Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
That brings up an interesting question, could Detroit be broken down into smaller cities? That way one city government isnt trying to take care of all of that land. It might be an interesting way to take on the problems of Detroit, create a "metro government" that helps to do projects that effect the area as a whole, then have "local government" to take care of all the individual cities that could be created from Detroit.
Just an idea, especially when it is put in perspective of size compared to much larger cities.
|
Well... Detroit wasn't really built for 2 million people. I hate when these types of articles try to argue their position from that perspective. Detroit was above the 2 million person mark a couple years at best (but most likely only stayed there for a few months). It didn't operate that large for a generation, or even a decade. It's not the same as say New York dropping below the 7 million resident mark, since NYC has been above 7 million residents for the better part of a century.
Furthermore, Detroit at 900,000 residents isn't
that sparsely populated. The city's total density is still a bit higher than most major Sun Belt cities. And when you adjust it to reflect the estimated abandoned land area, the density jumps up to levels comparable with cities like D.C., and Baltimore. Now that ain't to say there isn't a major problem in Detroit. But I am saying that I don't think things like breaking up the city (the last thing Metro Detroit needs is a more community fragmentation), or shutting down neighborhoods will not do much to fix the situation. What Detroit sorely needs now more than anything is investment into its urban infrastructure, namely the public transportation infrastructure.