Start of Detroit's downturn

[Bobl]

Reply to the original question: No.
STRESS was a reactionary response to a problem that had been growing for years. I don't know all of the causes, but racism seems to have been part of the picture. The reactionary response to racism was a disregard for property, laws, and people. Vicious circle followed.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? My opinion: Racism was the egg.

[firstandten]

Reply to the original question: No.
STRESS was a reactionary response to a problem that had been growing for years. I don't know all of the causes, but racism seems to have been part of the picture. The reactionary response to racism was a disregard for property, laws, and people. Vicious circle followed.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? My opinion: Racism was the egg.

Agreed, for those of you who say the city was livable until CAY came along, well it depends on what side of the fence you sit on. I know we don't have a riot of the kind that we have if there weren't some serious problems going on. After the riot all the sudden you have an influx of drugs flowing into the community.. think that's by design ? CAY was a reaction to the problems Detroit was having at the time. STRESS was a reflection of last ditch effort to keep change from coming about in the city. A very bright man once told me that Detroiters would rue the day that they did not vote Richard Austin as mayor because he knew what was coming down the pike.

[mikefmich]

STRESS? Hell no.

And as much as I despised CAY, & he surely didn't help a damn thing, the mortar was crumbling 20-25 yrs. earlier.

Lot of denial way back when, for those who were in a position to really see.
To the masses, it surely wasn't apparent but to a few.

[Hermod]

If anything, I would say moving the capital to Lansing, moving U of M to Ann Arbor and Michigan's Home Rule Cities Act sealed Detroit's fate.

I guess that the schools no longer require kids to memorize all of the states of the union and the capitols of each state. If you did, you would notice that the capitol of a state is very, very rarely the largest or most important city in the state.

New York-Albany, Massachusetts-Springfield, Florida-Tallahassee, Pennsylvania-Harrisburg, California-Sacramento, Texas-Austin, Louisiana-Baton Rouge.

In a similar manner, states have, for the most part, located the major state university in some bucolic little college town that only grew as the university itself grew.

[Dexlin]

It blows my mind, still, how utterly ignorant and subconsciously racist some folks remain in this region. The whole the "big, black boogie man [[i.e. Coleman) killed my baby!" bullshit is just galling. I don't think it's a debate at all about whether he stayed to long, but this guy was granted the keys to the Titantic. He was managing decline from day one. If he's guilty of anything, it's not some new-found addition of corruption or even actively running the city into the ground. What he's guilty of is sufficiently preventing the entire collapse that hit every other industrial city in the country. This idea of him as uniquely corrupt when you had bastards like Miriani let off scott free. If you believe folks like him only became corrupt after they left city government, I have a bridge to Canada to sell.

I know people aren't this stupid, so the blind spots must be intentional. Yeah, Detroit lost 150,000 between the war and the riot, but it was Coleman that did the city in. Give me a f%ckin' break. Detroit's problems started even before the war. The city prospered, like so many cities, in spite of of corruption. It's beautiful the things unfettered economic growth will hide before everything blows up in your face.

[coracle]

[[From someone not in Detroit at the time the turndown started - so it's likely BS)
I don't think discrete events or persons were the cause of the start of Detroit's turndown; they were the symtoms. I think it was rooted in success.
1) The Auto Industry grew and flourished
2) It attracted a "foreign" workforce to feed it.
3) High wages won for "menial" jobs and poor quality enabled "anybody" to compete if they had abundant "cheap" labor.
4) Cheaper suppliers attracted business/jobs away from Detroit.
5) Racism grew as large numbers of Whites and Blacks shared the area and job loses but not equality.
6) Growth in personal mobility made it easier to leave if you didn't like your neighbors.

[middetres]

The capital of Massachusetts is Boston, not Springfield. Theory debunked!

[cla1945]

True, but the acceleration began with Coleman. If any one person could be associated with the demise of the city as it once was, it would be him. He alone caused more people to hate the city and created more animosity than anyone else I can remember.

Agree with this statement 100%. I also believe the drug culture, gang culture, welfare culture played a huge role.
Fast forward to the thug KK administration, his friends and family plan within the CofD, corruption, raping and pillaging of the remaining taxpayers, and here you have a city that is hanging on by its' fingernails.
Growing up in Detroit was a joy for me. The memories of my street, the neighbors, my clean home, clean alleys [[believe it or not), going anywhere, day or night without fear; Belle Isle; downtown being a vibrant plact to go...all these memories are all I have left of Detroit now. Giving 30 years of a working life to Detroit as well, with CAY as my boss, leaves a truly bitter taste in my mouth.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Everyone on here wants to blame CAY, but the demise started with Mayor Louis Miriani in the late 50's and early 60's. He was a racist and he didn't hide his feelings towards blacks. He vowed no blacks would never be part of his administration, and he would never hire them for key appointments as Judges, Firemen, Police Officers etc.... Then sometime during the mid 60's, he was found to be just as crooked as any mayor since when he was busted for income tax evasion. This isn't the first time I've heard this about this guy.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

It blows my mind, still, how utterly ignorant and subconsciously racist some folks remain in this region. The whole the "big, black boogie man [[i.e. Coleman) killed my baby!" bullshit is just galling. I don't think it's a debate at all about whether he stayed to long, but this guy was granted the keys to the Titantic. He was managing decline from day one. If he's guilty of anything, it's not some new-found addition of corruption or even actively running the city into the ground. What he's guilty of is sufficiently preventing the entire collapse that hit every other industrial city in the country. This idea of him as uniquely corrupt when you had bastards like Miriani let off scott free. If you believe folks like him only became corrupt after they left city government, I have a bridge to Canada to sell.

I know people aren't this stupid, so the blind spots must be intentional. Yeah, Detroit lost 150,000 between the war and the riot, but it was Coleman that did the city in. Give me a f%ckin' break. Detroit's problems started even before the war. The city prospered, like so many cities, in spite of of corruption. It's beautiful the things unfettered economic growth will hide before everything blows up in your face.

Well said.

[Detroitnerd]

In the spirit of this thread, I'd like to ask when America started going to hell. Was it when them pot-smoking, long-haired, women's liberationist, bra-burning communist faggots started taking power in this country?

Just a nice, neutral question.

[MidTownMs]

In the spirit of this thread, I'd like to ask when America started going to hell. Was it when them pot-smoking, long-haired, women's liberationist, bra-burning communist faggots started taking power in this country?

Just a nice, neutral question.

It was when it was decided that the country needed a president...Celebrate Kwanzaa!!!

[swan]

True, but the acceleration began with Coleman. If any one person could be associated with the demise of the city as it once was, it would be him. He alone caused more people to hate the city and created more animosity than anyone else I can remember.

Wasn't Coleman the person who did away with STRESS?

As regards to STRESS being a reactionary response, I disagree. STRESS was started to make the bad guy think twice before pointed a gun at someone and robbed him. Kind of what's happening now with every citizen purchasing a gun "for protection". When I read about a business such as YOBS being robbed four time in a month, I start thinking that maybe it is because the people doing the robbing know they will face no harm.

[Bucket]

To the OP:

There's been a ton of research done on this topic. If you're looking for a well-documented, fact-based analysis of the causes of Detroit's post-WWII decline, read The Origins of the Urban Crisis by Thomas Sugrue.

[Knightmessenger]

I'm only 26 so I can't say I was there. And I understand Detroit started losing population at around the same time the streetcars were taken out. There were the riots in 67 and a lot of other urban cities declined during the past 30 years.

But still, if you take a picture of how Detroit looked right before Coleman Young took office and right after he left, I think it's a pretty stark contrast.

Building all the freeways right into downtown didn't help. Neither did the infighting between the city and suburbs which cost the region a subway system [[instead all we got was the People Mover).
But there's too many areas of Detroit that are simply abandoned, burned out or dilapidated. Schools went way down, city services declined. Crime went up. That happened on Coleman's watch. And what about applying for city permits to open or build something in the city. Did that become easier or much more of a maze during those 20 years?
I've been through cities like Pittsburgh or Chicago. Even the poor or inner city areas may be decayed or run down. But they're still intact.
The successors to Coleman have had much more success in creating a much less confrontational attitude with the suburbs. The downtown and midtown areas have rebounded significantly. The Palace of Auburn Hills was built at a time when a lot of people wanted nothing to do with the city. Now I think a lot more people would much rather have the Pistons downtown. I don't think there'd be as much enthusiasm to encourage downtown investment from people like Dan Gilbert if Coleman was still mayor.
Unfortunately, none of the mayors that have followed Coleman have been able to stop crime in residential neighborhoods or have a decent school system that would encourage people to move in or just not move out. But again, the huge drop off was on Coleman's watch.

Detroit would have declined somewhat during that time no matter who was in office. But had Coleman Young not been mayor or had it not been for 20 years, I do believe the city would be in significantly better shape today.

[beachboy]

To the OP:

There's been a ton of research done on this topic. If you're looking for a well-documented, fact-based analysis of the causes of Detroit's post-WWII decline, read The Origins of the Urban Crisis by Thomas Sugrue.

Well stated. And Detroit did not go down b/c of STRESS.

As Ray1936 noted in an earlier thread, the Depression was the beginning of the end. Afterward, Detroit [[and USA) required more taxpayer-funded Band-Aids to give the appearance of staying afloat.

Keynesian economics + more Govt = more opportunities for corruption.
False prophets provide false prosperity.
Politicians eat the seed corn.

WPA to WW2, Korea to Kennedy's Camelot, racism to riots, Motor City to Model Cities, urban "renewal" to neighborhood decline, dumb-down to drug-up, Bubba to Bushonomics, Medicaid to Obummercare ... wave after wave of self-inflicted gunshots and govt-applied Band-Aids ... theft and corruption, the decline continues.

Thieves are in the driver's seat, reformers on the emergency brake.

When will it end?
When the Band-Aid box goes empty.

Happy New Year.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Wasn't Coleman the person who did away with STRESS?

As regards to STRESS being a reactionary response, I disagree. STRESS was started to make the bad guy think twice before pointed a gun at someone and robbed him. Kind of what's happening now with every citizen purchasing a gun "for protection". When I read about a business such as YOBS being robbed four time in a month, I start thinking that maybe it is because the people doing the robbing know they will face no harm.

STRESS was done away with by CAY, partly because of the complaints he received that the 99% white DPD were harassing young black men for no-particular reason other than being black during the late 60's, early 70's. I recall plenty of times my older cousins told me of the "Big Four" riding down on them for just walking to the store. "Where ya goin BOY"!! I can justify them trying to deter crime, not for harassment. Soon after STRESS was eliminated, Young recruited blacks to join the DPD for the first time.

[Hermod]

I'm only 26 so I can't say I was there. And I understand Detroit started losing population at around the same time the streetcars were taken out.

Detroit Street Railways [[DSR), the predecessor to DDOT, took over the Detroit city streetcar lines from the Detroit United Railway [[DUR) in May of 1922. The first abandonment of a streetcar line occurred in Aug 1923 when the East Fort St/Congress line was abandoned. At takeover, there were 407.23 miles of streetcar line under DSR control.

Through a combination of new construction and use of DUR interurban lines, the DSR extended their routes until they operated 533.75 miles of streetcar line by Sept 1930. By 1939, enough routes had been cut back or eliminated that the DSR operated 430.35 miles of streetcar line.

After World War II [[and the period of greatest ridership), the city steadily phased out its streetcar lines beginning with the Oakman line in Dec 1945. By 1950, the DSR was down to 176.60 miles of track on ten lines [[Mt. Elliott, Oakland, Trumbull, Clairmount, Mack, Baker, Jefferson, Michigan, Gratiot, and Woodward). By the end of 1951, there were only five lines left with 65.46 miles [[Baker, Jefferson, Michigan, Gratiot, and Woodward). On April 8, 1956, the last Woodward streetcar ceased to run. Where in there was the "tipping point"? By the time of the last abandonment, there wasn't much left of the system. I don't think you can say that the loss of the Gratiot and Woodward lines in 1956 had that much of an impact.

[Shollin]

Do people still go on this freeway nonsense? Interstate 94 cuts through Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis and neither of those cities declined as much as Detroit. Every major city in the United States of America has freeways. I can get to any downtown in the country via freeway. I just don't get this excuse. Also every major metropolitan area has some degree of sprawl.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroit Street Railways [[DSR), the predecessor to DDOT,

Actually, it was Detroit's Department of Street Railways [[DSR).

took over the Detroit city streetcar lines from the Detroit United Railway [[DUR) in May of 1922. The first abandonment of a streetcar line occurred in Aug 1923 when the East Fort St/Congress line was abandoned. At takeover, there were 407.23 miles of streetcar line under DSR control.

Through a combination of new construction and use of DUR interurban lines, the DSR extended their routes until they operated 533.75 miles of streetcar line by Sept 1930. By 1939, enough routes had been cut back or eliminated that the DSR operated 430.35 miles of streetcar line.

I'm not against the DSR's use of buses [["motor coaches" in the lingo of the day) in principle. They could be used intelligently, temporarily extending routes before you can lay rail, or put into service as crosstown feeders on low ridership routes.

The thing is, the guy in charge of the DSR in the 1930s was a bus nut. By 1934, the general manager, Fred A. Nolan, was on the record saying that he wanted to convert the Detroit streetcar system to an all-bus operation by 1953. It took three extra years. And some of it was done sneakily. During a strike in the 1950s, the DSR switched two lines to buses.

Of course, there are those, such as Hermod here, who'd have you believe the streetcars died a quiet, natural death in the city here. That people weren't attached to them, that nobody missed them. And yet, quite intelligently, you mark the beginning of the end with the dismantling of the streetcar system.

By the time of the last abandonment, there wasn't much left of the system. I don't think you can say that the loss of the Gratiot and Woodward lines in 1956 had that much of an impact.

I don't see eye-to-eye with him at all on this. It only makes sense that the city would go into decline without the rail system it grew up around. A city is like a body. It needs a circulation system. What happened to Detroit, in the name of a kind of ideological belief in the superiority of the new, is that Detroit's circulation system was ripped out. The system that sustained many city functions, especially downtown, was purposefully, intentionally gutted. It's only natural that downtown's decline begin there.

[Hermod]

It only makes sense that the city would go into decline without the rail system it grew up around. A city is like a body. It needs a circulation system. What happened to Detroit, in the name of a kind of ideological belief in the superiority of the new, is that Detroit's circulation system was ripped out. The system that sustained many city functions, especially downtown, was purposefully, intentionally gutted. It's only natural that downtown's decline begin there.

Why? what is the difference between a circulation system based on streetcars or based on trolley buses or based on motor buses? The big advantage of a motor bus is more flexibility to meet demand changes.

One of the reasons they "sneakily" substituted motor buses during a strike was because the strike was over the transit unions refusal to go to one man cars as opposed to two man cars [[motorman and conductor) which made the streetcars more costly compared to buses. If the transit unions had allowed one man cars earlier, some of the lines might have been saved or at least have operated for a longer period of time.

[Detroitnerd]

Why? what is the difference between a circulation system based on streetcars or based on trolley buses or based on motor buses? The big advantage of a motor bus is more flexibility to meet demand changes.

The big advantage of streetcars is they carry more people more reliably. You know this. You know that in order to have tall office buildings packed thickly together, you need a way to get thousands of people into the congested district and disgorge them relatively quickly. And the people who own the buildings look at the rails and trust that the entity is serious about delivering people in such numbers.

So you rip up the rails, try to do the job with buses, and they can't do it. And that "flexibility"? The business owners and developers know you can pull service anytime you want. So they don't invest as confidently.

If I were to take your red blood cells and diminish the capacity of each cell from four O2 molecules down to three O2 molecules, you'd be at the doctor pretty quickly, wouldn't you?

One of the reasons they "sneakily" substituted motor buses during a strike was because the strike was over the transit unions refusal to go to one man cars as opposed to two man cars [[motorman and conductor) which made the streetcars more costly compared to buses. If the transit unions had allowed one man cars earlier, some of the lines might have been saved or at least have operated for a longer period of time.

Safety, Hermod. This is why most systems demand a two-man crew and fight OPTO [[one-person train operation).

Then again, maybe it was the bus-crazy leadership of the DSR trying whatever tactic they could to rid the system of streetcars by 1953.

[Shollin]

Who has streetcars anymore? The only city that comes to mind is Toronto. The cable cars in San Francisco are more novelty than function.

Also Detroit has had the PeopleMover for 25 years and that hasn't really sparked any downtown development.

[softailrider]

It blows my mind, still, how utterly ignorant and subconsciously racist some folks remain in this region. The whole the "big, black boogie man [[i.e. Coleman) killed my baby!" bullshit is just galling. I don't think it's a debate at all about whether he stayed to long, but this guy was granted the keys to the Titantic. He was managing decline from day one. If he's guilty of anything, it's not some new-found addition of corruption or even actively running the city into the ground. What he's guilty of is sufficiently preventing the entire collapse that hit every other industrial city in the country. This idea of him as uniquely corrupt when you had bastards like Miriani let off scott free. If you believe folks like him only became corrupt after they left city government, I have a bridge to Canada to sell.

I know people aren't this stupid, so the blind spots must be intentional. Yeah, Detroit lost 150,000 between the war and the riot, but it was Coleman that did the city in. Give me a f%ckin' break. Detroit's problems started even before the war. The city prospered, like so many cities, in spite of of corruption. It's beautiful the things unfettered economic growth will hide before everything blows up in your face.

I think that there's a lot of truth to what you wrote. However, I think that CAY is WAY more culpable then you do. I agree with your assertion that he was managing decline from day one, but his in your face style of governing, that some of the citizens seemed to appreciate, also turned a lot of people off and drove business away. His attitude that, if you don't like it then leave, the city doesn't need you anyway was I think, very harmful in the long run.

As far as him and the mayors before him being corrupt, I guess that just comes with the territory, politics is a dirty business.

I'll repeat what I wrote before, the city went way downhill during his terms in office. While it was far from perfect during Gribbs and Cavanaugh years, the decline of the city by the time CAY left office was totally appalling.

[Shollin]

I find it ironic some give a pass to Coleman Young since Detroit was already in decline but don't give Bing the same pass for what he inherited. Detroit was in decline before Young took over, but what exactly did Coleman Young do to make anything better? Detroit was still salvageable when Young took over. I grew up in the 70's in Detroit and I don't recall it being as bad as people say. My neighborhood was still in tact and relatively safe. Now, just about the whole block is gone. It seemed like things really hit the skids in the 80's. I grew up on Buffalo street south of McNichols. When I moved out I went to NE Detroit as my old neighborhood was starting the bust at the seems. It just seemed like the city started to rot from the center and kept spreading outward. It seemed like people moved from the center of the city, to the fringes and eventually out. When Archer took over I felt things leveled out, but Kwame destroyed any momentum. I don't foresee in my lifetime ever moving back to Detroit.