Cities that belong in other states

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicagoland being more densely populated than metro Detroit isn't up for debate here. That's a straightforward fact.

The issue is WHY did Chicago hang on to more of its core density than Detroit, given that neither metro has ever placed much, if any, controls on sprawl?

IhearttheD touched on Chicago's expansive rail system, and that might be one of the factors at play.

I think another big difference was Chicago racially segregating itself along intra-city lines (side vs. side) as opposed to detroit's "city vs. suburbs" segregation model.



This whole tangent started because ihearttheD expressed his opinion that Detroit's population implosion over the past 7 decades is solely due to sprawl/land use policy, whereas I think the example of Chicagoland shows that the issue is a bit more complex than that.

Land use policy is a HUGE part of it, of course, but both of these metro areas never met a sprawlburban cul de sac subdivision that they didn't fall head over heels backwards for. So why did one of these cities empty out far more severely than the other?

Oh I must have skimmed through too quickly since I thought the question was whether having worse suburban sprawl was what caused Detroit's downtown to fail and people weren't sure whether its sprawl was actually worse or not. But yes I agree that such large differences don't tend to be the result of any one single factor.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'd say the best ways to tell how "bad" the sprawl is would be to look at the UA average density, UA weighted density, and transit mode share. If you just looked at the UA average density you could tell the sprawl must be bad in some places if the density is low enough but you wouldn't know what percentage of people were living in sprawl the way UA weighted density would show. It could be a lot of people living in dense sprawl or relatively few people living in very low density sprawl surrounding a large, dense core.

But there would also be places where a lot of the UA has similar medium density figures that could either be denser than average sprawl (single use zoning, car-orientation, with small lot sizes and some multi-unit) or lower density urban format like streetcar suburbs which aren't actually suburban in today's context. In some cases you could tell with just one of the stats, but using the three metrics together would be a sort of triangulation to give a complete picture.

In the case of Detroit vs Chicago looking just at UA average density, Chicago has over 25% greater urban area density. Since we already know it has a much larger and denser central city, the overall density of the larger denser core areas must more than offset the low density sprawl areas. So that does suggest Detroit has worse sprawl.

I think it's pretty clear without doing much analysis that Detroit's urban area de-densified waaaaay more rapidly than Chicago's. Metro Detroit had a huge, densely populated city in its core in 1950 that has since lost over 65% of its density, while metro Chicago's core city only lost about 25% of its density over the same time period. That said, here are the trajectories of the urban area population densities in Chicago and Detroit over time:

Population densities in people per square mile 1950 -> 1970 -> 2000 -> 2020

• Chicago: 6,954 -> 6,209 -> 5,257 -> 3,913 -> 3,709
• Detroit: 6,510 -> 4,834 -> 4,553 -> 3,094 -> 2,939
• Detroit% of Chicago: 94% -> 78% -> 79% -> 79%

Detroit's urban area experienced a huge density drop relative to Chicago's in the 1950s, but the urban areas have stayed in roughly parallel positions since that rapid divergence. But this makes clear that whatever the shift was between the two metros to bring them to their current fates, it started in the 1950s, before the metro area growth slowdown, the riots, busing, or the idea of a Rust Belt city (or Sun Belt city) was formulated. I can think of some events in Detroit that DO correspond with this sudden separation, such as the beginning of the buildout of Detroit's freeways, the sudden end of Detroit's streetcar service, and the creation of charter townships in Michigan... but I don't claim that any one of those issues by itself is the silver bullet. But the social/racial only explanation of Detroit's decline has never really been strongly backed by the details, IMO.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But the social/racial only explanation of Detroit's decline has never really been strongly backed by the details, IMO.

"Only"?

Where'd that come from?

Who said anything about "only"?

There isn't any room for the word "only" in this discussion, IMO.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"Only"?

Where'd that come from?

Who said anything about "only"?

There isn't any room for the word "only" in this discussion, IMO.

A large number of people do think it was primarily a race issue, but many of those same people think the decline started in the 1970s.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A large number of people do think it was primarily a race issue, but many of those same people think the decline started in the 1970s.

Detroit (and other older U.S. industrial cities) had alarm bells ringing as early as the mid-1950's. It just didn't filter down to the public till later. Most people are ignorant about larger matters.

I remember reading that the heads of the largest Detroit department stores had some emergency summit in like 1956. There was a giant postwar decline in the flagship store sales numbers. The s--- didn't really hit the fan until a generation later, but things basically declined as soon as the war ended. The GI Bill and postwar prosperity had young families in suburban bungalows, with at least one car in the driveway.

[edale]

When looking at the divergence in central city performance between Detroit and Chicago, I agree that you can't just point to one factor, such as land use, to explain everything. Countless American cities have sprawled to hell and back without their inner cities looking like Detroit, so obviously something else must be in play.

I feel pretty confident in saying the usual suspects all probably contributed to Detroit's issues- race/racism, freeways, the auto industry, etc. But I think a major difference specifically between Chicago and Detroit is the level of urbanization that each city had before the urban troubled period began roughly in the 1960s. In short, Chicago had a much larger, wealthier, and established core than Detroit had at its peak. Chicago had been a big city for quite a while before Detroit underwent its meteoric rise, and as a result, it had developed more of a true urban culture.

An example of this difference can be seen in the robust rapid transit system Chicago had compared to just bus and streetcar lines in Detroit. Detroit, like Los Angeles, also was an early adopter of car-oriented commercial districts, even if parking was hidden in the rear of structures. It also embraced single-use zoning, which is why you can find remnants of the single story commercial developments along Detroit's big avenues-- something you won't really find in Chicago.

Detroit never had the urban gravitas or culture of Chicago, and the city itself was quick to adopt suburban development patterns and lifestyles. It's no surprise, then, that people were quick to flee the city in search of greener (i.e. even more suburban) pastures when sprawl allowed them to do so. In Detroit, the suburbs were offering a familiar, albeit 'better' way of doing what the city did. In Chicago, the suburbs offered a radically different lifestyle than the pedestrian/transit oriented city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

When looking at the divergence in central city performance between Detroit and Chicago, I agree that you can't just point to one factor, such as land use, to explain everything. Countless American cities have sprawled to hell and back without their inner cities looking like Detroit, so obviously something else must be in play.

I feel pretty confident in saying the usual suspects all probably contributed to Detroit's issues- race/racism, freeways, the auto industry, etc. But I think a major difference specifically between Chicago and Detroit is the level of urbanization that each city had before the urban troubled period began roughly in the 1960s. In short, Chicago had a much larger, wealthier, and established core than Detroit had at its peak. Chicago had been a big city for quite a while before Detroit underwent its meteoric rise, and as a result, it had developed more of a true urban culture.

An example of this difference can be seen in the robust rapid transit system Chicago had compared to just bus and streetcar lines in Detroit. Detroit, like Los Angeles, also was an early adopter of car-oriented commercial districts, even if parking was hidden in the rear of structures. It also embraced single-use zoning, which is why you can find remnants of the single story commercial developments along Detroit's big avenues-- something you won't really find in Chicago.

Detroit never had the urban gravitas or culture of Chicago, and the city itself was quick to adopt suburban development patterns and lifestyles. It's no surprise, then, that people were quick to flee the city in search of greener (i.e. even more suburban) pastures when sprawl allowed them to do so. In Detroit, the suburbs were offering a familiar, albeit 'better' way of doing what the city did. In Chicago, the suburbs offered a radically different lifestyle than the pedestrian/transit oriented city.

If you think Los Angeles is the better analogy, then why Los Angeles didn't depopulate like Detroit?

[Crawford]

LA received a massive load of immigrants, LA never had the same degree of black-white issues (blacks as a share have never been huge in SoCal), and LA's economy, while it had periodic challenges, never had severe economic shocks.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA received a massive load of immigrants, LA never had the same degree of black-white issues (blacks as a share have never been huge in SoCal), and LA's economy, while it had periodic challenges, never had severe economic shocks.

I don't think that explains it. The Detroit area added nearly a million people between 1950 and 1960, while the city of Detroit lost about 200k residents in the same decade.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think that explains it. The Detroit area added nearly a million people between 1950 and 1960, while the city of Detroit lost about 200k residents in the same decade.

Right, but Detroit proper had severe economic and social shocks. The black population had enormous growth. Urban renewal destruction pushed blacks into previously all-white areas which set off massive white flight. And the late 50's had sky-high auto industry unemployment.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

When looking at the divergence in central city performance between Detroit and Chicago, I agree that you can't just point to one factor, such as land use, to explain everything. Countless American cities have sprawled to hell and back without their inner cities looking like Detroit, so obviously something else must be in play.

And that was really my whole point in taking the thread down this tangent.

Easy, unfettered, endless sprawl is the common denominator for most major US metro areas.

Other forces also had to be at work in Detroit.

[iheartthed]

To clarify, when I say "sprawl" I mean the developed area is expanding outward faster than the population is growing to absorb it. That is pretty clearly at the heart of the issue in Detroit. I don't think most American cities have dealt with that situation to the same degree and for such a prolonged period of time.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

To clarify, when I say "sprawl" I mean the developed area is expanding outward faster than the population is growing to absorb it. That is pretty clearly at the heart of the issue in Detroit. I don't think most American cities have dealt with that situation to the same degree and for such a prolonged period of time.

And no one really disputes those facts on the ground.

The disagreement stems more from the why of that outcome.

You seem to maintain that it was metro Detroit's promotion of sprawl that was the outlier factor in relation to its peers.

I just don't see much evidence for that being the case.

Like Michigan, Illinois has never once said no to a farmer who wanted to sell his cornfield to a developer to build 1,000 little shit boxes strung like vinyl pearls along twisty streets out in bumblefuck. Chicagoland fucking LOVES sprawl! And yet the city of Chicago didn't hollow out to anywhere near the same degree as Detroit did, despite all of that seemingly infinite corn land to sprawl out into.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And no one really disputes those facts on the ground.

The disagreement stems more from the why of that outcome.

You seem to maintain that it was metro Detroit's promotion of sprawl that was the outlier factor in relation to its peers.

I just don't see much evidence for that being the case.

Like Michigan, Illinois has never once said no to a farmer who wanted to sell his cornfield to a developer to build 1,000 little shit boxes strung like vinyl pearls along twisty streets out in bumblefuck. Chicagoland fucking LOVES sprawl! And yet the city of Chicago didn't hollow out to anywhere near the same degree as Detroit did, despite all of that seemingly infinite corn land to sprawl out into.

I mean, it's quite obvious that Chicago didn't sprawl to the same degree as Detroit. It's really just math.

It's also not just a city of Detroit problem anymore. The metro area outside of Detroit is littered with abandoned malls, abandoned office complexes, storefronts, etc. Population growth in the inner ring suburbs has stalled and reversed as the population continues to chase the freshly built developments on the edge of the urban area.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I mean, it's quite obvious that Chicago didn't sprawl to the same degree as Detroit. It's really just math.

I think it's more that Chicago gets immigrants and mass annual waves of college grads. And it was always a more centralized, core-driven region.

Places like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh etc. have stagnant populations and comparatively little immigration, so the sprawl just empties out the weakest geographies. Even starker in places like Flint, Saginaw and Youngstown.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's also not just a city of Detroit problem anymore. The metro area outside of Detroit is littered with abandoned malls, abandoned office complexes, storefronts, etc. Population growth in the inner ring suburbs has stalled and reversed as the population continues to chase the freshly built developments on the edge of the urban area.

Agreed, but I don't think this is unique to Detroit. It's pretty common among the stagnant, low immigrant metros.

Have you seen East Cleveland?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ch...97v8?entry=ttu

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think it's more that Chicago gets immigrants and mass annual waves of college grads. And it was always a more centralized, core-driven region.

Yeah, this is somewhat my point. Development in Chicago has been more directly correlated to actual population growth, while in Detroit the development has not been correlated to population growth. If anything, the expanding footprint of Metro Detroit has been inversely correlated with population growth because the overall population is still slightly less than it was 50 years ago, while the built environment is twice the size over the same period.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Places like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh etc. have stagnant populations and comparatively little immigration, so the sprawl just empties out the weakest geographies. Even starker in places like Flint, Saginaw and Youngstown.

Pittsburgh has much less sprawl, and it had a much larger regional population loss than Detroit. But if you compare Detroit to Pittsburgh, most people would guess that it was Detroit with the more substantial regional population loss. Cleveland might be more similar to Detroit, though. And maybe in Cleveland they have the same problem.

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And no one really disputes those facts on the ground.

Like Michigan, Illinois has never once said no to a farmer who wanted to sell his cornfield to a developer to build 1,000 little shit boxes strung like vinyl pearls along twisty streets out in bumblefuck.

Some really strong imagery here. Steely Dan shouldn't expect any near term job offers from the Bumblefuck Chamber of Commerce.

To me the difference between the Chicago and Detroit outcomes is related to the differences in their regional economies. The Chicagoland economy is much more diverse than Detroit's. That has partially insulated Chicago from the fierce economic headwinds that Detroit experienced when the auto industry, so vulnerable to foreign competition, declined.

Another aspect of Chicago's relative economic success is the enduring strength of its downtown. Chicago boasts America's second biggest downtown and it continues to be a favorite location for corporate headquarters. Detroit's downtown, despite recent progress, is much weaker. Chicago's booming downtown has made it easier for the city to retain a sizable share of the metro's wealthy population. The Gold Coast and other close-in neighborhoods continue to be a popular residential choice for the middle class and up. Detroit's downtown, again, hasn't been able to perform the same role.

Another big difference between Chicago and Detroit is rail transit. Chicago has the second best system in the country. Detroit currently has none, apart from the recent streetcar line. Chicago's rail transit kept its downtown a going concern.

Neither Chicago or Detroit are fast growing metros today. Neither had strong impediments to sprawl. But I'm guessing that the Detroit's metro growth slowdown started earlier than Chicago's, and Chicago's strong core meant that the city retained a decent share of the metro's wealth even after Chicagoland's growth began to subside.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I mean, it's quite obvious that Chicago didn't sprawl to the same degree as Detroit. It's really just math.

And as I said, no one is disputing the math.

It's the why that's being discussed.

In 1950, Chicago and Detroit were, by far, the two biggest cities, and anchoring the two largest urban areas, in the entire interior of the nation.

Over the following seven decades, one got kicked squarely in the nuts, while the other went off a freaking cliff.

How and why things came to be that way is interesting to look at.

Originally Posted by FromSD

Some really strong imagery here. Steely Dan shouldn't expect any near term job offers from the Bumblefuck Chamber of Commerce.

LOL!

Yeah, I'm so glad that I never touch projects out in bumblefuck anymore. The firm I work for now is 100% city/inner burbs.

But in a previous life....... ugh.......

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by FromSD

. Detroit currently has none, apart from the recent streetcar line. Chicago's rail transit kept its downtown a going concern.

How dare ye forget the Detroit people mover. It moves up to 2,000 people a day!

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And no one really disputes those facts on the ground.

The disagreement stems more from the why of that outcome.

You seem to maintain that it was metro Detroit's promotion of sprawl that was the outlier factor in relation to its peers.

I just don't see much evidence for that being the case.

Like Michigan, Illinois has never once said no to a farmer who wanted to sell his cornfield to a developer to build 1,000 little shit boxes strung like vinyl pearls along twisty streets out in bumblefuck. Chicagoland fucking LOVES sprawl! And yet the city of Chicago didn't hollow out to anywhere near the same degree as Detroit did, despite all of that seemingly infinite corn land to sprawl out into.

I think it's an obvious mix of Detroit's famed car-culture, mid-century wealth due to the auto-industry, small downtown, lack of extensive rail transit, and lack of immigration versus Chicago that caused Detroit to have a different trajectory.

Chicago embraced the Polish population; Coleman A. Young built an auto plant over their prominent enclave. Chicago's Chinatown flourished; Detroit's is now a Happy's Pizza. Granted, Detroit's decline happened before Coleman A. Young or Happy's Pizza but you get the point.

And while East Cleveland is horrific, that's really an exception to Metro Cleveland (or Cuyahoga County) versus the Highland Parks or the Inksters. Metro Detroit has far more abandoned strip mall suburbs than Cleveland or St. Louis, even per capita likely (dunno, just anecdotally). I think that's due to Detroit expanding further and further out leaving behind inner-ring suburbs to rot compared to its rustbelt brethren.