"The White City" - implications for Detroit

[iheartthed]

To a New Yorker, all other cities are Youngstown, Ohios.

Perhaps. But I'm hearing this stuff by people from places like Scranton, Pennsylvania.

[English]

The story is being discussed on the Atlantic website:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.c..._a_problem.php

[vetalalumni]

English, what field are you coming into upon graduation?

[iheartthed]

The story is being discussed on the Atlantic website:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.c..._a_problem.php

Best assessment ever:

Sometimes--just sometimes--a black dude isn't a problem. He's just a dude trying to marry a beautiful woman, raise a decent kid, retire to an tropical island, smoke some good herb, and drink some good rum.

[2blocksaway]

Which do you think preferred their city better, the residents of 1920 Detroit -- when the density was more comparable to NYC -- or those of 2008 Detroit?

That's not exactly a fair comparison.

I think someone in 2008 Royal Oak or 2008 Grosse Pointe or 2008 Macomb Twp. would prefer their city over 1920 Detroit.

Detroit is big sprawling city that spawned big sprawling suburbs. The last 60 years are proof that people in SE Michigan want to get away from a dense urban core.

Why can't Detroit pattern future growth [[if hopefully there is any) after successful suburban models instead of wedging houses on to existing lots. It's not like there isn't plenty of extra room.

[iheartthed]

That's not exactly a fair comparison.

I think someone in 2008 Royal Oak or 2008 Grosse Pointe or 2008 Macomb Twp. would prefer their city over 1920 Detroit.

Detroit is big sprawling city that spawned big sprawling suburbs. The last 60 years are proof that people in SE Michigan want to get away from a dense urban core.

Why can't Detroit pattern future growth [[if hopefully there is any) after successful suburban models instead of wedging houses on to existing lots. It's not like there isn't plenty of extra room.

Well then they should live in Royal Oak, Grosse Pointe or Macomb Township. What does that have to do with the city of Detroit being a densely populated center? Many American cities have sprawling suburbs [[including the city that you mentioned, New York) and still have a dense urban core. These things can coexist...

[Zacha341]

Agreed! They know that even if they don't know the details and issues addressed here on this site...

Bullshit they don't.

[2blocksaway]

Well then they should live in Royal Oak, Grosse Pointe or Macomb Township. What does that have to do with the city of Detroit being a densely populated center? Many American cities have sprawling suburbs [[including the city that you mentioned, New York) and still have a dense urban core. These things can coexist...

Not here they can't.

The city shouldn't try to force a specific density of population. Allow builders to build what people want. If they should ever want to build in the city again.

[mwilbert]

Don't agree. Almost everything built in the city is subsidized, and there is no reason to subsidize low-density development; there is already plenty of supply of that in the region. What there is a shortage of is density, and it makes more sense to subsidize that.

It is completely true that large parts of Detroit were built on more-or-less suburban scale, but Detroit can't position itself as some kind of weird suburb and compete with actual suburbs. It has to be in a different niche entirely, and the main niche available is dense, walkable urban.

Now I don't actually believe the city has the capability of doing any kind of sensible urban planning, but everything that is developed in the city, should be part of a plan to concentrate the population in viable, relatively dense areas.

[iheartthed]

Not here they can't.

The city shouldn't try to force a specific density of population. Allow builders to build what people want. If they should ever want to build in the city again.

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about them taking this idea seriously since it is much more expensive to build and maintain low density areas than high density areas.

[crawford]

I think it is unfair to put Seattle on a list of White Cities. One of the world's greatest songs was produced and recorded there, by the one and only Sir Mix-a-lot.

On top of that you all are forgetting that Seattle is way more asian and native pacifician than it is white or black.

Seattle does not have a particularly large Asian population for the West Coast. And it is FAR more white than Asian.

[crawford]

Uh, no. Detroit was as dense in 1950 as Chicago is now. It was even more dense in previous years before it began to annex the sparsely populated townships surrounding it.?

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

Detroit was reasonably dense at its prime but still suburban by global standards.

And since you mentioned New York... In 1920, NYC had a population density of 18,796 people per square mile. The saem year, Detroit had a population density of 12,748 people per square mile, roughly 70% that of NYC. In 2008, NYC had a population density of 27,440 people per square mile, and Detroit had one of 6,378 people per square mile, roughly 23% of NYC. Which do you think preferred their city better, the residents of 1920 Detroit -- when the density was more comparable to NYC -- or those of 2008 Detroit?

The problem with this 1920 comparison is that a much greater proportion of NYC was not yet developed at the time. 90% of Staten Island and most of Queens was vacant, so we are talking about easily half the city empty. Large sections of Brooklyn and the Bronx too.

In contrast, the majority of Detroit's 1920 city limits were developed at the time.

[Bearinabox]

Detroit was reasonably dense at its prime but still suburban by global standards.

There are global standards for what is and is not suburban?

[iheartthed]

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

Detroit was reasonably dense at its prime but still suburban by global standards.



The problem with this 1920 comparison is that a much greater proportion of NYC was not yet developed at the time. 90% of Staten Island and most of Queens was vacant, so we are talking about easily half the city empty. Large sections of Brooklyn and the Bronx too.

In contrast, the majority of Detroit's 1920 city limits were developed at the time.

Huh? The majority of what is now Detroit proper was annexed between 1915 and 1926, and nearly half of that area was annexed in 1918. The city couldn't have possibly been built out to its borders by 1920. NYC, on the other hand, had controlled development of all five boroughs for more than two decades by 1920. So it is FAR MORE likely that NYC was more "built out" than Detroit at the time.

[[http://detroit1701.org/Annexation%20Map.html)

But the takeaway point is that Detroit's density was a LOT more in line with New York's when the city was stable. New York has gotten more dense and remained relatively stable, while Detroit has gotten less dense and become unstable. So those arguing that Detroit should become less dense have virtually no historical evidence to prove that doing so would make Detroit a better city.

[dfunkycity]

Blaming Detroit's ills on blacks is not my intention. I'm concerned that Detroit will never progress until black Detroiters overcome their social ills. You can look back in time and do all the finger pointing you want, but who will point to the future and say "that is where we need to go"?

Whoa, now that was deep.

[runnerXT]

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

Detroit was reasonably dense at its prime but still suburban by global standards.



The problem with this 1920 comparison is that a much greater proportion of NYC was not yet developed at the time. 90% of Staten Island and most of Queens was vacant, so we are talking about easily half the city empty. Large sections of Brooklyn and the Bronx too.

In contrast, the majority of Detroit's 1920 city limits were developed at the time.

What you are saying for Chicago is that almost 2 million people live at almost 22,000 people a square mile. Wrong.

[crawford]

What you are saying for Chicago is that almost 2 million people live at almost 22,000 people a square mile. Wrong.

No, I never said that.

Chicago has a density of about 12,000 people a square mile, but the South and West Sides have similar density to Detroit [[7,000 people a square mile).

Chicago has lost one million people from its historic peak [[equal to or more than Detroit) and is not really dense. Excepting New York, and a few enclaves in a few other cities, American cities just aren't that dense.

[runnerXT]

do the math. This is what you said:

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

you are wrong.

[davewindsor]

Quote:
"Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver....

Just a thought, but a lot of these "progressive" cities are in states that have lower tax rates, which might be a better explanation of their success. Texas [[Austin) has no state income taxes, Washington [[Seattle) has no state income taxes, Oregon [[Portland) has no sales taxes, etc., etc. Yet. Detroit has both, plus a further city income tax.

[crawford]

do the math. This is what you said:

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

you are wrong.

Uh, please tell me where I am wrong. Chicago most certainly isn't dense. It has lost one million residents!

Name ONE non-Mexican South or West Side neighborhood that isn't depopulated.

You can't, because there are none.

[Danny]

do the math. This is what you said:

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

you are wrong.

Chicago is NOT 60% depopulated. It's nearly 11% depopulated. Most of it happen at the North Lawndale and Hyde Park areas in the South Side. That is where the black communities are. I have been over there a long time ago to survey the area. It's a one and half mile urban prarie almost big as both the lower east and west sides of Detroit.

Crawford was right on his comments. Since 1950 Chicago have over 3.1 million people and the city was 76% white at the time almost fully densed. It quickly lost over a million people due to suburban development, corruption from city wards, growing gang problems, a corrupt police force, more blacks filling up the west side and south side neighborhoods by neighborhood block busting tactics from real estate agents. More Mexican/Hispanics filling up the South Lawndale [[ Little Village) Pilsen area and moving further to near North Side neighborhoods and the 1968 Post Martin Luther King race riots that almost destroyed all of homes and retail blocks of 16th Street and Roosevelt Ave. The core the Conservative Vice Lords, a gang/political organization. Today Chicago's population is over 2.6 million people, it haven't accelarated its numbers due to gentrification, slum clearances and new and better mega downtown building projects that tend to lure investors in Downtown Chicago in exchange for tax breaks. The Black population in Chicago has decrease to over 948,000 and so did the white population from 1.2 million to 1.0 million. However the Mexican/Hispanic population increase to over 753,000. representing 27.0%. Chicago remains to this day mostly white city even through it has 39.9% while the black percentage remains at 36.6% down from 40.0% since the late 1960s. Acclerated black flight to mostly south suburbs of Cook County played a role. While the Chicago's black/white population is decreasing, the Mexican/Hispanic population will continue to increase up to 35% by 2015.


Chicago maybe into its diversification numbers, but it remains a ' white city'. and they can call the shots in city politics, police force, public schools and other city services.

[English]

Good points Danny... all of the megacities in the United States can be seen as "White Cities" because that is who holds the political power. That's why I get so irritated when New Yorkers say they are majority minority -- yes, but who holds political, social, and economic power?

Also, I don't let posters like certain people in this thread rile me. By midcentury, certain kinds of attitudes will be obsolete, and by 2100 they will be a historical curiosity. Even if we're all worm food by then, our great-grandchildren won't have to put up with this social world. They'll have concerns of their own.

[runnerXT]

Uh, please tell me where I am wrong. Chicago most certainly isn't dense. It has lost one million residents!

Name ONE non-Mexican South or West Side neighborhood that isn't depopulated.

You can't, because there are none.

God I'll do your math for you. Below is what you said.

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

if 60% of Chicago, 136 square miles, has the same population density as Detroit that would be about 932,000 people on that land in Chicago. The remainder of the land is 91 square miles and the remainder population is just under 2 million people. Meaning in your own conclusion that the remaining people, just under 2 million, live in the remaining 91 square miles at almost 22,000 people a square miles.

That is not the case. You are wrong.

[Danny]

God I'll do your math for you. Below is what you said.

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

if 60% of Chicago, 136 square miles, has the same population density as Detroit that would be about 932,000 people on that land in Chicago. The remainder of the land is 91 square miles and the remainder population is just under 2 million people. Meaning in your own conclusion that the remaining people, just under 2 million, live in the remaining 91 square miles at almost 22,000 people a square miles.

That is not the case. You are wrong.

Crawford's right runnerXT, your comments remains NON-SEQUITUR! without basic evidence. You have just written circumstantial thoughts why Chicago's population density equates to Detroit, but Detroit and Chicago's population density does not equate. The population density is more in the north Side, south side and upper west sides of Chicago, but less dense near Hyde Park and Lawndale sub-division area.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Be ethical for Neda Soltani's sake.

[crawford]

God I'll do your math for you. Below is what you said.

But Chicago isn't particularly dense right now. About 60% of the city is massively depopulated, Detroit-style. Really only the North Side and the Mexican neighborhoods are dense.

if 60% of Chicago, 136 square miles, has the same population density as Detroit that would be about 932,000 people on that land in Chicago. The remainder of the land is 91 square miles and the remainder population is just under 2 million people. Meaning in your own conclusion that the remaining people, just under 2 million, live in the remaining 91 square miles at almost 22,000 people a square miles.

That is not the case. You are wrong.

What is wrong about my statement? Have you ever been to Chicago?

The South and West Sides are depopulated, and the North Side is not.

The South and West Sides, which comprise roughly 60% of Chicago, are no different than Detroit. Even a quick drive through either area would confirm this fact.

Even the North Side is not particularly dense. Assuming a density of 22,000 for this small area, it is still significantly less dense than NYC, which includes huge unpopulated or suburban swaths of Staten Island, and partly suburban Eastern Queens.