Detroit, Population 2,000,000?

[johnny1954]

Organized crime may actually keep the lowlifes in line and under control. No one gets wacked unless the "boss" gives the order. Petty street battles are contained by the gangs themselves. Detroit had nearly all of its big organized crime families wiped out by the government.

[Magnatomicflux]

Actually no. As someone who went to Toronto almost every summer of his childhood to visit family and continues to go every so often, Toronto and her neighborhoods are very safe. Now crime does happen, but when someone gets shot and injured or killed it's front-page news. There isn't one specific neighborhood where all the crime happens.

I dunno about that. Lately anyways, when I watch CTV news it seems there's been some gun related crime almost every other day. Maybe it's just been some crazy rash of gun crimes that gives me that impression? I suppose I'm also looking at it from a Canadian prespective......gun crimes in general are relativly few and far between.
I know Toronto is incredibly safe, especially for her size.

[johnny1954]

This is Canada's definition of crime getting "crazy" a homicide rate of 3.9 per 100,000 people in 1991 in Toronto. Clearly, no comparison to any city in America or Detroit for that matter.

[reddog289]

Not having been to Canada in over 3 years, Can say I felt safer on that side of the bridge as compared to the way I sometimes feel while in Detroit.I have a cousin who lives in Stoffville?. He grew up here, went to Lutheran West,Graduated rom Wayne State. He will offer his thoughts.
Toronto is a whole different ballgame as compared to Detroit.Sadly to say when I was in Canada last it was in Windsor and it was not the Windsor I grew up with.But this is after 9/11 and I can say I really have no reason to hang around Windsor, Seeing the places where "2 mllion" people once lived in the condition that is in, and not having to go through customs is enuff for me.

[Magnatomicflux]

This is Canada's definition of crime getting "crazy" a homicide rate of 3.9 per 100,000 people in 1991 in Toronto. Clearly, no comparison to any city in America or Detroit for that matter.

Well, that's my definition of getting "crazy" for a Canadian city. I'm not quite sure if I'm supposed to read that as a criticizm of my country or not though. I wouldn't think so, because you seem smart, and critcizing a people for not killing eachother day in and day out would be stupid, at best.
I agree, that it's nowhere near American cities. How is New York's so low? 6.3 p/100,000 in 2008? Is it just the pure size of the NYPD?


Here's a link though from the TPD, for the current year up to October.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php

Like I said......recently it seemed like gun crimes were happening more and more on the news, and those arn't being counted on this report. Gun crimes don't have to include death. That's all I was trying to say...more shootings.

I have nothing more to offer though on Toronto. It's pretty clear that's it's not comparable.

[slick]

1967/68 Detroit Public School Directory. It numbered 325+.

and don't forget all the Parochial schools which began closing about that time.

Look at the photos on the Non Detroit section of Chicago. 3 Million people in the city, 12 million in Chicagoland. I visited Chicag a few weeks back and Michigan avenue reminded me of Woodward when I was a youngster [[mid 50's) the crowds crossing the street was a mob scene.

All the vacant neighborhoods were mainly 2 family flats, with large families.
Those were the days!

[sam]

Could you imagine 60 years ago there where twice the number of people in Detroit than there are today.

Sure, I can imagine. I grew up in HP in the 50's and 60's. When my family moved to Detroit in '52 the streetcars still ran up and down Woodward to the fairground. Detroit was one of the richest cities in the world, and the commercial and residential buildings reflected that fact.

One thing Detroit did for me is to instill the fact that no matter how great your current living environment is, it can change. And the time for it to reinvent itself is probably longer than your lifespan.

[iheartthed]

It might be worth pointing out that it is impossible to ascertain with certainty whether Detroit actually had a population of 2,000,000 or more. Population experts mostly agree that Detroit hit that mark, as was mentioned earlier, in the mid 1950s, and briefly. But these are based on estimates and other useful but uncertain data. The only reasonably correct estimate of population is the decennial census, and Detroit had 2,000,000 people in neither 1950 or 1960, and certainly not before or since.

I wonder what you all think would be a reasonable population for a prosperous, bustling Detroit we'd all like to see? I suspect most of us would pick a number somewhat less than 2M. Any ideas? With modern infill development, TOD along Woodward and Gratiot, and so forth, what population ought we to be aiming for?

I ask because I have seen the City for decades trying not to lose more population, which reminds me of the "prevent defense" in sports, which I absolutely despise. If you want to win, you can't just try not to lose, you have to try to fucking win. So pick a number, and we'll see what we need to do to get there!

I don't think 2 million is a bad target. Especially if we're talking about a completely developed Detroit. That would be a population density of roughly 14,000 per square mile, which isn't a suffocating density like Manhattan [[71,000 per sq mi). And we should probably be thinking about this in terms of density rather than population anyway.

Turin, Italy -- a city that the mayor has become smitten with as of late -- has a population density of 18,000 per square mile. I've never been to Turin so I don't know the "feel of it. London isn't extremely dense but is pretty evenly developed and has a density of about 12,500 per square mile.

And on a related note, if I were the mayor's office, as I back down from the ill-advised "shrink Detroit" speak, I would think about rebranding the density movement to something along the lines of "infill Detroit". Because infill is the appropriate term for what needs to happen in Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

During World War II, Detroit was often described as a city with 3 million people crowded in and around it. I was under the impression that Detroit reached its peak population between 1944 and 1951, and that it was 2.1 million in the city proper. This is from long-ago reading, though ...

[blackmath]

Well, that's my definition of getting "crazy" for a Canadian city. I'm not quite sure if I'm supposed to read that as a criticizm of my country or not though. I wouldn't think so, because you seem smart, and critcizing a people for not killing eachother day in and day out would be stupid, at best.
I agree, that it's nowhere near American cities. How is New York's so low? 6.3 p/100,000 in 2008? Is it just the pure size of the NYPD?


Here's a link though from the TPD, for the current year up to October.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php

Like I said......recently it seemed like gun crimes were happening more and more on the news, and those arn't being counted on this report. Gun crimes don't have to include death. That's all I was trying to say...more shootings.

I have nothing more to offer though on Toronto. It's pretty clear that's it's not comparable.

New York's crime is so low mainly due to two factors and the slow down/abatement of the crack epidemic of the 80s and early 90s.

Factor 1 - CompStat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat -- a sort of crime statistics program that highlights areas of concern, etc.

Factor 2 - The "broken windows theory". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows -- making quality of life issues a very serious and important focus of the police department through strict, zero tolerance enforcement.

Here's a list from the first wiki article I linked that shows other factors that helped NYC have about the same per capita crime rate as Provo, Utah.


The training and deployment of around 5,000 new better-educated police officers
The integration of New York's housing and transit police into the New York Police Department
Police decision-making being devolved to precinct level
The clearing of a backlog of 50,000 unserved warrants
Robust "zero tolerance" campaign against petty crime and anti-social behavior under Giuliani and Bill Bratton
Widespread removal of graffiti
Programs that moved over 500,000 people into jobs from welfare at a time of economic buoyancy
Offering housing vouchers to enable poor families to move to better neighborhoods.
Demographic changes including a generation raised in the social welfare systems started in the 1970s and 1980s.
End of the crack epidemic and a shift to a marijuana-based drug economy with a larger consumer base and less competition.
Advances in medicine play a role in the declining number of homicides.
Gentrification, displacement of lower income individuals more likely to commit crimes from gentrifying or gentrified communities.

I realize that New York and Detroit are very, very different cities, but perhaps some of these initiatives could work?

[Detroitnerd]

New York's crime is so low mainly due to two factors and the slow down/abatement of the crack epidemic of the 80s and early 90s.

Factor 1 - CompStat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat -- a sort of crime statistics program that highlights areas of concern, etc.

Factor 2 - The "broken windows theory". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows -- making quality of life issues a very serious and important focus of the police department through strict, zero tolerance enforcement.

Here's a list from the first wiki article I linked that shows other factors that helped NYC have about the same per capita crime rate as Provo, Utah.


The training and deployment of around 5,000 new better-educated police officers
The integration of New York's housing and transit police into the New York Police Department
Police decision-making being devolved to precinct level
The clearing of a backlog of 50,000 unserved warrants
Robust "zero tolerance" campaign against petty crime and anti-social behavior under Giuliani and Bill Bratton
Widespread removal of graffiti
Programs that moved over 500,000 people into jobs from welfare at a time of economic buoyancy
Offering housing vouchers to enable poor families to move to better neighborhoods.
Demographic changes including a generation raised in the social welfare systems started in the 1970s and 1980s.
End of the crack epidemic and a shift to a marijuana-based drug economy with a larger consumer base and less competition.
Advances in medicine play a role in the declining number of homicides.
Gentrification, displacement of lower income individuals more likely to commit crimes from gentrifying or gentrified communities.

I realize that New York and Detroit are very, very different cities, but perhaps some of these initiatives could work?

I would warn you against emulating Giuliani time. What happened there was poverty and crime weren't eradicated; they were moved and concentrated in other areas.

As for kicking a half-million people off welfare, that was awful. Lots of people in the know developed a plan: Job training, education, substance abuse counseling, day care, etc. -- and moving people to work. They dumped all the good stuff and just handed people a mop and a bucket -- and used them to intimidate and harass the public sector unions.

But you'll never hear that from anybody starry-eyed over Giuliani's "success stories." Caveat emptor.

[Hermod]

During World War II, Detroit was often described as a city with 3 million people crowded in and around it. I was under the impression that Detroit reached its peak population between 1944 and 1951, and that it was 2.1 million in the city proper. This is from long-ago reading, though ...

The 1950 census was 1.8+ million [[5th largest in the nation).

It may have reached a 2 mill estimate in the 53-54 time frame.

While there were a number of truly rich people in Detroit, the real secret was the upper middle class wages of the UAW workers [[the princes of labor). That is what drove Detroit's prosperity [[and the anger of the rest of the county having to pay ever increasing amonts for a new car).

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't think 2 million is a bad target. Especially if we're talking about a completely developed Detroit. That would be a population density of roughly 14,000 per square mile, which isn't a suffocating density like Manhattan [[71,000 per sq mi). And we should probably be thinking about this in terms of density rather than population anyway.

Turin, Italy -- a city that the mayor has become smitten with as of late -- has a population density of 18,000 per square mile. I've never been to Turin so I don't know the "feel of it. London isn't extremely dense but is pretty evenly developed and has a density of about 12,500 per square mile.

And on a related note, if I were the mayor's office, as I back down from the ill-advised "shrink Detroit" speak, I would think about rebranding the density movement to something along the lines of "infill Detroit". Because infill is the appropriate term for what needs to happen in Detroit.

From what I know of the "shrink Detroit" plan, it's more like a "reconcentration". But of course, such a term would never fly, given its understandably negative connotation, both with Nazi-occupied Europe and with the slum clearance programs of the 1960s and 1970s.

It seems that the whole idea of "shrinking" Detroit is to consolidate people and resources into a series of sustainable "villages" with population densities in the vicinity of what you cite. If you are able to create more densely-populated, mixed-use, self-sustaining communities, then these villages become more attractive places to live. The logical extension, of course, is that they would be attractive enough for potential relocators, or at the very least, for people who would otherwise choose to leave the area.

[iheartthed]

From what I know of the "shrink Detroit" plan, it's more like a "reconcentration". But of course, such a term would never fly, given its understandably negative connotation, both with Nazi-occupied Europe and with the slum clearance programs of the 1960s and 1970s.

Well, it's all just a bunch of speculation at this point since the mayor's office has yet to release details of a plan.

It seems that the whole idea of "shrinking" Detroit is to consolidate people and resources into a series of sustainable "villages" with population densities in the vicinity of what you cite. If you are able to create more densely-populated, mixed-use, self-sustaining communities, then these villages become more attractive places to live. The logical extension, of course, is that they would be attractive enough for potential relocators, or at the very least, for people who would otherwise choose to leave the area.

The problem I have with this is that Detroit's populated neighborhoods today are not the ones that were built for high density. The high density neighorhoods -- neighborhoods with multi-family structures, or densely built structures -- are the ones that have largely been abandoned. If the mayor seriously wants to build density then he will have to focus on infilling those areas instead of taking them off the grid. And he won't fill those areas by draining the populated neighborhoods and sending those people to the abandoned neighborhoods.

[Hermod]

It seems that the whole idea of "shrinking" Detroit is to consolidate people and resources into a series of sustainable "villages" with population densities in the vicinity of what you cite. If you are able to create more densely-populated, mixed-use, self-sustaining communities, then these villages become more attractive places to live.

Like Brewster?

[Ravine]

Yeah, that's right. Any desire for density or neighborhoods means that we want to put coloreds and women back in their place and have cancer kill everybody. As Red Foxx would say ...

Attachment 7957

Goddam. Have you been hanging out with Merely John? That's your inference, not Jcole's implication.
Shit. I thought I was supposed to be the "angry, bitter, and spiteful" one, around here.
Oh well; I'm easy. You can have it for a minute, but bring it right back, and there had better not be drool-stains on it.

[Augustiner]

Like Brewster?

No, not like Brewster at all. Brewster is a bunch of towers with big grassy fields in between them. As in, the majority of the surface area is grass. That's pretty much the exact opposite of "densely-populated, mixed-use."

[Detroitnerd]

Goddam. Have you been hanging out with Merely John? That's your inference, not Jcole's implication.
Shit. I thought I was supposed to be the "angry, bitter, and spiteful" one, around here.
Oh well; I'm easy. You can have it for a minute, but bring it right back, and there had better not be drool-stains on it.

Haha. Just a bit tetchy on that subject ...

[ghettopalmetto]

No, not like Brewster at all. Brewster is a bunch of towers with big grassy fields in between them. As in, the majority of the surface area is grass. That's pretty much the exact opposite of "densely-populated, mixed-use."

Brewster--like numerous other housing projects across the country--was right out of the Le Corbusier handbook, whose ideas were initially presented as the antidote to the negative aspects of turn-of-the-last-century city life.

[Detroitnerd]

I remember reading Betty Smith's "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn," and she makes kind of a crack at the end, talking about how her dense neighborhood, full of poor families, was a lively place, and how the projects that gradually replaced them were clinically designed to give residents the scientifically determined minimums of green and light to sustain them.

Let's face it: Projects were built to house poor people. They get rid of the street where you can run a store, limiting opportunity. They have small porches and few gathering spots, limiting community. They even cut down the trees so the choppers can chase residents more easily.

[Hermod]

Let's face it: Projects were built to house poor people. They get rid of the street where you can run a store, limiting opportunity. They have small porches and few gathering spots, limiting community. They even cut down the trees so the choppers can chase residents more easily.

Ummmm, during the heyday of housing project construction, how many police departments owned choppers?

[Detroitnerd]

Ummmm, during the heyday of housing project construction, how many police departments owned choppers?

I should have written that more carefully. Later on, when there were choppers to chase people from the air, they chopped down the trees in a lot of projects to aid in arresting the people who lived there. Ask, and ye shall receive, Hermod.