I have not seen any official map of "Midtown," which adds to my skepticism about the propriety of using it to describe a neighborhood. Like my joker friend, I wonder if it's just a tool to soften the connotations of Cass Corridor, which is an actual historical name with a reason for existing.
I can defend the logic of calling that area Cass Corridor. I can easily defend the logic of the "Medical Center" and "Cultural Center" and "university area" and "New Center" and "Brush Park," but "Midtown" seems to be more an idea than an actual place with hard boundaries.
For instance, is there an official map -- with hard boundaries -- of "Midtown"?
Agreed, as my recent explanation to you of what the Cass parcel was and why the neighborhood has that name would seem to prove.
I'm amused that my skepticism of Midtown, Inc.'s purposes and practices elicits such a strong reaction from you. I have nothing in particular against Sue Mosey or the people who are trying to rebrand that part of town. I do have a fondness and affection for the old-timers who are resisting that rebranding, though. I admit, I'm not a huge fan of marketing.
But, as an amateur historian, and a fan of Detroit, I may be more likely than others to judge a description of a neighborhood by its boundaries. Cass Corridor has very hard boundaries. You can see it in the way intersections are off-beam by yards on Cass and Third. You can see the parcel clearly from the air. It has charm and interest and history. Is it wrong to appreciate that? To even bring it up?
Bookmarks