the fall of the public realm-detroit

8/3/2019 The Fall of the Public Realm-Detroit

1/26


2/26

Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium.

SantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.

8060:2

INTRODUCTION

Detroithasbeenat the forefrontof the restructuringofAmericancitiesarounda suburban,consumer

oriented society since the 1950s, a situation widely discussed in research and literature (Cohen 1996,

Hardwick,2004,Longstreth,1997).Whathasreceivedlessattention,though,isthewaysinwhichtheurban

fabricofthesecitiesandtheirspatial,socialandeconomicdimensionscanbedocumentedandstudiedas

theydevelop

in

real

space

and

through

time.

In

fact,

from

academic

accounts

to

newspaper

reports

Detroits

collapse isseenasa functionofsocioeconomic factors,suchas theerosionofthemotor industry, racial

conflict,andsocialsegregation.Thesefactorshavebeensodevastatingthatthestoryofthecitysdeclineis

rarely told in conjunctionwith the evolutionof itsurban configuration. In fact, any attempt todescribe

Detroit intermsof itsphysicalfabric isannulledbytherecognitionthatthisfabrichas lost itssignificance.

This isbecause since the1950sDetroithasbeen functioningaccording toadivisionbetweenadeclining

inner core and affluent suburbs, connected together (or isolated from each other) by freeways. But as

attempts todesignabetter future forDetroitare takingplace (AIA2008), it isessential to focuson the

physical structure of space and theways inwhich it relates to the social and economic processes that

animatecities.Thisdemandarisesfortworeasons:first,neglectingthisphysicalstructureasthesubstantive

basisofurban lifeand the40squaremileof lands thatsitempty inDetroitarerelatedphenomena.And

second,byexcludingspatialconfigurationfromourconsiderationanyattempttodevelopsustainableurban

futuresfacestheriskofrepeatingmistakesofthepastcausingthroughsimplisticorinsensitiveinterventions

irreversibledamage.

In1961 Jane Jacobsargued that interconnected streets facilitatemovement through the city,encourage

economicactivity,andreducetrafficonbusyroads(Jacobs1961).Spacesyntaxstudieshaveoverthe last

twentyyearsprovidedtheoreticalinsightsandtoolsthatshedlightintocitiesasorderlycomplexities(Hillier,

2009),asJaneJacobshadthoughtthemtobeinthe1960s.Studyinghowspacesareinterconnectedtoform

localandglobalpatterns thatunderlinecitiesand theirsocialactivity,economicstructures,andcognitive

factors, space syntax has shown that some of these patterns, andmore specifically the interconnected

streetnetwork,are,asJaneJacobsbelieved,moresustainablethanothers(Hillier,2009). Inthispaperwe

analyzeDetroit

with

aview

to

understanding

how

the

logic

of

its

spatial

network

can

explain

phenomena

of

growthanddecline inthecity.Ourpurpose istodocumentchanges inconfigurationduringtheseperiods,

and to show thatboth thehistoricboomdecadesand the currentenvironmental,economic,and spatial

problemsofthecitycannotbeviewedseparatelyfromitsspatialstructure.Atatimewhenthemajorityof

studieson sustainability focusonwherepopulations live andhow they live,ouranalysisaimsatplacing

emphasison the spatial formofDetroit asaway tounderstand the spatial city, the social city,and the

environmentalcityasonething(Hillier,2009,Hillier&Vaughan,2007).

Our analysis is conducted over an edited series ofmaps from 1796 to 2009 as reconstructed byHenco

Bekkering(Bekkering,Thomas,forthcoming).Fromthesemapswehaveselectedthosethatcorrespondto

major changes in thephysical, social, andeconomic structureof the city tracing itsdevelopment in two

stages:from

1796

to

1952,

and

from

1952

to

the

present.

The

first

stage

captures

Detroits

growth

from

an

agriculturaltown,inthesovereignterritoryofthenewlyestablishedgovernmentoftheUnitedStates,toa

fastgrowingmanufacturingcityintheearly1900s,acenterofindustrialpowerduringandafterbothWorld

Wars,tothepeakofitsvitalityupto1952,whenthecityreachedthemaximumofitspopulationanddrastic

changesinitsphysical,socialandeconomicstructurebegantotaketheirtollonDetroit.Thesecondperiod

oftheanalysis(from1952tothepresent)correspondstothegradualdecayofDetroitintermsofpopulation

decline,erosionofthecarmanufacturingindustry,andclassandracesegregation.


3/26



8060:3

It is importanttoclarifythe limitationsofthisstudy,aswebasedourobservationsmainlyoncartographic

material from1796 to thepresentanda small rangeofhistorical images fromDetroitscentralbusiness

district.Our findingsaresubjecttoadditionalhistoricalevidenceand further researcheven inthesecond

periodofstudy,wherewewereabletorecordretailactivityinthewholemetropolitanareaofDetroit.(The

base data for this activitywas obtained fromGIS databases from the city ofDetroit and the Southeast

MichiganCouncilofGovernments.)However, in spiteof these limitations, thepreliminary resultsof this

work set a framework that can help us to understand the city and the combined effects of its spatial

configuration,social,andeconomiclife.

THEPHYSICAL,SOCIALANDECONOMICCITY

From1796to1921

Starting in1796,topological integrationpicksoutthehistoricnucleusofDetroitsetatthe intersectionsof

what iscurrently Jeffersonand roughlyWoodwardAvenue (at the timenamedStAnneandStHonnerie

Avenues)(Figure1).Previousresearchhas indicatedthatcitieshaveagenericstructure inwhichthemost

integrated roads link the center with the periphery so that people can access their core and circulate

throughthem(Hillier&Hanson,1984).ThisseemsalsotobethecaseinDetroit,whichwasfoundedonthe

crossing of old Indian trails so that it could be easily reached from larger distances (seeDunnigan and

Bekkeringforthcoming).Thelocationofintegrationatthecrossingofthesestreetsconfirmsthisobservation

creatinganinterfacebetweentheinhabitantsofthetownandtheoutsidemovementofvisitors.

Afterthedestructivefirein1805,JudgeAugustusB.Woodwardproposedanexpandableplaninfluencedby

CharlesLEnfantslayoutofWashingtonDC1.AlthoughWoodwardscitydesignwasabandonedin1818, its

initialunitwasconstructed,thusdefiningthestartofcontemporaryDetroit,withanapexatGrandCircus

ParkandtheintersectionofmostradialavenuesatCampusMartius.Theleastanglechoicemapataradius

of1000metersin1837identifiestheseavenuesasthemainelementsoftheglobalstructureofmovement

(Figure2).Spreadingoutlikespokes,theradialroadslinkthecenterwiththeedgesofthecityandintersect

withadensepatternofstreetsthatgrewoutoftheFrenchagriculturalstripsperpendiculartotheDetroit

River(BekkeringandThomas,forthcoming).

Inthe35yearsafteritsdestructionbyfire,Detroitbecameacosmopolitancityof10,000people2(Poremba

2003).By1879, itspopulationhadreachednearly80,000asDetroitgrewasacommercialcity.Residential

activitybeganmovingoutofthecentertomakewayforbusinessandindustry(Poremba2003).Developers

laidoutVirginiaParkandIndianVillage,westandeastofWoodwardAvenue,asresidentialdistrictsandthe

Citymadethemaccessiblebystreetcar.Theangularchoicemapsatradii10000and1000metersshowthat

theforegroundnetworkatboththelocalandglobalscalesconsistedatthattimeoftheradialavenuesanda

range of streets linking the center with the edges of the city extending along the river (Figure 3, 4).

Photographsfrom

this

period

show

commercial

establishments

near

Woodward

and

Campus

Martius,

as

wellasalongWoodward includingitsfootattheriverandStatestreet,andamixtureofbusinessesand

residential near the intersection ofWoodward and Clifford (Figures 5, 6). Although additional historical

evidenceisrequiredtodrawconclusionsaboutlandusesandtheirlocations,basedoncommonpatternsof

1ThisplanmadeuseoftheoriginalpatternofthecrossingofJeffersonandWoodwardAvenuesanddefinedlargelots,eachgrantedto

aresidentorgroupafterthefire.

2Ithadeightchurches,fourbanks,atheatre,amuseum,acircus,apublicgarden,astatepenitentiary,fourprintingoffices,several

differentmanufactories,threemarkets,and102shopsatthetime.


4/26



8060:4

growthofhistoricaltowns,itisreasonabletosuggestthatthedescribedchoicepatternshowswhichpublic

spacesweremostly used bymovement, andwheremost of the shops and businesses of the citywere

located.OursuggestionisthattheroutenetworkinFigures3,4isnotapurelyformalmatter,butassociated

sincetheearlystageswiththesocialandeconomiclifeofthecity3.Themapof1921,whichwediscussnext,

willshowthesecharacteristicsinDetroitmoreclearly(Figure7)

Atthe

turn

of

the

twentieth

century

Ransom

E.

Olds

opened

the

first

large

automobile

factory

in

Detroit

on

East JeffersonAvenuenearBelle Isle,whileFordsHighlandParkPlant designedbyAlbertKahn began

producingcarsinJanuary1910.Muchoftheeconomicactivityatthattimecenteredontheautoindustry,a

focuswhichwasdisruptingthesocialpatternsofthecity,expandingitsboundaries,andbringingwealthas

well as health problemswith the growth of the population.Many of the rail lines built in the previous

centuryservedtotransportmaterialsandproductstoandfromfactories,whichwerespreadingalongthese

lines surrounded by housing ofworkerswithinwalking distance or a short streetcar ride. As immigrant

groupsbeganmoving in,theDetroitnativebornelitestartedmovingtothesuburbs.Porembawrites:car

showrooms, gas stations, and storefront businesses along Woodward Avenue disrupted fashionable

residentialareas,andthemansionswereabandonedformorespacioussettings(Poremba2003,pp.98).

By1921

Detroit

had

reached

more

than

half

of

its

present

population

size,

and

was

firmly

established

as

an

industrial metropolis. Its landscape had changed with the construction of railroads and industrial sites

absorbedintothefabric,asthecitycontinuedexpandingaroundthem(Fishman,inBekkeringandThomas,

forthcoming).Thegeometricchoicemapataradiusof10000metersshowsthatthemajorroutesconsisting

ofthesameradialavenuesasin1796,1837and1879werethemainconnectorsoftheoriginalnucleustoits

fastexpandingurbansurroundings(Figure7).Mappingthelocationofindustrialsitesonthisfigurehelpsus

toseethattheydeveloped incloseproximitytothisglobalstructureofmovement.Thissuggestsstrongly

thatalongwiththerailroadsystem,thesuperordinategridwasalsoavitalcomponentforthe locationof

industry,asstreetcarsranalongtheseroutestransportingworkerstoandfromthefactorysites.

Detroitsretailingwasalso largelydependentonboththestreetnetwork layoutandthestreetcarsystem.

Shiftingour

attention

to

the

choice

map

at

aradius

of

1000

meters,

we

see

that

the

radial

avenues

are

vital

componentsofcentralityatbothglobalandlocalscales(Figures7,8).Bysuperimposingthestreetcarlines

on thechoicemapataradiusof1000meters,astrongcorrelationbetweenstreetcartransportation,the

globalandthelocalroutestructurebecomesclear(Figure9).Thecombinedfunctionofmajorroutesatboth

scalesexposesanaturalrelationshipbetweenlocalscalepedestrianmovementintheareassituatednorth,

east,andwestofdowntown,andthewidercirculationpatterns,includingstreetcars.InFigure8wealsosee

that the local choice grid is very dense in the urban core, limiting the relative segregation of streets, a

characteristicalsoobservedintheearlierperiods(Figure3,4).Previousresearchsuggeststhatthispattern

emergeswith the transformationofhistoricnuclei from residential to commercialareas.Asprivateuses

turn tomorepubliconesandhousesbecomecommercial, the streetpatterncreateshigh levelsof inter

accessibility necessary fora centre toactasa locationof interdependentactivities (Hillier2009).This

intensificationof

the

grid

is

akey

characteristic

of

centers

emerging

from

self

organization,

reducing

travel

distancesandfacilitatingeconomicactivity(Hillier2009).ThisisclearlyadominantcharacteristicofDetroits

centrality inthisperiod,ashistoricpicturesconfirm,showingcrowdedstreets,streetcars,trolley linesand

commercialactivityinCampusMartius,WoodwardAvenue,Gratiot,StateandGriswold(Figures10,11).

Thisclose relationatallscalesamong thespatialcharacteristicsof theurban layout,commercialactivity,

3TheglobalscaleroutenetworkinproximitytotheriverseeninFigure8providesanindicationofeconomicandcommercialactivity

associatedwiththeriver.


5/26



8060:5

transportation,andpedestrianmovementofDetroitinthe1920scanbebestcapturedbythehistoryofone

ofitslandmarkinstitutions:theJ.L.HudsonCompany(Figure12).Initiallyopenedin1881asaneightstorey

departmentstoreatGratiotandFarmer,itmovedtoWoodwardintheearly1900s,whereitgrewintothe

worldstallestdepartmentstorebuilding,adornedbythelargestAmericanflagatthetime(Poremba2003).

AarneH.Frobomexplainsthatinthe1920smosthouseholdsinDetroitlackedacar,especiallythehundreds

ofthousandsoffactoryworkers.

the confluenceof trolley linesmade the locationof1206Woodward so valuable that itpaid

HudsonstobuyanddemolishacompetitorsrelativelynewbuildingatWoodwardandGrandRiver

tomakeroomfortheirmammothstore.Thestoresbuildersassumedthatasignificantfractionof

Detroitstwomillionpeoplewouldcomethroughitsdoorseveryday,andthattheywouldbringlots

ofmoney,andcomeby streetcar.Theirassumptionwascorrect forover twodecades (Frobom

1998).

FrobomconcludesthatthegiantHudsonsstorewasaproductoftransitpatternsofthe1920s.Webelieve

thatHudsonsandtherichconcentrationofretailandservicesinthisareawereproductsofamorecomplex

andsubtlesystemthanmerelythesystemoftransportation.Previousresearchintothespatialformofcities

andtheir

live

centers,

namely

the

uses

of

retail,

catering

and

markets,

suggests

that

as

movement

rich

locations attract land uses that benefit frommovement, such as shops, themigration of retail to these

placesattractsmoreandmoremovement.Thiscycleinturnsetsupamultipliereffectbringingmorediverse

usestothatlocation(Hillier1999).DowntownDetroitwastheoutcomeofthecombinedeffectofthestreet

networkatboth localandglobal scales, throughwhich the streetcar systemand economic forces found

resonance for their spatial location, finding in turn their spatial position enhanced through the

configurationalsocialandeconomiclogicoftheselocations.

Intermsofthebackgroundnetworkoftheadjoiningresidentialdistricts,thiswaswellconnectedwiththe

foreground network, which was stretching out into these areas at both global and local scales. So,

movementofresidentswithinalocalareainteractedwithmovementfromandtoareaswithinthecityasa

whole,maintaining

inter

accessibility

4

.Testimony

of

this

is

the

streetcar

lines.

While

American

streetcar

systemswereconcentrated indowntownhubswheremostretailactivitywas located,wellusedstreetcar

linesalso reachedout into the suburbs, servicing local clustersof retailatmajor stopsand intersections

throughouttheurbanregion.

But Detroit presents an additional dimension to the interdependence of spatial layout, land use, and

movement. In the early twentieth century it was a concentrated manufacturing machine, one huge

factory,whichdemandedvast flowsofrawsuppliesand finished orpartly finished products fromthe

regionandthecountry,andreliedonextensivecontributionsoflabor.

Thematerialswerestackedinpilesofore,cokeandfluxstone,andmarshaledinrailroadyardsfull

ofsuppliesandparts.The laborwashoused indenseresidentialneighborhoods,oftensortedout

byethnicityjustanother factorofproduction tobestockpiled.Detroits1920sneighborhoods

werespacious for theirtime,butstill tightenough tobeconnectedwith the factoriesby trolley.

4Itisimportanttonotethatlinearextensionofthesesitesalongtherailroadbeltlinemeantthattheyaffectedinterconnectivity

betweentheurbancoreofthecityandtheareasbuiltintheouterlimits.Thiscanbeclearlyseenbythescarcepatternofintersections

ofthelinesformingtheglobalroutenetworkoneithersideofHighlandPark,andeithersideoftherailroadlinesontheeasternand

westernedgesofthecity.WiththeexpansionofthemotorindustryaftertheFirstandSecondWordWartheplantswereentirely

absorbedintothecity,creatingdiscontinuitiesintermsofthestructureofroutesandtheinterconnectivitylevelsofresidential

communities(Figure11,12).


6/26



8060:6

And theworkers familieswere servedbyaconcentrated retailcenter that included theworlds

largeststorebuilding(Frobom,1998).

According to Thomas Sugrue, factories, shops and neighborhoods blended together indistinguishably

enmeshed in a relentless grid of streets and a complexweb of train lines (Sugrue, 1996). This urban

industrial landscape had a logic that defied common observation but this analysis finds that the spatial

layout,automobile

manufacturing,

and

the

retail

economy

of

the

city

were

inseparably

bound

in

asymbiotic

relationshipthroughthecombinedfunctionofinterdependentdimensions:thelocalandglobalnetworkbut

also itsstreetcarandrailwaysystems intertwiningproductionandcommercialactivity inthecity.Thiswas

setagainstabackgroundofresidentialneighborhoodswhoserelativespatialsegregationwasmarginal5.

From1952tothepresent

TheHudsonsCompanyand its landmarkbuilding serveasmetonymicexpressionsof the riseand fallof

Detroitandhow the spatial layouthas consequences for theways inwhich cities come to lifeor fail to

thrive. In the postwar era, the federal government accelerated suburban growth by supporting housing

affordability via tax policies and a series of housing acts that built on the Housing Act of 1934, which

establishedtheFederalHousingAdministration,thusenablinghundredsofthousandsandthenmillionsto

liveoutsidethecity.Thegrowthofsuburbscameintandemwiththegrowthandreconfigurationofwealth

inmetropolitanregions,whichfurtherbuttressedthesenewcommunities(Cohen1996,Fishman1989).The

shortageofcentralcityhousing,governmentsubsidiesintheconstructionofhighwaysandhouses,planning

ideologies and racial conflict and segregation patterns brought about a new residential and economic

landscape.

AsDetroitreached itspopulationpeak intheearly1950s,theseeconomicandsocialchangeshadalready

begun,buttheywere inearlystagesandhadnotyetaffectedthephysicalstreetstructureofthecitytoa

significantdegree.Theforegroundnetworkataradiusof10000metersremainedinthe1950sroughlythe

sameasin1921,withtheexceptionofthenewgrowthareasonthewestsideofthecity,wherethepattern

ofintersectionsoftheorthogonallinesisdenserthanintherestofthecityassmallblockscontaineddense

factoryworkerhousing(Figure13).Localscalecentralityatawalkableradiusof1000metersisbasedona

coincidenceof the localandglobalnetworkof routesoccurringatthe intersectionsof the radialavenues

with the JeffersonianGrid, similar to previous eras of the city (Figure 14). This pattern of local centers

establishes good levels of interconnectivity between centers and residential activity formost ofDetroit

neighborhoods.SimilartotheaforementionedanalysisofLondon,alocalcenterin1950sDetroitwasnever

afarwalkaway,anddowntownwasneverafarrideaway.

However,aspeoplebecamegraduallymoredependentupon theircarsand theirmanufacturersbecame

morepowerful,thestreetcar lineswerereducedtothe radialboulevards (Figures13,14)onlytobeshut

downin

1956

when

the

last

of

the

streetcars

was

removed

and

diesel

buses

took

over

while

growing

trafficcongestionandparkingproblemsdiscouragedcommercialexpansion incentral locations.Formany

newsuburbanareas in theUnitedStates,shopswerebuiltalongmajor roads incommercialstrips that

5Althoughadditionalresearchintothedistributionofresidentialcommunitiesisrequired,aninterestingquestionatthispointis

whethertherewasaspatialcorrelatebetweenthesuccessofcertainimmigrantgroupsandtheirlocation.Astudyofimmigrant

ghettosinLondonbyLauraVaughanfoundaclearspatialcomponentinthesuccessofsomeimmigrantgroupsasopposedtoothers.

Theimmigrantsettlementswerelocatedattheedgeofeconomicallyactiveareasofthecity,whichenabledtheimmigrantsto

participateintheeconomyoftheregion(VaughanandPenn2006,Vaughan2005).


7/26



8060:7

consumers could easily reach by car,withmore visionary suburban developers integratingmodest local

retail centers of their own into their planned residential areas (Longstreth, 1997). The retail landscape

changedwithalandmarkdevelopmentintheDetroitmetroregion:theconstructionoftheNorthlandMall

in1954,thefirstofaseriesofmallstosurroundthecityofDetroit,designedbyvisionaryViennesearchitect

VictorGruen(Wall,2006).Withabackgroundinretailing,Gruenrealizedthemagnitudeofsuburbanization

andtheforceofthecarandfocusedthisnewdevelopmentonthenewconsumerofDetroit,anincreasingly

affluent (and increasingly female)suburbancarowner looking for theconvenienceofa largeselectionof

goods under one roof. It comes as no surprise thatHudsonsmoved toNorthland in nearby Southfield

Michigan in 1954 and was themain tenant of the mall as an exemplar department store, providing a

selectionofgoodssimilarlyconvenientinlocationtothoseithadprovidedtoitsdowntowncustomerswho

hadarrivedbystreetcarinpreviousdecades.

It was no longer possible to attract the huge concentrations of people that the big store

[Hudsons]wasdesigned to serve,andwhich itneeded to survive.Peoplewerent riding transit

anymorebecausetheyhadcars,andyoucantassemblethatmanypeople inacitybycarevery

day.Andbecausetheyhadcars,theyhadachoice.Evenconversionofmanyofthecitysblocksto

parkinglotswasntenough.Thecostoflandshowedupinparkingcharges.Thecostinconvenience

wasinvisible,butitwasevenhigher(Frobom1998).

AnadditionalsignificantforcewasatthebaseofthedecentralizationofretailinDetroit:theconstructionof

theinterstatesystemwithinthecity.WhileDetroitwastheproudinventorofthefirsturbanfreewayinthe

1940s, the introduction of the Federal Highway Act in 1956 rapidly accelerated the addition of a new

dimensiontotheDetroitregion,mostlyhiddenbeneath itssurface:speed[closelyrelatedofcoursetothe

overallcarorientationofthecity,itsindustryanditsinhabitants].Breakingthroughtheurbanfabric,dugin

trenches,thenewconnectorsofthecitycreated fast linkstothenewsuburbancommunities,theregion,

andtherestofthenation.Whileatthescaleofthecityanditssurroundingregiontheinterstatesystemwas

builttoconnect,at lowerscale levelstheconstructionofsunken freewaysresulted inspatialsegregation.

WithinthecityofDetroittheinterstatesystembrokethroughtheurbanfabric,disruptingthelinksbetween

itsdowntown

area

and

the

neighboring

areas

and

between

the

streets

in

the

residential

districts.

This

can

be

clearlyseenbyexaminingasectionofdowntownDetroitanditsadjoiningareasin1952and2009(Figures

15,16).These figures show thatas thedowntowncorewasencircledbyexpresswayson three sides, its

streetnetworkbecameisolatedfromthesurroundingneighborhoodsinthecity.Inastudyofthereshaping

of the city blocks in downtown Detroit, Brent D. Ryan refers to additional factors that reduced the

interconnectivityofstreets.AmongthesewastheconstructionofLafayettePark,asignificanturbanrenewal

projectwithhousingdesignedbyarchitectsMiesvanderRoheandLudwigHilberseimerlocatedontheeast

sideofdowntowninaformerlylowincomeareacalledBlackBottom.Thisprojectanditssuccessorphases,

ElmwoodI,II,andIII(seeThomaschapter inthisbook)erasedtheoriginalstreetgridandreplaced itwith

modernist superblock development. Other large projects that altered the street grid involved the

constructionof large facilities likeCoboHall in the southwestportionofdowntownand theRenaissance

Center,an

office,

hotel,

and

retail

complex,

in

the

southeastern

portion

of

downtown.

More

recently,

the

construction of large casino and sports stadium complexes has caused further alteration of the finely

graineddowntown streetgrid.Theconstructionof the freewaysarounddowntownDetroithowever,has

beenamongmostdestructive forces,accounting foralmostaquarterof itsmorphological changes since

1896(Ryan,2000).

A remarkableaspectof the interstate freeways is thatwhile theyhaddevastatingeffectson the smaller

scaleof theneighborhood streetgrid, themajor thoroughfaresofDetroitwere largely leftunaffectedby


8/26



8060:8

theirconstruction.Thechoicenetworkataradiusof10000metersatpresentdaystillconsistsoftheradial

avenuesofWoodward,GrandRiverandGratiotandtheJeffersoniGridspreadthroughoutthecityand its

greatermetropolitanarea(Figure17,18).Thespatialconfigurationofthechoiceroutesupergridhashardly

beenalteredbytheconstructionofhighwaysoverthepast60years,andthehighwaysthemselvesplayno

interconnectingrole in thespatial layouthaving lowvaluesof leastanglechoice.However,although the

interstate roadsdonot feature in the supergrid, theyarecrucial indetermining the locationsofcurrent

largescale retailand commercialdevelopments,all locatedaroundandbeyond theedgesof thecity. In

order tostudythespatialrelationshipbetweenshoppingcentersandthe interstatesystemwecombined

themeasuresofangulardistanceandmetricdistance fromeachexpresswayexit.Wethensuperimposed

thetwomeasurestofindthoselocationsthatarebothmetricallycloseandrequirealownumberofturns

fromtheseexits.Figure19showsaclearcorrespondencebetweenmajorretailandemploymentcentersor

edgecitiesandthecombinedmeasureofmetricandangularstepdistance.Builttocatertosuburbancar

owners,thesenewcentershavebeenstrategically locatedwithinasmallrangeofturnsandwithinshort

metric range from the exits of the interstate system so as to optimize the potential to be reached by

customers.

Centrality intheearlytwentiethcenturyDetroitwastheoutcomeofthecombined functionoftheglobal

and local scalenetwork. In contrast, today adifferent formof centrality exists,no longerdefinedby an

interdependenceofglobalandlocallevelsofstreetconfiguration,butratherbyspeedofaccess,andbyhow

closetoanexitofaninterstatehighwayafunctionordestinationcanbelocated(inmetricandgeometrical

terms).Thenewfreeways introducedadimensiontothedistributionofmovement independentfromthe

spatial logic of the street network, allowing higher speeds than the legacy urban grid it connected,

significantlyalteringtheperceptionofcentralityanddistance.

However, centrality as a functionof the spatial layout can stillbe foundwithin thepresentdayDetroit

metropolitanregion.Thisdimensionfollowsthespatiallogicofthelargescaleandsmallscalenetworkasin

thefirstperiodoftimethatwelookedat,withthedifferencethatitnowoperatesaccordingtoamovement

economybasedoncaraccess.Lookingatthedistributionoflanduses,weseeatightrelationshipbetween

throughmovement

and

retail

at

both

global

and

local

scales.

The

large

scale

network

(choice

at

a10000

meters radius) captures the aforementioned commercial strips, a typology of exchange that is not only

presentthroughouttheJeffersoniansupergridofGreaterDetroit,butalsocanbefoundinthelandscapeof

manyAmericancitiesasabyproductofthespatiallogicoflargescalevehiculartraffic(Figure20).However,

the smallscale street network (choice at a 1000 meters radius) also captures local centers located at

intersectionsalongthemainroutesradiatingoutofDetroitandatintersectionsofroadsthatbelongtothe

supergrid(Figure18).

Theselocalcenterscanbedividedintotwokinds.Thefirstkindconsistsofrelativelysmallconcentrationsof

commercialand serviceactivitieswithin thecity limitsofDetroit (with theexceptionofa relatively large

concentrationinthedowntown).Thesecondtypeof localcenterscompriseshistoricdowntowncentersof

suburbancommunities

such

as

Plymouth,

Pontiac,

Birmingham,

Royal

Oak,

St.

Clemens,

Grosse

Pointe,

LincolnParkandWyandotte.The innercitycentersarebyproductsof the largescaleand the smallscale

networkbutfailtointeractwiththebackgroundnetworkofresidentialactivity.Thisisbecausebarriersand

holesintheurbanfabricgeneratedbytheinterstates,abandonedindustrialsites,andrailwaylinescause

majordisruptionstotheconnectivitylevelsbetweentheforegroundnetworkofchoiceandthebackground

networkof the residentialstreets.Asa result, the residentialnetworknow fails toovercome thenatural

patternofspatialsegregationassociatedwithresidentialactivity.Inorganiccitiesand inthefirststagesof

Detroitsdevelopment,however,theresidentialnetworkovercameseparationthroughtheinterconnectivity


9/26



8060:9

ofglobalcenters,localcentersandresidentialcommunities.

On theotherhand, in the localcentersof suburbandistricts thecombinedeffectsof the largescaleand

smallscalespatialrelationsenhanceinterconnections.Situatedattheheartofaffluentcommunities,these

districts establish spatial links between commercial and residential uses. Interfacing movement with

economic activity, community services and residential uses, these centers define pedestrianpockets of

walkablegrids.

This

is

in

contrast

to

many

of

the

local

neighborhoods

inside

the

city

limits,

which

are

devastatedbypopulationdecline,unemployment,poverty, lackofamenities,anddereliction.The former

localcentersconsistofthematterthatmakesplaces,aspatialculturethatintersectseconomicactivitywith

pedestrian flowsandsocialcopresence. Incontrast, the latter localcentersoccupyapublic realmwhere

spatial mechanisms have lost their economic and social potential. This is because they can no longer

generatemovementbetweenscales,asthelargescaleconnectorsbetweenareasarenotthelocalstreet

networkbuttheinterstatesandtheJeffersonGrid.

THESPATIALNETWORKANDTHEFUTUREOFDETROIT

Whilewe realize that spatial polarization and social inequality are a result of complex factors requiring

furtherresearchandanextensivedescriptionbeyondthespaceswehaveexaminedandthe limitationsof

thisstudy,ourpreliminaryresultsshowthatinprinciplespatialconfigurationplaysaroleinhowcitiescan

bestrong,healthyandsustainableormoveintheoppositedirection.Theinterdependenceofspatiallayout,

commercialactivity,andmovementwasthemajorforcethatshapedthecity inbothperiodsofourstudy.

However,thistightrelationshipinthefirstperiodrevolvedaroundamovementeconomythatexploitedthe

linksbetweenlocal andglobalscaleurbannetworks;theforegroundnetworkofeconomicactivityandthe

backgroundnetworkofresidentialcommunities;andtransportation,pedestrianactivityandcommerce. In

thesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturythestructuringofDetroitseparatedtheforegroundnetworkfrom

thebackgroundnetwork,and theeconomyofmovement from the cultureofplace. Inotherwords, the

spatial

configuration,

which

in

the

early

twentieth

century

acted

conjointly

with

economic

and

social

factors

tobuildadynamic interconnectedcity,changed inthesecondhalfofthecentury inawaythatfacilitated

the segregated, declining city. It can be argued thatDetroits history has long been one of parallel but

reversedimensions,fromtheroadnetwork,thestreetcarsystem,andtherailwaynetworkthatmovedthe

MotorCityofthe1920stotheconstructionofthe interstatesinthe latetwentiethcentury.Supportedby

transportationandplanning ideologiesandconceivedasthewayof improving intercitymobilityofgoods

and people, this latter intervention drastically altered and superseded the configuration of the city, as

centralitywasno longeran issueof street interconnectivityon the localandglobal scale,butbecamea

matterofdistancefromtheevergrowinginterstatesystem.

ThetransformationofDetroitfromaprospering industrialcityofinterconnectedstreetstoapolarizedcity

ofalowincomeurbancoreandaffluentsuburbsiswidelyknown.Whatislessanalyzedandargued,though,

isthe implicationofspatialconfiguration inthistransformationasrevealedbythisanalysis. Inthesecond

periodofour study,Detroits streetnetwork shifted fromonewithadominant componentofeconomic

productionandembodimentofculturetoasociallyandeconomicallyabandoneddomain.Inthe1920sthe

street network acted in conjunction with the streetcar system, commercial activity, and industrial

manufacturebasedon theeconomyofproduction. In the secondperiod,after theabandonmentof the

streetcar system,andbefore the subsequentdeclineof industry, the streetnetworkbecame fragmented

andneglected forthe interstatenetwork.DugunderDetroitshistoricgridandbreakingup its residential


10/26



8060:10

streets,theexpresswaysbecametherailwaysandstreetcarlinesofthesecondhalfofthecentury.But

instead of transporting industrial supplies and workers to and from factories, these new conduits now

transportconsumersandgoods inmobilestorageunitscars toandfromcities,homes,andshopping

malls. Detroit and the transformation of its street network and spatial culture reflect a shift from an

economicmodelofindustrialproductiontoaneconomicalmodelofconsumption.Asinthesecondhalfof

the twentieth century Western economies moved from productionled to consumptionbased, the

combinedeffectoftheglobalandlocalurbannetwork,whichinthefirstperiodofstudyfacilitatedindustrial

andretaildevelopment inthecity, lost itscapacitytosustainthegrowthofretailactivityata largescale.

This is because depending on largescale surplus of income consumption economies require largescale

access toproductsand services, largescale rentableareaandparking facilities.They thus,seek locations

thatareaccessiblebycarownersandsuburbanconsumersata largescale.InDetroitandotherAmerican

cities this became possible through the foreground network (the Jefferson Grid) and the interstates6.

Capturingtheshiftfromaproductiontoaconsumptioneconomy inverydistinctiveway,thisstudyshows

thatdifferentsocial,culturalandeconomicforceshavedifferentspatialcorrelates,andthatspace isnota

neutralcontainerbutanintegralcomponentofthesocial,economicandenvironmentallifeofcities.

A2008 reportby theAmerican InstituteofArchitects (AIA)explained that todaysDetroitpopulationhas

morethanhalvedcomparedtoitspopulationin1950,andisstilldroppingatanacceleratingrate,withmany

square miles comprised of vacant land. In an attempt to consider the future of Detroit and to seize

opportunitiesstillavailableinthecity,includingitsstrategiclocation,itsinstitutions,itsrichheritageandits

diversifyingreservoirofcreativityandinnovation,thereportputforwardpropositionsdemandingaradically

different thinking from that which brought Detroit to its present condition. These propositions were

structuredaroundanewvisionbasedonsustainability,economicopportunityandsocialequityforallof

its people. The ways in which this vision can be achieved is through economic development, land

reconfiguration, increasing density, urban agriculture, green energy/green economy and sustainable

transportation(AIA,2008,57).Importantasthesefactorsare,ourstudyshowsthatthecityisnotthesum

of these domains against a background of its physical structure, but a complex interdependence of the

physical,theenvironmental,theeconomic,andthesocial.Thespatialnetworkshouldbestudiedintensively

in its own right, and in relation to these domains, in order to understand how such visions can turn

languagebasedideastospatialreality,andpolicyplanstosuccessfulimplementation.

REFERENCES

American Institute of Architects Center for Communities by Design (2008). Leaner, Greener Detroit,

www.aia.org,accessedDecember142010.

Cohen,L.(1996).Fromtowncentertoshoppingcenter:thereconfigurationofcommunitymarketplaces in

postwarAmerica,TheAmericanhistoricalreview,vol.101,no.4,pp.10501081

Fishman,R.(1987).BourgeoisUtopias:theriseandfallofsuburbia.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Garreau,J.(1991).Edgecity:lifeonthenewfrontier.NewYork:Doubleday.

6Similarchangesalsocharacterizetraditionalorganicallygrowncities,suchasLondon,wherelargescaleretaildevelopmenttakes

placeatmajorintersectionsofmotorwayswithorbitalroads.ButwhileinDetroitandAmericancitiesthelargescaleshoppingmalls

havebeendetrimentaltothelocalscaleurbancenters,inLondonthetwokindsofretaildevelopmentcoexist.


11/26



8060:11

Hardwick,M.J.(2004).MallMaker:VictorGruen,ArchitectofanAmericanDream.Philadelphia:University

ofPennsylvaniaPress.

Hillier,B.,Hanson, J. (1984).TheSocialLogicofSpace.Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Hillier,B.

(2000),

Centrality

as

aProcess:

accounting

for

attraction

inequalities

in

deformed

grids.

Urban

DesignInternational,34:107127

Hillier,B.,Iida,S.(2005).NetworkandPsychologicalEffectsinUrbanMovement,LectureNotesinComputer

Science,Volume3693/2005,pp.475490.

Hillier,B.,Vaughan,L.(2007),TheCityasOneThing.Progress inPlanning,67(3):205230.Aspecialissues

onspacesyntaxresearchonspaceasanaspectofsocialsegregation.

Hillier,B.,(2009).SpatialSustainabilityinCities,OrganicPatternsandSustainableForms,Koch,D.,Marcus,

L.Steen,J,(eds),Proceedingsofthe7th

InternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium,Stockholm.

Jacobs,J.

(1961).

The

Death

and

Life

of

Great

American

Cities.

New

York:

Random

House.

Frobom, A. H. (1998). Trolley Cars and Concentration Reflections on the Demolition of Hudsons,

MichiganTransitMuseumNewsLetter.www.atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/60222.html

Longstreth,R.W. (1997).CityCenter toRegionalMall:architecture, theautomobile,and retailing in Los

Angeles,19201950.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Okrent,D.(2009).Detroit:TheDeathandPossibleLifeofaGreatCity.TIME,Thursday,September24.

www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1925796,00.html

Poremba,D.L.(2003).Detroit:AMotorCityHistory.Charleston,S.C.:ArcadiaPublishing

Ryan,B.D.(2008),TheRestructuringofDetroit:cityblockformchangeinashrinkingcity,19002000,Urban

DesignInternational,00,113

Sugrue,T.M.(2005).TheOriginsoftheUrbanCrisis:Raceand Inequality inPostwarDetroit,Princeton,NJ:

PrincetonPress.

Turner,A.,Doxa,M.,OSullivan,P.,Penn,A.,(2001),FromIsoviststoVisibilityGraphs:AMethodologyfor

theAnalysisofArchitecturalSpace,EnvironmentandPlanningB,28(1).

Wall,A.(2005).VictorGruen:fromurbanshoptonewcity.Barcelona:Actar.


12/26



8060:12

Figure1

Figure2


13/26



8060:13

Figure3

Figure4


14/26



8060:14

Figure5

Figure6


15/26



8060:15

Figure7


16/26



8060:16

Figure8


17/26



8060:17

Figure9


18/26



8060:18

Figure10

Figure11


19/26



8060:19

Figure12


20/26



8060:20

Figure13


21/26



8060:21

Figure14


22/26



8060:22

Figure15

Figure16


23/26



8060:23

Figure17


24/26



8060:24

Figure18


25/26



8060:25

Figure19


26/26



Figure20

the fall of the public realm-detroit

Documents