A Brief History of the Growth of Detroit [[Animation)

**Traxus** · March-29-12, 01:07 PM

An interesting animation [[and possible argument for downsizing the city) from one of the guys at Loveland:

http://vimeo.com/39417555

**townonenorth** · March-29-12, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Traxus

An interesting animation [[and possible argument for downsizing the city) from one of the guys at Loveland:

http://vimeo.com/39417555

So, then I suppose that Detroit contracted into the parcel that was at 700K people at the end of the segment would be ideal? I bet that the City will miss a lot of tax revenue from the outlying portions of the city that they will cut off by that contraction.

**Detroitnerd** · March-29-12, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by townonenorth

So, then I suppose that Detroit contracted into the parcel that was at 700K people at the end of the segment would be ideal? I bet that the City will miss a lot of tax revenue from the outlying portions of the city that they will cut off by that contraction.

Yeah, I plucked that takeaway from between the lines too, that the videomaker is in line with the shrinkage idea as a solution. But maybe he's not. He might just have a tin ear for what the animation telegraphs.

**Danny** · March-29-12, 02:11 PM

Now we need he history of ethnic growth of Detroit from 1701 to 2012.

**Detroitnerd** · March-29-12, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Now we need he history of ethnic growth of Detroit from 1701 to 2012.

I think the ethnicity clock was running for a few thousand years before that, but ...

**Traxus** · March-29-12, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by townonenorth

So, then I suppose that Detroit contracted into the parcel that was at 700K people at the end of the segment would be ideal? I bet that the City will miss a lot of tax revenue from the outlying portions of the city that they will cut off by that contraction.

If is indeed an argument for downsizing, I'd have to assume it is more abstract than those exact proportions/spaces... I mean why would the city want to dump Palmer woods?

**townonenorth** · March-29-12, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Traxus

If is indeed an argument for downsizing, I'd have to assume it is more abstract than those exact proportions/spaces... I mean why would the city want to dump Palmer woods?

Probably more abstract than that, considering that the East side is nothing but abandoned. I think the larger issue is, given the lack of services provided by the city, is whether Palmer Woods will be dumping Detroit.

**poobert** · March-29-12, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by townonenorth

So, then I suppose that Detroit contracted into the parcel that was at 700K people at the end of the segment would be ideal? I bet that the City will miss a lot of tax revenue from the outlying portions of the city that they will cut off by that contraction.

Yeah, the wealthiest and now probably densest areas [[outside of downtown) would be cut out. The original 700k contains some of the most desolate parts of Detroit.

**southen** · March-29-12, 04:14 PM

i dont think it is so much a commentary on what we should get rid of as much as it is something to give perspective on the problem the city faces.

**Detroitnerd** · March-29-12, 04:30 PM

He's one of the new cool kids in town, and he's oh-so precocious, like a lot of them, with lots of fresh takes on the city and everything so new and interesting and worth playing with. That's the cool thing about him, the energy level, the ability to be taken with some absurd new idea and make it happen.

Of course, on the other hand, he isn't from here, so he isn't grounded much in history, doesn't know the city intimately [[although I'd say he's "still learning") and I think that's where he runs into a problem not knowing how a video like this might turn people off.

So he's having fun, and that's good. But don't take it too seriously... I'm not sure he wants us to anyway.

**robtandersen** · March-29-12, 10:55 PM

I found it interesting to see how much land was developed by the same population one the way up, as on the way down. Of course in 1915, fewer cars, no highways, effective streetcars for transportation and greater density, city service efficiency, eliminating the old townships and simply expanded to the edges of already established counties. But consider if our population was contained within the 1915 boundary. Would our current revenue be able to fund a population in that area? I'm guessing it could.