Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08
I, for one, don't think Detroit is somehow a failure. The problems that plague it are vexing a great number of cities in the country. In reality, it's not that "unique." As such, it is important something be done sooner than later to provide a blueprint.
Yes, I've never lived in Detroit...and I'm relatively young. However, I went to school in Birmingham so I do identity with the 1st point. Birmingham has a similar situation. In the 60s people left the city and established independent communities, sucking tax revenue out of Birmingham Proper and the city began to sag (poor services, job opportunities, education, etc). Now, they refuse to contribute anything to the city and won't work to plan regional transportation and the like.
|
I tend to think the difference between Detroit and a huge number of other older formerly industrial cities is that, usually, the extreme disinvestment is more or less confined to one portion of a city where the factories and associated low-quality workers' housing was. I live in Buffalo, a city that is often compared to Detroit. Buffalo does have problems, but here as in most places, when people conjure a stereotypical postindustrial image of decay and urban prairies, that image is true but it only describes a relatively small portion of the city. The factories were located on the east side mostly, and that area has mostly returned to urban prairie, but it only makes up about 30% of the city's land area. The rest is relatively prosperous, or at least not bombed-out.
In Detroit, on the other hand, the extreme decay and disinvestment seems to be a lot more wide-spread, perhaps due to its extreme dependence on the factories and thus a more even collapse across the city? There are nicely kept areas, to be sure, but they seem relatively physically small compared to the rougher sections.
I should also note that it's also all a matter of marketing, reputation and perception. I spent many years living in Chicago. As great a city as it is, the dense and vibrant and happenin' part you hear about makes up only about 1/3 of the city's land area if that. The rest of it very much resembles any other legacy industrial city with all the abandonment and disinvestment and crime that you would stereotypically expect. Some areas, especially in the mid-south side, are completely abandoned. Detroit, for whatever reason, has gotten a bad reputation which likely only worsened its plight over time, a reputation that Chicago mostly avoided for various reasons (mostly having a strong mayor at the right time in the 60s).
To be fair, I haven't lived in Detroit so I can't fairly judge, so feel free to set me straight. I have read tons about it (good and bad) and I have visited to try and understand it better, but obviously it's not the same.