There are Two “Detroits”
September 13, 2013
DETROIT — Suppose I told you that most of what you thought you knew about Detroit was wrong, that the city was largely thriving:
- That it has one of the highest job creation rates in the nation, despite taking a serious hit from the near-death experience—and permanent contraction—of the domestic auto industry five years ago.
- That most Detroiters are white, affluent, and that there has been very little real population loss.
All that may sound crazy. But there is, in fact, more than one Detroit. The one covered incessantly in the national media looks nothing like what I’ve outlined above.
That Detroit is a desperately poor city whose ruined neighborhoods largely look like a third-world African village in the ruins of a bombed-out German city at the end of World War II. That Detroit has been taken over by the state and has filed for bankruptcy. Everything the city owns has been mortgaged to the point where the city has nearly $20 billion in unfunded liabilities. That Detroit is nearly all black, poorly educated, with horrible city services, dysfunctional schools and high crime rates. That Detroit’s real unemployment rate, the mayor says, may be 40 percent or more. Estimates are that there are only 685,000 or so people left in that Detroit.
But that Detroit is surrounded by the rest of the story.
The rest, that is, of Detroit: The 3.7 million or so other people who live in the six-county metropolitan region. They are much better off, have better schools and opportunities. Meet one of the residents in an airport in San Diego or Atlanta, and they are unlikely to say they are from Canton, Bloomfield Township, or a dozen other places nobody knows. They will say they are from Detroit. Then, they will begin to explain …
Why is the original Detroit in such terrible shape?
There are many reasons, but the fact that there are two “Detroits” is a big part of the reason. Urbanologist David Rusk, a former mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is fascinated by what makes cities thrive…and what makes them die. Twenty years ago, in his landmark book, “Cities Without Suburbs” he conclusively demonstrated a key fact about America’s cities:
“The real city is the total metropolitan area, city and suburb,” he said. So, what makes the difference between thriving and dying cities? “Elasticity.” Cities that were “elastic”—that could annex their borders and expand territory—nearly always got richer and stronger. Cities that did not expand, declined.
Looked at one way, Detroit did continue to expand. National stories all mention that Detroit’s population officially peaked in 1950, when it had 1,849,568 people. Since then, Detroit has continually shrunk. But not really. The metropolitan area had 3.2 million in 1950. Half a century later, that had risen to almost 4.5 million. That should have meant a bigger—not smaller—tax base. But while the vast majority of people came to the area for Detroit jobs, within a few decades they no longer lived in—or paid taxes to—Detroit. That, rather than race, may be the biggest problem,
When Coleman Young won election as mayor in Detroit in November 1973, he said he was happy. But he added: “On the other hand, I knew … I was taking over the administration of Detroit because the white people didn’t want the damn thing anymore. They were getting the hell out.” They were, indeed.
Detroit was 90 percent white when World War II started; it had more than 1.5 million white residents in 1950. By the last census, that had fallen to 55,504. In his book Two Nations, Andrew Hacker, a political science professor, showed that integration has essentially failed, and that whites tend to leave any neighborhood in which blacks are more than 10 percent of the population. This seems to have been even more true in Detroit.
And Detroit is an anomaly among cities for reasons other than race. Though founded by the French in 1701, Detroit was a medium-sized town (at best) for centuries. Then came the automobile. Detroit, which had 285,000 people in 1900, had almost 1.6 million by 1930. The newcomers poured in from the south, from the countryside, from Eastern and Southern Europe. They stayed a generation. But when the freeways opened up the doors to the suburbs in the 1950s, they had no long history with the city, and little nostalgia holding them there; there was simply no incentive to stay.
There are many reasons for the city’s decline thereafter. Corruption got the biggest headlines and certainly played a role. But race and, especially, “elasticity,” were even deadlier poisons. People left for the suburbs—in some cases moving a single block away—and Detroit lost the power to tax them. The city responded by increasing taxes on those who remained, which drove more people to leave, increasing the speed of the vicious circle. Detroit promised benefits and pensions to city workers, hoping to have the funds to pay them. But it didn’t. In recent years, black flight has exceeded white flight. Detroit has fewer black residents than it did in 1970 and fewer white ones than in 1870.
Now there will be bankruptcy, and trauma for those who will lose things they never imagined losing. Eventually, a Detroit shorn of its debts should emerge. But if those in power choose to ignore the fact that the city is, indeed, the metropolitan area and don’t provide for some form of revenue and power sharing across the region, it is hard—if not impossible—to see how Detroit can possibly survive, let alone thrive.
Nor is it easy to see how Michigan can have much future, if its largest city remains largely a penniless and blighted ruin.