Detroit Demolition Disneyland
In an attempt at building awareness of Detroit's rotting, decaying neighborhoods, the Detroit Demolition Disneyland project finds long-abandoned structures and paints them with Tiggerific Orange paint.
Now almost a third of Detroit - covering a swath of land the size of San Francisco - has been abandoned. Tall grasses, shrubs and urban farms have sprung up in what were once stalwart working-class suburbs. Even downtown, one ruined skyscraper sprouts a pair of trees growing from the rubble.The city has a shocking jobless rate of 29%. The average house price in Detroit is only $7,500, with many homes available for only a few hundred dollars. Not that anyone is buying. At a recent auction of 9,000 confiscated city houses, only a fifth found buyers.
But Detroit hasn't been totally forgotten by Barack Obama and his wonder-working economic stimulus!
On October 8, 2009, 50,000 people lined up in Detroit to apply for money from the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program.
50,000 people lined up...
50,000 people lined up...
But only 3,500 of them will get any money.
A country abandons its industrial heart. Unbelievable. I just don't get it. Like chopping both your arm and leg off.
Wan Sui GuangZhou. It is hard not to grow cynical, or frankly, conspiratorial.
November 1, 2009 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conspiracy? They brought in a Wall Street guy to analyze the car industry. His startling conclusion? Better to put money into Wall Street than Motor City. Dealerships? What are those? And what better way to instill consumer confidence in Detroit than withholding bailout funds for 6 months saying you're worried GM & Chevy can survive. Is that the same way we went into AIG? A drib here, a drab there?
Conspiracy sounds secretive. This was straight ahead government policy, front page news. White House (2x) to Detroit: Drop Dead.
November 1, 2009 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Keeping dealerships that nobody is buying cars from open through government subsidy is clearly the answer. Sheesh.
I live in the Midwest, and I've lived near empty steel mills most of my life. I know these people, and my heart bleeds for them. But we've had overcapacity in the auto industry for decades. Keeping an industry that produces way more product (and an environmentally destructive product at that) than there is a market for alive through government life support is not the answer.
November 1, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Making our automakers compete against countries that have national health insurance is certainly a handicap. Having southern states subsidize foreign car makers against Detroit is another. Chrysler's sales were pretty decent 3 years ago. The financial meltdown and Bush's war/oil spike have had pretty drastic effects on its fortunes.
November 1, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it has as much to do with Detroit's decision to go all in on light trucks and SUV's.
And their management has been among the strongest opponents of national health insurance over the years, thus sticking themselves with their unaffordable legacy costs.
Government didn't help. But Detroit's problems are almost exclusively the fault of management decisions made at the Big Three.
November 1, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This highlights why all the backseat driving is so perversely wrong. Try this, as of August:
But focusing on light trucks & SUVs is Chrysler's problem? Did Saab, Porsche, Opel do so well in the small car market? Didn't Renault & Citroen just get bailouts? Is Fiat so healthy?November 2, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm commenting from a wider frame of reference. Or are you completely unaware that Detroit's troubles didn't begin in the fall of 2008? They've been hemorraging market share for thirty-five years.
November 2, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
More hyperbole - "hemorrhaging market share for 35 years" - sounds like a trickle to me - they still had 59% in 2003. Chrysler peaked at 16.1% in 1998/1996, and in 2004 they bounced back up to 2000's 14.5% which was roughly the same as 1993-1995. Ford peaked at 25.x% in the 5 years 1993-1998. GM's market share was the same 2000-2003.
The long-term decline was only GM's - from average 41% in the 1980's to mid 20's over the last few years. But people keep throwing Chrysler into the middle of this as part of the general background blather. Chrysler averaged 10.5% in the 1980's, 9.5% in the early 1990's. The oil problems and the financial crisis were primarily what did Chrysler in, despite issues around management and changing market.
November 2, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should have noted - Feb 2009, Chrysler market share - 12.1%
November 2, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The long-term decline was only GM's - from average 41% in the 1980's to mid 20's over the last few years."
This is kind of like saying that, if you take the New York Yankees out of baseball, then World Series Championships are pretty evenly distributed among baseball teams.
I mean, come on:
"In 1972, GM had approximately 40% of the customers for new cars, Ford had 30%, Chrysler had one quarter, and the total for all Japanese manufacturers was only 5%."
It's now 20% for GM, 15% for Ford, and 8% for Chrysler.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
If you don't like the word "hemorrage," then what term would you prefer?
November 2, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fluctuating?
November 2, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the absurdity of giving us a snapshot before Japanese cars existed? Well duh, yes, Detroit has been fighting Japanese cars since the early 1970's. And guess what? Toyota didn't overtake any on the US market until what, 2004? This proves what, that the Big 3 did nothing in the intervening 30 years? Chrysler only went downhill after the 1979 bailout?
November 2, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Detroit will be Obama's Katrina, only in slow-motion.
November 1, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
So slow it started before anyone ever heard of him.
November 1, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the levees in New Orleans were built before Bush was president, moron. Doesn't matter when it starts, it matters what you do about it.
November 1, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Slow-motion Katrinas are the way of the world. Not the government's responsibility. An economic decline 40 years in the making.
November 1, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the sales figures - 3 years ago, Chrysler was beating Toyota in a number of areas. Yes, there are decades old issues (Toyota still doesn't have to worry about health care), and there are new ones (war in Iraq, jacked up government, financial meltdown).
November 2, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, well, in the United States, the government is comprised of 3 branches, including a legislative branch (whose members are elected by the people), which makes the laws of the land, and a judicial branch (whose members are appointed by the president—who is elected by the people—and confirmed by the legislators—who are, again, elected by the people), which interprets the laws.
So what is the government's responsibility? To "enact the will of the people"!
Economic collapse is preventable (as opposed to non-metaphorical hurricanes), predatory lending is illegal, financial transactions are supposed to be monitored, and it's the government's job to serve all of the people, not just the bankers and corporate CEOs.
November 2, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This deserves Stupid Comment of the Week Award. Congrats.
November 1, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newsflash to brewmn61: The primaries are over, Obama was elected president last November.
As president, Obama's job is to solve the problems in front of him. If he doesn't, the ravages from the economic "hurricane" that have laid waste to cities like Detroit will be his "Katrina," his legacy. Sorry you don't like this fact, but if Detroit and other cities don't recover, Obama (and the Democrats) will inherit the blame.
November 2, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's sweet that you keep thinking that US presidents have the power to singlehandedly reverse global economic trends that have been manifest for decades.
On the other hand, I stopped believing in superheroes when I was like seven years old. I don't expect Superman reverse the earth's rotation to take us back to the time when America was the world's undisputed leader in manufacturing, and the ensuing Forty Years War against the American middle class.
How old did you say you were again?
November 2, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Singlehandedly? I don't think Gasket said that.
Leaders have the responsibility to lead, which typically means to do something productive. Leaders of the biggest economic power on earth typically have the obligation to do something positive about economic problems. Everybody enjoys conflating the Big 3 - at the beginning of the decade these 3 had almost 60% of US market share, so obviously those decades of manufacturing loss didn't wipe out the car industry completely, did it? And conflating the fortunes of all 3 ignores the different performance and periods that Chrysler and Ford had during the last 35 years.
So maybe your superhero friends will let you join 2009 where we look at present conditions and do something, rather than pretending some cataclysm of 1970 has locked us in an ice cavern at the North Pole.
November 3, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. All the Obama-bashing that goes on here wildly overestimates the influence any president has over world and economic events. Obama is leading in a positive direction in all sorts of ways (pulling out of Iraq, enacting universal health care, preventing a second Great Depression, engaging w/Iran, etc., etc.), yet none of this is good enough for childish malcontents like rtbag.
Since meeting any reasonable expectations on Obama's part will not satisfy you, maybe you should turn to the management of the Big Three automakers to save the world, since you seem to think their performance over the last forty years is above reproach.
November 3, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Buick yourself. I explained the differences in the car makers' performance - the Big 3 is not a company, it's 3 companies, Brainiac - and have continually noted that the oil peak of 2007 and the recent economic crisis hit auto consumption around the world, which is why almost all automakers around the world have received bailouts and other direct & indirect subsidies.
They spent $3 billion on cash for clunkers - obviously Obama has money to put into the mix when he feels like pushing it. If it's Wall Street, there's no shortage.
Iraq? Still 120,000 or so troops, not going anywhere until after elections in January or whenever they're held. Goal for next August is 50,000, but I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, more troops have been deployed to the north.
Engaging with Iran? I see lots of threats and accusations. I think Hillary's also to blame in this, but not all roses.
November 4, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And who's Obama going to lead, anyway? The insurance companies? Coal companies? Wall Street? Joe Lieberman? The forces that really run this country (I don't include Liebs as a force, merely the sad, saggy face of those forces) are almost universally opposed to the change Obama offered last year. Yet idiots like gasket heap all of the blame on Obama. It's simplemended, extremely tiresome, and totally counterproductive.
November 3, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then idiots like you heap all the blame on anyone but Obama. Isn't there a middle way?
November 4, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your middle way: Fuck off, douchebag.
November 4, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, quite the Vulgarian.
November 4, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I should have noted that, the next time rtbag blames anyone BUT Obama, it will be the first time. And that is what I object to, not the criticism itself.
November 4, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I call upon all Americans to do everything they can to stop these corporate raiders. Thank you. Now watch this drive."
November 1, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Educate me, please. In my utter naiivete, I thought that the G buying into the auto companies was to help stave off this jobless depression in Detroit and other car-making areas. Did the G buy the wrong one/ones? It's not working, but what are the other parts of it? (Go ahead, shoot me for an ignorant fool; I might welcome it this week.)
November 1, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Wall Street guy handling the "G buying into the auto companies" knew so little about the auto industry that he kind of forgot about the importance of dealerships in the equation. As just one example. They were just eager to show they could be tough with someone (just not Wall Street). Chrysler asked for $7 billion originally - the G gave them $4 billion, dragging them through 6 months of humiliation before pulling the plug, but then pumping in $14 billion. People were surprised at lower demand in January than expected? Banks going belly up, major financial panic hitting household budgets, and a car company that's being touted as likely dead and being held back from marketing any impression contrary to this? Thanks, why not just paint "Titanic" over the Chrysler entrances and see how that helps their PR.
1 in 5 houses in Detroit empty. Down to about 750,000 people. Repubicans disliked New Orleans, they dislike Detroit. Somehow they manage to win.
http://www.freep.com/article/20091101/OPINION01/911010444/1322/Saving-the-most-salvageable-neighborhoods
November 1, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Des. I'll read this a couple more times.
November 1, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd like a primer on this story as well. Like, how much have they given to the automakers, and how much more should they be giving? What are the terms of the capital infused? Should cash for clunkers have been set up differently (more directed at American brands)? Should the unions have gotten a better/worse deal? Should GMAC have gotten a better/worse deal? Is Michigan getting a raw deal on Federal aid to state budgets (it does sound like it from Rootie's story here)? Is the Fiat deal good or bad for workers?
Inquiring minds want to know...
November 1, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd start from a simpler framework - if a major storm is washing away all boats, it's not time to ask if a few had proper insurance or weatherproofing. We offshored much of our manufacturing over 2 decades and I say God speed. An unrelated financial crisis is not the time to wantonly cut loose the ones that survived.
And if a company relies on strong PR & a public impression of long-term survival, quick support of the image of long-term competitiveness is probably key to a successful rescue vs. dragging them through the mud and making them look feeble and doomed from the get-go. Try that during a bank run - "sure, we'll give you half what you need to prop up your accounts".
November 1, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
More irony. Obama is getting tagged as a Socialist for seeming to try to save those car companies, then it all goes to hell in their parsimonious and niggardly grants and loans, and it all goes crappy and catty-wompus anyway.
I thought it was working. Bugger.
November 1, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, Desi. Always appreciate your input on this stuff.
November 4, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The failure of Detroit ( and the Rust Belt in general) is a symptom of a much larger problem than this recession. We've given away family supporting manufacturing jobs in our rush to gain short-term and unsustainable profits.
And then these corporate oligarchs have the audacity to promise that we can have jobs back if only we will pass tax cuts for the wealthy.
Injustice is unsustainable. Something's gotta' give.
And it ain't going to be pretty when it does.
November 1, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we've given away family supporting manufacturing jobs to make way for family supporting marketing & finance jobs. And $1 saved on cheaper goods from China is equivalent to $1.50 or more extra salary with taxes, time expended, etc.
November 1, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marketing and finance jobs supplanted manufacturing jobs? I hope you are jesting Des! Services will "never" equate to finished products. Marketing and finance has turned our economic backbone into a disastrous bucket of smoke. If you aren't joking, don't give up on your shrink!
November 1, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, look at our economy. Of course marketing, finance, high end product development and other service based ventures can substitute for manufacturing. That doesn't mean we don't do manufacturing anymore - dollars wise it's going up, employee wise it's going down - efficiency. Still, China's more efficient for much of the large scale repetitive business, and with the manufacturing component accounting for 10% of the final price, the profit's in the sales, marketing & distribution.
But handling wholesale trade, finance and insurance is where the huge margins are. Some of this is built on fluff, some of this isn't. The brand has been damaged greatly by greed and lack of oversight, but that doesn't mean back-to-the-factories, back-to-the-rice-paddies, everyone-make-pig-iron-in-their-backyard is our future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States_by_sector
November 2, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, you must be from the Randian super-utopia where everybody can get rich selling the same two houses to each other, over and over forever! Finance jobs do not create anything, and marketing jobs create (if possible) LESS THAN NOTHING. The finance people are going to be in for a rude awakening the day somebody figures out that you can short stocks just as well from Mumbai as you can from Manhattan, and the workers think $10k is a gigantic bonus there...
November 1, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right, one day manufacturing will be king again, mark my words, eh? The days of Springsteen are over folks, steel and cotton are not the mainstays of our economy.
November 2, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds about as plausibly sustainable as everyone getting a family supporting job working at the unemployment office.
Surely you are joking, right?
November 2, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can you worry about Detroit when there is a war going on, man?
November 3, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink