The Fallacy of Urban Planning

[nain rouge]

I might be completely off base, but I've come up with a little theory that I think has some merit.

One practically universal truth most can agree with is that the last generation of urban planners messed up. But, of course, that batch figured the generation before them was the one that really messed up. They looked at America's cities and saw disorder and chaos, so they came up with the principles we now associate with suburban development. It goes on and on like that. Each new generation of urban planners sees the mistakes of the last and pines for some ideal, either nostalgic or futuristic in nature depending on what's in style.

Of course, we think we have all the answers now, but as history reveals, the only constant is that urban planners are generally wrong. Which then raises an important question: why are they always wrong?

After spending time substantial time researching Michigan's urban areas, I've come to a realization. Urban planners have failed and continue fail because they think they can cure social ills through planning. Even today, urban planners believe they can revitalize America's urban centers with their schemes, alleviating and possibly eliminating the plight of the inner city. Just as before we built projects and cleared sums with similar intentions.

But it won't work. It can't. Urban planning simply can't fix social problems. In such cases it only rearranges the mess.

The truth is that in America, we've underestimated the challenges of attempting a "melting pot" culture. Most countries have a single culture and thousands of years worth of social codes bringing forth order. Yet here in America we believed we could bring together dozens of cultures in a relatively short amount of time, an extraordinarily difficult task. And while it's true that we've made tremendous progress, the fact is that it's often been a slow and painful process. We need to accept that and move on from that understanding.

The reason, for example, that Detroit fared so much worse than other major American cities was because of the "colorblind" hiring policies of the automakers. In Michigan, blacks were economically empowered in a way that was unparalleled in American history. That placed certain strains on the existing social order unseen elsewhere. That's how we ended up with such a blatantly segregated metro area for so long. It's simple logic.

If we really want urban planning to succeed, we need to properly address the issue of discrimination in this country. Otherwise, I don't care how short or long a block is. It won't make a dent in discrimination and the resulting ills. Only education, honesty, and openness can combat discrimination.

Let's face it, we work best when we work together. America's strength is its diversity, and the more we embrace that, the better off we are. It won't be easy, but what other viable choices do we have?

[old guy]

For once, I pretty much agree with what you're saying. Well stated.

[Dexlin]

Your argument is all over the place, and whether you realize it or not implies quite a few nasty things. I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no coherence to anything. You seem to be implying that desegregation is the "problem" in one breath, and then some generalized "discrimination" in the next. And, the very premise of the post - essentially both that urban planning is worthless and then that it doesn't matter much? - starts off on some non-sensical foot by only using Detroit as an example when we have many relatively successful cities across the nation that have turned themselves around.

I think this is kind of what I was talking about in another post earlier in the night, and it's this tendency to overthink Detroit and engage in these ridiculous mental masturbatory events. It's so self-indulgent. It's really not that deep, and it's really shouldn't be that difficult.

The biggest lie of this region is that it's somehow specially and uniquly cursed. The only thing special about Metro Detroit is its legendary unwillingness to engage in intra-regional cooperation. It's not rocket science.

[nain rouge]

I realize I implied some nasty stuff. We live in a nasty world. I don't think desegregation was problem - the fact that a lot of people couldn't deal with it was the problem.

Trust me, I get no happiness from saying that. It really sucks, but it's the truth.

I don't want to go back to segregation. That would be ridiculous. I think, if anything, we need to double down against discrimination. The real problem is that we thought we could say the right things and discrimination would solve itself. It's not that easy, at least if you want to bring our society together within a reasonable time frame.

If you don't think discrimination is a problem, go talk to people to people in Detroit, Flint, and Saginaw after they'd had a few drinks. Hell, sometimes you'll hear the truth in broad daylight, in random conversations. It's a huge problem sucking us down as a society.

Urban planners have failed because they tried to build solutions to social problems, which just can't work. You might say it's working right now, but the verdict is still out. Hell, Detroit's '50s and '60s era urban planners thought they did a great job at first as the tax value of redeveloped properties went way up. One day you'll see that we were using all the wrong metrics, that many victories were eventually followed by a defeat.

Also, I agree that Detroit isn't that unique as a Midwestern urban city. It's unique however, for having nearly 2 million people and falling at least as bad as about any other failed major city you could think of. Detroit had the greatest assets in the Midwest outside of Chicago and too often failed to capitalize on any of that.

[DetroitPlanner]

Your argument is all over the place, and whether you realize it or not implies quite a few nasty things.

What he said.

You do realize that urban planners work for elected officials don't you? They do not set policy or spend money in a vaccum on whatever they fancy or desire.

What killed Detroit are incredibly high taxes in relationship to the suburbs and the cutting of programs that keep people feeling secure in the neighborhoods. Those are budgetary issues not planning issues.

Yeah there were mistakes in planning, but there were also a huge number of successes. The tennament housing of the 1800s is gone thanks in large part to Jacob Riis and planners. There is now NEPA which puts a check on people like Robert Moses. Lafayette Park is a beautiful place.

[Hermod]

You had a bit of a "Freudian slip" in the OP. They did "clear sums" as in "great sums of money".

The automakers were not all that egalitarian till the manpower shortages of WWII.

While it is a generalization [[and I am sure everyone can find examples of exceptions), Detroit industry generally operated on a graded ethnic level. The WASPS were in management. The Germans and Swedes were in the skilled trades like tool and die making. The Irish and Slavs were in the production jobs. The Jews and Italians were in not in industry but in commercial enterprises. The blacks picked up work where they could.

Iacocca was the first Italian to make it big in management and felt it was an uphill struggle all the way.