Question about the burbs...sorta

[Relayer76]

Also worth noting, though, are the ways that government has subsidized sprawl. As the economy stagnates, this will likely dry up--the funding for new roads/city infrastructure out to more remote exurb subdivisions, the tax abatements, and things like that. Denser neighborhoods closer to an urban core are cheaper for everyone.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with that statement Northofnormal. As a non Detroiter trying to figure out what the heck happened to Detroit, my thought was that there must be a major problem with the city government there. Seems to me that this exodus to the burbs could have been dealt with decades ago by the city refusing to provide services or grant zoning of land for the outward expansion. Of course, Detroit has been hit hard by the decline of the N.A. auto industry but I sure there are many cities throughout the world that have faced similar problems but I have never heard of a city that is hollowed out at the core like Detroit. Having lived in Toronto and Ottawa, I know that "maintaining a vibrant downtown" is a buzz phrase that I have been hearing for 40 years.

[Jarvo]

it is sad to say, but as long as the school system and residential neighborhoods are in shambles no one will want to live or move in the city. Casinos and hotels and convention centers and arenas and stadiums etc. are not conducive to establishing safe healthy areas/neighborhoods to raise children or start a family...I dont care how many businesses or new jobs come to the city, no one is going to move there and raise their kids if the neighborhoods and schools still suck.

[BrushStart]

Having lived in Toronto and Ottawa, I know that "maintaining a vibrant downtown" is a buzz phrase that I have been hearing for 40 years.

A lot of people fail to realize that maintaining a vibrant downtown is a never-ending job. Many people still complain about the RenCen and how it failed to revitalize Detroit as was promised. The answer is not that the RenCen failed, it's that the RenCen wasn't enough. You don't just build one large project and expect it to carry you through the next 25 years. A RenCen-sized project must be built every single year, along with hundreds of smaller projects that spiff up and renew various corners of the city. Successful cities are constantly improving the facade, functionality, and accessibility of their downtowns, and they are usually rewarded with increased residents and development. Much of the problem is caused by the sponsors of these mega-projects themselves, who usually proclaim that "X project will be Detroit's big savior." While I'm sure they do this to garner support for their idea and to raise money, it sets them up for failure by creating unrealistic expectations. Over the years, a precedent has been set in Detroit, whereby most big projects have failed to live up their architect's promises of revitalization, so naturally, people have become progressively more and more disenfranchised with each new project announced. This is happening right now with talks about the M1 rail line. It has been so over-hyped as this big savior, and when it doesn't make Detroit as vibrant as it was in 1950, everyone will proclaim it a huge failure and denounce any future projects. People to need to approach Detroit's revitalization with the mindset that progress is incremental, and that big projects like M1 are only one piece of a larger puzzle, albeit, a significant piece.

[reddog289]

While I was eating at one of my favorite chain Bar&Grill type places the news was on, After the Football game. I had heard what had happened at Eastland Mall.This brings up another thing in my mind.
My parents were/are like many of the first generation of the Detroiters that lived threw the "Golden Era". Detroit by what I have seen was a great place to live back then.
My Mother went to Detroit Lutheran High School. Class of 1957. I would look thru her old yearbook and since her class was the last to graduate from the 2nd LHS location, They included a page about the opening of Lutheran High School West as well as East. West around Greenfield & Joy, East out in Harper Woods.
Detroit in itself has been around like 300 year, But in my mind only bout the last 100 has it been the Detroit we know.
Well both of them schools, Once new a little over 50 years ago are a memory.My Father and Step Father were Northwestern guys.While Mom is from the Macenzie area.
They all left the Old Neighborhood weather it was their jobs, marriage, or just to get some space.My friends ave been through this, And as long as my job is here, I am staying.
The only good thing about this bad economy is tha there is still farmland left between Canton and Ann Arbor, As for the northern burbs I can't say.

[Hermod]

The only good thing about this bad economy is tha there is still farmland left between Canton and Ann Arbor, As for the northern burbs I can't say.

I was up in the Detroit area the week before last [[illness in the family). Unlike much of the hyperbole stated on this forum, Oakland and Macomb counties have not been paved over.

You can still see the little towns like Waldenburg [[22 mile and Romeo Plank) with the old buildings still there and the farms interspersed with subdivisions and strip malls. I spent one evening in the Waldenburg Bar [[must date from the thirties) talking with a small crowd of people. It was just like the old neighborhood bars that once dotted the "D" to service the folks in their area. Lots of Reagan Democrats up there.

I wandered out to Gingellville [[near Great Lakes Crossing). Quite a few strip malls there now. Plenty of farm land and a few large subdivisions.

San Souci [[on Harsen's Island) is almost unchanged from the fifties.

Rochester looks the same downtown except that all the real stores have been replaced by trendy boutiques. The women there all walk around with their noses in the air [[unlike fifty years ago). Blame the arts, music, and culture crowds that move in with Oakland University [[I still refer to it as MSU-O just to put them down). I had lunch at Red Knapp's Dairy Bar. The only thing that has changed there since 1955 is the prices. I walked from one end of the town to the other and had a couple of beers at the Paint Creek Tavern which has rehabbed their rather tumble down building.

West of New Baltimore has been pretty much strip malled, but downtown NB is still there. Fair Haven and Anchorville are pretty much unchanged.

I drove through Troy. Big Beaver and the other section line roads have a lot of building on them, but on John R., I could still see houses that were there in 1959 when I worked on the city surveying crew. There are still a few farms in Troy as well.

North of Detroit is not solid subdivisions, but is still in the process of becoming.

[Danny]

The suburbs of Detroit grew out of fear and segregation from another race in the past 60 years. It's too late for the old former Detroiters to return back to their neighborhoods where they grew up. Its up to the next generation of people who would decide Detroit's fate or success.

I have read Juvenal's 3rd Satire that contain his friend Umbricius leaving Rome to Cumae because Rome a overcrowded, corrupt and overrun by Greeks, Jews, Christians and other foreigners from Gaul, Brittain, Egypt and Germany. This caused most Romans to leave Rome and settle in foriegn lands that they have conquered to make their empire strong and Romanized.

[Buy American]

Until the mindset of some Detroiters change [[they don't want any help from white suburbs or white Lansing); until the infrastructure of the City of Detroit government changes; until the gangs, drug dealers and thugs who roam the streets of Detroit are eradicated, Detroit will never be the vital city it once was and people who want to live normal, safe lives will never return.

[princealbert]

Since I have no reason to frequent the sprawling outer ring suburbs, correct me if I'm wrong. Hasn't the real estate climate since the bubble burst a couple years ago effectively stopped much of the sprawl in metro Detroit? On my daily commute to Ann Arbor, I see the same half finished housing developments that haven't seen any hope of completion in 2 years.

[reddog289]

While on another thread I saw pictures of one of the reasons while I grew up in Garden City not Detroit. The fire at Hydra -Matic in Livonia back in 53.Seeing the ariel photo then as compared to now is a stark reminder of how things change. The moving of the plant to Willow Run made it a longer drive for my Dad from Detroit.
His neighborhood by the time I was born was really going through the white flight and he would have been gone anyway even if there wasn't the fire.
I see this happening now. I don't like it, But you can't stop people from moving on to "Bigger and Better" things.

[iheartthed]

Of course, Detroit has been hit hard by the decline of the N.A. auto industry but I sure there are many cities throughout the world that have faced similar problems but I have never heard of a city that is hollowed out at the core like Detroit. Having lived in Toronto and Ottawa, I know that "maintaining a vibrant downtown" is a buzz phrase that I have been hearing for 40 years.

Yeah, after living in different cities and traveling quite extensively, I have come to realize how much of an anomaly Detroit is currently. There really aren't many examples of major metropolitan areas in the world that have eroded from the core outward... Especially in such a short period of time. And Detroit is by far the largest one of that class of cities. St. Louis and Cleveland are the only cities off the top of my head that even come close in size, and even they are only a fraction the size of Detroit.

I was in Europe over the summer and I visited some cities that have existed for hundreds of years, in cases thousands of years, centered around the same area. They've gone through boom and bust economies, social unrest, wars and everything else, yet still remain centralized in the same location. Juxtapose that against metropolitan Detroit which seems to physically drift with each economic cycle.

Unfortunately, my faith is very limited that the leadership in Detroit/Michigan will ever figure out why Detroit is in such a situation. I was reading the diaries of the mayor's recent trip over to Italy, and it seems like he may finally get it. But not sure if that intelligence will carry over to Lansing, let alone to the other decision makers in the city and region.

[Detroitnerd]

There's a lot of blame to go around for Detroit being the way it is, and it doesn't start with Coleman Young. [[Although there has been a whole mythology built up that everything was fine until the riots, mostly to sooth the consciences of our most racist metro residents.)

I think we've covered a lot of the policy decisions before -- probably ad nauseam: Freeway subsidies, GI Bills, the housing acts of the 1950s, redlining, blockbusting, broad-brush zoning, etc.

But one of the things I don't think we've discussed much is the wartime boom. Specifically, the type of resident attracted to Detroit 1941-1945.

You know how these arguments crop up here about why people move somewhere? Lots of disagreement there. It seems that younger people in this forum believe that professionals decide what city they want to live in based on the amenities of life: transit, nightlife, restaurants, art galleries, walkability, bikability, green-ness, etc. Then there seems to be an older cohort on here that says: People live where ya got jobs; if ya got jobs, people move there; if ya don't, they don't move there.

Now, I know we've argued that one a long time. But here's something you can't argue with: These people who moved to Detroit during the wartime boom came here for the JOBS. They had little interest in Detroit's amenities. They had little interest in local institutions. They had no desire to "put down roots." They had no idea of Detroit's history. They came for the wages, pure and simple.

And what happened after the war? The government decided to subsidize suburbia -- for a certain class of people, anyway. And what did these new Detroiters do? They moved out of the city.

What did they care? They had no interest in Detroit as a city. They wanted money. They wanted a big house. The Detroit they knew had been battered by a Depression and then packed to the rafters by a boom. They didn't care about Detroit, and they left as soon as it was convenient. I think that's often overlooked in these discussions.

Now, just in the interest of stimulating debate, if these are the people who are attracted by JOBS, and that is their mentality, was it good for us to attract so many of them? They turned a buck and then turned their back ...

[Hermod]

There's a lot of blame to go around for Detroit being the way it is, and it doesn't start with Coleman Young. [[Although there has been a whole mythology built up that everything was fine until the riots, mostly to sooth the consciences of our most racist metro residents.)

I think we've covered a lot of the policy decisions before -- probably ad nauseam: Freeway subsidies, GI Bills, the housing acts of the 1950s, redlining, blockbusting, broad-brush zoning, etc.

But one of the things I don't think we've discussed much is the wartime boom. Specifically, the type of resident attracted to Detroit 1941-1945.

You know how these arguments crop up here about why people move somewhere? Lots of disagreement there. It seems that younger people in this forum believe that professionals decide what city they want to live in based on the amenities of life: transit, nightlife, restaurants, art galleries, walkability, bikability, green-ness, etc. Then there seems to be an older cohort on here that says: People live where ya got jobs; if ya got jobs, people move there; if ya don't, they don't move there.

Now, I know we've argued that one a long time. But here's something you can't argue with: These people who moved to Detroit during the wartime boom came here for the JOBS. They had little interest in Detroit's amenities. They had little interest in local institutions. They had no desire to "put down roots." They had no idea of Detroit's history. They came for the wages, pure and simple.

And what happened after the war? The government decided to subsidize suburbia -- for a certain class of people, anyway. And what did these new Detroiters do? They moved out of the city.

What did they care? They had no interest in Detroit as a city. They wanted money. They wanted a big house. The Detroit they knew had been battered by a Depression and then packed to the rafters by a boom. They didn't care about Detroit, and they left as soon as it was convenient. I think that's often overlooked in these discussions.

Now, just in the interest of stimulating debate, if these are the people who are attracted by JOBS, and that is their mentality, was it good for us to attract so many of them? They turned a buck and then turned their back ...

The major source of migration to Detroit during the war was from the south both black and white.

It wasn't the southern whites that moved out of Detroit in the post war years, it was the children of the older population seeking new homes. If you looked at the names in the Warren phone book during the 1960s, it was largely eastern European names which were not common for southern whites.

During the depression, many married children lived with their parents as they could not afford anything else. Wartime crowding kept them in their parent's homes so that post war there was a great demand for housing in the area.

Guys coming home from the war had the GI Bill [[no down payment) while those who stayed hoe and worked the assembly lines [[pre-Pearl Harbor fathers) had plenty of overtime saved up [[nothing to spend it on during the war) and could make a down payment.. .

These guys weren't moving out to McMansions, just little 1100-1200 sq ft ranches in Roseville, Warren, and other inner suburbs.

[Detroitnerd]

The major source of migration to Detroit during the war was from the south both black and white.

True indeed.

It wasn't the southern whites that moved out of Detroit in the post war years, it was the children of the older population seeking new homes. If you looked at the names in the Warren phone book during the 1960s, it was largely eastern European names which were not common for southern whites.

But Southern whites did move out of Detroit in the postwar years. Just because lots of other people moved out of the city during the postwar years doesn't mean Southerners didn't. And if they didn't, how can we account for names like Hazeltucky and Taylortucky?

During the depression, many married children lived with their parents as they could not afford anything else. Wartime crowding kept them in their parent's homes so that post war there was a great demand for housing in the area.

Yes, the city was crowded, and what was built 1941-1945 was largely temporary.

Guys coming home from the war had the GI Bill [[no down payment) while those who stayed home and worked the assembly lines [[pre-Pearl Harbor fathers) had plenty of overtime saved up [[nothing to spend it on during the war) and could make a down payment.. .

Yeah, a whole bunch of white people suddenly had the means to buy homes. Another part of the problem, IMO.

These guys weren't moving out to McMansions, just little 1100-1200 sq ft ranches in Roseville, Warren, and other inner suburbs.

Yeah, I'm almost of that generation myself. Union dad bringing home pay, mom at home, three kids in a 900-square-foot house. As mom would say, "Go play outside!"

Maybe I'm overplaying the 1941-1945 period. I think we should perhaps consider the type of person Detroit attracted in the period 1915-1945. People who wanted money only, had few ideas about civic virtues or local history, and were happy to scoot on again from suburb to suburb after the war. We can yammer on about social issues and policy -- as we often do -- but can we detect a certain nomadism in the type of person Detroit drew back in the day?

[Buy American]

Maybe I'm overplaying the 1941-1945 period. I think we should perhaps consider the type of person Detroit attracted in the period 1915-1945. People who wanted money only, had few ideas about civic virtues or local history, and were happy to scoot on again from suburb to suburb after the war. We can yammer on about social issues and policy -- as we often do -- but can we detect a certain nomadism in the type of person Detroit drew back in the day?

People needed money and Detroit was the place to make a decent living. It is only reasonable to think that, if you can't make a decent living and feed a family in Smallville, USA, then you move to a place where you can. Detroit offered anyone the opportunity to come to the City and work in the auto plants. There is nothing wrong with that and certainly these people were not nomads as you are suggesting.

[Detroitnerd]

People needed money and Detroit was the place to make a decent living. It is only reasonable to think that, if you can't make a decent living and feed a family in Smallville, USA, then you move to a place where you can. Detroit offered anyone the opportunity to come to the City and work in the auto plants. There is nothing wrong with that and certainly these people were not nomads as you are suggesting.

Hey, I'm not trying to denigrate a generation of people who moved to Detroit, but I do wonder if when people come for the money they don't care about the city in the same way a person who moves to Paris cares about Paris. See what I'm saying?

[Hermod]

Hey, I'm not trying to denigrate a generation of people who moved to Detroit, but I do wonder if when people come for the money they don't care about the city in the same way a person who moves to Paris cares about Paris. See what I'm saying?

The problem was that there was no real "downtown" to Detroit. Once the doctors, dentists, and lawyers moved out of the office buildings and retail went to the malls, there was no real purpose to downtown Detroit. When we lived in the city, going downtown was an "expedition" undertaken for a specific purpose. We didn't go downtown to stroll or to "hang out".

If it wasn't for the construction of the RenCen [[and Henry Ford II forcing Ford vendors to locate there) downtown would have totally died.

Other cities have something in their downtowns which serves as a magnet for people.

[Detroitnerd]

The problem was that there was no real "downtown" to Detroit. Once the doctors, dentists, and lawyers moved out of the office buildings and retail went to the malls, there was no real purpose to downtown Detroit. When we lived in the city, going downtown was an "expedition" undertaken for a specific purpose. We didn't go downtown to stroll or to "hang out".

An interesting take on it, but I think your timeline and mine are a little different here. Anyway, there was a downtown. My mother was psyched to be working as a secretary at a law firm in downtown Detroit in the 1950s, and enjoyed taking the streetcar to work, even walked a few blocks in heels just to have a martini for lunch and feel like a big-city adult. She grew up here and had a sense of place I find lacking in a lot of people.

If it wasn't for the construction of the RenCen [[and Henry Ford II forcing Ford vendors to locate there) downtown would have totally died.

Nah, I disagree. You had a city with rising commercial vacancy rates and -- they build out another few million feet of office space? Why? So that all the businesses in the aging buildings leave them vacant and move into a fortified arcology? I think that thing has been a debacle since the get-go. They could demolish it tomorrow and I wouldn't shed a tear.

[skyl4rk]

Don't forget the smell, dust, noise and contamination from heavy industry in Detroit. Many neighborhoods were close enough to walk to work, but also close enough to smell it and be poisoned by it. No wonder people moved out when they could afford a car.

[Detroitnerd]

Take my grandpappy, for instance. He moved to Detroit in 1914 to work at U.S. Rubber. And lived in Detroit about 10 years. Bought a lot in a new sub out along the Michigan interurban and built his own house by the late 1920s. Came for the money, stopped living in the city when he could afford it, right? This is the profile I'm thinking of.

[iheartthed]

There's a lot of blame to go around for Detroit being the way it is, and it doesn't start with Coleman Young. [[Although there has been a whole mythology built up that everything was fine until the riots, mostly to sooth the consciences of our most racist metro residents.)

I think we've covered a lot of the policy decisions before -- probably ad nauseam: Freeway subsidies, GI Bills, the housing acts of the 1950s, redlining, blockbusting, broad-brush zoning, etc.

But one of the things I don't think we've discussed much is the wartime boom. Specifically, the type of resident attracted to Detroit 1941-1945.

You know how these arguments crop up here about why people move somewhere? Lots of disagreement there. It seems that younger people in this forum believe that professionals decide what city they want to live in based on the amenities of life: transit, nightlife, restaurants, art galleries, walkability, bikability, green-ness, etc. Then there seems to be an older cohort on here that says: People live where ya got jobs; if ya got jobs, people move there; if ya don't, they don't move there.

Now, I know we've argued that one a long time. But here's something you can't argue with: These people who moved to Detroit during the wartime boom came here for the JOBS. They had little interest in Detroit's amenities. They had little interest in local institutions. They had no desire to "put down roots." They had no idea of Detroit's history. They came for the wages, pure and simple.

And what happened after the war? The government decided to subsidize suburbia -- for a certain class of people, anyway. And what did these new Detroiters do? They moved out of the city.

What did they care? They had no interest in Detroit as a city. They wanted money. They wanted a big house. The Detroit they knew had been battered by a Depression and then packed to the rafters by a boom. They didn't care about Detroit, and they left as soon as it was convenient. I think that's often overlooked in these discussions.

Now, just in the interest of stimulating debate, if these are the people who are attracted by JOBS, and that is their mentality, was it good for us to attract so many of them? They turned a buck and then turned their back ...

My problem with your theory is that up until the 1960s, Detroit's migrant demographics were no different than people who went to Chicago or the coastal cities. New York lost as many people in a single decade as Detroit did over 6 decades, and Chicago has lost almost the same number of residents since 1950 as Detroit. The demographics of white flight from those cities were largely the same too; white middle class families lured to new suburban communities with cheap loans.

What was different about Detroit during the white flight era is that the Detroit area didn't attract foreign immigrants on the order of magnitude that the other supersized industrial [[NYC, Chicago, Philly, Detroit, L.A.) cities did during that era. Detroit's rapid build up of suburbia was not balanced by the influx of immigrants that it had been accustomed to [[and that helped stabilize other U.S. cities).

Puerto Ricans, then Cubans, then Dominicans went en masse to New York starting from the 1960s. Mexicans, Central Americans, and Asian immigrants went to California en masse around the same time. Chicago got an influx of Mexican and Central Americans. Detroit got a trickle. And as much as people like to point to gayborhoods or yuppies... It was really Hispanic immigrants who stabilized the populations of places like New York and Chicago. Hispanics were the original gentrifiers.

[Detroitnerd]

My problem with your theory is that up until the 1960s, Detroit's migrant demographics were no different than people who went to Chicago or the coastal cities. New York lost as many people in a single decade as Detroit did over 6 decades, and Chicago has lost almost the same number of residents since 1950 as Detroit. The demographics of white flight from those cities were largely the same too; white middle class families lured to new suburban communities with cheap loans.

What was different about Detroit during the white flight era is that the Detroit area didn't attract foreign immigrants on the order of magnitude that the other supersized industrial [[NYC, Chicago, Philly, Detroit, L.A.) cities did during that era. Detroit's rapid build up of suburbia was not balanced by the influx of immigrants that it had been accustomed to [[and that helped stabilize other U.S. cities).

Puerto Ricans, then Cubans, then Dominicans went en masse to New York starting from the 1960s. Mexicans, Central Americans, and Asian immigrants went to California en masse around the same time. Chicago got an influx of Mexican and Central Americans. Detroit got a trickle. And as much as people like to point to gayborhoods or yuppies... It was really Hispanic immigrants who stabilized the populations of places like New York and Chicago. Hispanics were the original gentrifiers.

All of the above is true. Detroit had to reach South to get workers during World War II. The reason I always heard was because the rest of the industrial Midwest was already at manpower capacity with no workers to spare. Anyway, the trend continued for a while. Not sure when the influx of Southerners finally tapered off, but it must have been huge. I guess I never really cared or wondered why some kids at school had Southern accents.

And still I wonder if there isn't something that sets Detroiters apart, makes them more likely to move, or to leave the city. I think there were plenty of reasons to move to New York [[the Big Apple!) or California [[sunshine year round!) or Chicago [[my kind of town!). These are places with anchor cultural institutions, or at least great natural beauty. If you move there, there's a chance you'll be interested in the place, its history, its institutions. But Detroit's boom may have attracted a different kind of person.

Anyway, it's just a theory. I'll be watching what happens to Las Vegas over the next 20 years to see if my ideas hold water.

[BrushStart]

Anyway, it's just a theory. I'll be watching what happens to Las Vegas over the next 20 years to see if my ideas hold water.

When I worked in Nevada recently, I was amazed at how many striking similarities Detroit and Las Vegas have. They are making the same mistakes Detroit made in the past and unfortunately, they are already feeling the symptoms. Here are some things Detroit and LV have in common:

1. One-industry economies where everything rides on that industry's success, i.e. Detroit = autos, LV = casinos
2. Mass migration of unskilled people seeking middle-class paying jobs, i.e. Detroit = industrial workers, LV = hospitality workers
3. Lack of business diversity, e.g. Detroit and LV both failed at diversifying their respective economies
4. Poor urban planning, e.g. Detroit and LV both have excessive sprawl and are both entirely auto-centric, and most wealth is concentrated in a few select suburbs
5. Limited mass transit, e.g. Detroit and LV both have subpar bus systems, although LV is better
6. Extreme overbuilding, e.g. Detroit and LV both have a huge stock of abandoned homes buildings, although those in LV were built more recently
7. Struggling core city, e.g. Detroit and LV both have abandoned skyscrapers in their downtowns. LV is the only other major city outside of Detroit that on a Sunday afternoon is completely desolate. Even less people live in downtown LV than in downtown Detroit.
8. High unemployment, e.g. Detroit and LV have among the highest unemployment rates in the nation.
9. Poor public schools, e.g. Detroit and LV both have some of the worst schools in the nation.
10. Transient populations with little civic-mindedness, e.g. Detroit and LV have both attracted populations that move more frequently do not establish close ties to the host city. LV is seems to be far worse off, but I believe Detroit was this way about 60 years ago.

For those of you that always think Detroit's problems are a political issue, Las Vegas is a very conservative city. The current mayor is a democrat turned independent, but the city was governed by Republicans until 1975 and the state is still overwhelmingly blood-red-conservative.

LV should take a close look at what happened in Detroit and try to stop the bleeding before things get worse. The longer a city waits to confront serious issues like those above, the harder it becomes to remedy them.

[canuck]

The problem was that there was no real "downtown" to Detroit. Once the doctors, dentists, and lawyers moved out of the office buildings and retail went to the malls, there was no real purpose to downtown Detroit. When we lived in the city, going downtown was an "expedition" undertaken for a specific purpose. We didn't go downtown to stroll or to "hang out".

If it wasn't for the construction of the RenCen [[and Henry Ford II forcing Ford vendors to locate there) downtown would have totally died.

Other cities have something in their downtowns which serves as a magnet for people.

Other cities have retained dentists and lawyers and doctors in their downtowns as well as in strip malls. Other cities have downtowns where you go on an errand for one particular purpose but also to linger and explore. Detroit had that and plenty of it for a long time. Hudson's wasnt exactly a 7/11 type establishment was it? I think Ren Cen was a well intentioned but hellishly designed faux-pas.
It speaks of the heavyhandedness of car companies in Detroit's glory days and not so happy ones.
I think that anything that big should have come with a responsibility on the part of funders to the rest of the city's fabric, economy and history. It also should have come with more openness to the street which the owners needed to accomplish at a high cost later.

[English]

I've asked this question before here, but can't recall the thread. Every thriving city seems to have a philanthropic class. We all know their names. Members of that class live in posh neighborhoods IN their city. Why did our elites abandon BE and IV for Grosse Pointe and Franklin?

At this point, we cannot blame rich or poor, Southerners or immigrants, black or white... This region just loves sprawl.

[DC48080]

Why did our elites abandon BE and IV for Grosse Pointe and Franklin?

Crime, schools, deteriorating neighborhoods, substandard city services, myriad issues already discussed ad nauseum on this forum. Been going on since the 1910s when the wealthy started building out in Grosse Pointe to escape the crowded city conditions and to have larger estate sized lots on the water. It really kicked into high gear in the sixties due to the aforementioned problems.