ann arbor is overrated.

Straight Talk from Rothwell

Detroit Renaissance CEO Doug Rothwell doesn’t pull any punches in his interview with Ann Arbor Business Review about Ann Arbor’s role in the southeastern Michigan economy. The relatively successful A2 economy is often discussed as if it’s some kind of anomaly that’s best explained by intangibles like the vibrant, creative spirit of Ann Arborites, but Rothwell acknowledges the elephant in the room. “[T]he city of Ann Arbor ought to do everything it can to embrace the University of Michigan, support it, cultivate it and enhance the relationships with it and never have any division between town and university, because the university is what makes the town go.” Asked whether a focus on universities like the U and Wayne State might leave out other schools in the state, he raises the almost completely ignored distinction between research universities and other educational institutions. “[I]t’s not a matter of taking from one to give to another. It’s a matter of saying, research universities play a special role.” And as if that weren’t enough straight talk for most Ann Arborites to handle with their Thursday morning coffee, he suggests that the appeal of A2 for “young people who are attracted to urban environments” lies primarily in its proximity to Detroit. Are Detroit residents allowed to run for A2 City Council?

73 Responses to “Straight Talk from Rothwell”

He’s mistaken in my case, born and raised in Detroit, could be happier to be out of that sh*t hole. I visit maybe twice a year. thank you.
posted by JJdl on January 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Well, yeah, he’s going to overestimate the appeal of Detroit, being from Detroit Renaissance and all. What I liked was that he didn’t even give lip service to the idea that A2 is this hip urban center all by itself.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 18th, 2007 at 10:54 am
that should be: couldn’t be ….
posted by JJdl on January 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I was a young person when I moved here over 6 years ago, and I relocated from a real urban area. Detroit has zero appeal for me. Heck, I’ve been to Chicago more over the past 6 years. I like the rest of what he says, though . . .
posted by Young(ish) OWSider on January 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Sharp guy.

Actually, I completely agree that access to Detroit is a huge part of the appeal of living in Ann Arbor for those of us who like culture.

Most of the people I consider to be my friends find themselves in Detroit a couple of times a month….baseball, football, hockey, Magic Stick, Majestic, shows at the Fox, Art exhibitions, house parties, festivals, etc, etc. IMHO, Detroit is indispensable if you’re into culture *at all*.

And he couldn’t be more correct about UMich, and in particular, its grad programs. UMich is that single stellar, out of this world success story in this State. It should be nutured, and used as a growth engine in the manner that I’m always advocating.

I’m amazed at how many programs at UMich are ranked in the top ten…..for whatever those USSnooze and World Report rankings are worth. No small feat for a public school in the middle of one of the US’s most depressed economies.
posted by todd on January 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I don’t necessarily disagree with his comments here, but Doug Rothwell is a super twit and a BS artist, or at least was when he was in charge of the Michigan Economic Development Corp., one of those awesome government agencies that claims to “create jobs” by flinging selective tax abatements at companies with the best PR departments.

Totally agree though that anyone who thinks Ann Arbor would be anything more than a slightly larger version of Chelsea or Dexter without UM is spending too much time at Hash Bash, if you know what I mean. Also agree about the proximity to Detroit, although I spend a lot more time in Ann Arbor than in the D.
posted by Dave on January 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The UoM gives it body, but without Detroit, AA would have no soul at all (what little it has left).

Otherwise, it would be more of what delusionists call a “distant burb of Chicago”. Yeah, it’s a burb that no one living in Chicago gives a fuck about.
posted by leighton on January 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I should add then even though I get out for a night on the town a few times a quarter, 9 out of 10 times, I’m headin’ for Detroit…..for whatever that is worth.

Of course, the last time was for a trip to the Elbow Room, Leighton.
posted by todd on January 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
The stuff about Detroit’s urban environment bolstering Ann Arbor’s attractiveness is nonsense. The central-city dense urban ambience of the city of Detroit is very modest compared to other large cities; most of Detroit has fewer housing units per acre than central Ann Arbor. Moreover, Detroit’s peculiar character is little appreciated here; Ann Arborites rarely venture to the city proper just to enjoy the place.

What helps out Ann Arbor is the 4 million-some population base of Metro Detroit, most of it suburban, which makes possible big-time amenities like pro sports, the DIA, big concerts, etc. And Ann Arbor benefits gigantically from having one of North America’s most important airports a short way down the road, just as close to us as it is to Detroit.

We may think little of bland suburbs like Sterling Heights or Farmington Hills, but collectively, their presence and population and money are a huge indirect boon to Ann Arbor’s attractiveness and economy, even more so than the city of Detroit itself.

Like many college towns, more people want to live here than we have professional jobs for. Thousands of Ann Arbor’s excess workers have found accessible jobs in Metro Detroit, and they bring that money back here to local restaurants, real estate, health care, etc.

Contrast that with (say) Ithaca NY, where there is no comparable source of jobs within easy commuting range, and people with PhD’s drive taxis and wait tables.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on January 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
One of the guys I works with make a joke about Ann Arbor folks and Detroit. Namely that they have to be west of Telegraph before it gets dark.
posted by Kozzie_13 on January 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Or what, turn into pumpkins?
posted by LittleB on January 18th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I vacation in Detroit.
posted by Paradise Valley on January 18th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I have to echo the early comments; tributes to Detroit’s contribution to the cultural vibrance of the greater Metro area often overlook that Detroit is an abandoned, lifeless, ugly shithole. And that’s coming from someone who lives right outside central Los Angeles.
posted by Nick on January 19th, 2007 at 1:35 am
bullshit! detroit may be abandoned, but some of us do love the ambience and soul that’s hidden behind all the faded glory. and the buildings, god, thats gorgeous. i’d take all those crumbling old albert kahn’s any day over the sterile arborean landscape here. i see they’re starting in on tearing into the frieze, which was one of the few nice looking old buildings here in town.

but c’mon, for all of the contributions of the university of michigan, i feel that a lot of ann arbor’s so-called culture really isn’t. its just a bunch of boring, mainstream, commercial, whitebread, suburban, mother approved drivel. the whole reputation of ann arbor is just built on hopes and dreams. when i think ann arbor artists, all i think is “all money, no talent” in large part. its a front. other michigan cities — detroit, kalamazoo, etc. are to me much more real, more soulful. and the quality of the culture reflects that. its not in your face like it is in ann arbor. its perhaps more underground, and you have to dig a little harder, but it is ultimately worth it in the quality of what’s available.

if it weren’t for the proximity of detroit, ann arbor would be as dull as almost any other small michigan city, but worse, since it wouldn’t even have the small town charm. its much too pretentious, and the cost of living is much too high, for that.
posted by stc on January 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am
stc: I’m with you on the ambience and soul and faded glory of Detroit, but that’s a rather offbeat interest around here. Detroit has a deep stigma: that’s why its assets are so cheap and so under-appreciated. When I mentioned that I lived in Detroit, white folks from the suburbs and Ann Arbor would stare uncomprehendingly and say “Why?”

If it weren’t for METRO Detroit bestowing jobs and resources on us, Ann Arbor would be considerably smaller and less expensive, and less appealing in some ways. But with the University of Michigan here, it certainly wouldn’t be anything like Alpena or Battle Creek. Even the most isolated university towns still have a lot going for them.

As for Ann Arbor’s pretentiousness, well, that’s a genuine local product.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on January 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I think I may have misrepresented Rothwell a bit — he wasn’t really talking about how great Detroit is now, but more about how great it has the potential to be. I thought it was gutsy to tell an Ann Arbor paper that you need some kind of other urban center to make Ann Arbor cool.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Well, if we decide have to get rid of one of them, I’d lose the U of M before I’d lose Detroit. It’s only money.
posted by Nitro on January 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
few things bug me as much as comments like Nick’s that Detroit is “abandoned, lifeless, ugly, a shithole”. Detroit has many serious, deep-seated problems, and much of it IS dangerous and ugly, but there is a lot of life in it and a lot of beauty, if you only open your eyes and look. Go to the Midtown/Cass Corridor area, Eastern Market, downtown, the Fox, the New Center area. There is a lot going on, and more going on all the time.
posted by tom brandt on January 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Detroit is a shithole. There’s some things going on, but it’s spread out over such a large area that it hardly makes for a vibrant urban environment. Sure, the sporting teams and museums are nice to visit once and a while, but that comes more with the very large metro population, not because of the actual city of Detroit. The Tigers, Red Wings and even things like the DIA could easily be moved outside of the city without too many tears being shed by young Ann Arborites.
posted by James on January 19th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
You’re right, the fact that it is so spread out and has such mediocre transit is a problem, but Midtown/Cass Corridor is a great urban neighborhood, in a lot of ways better than the one I’m living in in New York. Hip/cheap bars, music venues, restaurants, major cultural institutions, and uber-cheap. You could live there without a car pretty easily, in fact, i think. Heck, there’s probably even greater population density than in my current neighborhood perhaps. If I ever move back to Michigan, that’s where I’m headed most likely.
posted by Brandon on January 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Brandon where the hell is this “in fact, I think” “probably” “perhaps” “most likely” area in “New York”? Can I get a sublet?
posted by toasty on January 21st, 2007 at 3:51 am
Few things bug ME as much as those who rush to the defense of the City of Detroit–objectively one of the most troubled cities in the country. Why strain to find beauty in a town that by your own admission is mostly quite dangerous and ugly? High crime, falling population, poor schools, crumbling infrastructure, abandoned buildings, transit issues… Optimism is one thing, but what good does it do to convince ourselves and others that Detroit isn’t a failing city–culturally, economically, and otherwise? “Shithole” might seem harsh, but if the shoe fits…

And STC: I’m not surprised that someone who mourns the Frieze Building would also find urban decay to be “much more real, more soulful” and a modern, vibrant college town like Ann Arbor to be “a bunch of boring, mainstream, commercial, whitebread, suburban, mother approved drivel.” There’s no accounting for taste.
posted by Daniel Adams on January 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
For a large university town, Ann Arbor doesn’t have much diversity when it comes to nightlife, music, or the arts. Cultural diversity is a key component in making a town “modern and vibrant” and Ann Arbor is much too homogenized for that tag to be accurate. Ann Arbor is a nice, safe place to live but please don’t try to label it something it so clearly isn’t.
posted by Anonymous on January 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
It’s interesting to see the deep undercurrents of racism and classism that created the Detroit we all know today playing themselves out in this thread.

The metro-Detroit area is the single-most spatially segregated region in the country. It’s very interesting to watch people continue to lambaste Detroit for the problems it suffers due to massive disinvestment and flight by people to the suburbs.

I have family in Madison Hts, Troy, and some of the other outer-ring suburbs. Those towns are the biggest cultural “shitholes” i have ever experienced. There’s really nothing to do in those areas if you’re not into chain store shopping and office buildings.

Despite the fact that Detroit was abandoned by many middle and upper class white people (and now other races as well), it continues to be the cultural center of southeastern Michigan. There are so many fabulous pieces of architecture, museums, tours, funky shops, thriving neighborhoods, and cultural institutions that it boggles the mind. You just have to work a little harder to find them…energy that many suburbanites don’t seem to want to expend.

We as Ann Arborites have a stake in what happens to Detroit - it’s the future of this state. If we let it completely die (and the people within it rot), it’s all over for this state. Letting Detroit fall into the state that it’s in has sent a message to the rest of the world: one of racial and economic inequality.

If this state ever wants to recover it’s past glory, it needs leadership that is willing to look past placing blame/name calling and find solutions for reuniting and strengthening the region.
posted by keaz on January 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
When I was running the Detroit Marathon a couple years ago, I passed by this restaurant called “Kung Food”.

Moral: Don’t knock the D.
posted by David Boyle on January 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
have family in Madison Hts, Troy, and some of the other outer-ring suburbs. Those towns are the biggest cultural “shitholes” i have ever experienced.

That’s kind of a straw man — no one’s claiming that Troy is a cultural mecca. You don’t have to be a suburban Stepford racist to be unenthusiastic about visiting Detroit in its current form.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
“It’s interesting to see the deep undercurrents of racism and classism that created the Detroit we all know today playing themselves out in this thread.”

Let me make sure I have this straight:

1) I’ve never lived in the City of Detroit, but I’m responsible for its decay.

2) I’m responsible for its decay, but I’m not entitled to an opinion.

3) White people have destroyed Detroit–the current cultural capital of SE Michigan.

4) We need to get past name calling and blame, but anyone “lambast[ing]” Detroit is a racist, classist, segregationist, Gap shopping, Chili’s eating suburbanite Cracker.

That about right?
posted by Daniel Adams on January 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“Cultural diversity is a key component in making a town “modern and vibrant” and Ann Arbor is much too homogenized for that tag to be accurate. Ann Arbor is a nice, safe place to live but please don’t try to label it something it so clearly isn’t.”

What’s your baseline? If you’re comparing Ann Arbor to larger cities like Detroit, Chicago, etc, then sure. I imagine, however, that when contrasted with cities of comparable size, Ann Arbor does just fine in the culture department.

Even if I accept the premise that Ann Arbor is culturally homogenous, a place can be culturally homogenous and still be exciting–depending, of course, on what happens to excite you.
posted by Daniel Adams on January 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
you don’t have to love detroit to like detroit.

i like detroit. i like the detroit symphony orchestra, i like the michigan opera theater, i like the main branch of the public library, i like the art institute. i like dinner at marios.

i like detroit in small doses — day trips — but it’s also fun to go like a tourist and stay overnight. the inn on ferry street is very nice.
posted by peter honeyman on January 21st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
“You don’t have to be a suburban Stepford racist to be unenthusiastic about visiting Detroit in its current form.”

It sure helps though. –I am no mindless booster of Detroit, but too much criticism is just piling it on. There are more important things to crit.
posted by David Boyle on January 21st, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Let’s see Mr. Adams…how many words can you put i my (virtual) mouth?

>>>1) I’ve never lived in the City of Detroit, but I’m responsible for its decay.
Michigan’s tax and land use policies (not to mention redlining of financial, commercial, and residential resources) have contributed (and continue to contribute) to the decay of Detroit. Are you for these policies Mr. Adams? What are you doing to help reform them? If you are doing nothing (and simply writing to state officials to let them know of your dissatisfaction is “doing something”) you are enforcing the status quo…which in this case is contributing to the decay of Detroit.

>>>2) I’m responsible for its decay, but I’m not entitled to an opinion.
I never said that. Please point out the passage in my text where I said that (or even alluded to that).
Why so defensive Mr. Adams? And please don’t say that I’m not entitled to my opinion just because I take a different view than yours.

>>>3) White people have destroyed Detroit–the current cultural capital of SE Michigan.
The great post-WWII exodus from Detroit initially was primarily white people (look at the historical census data if you don’t believe me). Now the suburbs have middle and upper class people of all races…I even mentioned that above. Let me rephrase that, the median income levels (along with other indicators of SES) of the suburbs are significantly higher than those of Detroit while maintaining a much higher non-minority population. Is it any wonder that the metro-Detroit area contains the two cities with both the highest concentrations of whites and blacks?

>>>4) We need to get past name calling and blame, but anyone “lambast[ing]” Detroit is a racist, classist, >>>segregationist, Gap shopping, Chili’s eating suburbanite Cracker.
Wow Mr. Adams…that’s quite an inference to make! I wasn’t even thinking along those lines when I wrote that post. I never cease to be amazed by the conclusions some bloggers jump to rather quickly.
Again, why so defensive?
Maybe you may need to think about why you’re so offended by what I wrote?

You’re right…the issues aren’t as cut-and-dried as I initially wrote.
But anyone who doesn’t think that race and class issues don’t drive the economics and politics of southeastern Michigan needs to pull their head out of the sand.

My initial post was meant to bring this issue to the attention of people who blame the entire situation on the people of Detroit. Some of the initial posts in this thread make it sound as if the city exists in some sort of vacuum.
So yes, people can be “unenthusiastic about visiting Detroit”, but they also need to be aware of and acknowledge why Detroit is the way that it is…many posters to this (and other) blog(s) do not appear to do so.
posted by keaz on January 21st, 2007 at 11:14 pm
You guys all talk about decay like it’s a bad thing. Detroit isn’t supposed to be a pedestrian-friendly boutique. When you’re in Detroit, you’re supposed to be driving a very rusty ‘78 Chevy Nova from Xochimilcos to the I-Rock for to watch some band called “Lambinator” for 45 minutes and then downtown for drinks at that sushi bar near the Opera house. Later, you’ll be arrested for shooting arrows at the big tire on 194.

You don’t have to adhere strictly to that agenda, but it offers some basic guidelines. You can go up or downscale on any of the items, but the Chevy Nova is a really good start.

Who could dislike Detroit? At least it’s not crowded (Although it’s been a long time since I’ve been able to play King of the Corner in the downtown area).
posted by Nitro on January 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 am
Except during the Auto Show. 75 was like a parking lot.

But here’s something else to append to Nitro’s to-do list. Go to a concert at St. Andrew’s Hall for which you do not have tickets, stand in the cold a bit, decide you don’t care that much after all, then go next door to the diviest dive bar that ever dove and have a good old time drinking cheap gin and listening to an old black fella pick out some blues.

Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder and, much like New Orleans, Detroit offers a lot of, um, post-apocalyptic charm.
posted by Dave on January 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
Keaz:

Let’s be very clear: I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. I expressly asked you to clarify and revise your remarks (”That about right?”). Despite that, I do not feel that my characterization of your post was unfair, unreasonable or inaccurate. Your remarks (1) clearly implicate white residents of the suburbs surrounding Detroit area as the primary cause of Detroit’s ills and (2) imply that those who criticize the culture or economy of Detroit are racists and classists. From this, I concluded that my opinion (which you suggest is racist and classist) was improper and illegitimate. Was this not reasonable?

Moreover, after suggesting that posters on this board are racists and classists, that the suburbs are “shitholes,” that suburbanites have starved the Detroit tax base, segregated the city, and ignored its cultural offerings, you then ask for leadership “willing to look past placing blame/name calling.” This is textbook hypocrisy–no inference required.

You were right on one thing: I was mildly offended by your post. If this surprises you, I urge you to consider how total strangers tend to react when words like “racist” and “classist” are carelessly cast in their direction. If your objective was as limited as you claim, you would have done us the favor of identifying which posts had unfairly blamed Detroit’s predicament on the people who live within city limits. I just quickly scanned through the thread, and I can’t find any such posts.

On the subject of responsibility… Plenty of communities–dare I say all Michigan municipalities, at some time or another–have been damaged or otherwise negatively affected by state tax and land use policies. So when you say that Detroit’s been hurt by these policies, I respond “Yeah, but so has Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Flint, Jackson, Battle Creek, and Podunk, MI.” If you’re going to argue that these were bad or unfair policies, you’d have to be more specific before I’m willing to accept blame for even a portion of what’s happening in Detroit.

I agree: Detroit is important to the whole state. But at some level, I’m stop caring. I lived in Ann Arbor for 22 years, and for as long as I can remember, the message from Detroit was, “Be concerned about our state of affairs, but stay out of our affairs.” “Stop playing the blame game, but you’re at fault for our situation.” At some point, I stopped giving much of a crap about what happens in Detroit. Detroit’s been circling the drain for my entire life. Can you blame me?

You ask those who are critical of Detroit “to acknowledge why Detroit is the way that it is.” Why do I need to do this? Can I not just say, “I think Detroit is a terrible city and I don’t think it contributes to Ann Arbor being a better place?” You may take issue with how I support that argument, but why is it critical that I preface it with an acknowledgement that, 30 years before I was born, some white people left the city in shambles? Why is this important? The discussion, so far as I’m aware, is about the attractiveness of Ann Arbor vis-a-vis its proximity to Detroit–not who is, and who is not responsible for the city’s decay.

Finally, there’s one other point that I want to mention:

1) I don’t expect people in Detroit to give a damn–beyond whatever level of concern is necessitated by the fact that we belong to the same state–about how things are going in Ann Arbor. I don’t expect people who live in Novi, Jackson or Alpena to care about things happening in Battle Creek, Kzoo or Lansing. Why am I–indeed, the whole state–expected to care about Detroit?
2) If your answer to question 1 was, “Because Detroit is important to the state in a way that Battle Creek, Kzoo and Lansing are not,” assume that we were to aggregate the economic importance of those three cities. Surely they would be as, if not more important to the state than Detroit. Yet, I could be twice as nasty, twice as often about all three of these states, and I still wouldn’t get the reaction I do when I criticize Detroit.
3) If your answer is, “Well, this is a race thing too,” I would ask why I can’t say, “Detroit is an impoverished, crime infested, crumbling city” without being called a racist asshole by some guy I’ve never met. Not only is this statement not at all racist on its face, its not at all controversial. Whether you think that old, abandoning buildings are “soulful,” can we not agree that Detroit is impoverished, crime infested, and crumbling?

Basically, I’m saying that people are sensitive about Detroit in a way not justified by its importance to the state or the lingering racial issues. This conversation alone is proof of that.
posted by Daniel Adams on January 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
“and listening to an old black fella pick out some blues.”

…”old black fella”??
posted by David Boyle on January 22nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
It’s rather simple: He was old, black, and male. So “old black fella” is a pretty accurate description.
posted by Dave on January 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Believe me, Mr. Adams i don’t use the words racist and classist lightly at all.

I would take you to task for making the same comments about Flint, Jackson, Gd. Rapids, Benton Harbor, Kalamazoo, Clare, Marquette, Iron Mountain, Mt. Pleasant, Alpena or any other city you generalized and/or stereotyped.

Some of the nicest people I know aren’t racist or classist on an individualized level (they would never call anybody a ‘cracker’ or other such terms), but they are completely unaware of institutionalized racism/classism and how it governs their behaviors and views.

When people use generalized phrases such as “Detroit is an abandoned, lifeless, ugly shithole” or “one of the guys I works with make a joke about Ann Arbor folks and Detroit. Namely that they have to be west of Telegraph before it gets dark” or “Detroit is an impoverished, crime infested, crumbling city” without taking the time to place caveats on these statements or put them into context, I would say that they are being racist and classist. If they aren’t aware of it, then it’s probably due to conditioning from an institutionalized level.

Those same people would probably not make those same comments about Troy, Bloomfield Hills or Ann Arbor, even though there are some impoverished and crumbly parts to those communities too. I’m sure they would find negative things about those communities, but I think that you’ll find that they would express/describe those things in very different ways.

If they really weren’t making those statements due to institutional racist or classist conditioning, they probably would have said something like “there are sections of Detroit which are impoverished, crime infested, and crumbling (that I am really uncomfortable traveling in), but there are also sections of Detroit which are nicer than my own community.”
But many people in this state don’t think that way. It’s easier for them to dismiss people in less fortunate situations by lumping them into giant categories and blaming them for the societal conditions which place them in the situations in which they currently reside.

I’m terribly sorry if you’re offended by my calling for responsibility Mr. Adams, but you’re part of a society. All the decisions we make as individuals affect other people. Your decisions combine with my decisions and other peoples’ decisions to create the structures of power and institutions which govern our (and others’) lives. It’s impossible to say that you have no effect on anyone else in this town, county, state, country, continent, world, universe, plain of existence, etc. I am trying to hold you personally responsible for what happens in Detroit? No. But I do hold you responsible as a collective citizen of this state, region, and country.

Being a white male from a rural area, I have my own race and class perceptions and issues that I grapple with. But at least I acknowledge them and try to do something about them. You and some other people on this blog may want to reflect on where your opinions come from and how they form…it may not be as cut-and-dried a process as you may think.
posted by keaz on January 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Keaz:

I’ve been out of Ann Arbor for a few years, so its been awhile since I’ve had some smug asshole with a passing interest in sociology tell me about my inner demons. I’m well aware of my own prejudices, thank you very much.

If saying that Detroit is an impoverished, crime infested, crumbling city warrants my being called a racist, than yeah–I’d say you’re throwing those words around pretty casually. At the very least, I would expect some sort of explanation as to why it was the racist in me (and not, say, my ability to compare Detroit to other cities) that prompted me to say it.

You would take me to task, huh? About what, exactly? For simply speaking in general terms? My statements may have been general in nature, but they’re based on ample empirical evidence. Detroit HAS high crime rates. Detroit IS impoverished. Detroit HAS a large number of abandoned buildings and homes. But since we’re on the subject, let’s take a look at some really dubious generalizations and oversimplications. See if you can’t guess the author!

1) “I have family in Madison Hts, Troy, and some of the other outer-ring suburbs. Those towns are the biggest cultural “shitholes” i have ever experienced. There’s really nothing to do in those areas if you’re not into chain store shopping and office buildings.” (Sweeping generalization!)

2) “people continue to lambaste Detroit for the problems it suffers due to massive disinvestment and flight by people to the suburbs.” (Oversimplification!)

3) “If we let [Detroit] completely die (and the people within it rot), it’s all over for this state.” (Hysteria! Panic! We’re all gonna die!!!)

My personal favorite: “It’s easier for them to dismiss people in less fortunate situations by lumping them into giant categories and blaming them for the societal conditions which place them in the situations in which they currently reside.” (How easy is it? As easy it is to blame all of Detroit’s problems on white flight and state policy? Or is it as easy it is to write off those who disagree as ignorant racists?)

I wasn’t offended that you asked me to be responsible for what is happening in Detroit. I was offended that you think a B+ in Intro. to Soc. qualifies you to lecture me on institutionalized and/or latent racism. I was offended that you think, even for one second, that you can “take me to task” on anything–you can’t even manage to respond to the issues at hand (read: not racism) and avoid tripping over your own crippled arguments. And, lastly, I’m pissed at myself for wasting a chunk of this afternoon responding to a person who was, in retrospect, clearly not interested in having a discussion.
posted by Daniel Adams on January 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“When people use generalized phrases such as “Detroit is an abandoned, lifeless, ugly shithole” or “one of the guys I works with make a joke about Ann Arbor folks and Detroit. Namely that they have to be west of Telegraph before it gets dark” or “Detroit is an impoverished, crime infested, crumbling city” without taking the time to place caveats on these statements or put them into context, I would say that they are being racist and classist. If they aren’t aware of it, then it’s probably due to conditioning from an institutionalized level.”

Oh, so when I visit Detroit and view first-hand an “abandoned, lifeless, ugly shithole”, and then claim that Detroit is an “abandoned, lifeless, ugly shithole”, it’s not because of any first-hand knowledge of the city, it’s because of institutional racism.

Makes perfect sense.
posted by James on January 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
“Those same people would probably not make those same comments about Troy, Bloomfield Hills or Ann Arbor, even though there are some impoverished and crumbly parts to those communities too. I’m sure they would find negative things about those communities, but I think that you’ll find that they would express/describe those things in very different ways.”

Yeah, I would describe the negative aspects of those towns differently because they are VERY different cities than Detroit.
posted by James on January 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
This debate is becoming tiresome, but I do want to add a couple of points.

Yes, Detroit has a lot of problems, and may well have worse problems than any city of its size and prominence in the U.S.

That said, there’s a reason that people like me (a lifetime Ann Arborite) rush to defend Detroit. In my case it’s because I get the impression that most Detroit-bashers (including a number of Ann Arborites) almost never go there, and think of it as just abandoned buildings and crack houses. In fact, I’ve met people from out-of-state who are shocked on their first visit about little decay they see around downtown and the Fox Theater (yes, I know you can find it if you look).

I also think that a lot Ann Arborites arrogantly assume that Detroit offers nothing that they can’t find here. That’s not true. In addition to pro sports, Detroit has a first-class museum, an orchestra venue with better acoustics than Hill, a number of good restaurants at different cost levels, a greater variety of bars (and people in the bars) than Ann Arbor, the Fox and a great jazz club (Baker’s).

Crime is a big problem, but I’ve never heard of anyone getting robbed going to a sports event or concert (a friend who’s a Detroit cop saw me crossing Gratiot going to Comerica but didn’t say anything because he was on duty in plainclothes watching the suburban fans to insure nothing happens).

Does Detroit need lots of help. Yes, of course, but pointing out its positives is not going to lead anyone to believe that it’s the upper east side of Manhattan or some other place with no need for economic development and social services
posted by PeteM on January 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
/sidle in
/look around

Detroit is overrated?

/wander out, whistling
posted by ryan on January 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“This debate is becoming tiresome….”

Apparenty not that tiresome…
posted by Daniel Adams on January 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Daniel, I should have said that the aspect of this debate that is focused solely on whether critics of Detroit are racist was becoming tiresome — obviously, I don’t mind debating Detroit’s virtues.
posted by PeteM on January 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
wow, detroit is closing 47 school buildings this year and five more next year. included on the list are chadsey, mackenzie, and redford high schools. (the schools i went to are spared … if they still exist, i guess i have to add.)

in other news, dunkin’ donuts plans to double the number of stores in metro detroit over the next five years.
posted by peter honeyman on January 24th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Dance, puppets, dance!

In all seriousness, I wouldn’t have made my “abandoned, lifeless, ugly” comment if I had remembered how seriously you folks in A2 take yourselves. It wasn’t intended as a statement of fact, just my opinion of Detroit after a few visits.

And I have to echo those who object to being labeled white suburban racist oppressors for their opinions about Detroit. For my own part, I just don’t care very much about Detroit or SE Michigan in general. Nothing personal against anyone, but I didn’t grow up there, I only spent 2 workaholic years of grad school there, and I don’t live there now. If we’re talking about where I grew up (another declining Rust Belt city with an uncertain future) or where I live now, my opinion of the place and my familiarity and engagement with all of its interesting, non-Pottery-Barn corners is obviously far greater.
posted by Nick on January 24th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Well, Detroit and SE Michigan in general care VERY deeply about you and your interesting, non-Pottery-Barn corners, Nick.
posted by Nitro on January 25th, 2007 at 8:18 am
There was a time when Detroit really was a great place to live and work. Unfortunately, that was forty years ago. Back then, Detroit was a booming blue-collar industrial metropolis. Unfortunately, today Detroit is Port-au-Prince with snow. Detroit is a net liability to the state and the nation and has been for decades.

I think I speak for Michigan’s taxpayers when I say I’d giggle uncontrollably for days if Detroit sank into Lake St. Clair one rainy night, and took all of its welfare recipients and violent felons with it. Detroit is a failed city and a bottomless rathole that our governor is obsessed with dumping our money into, to no benefit. If Detroit mysteriously vanished one night, they could cut the sales tax and state income tax in half, and Michigan would suddenly have the lowest crime rate in the nation instead of nearly the highest.

I wonder how many of the people who say “Detroit brings the area vital cultural diversity” really mean “I’m glad Detroit is there because I can go down to Seven Mile to score an eightball or a lid of boo.”

Yes, yes, I know. Noticing that Detroit is a Third World cesspit is raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacism, o noes. Those of us who are neither impressed nor concerned when someone says “but that’s raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacism” will continue to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. It is politically incorrect to mention that there is an elephant in the living room, which is why it’s so entertaining.
posted by The Taxpayers on January 25th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Taxpayers — you do know that there was a race riot in 1967, don’t you — just about, oh, 40 years ago? That Detroit wasn’t a booming blue collar industrial metropolis for a significant share of the population?
posted by Dale on January 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Oh, yes, we remember it well.

White people didn’t “abandon” Detroit. We were driven out by black crime, black violence, and black riots.

When Mayor Young said “This is a black city and we’re going to have black politicians, black administration, and a black government that works to benefit black people, and if you honky motherf***ers don’t like it, hit Eight Mile,” we said “fine, you win. Bye!”

Detroit was a wonderful place before the parasites killed their host. The people who live in Detroit now have turned it into Mogadishu, and they can have it. We don’t want it back.
posted by the Evil White Oppressors on January 25th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
you stupid racist asshole. here’s what coleman young said:

“I issue a warning to all those pushers, to all rip-off artists, to all muggers: It’s time to leave Detroit; hit Eight Mile Road! And I don’t give a damn if they are black or white, or if they wear Superfly suits or blue uniforms with silver badges. Hit the road.”
posted by peter honeyman on January 25th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
He also said:

“Racism is something like high blood pressure — the person that has it doesn’t know he has it until he drops over with a goddamned stroke.”
posted by Annie Jay on January 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
The problem as I see it is that auto-industry white senior management (and those who could affiliate with these people– or tried to latch onto the shifting economic base they provided) left the inner city as basic- to mid-skill jobs left. This is textbook analysis, I know, but what was left behind was an unemployed group of people with no reason to care about the city. Crime and utter neglect followed, which provided cache for those players “selling” the city’s image– Michael Moore, Eminem, Kid Rock, The White Stripes, Stephan Sufjen, David Means and so on– (sorry but I am naming here those people who sell the idea of Detroit to the East Coast as of two weeks ago.)

The racial component has to do with those who were in senior management and those who were not, as well as those who were able to successfully graft onto the new economy of the ‘burbs”– whatever that economy is supposed to be about, be it Chili’s or whatever. (People who eat at Chili’s, by the way, do not live in big diverse cities anyway. And they can just as easily be any fricking color: go look in Grand Rapids.)
posted by toasty on January 26th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Sufjen Stephans
posted by toasty on January 26th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Yeah, Detroit was a beautiful sparkly Aryan wonderland until for no reason at all those mean black people decided to burn it down. DARN THEM!

Idiot.
posted by Nitro on January 26th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Detroit has a horrible crime problem.Detroit has had a crime problem for decades.Detroit is losing population at a rate of one thousand per month mostly because people are tired of the intractable crime.Until the city does something about that it will never significantly change.

And don’t be fooled by the myth that whites left only because of racism; many left because after being mugged or robbed or burglarized for the third or fourth time they had had enough.
posted by ARNOLD on January 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Has anyone pointed out the rampant discrimination that was taking place in the 50s (long before the riots, lawlessness, etc.) in Detroit. Look, when you have a white majority who has things “like they want it” and then, god forbid, there’s a steady increase in non-white minorities who are vying for jobs, housing, etc. it’s easy to see who becomes the oppressor and who is oppressed. Detroit has a long, long history and one of the hallmaks, unfortunately, is not knowing how to cope with a increasing diverse city.
When it didn’t work, there was white flight. And where there was white flight, all white communities started all over again. Ahh, just like old times.
posted by AAparent on January 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
As long ago as the 1920s, Detroit had a tightly bounded ghetto where all of its black population was required to live. Housing within this territory was extremely crowded, and all occupations and income levels were jammed in together.

Enforcement of this segregated boundary was a public-private partnership involving (among many others) police and realtors. Unlike more corrupt cities, affluent black families in Detroit couldn’t bribe their way out of the ghetto.

All the rest of the city was about 100.0% white.

As a result of this extremely strict segregation, Detroit had no experience with black and white families living side by side, no integregated neighborhoods, no integrated schools, etc.

It was total apartheid, and the Ku Klux Klan was very strong.

Meanwhile, Detroit’s entire structure was warped by the necessity to keep blacks from voting themselves any power. All of the city council members were elected citywide, so that the black neighborhood couldn’t elect anyone. All of the state reps were elected citywide, so there would be no black state reps.

When the tight little East Side ghetto finally overflowed its boundaries in the 1960s, and its population exploded outward, whites fled in terror.

Metro Detroit’s extreme segregation is not something that developed recently, nor was it “caused” by the riots or white flight. Those who moved to the suburbs were seeking to maintain the longtime status quo of an all-white environment in a city with a large black population.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on January 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Wow. You really can learn something here! Thanks for the history lesson, Larry.
posted by abc on January 26th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Detroit Renaissance CEO Doug Rothwell has got it all wrong. AA does support the U in any way possible. From allowing real-estate to be sold en mass to the U to having historic significant structures and neighborhoods bulldozed and handed to the U. The continual shrinking of AA, decreasing taxable land. What Detroit should have done a long time ago is not be so focused on the big three automakers who have systematically brought detroit to its knees over the last 40 years. Yes, that is right corporate welfare was employed first by detroit and look where it is. Every other day, I go to work in detroit and i’m amazed how that city just continues to die slowly. How to avoid a detroit:

1. Diversify the economy.

2. Plan and structure city development. Take a look at detroit as what not to do. Seriously, get in your car and walk the streeets for yourself.

3. Maintain a public transportation system

4. invest in your citizens.

5. Maintain a diversified tax base.

6. know when to start focusing on attracting new industries
posted by meinannarbor on January 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
the race casrd is played here like a 4 month old baby playing with reverened fawell’s double chins. race has always been a political ploy used by both sides to justify why detroit is so horrible. when, in fact, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with corrupt polticians, corporeate welfare, and the sheer stupidity of detroit nourshing a failing mono-economy. look at chicago, look at philadelphia, new jersey etc. all very diverse communities and all thriving. the race card being played on this board is by pseudo-bonehead wanna be intellectuals who don’t have an understanding of big city life. they were too busy driving mommy’s car in the devo and shopping at target.
posted by meinannarbor on January 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Invest in your citizens” — what the fuck does that mean?
posted by Dave on January 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
AA does support the U in any way possible. From allowing real-estate to be sold en mass to the U to having historic significant structures and neighborhoods bulldozed and handed to the U. The continual shrinking of AA, decreasing taxable land.

Talk to the neighborhood groups, who consistently oppose any new private (taxable) housing where students might live and instead call for the university to house them in (non-taxable) dorms.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 26th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
“AA does support the U in any way possible.”

I’d respond to this, but I’m laughing WAY to hard to post anything longer than this sentence.
posted by todd on January 26th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
meinannarbor: when, in fact, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with corrupt polticians, corporeate welfare, and the sheer stupidity of detroit nourshing a failing mono-economy. look at chicago, look at philadelphia, new jersey etc. all very diverse communities and all thriving.

Oh, so Chicago and Philadelphia and New Jersey, “in fact”, don’t have corrupt politicians and corporate welfare?

Most other metro areas, whether richer or poorer, newer or older, growing or shrinking, are a lot less racially segregated than Metro Detroit. But I’m a “pseudo-bonehead wanna be intellectual” for saying so. Whatever.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on January 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
meinannarbor (not to be confused with meinkampf, see above), i hear you, but somehow pittsburgh survived (i.e., recovered from) the collapse of the steel industry, so there is more to the picture.
posted by peter honeyman on January 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Larry, completely fascinating stuff, as usual. I honestly had no idea. I can’t believe how much pol. sci, history you have at your fingertips.
posted by todd on January 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
As for New Jersey, have a look at Camden.
posted by toasty on January 27th, 2007 at 2:23 am
In fact i can’t believe someone would call Jersey “thriving”. I mean no offense but why would someone say that? Where do you live or whatever? Is the world such a fictional category? I see that on this site alot: for people making comments to aaio’s good work, if it ain’t close by, any speculative comment can fly. “In [such-and-such a place] things are [the way I want them to be]: in [such-and-such a place] they do it the way I wish they did it here and nobody can call me on it, because nobody’s looking [I hope].”

[One time I was in New Jersey and it was like a Soprano’s episode except I didn’t see any gangsters.]

[One time I was in Florida and managed NOT to see Disney World]

[One time I was in Europe and now I can say I was in Europe once and it was different than Ann Arbor and I’m an expert on it]

[One time I saw my future and in that future I was telling off all my former classmates– because they failed to get it ,and I got it, and that is why I am in this fictional future other-place that at the moment has no meaning except that I can imagine it, here in Ann Arbor, so I can pretend to tell you off about it”]

Sorry to all you fine people who take the time to make good comments. But
posted by toasty on January 27th, 2007 at 3:50 am
How to avoid being Detroit is to not depend on the auto industry and steel. D’oh.

For people with some opinions from other places about other places in comparison to Ann Arbor; it can’t hurt to hear how other folks do things. Toasty? What are you saying, that Ann Arbor is the cosmic center of the universe and no place else can be used to learn from? Maybe I ‘didn’t get’ what you were saying but I don’t (at all ) think that Ann Arbor is frickin’ Valhalla or something. Criticism can be a very good thing. Like all communitys, we do some stuff right and some stuff very strangely. Live and learn, one would hope. I would venture that many if not most people here are actually from someplace else (Europe or Jersey for example ?) and have valid opinions. I might add that my brother lives in New Jersey right now, and I gotta say, there are some HUGE advantages to living there. Evidently they have casinos and the tax revenue makes it so that all residents of my bros town can send kids to an all-summer, public school run, summer camp ( with school bus pickup and drop off ) for $300 per kid - for the whole summer. Pinch me that I’m not dreamin’. From what I hear, at least some parts of Jersey *are* thriving. What can I say.
posted by LittleB on January 27th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Agreed with LittleB. The reason Pittsburgh survived was that it found new industries to move in. It certainly has its problems, but there are jobs. There’s some segregation, but it’s not nearly as bad as SE MI. When steel left, there were some very bad years. The 70s and 80s were just awful. I remember, growing up, I’d see the nasty, abandoned steel mills that still lined the rivers. Many of my classmates’ parents were out of work, and it was pretty unpleasant all around. Now the old mills are gone, replaced by parks and shopping areas, there are jobs in healthcare and biotech, there are lots of fun things to do, and it’s a fantastic place to live. The city’s still not that well-off financially, but it’s coming around.

Here, the state keeps trying desperately to give the Big Three anything they want. It would be great if they could try to attract OTHER industry, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. I’m not saying they should give Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler the finger (just yet), but they have pretty much fucked over the area.
posted by Pants Rule on January 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Like the shark, swim or die. Except that somebody recently found that sharks do sleep. So maybe there’s some flexibility baked into the equation.
posted by LittleB on January 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Yeah I was saying that New Jersey is actually not thriving in all places (due to changing employment opps)– but thanks for the insight about the world not centering around Ann Arbor, Li’l. In a world market we need to stop seeing places as “home” but rather as “employment zones”– and to adjust our plans accordingly, unless we want to force localism. How my comment registered as ‘anti-outside Ann Arbor criticism’ increases my belief that it is not what one says that matters, but what people think they hear. For example when I criticize the idea that New Jersey is thriving everywhere (my perspective as an alumnus living in New York) you assume I am afraid of the world outside Ann Arbor. I know a bit about how people do things in New York, and they reflect on what happens in Ann Arbor, and I can see New Jersey from my window. It flickers in the winter.
posted by toasty on January 31st, 2007 at 1:36 am

Straight Talk from Rothwell

73 Responses to “Straight Talk from Rothwell”

Leave a Reply