What if Detroit, Chicago (and other Northern cities) never fell?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I wouldn’t Chicago (and Boston, DC, and Philadelphia) with Cleveland, Detroit, and St Louis. All these cities are below 1950 peaks, but their metro areas have more than doubled or close to it. I think NYC is the only city in the Midwest/Northeast to pass its 20th century high.

What corps did StL lose?

Yes, NYC is the only major city in the northeast quadrant of the country that is at its all time population high.

All of these cities, NYC included, declined for similar reasons. It was not a coincidence that almost all of these cities experienced their first population declines in the exact same decade. What we're seeing 70 years later is the effectiveness of the policies enacted (or lack of policies enacted).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

man that detroit transit schematic hurts my heart.

As someone from there it makes me cringe because it's completely out of scale.

[austlar1]

Back to the original premise of this thread, most of the population of the so-called declining cities did not move to the south or the Sunbelt. Most of the departed population of the cities in question moved to the suburbs which continued to expand throughout this period.

[Crawford]

That Detroit schematic makes no sense, though. Yeah, I get we're talking alternate reality, but you might as well devise a subway system for Pluto.

It would be a reality where WW2 never happened, where the U.S. never became a superpower, where Detroit never became the auto capital and where Canada has somehow been annexed to the U.S. You would have to completely rewrite history from the 19th century onward.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

As someone from there it makes me cringe because it's completely out of scale.

urban rail transit system maps are often distorted in one way or another to make them more legible.

perhaps the most famous exmple is the london tube.


stylized map:


source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/travel/d.../tube_map.html



actual map:

source: https://randomlylondon.com/new-geographically-tube-map/

[maru2501]

Originally Posted by jd3189

It’s fine to consider that as well. I’m just trying to assume the best scenario, which is the ultimate point of this thread.

The ultimate point of this thread is you being a troll. Stop wasting everyone's time

[Tom In Chicago]

If it wasn't for the weather, Chicago would have a population of 30 million. . .

. . .

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

urban rail transit system maps are often distorted in one way or another to make them more legible.

Yeah, but the Detroit one is egregiously bad, and doesn't really make sense. For instance, on the hypothetical St. Clair line there is a stop for "Grandmont-Rosedale" and another for "Grand River". Well, Grand River is the main east-ish/west-ish avenue through the Grandmont-Rosedale neighborhoods, and this rail line suggests that it is traveling north/south, so it doesn't make sense that there would be a stop for both. Another thing that is irritating is that the station spacing is completely impractical for an urban rapid transit system on most of the lines. Take the Ambassador/Woodward lines as an example. If there were stations spaced every half mile, which is typical for urban rapid transit systems, then there would be 16-18 stops between Campus Martius and Gateway, which is the city limits. Gateway is less than halfway from CM to Somerset and about a third of the distance from CM to Pontiac.

Tldr- that fantasy system is not something that an actual planner would ever suggest for a rapid transit system. We also don't need to guess what a Detroit subway map would look like because the city of Detroit planned out the subway system a century ago.


http://8woodblog.com/map-envisions-1...etroit-subway/

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That Detroit schematic makes no sense, though. Yeah, I get we're talking alternate reality, but you might as well devise a subway system for Pluto.

It would be a reality where WW2 never happened, where the U.S. never became a superpower, where Detroit never became the auto capital and where Canada has somehow been annexed to the U.S. You would have to completely rewrite history from the 19th century onward.

Why auto industry hurts Detroit? Stuttgart, Munich, Turin, São Paulo's "ABC" are all better than the national average. Detroit could have thrived even being the auto capital.

In fact, those crazy urban declines are an US phenomenon and the "normal" would be always growing metro areas.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Why auto industry hurts Detroit? Stuttgart, Munich, Turin, São Paulo's "ABC" are all better than the national average. Detroit could have thrived even being the auto capital.

In fact, those crazy urban declines are an US phenomenon and the "normal" would be always growing metro areas.

The Great Depression was more of a factor the first time (1920s/30s), then regional rivalries the second time (1960s/70s). It's often assumed that the auto industry didn't want Detroit to have a subway, but this isn't entirely accurate. In the pre-war era, the auto industry was hugely in favor of Detroit getting a subway in order to transport workers to factories. In fact, almost all of Detroit's subway plans were designed to have stops at the large auto factories of the era.

The auto industry did eventually turn against street cars, which was Detroit's primary mode of transit until immediately after WW2, but they were against street cars because they wanted to sell buses to cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Why auto industry hurts Detroit?

The early-mid-century boom in Detroit manufacturing, fueled by WW2, and the U.S. emerging superpower status, turned the flatlands around Detroit into vast corridors for giant sprawling, low-slung industry (places like Mound Road, which the map shows with a subway corridor, which is nonsense).

It also empowered the middle class to buy SFH and vehicles, when the rest of the developed world was in apartments and riding trains. When Detroit became the "Arsenal of Democracy" it's suburban fate was likely sealed.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Stuttgart, Munich, Turin, São Paulo's "ABC" are all better than the national average. Detroit could have thrived even being the auto capital.

Detroit did thrive. It was one of the wealthiest places on earth until a generation ago. It's still pretty wealthy compared to most of the developed world.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

In fact, those crazy urban declines are an US phenomenon and the "normal" would be always growing metro areas.

Detroit has flat population. It basically has had the same population for 40 years, not unlike most industrial centers in the Western world. Northern England, the Ruhr, the U.S. Rustbelt, haven't grown.

Stuttgart and Sao Paulo are very different cities. Stuttgart was in ruins and surrounded by steep hills; it could never sprawl. SP was relatively poor and undeveloped back then and never an auto-focused city.

The U.S., probably alongside Germany, is the only place in the developed world where you don't have to live in one or two places for the highest available standard of living. You can move to Orlando or Phoenix and have the same opportunities. You can't do that in France or Japan.

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

What corps did StL lose?

Banking, advertising, PR, aerospace, autos, and fashion to name a few.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...iverge/417372/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...behind/478296/

https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/7...cline-st-louis

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I wouldn’t Chicago (and Boston, DC, and Philadelphia) with Cleveland, Detroit, and St Louis. All these cities are below 1950 peaks, but their metro areas have more than doubled or close to it. I think NYC is the only city in the Midwest/Northeast to pass its 20th century high.

What corps did StL lose?

both parents had white collar jobs in st. louis sort at the height of corporate st. louis starting in the 60s. my mother worked for d'arcy, which was the advertising powerhouse started in st. louis that eventually/slowly drifted to manhattan (also was in detroit and chicago i believe) before being swallowed by publicis (paris). other parent worked at mcdonnell douglas (boeing).

but st. louis lost what, dozens of fortune 500 headquarters to various factors? it was sort of the dallas of its time, a major corporate hub between the coasts. this makes me skeptical when people speak of certain sunbelt cities with this sort of tone of invincibility.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

We also don't need to guess what a Detroit subway map would look like because the city of Detroit planned out the subway system a century ago.

that would have been something.

very hub and spoke a la chicago's el (though without the actual "hub" of the loop), which makes sense given the similar urban pedigrees/geographies.

the only line i don't fully understand is the light blue route that circumvents downtown altogether, though it probably has to do with new center being its own center of gravity, something which chicago never developed.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that would have been something.

very hub and spoke a la chicago's el (though without the actual "hub" of the loop), which makes sense given the similar urban pedigrees/geographies.

the only line i don't fully understand is the light blue route that circumvents downtown altogether, though it probably has to do with new center being its own center of gravity, something which chicago never developed.

It was probably to provide a shortcut between the Ford plants in Highland Park and Dearborn. I think that follows the western border of the city in 1919, so it would have been a cheap investment. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Detroit's leaders at the time thought that Dearborn and Highland Park would eventually become part of Detroit.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

chicago hasn't fallen.

in fact, it has actually risen, at least in the literal sense.

53 new towers over 500' have been built over the past two decades (a 42% increase)!

Still a lesser skyline than Jacksonville.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

If it wasn't for the weather, Chicago would have a population of 30 million. . .

. . .

You have to be part Polar Bear to rough those winters. Most people including myself are absolute wusses in the cold.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Still a lesser skyline than Jacksonville.

true.

BUT there are 5 more 500+ footers about to go U/C in chicago, including a pair of 800+ footers, and we're all desperately praying that will be enough to finally vault us over the supremely impressive jacksonville skyline.

time will tell.

Originally Posted by JManc

You have to be part Polar Bear to rough those winters.

that can help.

but even more important: good gear.

i've been doing the 4-season bicycle commuting thing in chicago for over a decade now.

i'm not super-human or anything, i just have really good gear and the proper equipment.

as they say in minnesota, "there's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing".

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The early-mid-century boom in Detroit manufacturing, fueled by WW2, and the U.S. emerging superpower status, turned the flatlands around Detroit into vast corridors for giant sprawling, low-slung industry (places like Mound Road, which the map shows with a subway corridor, which is nonsense).

It also empowered the middle class to buy SFH and vehicles, when the rest of the developed world was in apartments and riding trains. When Detroit became the "Arsenal of Democracy" it's suburban fate was likely sealed.

I'm not talking about urban Detroit, but the whole Detroit. It could sprawl endless like Dallas while keep growing from its 5 million people in 1970 to 6, 7, 8 million today.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit did thrive. It was one of the wealthiest places on earth until a generation ago. It's still pretty wealthy compared to most of the developed world.

Well, its share in the US total population was cut by half from 1970 to today. It's wealthy, but definitely not thriving.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit has flat population. It basically has had the same population for 40 years, not unlike most industrial centers in the Western world. Northern England, the Ruhr, the U.S. Rustbelt, haven't grown.

Relatively to the rest of the country, US Rustbelt declined much more than other industrial areas worldwide

Originally Posted by Crawford

Stuttgart and Sao Paulo are very different cities. Stuttgart was in ruins and surrounded by steep hills; it could never sprawl. SP was relatively poor and undeveloped back then and never an auto-focused city.

It doesn't matter, they kept thriving despite being auto focused. About São Paulo, a singled out the ABC region (Santo André, São Bernardo do Campo and São Caetano do Sul), as São Paulo's economy is more diverse than Detroit's and the auto decline wouldn't have impacted it on the same way.

[Centropolis]

the u.s. is/was the right mix of culture, wealth, mobility, policy, and livable-land-rich-ness to treat our cities like disposable items, in comparison to europe, or even canada which essentially exists in a narrow (if long) temperate corridor with only one very expensive mild-winter city on a tiny postage stamp of land. i guess this sort of thing happens in eurasia for various reasons.