WSJ: Detroit's Smaller Reality

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by The Agonist

I have mentioned this before, but it is worth mentioning again.

I saw this presentation called "Deconstructing Detroit" and it had this academic argument Detroit is the most modern city in the world in that its creation was solely for capitalism and manufacturing and now that role is over, that it is now deconstructing itself.

It used data like increasing empty land and the fact that Detroit is the only city in the world with its population where the average heights of its buildings is decreasing every decade.

It was a pretty interesting concept but not useful to the people living there.

The documentary must have been made by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the Detroit area. The Detroit area's problem isn't lack of people. Detroit's problem is lack of incentive for efficient land use. The rate of land development in the Detroit area has far outpaced the rate of population growth in that region for decades. Since it has been cheaper to build new on the periphery, rather than in the city (due to incentives and infrastructure subsidization), it makes economic sense for businesses and population to sprawl.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The Agonist

It used data like increasing empty land and the fact that Detroit is the only city in the world with its population where the average heights of its buildings is decreasing every decade.

You do realize that Metro Detroit is just barely below its historic peak population, right? There are plenty of cities in the U.S. and worldwide with much higher rates of population loss.

And I doubt the average heights of buildings is decreasing. That makes no sense. There were barely any highrises to begin with in the metro.

Even if every one were torn down (what are we talking, 200-250 at most?) it wouldn't make any difference in a metro of 5 million. The average floor count has probably grown over time, as development trends favor McMansion-ish two-floor homes, while one-floor ranches and bungalows were all the rage in the postwar era.

[northbay]

my two cents:

there is no panacea. detroit should address the issue from multiple angles: bulldoze the most vacant areas of the city and return to farmland/natural state, enforce a urban growth boundary for the metropolitan area, create tax breaks for companies willing to relocate, strengthen infrastructure in healthy neighborhoods etc.

sure detroit is different than before, but smaller doesnt necessarily mean worse. theres the opportunity here to increase the standard of living.

EDIT: a more diverse economy might help also. ie maybe they could work on developing a tourism industry (yes, that might seem laughable but doesnt every other city promote tourism?)

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You do realize that Metro Detroit is just barely below its historic peak population, right? There are plenty of cities in the U.S. and worldwide with much higher rates of population loss.

And I doubt the average heights of buildings is decreasing. That makes no sense. There were barely any highrises to begin with in the metro.

Even if every one were torn down (what are we talking, 200-250 at most?) it wouldn't make any difference in a metro of 5 million. The average floor count has probably grown over time, as development trends favor McMansion-ish two-floor homes, while one-floor ranches and bungalows were all the rage in the postwar era.

Really? Which of the other 10 biggest cities in 1950 half last half their city population and whose metro population is below the peak.

And he said the average height of buildings in Detroit had decreased, I don't think it included the suburbs.

It was done by a University professor so I assume the data has more credence but maybe it doesn't.

Here is a blurb that I found about what I saw at the Graham Foundation in Chicago a number of years ago.

Deconstructing Detroit

“Stalking Detroit,” an exhibition at the Graham Foundation in Chicago, on view October 2 – November 14, chronicles a unique urban evolution. According to curators Jason Young, Charles Waldheim, and Georgia Daskalakis, the city continues to prosecute the most extensive, publicly funded program of demolition of abandoned buildings in U.S. history. Photographs, diagrams, drawings, and texts illustrate these unique conditions for architecture and urbanism. The documentation is bolstered with architectural and urban design projects distilled from Detroit’s material and social culture in the 1990s, when demolition replaced construction as the city’s primary architectural activity.

The exhibition opens with a lecture by co-curator Charles Waldheim, Director of Graduate Studies in the School of Architecture, College of Architecture and the Arts, at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where his teaching and research focus on landscape and its relationship to contemporary urbanism.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by The Agonist

Really? Which of the other 10 biggest cities in 1950 half last half their city population and whose metro population is below the peak.

Cleveland, and St. Louis. Both of which had larger percentage declines than Detroit.

And he said the average height of buildings in Detroit had decreased, I don't think it included the suburbs.

On another forum, someone counted the number of suburban towers in midwestern cities that are 250 feet or taller. Detroit was tied with Chicago for the number of towers of that height in their respective suburbs (Metro Detroit is roughly half the size of Chicagoland). If half of those suburban Detroit towers had been built in the city (a fair ratio being that Detroit = 1/2 * Chicago), then the height of the city would not be shrinking...

The documentation is bolstered with architectural and urban design projects distilled from Detroit’s material and social culture in the 1990s, when demolition replaced construction as the city’s primary architectural activity.

That much I do agree with. But the cause of Detroit's urban demise is much more attributed to government policies (city, state, and even federal), than because of some apocalyptic post-capitalism nightmare scenario.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Cleveland, and St. Louis. Both of which had larger percentage declines than Detroit.

Specifically referring to the question, metro St. Louis is larger than its ever been and is growing (albeit slow growth).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Specifically referring to the question, metro St. Louis is larger than its ever been and is growing (albeit slow growth).

Well, Metro Detroit's population was at peak in the 2000 census. It is estimated to have shown a decline over this decade, and if that is confirmed after 2010 then it will only be the second time in history where that has happened (first time was after the late 70s recession).

[hudkina]

The 2009 estimate is less than 30,000 away from the official peak registered in the 2000 Census. (5,327,764 vs. 5,357,538)

In comparison the Pittsburgh metro has been estimated to have lost over 80,000 just in the last decade and 436,786 since the official peak in 1960. The fact that Pittsburgh's metropolitan population has fallen by over 15% since it officially peaked in 1960 is amazing, especially when you consider Metro Detroit's more publicized drop is only 0.6% from it's official peak...

City - 2009 Estimate - Official Peak Population - Year - Total Loss
Pittsburgh - 2,445,117 - 2,881,903 - 1960 - 436,786
Buffalo - 1,203,493 - 1,430,877 - 1970 - 227,384
Cleveland - 2,891,988 - 3,098,513 - 1970 - 206,525
Youngstown - 670,685 - 773,221 - 1980 - 102,536
Detroit - 5,327,764 - 5,357,538 - 2000 - 29,774

There's probably a few other metros that have lost a larger share than Detroit...

[mhays]

Are you sure those are for the same geographic areas?

[LMich]

I'd assume that they aren't for any of them (maybe Youngstown?), so that'd make the comparisons pretty consistent, though, I was wondering why he'd use ridiculous CSAs to begin with. For Detroit, I always use the traditional, informal three-county area, anyway, as none of the counties to this day are fully urbanized.

[Crawford]

Pittsburgh has lost more than half its core population and has had non-stop metropolitan population decline for 40 years, yet it's a "success" and Detroit is allegedly a failure. Detroit has fared much better on both metrics.

Many smaller cities have suffered even worse population loss.

And, if we are only talking city proper, St. Louis and Cleveland have suffered greater population losses.

But city proper is an idiotic way to count population, which is why this general theme is silly.

Is Nashville a dead city? Nashville's WWII-era city limits contain half the population as in 1950.

Maybe Paris is dead. Serious inner-city population loss, non-stop, for over a century.

What happened in Detroit is that everything relocated to the suburbs. There's still all that "stuff" there, but it's in Oakland County, not downtown.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by mhays

Are you sure those are for the same geographic areas?

The numbers are for the CSAs as delineated for the 2000 Census. I took the most recent estimates of the counties within the current CSA and went back in time to find the populations for 1990, 1980, 1970, and 1960. With Pittsburgh I even checked 1950 to make sure that 1960 was the actual peak. While the metropolitan areas as defined in each of those decades may have been different, I thought it would make more sense to do an apples to apples comparison through the decades.

Also, while Detroit's urban core is clearly within the Tri-County area of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb, the truth is that Detroit's influence has most definitely spilled over into the six surrounding counties. Genesee County (home to Flint) has the weakest connection, but even that is a fairly high connection. The people in the movie Bowling for Columbine who were taking the welfare-to-work bus from Flint to work at Great Lakes Crossing in Auburn Hills weren't isolated cases. There are a lot of people in Genesee County who commute south into the job centers in central/northern Oakland County.

Originally Posted by HowardL

I'm an outsider to this, but if offered a trip to either Pittsburgh or Detroit ... I'd be on my way to PA right now. And I'd expect to have myself a good bit of fun.

That's because you read these hackjob articles and think that Detroit has nothing to offer but crumbling train stations and urban prairies. While Pittsburgh is a great city with a beautiful downtown and really nice urban neighborhoods, Detroit isn't exactly lacking in tourist attractions and entertainment hotspots. People just never hear about them in these news articles, because that's not the story these reporters were sent here to write.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pittsburgh has lost more than half its core population and has had non-stop metropolitan population decline for 40 years, yet it's a "success" and Detroit is allegedly a failure. Detroit has fared much better on both metrics.

Many smaller cities have suffered even worse population loss.

And, if we are only talking city proper, St. Louis and Cleveland have suffered greater population losses.

But city proper is an idiotic way to count population, which is why this general theme is silly.

Is Nashville a dead city? Nashville's WWII-era city limits contain half the population as in 1950.

Maybe Paris is dead. Serious inner-city population loss, non-stop, for over a century.

What happened in Detroit is that everything relocated to the suburbs. There's still all that "stuff" there, but it's in Oakland County, not downtown.

Pittsburgh doesn't have the vast abandonment that Detroit has...and has been able to recover from the collapse of the steel industry. So in that regard....yes...Pittsburgh is more successful than Detroit. Population increases or decreases doesn't tell the whole story about anyplace. Still, Detroit has to downsize and tear down what is never coming back in order for the new Detroit to rise. I'm rooting for that to happen.

[Juicedog1313]

Originally Posted by hudkina

That's because you read these hackjob articles and think that Detroit has nothing to offer but crumbling train stations and urban prairies. While Pittsburgh is a great city with a beautiful downtown and really nice urban neighborhoods, Detroit isn't exactly lacking in tourist attractions and entertainment hotspots. People just never hear about them in these news articles, because that's not the story these reporters were sent here to write.

Pittsburgh does have a great downtown and plenty of fantastic neighborhoods, but it is no stranger to urban prairies.
Bombed out slums abound on the North Side and buildings are crumbling in the East End. But Pittsburgh has accepted the collapse of Big Steel, and are slowly rebuilding these areas on a smaller, less dense scale.

[mhays]

Pittsburgh has tons of abandonment. It just looks great doing it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

Pittsburgh doesn't have the vast abandonment that Detroit has...and has been able to recover from the collapse of the steel industry.

Pittsburgh has lost a greater share of its population, and yes, has vast abandonment. Whether it has more abandonment is difficult to say, because there's no metric for abandonment.

Pittsburgh also has virtual suburban "ghost towns" along the rivers (ever seen Braddock, PA?), something that doesn't exist anywhere in Michigan.

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

So in that regard....yes...Pittsburgh is more successful than Detroit. Population increases or decreases doesn't tell the whole story about anyplace.

Then what metric should we use? How about economic base?

Until very recently, Detroit has had a much stronger economy. In fact, metro Detroit economically outperformed most of its Rust Belt bretheren for many decades. Look at the job and income number from the late 1990's. Hundreds of thousands of jobs created in a short timeframe.

Both Michigan and Metro Detroit had median incomes above the national average until about 5 years ago.

Yes, metro Detroit is in bad shape right now, but in most years, it is significantly stronger economically than Western PA. And Detroit also has something that Pittsburgh lacks- one of the wealthiest counties in the country: Oakland County. Places like Bloomfield Hills rank with the wealthiest places anywhere.

So yes, I am certainly aware of the severe current problems in Detroit, but the media bias in favor of cities like Pittsburgh and against Detroit has no basis in reality.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pittsburgh has lost a greater share of its population, and yes, has vast abandonment. Whether it has more abandonment is difficult to say, because there's no metric for abandonment.

Pittsburgh also has virtual suburban "ghost towns" along the rivers (ever seen Braddock, PA?), something that doesn't exist anywhere in Michigan.

Then what metric should we use? How about economic base?

Until very recently, Detroit has had a much stronger economy. In fact, metro Detroit economically outperformed most of its Rust Belt bretheren for many decades. Look at the job and income number from the late 1990's. Hundreds of thousands of jobs created in a short timeframe.

Both Michigan and Metro Detroit had median incomes above the national average until about 5 years ago.

Yes, metro Detroit is in bad shape right now, but in most years, it is significantly stronger economically than Western PA. And Detroit also has something that Pittsburgh lacks- one of the wealthiest counties in the country: Oakland County. Places like Bloomfield Hills rank with the wealthiest places anywhere.

So yes, I am certainly aware of the severe current problems in Detroit, but the media bias in favor of cities like Pittsburgh and against Detroit has no basis in reality.

oakland county is ranked number 60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest..._United_States

[Thundertubs]

From the point of view of John or Jane Q. Young Professional, the difference between Detroit and Pittsburgh isn't bad neighborhoods, it's good neighborhoods. Detroit doesn't have a Squirrel Hill, Oakland, or South Side. Young folks moving into town for a job aren't going to want to move to an isolated mansion district like Boston-Edison or one of the more stable NW neighborhoods, which are basically the Staten Island of Detroit. Detroit has nice areas, but they lack cohesion with each other and aren't obvious go-to neighborhoods for young singles. Royal Oak seems to serve that purpose, but it's way out in the burbs.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pip

oakland county is ranked number 60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest..._United_States

Apples to oranges. I am counting major suburban counties, not rural podunks with 12 people.

If you use your metric, Oakland County isn't even the wealthiest county in metro Detroit, because rural counties like Livingston have higher medians.

But back to major counties, Oakland County was the wealthiest county in the nation with 1 million+ residents until just a few years ago.

It's still among the wealthiest few in the nation.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pittsburgh has lost a greater share of its population, and yes, has vast abandonment. Whether it has more abandonment is difficult to say, because there's no metric for abandonment.

I went to college in Western PA during the height of the exodus in the 1980's and most of the people leaving were young while their parents stayed behind. Homes were not abandoned in Pittsburgh on the level that they were in Detroit. The level of residential decay in Pittsburgh wasn't even on par to what we have seen in Philadelphia over the years. Were there rundown parts of Pittsburgh in those days? Yes. Was it as bad as what I have seen in North Philly? No it was not.

Pittsburgh also has virtual suburban "ghost towns" along the rivers (ever seen Braddock, PA?), something that doesn't exist anywhere in Michigan.

Yes...I have seen Braddock. The Mon Valley was hit the hardest when the steel industry collapsed. It has never really recovered. The economic growth in the region has centered in other areas.

Then what metric should we use? How about economic base?

Until very recently, Detroit has had a much stronger economy. In fact, metro Detroit economically outperformed most of its Rust Belt bretheren for many decades. Look at the job and income number from the late 1990's. Hundreds of thousands of jobs created in a short timeframe.

Both Michigan and Metro Detroit had median incomes above the national average until about 5 years ago.

Yes...because oil was cheap and people were buying SUV's and pickups made in Michigan. Detroit kept gambling on one industry all these years and now it has lost. It now must ween itself off the auto industry in the same manner Pittsburgh had to find a new way to keep itself going after the steel industry crashed. I think that is why people say Pittsburgh is a success story...because it should have just completely died as a city. The city and the region were very lucky to have had Richard Caliguiri as mayor during the dark days of the 80's. He was actually setting Pittsburgh up for a rebirth...but sadly those plans got cut short due to his health and the local economy. His leadership was a big reason why it was named the first Most Livable City in 1985....when in reality the place had crashed economically. I think if he had lived (he died while in office)...Pittsburgh would have rebounded even faster since his successors didn't do much of anything and the city rebounded much slower than it should have. I think that is the difference between Pittsburgh and Detroit. Pittsburgh had a mayor with a long term plan to reinvent the city while Detroit did not until now.

If Ford and GM continue to rebound and the region picks up...that will be great. However, Detroit needs to diversify it's economy to hedge against the auto downturns. A region dependant on one industry is not a smart move.

Yes, metro Detroit is in bad shape right now, but in most years, it is significantly stronger economically than Western PA. And Detroit also has something that Pittsburgh lacks- one of the wealthiest counties in the country: Oakland County. Places like Bloomfield Hills rank with the wealthiest places anywhere.

I think Oakland County doesn't do Detroit any favors. That L Brooks Patterson is real character. He is upset that Detroit may take back the Pistons...which Oakland took from Detroit in the first place...and is threatening to get the Red Wings to move to Oakland. Pittsburgh doesn't have to deal with that level of crap from it's suburbs.

So yes, I am certainly aware of the severe current problems in Detroit, but the media bias in favor of cities like Pittsburgh and against Detroit has no basis in reality.

I don't think what the media is saying about Pittsburgh is all that wrong. The economic devastation that swept Western Pennsylvania in the 1980's was pretty harsh. It was probably worse than what Metro Detroit is going through now. It's not like every auto plant in Michigan went away...unlike the majority of steel plants that shut down in the Pittsburgh region.

I do agree with you that the media likes to pile unecessarily on Detroit. I understand that being from the Philadelphia area. They like to do that to us as well.