Two coinciding events have put the city of Detroit, at least temporarily, back in the national spotlight: debates over the auto industry bailout and Michigan State University’s ascent to the Men’s College Basketball Championship Game, held at Detroit’s Ford Field. In the above clip from ESPN, a few former Michigan sports stars reflect on changes in the city and the impact of sports on civic pride.
The clip points to a very interesting relationship between sports and the economic vitality of a depressed city. There was some talk in the week leading up to the National Championship game about what an MSU win would mean for the spirit of Detroit, a city boasting a 12% unemployment rate leading up to the game. The implicit assumption is that the magical power of sports can uplift a city, inspiring poor urban dwellers to pick themselves up by their bootstraps as they find redemption, solace, and joy in their team’s victory.
This sports euphoria certainly has some merit. The scene at Shea Stadium in New York after 9/11 was an important moment that inspired a nation. More generally, the common love for a home team can cross racial, ethnic and class lines at precisely the times of greatest racial, ethnic, and class strife. However, the business of sports doesn’t exactly help the economic vitality of urban centers. In the clip, Detroit mayoral candidate and former Detroit Pistons star Dave Bing makes the astute observation that people rarely visit Detroit unless it’s for a sporting event. Such is the case for many cities facing dramatic economic decline--take Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Baltimore as just a few examples. The presence of a sports stadium does little to bring in sustained resources to these cities. Their spatial proximity to highways makes parking manageable and efficient, but it also makes fans’ stays brief. The fact that it’s easy to get to Comerica Park in Detroit also makes it easy to leave when the game’s over.
Some sports arenas, like The Palace at Auburn Hills where the Detroit Pistons play, aren’t even in the cities they represent. What about when a new corporate sponsor takes over the rights to house a sports team, what happens to the old stadium? We don’t even need to leave our example of Detroit to answer that question. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, two groups of urban planners spoke to my Urban and Community Studies course. They were discussing the fate of Detroit's Old Tiger Stadium, the now vacant stadium that became obsolete after the construction of Comerica Park. The first group of urban planners proposed a center for cultural activities and youth baseball leagues, while the second group wanted to use the space for high-end boutiques and shops. Each made a solid case for how the vacant sports stadium could aid in urban revitalization efforts. In the end, neither proposal fully came to fruition, as the city decided instead to demolish the entire site.
As much as one can argue that sports can lift the spirit of an economically depressed city, so too is their a strong argument that sports stadiums only add to the marginalization of America’s most needy cities.
Pittsburgh has its problems, but doesn't belong in that list. Its population has been shrinking ever since the collapse of the steel industry, but that masks the changes in the city's demographic and economic profile. Pittsburgh has invested heavily in next-gen industries, drawing on the brains from Carnegie-Mellon and Pitt. Pittsburgh weaned itself off of manufacturing. I hear it's a very pleasant place to live - though I bet the working class standard of living is substantially lower than it was in the 80s.
Detroit, on the other hand, can have a post-human feel to it: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1882089,00.html
This is actually a good point - I read an editorial in the Detroit Free Press (I think) recently that discussed how Detroit can model itself after Pittsburgh. I included Pitt in this list after reading through some of the comments to that editorial that said Pitt's reality doesn't exactly match the hype.
The case for Pitt being included here also has to do with the population changes, which you mentioned. The city was the 12th largest in the US in 1950, and is now the 51st largest; raw numbers show a 49% population drop since its population peak. I don't think this masks the demographic profile that significantly; a population drop that severe can't be caused JUST by poor folks leaving the city. I'm not too aware of any new movements of wealthier folks moving back to the city, but I could be wrong.
If we list cities along a gradient of "good places to live" or "economically depressed"...I would still put Pitt closer to Detroit than Phoenix, LA, or Portland, hence why I lumped it in here. The point remains, however, that sports stadiums tend to do less for a city in the long run than they purport.
Thanks for the comment though, regardless if we disagree.
True, true. That is similar to the debate over whether the Olympics are worth it or not. Daley's PR campaign touts how the 2016 Olympics would revitalize the South Side. I believe that there would be some very targeted infrastructure improvement (street repairs, a few new bus routes, maybe more reliable Red Line and Green Line service south of the Loop), but others argue that the taxes spent on marketing Chicago and then on construction make it a wash. Plus, what is the South Side going to do with a bunch of Olympic-sized stadia? I just read an article arguing that we should just move the Olympics back to Athens and build some really nice stadia there that would actually be used often enough to recoup on the investment.
You are right that Detroit and Pitt are currently very comparable - much more so than I assumed. I just looked up some income trends here (great for basic inter-city comparisons):
http://www.theatlantic.com/floridamap/
I still think that Detroit and Pitt are on very different trajectories. But the biggest theme I see in that map are that Detroit, Baltimore and all the other name brand cities are doing pretty well - in terms of income anyway - compared to the Allentowns, Readings, and Binghamtons.
the detroit-pitt comparison came up a few years ago, but yeah i agree detroit and pitt are on different trajectories. pitt has a scientific research base to build on
reading your thoughts about detroit are interesting. i am from the area, went to school in the city, worked at COPA for a few years. sports can help sustain a people's spirit and was useful in uniting blacks and whites again in '68 when the Tigers won. still, the Tigers win in '68 didn't lead to an influx of whites back into the city.
people came down for Tiger games, Lion games once they relocated to Detroit proper, Wings games and other activities (tastefest, demf, turkey trot), but most seem to flee back to burbs once the activity is done or at least once day turns into night. people have been taught to fear the city. i couldn't believe how many people were too afraid to go there at night, even downtown.
when it comes down to people moving back into the city you run into major issues. the city is so poorly run and financially insolvent that services are minimal, but the city taxes are still high. the school system barely functions outside of a few better schools. throw in the kwame mess and a city council which accomplishes little but arguing and scheming to get control over investments people want to make in the city, which then results in these people pulling their proposal out. added to the high crime rate and the only people I have seen moving into the city are artists, due to the cheap housing, and some younger alternatives/progressives for lack of a better term)around the Wayne State area.
the area has been going through a unique wealth flight which works with a newer form of white flight from the original suburbs, like Redford where I was raised. once people get enough money to escape detroit, many do for the outlying areas. as these areas get darker, people who fled the city than flee to further away suburbs.
these are all issues i have been thinking about since i was a younger teenager and while my understanding is deeper, i still struggle to come up with a vision of detroit as a thriving place again and the idea of Robocop (written by a dude from Ann Arbor who visited Detroit) is not the image many have of the city
Pittsburgh has its problems, but doesn't belong in that list. Its population has been shrinking ever since the collapse of the steel industry, but that masks the changes in the city's demographic and economic profile. Pittsburgh has invested heavily in next-gen industries, drawing on the brains from Carnegie-Mellon and Pitt. Pittsburgh weaned itself off of manufacturing. I hear it's a very pleasant place to live - though I bet the working class standard of living is substantially lower than it was in the 80s.
ReplyDeleteDetroit, on the other hand, can have a post-human feel to it:
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1882089,00.html
This is actually a good point - I read an editorial in the Detroit Free Press (I think) recently that discussed how Detroit can model itself after Pittsburgh. I included Pitt in this list after reading through some of the comments to that editorial that said Pitt's reality doesn't exactly match the hype.
ReplyDeleteThe case for Pitt being included here also has to do with the population changes, which you mentioned. The city was the 12th largest in the US in 1950, and is now the 51st largest; raw numbers show a 49% population drop since its population peak. I don't think this masks the demographic profile that significantly; a population drop that severe can't be caused JUST by poor folks leaving the city. I'm not too aware of any new movements of wealthier folks moving back to the city, but I could be wrong.
If we list cities along a gradient of "good places to live" or "economically depressed"...I would still put Pitt closer to Detroit than Phoenix, LA, or Portland, hence why I lumped it in here. The point remains, however, that sports stadiums tend to do less for a city in the long run than they purport.
Thanks for the comment though, regardless if we disagree.
True, true. That is similar to the debate over whether the Olympics are worth it or not. Daley's PR campaign touts how the 2016 Olympics would revitalize the South Side. I believe that there would be some very targeted infrastructure improvement (street repairs, a few new bus routes, maybe more reliable Red Line and Green Line service south of the Loop), but others argue that the taxes spent on marketing Chicago and then on construction make it a wash. Plus, what is the South Side going to do with a bunch of Olympic-sized stadia? I just read an article arguing that we should just move the Olympics back to Athens and build some really nice stadia there that would actually be used often enough to recoup on the investment.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that Detroit and Pitt are currently very comparable - much more so than I assumed. I just looked up some income trends here (great for basic inter-city comparisons):
http://www.theatlantic.com/floridamap/
I still think that Detroit and Pitt are on very different trajectories. But the biggest theme I see in that map are that Detroit, Baltimore and all the other name brand cities are doing pretty well - in terms of income anyway - compared to the Allentowns, Readings, and Binghamtons.
the detroit-pitt comparison came up a few years ago, but yeah i agree detroit and pitt are on different trajectories. pitt has a scientific research base to build on
ReplyDeletereading your thoughts about detroit are interesting. i am from the area, went to school in the city, worked at COPA for a few years. sports can help sustain a people's spirit and was useful in uniting blacks and whites again in '68 when the Tigers won. still, the Tigers win in '68 didn't lead to an influx of whites back into the city.
people came down for Tiger games, Lion games once they relocated to Detroit proper, Wings games and other activities (tastefest, demf, turkey trot), but most seem to flee back to burbs once the activity is done or at least once day turns into night. people have been taught to fear the city. i couldn't believe how many people were too afraid to go there at night, even downtown.
when it comes down to people moving back into the city you run into major issues. the city is so poorly run and financially insolvent that services are minimal, but the city taxes are still high. the school system barely functions outside of a few better schools. throw in the kwame mess and a city council which accomplishes little but arguing and scheming to get control over investments people want to make in the city, which then results in these people pulling their proposal out. added to the high crime rate and the only people I have seen moving into the city are artists, due to the cheap housing, and some younger alternatives/progressives for lack of a better term)around the Wayne State area.
the area has been going through a unique wealth flight which works with a newer form of white flight from the original suburbs, like Redford
where I was raised. once people get enough money to escape detroit, many do for the outlying areas. as these areas get darker, people who fled the city than flee to further away suburbs.
these are all issues i have been thinking about since i was a younger teenager and while my understanding is deeper, i still struggle to come up with a vision of detroit as a thriving place again and the idea of Robocop (written by a dude from Ann Arbor who visited Detroit) is not the image many have of the city