Is Detroit's Rebound Around The Corner?
Professor Robert Fishman, author of "The Fifth Migration", argues that Americans' rediscovery of inner cities will give even troubled cities like Detroit a major boost.
"Fishman said while Detroit lags behind virtually all of big-city America in experiencing a rebirth, he believes the city will, someday, see its long hoped-for renaissance.
The return to cities is a powerful trend, Fishman said, 'and as expectations of urban living rise...this is going to come to Detroit as well.'
"Fishman is hardly predicting the return of the manufacturing economy that made Detroit one of the world's most dynamic cities during the first 50 years of the 20th Century. He is talking about simple urbanity -- a lively street with diverse stores and apartments on which people can enjoy the best that high-density living has to offer."
"Fishman said Detroit is perhaps the 'most challenged' city and region in the nation, but he noted that while many experts believed New York was trapped in a terminal crisis in the 1970s, the city today is booming."
"What has happened in other cities will happen in Detroit, Fishman said."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
How To Encourage Brownfield Redevelopment - May 09, 2008
To Save Detroit, Plan For A Smaller City - Apr 21, 2008
Bringing Flint Back to Life - Jan 23, 2008
An Intimate Look at the Streets of Detroit - Jan 23, 2008
Detroit Riverwalk Ushers In New Redevelopment Model - Jun 23, 2007
lots of obstacles
Certainly there has been a trend towards intown living, but I think this trend is easily sabotaged. A few things to worry about:
*increasing crime. Obviously, increasing crime makes cities less appealing. And although politicians can't directly increase crime, a politician who (like Marion Barry in the 1990s) depends on a poor, welfare-dependent electorate has a strong incentive to stall gentrification by starving police forces of resources.
*hostile state legislatures. Cities are a minority in every state, and rural-oriented state legislators have no reason to support public transit as opposed to rural-oriented highways. So whenever money gets tight, legislatures whack public transit, thus making cities less urbane and attractive. For example, Pittsburgh's transit system is contemplating cutting half or more of its routes, and the state legislature and county government have no interest in staving off this disaster.
*terrorism. I don't think terrorism is likely to affect downtown Austin or downtown Jacksonville to any significant extent - but it does pose some dangers to New York and Washington.
Obstacles - of course.....
Lewyn’s comments about there being ‘a trend towards intown living’ but that trend being ‘easily sabotaged’ is EXACTLY the kind of verbiage cities like Detroit DON’T need flying around the WWW.
Obviously, increased crime makes ANY city less appealing. The comment about how ‘politicians can't directly increase crime’ is immediately contradicted by the conclusion of how ‘politicians depend on a poor, welfare-dependent electorate has a strong incentive to stall gentrification by starving police forces of resources’. Wouldn't that logic make politicians directly responsible for crime – by reducing police resources? Why would politicians want to be ‘in charge’ of a dieing city? Where is the pride in that?
The Michigan State Legislature, past and current Governors, and Mayors of cities have been working hard for years to maintain jobs and industry in Michigan. The comments about public transportation have nothing to do with the future rebuilding of Detroit. If anything, this should be an incentive to have people move back INTO the cities; less traffic on the outlying roads, more opportunities to use existing infrastructure, and more users of public transit. One city comes to mind – NYC. Wonderful transit system – 6 million people on a tiny little island.
Maybe the reason Pittsburgh is ‘whacking’ public transit is because a majority of the routes going to outlying areas are empty due to single occupancy vehicles or no one is riding it tied to the need for people to drive anywhere at any time. Maybe this money saved on whacking bus lines will be used to fund schools. There is always the ‘other side of the coin’.
It seems an odd statement that ‘whacking public transit makes cities less urbane and attractive’. What does a reduction is public transit have to do with the attractiveness of a city?
Not thinking that terrorism isn’t likely to affect downtown Austin or downtown Jacksonville is exactly the complacency that will lead to trouble. One city comes to mind – Oklahoma City, you can’t get farther from either coast than Oklahoma City. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as ‘the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion’; with terror being defined as ‘a state of intense fear’ and ‘violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.’ You don’t have to look outside our borders for terrorism.
The direction of the first comment posted truly has nothing to do with the original article – which is the hopeful future that people (both in Detroit, in Michigan, and outside the area) have for the great city of Detroit. There is such wonderful architecture in Detroit, such eclectic neighborhoods, such a diverse culture and grittiness to the people who live in Detroit. While it might be a slow one, I know Detroit is on the right path to becoming great once again.
As my mom says, "If you can't say something nice, be quiet." Or in this case, "If you can't say something relevant....."