The ultimate flaw of Detroit?

[iheartthed]

David Brooks wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes today that fused together a teaser for a book written by Edward Glaeser, the Harvard economist, with a shadowing of Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emmanuel. He mentions Detroit and gives a hypothesis of why the city has been unable to revive itself after so much effort. Brooks wrote:

This is a point Edward Glaeser fleshes out in his terrific new book, “Triumph of the City.” Glaeser points out that far from withering in the age of instant global information flows, cities have only become more important.

That’s because humans communicate best when they are physically brought together. Two University of Michigan researchers brought groups of people together face to face and asked them to play a difficult cooperation game. Then they organized other groups and had them communicate electronically. The face-to-face groups thrived. The electronic groups fractured and struggled.

Cities magnify people’s strengths, Glaeser argues, because ideas spread more easily in dense environments. If you want to compete in a global marketplace it really helps to be near a downtown. Companies that are near the geographic center of their industry are more productive. Year by year, workers in cities see their wages grow faster than workers outside of cities because their skills grow faster. Inventors disproportionately cite ideas from others who live physically close to them.

For years, cities like Detroit built fancy towers and development projects in the hopes that this would revive the downtown core. But cities thrive because they host quality conversations, not because they have new buildings and convention centers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/op...s.html?_r=1&hp

So is he right? Is Detroit's major flack the lack of human interaction that goes on? Can it survive without building a more hospitable environment to "host quality conversations"?

[EastsideQT]

Theories are like assholes...Everybody has one.

[tompage]

I think he is right. But good architecture and planning can help create the public places that engender interaction and conversation. Campus Martius is a good example of a public place that does that. On the other hand, the car culture works against conversation and creativity.

[shovelhead]

The electronic groups fractured and struggled.

So, obviously the Internet should be unplugged......and a step further end all printed media and television and radio.

Like a earlier post about theories.....

[Hermod]

So is he right? Is Detroit's major flack the lack of human interaction that goes on? Can it survive without building a more hospitable environment to "host quality conversations"?

Yes, the computer industry thrives in downtown Detroit while Silicon Alley in California is a total wasteland.

[fryar]

LOL, some amusing comments in this thread. You can find more than a few on this board. Theories, that is.

This asshole for one says it's all about about a region no longer familiar with cities, how they work and what they provide, and asking that region to revitalize a city. At least that is my explanation for how you end up with the shrine to the shunning of the city that is the RenCen-Millender complex, or the People Mover not going up at least to Midtown.

Ẅalkability? Get outta here. To get back on point, remember to plan around vehicular access to the drive thru window to and from the main artery.

This is the reason I make such a big deal out of that RenCen picture with the sea of parking lots. Why bother having a city in the first place if you're gonna do things like that?

[fryar]

Yes, the computer industry thrives in downtown Detroit while Silicon Alley in California is a total wasteland.

What iheartthed is asking is if Detroit is something of a wasteland because the public spaces are not conducive to impromptu human interaction, while the public spaces in Silicon Valley are.

This is circular, of course, but we know that it is in fact the case that Silicon Valley has spaces like this because Silicon Valley is in fact thriving and prospering.

[DetroitDad]

The City of Detroit has more than one problem. Detroit's complex web of cause and affect problems are hard to tell apart, and reinforce each other. While some of the problems are tied to culture, neighboring counties, and the greater national and international economy, some of the deepest root causes are philosophical. They generally deal with racial issues, citizens and cities that have lost their place in the world, and the state of Michigan no longer being able to offer what young professionals, elders, families, immigrants, the working poor, businesses, and entrepreneurs need or want.

[fryar]

The City of Detroit has more than one problem. Detroit's complex web of cause and affect problems are hard to tell apart, and reinforce each other. While some of the problems are tied to culture, neighboring counties, and the greater national and international economy, some of the deepest root causes are philosophical. They generally deal with racial issues, citizens and cities that have lost their place in the world, and the state of Michigan no longer being able to offer what young professionals, elders, families, immigrants, the working poor, businesses, and entrepreneurs need or want.

For one who preaches regionalism*, this may sound strange, but which of these apply moreso to Detroit than to the region as a whole? Out of those that apply moreso to Detroit, which offers pragmatic approaches? Not the issue of whether or not racism was involved.

Part of me is tempted sometimes to find this mythical crotchety old white man who jumped at the chance to move away from blackie, and wag my finger in his face, but it gets us nowhere.

* A version of the "good-for-you-argument" reconciles my Detroit-centricity with my advocation of regionalism. Notwithstanding Forbes's very pragmatic take on what makes for a sensible region to make a home in for the vast average, Farmington Hills pales next to Springfield VA because some of the cachet of the awesomeness that is DC rubs off on the latter. Not so for the former.

[DetroitDad]

For one who preaches regionalism*, this may sound strange, but which of these apply moreso to Detroit than to the region as a whole? Out of those that apply moreso to Detroit, which offers pragmatic approaches? Not the issue of whether or not racism was involved.

Part of me is tempted sometimes to find this mythical crotchety old white man who jumped at the chance to move away from blackie, and wag my finger in his face, but it gets us nowhere.

* A version of the "good-for-you-argument" reconciles my Detroit-centricity with my advocation of regionalism. Notwithstanding Forbes's very pragmatic take on what makes for a sensible region to make a home in for the vast average, Farmington Hills pales next to Springfield VA because some of the cachet of the awesomeness that is DC rubs off on the latter. Not so for the former.

Check 621 W Long Lake Rd.

It is said that in complex systems, if a butterfly on Belle Isle can flap it's wings, it can create a breeze that can escalate into a storm on the other side of the world. Beyond that, every action creates an equal an opposite reaction. In theory, the actions of past racism will continue to travel indefinitely, like a ripple radiates from a stone thrown in a pond on a hot July day. That is, it will continue until another force stops it.

[citylover]

The "flaw" of Detroit is the failure to curb crime.Until something is done in that regard nothing meaningful will happen. How or what that entails I don't know.But I do know that it is the single most[[by far) cause of and hindrance to Detroit revitalization.

[fryar]

Check 621 W Long Lake Rd.

A cemetery. How refreshingly morbid.

It is said that in complex systems, if a butterfly on Belle Isle can flap it's wings, it can create a breeze that can escalate into a storm on the other side of the world. Beyond that, every action creates an equal an opposite reaction. In theory, the actions of past racism will continue to travel indefinitely, like a ripple radiates from a stone thrown in a pond on a hot July day. That is, it will continue until another force stops it.

I'm not saying that small actions are not worth taking, but that Post-Racism is not a strategy for revitalizing Detroit. Detroit has to have cachet, not be a guilt trip.

The "flaw" of Detroit is the failure to curb crime.Until something is done in that regard nothing meaningful will happen. How or what that entails I don't know.But I do know that it is the single most[[by far) cause of and hindrance to Detroit revitalization.

No doubt, that is a key issue. I see it as an effect, not a root cause, but that's splitting hairs. It needs to be addressed.

[DetroitDad]

It's not so much a guilt trip, as the reality that some of the past actions are still affecting the decisions of today.

[bartock]

[
* A version of the "good-for-you-argument" reconciles my Detroit-centricity with my advocation of regionalism. Notwithstanding Forbes's very pragmatic take on what makes for a sensible region to make a home in for the vast average, Farmington Hills pales next to Springfield VA because some of the cachet of the awesomeness that is DC rubs off on the latter. Not so for the former.[/QUOTE]


You are talking about this place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_Virginia


Versus this place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmington_Hills,_Michigan


I think you go to just about any suburb in this area and most people over the age of 45 at least lived in Detroit at some point in their lives. There are a lot of people younger than 45 who lived in Detroit at some point also. I'd suggest that there is WAY MORE "Detroit" in Metro Detroit than there is "Wash D.C." in Metro Wash D.C. And totally disingenuous to suggest that the 80,000 some people of Farmington Hills have some nebulous anti-urban lameness. It's been said on some thread recently here [[I'm pararaphrasing) that people live where they want to live for a number of reasons, and generally speaking the "urban experience" is not one of the top reasons. No need to knock them for preferences.

[rooms222]

I think that Detroit grew and prospered because people came and/or invested here because of above average wages and above average returns on investment. This is the reason people would come to our bad winter weather and try to make it.

Whenever our financial returns have regressed towards the mean, we have had bad times and sad people. When we have rebounded, we have had a boom. We have been having a very bad patch overall which has hurt our heart and our structure, as many people have had to leave and many entities have closed or downsized. There is the hope that recovery will be prolonged and stable.

[Danny]

The statement is clear:

The people who lived in cities will change its neighborhoods, Downtowns, ethnic communities, industries and regional employments.

Detroit fell in population, industry and ethnicity due to these things:

1. SEGREGATION

2. SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT

3. WHITE FLIGHT

4. ECONOMIC FLIGHT

5. VIOLENT CRIME

6. POOR SCHOOLS

7.CITY POLITICAL CORRUPTION

8.BEGINING OF BLACK MIDDLE CLASS FLIGHT

There is NO THEORY to these things because people who living their neighborhoods has experienced it. I myself has experienced and so does all of you people in this forum. So get used it. If you all want to make Detroit a better place start by cleaning up your communities, lure regional jobs, stop violent crime, create better schools, fix up vacant buildings and destroy dangerous buildings. Don't count on your leaders to clean up your mess you all make. Taking back Detroit takes community power not talk.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

So what are going to do? Be a show horse or a work horse.

Neda, I miss you so.

[iheartthed]

I think that Detroit grew and prospered because people came and/or invested here because of above average wages and above average returns on investment. This is the reason people would come to our bad winter weather and try to make it.

Interesting. I think Detroit was able to attract people for investment and above average wages because the process of mass production of automobiles was invented there. And falling in line with the theory, Detroit when the auto industry was born was a lot more conducive to "quality conversations" than it is now. Which begs the question... Could the auto industry be invented in today's Detroit? Could Motown be started in today's Detroit? K-Mart?

[iheartthed]

Yes, the computer industry thrives in downtown Detroit while Silicon Alley in California is a total wasteland.

Silicon Alley is in Manhattan. Silicon Valley is in California. But good point, when is the last time Silicon Valley invented something new? Google was started at Stanford. Facebook at Harvard. Craigslist in San Francisco. Hop Stop in New York. Even Groupon was started in Chicago [[on a related note, Google, Craigslist and Groupon were all started by people with ties to Michigan).

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't understand how an author can say face to face dialog does not happen in convention centers or in office towers that sprout up because of agglomeration.

[ghettopalmetto]

The ultimate flaw of Detroit is that it can't agree on whether or not a world exists beyond Wayne-Oakland-Macomb counties.

[BrushStart]

The author's flaw is that he identified the right correlation, i.e. city with increased achievement, but has the wrong hypothesis. Detroit's ultimate flaw is that because it does not have a functioning urban environment, it does not attract the kind of ambitious, competitive, creative, and intellectual people that result in the correlation the author is trying to explain.

Urban areas do foster interaction, but I think the answer is much simpler. We tend to discount the number of people we lose [[or, more importantly, fail to attract) as a consequence of not having a viable urban area. However, I think that those people are typically among the most ambitious, energetic, innovative and productive in society. And, they are siphoned off by other cities with better urban environments.

Bottom line is, the people that have the gumption to leave and create prosperity are the people you really can't afford to lose or fail to attract. Metro Detroit has a deficit of people with this "X" factor.

[iheartthed]

The author's flaw is that he identified the right correlation, i.e. city with increased achievement, but has the wrong hypothesis. Detroit's ultimate flaw is that because it does not have a functioning urban environment, it does not attract the kind of ambitious, competitive, creative, and intellectual people that result in the correlation the author is trying to explain.

Urban areas do foster interaction, but I think the answer is much simpler. We tend to discount the number of people we lose [[or, more importantly, fail to attract) as a consequence of not having a viable urban area. However, I think that those people are typically among the most ambitious, energetic, innovative and productive in society. And, they are siphoned off by other cities with better urban environments.

I think that is what the author was saying. I think his example was a sly way of saying "Detroit, you're doing it wrong". I didn't copy the entire article, but he was complimenting Chicago and basically using Detroit as a foil. Detroit makes a perfect foil to Chicago because the histories of the two metropolises are so intertwined, and also because the physical structure of Chicago and Detroit are so similar. But as he's alluding, Chicago places emphasis on people and experiences while Detroit places emphasis on things and attractions. [[This idea is related to something that I actually disagreed with you about in another thread where I didn't see the Pistons return to the city as relevant to the city's revival.)

[BrushStart]

I think that is what the author was saying. I think his example was a sly way of saying "Detroit, you're doing it wrong". I didn't copy the entire article, but he was complimenting Chicago and basically using Detroit as a foil. Detroit makes a perfect foil to Chicago because the histories of the two metropolises are so intertwined, and also because the physical structure of Chicago and Detroit are so similar. But as he's alluding, Chicago places emphasis on people and experiences while Detroit places emphasis on things and attractions. [[This idea is related to something that I actually disagreed with you about in another thread where I didn't see the Pistons return to the city as relevant to the city's revival.)

Fair point. I don't think that 'people and experiences' and 'things and attractions' should necessarily be mutually exclusive. A good city really focuses on both. Detroit really hasn't focused on either, IMO. It merely seems that we've focused on 'things and attractions' because of the complete lack of focus on the other. Our expectations are so low that a news report that a building might be renovated or the prospect that a restaurant might be opening causes a flurry of interest and discussion. These things occur daily in other cities and go virtually unnoticed. They are taken for granted because they are par for the course in a normal urban environment.

The majority of people in Metro Detroit do not seem to "get" urban environments. They don't seem to understand how or why they should exist, what the benefits are, etc. This lack of awareness limits their understanding of how Detroit should be utilized. Right now, the understanding is that Detroit [[downtown) should be an entertainment hub and nothing more. In reality, entertainment should be a single slice of an overall healthy urban environment.

At the same time, anything that keeps people coming to Detroit [[things and entertainment) keep the city relevant. The Pistons coming to Detroit would no doubt foster that objective. While I agree that a new stadium will not solve all our urban deficiencies, it is an investment in the city, a job creator, a new tax source, and will visually improve the area where it is expected to be built. All those things are positives.

There is so much more to talk about here, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[Mr. Houdini]

Theories are like assholes...Everybody has one.

And they all smell.

[fryar]

You are talking about this place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_Virginia


Versus this place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmington_Hills,_Michigan

Ah, shoot. I kind of picked both of these places because they came to mind as being a short hop beyond the very first ring of suburbs, but not really terribly inaccessible from the city center. The comparison served only to illustrate that Forbes's list of "most miserable cities" was not exactly what the title would suggest. DC is not the 16th-most miserable city in the US, one place less miserable than the city of Detroit. But if you think about factors like affordability of housing, pleasantness of the weather and commute times, the greater metro region of Detroit may make up for some of its shortcomings [[weather) through other advantages [[housing cost). They didn't look at the job market, IIRC.

I think you go to just about any suburb in this area and most people over the age of 45 at least lived in Detroit at some point in their lives. There are a lot of people younger than 45 who lived in Detroit at some point also. I'd suggest that there is WAY MORE "Detroit" in Metro Detroit than there is "Wash D.C." in Metro Wash D.C.

I'll be more than happy to backtrack on this, but that was not my experience. The majority of those I worked with in downtown Detroit was consistent with the notion that a surprising proportion of people under 45 had never been to Detroit because it is and always has been irrelevant, aside from the occasional Tiger game, or maybe the deprived center of the absence of retail that was downtown which happened to host one's office. In-N-Out, baby, and I don't mean burgers. I did not disagree with the assessment that I encountered in the media at the time of the Super Bowl that a lot of people, regionally, for the first time saw or were aware of Campus Martius, for example. There were people in the office who certainly did have fondness for and a personal connection with Detroit, incidentally, as you say, mostly those who were older than 45.

And totally disingenuous to suggest that the 80,000 some people of Farmington Hills have some nebulous anti-urban lameness. It's been said on some thread recently here [[I'm paraphrasing) that people live where they want to live for a number of reasons, and generally speaking the "urban experience" is not one of the top reasons. No need to knock them for preferences.

That is true. I apologize if I gave that impression. I certainly may have, on this thread or elsewhere. For the record, such as it is, it is perfectly ok to live in a suburb. Doing so does not make you an ogre, or hate those who are different from you, or something like that. We all have personal biases and mine may shine through from time to time, and I don't intend to present myself in an abrasive manner, but if I don't watch my words carefully enough from time to time to avoid doing so, I apologize. You do understand that I don't litter my posts with a standard disclaimer?

In my opinion, the critical piece that has held Detroit, city and metro, back has been the near-total absence of an expansive environment in which to conduct oneself in a manner that fosters interaction with one's environment and stimulation throughout everyday banalities like going to work, to the store, or to eat. Walkability, and walking, have a lot to do with this, as do things like retail frontage. There's a couple of blocks in Royal Oak, a little sprinkled elsewhere in the region, and that's it.

The desirability of this decreases as one's responsibilities increase, of course, and there are various other caveats and qualifications. But, in my opinion, this is the environment that a lot of those who find metro Detroit undesirable do seek out. In my opinion, the fatal flaw of metro Detroit has been that the creation of something like Riverwalk is basically a revolution, whereas other marquee parks [[think Chicago's what-is-it-called, Millenium Park?) enhance what is already there.

Somebody asked on another thread if they should not have added residential units to Fountain Walk. If you're just going to build a structure of that kind [[for example, one that defies Jane Jacobs by unmistakably demarcating public space from private space) that expands vertically rather than horizontally, don't even bother, your city will fail.