What's going to happen if the suburbs start going the way of the city?

[BrushStart]

If gainful employment were bountiful in SE Michigan, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. We'd probably have enough people to fill the jobs, but we'd still have the same pattern of FLIGHT > ABANDONMENT > SPRAWL. We'd still not be a destination region attracting new people.

We need an environment that creates jobs, but we also need to design a place that people actually want to live. If we create a place that people dream about moving, then we will attract the job creators. It's really hard to dream about moving to Hazel Park or Madison Heights.

[Zaiko]

This is one of the strongest threads I've read on Detroityes. I call it the pattern of build and abandon. It stems from the 1940's if not earlier.

Add deindustrialization--look at the several car plants built in the 1950's in suburban Detroit, like Wixom.

Of course blame the screwed up planning of highways which I wouldn't call regional. Maybe call them Soviet instead. Nicolai Ceaucesceau [[sorry about spelling) also loved concrete.

Then there's the realtors' marketing the American dream that everyone should aspire to country living.

And more than anything else we should blame whites fear of blacks and brutalization of them. We whites just couldn't bear living near these subhumans that came up from the south.

[DetroitDad]

Some here have suggested that the problem is either:

1. Massive Overexpansion.
2. "Exploit, export, and move on" mentality of consumer culture.
3. Lack of jobs.

How would regionalism solve any of these problems? It seems that someone has to lose here. Do we really expect the winners to cede perceived power or dismantle parts of themselves without strong demand from the citizens? Even with regionalism helping jobs, it can only work at the expense of other places, be it cities, regions, states, or countries. Someone has to be the exploited in this game.

I do like capitalism. My dream is to bring better retail to Michigan's downtowns. Even so, I realize that this way of life is not the ideal, and will have to end before something better can be planted in it's place.

[Mikeg]

The only thing strong about this thread is the smell wafting from some of the stuff that is being passed off as "conventional wisdom".

Detroit did not have enough large vacant industrially-zoned parcels left in the late 1930s to satisfy the need for the new automotive and defense plants that by default were built in the suburbs [[three examples, all in Warren Twp., were the 1937 Dodge Truck plant and the 1940 Hudson naval artillery shell plant, both on Mound Rd., as well as the 1940 Tank Arsenal on Van Dyke.) None of these new plants caused the closure of a single manufacturing facility in Detroit. Abandonment of manufacturing facilities in Detroit wouldn't begin until the mid-1950s after the end of the Korean War. Furthermore, how could the population of Detroit have peaked at around the same time if residential abandonment supposedly started in "the 1940's, if not earlier"?

The notion that "more than anything else", the growth of Detroit's suburbs is the result of "white flight" doesn't hold up under close scrutiny, either.

First off, it has been a "middle-class flight" that continues even today. Yes, it was accelerated at times by intolerance and block-busting, but it's clear that those who have had the means and desire to move, did and continue to do so for reasons that are more than just race-based.

Secondly, looking at population statistics for Detroit and the tri-county region, one sees that by 1950, about 1.08 million people [[35.7% of the total tri-county population) already lived in Oakland, Macomb and Wayne County outside the Detroit city limits. This population continued to grow during the second half of the century alongside the increasing numbers of middle-class arrivals from Detroit. Sixty years later, that 1.08 million population had grown to 3.17 million while Detroit had lost 1.18 million. Therefore, it can be conservatively estimated that more than half of the current tri-county population outside the Detroit city limits have never previously resided in Detroit, nor do they have any immediate ancestors who ever resided in Detroit. Thus the "fled and abandoned" argument is
a) flawed as an explanation for the primary cause of suburban growth,
b) ineffectual as a motivator since it fails to apply to a majority of the tri-county population outside the city of Detroit and as a result it falls on too many deaf ears.

[Detroitnerd]

The only thing strong about this thread is the smell wafting from some of the stuff that is being passed off as "conventional wisdom".

Conventional wisdom? That's a funny complaint to make. As long as I can recall, the "conventional wisdom" about Detroit was that it was a great city filled with wonderful, wonderful white people. Then the big, bad black people moved in and rioted, scaring the white people out. Then the big, bad black mayor came in and the rest of the whites left. Bad, bad negroes destroyed the city, and the good white people had nothing to do with it. I heard this for years before coming to this forum and meeting other people who showed that this "conventional wisdom" was an astounding pile of bullshit built on a foundation of white supremacy and chauvinism. This is not conventional wisdom quite yet, Mike. All these are are the facts:

The region is failing, such as it is.

Cities are driving development and prosperity across the country because people are reinvesting in them.

You can no longer just lay down concrete and wait for the prosperity to follow.

We need new ideas.

Them's the facts. We can't fight them with opinions and bloviating.

Detroit did not have enough large vacant industrially-zoned parcels left in the late 1930s to satisfy the need for the new automotive and defense plants that by default were built in the suburbs [[three examples, all in Warren Twp., were the 1937 Dodge Truck plant and the 1940 Hudson naval artillery shell plant, both on Mound Rd., as well as the 1940 Tank Arsenal on Van Dyke.)

Yes, you're right. But there's also a missing backstory. This is after "home rule" was enshrined in the state constitution. This is after Detroit was cut off from expanding along Eight Mile Road [[Eastpointe at Gratiot, Ferndale at Woodward) and Wyoming [[Dearborn). With the rise of the automobile, development could occur outside the city, without the fixed costs of providing transit. These new "city fathers" quickly incorporated their cities so that Detroit could not grow. This was a game-changer. In 1920, it was widely believed that Detroit would grow beyond Wayne County, annexing township land as the population and size of the metro expanded. By 1930, this was an impossibility.

Take the contruction of the Packard and Dodge Complexes in the 1910s. Detroit annexed all the land around Hamtramck by the mid-1920s, harnessing that revenue and growing. This is a natural process that was stalled by suburban leaders and a hostile state Constitution. Other cities, however, were able to expand their boundaries to harness the growth of the metro, often cities in the South and West. That meant that large, new, modern plants were built and they expanded their boundaries and grew. So it's not so much that "Detroit did not have enough large vacant industrially-zoned parcels left in the late 1930s to satisfy the need for the new automotive and defense plants" so much as "Detroit was not legally able to annex land where there were large parcels with rail frontage meant new large plants would be built."

None of these new plants caused the closure of a single manufacturing facility in Detroit. Abandonment of manufacturing facilities in Detroit wouldn't begin until the mid-1950s after the end of the Korean War.

That was the official post-war policy of the United States government at work too. The strategy of industrial dispersal to protect against nuclear attack weakened Detroit, which had been mile after mile of factories. And the promise of the feds was that "new plants will not be built at the expense of jobs in an established plant." By the 1950s, this strategy was fraying.

Furthermore, how could the population of Detroit have peaked at around the same time if residential abandonment supposedly started in "the 1940's, if not earlier"?

Because in the 1950s the city of Detroit had a steady stream of immigrants to replace the Detroiters who moved to the suburbs, in the 1950s and 1960s it would be from the South, black and white. But look through an old city directory from, say, 1947, and the vacancies will already show. With the GI Bill and new plants in the suburbs -- and with Detroit battered by a war and a depression -- these inducements were already drawing people out of the city. Then the 1960s would see the rise of Warren from sleepy township to Top Ten Michigan city.

The notion that "more than anything else", the growth of Detroit's suburbs is the result of "white flight" doesn't hold up under close scrutiny, either.

Are you familiar with Thomas Sugrue's book? It's called The Origins of the Urban Crisis. You might find it interesting because he has taken a hard look at the racial covenants in housing that led to a shortage of housing for blacks, and then the blockbusting, redlining, and all the tactics used to actually SCARE white people into moving on. Flipping houses white people sold for pennies on the dollar sometimes to black families willing to pay a premium to move was immensely profitable. But do go on.

First off, it has been a "middle-class flight" that continues even today. Yes, it was accelerated at times by intolerance and block-busting, but it's clear that those who have had the means and desire to move, did and continue to do so for reasons that are more than just race-based.

I find it hard to believe that we're going to characterize anything that happened in the racist 1940s and 1950s as class-based. Were the blacks have-nots? Sure. Were the whites have-somes? Yes indeed. But to characterize white flight as mere class flight is to miss the major contours of the era. Don't forget, when a black assembly worker was promoted to the line at Packard in 1943, tens of thousands of white workers walked out in a hate strike, one of them grabbing a megaphone and shouting, "I'd rather live under Hitler or Hirohito than work next to a ni**er." Is that class rhetoric?

Now, if you want to talk about companies and the massive disinvestment in the city, yes, capital left the city of Detroit and went to the greenfields of the suburbs. That is not up for debate. But to try to describe white flight as anything else is, at best, misguided.

Secondly, looking at population statistics for Detroit and the tri-county region, one sees that by 1950, about 1.08 million people [[35.7% of the total tri-county population) already lived in Oakland, Macomb and Wayne County outside the Detroit city limits. This population continued to grow during the second half of the century alongside the increasing numbers of middle-class arrivals from Detroit. Sixty years later, that 1.08 million population had grown to 3.17 million while Detroit had lost 1.18 million. Therefore, it can be conservatively estimated that more than half of the current tri-county population outside the Detroit city limits have never previously resided in Detroit, nor do they have any immediate ancestors who ever resided in Detroit. Thus the "fled and abandoned" argument is
a) flawed as an explanation for the primary cause of suburban growth,
b) ineffectual as a motivator since it fails to apply to a majority of the tri-county population outside the city of Detroit and as a result it falls on too many deaf ears.

Interesting, but inconclusive. I don't understand what your metrics are for this. Or whether you feel that simply because somebody's grandfather lived in Detroit, they have no ancestral connection to Detroit.

Let me make a statement that may seem clearer: To somebody from Los Angeles or New York, we are ALL Detroiters. Nobody really cares about what "community" you live in. If you are from southeastern Michigan, you are from Detroit. It's our shared sense of place and our shared heritage. It's our collective clusterfuck. And it's our responsibility to get our act together and fix it up. Does that lay less blame and make more sense to you? Because I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that last part.

[BrushStart]

The only thing strong about this thread is the smell wafting from some of the stuff that is being passed off as "conventional wisdom".

Detroit did not have enough large vacant industrially-zoned parcels left in the late 1930s to satisfy the need for the new automotive and defense plants that by default were built in the suburbs [[three examples, all in Warren Twp., were the 1937 Dodge Truck plant and the 1940 Hudson naval artillery shell plant, both on Mound Rd., as well as the 1940 Tank Arsenal on Van Dyke.) None of these new plants caused the closure of a single manufacturing facility in Detroit. Abandonment of manufacturing facilities in Detroit wouldn't begin until the mid-1950s after the end of the Korean War. Furthermore, how could the population of Detroit have peaked at around the same time if residential abandonment supposedly started in "the 1940's, if not earlier"?

The notion that "more than anything else", the growth of Detroit's suburbs is the result of "white flight" doesn't hold up under close scrutiny, either.

First off, it has been a "middle-class flight" that continues even today. Yes, it was accelerated at times by intolerance and block-busting, but it's clear that those who have had the means and desire to move, did and continue to do so for reasons that are more than just race-based.

Secondly, looking at population statistics for Detroit and the tri-county region, one sees that by 1950, about 1.08 million people [[35.7% of the total tri-county population) already lived in Oakland, Macomb and Wayne County outside the Detroit city limits. This population continued to grow during the second half of the century alongside the increasing numbers of middle-class arrivals from Detroit. Sixty years later, that 1.08 million population had grown to 3.17 million while Detroit had lost 1.18 million. Therefore, it can be conservatively estimated that more than half of the current tri-county population outside the Detroit city limits have never previously resided in Detroit, nor do they have any immediate ancestors who ever resided in Detroit. Thus the "fled and abandoned" argument is
a) flawed as an explanation for the primary cause of suburban growth,
b) ineffectual as a motivator since it fails to apply to a majority of the tri-county population outside the city of Detroit and as a result it falls on too many deaf ears.

Blaming all of the abandonment and dysfunction in Metro Detroit on factory closings is just as disingenuous. White flight happened. It is still happening. You cannot rewrite history. All of the denial in the world will not change reality.

If you think there's nothing wrong with Metro Detroit, then you are an extreme outlier. The rest of the world looks at this town with tilted heads, trying to figure out what the hell happened.

You can bring back all the factories in the world and it wouldn't cure whatever it is that's plaguing us. Virtually every city at one point had a dominate industry dry up, but most don't look anything like Detroit.