I realise that you are an urban planner yourself.So i hope that you dont take this the wrong way .But as you know during the last 50-60 years “urban renewal” has gotten a bad reputation because of the fact that it often involved urban planners making decisions about peoples neighborhoods without the actual residents being allowed to be involved in decisions that would affect them.Often they were told to vacate their homes so a new highway could go through what WAS their neighborhood.

For instance many people have recomended bulldozing neighborhoods in Detroit and replacing them with organic urban farms. This may be a good idea for all i know.And if it is, then it should be considered.But i do think that the actual people who live in these areas should be asked if that is what they want beforee the government sends in the bulldozers.Ideas like urban farming CANNOT work without the involvement and support of the people of Detroit.

This does not mean that i think that people like yourself should not come up with plans or suggestions.But simply that the residents of Detroit should have a say in the remaking of their city.

It’s especially bad in the context of Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism. Gellner explains that the reason we have modern education and culture is to support a mobile industrial society, where people don’t always go into the same business as their parents. In contrast, pre-industrial societies change very slowly and are immobile, making apprenticeships and caste cultures a viable form of organizing society, as opposed to mass literacy and general education and a national language.

First off, after going to auto shows for 20 years, I must say this year’s was by far the dreariest. This show had the fewest of everything: cars, show models and even car makers. This year, Nissan chose not to attend the show. Even the marketplace only took up half of the convention center space.

GM, in particular, was in a bad way. GM still leased 30 percent of a convention center hall, yet it had only presented its four remaining brands (as well as Saab, which received its death warrant last week). Obviously, this left a lot of empty space at its display.

Yet one of the admirable things GM had done was who it had used to promote its cars. GM brought a few of its automobile assemblers to be the car models. All were wearing cream-colored “GM/UAW quality ambassador” shirts and had name badges and the plants they work at.

The Big 3 had brought UAW representatives before, typically as a token gesture with the workers having their own information booths. This year, though, GM had the auto workers discussing the cars in the job usually done by outside marketing firms.

Not only did the auto workers do a polished job explaining the car, but by talking with them you could quickly tell the dedication they had for their brands. You could ask them of their years they worked in autos and their steps up the ladder. Two people I remembered speaking with was one truck builder who was a Michigan native but transferred to an assembly plant in Texas to preserve his skills. He had been with GM for 35 years.

Another was a woman who had been with GM plants throughout Michigan for 20 years. She is a third-generation auto worker, and she is trying to get her oldest son to follow in the family footsteps.

It’s quite the experience when you meet the people behind the product. I don’t hold GM in much high regard, but this was one of its better efforts.