Could Toronto become another Detroit? The reason Detroit started to decline was because of institutionalized corruption, right?
People started moving because they weren't getting good value for their taxes. Then there was a wide enough tax base, rising crime, and presto bankruptcy.
I know that is very simplified. It could be wrong.
But are we on that path?
Toronto isnt the city that "works" anymore.
We are passing billion dolar subway boondoggle deals when other plans are passed over.
Council seems just as paralyzed as the traffic enveloping the city.
I guess we will see if things improve once someone else is mayor.
But if we dont have people with bold vision and the courage to get it done, Toronto will see an exodus and a decline.
Sadly, the reality of the decline of Detroit is far more complicated and multifactorial than the tired cliché’s of race riots, white flight, collapsing tax base etc. A good article (of hundreds that exist--for those who are interested), written by an Detroit born Urban Planner:
The Reasons Behind Detroit’s Decline by Pete Saunders
http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/02/21/the-reasons-behind-detroits-decline-by-pete-saunders/
Among the factors he cites:
Poor neighborhood identification:
Ask a Chicagoan where they’re from, and they will likely give you a neighborhood name – Wrigleyville, Jefferson Park, Chatham. The same is true in other neighborhood-oriented cities like New York, Boston, even Washington, D.C. However, ask a Detroiter where they’re from, and they will likely tell you East Side or West Side; if pressed, they might note a key intersection. While the Motor City does have its share of traditional enclaves (Indian Village and English Village) and emerging hot spots (Midtown), Detroit is notable among large U.S. cities for having very poorly defined neighborhoods.
Poor housing stock:
Detroit may be well-known for its so-called ruins, but much of the city is relentlessly covered with small, Cape Cod-style, 3-bedroom and one-bath single family homes on slabs that are not in keeping with contemporary standards for size and quality. The general national perception of Detroit’s housing might be of a city that resembles the South Bronx in the late 1970’s – long stretches of dense but abandoned walk-up apartment buildings with a smattering of deteriorated single-family homes. The truth, however, is that Detroit may have one of the greatest concentrations of post-World War II tract housing of any major U.S. city.
A poor public realm:
Detroit’s streetscape is unbearable in many places. Major corridors have long stretches of anonymous single-story commercial buildings, with few trees or other landscaping. Signs, banners, awnings and decorative lighting are noticeably lacking. Overhead electrical wires extend for miles, and streets have been rigidly engineered with road signs and markings. The city’s corridors are hardly pedestrian friendly.
A downtown that was allowed to become weak:
Detroit did not always have a relatively weak downtown. The city’s core was a strong retail and commercial center through much of the 20th century, with the advertising, legal and financial offices that supported the auto industry. At some point, Detroit’s downtown became secondary as an employment center to the factory locations scattered throughout the city and metro area. Just like homeowners, offices began relocating to the suburbs. By the ‘60s more and more people saw downtown as a retail center as opposed to an office center, and one that could not compete with suburban malls.
Freeway expansion:
This is something a little more familiar to planners when explaining the decline of central cities, but it’s acutely relevant in Detroit. I have no documentation to support it, but I suspect Detroit has more freeway miles per land area than most cities in the nation. The auto-dominated economy wanted a landscape that supported its values.
Lack of/loss of a transit network:
Detroit had an elaborate streetcar network that was in existence until the 1950’s, but was largely replaced by buses. The auto industry took special interest in the conversion of the streetcar network to buses. General Motors lobbied the city’s Department of Street Railways (DSR) throughout much of the ‘50s, stressing that diesel-fueled buses were an effective lower-cost alternative to streetcars (no more rail maintenance costs!) and could provide much greater flexibility to meet shifting travel demands. Coincidentally, GM produced exactly the kind of buses that would easily facilitate the transition. By 1953, the DSR began a three-year effort to convert streetcars to buses, and the last streetcar route was completed in April 1956.