in the last few decades. New York City reinvested in its public housing projects and is now the safest big city in the United States. Chicago has demolished much of its projects and has witnessed a mass exodus of its middle class black population and is grabbing headlines with its murder problem. In fact, there is a growing consensus that Chicago might be in trouble, and the South Side is basically becoming a mirror image of Detroit.

So are the projects really the villain? And how we can we relate these potential lessons to the Detroit Works' plan to decommission vast, inhabited tracts of the city?

Hmmm....

Cabrini Green did wonders for Chicago. I mean, the city had peaked at 900 murders and was losing population decade after decade and recorded a population increase the next census after they closed.

Its a logically interesting argument. Where I believe it falls down is that lack of projects to hold displaced residents wasn't the only driver here. There were other factors encouraging integration -- bussing for one. More 'projects' might have changed the game a little.

The literal demographic force sure existed. And there certainly as 'pressure' as black neighborhoods became increasingly overpopulated.

If you weren't alive at the time, it must be hard to understand. There was a time when if you were black, you just didn't have options. And when an option existed, you couldn't take it. Terrible. I'm not black, but I can understand the rage at that time.

I actually got into heated arguments about this with some of my friends.

In this society, some people are just a lost cause. I believe in redemption and giving someone as many chances as they'll honestly use. But having a sponge for those who just want to be antisocial could work.

It's an ugly, sad, depressing idea, but it might ultimately be the truth.

Well here's the big difference between New York, Chicago and Detroit. New York and Chicago have jobs, Detroit does not. Besides, half of Detroiters don't pay property taxes so their housing is subsidized anyways. The whole city is one large housing project.

Kind of an anecdotal assessment.

Speaking from a Chicago perspective, the hotbeds of crime are not around public housing....at least not like they used to be, so I guess you could say existing conditions or new housing might be better.

CHA is rebuilding new units but they are taking painstakingly long. It does not mean they've done away with public housing as you suggest. These aren't centralized like they used to be. Much of the new stock is scattered housing or standalone apartment buildings, or mixed income....not complexes.

Many of these buildings are constructed with private dollars. For every downtown luxury tower, you get about 12 units of low income housing built elsewhere. Everytime someone buys a new condo, they are also helping to pay to put a roof over someone else.

Chicago's crime problem is a gang problem. Gangs account for the majority of crimes. Previously, concentrated poverty was partially to blame where different gangs ran project buildings

When someone gets arrested, their mug goes in the news as well as their approximate home address. It varies. Most live in houses or apartment buildings and with Chicago's strict housing standards, these buildings are not dumps. Historically, the high-rise projects were just as terrible in conditions as the most blighted slums. I don't know how relevant their housing situation is.

Low income Housing is also becoming much more available through private management companies. In many parts of Chicago, a brand new 1-2 Bedroom renovated apartment in a renovated building with quality finishes will cost about $300-500 / month. Can I house my entire family in a gut rehab apartment in Detroit for $500? New appliances, wood floors, and engineered stone countertops also, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

Cabrini Green did wonders for Chicago. I mean, the city had peaked at 900 murders and was losing population decade after decade and recorded a population increase the next census after they closed.

---

I'm not defending Cabrini Green, but I'm pretty sure none of this is true.

First, Cabrini Green never closed [[lowrises are still around, and many highrise residents are still in the same neighborhood, in Section 8 housing), second, there was no population increase following the demolition of its highrises, and third, murders actually increased following demolition.

I'm not claiming any causal links though. I'm just saying that your narrative is all wrong.

Re. the thread topic, I don't think projects have much to do with the differences in murder rate between NYC and Chicago. I believe Chicago has always had a higher murder rate, and the gap has widened as NYC has revitalized more strongly than Chicago.

Chicago is kind of what would happen if NYC and Detroit had a baby. Not exactly, but it has some revitalized parts and some really crappy parts. It got more of it's "looks" from the Detroit side than the NYC side, but there's still a bit of NYC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Chicago is kind of what would happen if NYC and Detroit had a baby.

---

Perfet description of Chicago.

And now you see why so many Metro Detroiters love Chicago. They get the big city NYC feel with Detroit's soul and grit in Chicago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I'm not defending Cabrini Green, but I'm pretty sure none of this is true.

First, Cabrini Green never closed [[lowrises are still around, and many highrise residents are still in the same neighborhood, in Section 8 housing), second, there was no population increase following the demolition of its highrises, and third, murders actually increased following demolition.

I'm not claiming any causal links though. I'm just saying that your narrative is all wrong.

Re. the thread topic, I don't think projects have much to do with the differences in murder rate between NYC and Chicago. I believe Chicago has always had a higher murder rate, and the gap has widened as NYC has revitalized more strongly than Chicago.

Chicago is kind of what would happen if NYC and Detroit had a baby. Not exactly, but it has some revitalized parts and some really crappy parts. It got more of it's "looks" from the Detroit side than the NYC side, but there's still a bit of NYC.

---

Demolition started in 1995. Chicago had a population increase in the 2000 census. Only increase since 1950. In 1992 Chicago had 943 murders. Chicago had 506 last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

Perfet description of Chicago.

And now you see why so many Metro Detroiters love Chicago. They get the big city NYC feel with Detroit's soul and grit in Chicago.

---

Or, to take another perspective, they get big helping of the most horrible ghettos of Detroit, along with a sprinkling of the most annoying d-bags and poseurs of New York. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

Demolition started in 1995. Chicago had a population increase in the 2000 census. Only increase since 1950. In 1992 Chicago had 943 murders. Chicago had 506 last year.

---

First, the 2000 Census isn't used by demographers to show relative population change, because the Clinton Administration used imputation for the first [[and last) time in a Census [[they imputed the number of homeless, illegal, refuse-to-be counted, etc.).

So 2000 isn't "good" data. It exaggerates population, everywhere. Every other decennial Census shows Chicago population loss since 1950.

Second, we were talking Cabrini Green, and the last Cabrini Green highrise was demolished two years ago. The most recent decennial Census shows population loss, and the most recent annual homicide count shows murder increase.

I don't buy the gang argument in relation to Chicago's murder rate. Los Angeles arguably has an even worse gang problem, and yet it is in much better shape than Chicago.

And yes, demolition of many projects officially "began" in the mid-90s, but residents were still being moved out of projects like Cabrini-Green up until a few years ago. It was an extraordinary slow process and I don't think the effects were felt right away.

The sad truth is people like to segregate themselves - if not by race [[and I do believe we're becoming less racist as a country), then by income. High-rise projects are a dirty but efficient way to help segregate cities. Even Detroit's city planners saw this as early as the 1940s. Projects were an offshoot of the common belief at the time that each use in a city [[whether industrial or residential, high-income or low-income) should be tidily separated from the others. So you'd have your mall to shop at, your winding subdivision to live in, and factories on the other end of the freeway.

People were already moving to the suburbs at this point, and cities like Detroit were perceived as being in direct competition. This modern idea that suburbs and cities somehow compliment one another didn't exist yet. And like it or not, public housing projects DID help cities to compete with the suburbs.

What sunk Detroit in this regard is that it would seem Mayor Cobo and others hoped that by not building any projects, the black/poor population would simply move away once their homes were demolished [[and organizations like the NAACP did in fact raise such suspicious). As history shows, that was a foolish assumption.

So because one year of murder increase means that the closure of Cabrini Green has caused a murder increase? How do we even know that the residents stayed in Chicago? Just because the last tower was demolished 2 years ago doesn't mean the residents weren't moving out and fanning out before that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

I don't buy the gang argument in relation to Chicago's murder rate. Los Angeles arguably has an even worse gang problem, and yet it is in much better shape than Chicago.

And yes, demolition of many projects officially "began" in the mid-90s, but residents were still being moved out of projects like Cabrini-Green up until a few years ago. It was an extraordinary slow process and I don't think the effects were felt right away.

The sad truth is people like to segregate themselves - if not by race [[and I do believe we're becoming less racist as a country), then by income. High-rise projects are a dirty but efficient way to help segregate cities. Even Detroit's city planners saw this as early as the 1940s. Projects were an offshoot of the common belief at the time that each use in a city [[whether industrial or residential, high-income or low-income) should be tidily separated from the others. So you'd have your mall to shop at, your winding subdivision to live in, and factories on the other end of the freeway.

People were already moving to the suburbs at this point, and cities like Detroit were perceived as being in direct competition. This modern idea that suburbs and cities somehow compliment one another didn't exist yet. And like it or not, public housing projects DID help cities to compete with the suburbs.

What sunk Detroit in this regard is that it would seem Mayor Cobo and others hoped that by not building any projects, the black/poor population would simply move away once their homes were demolished [[and organizations like the NAACP did in fact raise such suspicious). As history shows, that was a foolish assumption.

---

Of course people want to segregate themselves from the people who lived in Cabrini Green. Who the hell wants to live in a place where the residents fire semi automatics in the air on new years and stray bullets kill innocent children? Even the mayor could only last 3 weeks.

Yes, I admit that I wouldn't have wanted to live in Cabrini-Green, and that the standard of living there was unacceptable. I'm just saying that it did get the job done. Ideally, we should be reaching out to our fellow man constantly, always lifting each other up on one another's shoulders, but let's face it... that's not ever going to happen. We all hit a point where our own self-preservation is more appealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I'm not defending Cabrini Green, but I'm pretty sure none of this is true.

First, Cabrini Green never closed [[lowrises are still around, and many highrise residents are still in the same neighborhood, in Section 8 housing), second, there was no population increase following the demolition of its highrises, and third, murders actually increased following demolition.

I'm not claiming any causal links though. I'm just saying that your narrative is all wrong.

---

Cabrini Green has had very little crime since the restructuring. Most of the rebuild began in the late 90's. I think it's safe to say that what Cabrini Green was transformed into apparently worked as far eliminating crime. What used to be death corner hasn't seen a homicide in years. But what reduced crime was simply a massive reduction of population. But apples to apples now.....the crime rate is way lower than before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Yes, I admit that I wouldn't have wanted to live in Cabrini-Green, and that the standard of living there was unacceptable. I'm just saying that it did get the job done. Ideally, we should be reaching out to our fellow man constantly, always lifting each other up on one another's shoulders, but let's face it... that's not ever going to happen. We all hit a point where our own self-preservation is more appealing.

---

When my fellow man started breaking into my garage and vehicles and bludgeoning my neighbor, I went into my own self-preservation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

I don't buy the gang argument in relation to Chicago's murder rate. Los Angeles arguably has an even worse gang problem, and yet it is in much better shape than Chicago.

---

Wait what? Every year, gang related homicides account for well over half of all murders in Chicago and that percentage has been rising since the mid 2000's. Last time I checked it was 60%. I think curbing gang violence will make quite the dent!

The rapid exodus of people from Detroit neighborhoods created a vacuum that sucked in less-well-off people formerly living living in less-well-off areas. Without legal/contractual prohibitions on blacks moving into these areas, there was nothing that additional projects could have done to prevent that spread.

Well, sure, Chicago has gangs, and gang violence. But you don't think New York has gangs? Los Angeles? You have to look at the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

When my fellow man started breaking into my garage and vehicles and bludgeoning my neighbor, I went into my own self-preservation.

---

Fair enough. Projects actually had a tendency to concentrate those issues, though, rather than sprinkle the issues throughout the city. That said, projects tended to be or become bad places to live, so you had a real catch-22. I'm not sure what the answer is. I was just trying to explore facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Well, sure, Chicago has gangs, and gang violence. But you don't think New York has gangs? Los Angeles? You have to look at the bigger picture.

---

The differences are well understood. Chicago has estimated more gang members than any city in America. Not too much more than Los Angeles, but almost twice as much as NYC.

The next explanation is spatial characteristics. In LA gang activity is more dispersed across a larger population area. In Chicago it's much more concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Higher concentration...more friction...more clashes....more violence.

[QUOTE=nain rouge;369607]

In a series of events that should surprise no one, private developers were reluctant to build low-income housing units/ The crowning success of Cobo's approach was Lafayette Park, a successful luxury high-rise that nonetheless did nothing to address the lack of decent low-income housing. So where did everyone from Black Bottom - where the Lafayette Towers now gleamed in the sun - go, exactly?

The short answer: everywhere. Thousands of poor blacks spilled into Detroit's neighborhoods, squeezing in wherever they could. This unsurprisingly unnerved middle class residents, and white flight/middle class flight [[as many blacks moved to in or near the inner ring suburbs as soon as it was possible) began in earnest. From 1950 to 1960, Detroit lost almost 200,000 people while racial tensions and crime increased. The city sort of hung on in the 1960s as the less socially mobile clung to their investments, but then the riots killed that. You'd like to think that the world was/is ready for mixed income neighborhoods, but the statistics often prove otherwise. [Quote]

Detroit’s Black Bottom and Paradise Valley neighborhoods provided both housing and entertainment for the city’s African American community from the 1920s through the 1940s. African Americans, refused entrance to most white neighborhoods, crowded into the Black Bottom area where rent was higher and the housing poorer. Paradise Valley, meanwhile, consisted primarily of black-owned businesses where African Americans could shop, eat and relax. These areas stretched between the Detroit River on the south and Grand Boulevard on the north, roughly along where I-75 is currently. Black Bottom, the poorest section, stretched south from Gratiot to the River, and Paradise Valley extended north of Gratiot, as far as Grand Boulevard, though it was more concentrated near Gratiot. Most of the area’s inhabitants had migrated north to work in Detroit’s factories where they could make considerably more money than they could working in southern states.
Paradise Valley became the place to go for a night on the town. The nightclubs, restaurants and stores attracted whites as well as blacks encouraging racial integration more than any other part of the city at that time. As Elaine Moon wrote in her article “Paradise Valley,” “It was the black downtown, Broadway, Las Vegas. A place of fun, brotherhood, and games of chance. A place known from here to Europe. In the 1930’s and early 40’s in Detroit a night on the town, for Black or White, was not complete without a stop at Paradise Valley. It was here that integration began – where Black and White first sat side by side for eating and entertainment. It was here that many politicians got their start – sowing seeds in Black Bottom. It was here that ball players found a haven when they were ostracized from white hotels and restaurants".
By the 1940s, the huge influx of people arriving in Detroit to work in the factories following World War II caused a housing crisis. The city did not have enough living space and the issue of racism only compounded the problem. While the entire city of Detroit struggled with lack of adequate housing, Black Bottom contained the poorest living quarters. Many of the inhabitants found themselves squeezed into a single room with no cooking facilities or indoor plumbing. Although this arrangement helped form a tight-knit community, the unsanitary conditions were deplorable. Unfortunately, rather than try to improve the housing situation, the city saw the poor conditions as an excuse to raze the area. Also, when seeking space for a new expressway system, city planners selected this neighborhood as the thoroughfare for the new I-75.
Detroit’s urban renewal project targeted blighted areas for razing and reconstruction. As noted by Thomas Sugrue in his book The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, “City officials expected that the eradication of ‘blight’ would increase city tax revenue, revitalize the decaying urban core, and improve the living conditions of the poorest slum dwellers. Overcrowded, unsanitary, and dilapidated districts like Paradise Valley and the Lower East Side would be replaced by clean, modern, high-rise housing projects, civic institutions and hospitals”. The destruction of this neighborhood with little warning or effort on the part of the city to provide housing assistance was catastrophic for the African American community in Detroit. “In 1958, the Wayne County road commissioner predicted that little difficulty will be experienced by families facing displacement because of highway construction, even though the families on highway sites received only a thirty-day notice to vacate and the commission made no efforts to assist families in relocation".

http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/imag...mid;view=imageA view of the construction of I-75, the Chrysler Freeway, in the area that had once been Paradise Valley

I-75, Ford Field, and Comerica Park now occupy most of the area where Paradise Valley once stood. As for the families displaced by the razing of the Paradise Valley neighborhood, “about one-third of the Gratiot area’s families eventually moved to public housing, but 35 percent of the families in the area could not be traced. The best-informed city officials believed that a majority of families moved to neighborhoods within a mile of the Gratiot site, crowding into an already decaying part of the city, and finding houses scarcely better and often more overcrowded than that which they had left”.

From the Reuther Library

The eradication of Paradise Valley has always intrigued me. Although the living conditions were mostly horrific, it was a neighborhood, community where children had parents that ran businesses and could follow in their footsteps, not unlike most ethnic communities. When displaced to places like Brewster, where they didn't want to be, and the people in the neighborhoods didn't want them, a lot of social issues changed. Parents leaving the neighborhood to work in other parts of the city left children at home and just like wealthy suburbanites that did the same thing, kids no longer saw the work ethic of their parents. I honestly think that's one of the largest parts of the crisis this country faces with children lacking a work ethic. Projects or not, we need working communities.

RE: WOLVERINE.
Good point. This article, however, comes up with an intriguing argument that blames the gang problem in Chicago with the failure of public housing: Why Are There So Many Gang Members In Chicago?

Basically, the article states that while violent crime decreased in Chicago throughout the '90s and early '00s, incarceration rates were skyrocketing. Prisons, it is widely known, are a breeding ground for gains.

On top of that, as public housing projects were demolished/abandoned, two problems quickly emerged. 1. For decades, law enforcement had essentially been containing gangs within the projects, essentially cooperating with gangs if they would stay out of selected areas. Once the projects were gone, the system of containment broke down. 2. As gang members were dispersed from the projects to all corners of the city, recruiting became easier, as gang members now had much easier access to a wider audience.

The article also explains how New York's decision to reinvest in public housing greatly benefited the city. Essentially, it would seem Chicago lacked the funds [[mostly) and political will to support the projects, and thus demolished the projects under the glorified pretense of the "greater good". Obviously, when you can't adequately invest in an area, it's eventually going to turn very sour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

I honestly think that's one of the largest parts of the crisis this country faces with children lacking a work ethic. Projects or not, we need working communities.

---

Actually, from what I've read, the number one thing those evicted from Cabrini-Green missed was the sense of community. Families and friends would watch out for each other, making sure the adolescents were behaving. Of course, the darker elements of the community could also draw you under, so it was double-edged sword nonetheless.

And yes, a major problem with the suburbs is that there really isn't anyone to watch the kids. People taking a genuine interest in their neighbor's lives has died as our country has become more and more suburban.

At one time, Cabrini Green actually had mini- police stations just inside the entrances of the buildings.