What I’ve grown frustrated with, however, are the Detroitist arrivistes (not you) who roll into town preaching an almost evangelical strain of boosterism, talk in the same urbanist inbred circles, and then are shocked when the city fails to listen to them and bulldozes an historic building over the course of a weekend. Yes, I used the phrase “Model D Speaker Series” as something of a perjorative term, but there’s a kernel of truth there.

Like I said originally, I am heartened and encouraged by your actions and what you are trying to do. I agree that taking advantage of the “ruins” is a noble and worthy cause. Until the message reaches the right people, however, I am not seeing a lot of hope for progress. Which goes back to my original point–a lot of the citizenry were offended by Vergara’s suggestion. I suspect if that trial balloon were floated again today the response would be identical, perhaps even more heated. The question is how one educates the citizenry in a manner necessary to generate the grass roots (and ultimately, civic government) support that such an endeavor really needs.

Keep on keepin’ on.

I’ve been quite intrigued by the ideas of turning large swathes of the city back into something more natural. That was my idea when i was there- to add forests between the buildings. My thought then was that these buildings were about the same vintage and quality as those on North Michigan Avenue in Chicago- towering great pre-Depression office buildings, but oh-so-empty. I yearned to see them full with people living in them, surrounded by forests that, if properly patrolled, would fill the voids, would give people a pleasant sense of separation and connection with nature, instead of being left alone and in a concrete void. Sort of the Disneyland phenomena, that if you can’t see everything then everything seems to have more promise of complexity and exploration. That’s what I yearned for when I was in Detroit, of having more activity and complexity around the corner. As it was, it felt static, dead, used up, and no tourist wants to feel that.

There was definitely a romantic movement in England in the 1830s that endorsed antiquities and follies and ruins, but that cult of the romantic placed these things, usually artificial artifacts in nature and had nature dominate them. The point was to show that nature was indeed dominant, that there was an unknowable element to it that would ultimately take over and less man’s works less powerful. That’s why you always see these ruins coming out of nature, and why, proportionately, they are much smaller than the surrounding gardens. Capability Brown did a whole lot of studies and scenes on these, usually with a “before and after” sketch that showed how the view had been made more complex, more limited, more directed. That was the general approach that Olmstedt took in Central Park, to add wondering drives that added complexity and shortened the view, as opposed to a more Versailles-like effect that would have used up the acreage in formal vistas.

To me the great challenge at Detroit is that of faded glory, of departure. I did go out to an old speak-easy while I was there and met some of the younger urban leaders there. I was impressed with their energy and commitment, and also a sense that they were so few in number that there was a bit of a “circle the wagons” approach of getting enough energy in one place to be able to act. i think that is the right and necessary approach- to find a starting point at which everyone feels comfortable. Physically that is what Detroit needs to do as well, to figure out how much it can manage to do well, well enough for their to be real pride and energy in the place. I don’t know if the old home sites really can be turned back into productive agriculture, or if people have the time and money to farm them. I think a starting point would be forests and parks, to capitalize on those spaces as truly open and somewhat natural, like arboretums. That would create something so different that some people might want to move back into the city to be near those open spaces. That would be something they could not get in the suburbs, where the only real promise is that the lot next door will ultimately be developed.

and frankly, I’m a bit sick of the high-horse guilt-ridden liberal assumption that the people in the “white neighborhoods” that Casey identifies are on some different ideological plane that the residents of the rest of the city. it’s not like your average black middle-class family in Rosedale park or your poor-but-hanging-on family on the near east side is cheering for George Jackson every time a wrecking ball slaps into another “symbol of white Detroit.” residents of all Detroit neighborhoods want pretty much the same thing: we want the police to come when we call them. we want our schools to be safe and successful in educating our children. we want the non-architecturally significant abandoned abandoned houses in the neighborhoods to be razed. we want to get the city services that we pay for. if the city were to actually take advantage of an existing, underground tourism industry and promote the city’s downtown ruins as part of the efforts to attract visitors, bringing more money into city coffers and local businesses, I doubt the residents of ANY neighborhood would be displeased.

my guess is the real powers (DEGC, DDA et. al) are much more “influenced” by the persuasive powers of suburban demolition contractors like Adamo than any “anti-ruins” lobby coming out of the city’s blacker neighborhoods.

in the end, and I’m not claiming any originality here but I just try to get Detroiters (and not just the white ones!) to appreciate a vision of Detroit that outsiders come here to see: these buildings are perfectly picturesque (in Ruskin’s sense), they are historically and culturally significant, and they are just plain cool to look at. everything you’re saying about their other significance is true, Casey, but we don’t need to take a door-to-door survey of black neighborhoods to get everyone to agree that taking advantage of an underground industry of ruin porn gawkers is a reasonable idea.

To be candid, however, you really need a buy-in to this cause/belief, that is, other than the 10% or so of the city’s population that live in the Villages, Downtown, Woodbridge, Corktown and Lafayette Park (and that’s probably a generous estimate). The problem in Detroit is that those that embrace the amazing structural heritage tend to preach to the Model D speaker series choir (a phenomenon which is obviously not unique to Detroit). In the meantime, the majority of the populace, and the officials they elect to govern the city, care precious little for what really makes Detroit unique. I don’t want to resort to a cliche like “changing the narrative,” but that’s kind of what needs to be done. People need to recognize these structures for the unique and amazing attributes that they are. They need to be woven into a narrative regarding the history of the city and the role they play in modern-day Detroit, not necessarily as gawking, Euro-ruins-porn, but rather as organic and valuable components of the urban fabric which, if lost, will never be replicated. Maybe I’m rambling a bit here, but historic architecture is a unique and valuable resource for any city, and the people of the city need to understand that as well–all people. Moreover, until you get buy-in from the “real” powers that be (i.e. the DEGC, DDA et. al), the windmills will continue to tip and…eventually…crumble.

jdg, you hit a number of good points. There’s clearly something generational at work. I have advocated to many people that Indianapolis should embrace “Naptown” as a city nickname. I happen to think it is one of the all time great city nicknames. But it is amazing how negatively it is viewed among longtime residents. To them, it represents everything they would like to think they’ve transcended as a city since the 1970’s. To them it is still an insult, notwithstanding that there are probably very few people outside of Indy who would view it that way today. (I strongly doubt “Naptown” ever had wide currency as a putdown outside of the Indy itself). But younger people are starting to embrace it, with a hip, urban, edgy connotation.

Jim Russell says “Rust Belt Chic” is a Gen X meme. I believe there is something different about how people of that generation (i.e., mine) and younger view these places. Our experience of Midwest cities is totally different from our parents. To make real progress in our cities is going to require the younger generations who see the possibility of what could be to move into positions of leadership. Those older generations are never going to be allowed to enter the Promised Land.

Regarding all those great things you listed about Detroit, I agree. I’m not saying don’t do them. Many of them are important. But there has got to be something “of this place”. I explored this topic in a post about Indianapolis you might find interesting:

http://www.urbanophile.com/2008/07/06/the-brand-promise-of-indianapolis/

Wacky outsiders like me might not go over too well with some of the locals, but attracting those crazy dreamers to the place is absolutely key to making it happen. That means people with different ideas about what Detroit is and should be are going to collide with long time locals. That collision and friction is a good thing. It is what makes urban dynamism possible. “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

I can tell you this much, I’d personally be much more likely to move to Detroit than almost any other Rust Belt city I don’t already have a personal connection to.

As for a “little bit” of money, renovating MCD would likely cost in excess of $100 million. Rather than spending that much money on one building, I’d rather see what can be done to secure these buildings for the future so that they don’t become unsalvageable. Unlike the buildings of Rome, these were not built to last for the ages.

Detroit’s pre-War inventory, particularly its skyscrapers, is one of the best in America. Only Chicago and New York compare. Talk about an asset. Those buildings simply can never be replaced, not in Detroit, not anywhere. It’s critical that they be saved until the day it becomes economically viable to restore them.