Week Four: How to Kill a City

P.E. Moskowitz’s How to Kill a City recounts Detroit’s changes over time. It explains the policies and movements that led to the red-lining of urban neighborhoods, encouraged suburbia, emptied and economically destroyed cities, and initiated the process of “revitalization” that commonly signifies gentrification. Moskowitz is relatively brief in explaining these various stages in urban history, considering all the complexities that could be discussed with this topic. Even still, the narrative is detailed in describing the tragedies of Detroit as well as the blind vision of the private investors who made it their mission to radically redevelop the 7.2 square mile region of Detroit that has become the “success” story the nation is seeing and hearing about. It seems as though the aim of Detroit’s chapter in the novel is to bring clarity to the illusion that Detroit is as “up and coming” as we – who are watching from outside Detroit’s city boundaries – think it is.
While it may have been obvious to some, I was surprised to consider private funders as major players in downtown Detroit’s redevelopment. Moskowitz describes private funders (several by name) who almost single-handedly determined Detroit’s fate by investing in the city’s central waterfront region. The city government, who I always held accountable for the changes, did not actually hold much real authority over what was built, who was drawn in and where the money was spent. As such, the private funders were the decision makers. This made me think about how the unequal attention and growth that Detroit’s neighborhoods have experienced in recent years may have been different. Had the city government been making the decisions, I wonder if more of an equal distribution of resources would have occurred. Of course, it is true that many governments cannot or will not pursue equitable initiatives because they are bound to the interests of the private business owners. Regardless, I would be curious to think about how other cities in the U.S. may have witnessed similar or dissimilar power dynamics that led them to their standing today. If a democratically elected city government were in complete control, what would that mean for a city whose borders are greatly extended and whose levels of inequality are vast?
Although I found the historical context from Moskowitz to be informative, I cannot be sure I was entirely satisfied with the overall message of the chapter. Having recently read another novel (which I actually referred to in an earlier blog post!) that approaches topics within the urbanism field, I thought it was interesting to compare the two. This other novel, Palaces for the People, uses anecdotal evidence to display positive examples of communities working together or against the seemingly massive challenges that threaten to tear them apart. I appreciated this tactic because it focused heavily on the humanistic perspective, using descriptive language to place the reader in the setting of discussion. Just as notable, though, was the influence of positivity in Palaces. I think Moskowitz may have missed the uplifting stories of nonprofit organizations working in many of the under-served neighborhoods of Detroit (nonprofits that many of us are actually working at this summer!) in How to Kill a City. This plays an important role in inspiring people to take action in their areas and I think I was hoping to see that. I am interested to hear others’ perspectives!