Detroit then and now: An infographic.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

either way, Detroit would still have the most seats (and also have 3 or 4 districts). I'd imagine this would get pretty complicated and there's probably a better way to organize this would-be metropolitan government.

City residents would still only have roughly 18% of the vote, meaning the suburbs collectively would be running the show. It wouldn't be a matter of Warren having 1 or 2 seats. It would be a matter of 40 or so districts, each sending a representative to a council that would then manage a single regional budget, a single regional transit system, a single regional water department, etc. Everything that the city and suburbs tend to fight over now to no end would be debated and voted on in a metro council.

The current city boundaries would have no legal status, but would essentially act as neighborhoods. The districts would legally have to be based on population. As far as schools are concerned, I'd leave the current school districts as they are, except maybe a few consolidations here and there, and maybe breaking up Detroit Public Schools into smaller districts.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by hudkina

City residents would still only have roughly 18% of the vote, meaning the suburbs collectively would be running the show. It wouldn't be a matter of Warren having 1 or 2 seats. It would be a matter of 40 or so districts, each sending a representative to a council that would then manage a single regional budget, a single regional transit system, a single regional water department, etc. Everything that the city and suburbs tend to fight over now to no end would be debated and voted on in a metro council.

From what I understand, the reason the city and the suburbs fight over water today is because the suburbs don't want the city charging too much and it acts as a source of revenue for Detroit. If, in theory, the region were to become one municipality, wouldn't that make that debate irrelevant because the revenue and expenditures would be under one government? Warren wouldn't have to buy water from Detroit because neither entity would no longer exist (at least not in the same form as today). So, in theory, shouldn't the cost balance out?

The current city boundaries would have no legal status, but would essentially act as neighborhoods. The districts would legally have to be based on population. As far as schools are concerned, I'd leave the current school districts as they are, except maybe a few consolidations here and there, and maybe breaking up Detroit Public Schools into smaller districts.

That I definity agree with. I was thinking earlier why Detroit hadn't split up the district to save costs or something.

[LtBk]

Detroiters seem to be only people who tell others to ignore the central city, and focus on the suburbs. As long as the suburbs flourish, screw the central city. In that case, it's typical auto-centric sprawl with some urban nodes.

[mousquet]

Wondering why comments have been going a little depressed on here. Did commitments for revitalization seen in the City Discussion and Mass Transit forums vanish or something?
Keep cool and wait for the currently planned stuff to get built. Some guys have some money to use over there.

[fflint]

Nobody denies--and few care--that metropolitan Detroit is a donut with a sugary ring of suburbs--to which the solvent and ambitious have retreated--surrounding negative space. But that is not the subject of this thread, and I'm calling bullshit on the compulsive declarations about the sugar-and-spice-and-everything-nice of boring Michigan suburbia. Start another thread, if you must, to extol the many virtues of post-war autocentric suburban sprawl.

The less flattering topic of this thread, the epic and ongoing decline of a once-great American city, is something that its homers apparently cannot abide. But if we cannot discuss this, if we cannot examine this, then we certainly cannot solve this.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by fflint

Nobody denies--and few care--that metropolitan Detroit is a donut with a sugary ring of suburbs--to which the solvent and ambitious have retreated--surrounding negative space. But that is not the subject of this thread, and I'm calling bullshit on the compulsive declarations about the sugar-and-spice-and-everything-nice of boring Michigan suburbia. Start another thread, if you must, to extol the many virtues of post-war autocentric suburban sprawl.

The less flattering topic of this thread, the epic and ongoing decline of a once-great American city, is something that its homers apparently cannot abide. But if we cannot discuss this, if we cannot examine this, then we certainly cannot solve this.

mmmmm...... donuts.... I miss your old avatar.


but to be fair, not all of suburban detroit is "post-war autocentric suburban sprawl". the gross points, for example, are a prime example of intact inner ring pre-war suburban development. the post-war sprawl-burban crap is certainly also there, just as it's found everywhere, but metro detroit, by virtue of its size in the prewar era, has a much more varied suburban format than one finds in a typical sun-belt sprawler that has seen >75% of its growth in the post-war era.

none of that is to say that we shouldn't be allowed to talk about the decline of the city proper. however, i too tire of the whole "why don't they just destroy the whole city and start over?/they should abandon the city/why don't they just turn it into a big giant farm?" lost-cause mantra that gets repeated over and over in detroit threads, and i'm not even from the place. i can easily see how it would be even more exhausting for a local. most forumers don't come to detroit threads to have an honest discussion about solutions, it seems.

[the urban politician]

I feel like eating a donut after reading fflint's post..

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

Not even remotely comparable imo. Redeveloping an already abandoned landscape is far different from molding it into an auto friendly suburbia and destructing an in tact system. Most of the city of Detroit is already 'destroyed.'

The fundamental premise of post-war 'urban renewal' was to eliminate what currently existed and build anew, atop a tabula rasa. This is also the fundamental premise of your suggestion.

Historic buildings engender a strong sense of place, a sense of permanence and community, a tangible link to the past. Detroit should save as much of its historic stock as is practicable, in the hope that a revival will come. Just because we cannot currently see it happening in our lifetimes doesn't mean we should steal the historic past from the Detroiters of the future.

TUP--yeah, I'm obsessed with breakfast foods today!

Steely--Good points, and I miss my old avatar too. The new one is a response to Prop H8, which I intend to retire as soon as I reclaim legal equality between gays and straights in California. I really didn't think it would take this long. I'll bring back the dancing donut someday...I hope.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

however, i too tire of the whole "why don't they just destroy the whole city and start over?/they should abandon the city/why don't they just turn it into a big giant farm?" lost-cause mantra that gets repeated over and over in detroit threads, and i'm not even from the place. i can easily see how it would be even more exhausting for a local. most forumers don't come to detroit threads to have an honest discussion about solutions, it seems.

My argument - and I know you may have not exactly been targeting it...maybe you were - doesn't have "urban farming" as it's centerpiece. It's an intermediate plan that embraces the reality of the economy of central Detroit (and perhaps north central St. Louis and other spots). An important part would be scattered, small scale traditionally urban town centers serviced by transit surrounded by a scattering of remaining pre-war housing. Most infill would be concentrated around the new "town centers" and be completely urban. Vast open areas outside of these town centers would be allowed to return to nature with the exception of the exisiting properties. Development not adjacent to new town centers would have to follow new urbanism principles, generally, and could be easily incorporated into a future urban grid.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Wondering why comments have been going a little depressed on here. Did commitments for revitalization seen in the City Discussion and Mass Transit forums vanish or something?
Keep cool and wait for the currently planned stuff to get built. Some guys have some money to use over there.

Detroit can be a very moody dramatic topic as is the city itself.

[hudkina]

Suburban Detroit already had over 1 million residents by the time WWII ended. At the 1950 Census, 1.2 million people were living in the areas immediately outside of Detroit. When people are extolling the virtues of the suburbs, they're not talking about the autocentric suburban sprawl. They're talking about the inner-ring of relatively walkable pre-war suburbs. Places like the Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, Wyandotte, Royal Oak, Dearborn, Hamtramck, etc. They're talking about mature, gridded neighborhoods that have been around for 80+ years. In most southern and western cities, those types of neighborhoods would be considered inner-city.

And as far as discussing the problems facing the city, who's stopping you? It's one thing to post the latest round of cherry-picked statistics followed by the snide, disingenuous and misguided remarks. It's another thing to truly discuss the complex issues facing the city.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by hudkina

And as far as discussing the problems facing the city, who's stopping you? It's one thing to post the latest round of cherry-picked statistics followed by the snide, disingenuous and misguided remarks. It's another thing to truly discuss the complex issues facing the city.

Yeah, who is stopping the latest round of snide, misguided and disingenuous cherry-pickers from discussing Detroit's supposed "problem?" Oh, the irony.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

They killed off that idea very promptly in the 1920s.

But it would be quite interesting to see an Indianapolis-style consolidation. I wonder if the city would somehow still manage to completely misuse and waste resources.

That was hilarious.

[Centropolis]

good talk guys.

could detroit benefit from shrinking it's municipal boundaries?

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

good talk guys.

could detroit benefit from shrinking it's municipal boundaries?

I might have mentioned this in another post but generally no. Although Detroit's tax base is smaller, it's still quite spread out and cutting out any chunk of Detroit's current land area would be a greater loss in tax revenue which basically worsens the problem.

However, Detroit could give up certain municipal department responsibilities to the county/state/other entity, but so far that's proven...difficult.

[AccraGhana]

I have not read through all the threads but one thing that has to be taken into account is the change of the typical household size from 1950 to today. The typical household (Nuclear family) in 1950 consisted of a mother, father and at couple of children. Detroit was a city of houses and flats. The decline in the size of the nuclear family alone would (people per unit of housing), would translate to a much smaller population today if all other things remained the same. Going from 4 or 5 people per housing unit to 2 and 3 per housing unit would nearly halve the population in and of itself.

That having been said, I am not sure why more people do not bring up the inconsistencies of the Detroit population count. The year 2000 enumeration included an effort by the city to get as many people counted as possible. Such efforts were a continuation of such efforts by Coleman Young because revenues from the state to cities in Michigan were allocated based upon the population counts and hence it was to the interest of the city to get as many people counted as possible. Thus, in 2000 such as effort was made, as well as, the city, along with others, sued claiming a minority undercount. The cities won and hence Detroit population for the 2000 census was bumped up by about 55,000 people. Keep that in mind.

When the 2010 census enumeration began, Mayor Bing made absolutely no effort, relative to past efforts, to get as many people counted in the city as possible. Also, the 2010 count did not include a readjustment for minority undercount. Thus, 55,000 of the supposed 250,000 drop in population were due to not including the minority adjustment. In other words, if the 2000 count had not included an after the fact adjustment to the count, like 2010, then Detroit’s loss for the decade, based upon pure counts, would have been 195,000 people. Then one has to ask the question how many more Detroiters would have been counted if the mayor pushed, promoted and advertised that people get counted like had been done in previous enumerations under different mayors? I mean, counting is not an exact science and many people have a reason for not wanting to be counted, unless reassured. Count there have been 25,000 or more people counted if the same effort had been made as in previous decades?

Given that, I believe that had things been consistent, Detroit population loss would have been more like 160,000 – 170,000 people. I do not accept the 250,000 thousand numbers. I am not disputing the absolute count; rather, I am disputing the count relative to previous counts. If there indeed was only 713,000 people in 2010, I submit that in 2000 the population was actually only about 870,00 people, and not the 954,000 that resulted from an after count adjustment and a massive get out the count ground game. It’s obvious that a lot of people left Detroit in the last decade, however, it thing the numbers are embellished as a result of things noted.

I would like to conclude by saying that the housing bubble and the subprime fiasco is what triggered the massive outflow of African Americans from many large urban centers out into suburbia. People in inner ring suburbs were allowed to move up into better homes further out, but they needed someone to buy their old homes first and the subprime market and lending allowed many blacks to afford or get into those suburban homes for the first time. The area shifted out form the center with everyone trying to move up and out a litter further from where they were, creating a hole in the middle (Detroit). It will be interesting to see if the outmigration of African Americans from cities continue at the same pace of last decade, without the housing bubble to drive it.

[fflint]

^Perhaps Bing was concerned a post-census recount might actually result in a lower firgure rather than a higher one?

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by fflint

^Perhaps Bing was concerned a post-census recount might actually result in a lower firgure rather than a higher one?

Not true. There was never really a recount in previous adjustments. There was a formula used to make adjustments based upon undercounting of minorities. I think the same formula applied to all cities that sued and had an adjustment done. I think Bing was more worried about the cost associated with mobilizing and advertising to get people counted as had been done in previous counts.

After the counts came in much lower than Bing expected....then he wanted to dispute the figures and file suit. To me it was one of the biggest blunders of his tenure as mayor. He should have mobalized the city to be counted...just like had been done in previous years. The negative publicity of losing a quarter of a million people really did damage to the status, image and reputation of the city the world over.

[animatedmartian]

I remember him saying at one point "We may not ever become a 1 million person city again, at least not in my lifetime, but at least we can try to be the best 700,000 person city" or something along those lines.

To me, it seems like Detroit is attempting to be complacent with a smaller population rather than trying to promote growth like a city of any size typically does.

Maybe that's why he didn't challenge the count.

[Blitz]

I don't see how the city proper can turn itself around without some sort of amalgamation or consolidation. Of course it won't be popular but nothing else seems to be working. How can the US federal govt or the Michigan state govt just sit back and continue to let this city rot? If this situation were to have happened in Canada, there would've been a forced amalgamation when the problems first started being recognized 40 years ago.