The Ideal City.

Visualization
In contextualizing the “ideal” city, planning, implementation in the most efficient and effective utilization of urban spaces should start at sectioning off multiple hubs, each with a certain features, and by design, will cater to the demographic that resides in that particular area/district based on what each particular hub has to offer aesthetically – identical to the proposal suggested in 2013 by Detroit Mayoral candidate Benny Napoleon who suggested total of five separate districts that functioned as separate “hubs” complete with a business district, a concentration of city services, and each district connected by a more directed, efficient transportation services.  The varying levels in each district would range from high rise, downtown living, to loft spaces occupying formal industrial sites, to more traditional, strictly residential areas; each of which identifies with the needs of its residents.  The best designs from around the world should be identified and where possible implemented according to scale and scope of the respective community.  Example – the City of Detroit now has a proliferation of marijuana distributors scattered about the city due largely because of poor planning in the issuance of licenses once voters approved legalization.  Why not designate a “red light district” as suggested by one time gubernatorial candidate Jeffery Fieger, which would emulate Amsterdam’s red-light district which draws tourists from around the world.  Will Detroit draw tourists from around the world?  That is not the intended suggestion; it does however, afford the concentration and control of these types of businesses in a more effective and efficient implementation and the problem of these businesses dotted across the city – affecting neighborhoods, and neighborhood quality of life is virtually solved.

The make-up of these hub-like areas idealistically, would of course be diverse, complete with invested individuals whose stake in their particular area and subsequently the larger city in general would be promoted via expanding home ownership programming that will be ideal for re-investment in, and revitalization of, depressed urban areas such as Detroit where housing prices are relatively cheap.  A more vested tax base, and the potential density that could be earned will facilitate the ability to provide better, more responsive city services – specifically police, fire, and public works that will directly impact many of the quality of life issues that plague urban cores.  Establishing a vested residency – homeowners, offers expanded opportunity to introducing residents to efficacy, which is crucial to powering each individual hub.  Involvement by residents lends to responsiveness of the city to issues that are important to each particular area, and given the city’s move back to council seats by district – can very well foster a responsiveness and accountability by respective city leaders regarding the allocation of city services.  Essentially pressing the concept of “leadership by district” to function as intended.

Policy
To attract the residents back to urban centers it should be recognized and addressed that the biggest obstacles of selling the city is rooted in quality of life issues that continue to plague these communities.  Public education, crime/public safety, amenities, and cost comparison with suburbs in urbanized areas is a hindrance in selling city living across the country.  These failures are rooted in the ability and subsequent choice by individuals to move their families to safer, more appealing, and far more responsive communities.  As such, any attempt at re-introducing cities as a viable option to live is rooted in not only shifting the negative perception associated with the city, but also logical policy that is foundational for that shift.  Example: The failure of public education – specifically in urban areas is apparent, and it is telling.  Abandoned, boarded up schoolhouses dot neighborhoods as indicators of that failure across the country.  The solution equates to a public-private transfer of resources.  The resources that are siphoned away from public schools by the introduction and infusion of charter schools works to not only debilitate the remnants of the public school system by loss of students and subsequent loss of funding, but also fosters a false hope among parents hoping for a quality education for their children via charters that critics suggest perform just about as well, if not worse than public schools.  The point is how can our urban centers tout themselves as “world-class” when the most vital component of the equation, is essentially – not part of the equation?  Crime is directly correlated to educational level, and both crime and educational level are key contributors to quality of life.  Those who can leave for better circumstances, better opportunities, again sap cities of residents forcing cities to do more with less.  The subsequent cuts to services and strategic allocation of resources perpetuate the notion of the city as that “bad place” where bad things happen.  How do we stop the hemorrhaging?  It cannot begin entirely with downtown with its new stadiums, new facades over old buildings, trendy restaurants, and bike lanes.  The approach has to reach out in a wide scope.  A deliberate demonstration of inclusion – not just for those who will be able to afford to play part in the re-emergence, but for those who have endured the “perception” awaiting a time when they could see their city shine again.  But policy.  Policy should be deliberate in identifying target areas for each prospective hub surveying for neighborhood viability, density, and potential impact.

Key Obstacles
The most important and arduous portion of any implementation is getting the vision to survive the various steps and the inherent obstacles each step presents.

Identified obstacles would likely include corporate interests with a design and plan in effect to control extract tax breaks and secure large areas of the urban landscape to facilitate their own vision for what a revitalized city should look like.  These corporate interests should understand that density/concentration is good for business via the talent that can harnessed, the dollars that can potentially be earned, and ultimately investment in human capital in partnership with efforts by the respective municipality can yield a healthy and profitable co-existence for all in involved.

Politicians that have been essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests and their campaign contributions – who can be tapped in order to forward and secure key components of their particular agenda will absolutely not align with any federal programming that will not benefit their cause directly and/or which might affect the trajectory of their own plan and agenda.  Corporations will utilize any and every resource at their disposal to lobby against any such policy implementation taking away from those plans.  As such, best intended plans will be affected and subject to outside interests and their personal agenda taking precedence over producing the best possible outcome intended for the urban space.

Additionally, politicians who have a base away from urban areas – including officials in suburban communities who align with, and who have made careers off of playing on the city being a “scourge” that most “good”, “common” folks do not, and should not support – that position being the core ideology of their base.  This ideology is propagated with a clear understanding that pushing that perception is integral in remaining in power in their respective district.

We should also imagine local officials having issue with the virtual restructuring of how they do business – effectively dictating how government at the local level utilizes federal funding

Conclusion
In close, it is absolutely understood that in order to effect policy that could positively impact regions anchored by central cities that new and innovative approaches have to be taken – an almost radical departure away from throwing money at the long time ills of our city cities.  Does a more efficient approach have to come from privatizing essential city services?  We have moved closer towards unveiling the “illusion” of governments by the people – for the people – realizing now that the public/private partnerships that have become the popular model were mere stepping stones towards understanding how much influence and control corporations wield over our governmental functions at every level.  Ray Pahl illustrated this very point in his critique Whose City? – Eroding cities which were ripe for the taking due to disinvestment, have since become pipelines for corporations and private interests to siphon public tax monies in a more blatant fashion towards their projects.  Corporate controls with regard to government run deep – just about as deep as their corporate coffers, which afford these entities more than adequate leverage to impose their corporate influence on how policy rolls out – and as such, if that policy truly benefits the community at large, or merely those few in the circle with the proximity to ultimately shape our urban centers.  The question begs can growth – either from the perspective of a city center, and/or regionally actually benefit all vested parties?  Adaptation of policies that focus on growing downtown versus the interests of neighborhoods remains the age old struggle between classes – the “Haves versus the Have-nots” heightened and aggravated by disappearing resources and programming that used to facilitate socially inclined initiatives.  Those funds are now diverted in a number of ways to build playgrounds for the affluent.  Policy has to be shaped in ways that balance funding at each level of government in a way best utilizes allocated monies for the most valuable resource available to any state, region, or city – its residents.

Kennedy, M., & Leonard, P. (2001). Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 1-41. Retrieved February 6, 2018, from http://www.brookings.edu/urban.

Mayer, M. (2017). Whose city? From Ray Pahl’s critique of the Keynesian city to the contestations around neoliberal urbanism. The Sociological Review, 65(2), 168-183.

OCCUPY WHAT??

I was a bit deflated when I found out that the “Occupy Wall Street Movement” was initiated by the Canadian Adbusters magazine’s call for protest against gross social and economic disparities.

I thought it was a truly American initiative. You mean an idea like this came from Canada? Oh well, such is life …

Occupy Wall Street is the name given to a protest movement beginning September 17, 2011 in New York City’s Wall Street (financial) district. This initiative received worldwide attention and spawned similar “Occupy” movements against social and economic inequality in numerous countries around the world.

What began up with a tent grew from dozens to hundreds, to thousands, to tens of thousands. Those who could not make it to New York started their own hometown Occupy protests in solidarity, growing to hundreds of them across the country, and, around the world.

Grasping onto the mantra, “What is our one demand?” the Occupy activists connected with like-minded organizers in social justice and helped paint a portrait of the larger malfeasance plaguing society today: Bankers had pushed worthless mortgages, leading the stock and housing markets into a punishing recession. All the while using government bailouts to give themselves obscene bonuses. At this same time was an emerging generation of unemployed millennials saddled with unprecedented student debt, as the same banking institutes who were being bailed out, consolidated the student loan racket with excessively high interest rates. The generation hoping to enter the workforce after college, found no jobs to be had and no chance of bankruptcy protection under the Bush Administration.

The question being asked was, who was looking out for Americans in this modern Depression? Basically, no one.

Things got so bad in the first place because our elected leaders have become lapdogs of campaign donors. The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United allowed for unlimited outside spending in elections. Now candidates have lost any and all pretense to the thought of serving their constituents, instead shifting their attention (and positions) to industry kingmakers and Super PACs.

With that is mind, assessing the impact of Occupy Wall Street might be best done by considering the goals of those who camped out in Zuccotti Park. For one, this was a protest, not a political party, so comparisons to the Tea Party is much like comparing apples and oranges.

The Tea Party turned outrage at the government into an electoral advantage, Occupy Wall Street was at the opposite end of the spectrum – the end of the spectrum that views officeholders as courtesans for the corporate class. This was as much a call to action as calling the nation to attention. Asking Occupy activists why they didn’t just start a political party and run for office is like asking an atheist why they didn’t just pray harder.

Another essential in gauging the importance of Occupy Wall Street is recognizing that the Occupy movement did not simply fizzle out or lose steam. The fact is, Occupy encampments were broken up in a coordinated effort led by the Department of Homeland Security working with local police departments. Far from losing momentum, the Occupy presence had grown so intense nationwide, gaining sustained media coverage that protesters became too big a threat to the status quo. In widely documented raids, police drove protesters from public lands with blunt force, tear gas, and arrest, then proceeded to blame Occupy protesters for the mess that was left behind. Young protesters sprayed in the face with pepper spray without warning or provocation, rubber bullets fired at peaceful demonstrators, police charging with batons, this is what oppression looked like in 2011:

URBAN GROWTH MODELS

Urban Growth Theory Models explain internal demographic, spatial, and economic growth of cities. These three features of a city’s growth are not entirely separable, all three are interlinked.

In looking at the demographic and spatial growth of cities remember that my take/understanding on these theories is partial at best.

Ernest Burgess developed what would become known as the Concentric Zone Hypothesis. He theorized that there were five concentric zones in a city, which were determined by spatial competition.

Zone 1. The Loop … or Downtown. The Central Business District

Zone 2. Transition Zone … identifiable by dense settlements, with some business and light manufacturing

Zone 3. Workingmen’s Zone of homes …this is where laborers working in nearby factories reside. (Think Dearborn back when Ford introduced the assembly line)

Zone 4. Residential zone- Exclusive residential districts- where upper class began to isolate themselves

Zone 5.   Commuters’ zone … This will become the outlying suburban areas and satellite cities from which residents commute.

Spatial competition decreases with distance from Zone 1. Historically, property prices were highest there, and would gradually decline towards the city’s edge.

There are other, more complex models like the ones below became variants of this model. These can be applied to any and almost all U.S cities in one variation or another.

The Sector Theory

This theory is a critique of Burgess’s Concentric Zone Hypothesis.

Spatial competition is not the only source of a city’s growth; other factors like prestigious locations, social kinship and community affinity play important roles. Thus cities grow in sectors, rather than in zones. Lower income districts are not necessarily in a separate zone, but co-exist with more fashionable business areas. (Think SOHO in NYC)

I think this is a variant of the Concentric Zone, because, if we simplify Sector Zone it will be similar to the Concentric Zone Hypothesis. Over time, the more prestigious residential districts moved out of the city- radiating along a path begun earlier

Polycentric City

Another variation over the concentric zone hypothesis. As a city grows outward, other business districts come up near, or integrated in newly growing areas. Businesses relocate to these because of lower rent and less problems than city core (overcrowding, heavy traffic). Polycentric cities thus have more than one business district. Transportation patterns are more complex in a polycentric city as compared to a monocentric city, since there is significant traffic between and among secondary business zones(in a monocentric city, there is traffic only between the residential districts and the city core).

Multiple Nuclei Theory

This theory that there are distinctive districts where activities are concentrated. The difference with the Concentric Zone Hypothesis is that, Burgess claims cities grow in zones from the center out. The Multiple Nuclei Theory proposes that these are not necessarily zones, but similar activities group together in certain districts. Thus we have Business District, Residential Districts, Light manufacturing Districts, Low-income Districts, Red light Districts, Suburban Districts, etc.

In analyzing U.S Cities, look at the layout. Assess the layering and or sectoring of its various districts.

These Urban Growth Theory Models are a great staring point to begin to understand the multi- faceted study of the history of urbanism, or the urban process.

NEW URBAN URBANISM

Urban sprawl has become a popular trend in many countries in recent years. While this trend can bring several benefits for the local residents, the negative effect of it on the rural areas cannot be ignored. This essay will discuss about the reasons behind urban sprawl and its possible effects on the local community.

One contributing factor of urban sprawl is perhaps the population growth. The room in the city is so limited that it fails to accommodate the ever-growing population. As a result, more infrastructures need to be constructed in the suburbs in order to improve the living standards of the local residents. In addition, people are now having a growing appetite for lower-intense housing with a larger open space. Consequently, real estate market has its focus now on the outskirt of the city, but not on the city’s center.

There are both positive and negative effects of urban sprawl on the local community. On the one hand, urbanization can reduce transportation. Since more infrastructures in the suburban areas, people can now utilize the resource without travelling far away. This can reduce traffic jams near the city. On the other hand, construction of new infrastructures in the countryside may pollute the local environment. For example, the dust from the construction site may fell into the nearby rivers or lakes, though damaging the natural habitat of several species. Therefore, the environmental impact assessment should be conducted before beginning any construction works. All in all, it can be concluded that population growth and better living standards are the primary causes of urban sprawl. Although it makes a great contribution to reduce traffic congestion in the city, the environmental issues should always be considered when building new infrastructures.

The growth machine theory of urban growth says urban sprawl/ growth is driven by a coalition of interest groups who all benefit from continuous growth and expansion. First articulated by Molotch in 1976, growth machine theory took studying urban land use and turned the field on it on its head.

The field of urban sociology had been dominated by the idea that cities were basically containers for human action, in which actors competed among themselves for the most strategic parcels of land, and the real estate market reflected the state of that competition. Growth machine theory reversed the course of urban theory by pointing out that land parcels were not empty fields awaiting human action, but were associated with specific interests—commercial, sentimental, and psychological. In other words, city residents were not simply competing for parcels of land; they were also trying to fulfill their particular interests and achieve specific goals.

Whether explained by older theories of natural processes or by growth machine theory, the fact of urban growth is undeniable: throughout the twentieth century, cities have grown rapidly. In some cases, that growth has been poorly controlled, resulting in a phenomenon known as urban sprawl. Urban sprawl entails the growth of a city into low-density and auto-dependent rural land, high segregation of land use (e.g., retail sections placed far from residential areas, often in large shopping malls or retail complexes), and design features that encourage car dependency.

Urban sprawl’s segregated land use means that the places where people live, work, shop, and relax are far from one another, which usually makes walking, public transit, or bicycling impractical. As a result, residents must use an automobile. Urban sprawl tends to include low population density: single family homes on large lots instead of apartment buildings, single story or low-rise buildings instead of high-rises, extensive lawns and surface parking lots, and so on.

Critics of urban sprawl argue that it creates an inhospitable urban environment and that it encroaches on rural land, potentially driving up land prices and displacing farmers or other rural residents. Urban sprawl is also associated with negative environmental and public health effects, many of which are related to automobile dependence: increases in personal transportation costs, air pollution and reliance on fossil fuel, increases in traffic accidents, delays in emergency medical services response times, and decreases in land and water quantity and quality.

Some have suggested that urban sprawl is driven by consumer preference; people prefer to live in lower density, quieter, more private communities that they perceive as safer as and more relaxed than urban neighborhoods. Such preferences echo a common strain of criticism of urban life, which tends to focus on urban decay. According to these critics, urban decay is caused by the excessive density and crowding of cities, and it drives out residents, creating the conditions for urban sprawl.

Cities have responded to urban decay and urban sprawl by launching urban renewal programs. Two specific types of urban renewal programs—New Urbanism and smart growth—attempt to make cities more pleasant and livable.

Smart growth programs draw urban growth boundaries to keep urban development dense and compact. In addition to increasing the density of cities, urban growth boundaries can protect the surrounding farmland and wild areas. Smart growth programs often incorporate transit-oriented development goals to encourage effective public transit systems and make bicyclers and pedestrians more comfortable.

The concept of New Urbanism is an urban design movement that promotes walkable neighborhoods with a range of housing options and job types. As an approach to urban planning, it encompasses principles such as traditional neighborhood design and transit-oriented development. A neighborhood designed along New Urbanist principles would have a discernible center (such as a square or a green) with a transit stop nearby. Most homes would be within a five-minute walk of the center and would provide a variety of housing options, including houses, row houses, and apartments to encourage the mixing of younger and older people, singles and families, and poor and wealthy.

The group Michigan Land Use Institute is actively engaged in informing and educating the public about new urbanism and the principles of the movement.

 

Check out Michigan Land Use Institute here:

http://www.mlui.org/mlui/about/about.html#.VSw636PD9aQ

 

 

 

10 Principles of New Urbanism

1. Walkability

Most needs are within a 10-minute walk of home and work. Street design is friendly to pedestrians, because buildings are close to the street and have porches, windows, and doors. Streets have lots of trees and on-street parking, with parking lots and garages placed behind buildings and houses, often connected to alleys. Streets are narrow, which slows traffic dramatically.

2. Connectivity

An interconnected street grid disperses traffic and encourages walking.

3. Mixed-Use and Diversity

Neighborhoods, blocks, and buildings offer a mix of shops, offices, apartments, and homes.

The neighborhoods welcome people of all ages, income levels, cultures, and races.

4. Mixed Housing

Zoning allows the close proximity of a wide range of housing types, sizes, and prices.

5. Quality Architecture and Urban Design

Buildings emphasize beauty, aesthetics, and comfort and establish a sense of place; public spaces function as civic art, establishing an attractive, quality public realm.

6. Traditional Neighborhood Structure

Neighborhoods have definite centers and edges, with public spaces near the center. Each neighborhood contains a range of uses and densities within a 10-minute walk.

7. Increased Density

Buildings, residences, shops, and services are close together to make walking more convenient, services and resources more efficient, and living areas more enjoyable.

8. Smart Transportation

A network of high-quality public transit connects cities, towns, and neighborhoods, while pedestrian-friendly design encourages more use of bicycles, rollerblades, scooters, and walking as daily transportation.

9. Sustainability

The community uses respect for natural systems and eco-friendly technologies like energy efficiency to minimize effects on the environment. The community connects strongly with surrounding farmland, encouraging land preservation and local food consumption.

10. Quality of Life

These design principles produce a life that is well worth living by providing places that enrich, uplift, and inspire the human spirit.

How far you gotta go for work?

If it seems like it’s taking longer than ever to get to your job in metro Detroit, there’s a good reason.

U.S Census Bureau released a new report showing that only 7.3% of metro Detroit’s roughly 1.4 million jobs lie within three miles of the city’s central business district. Another 15% lie within a 3-to-10-mile band from the downtown core. Metro Detroit is the nation’s most sprawled job market, with 77% of jobs located at least 10 miles from the downtown core. Those jobs found from 10 miles to 35 miles out are the highest percentage of decentralized jobs in any of the nation’s top 100 metro areas. Only 22% of jobs in metro Detroit are within even a 90-minute ride on public transit. That ranked metro Detroit among the lowest metro areas in its ability to get residents to get to work via bus or light rail.

This portrait emerges leaving many that were disillusioned, feeling veritably hopeless that the metro area jobs are beyond the reach of low-income residents, many of whom lack transportation options and often live inside the city. One of the issues is that while there may be jobs out there, but people can’t get to them. The fact that the area is so sprawled out makes it extremely difficult. Recently the nonprofit group, Transportation Riders United, has begun heavily lobbying for more public transit options in metro Detroit.

Simply put, the layout and situation around metro Detroit limits the ability of poor people to move up the economic ladder. If residents can’t use transit to get where the job opportunities are, and they don’t have a reliable car, that makes it that much harder for people to connect with the kinds of opportunities to improve economic conditions. Besides limiting economic opportunity for low-income residents, a sprawled-out job market leads to environmental damage from more traffic, congestion, a bigger carbon footprint.

The data study came from a 2010 Census, so it did not capture the recent jobs downtown brought in by Quicken Loans, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and other employers that have shifted jobs from the suburbs to the city. However, even with the jobs brought being estimated at 10,000 new jobs to downtown over the past two years, that amount would not have changed Detroit’s ranking. Out of 1.4 million jobs in the region, a shift of 10,000 from the suburbs to downtown would amount to less than 1% of the total.

Between 2007 and 2010, the years of the Great Recession and its aftermath, the majority of the nation’ largests metro areas lost employment within 35 miles of downtown. Metro Detroit lost 25% of its jobs during that period because of the recession. In general, the more jobs a metro area has, the more decentralized those jobs tend to be.

Detroit City needs to adopt more urban growth boundaries to hem in suburban sprawl. Areas like Honolulu and Salt Lake City have implemented these practices and since 2007 these areas report trends that see jobs more concentrated near the urban core.

What is Sprawl?

The term sprawl means to stretch out. When applying it to certain areas of urban growth; it means to stretch out across a landscape with a lack of consideration. Picture a grown man sprawling on a couch: shoes on, one foot on the coffee table and one propped on the couch arm, his hands folded on his chest. Picturing urban sprawl is much the same: an unkempt, uncontrolled and un-officiated way of developing land. Reid Ewing, in his article, “Is Los Angeles Style Sprawl Desirable”, defines sprawl as low density developments which are poorly accessible and lack functional open space.

Characteristically, sprawl happens when a large population relocates from the city core to the suburbs. Why the large shift? What is so appealing about the suburban home and why are people moving away from cities? It seems perfectly logical to move away from the inner city—leaving the crime, the congestion, the noise—and join a suburban oasis of green lawns and single family housing.

According to Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson, “many consumer surveys have shown strong preferences for suburban living.” As industry moves out of the city, people follow industry. Distance is no problem: just buy a car. Gordon and Richardson find that the, “relative price of gasoline compared with other goods and services has fallen dramatically . . . the fall in the price of gasoline relative to the price of housing has encouraged households to substitute housing for transportation.” Apparently, the drive between a suburban and urban commuter is comparable, and suburbanites have a shorter commute to shopping centers. The argument by Gordon and Richardson seems to be one of “why not”? If people like the spaciousness of the suburbs, they are closer to work, America has the land capacity, and we have cars to commute with, sprawl seems like an effective growth model.

Views held by the proponents of sprawling suburban developments have weight, and are important to consider; their arguments and observations must be valid otherwise sprawl wouldn’t persist. Not everyone is interested in living in a compact city, suburban or not quite urban settlements shouldn’t be denied existence. The problem seems to be in the design of suburban developments. Thus far, probably due to the rapidness of their creation, suburban neighborhoods were ill planned, causing problems in their communities.

The rapid development of sprawling communities where the boundaries of the area doubled in size in a decade, leads to poor land use choices. Sprawl patterned housing developments are being built in high risk areas like flood plains and places threatened by a high occurrence of earthquakes, hurricanes, and forest fires. Greater amounts of impermeable surfaces generated by unplanned growth are also causing environmental problems like increased runoff into rivers, which raises water levels and causes bank undercutting and landslides. The land used to build sprawling suburbs is also land that could be used for agriculture or which could have been preserved in its natural state. Although Gordon and Richardson claim that we don’t need to worry development patterns encroaching on the necessary quantities of agricultural land.

Obviously suburban communities compromise the health and wellbeing and being of their residents due to mal-planning. The suburbs themselves may not be so terrible, instead it is the lack of centralized planning during development that causes them to become harmful. In centrally planned developments and cities, ones where there is an obvious design to the community with deliberate public spaces and mixed use neighborhoods (where one doesn’t have to drive to the coffee shop or grocery store—or at least not far) people can reduce their dependency on cars, feel a part of a community, and have access to public amenities like parks, large public libraries and efficient public transportation. Also, if communities were better planned, they wouldn’t be on flood plains and solutions could be garnered for how to control hazardous building locations. The reasons people leave cities for suburbs are legitimate and logical, however, the criticism of these communities stems from the lack of planning—the sprawling nature—of these outlying communities.

NO CONFIDENCE IN DPS

Schools

Parents, students and concerned locals that take the time to get involved raise a number of concerns regarding the state of schools in Detroit. When it comes to Detroit schools, arguably the worst in the nation, education experts feel the conversation needs to center around implementing educational strategies that work in the classroom, rather than another round of arguments over who should be in charge.

DPS has experienced several leadership changes and emergency manager appointments over nearly two decades. Detroit saw three sweeping governance changes to the Detroit Public Schools’ power structure in the past decade. And while Detroit students continue to lag behind students at other big-city schools, last week DPS got its 10th leader since 1999 with the appointment of yet another emergency manager, Darnell Earley.

A new coalition made of local leaders and educators was formed last December with a 90-day mission to make recommendations on Detroit schools to the mayor, governor and legislature about school governance, finance and academic expectations. The Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren states that over the past decades the biggest problem has been inconsistency and instability.

“We haven’t stuck with anything. But it’s difficult to do any reforms when you have screwed up governance.”- Coalition leadership says.

Partnering with Excellent Detroit Schools another advocacy group will similar goals, The Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren has suggested that Mayor Mike Duggan be involved in creating a portfolio system in Detroit that would give the mayor control over key operations such as transportation and enrollment in Detroit.

But the mayor’s office has declined to say publicly whether they will assume control over the schools, to play a significant role or remain on the sideline. Perhaps in a show of the power being invested in the coalition, all relevant questions about the future of Detroit school reform to The Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren.

Any power structure change that the coalition, state legislature and governor’s office is contemplating for Detroit’s schools is, at best, another opportunity to do something sustainable to improve education, studies show. But that power change – as with any governance structure – has little impact on learning unless accompanied by rigorous, proven educational methods. Studies show that improvement in classrooms and school structuring has the greatest potential for student improvement. Research is unable to conclusively tie any specific form of governance to improved student achievement, concluding that quality reforms in the classroom impact achievement regardless of the governance model.

If concerned policymakers, parents and get involved with those positioned to implement changes, from educators to the coalition, mayor, legislature and governor ‒ they need to be focusing on the core issues of teaching and learning strategies. If they’re not, then they’re not talking about improving schools.

Improvement is possible in low-achieving schools. The 2014 Bridge series, “The Smartest Kids in the Nation” illustrated how schools in Massachusetts, Tennessee, Florida and Minnesota have catapulted past Michigan academically or made huge academic gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, also known as the Nation’s Report Card.

The series showed how sustained, evidence-based policies, such as high academic standards, extensive early childhood education programs and higher investment in low-income, low-achieving urban schools can reap rewards.

So the question remains, why not Detroit?

History and research show that urban areas such as Detroit need to concentrate on what is generally known about school reform ‒ it requires effective strategies at the building level, strong leadership by the principal active recruitment, retention and support of high quality teachers and administrators.

In the years following the watershed 1999 state takeover of DPS scores on the state standardized MEAP test inched up growth, but was not sustained. Since then, Detroit students’ scores on the NAEP have remained the worst among 21 large urban cities since the state appointed the first of four emergency managers for DPS in 2009.

The research shows that effective governance is necessary, but not sufficient, to move school reform. Researchers found the adoption of a new governance model brought a higher level of public commitment to education, more public and private funding, along with more attention to successes.

But not better schools.

Every few years as the leadership and governance structure have changed, so have classroom reforms ‒ reading programs have come and gone, after school-tutoring programs came and went. Now community partnerships that bring social services into buildings along with after-school sports, art and music is the hot topic in reform.

Concerned educators are hoping the necessary change is coming with the establishment of The Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren, and the Governor’s recent appointment of a new emergency manager Darnell Earley. The promise of new concepts integrating leadership with an energetic policy initiative that favors an elected school board form of leadership, has been set in motion and improving education will come when academic policy aligns with leadership decisions.

Buy Detroit

While Detroit is in a somewhat dismal state according to some opinions, some have found reason to be drawn to the area. Young people seeking their piece of the American dream have flocked to the area taking advantage of appealing low price of real estate. Apparently, along with all its meager offerings, Detroit is considered to be the cheapest big city in the U.S.

The price of homes in areas proximal to the downtown district provides young people an opportunity to stop paying increasing, exorbitant rents and start out and invest in a home of their own.

• 5500 ft. — $148,000 Indian Village neighborhood
• 4,000 sq. ft. — $65,000, Indian Village
• ~3,000 sq. ft. — $94,000, Woodbridge neighborhood

One real-estate mogul markets the area by claiming mortgage insurance and taxes are quarter of what homeowners pay in Chicago , and certain neighborhoods offer distance from undesirable elements while maintaining access to world class museums, major sports, downtown events featured in Detroit.

By comparison, similar homes in neighborhoods of comparable distance to downtown Chicago were drastically more expensive.

• 5,500 sq. ft. — $415,000, Harwood Heights neighborhood outside Chicago
• 4,000 sq. ft. — $209,000 Oak Park neighborhood outside Chicago
• 1400 sq. ft. — $94,000, Cicero neighborhood outside Chicago

Most interested in, and/or involved with the market credit Quicken Loans CEO Dan Gilbert (who is arguably more famous for owning the Cleveland Cavaliers) with driving Detroit’s commercial revival.

Gilbert has an almost revolutionary way of injecting commerce into the area.

He doesn’t just buy buildings, he fills them with companies and workers – over 10,000 workers and 71 companies to date, as reported in Crain’s Detroit Business. Gilbert financially supports cultural events that entertain locals and also bring people from outside of Detroit. Quicken encourages employees to spend time in the city. The goal is to makes downtown “cool” and welcoming to Detroiters and visitors alike.

The question I am asking now:

IS THIS GENTRIFICATION?

Neil Smith’s analysis of gentrification has it broken into 3 waves. According to Smith (1996), wave one was sporadic and developed in the 1950s through the 1970s. This wave consisted of central city revitalization driven by state investment and grounded in a utilitarian argument that an improved center city was best for everyone in the city, majority group and racial minorities alike.

Wave two began in the 1970s and continued through the 1990s when gentrification became increasingly entwined with wider processes of colorblind “free market” urban, economic, and policy restructuring. The second wave of gentrification essentially functioned as a transition stage to, and an ideological background for, wave three and it is best understood as the period in which conservative free market colorblind arguments gained their foothold in both the public discourse and the policy development and implementation processes.

Wave three emerged in the 1990s and continues to the present day. In this wave, gentrification becomes a part of what Smith calls “New Urbanism” , a development strategy that uses colorblind neoliberal free market ideologies to justify its policies. This shift separates cities and individuals from the state by eliminating state subsidies for housing and urban development.

There’s also the class division issue in Detroit that has become increasing divisive in recent years. In the number of things listed as deterrents that are driving people out or keeping people away class disparities is one element that the public seems to be fully aware of. Reports of people stripping abandoned and dilapidated homes for metal, and scrap, it seems that there are endless examples of these scrappers doing thousands of dollars worth of damage for $5, or $10 worth of scrap.

Another big problems with Detroit is an us-versus-them mentality. The city has had it for decades. Racial divides, have given way to class divides and led to the current state of relations and existence in the city. But without an influx of new energy, like the new flock of young home buyers and proponents of the city like Dan Gilbert how can anybody expect anything to change? There’s always going to be a little bit of friction, and one thing the city needs to do to move forward is not neglect people who who have been here for new development.

I don’t see this as gentrification, and if it is- perhaps it might be a good thing for the city of Detroit.

CLASS WARFARE

The new race war in the United States isn’t about color, but about class. Well, actually, it’s still mostly about race.

So, what is Class Warfare? What is it about?

Class warfare is the struggle between classes in a society, often one based on capitalist principles. The term is often used by students of the topic and used by Marxists to differentiate the proletariat or working class and the upper class.

The whole social mess comes to roost in the schools: undernourished children, underfunded schools, underpaid teachers, students with various personal and social problems resonating throughout neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods are a mess, and won’t improve as long as the few jobs available are low-pay part-time work in fast food. We have needed to implement living wage laws for decades, and if we get them, I believe you will see poor neighborhoods begin to improve

In contemporary U.S. society there are numerous classes made up of all races, colors and religious beliefs. Nowadays, blue-collar workers sit at the “bottom” and work manufacturing jobs, while white-collar workers are the secretaries, teachers, and middle management. The upper classes include CEOs, politicians, and people who work in highly specialized careers like doctors.

The difference isn’t who has what profession, it’s who is running the show? Who is making the laws and influencing the ways of the world. The United States is supposed to be a free society, a free market and all that. The thing is, it’s not free. It’s exhausting. It’s Exasperating. And it’s not even close to changing.

In a truly free market, the fortunes are made by those who deliver value to others, quite often to millions of others. Those who think it’s fair to impose discriminatory and punitive higher tax rates on society’s economic benefactors have a warped sense of justice.

Of course, many of today’s upper-income Americans obtain much, if not all, of their income through cronyism. Their cronies, of course, are those who wield political power in Washington. Such behavior is the opposition of what should be true capitalism. It is the age-old story of political elites rigging the system to their financial benefit at the expense of the majority of the population. This epitomizes the corruption of the political class.

Beliefs in the United States cover the entire spectrum of class identification, but one of the loudest opinions shared is that of the rich (and sometimes not all that rich) and mostly white members of groups affiliated with or representing the Republican Party. Why do we have far more of our population in prison than anyone else in the whole world? Why are so many of them black men? Why are so many black men killed by police? Why does the black population have so many social problems? According to Republicans, it’s obvious: blacks are lazy and inferior.

There is certainly racial prejudice, which is true of literally everyone, but African Americans experience this in a heavily disproportionate way than anyone else in the country. But ridding the country of racial prejudice is not going to happen, because it’s part of our heritage.

I bet if we go back when we were all Africans we could find evidence of times when such discrimination served an actual survival purpose. But that is no longer the case- it is simply a disease that has festered for far too long, the infection can no longer be cut out. What needs to be fixed is the practice of justice today.

As for questions about racial justice, some have obvious answers, some less obvious. We have so many black men in prison because of centuries of systematic injustice. Because of politicians claiming the answer is to get “tough on crime”, which means sending poor people to prison for many years for smoking pot, or for petty shoplifting, or because the penal code was unjustly biased against anyone who cannot afford to influence the system in their own favor.

Those politicians are tough with other people’s lives, the ones who have no money and are easily identified by their skin color. We know that the trillion-dollar crimes of the suits on Wall Street are definitely not as important, because none of those who nearly destroyed the global financial system and caused enormous misery for billions of us went to prison.

I think the “Occupy Wall-Street” movement was the first real evidence of an attempt to bring the real class war that exists in the U.S to the forefront. But what happened to that? Where did it go? (SEE MY NEXT BLOG)

Why in this day and age is the level of civic involvement, civic responsibility and civic engagement as low as it is? I’ve been reading Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” and I’ll be honest- I wish I could make myself jump into the melee, but, I just can’t. I know it’s easy to stand back and hurl accusations at people. I know if I want things to change I should get involved. I just cannot bring myself to enter into the realm of politics.

When I look at the climate of politics in this day and age, I see an enormous pool of filth, corruption and self-serving individuals who disguise their negative opinions of other races, classes and lifestyles in policy initiatives and laws that don’t serve the country. I cannot bring myself to face the reality that the climate of corruption and self interest is an almost insurmountable obstacle to taking part in civic life.

RUIN TOURISM

It’s hard to think of the Motor City — a popular symbol of urban decay — as a vacation destination. But somewhere behind its neglected, graffiti-covered skyscrapers are charming reminders of a city that was once among the world’s wealthiest.

Today, rows of homes and stores that had been abandoned for decades are finally being demolished, making way for lush green spaces that give some sections of the city an odd rural vibe. Several new hotels, restaurants and art galleries have the potential to burnish Detroit’s image further and revitalize the downtown area.

In 2001 over half a million people visited Detroit for the tercentennial celebration. Many efforts were made to spruce up the metro area in preparation for this momentous occasion. Several companies, organizations and individual volunteers devoted tremendous amounts of time to invigorate tourism in the area. While many believed tourism to be a long dead and gone concept for the region, certain organizations, such as DTOURS (since gone out of business) were not ready to give up. Depending on whom you ask and your barometer for success, Detroit’s 300-birthday celebration came and went and efforts toward tourism in the area continued to struggle. In 2006 the Detroit hosted the Super Bowl and again, a flurry of activated and influx of visiting sports fans (doubling as tourists) became the motivating factor for increased efforts to capitalize on tourism opportunities in the greater metro Detroit area.

Hosted by organizations such as DTOURS, and Preservation Wayne, (1975-2010) tours cost $20 per person and highlighted downtown developments like Comerica Park, the Renaissance Center. DTOURS was initially affiliated with a branch of the Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau and could not be considered a ruin tour program. Rather, it was part of a strategy to improve Detroit’s image before the Super Bowl and as such did not include stops at ruin sites.

While the tricentennial celebration and the Super Bowl had failed to invigorate tourism in Detroit in the manner that many had hoped, it had become the contributing seed-point to the birth of Ruin Tourism. Also called Ruin Porn, it is akin to what causes people to stop and stare at a horrific automobile accident.

Urban decline and decay is not a phenomena exclusive to Detroit- this exploitative modernization of what is known as “Urban Exploration “(Urbex) has led a few entrepreneurial Detroiters to spearhead commercial touring of the ruins of Detroit, Ruin Tourism. Over the years, urban explorers have become a part of the city’s landscape. Now, photographers make living guiding visitors on tours of abandoned properties in the city. There are books, films and websites dedicated to the crumbling fixtures of the metropolis and now people can physically explore such locations as part of a collective tour and experience firsthand what has been seen through other’s artistic interpretation.

One website, urbanartcore.eu has introduced a tagline for the burgeoning tour guides, labeling Detroit “a paradise for urban explorers and artists from all over the globe.” (Austin, 2011)

Visitors and locals have been privately exploring unoccupied buildings in Detroit for nearly as long as the buildings have stood empty, and many of the so-called “ruins of Detroit” have been unoccupied since the 1970s or 80s.

Newly christened “ruin tour operators” in Detroit have grown well aware of the proliferation of ruin porn, and most see it as a draw for visitors. Tourists specifically want to see abandoned buildings and ruins—and they mention the phrase “ruin porn”. Many guides understand visitors’ curiosity but nevertheless have a fairly negative view of the attraction to ruins.

Understanding Detroit as just an ordinary city, suggests that we now only see Detroit’s ongoing collapse – and not its history. What’s more, understanding how Detroiter’s can exploit the negative view, and image of their city goes far in the way of recognizing and identifying with the city’s (and it’s citizens’) ability to forge ahead in the face of very difficult times. Throughout the world tourists visit landmarks, ruins and attractions, iconic and otherwise everyday in effort to explore and discover something about the human condition. Detroit is just one new stop on that ride.

A Times photo essay by Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre inspired an accompanying film presentation and subsequent book .The Ruins of Detroit by Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre was critically acclaimed but also a brutal reminder of how the nation and now the world saw Detroit. Accused of, or credited with the emergence of the label “ruin porn” Marchand and Meffre created a wonderfully captivating collection that draws people to the new tours of Detroit’s ruins. Wherever the term originated, such a profound label has drawn more to explore this tragic representation of the monument to the American automotive industry. The Forgotten Landmarks of Detroit by Dan Austin is devoted to “under-appreciated” structures and the architectural accomplishments that too often are overlooked throughout the city. Finally Charlie LeDuff’s Detroit: An American Autopsy is practically the man’s tour guide to the city.

INSERT: http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1882089_1850973,00.html