<p>NYmom, I disagree with many of your opinions about cause. </p>
<p>I’m somewhat younger - was 10 in 1967 (Bobbie’s age on Mad Men!). My dad insisted we go into the city toward the end of the riots. He’d spent the first 2 days working at the hospitals (Receiving and Memorial) - where there was blood everywhere - and once was followed by an actual tank. We saw Gran Prix at the Summit Theatre on Lafayette. We were the only people in the vast place. Then we had Chinese food and drove around so he could show us the city was not burned to ground or anything like that. </p>
<p>Detroit’s problems are far more complex than the block-busting story of lending, though that directly affected my family - living off Outer Drive near Seven Mile, right in the corridor where white flight was extreme. My other grandmother lived on Mark Twain and was the last white person in her neighborhood for many years - until she collapsed at the bus stop (where she was helped by a group of black strangers) and we could convince her to move. </p>
<p>First, Detroit is enormous. You can fit all of Boston, San Francisco and Manhattan inside it and still have room. Second, it is not dense. Detroit was the least dense at peak population of the major cities. It had the highest rate of home ownership, but few large apartment buildings - just those 2 and 4 flat buildings - up to 8 flat - you find rotting on streets today. The size and lack of density made it less resilient.</p>
<p>Next, Detroit had the top 2 and 3 of the top 10 industrial corporations in the world but not one was located downtown - GM in New Center, Ford in Dearborn, Chrysler in Highland Park. The vast supplier network similarly spread all over the area, rather than locate downtown. There was no density of jobs in the downtown core, which was mostly shopping and services. </p>
<p>Next, though Detroit had vast corporations not one located its finance operations there. Ford came closest but GM and Chrysler specifically located in NYC. This meant that despite having huge companies Detroit never developed as a robust financial center. That had huge repercussions because the lack of density went with a lack of interest in the city and a lack of money for investment.</p>
<p>Detroit is so large we take for granted the size of the nice neighborhoods like Palmer Park and Palmer Woods. Or the older Indian Village. We’re talking street after street of huge houses - some with 25 or 40 rooms. The city had many other nice neighborhoods. </p>
<p>But it isn’t what happens to you, it’s what happens after. NYC has had hard times. Chicago has - and parts are having them again. Detroit lacked density, measured in a bunch of ways, so when the fabric tore it left holes. Without the employment base, without the wealth attractors of corporate HQ’s, banking, etc., there is no value in filling those holes. </p>
<p>As for racism, I have mixed feelings about the role it played. My feelings are influenced by a few factors. First, I know the Detroit area has generated one of the largest concentrations of upper middle class black people, that unlike many cities it’s at least reasonably normal for blacks and whites to mix in restaurants and stores in suburbs, and that many suburbs have significant black populations. Second, I’ve noted some personal history but there is more. Third, I think racism is easy to blame. I know Coleman Young used it - a lot - and I sympathize to an extent: the urge to tear down is powerful. </p>
<p>But overall, I’ve long realized, living in Boston, that Detroit’s form of racism is not particularly virulent. I don’t know about the areas - like on the west side - which had large concentrations of southern whites but I’d describe racism in Detroit as essentially impersonal. It was always “the blacks” or “the whites” and that wouldn’t refer to this particular black or white person you’d know and like. In Boston, racism is far more individual, as in “you’re a member of that group so …” There is a reason we refer to tribalism here because we tend to identify individuals by their tribes. </p>
<p>As for bankruptcy, I think it’s inevitable. I have spent very little time in the city but last time I was there my wife and I - she also grew up there - spent a day visiting old family sites and driving through neighborhoods all over. Chunks of the city are gone. As in not existing. Much of the rest is beyond repair, as in nearly gone. Commercial streets are lined with vacant lots where buildings used to be. Side streets may have wrecks of houses. Now the shots you see on TV tend to be of the worst areas - parts of downriver, the east side - but that’s to be expected. </p>
<p>The problem again is size. Go from Slow’s BBQ to downtown - the distance is greater than crossing all of Boston’s office core. There are bits and pieces of life but they’re scattered across large areas. The New Center is 3 miles from downtown. Imagine if they’d built the fantastic museum - and library - downtown instead of out there. With this kind of size, it’s hard to build enough mass to generate something big.</p>