Challenge: More American Cities Like Detroit

Many American cities have suffered from American deindustrialization, but the worst by far has to be Detroit. If you haven't already seen the images of it from my one Detroit thread, look here. Massive areas of Detroit are literally completely abandoned due to the city losing population, and are being overrun by nature and the elements. And these were perfectly good buildings, too, and in many cases are still in good condition, but are filled with things just abandoned behind like old books and chairs and what not. It's gotten to the point where the city is downsizing itself, or at least proposing that last I heard.

The challenge is to have more cities be like Detroit where the backbone of industry has collapsed to such a degree and people have left to such a degree that all the things that happened to Detroit happen to them on that grave a level.
 
Last edited:
I had a quick look at some of the pictures, and they remind me of the ruins of Pripyat where the Chernobly Nuclear Disaster happened (In a way), only without the radiation.


Anyway, I think that a possible city to suffer in a similar manner to Detroit is New York
 
There was a thread on New York deteriorating to Detroit levels, and it was put up after my Saving Detroit thread. I'm not sure what information came out of that discussion, though.
 
There was a thread on New York deteriorating to Detroit levels, and it was put up after my Saving Detroit thread. I'm not sure what information came out of that discussion, though.

I started that thread, and the thing is, New York City isn't sinking that way unless the financial industry suddenly becomes a lot bigger somewhere else, i.e., like how car manufacturing became bigger in places like Japan.

For a city, I'd actually say Houston, however it requires tricky PODs. Mainly, make oil worth a lot less. Houston won't get the counter cyclic economics for oil, and could become like Detroit, i.e., boomed when oil was important. That may happen in the future if Houston doesn't diversify into things besides oil.
 
It may be possible for Cleveland to suffer like Detroit if it doesn't recover economically in the 1980's and is hit a couple of harsh recessions.
 
What happened to Detroit was the consequence of being a one industry town that boomed so much it became a city. If you can name another city as dependent on a single industry as Detroit then boom you've OP fulfilled.
 
The terrible problems of Detroit have several root causes.

1) Detroit was dominated by one industry (automotive). In contrast, other cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and St Louis had more diversified economies. They had several manufacturing industries, finance, chemicals, energy, etc. So if one experienced a downturn, others could pick up some of the slack.

2) That one industry was extremely hit hard by foreign competition.

3) Detroit had posionous race relations which doomed the ability of the civic community to work together to address long term, systemic problems. Previous ethnic groups used the power of patronage to build their own communities, but they did so in times of growing economic success and did not have as bad experiences. When Coleman Young became mayor and tried to the same, it was at a time when the monoindustry which provided the back of economic growth could not provide the growth needed to subsidize another interest group. They placed local politics from "we deserve the part of our share of the pie" to "we want our share of the pie to come from your slice".

4) The extensive special interests of the area made it very hard for Detroit to change policies to address these areas. The corporate culture of the Big 3 was established in times of industry dominance, and they could not adapt quick enough to changing economic conditions. The unions were interested in protecting current jobs instead of understanding the need for flexibility to keep their companies competitive. Politicians wanted to raise taxes to pay for promised benefits instead of finding ways to grow the economy long term. Civil rights organizations approached economic issues of revitalizing their communities the same way they approached dismantling legal barriers even though they required completely different approaches.

What other major city in America had these traits? Not many.

Seattle's economy was heavily based in aerospace, but Boeing only had one major competitor who did not threaten its dominance in the same way the Japanese auto companies did the Big 3. Nor was it was racially divided as Detroit.

Chicago had some of Detroit's attributes, but ultimately had too diverse an economy to decline as bad, and no single racial faction could dominate the city.

New York had major problems, but was revived by the rise of the financial industry in the 1980s, and had two strong mayors in Ed Kock and Rudy Giulani who reversed the decline.

Houston initially declined with the end of the oil boom, but recovered because as a newer city it has fewer political factions with entrenched rent seeking, so the lower regulations enabled diversified growth from the bottom.

There are a whole lot of smaller cities in a similar situation to Detroit - Buffalo and Newark come to mind - but they aren't as prominent as the largest US cities.
 
Actually, Houston recovered I'd argue completely because of oil. That's the reason why it's able to have counter-cyclic economics at points too.

Really, Houston would've become like Detroit, although maybe not as bad in parts, if oil was no longer that important, because it really is an oil city. Petroleum is the backbone of Houston's economy.
 
Sky high electricity prices in the Sun Belt = no affordable air conditioning = fewer people willing to live in Florida and the Southwest. Droughts further raise the cost of living. Urban decay occurs as people leave and cities like Phoenix and Miami become known mainly as hubs for the drug trade.
 
Oakland and Buffalo are superb canidates. New Orleans if Katrina goes cat 5. Chicago if the violence ramps up along with political coruption.
 
It's not that bad on the ground, when you're actually living here and see the city every day around you. People publish and publicize the most sensational and dreadful pictures, and skip over the well-maintained houses which are only a block away. It's quite frustrating to see over and over again, really. Those artists who thrive on ruin porn are as much of a blight on the city as the ruined buildings themselves are.

The terrible problems of Detroit have several root causes. [...]
This is spot-on, though. I'd like to add that the city was already beginning to decline before the auto industry itself was-- there was a 180k or -9.7% fall in Detroit's population from 1950 to 1960. 1960 to 1970, by contrast, saw a population fall of 155k or -9.3%, and that was the decade when Detroit burned to the ground! I put it to you that suburban sprawl hit Detroit harder than most; as soon as the freeways were built into the heart of the city and local streetcar systems were closed up, people moved out into the postwar 'burbs.
 
Top