The Fallacy of Urban Planning

[Dexlin]

Your argument is all over the place, and whether you realize it or not implies quite a few nasty things. I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no coherence to anything. You seem to be implying that desegregation is the "problem" in one breath, and then some generalized "discrimination" in the next. And, the very premise of the post - essentially both that urban planning is worthless and then that it doesn't matter much? - starts off on some non-sensical foot by only using Detroit as an example when we have many relatively successful cities across the nation that have turned themselves around.

I think this is kind of what I was talking about in another post earlier in the night, and it's this tendency to overthink Detroit and engage in these ridiculous mental masturbatory events. It's so self-indulgent. It's really not that deep, and it's really shouldn't be that difficult.

The biggest lie of this region is that it's somehow specially and uniquly cursed. The only thing special about Metro Detroit is its legendary unwillingness to engage in intra-regional cooperation. It's not rocket science.

[nain rouge]

I realize I implied some nasty stuff. We live in a nasty world. I don't think desegregation was problem - the fact that a lot of people couldn't deal with it was the problem.

Trust me, I get no happiness from saying that. It really sucks, but it's the truth.

I don't want to go back to segregation. That would be ridiculous. I think, if anything, we need to double down against discrimination. The real problem is that we thought we could say the right things and discrimination would solve itself. It's not that easy, at least if you want to bring our society together within a reasonable time frame.

If you don't think discrimination is a problem, go talk to people to people in Detroit, Flint, and Saginaw after they'd had a few drinks. Hell, sometimes you'll hear the truth in broad daylight, in random conversations. It's a huge problem sucking us down as a society.

Urban planners have failed because they tried to build solutions to social problems, which just can't work. You might say it's working right now, but the verdict is still out. Hell, Detroit's '50s and '60s era urban planners thought they did a great job at first as the tax value of redeveloped properties went way up. One day you'll see that we were using all the wrong metrics, that many victories were eventually followed by a defeat.

Also, I agree that Detroit isn't that unique as a Midwestern urban city. It's unique however, for having nearly 2 million people and falling at least as bad as about any other failed major city you could think of. Detroit had the greatest assets in the Midwest outside of Chicago and too often failed to capitalize on any of that.

[DetroitPlanner]

Your argument is all over the place, and whether you realize it or not implies quite a few nasty things.

What he said.

You do realize that urban planners work for elected officials don't you? They do not set policy or spend money in a vaccum on whatever they fancy or desire.

What killed Detroit are incredibly high taxes in relationship to the suburbs and the cutting of programs that keep people feeling secure in the neighborhoods. Those are budgetary issues not planning issues.

Yeah there were mistakes in planning, but there were also a huge number of successes. The tennament housing of the 1800s is gone thanks in large part to Jacob Riis and planners. There is now NEPA which puts a check on people like Robert Moses. Lafayette Park is a beautiful place.