OT - The Ruins of Detroit Captured on Film
I saw a series of photos of old Detroit buildings in a piece done by the Denver Post.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2011/02/07/captured-the-ruins-of-d…;
There is no political statement intended here, just a sense of sadness.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
Especially seeing the abandoned schools, with books scattered about the library. It does look like something out of a zombie apocalypse.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
I'm in the restoration buisness here in Dallas and thats all I have done for the last 35 years. Its difficult to find investors for these large projects especially now with the economy in such a tailspin. Having said that some of the old buildings that were built back in the middle 1800s to early 1900s are some of the best constructed buildings that amaze architects and engineers to this day. It is a great feeling of accomplishment when we complete one.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
interesting take, but I have to say I disagree 100%. Looking at the "ruins" pictures make me daydream about taking on a restoration project back in Detroit. They don't make me conclude 'Detroit is dead, nothing more can ever be done.'
February 11th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
Thanks for these. I live in Akron, Ohio, and I get sick of the constant talk of decay and ruin - there's lots of us living here, trying to do our best to be creative and entrepreneurial and using what's here already. I'm impressed and proud of Detroiters who are doing this great work and slowly reclaiming the city.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
If you've got about thirty minutes, check this out.
http://www.palladiumboots.com/exploration/detroit
It's a documentary with Johnny Knoxville about Detroit. He explores different parts of the city, and it does an excellent job of making Detroit look good, not bad. It's very cool.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
Nice place to visit though. My friend lived downtown for a year, and his roommate and guests had car break-ins on three separate occasions. Also, it was a constant hassle from the bums. You could watch drug deals in the park from his window. I've also spent some time on the east and southwest sides, and parts of them are pretty scary. There's a lot of fun stuff to do in Detroit, but I wouldn't want to live there, certainly not with a wife and children. While it's nice that Johnny Knoxville thinks Detroit is a cool place to hang out, until families actually want to live there, there will be no comeback for the D.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
I moved my family back to Detroit last year to help my ailing father and we moved downtown across the street from the RenCen. I've never had any issues with crime or panhandlers. I get asked at times, but it's no biggie to me. It just is what it is. For years, Detroit has tried to rebuild downtown and had no suitable plan for it to extend to the neighborhoods or keep pace in school.
When I lived in DC and other major cities, all the issues you mention were visible and experienced (crime, panhandling, drug deals).
And despite the parts of Detroit you saw, you should have gone to Indian Village, Sherwood Forest, Palmer Woods, Boston-Edison and other neighborhoods. Not only are those neighborhoods nice, those homes are beautiful. It doesn't translate well for those who want to seek out the bad in a city, but you would be wowed by the architecture.
Problem is, why would families move into the city when you have to go out to the suburbs to shop? I'm not talking about going to Whole Foods, but there's not a Kroger in the city. Nor is there a Meijer. There are no shopping malls either. It's hard to tell a family to move to the city when they have to do all their shopping 20-30 minutes away. Fixing that plus the schools and you could see things change.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
I grew up in Metro Detroit and left in 1994. I think two of the most important factors that led to the downfall of this great city are this:
1. Mayor Coleman Young - his legacy of corruption and nepostism still exists today.
2. The K car from Dodge and others. The shift from quality and character to junk cars like the K car allowed Honda, Toyota and others to pass the Big Three by.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
I'm not sure how much the auto industry had an effect on the decline of the actually City of Detroit during that time. The suburbs seemed to be thriving during that time and they were just as much dependant on the auto industry, if not more so.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
I think the biggest impact on the demise of Detroit was the race riots. Certain people were already leaving the city before the riots happened and the riots kind of accelerated that flight. The King Coleman years didn't help those people come back.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^
I think the impact of the riots is overstated. There were urban riots all over the country between 1965 and 1968. I would say that Young's tenure was the straw the broke the camel's back for a lot of people. He was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a race-baiter and not someone interested in reaching out to political opponents and suburbanites. It never cost him re-election but a lot of white people in the area gave up on his city.
February 11th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
I think the riots and their direct aftermath had more of an effect than you think.
For example, my father's family moved from the Detroit to Birmingham shortly after the riots. It's not that the actual riots scared them away, but it was the fact that their house was broken into four times in a month afterwards. He said this was the case with quite a few people he knew.
From what I understand, law and order never really returned completely after the riots. This, combined with the fact that automobile travel was easy and land outside the city was plentiful, made the move to the suburbs basically a no-brainer.
February 11th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^
But again - rioting took place in many cities during the 1960s. In most cities, the area where the rioting took place (like Watts in L.A.) remained in bad shape for a long time after, but usually the rest of the city was okay. What's different about Detroit is that neighborhoods far away from the rioting collapsed as well - neighborhoods all over the city fell apart. I don't think that can entirely be blamed on 1967. The rioting was concentrated in one area on the east side. Detroit's west side, at the time, was a thriving middle-class area. I think the city could have muddled through if it had had leadership prepared to reach out to the other side and work together. That didn't happen - or at least, white residents did not perceive it. I've asked a lot of suburbanites over the years why they ended up leaving the city. Sometimes they mention the riots, but more often they just say it was because of Young.
(On the topic of law and order, a lot of police officers quit the force during the early Young years. I don't know all the details, but the way he went about integrating it was very controversial at the time.)
February 11th, 2011 at 6:00 PM ^
THere was a fair amount of rioting up and down Grand River Avenue too, as well as Linwood and some other west side locations - I mean, it started at 12th and Clairmount approximately, I think.This is according to my parents, who lived in Rosedale Park until the mid 70s, at which time they moved to Northville.
The problem with the perception of the city was almost instantaneous, it seems. My parents bought the house in near Fenkell & Grand River for $27,000 in the 60s, and sold it in 1974 for exactly that amount. Declining revenues and a bureaucracy which refused to shrink accordingly destroyed the city budget certainly.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
It seems like the inability of those people to return from the suburbs without the use of a car would play a role too. The white flight absolutely had an impact, but if those white folks can't get back into the city to patronize businesses, your business district takes a pretty huge hit.
February 11th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^
It wouldn't hurt if there were more transportation options, but I don't think the problem was so much that suburbanites wanted to come downtown but weren't able to. By and large, people who could afford to leave did. The bigger thing is that, since the 1970s or so, a large number of suburbanites have had no desire to visit the city anymore. Attitudes are changing a little, but it's a slow process. Even just getting them to visit now and then isn't really enough. The city needs to find a way to convince some middle- and upper-class people to actually move back in. Right now the city population is very poor and its tax revenues are limited as a consequence.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^
The thing is that even though Coleman was a divisive figure, if he had a plan outside of "Let's keep downtown vibrant", then the city could have slowed down or reversed the urban flight.
Jobs, schools and shopping would keep people in the city. Jobs and shopping were moving outside the city. With it went the people. And those people were able to command and receive better schools. Since Coleman did not try to combat those issues, you got stuck with the situation we're in now.
If you get more companies like Compuware and Quicken to move downtown, along with options to shop, that will put more pressure on the city to fix the issues in the neighborhoods and schools. Money talks, and the city will eventually want to keep those tax paying citizens withiin the city limits.
February 11th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
Young, Archer and Kilpatrick didn't seem to have any large-scale vision for the city beyond making downtown and the riverfront more attractve. Bing's consolidation plan is intriguing. Finally the city is giving up the impossible dream of having 2 million residents again (even 1 million again is probably a pipe dream), and is thinking about being a functional large-but-not-huge city. It may take forever to implement, with all the different landowners, squatters and such, but if they can pull it off, it could really transform the city.
February 11th, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^
504 timeout fun!
February 11th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
There are talks about a light rail line extending from 8 mile and Woodward down to the RenCen. But that's coming at least 20 years too late.
Back in the 70s or 80s, there was a plan on the table for a rail line to go from Mt. Clemens to downtown, Woodward line and a line from the downriver area. There are rumors that the auto industry had a plan in shutting that down. I'm not sure how true that is, but there was a system on the table.
And what do we end up with? The People Mover. Since I live downtown, it's an excellent way to spend some time with my daughters. And it's great for going to Wings games or dinner, but that bad boy is a joke compared to other cities.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
pics of old apartment buildings
http://detroityes.com/webisodes/2006/02-FabulousApartmentRuins/023.htm
February 11th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^
I thought this was going to be some Lions videos...
February 11th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
Those pictures are amazing.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
"I remember Detroit when I went to Michigan in the '60's and how different it was then."
Here is a link to a great archival piece of video that Detroit produced in 1965 as part of their bid for the 1968 Olympics:
http://www.archive.org/details/DetroitC1965
I'm not arguing that Detroit hasn't changed. But it is amazing how many of the things featured in that video look basically the same today 46 years later.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^
Grew up in the burbs, 52-60, then to AA.
Stunning to see what has happened to Detroit.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
Tomorrow afternoon, we have a meeting downtown about the development of a light rail line that will extend from the State Fairgrounds on 8 Mile and Woodward (also site of new Meijer), ending near the Renaissance Center.
I know some may sarcastically was "Whoopie", but it's a great start. I was surprised at how bad Detroit rush hour traffic until I moved back here last year. I don't know how much of an increase people would see in their taxes, but the rail line would be heavily traveled. Hopefully, they can extend it out to the suburbs and maybe add some different rail lines as well. In DC, I have seen shopping and new residences built up around their Metro stations, so this could be a really big boon for Metro Detroit.
Also, various communities within the city are having meetings with city officials about the "shrinking the borders". In at least one neighborhood I know of, by Jefferson and Chalmers (near Gross Pointe), they are planning to raze the homes that they can purchase to allow for new businesses and homes. I don't think that's the plan in all of these neighborhoods, but that's the case in that one. I have no problem with that as long as the affected people get some type of incentive to purchase or rent if homes are placed back in those neighborhoods.
I know it's an exhaustive bit on a couple things, but I just wanted to throw it out there for those interested parties.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
"In DC, I have seen shopping and new residences built up around their Metro stations, so this could be a really big boon for Metro Detroit."
Is DC the best comparison, though? The DC Metro intially (after the original system was built in DC itself, of course) extended from DC (where people worked) to the suburbs (where people lived). Eventually, a lot of jobs moved (or initially developed) in those suburbs. Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of the jobs have already moved from Detroit into the suburbs, so I'm not sure how effective a DC Metro-like system would work in Detroit.
February 11th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^
When I moved out there in 1999, they were just extending the Metro - Green line out that way. Up to that point they were extended out to Virginia and Montgomery County in MD. The Green link used to stop in Anacostia which was still in the city and not exactly to greatest/safest of neighborhoods.
There was not much out there at that time except for Iverson Mall, which was not much to write home about. After they added those stations, townhomes and condos were built to allow people to live near the train line and not have to worry about fighting the commute every day. Along with the new housing, newer grocery stores were built and other vital shopping options were added.
For the people who work downtown and the businesses that are moving down there now, this would help them greatly. They would not have to sit in rush hour for long periods of time. Plus, for all the people who go to games, concerts and bars downtown, they could park closer to their homes and head down there.
And for those people who live in the city but need to do shopping or business in the suburbs, being able to utilize a system like that would be helpful. Why put 50 miles on your car every time you need to go shopping if you don't have to?
It's not the solution, but I think this would be a great part of a solution.