Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
^ Because Detroit fell from a higher pedestal than pretty much all of these other cities. It was once in a league close to Chicago, and suburbanization & deindustrialization ripped its soul apart so dramatically.
Detroit had (has?) a certain gilded brand and identity that none of the other cities you mention (Cleveland/Pittsburgh) did
|
This is true, in that Detroit was larger and more prominent than those cities. But, if we were to judge a region based on population trends, the relative loss has been less.
In stark population terms, the "gap" between Detroit and Cleveland/Pittsburgh has grown, not shrunk, in the intervening years. I don't know how to measure "brand/identity" gaps, and you may be right that that hasn't followed the relative population trends.
And I have no problem with ripping Detroit, or any area, for that matter. I actually have no faith in that area in terms of a turnaround. But it's tiring hearing all the apocalyptic comments, I do wonder why it's always Detroit that is singled out.
By 1970, all three were declining. Here are the population trends from 1970-2010:
Pittsburgh- 15% decrease
Cleveland- 7% decrease
Detroit- 0.2% decrease
To me, the data show that to single out Metro Detroit on the basis of relative population trends, is pretty myopic. Now if you want to single out the city proper, on on other, less quantifiable metrics, be my guest. Certainly the City of Detroit is much shittier than the City of Pittsburgh.