Fascinating article as usual! Its great to read of Detroit's continued resilience in the face of such hardship and should be an inspiration to many.
I'm not a professional urban planner or historian by any means but as a native Californian who has spent time around the Golden state and who is deeply familiar with it's uneque history (as I have long studied it) I have an idea LA took a very different path after it's initial crises narrative set in durring the 1990’s. Here's my take. For one thing, simply the difference in timing itself (early 1990’s vs late 60's early 70's) of the two city's initial crises periods is an important difference. But aside from timing, I suspect that the reasons that Los Angeles (as apposed to Detroit) didn't continue to decline (although it has declined some recently since the Pandemic though it's too early to tell if this will continue), as well as that LA's public media lnarrative began improving after the mid 1990’s, is largely attributable to 3 main factors:
1) One is that the most important industry (Hollywood, and entertainment more broadly) never really left the LA unlike auto manufacturing and Detroit.
2)the hilly topography of Los Angeles as well as less uniformity of housing stock and better distinguished neighborhoods (which you have in the past described the lack of as one important factor in Detroit's decline) led to a much greater tendency towards preservation of upscale enclaves within LA over time even durring periods when the city as a whole was rapidly hesding downhill.
3) a basic cultural commitment by a certain portion of well off California residents (unlike in Michigan) to urban living as well as to visiting by suburbanites as one crucial part (though only one part) of California's basic appeal, and in turn to it's major cities. This was true to an extent in not only California but the West Coast as a whole (and I suspect cities like NYC or Boston as well) even durring the period of widespread urban decline that occured in California from the 1960’s into the 1990’s. The historic mass white middle class (and a portion of the wealthy) did largely leave Los Angeles from the 1970's through the early 2000's for the suburbs and beyond (many left California altogather) but others with resources (in part) took their place to some extent throughout that period, so there wasn't just a vacuum left behind by their departure.
And I think that 3rd reason is especially crucial, for ultimately, the large west coast counterculture and subsequent bohemian waves (even before urban professional living became such a big thing) as well as the larger immigrant population on the west coast meant that there was always a large, reasonably well educated and/or well off population commited to California's historic coastal cities (and to the city of Sacramento). This was true in a way that just was not the case in much of the Midwest (and in some parts of the Northeast and and Deep South as well) for a long time untill fairly recently. Indeed, the lack of a similer strong urban cultural commitment or narrative can be seen in the terrible poverty and decay in some inland California cities such as San Bernardino, Stockton, Fresno, etc. or even some of Los Angeles own older blue collar suburbs for that matter.
My wife and I spent last Labor Day weekend in Detroit as tourists. I hadn't been since the early 1990s -- downtown has been utterly transformed since then. We had a fantastic time. We didn't know about the annual jazz festival; we had other plans. But the jazz fest only made the time we spent there better. We'd go back.
I think your statement on the importance of narratives is absolutely correct and something that is underappreciated by many urbanists as well as society in general. I also agree that they are important in not just shaping understanding of cities, countries, or even individual people, but in playing a significant role in the trajectory of those places.
One of the best articles I found on the importance and role of narratives was written by William Cronon – a MacArthur “genius-award” winning environmental historian who retired several years ago from UW-Madison: https://www.williamcronon.net/writing/cronon_place_for_stories_1991.pdf This article was recognized in 1993 by the Organization of American Historians as the most innovative article published in a history journal during the preceding two years. He is also the author of one of the best histories for the City of Chicago (Nature’s Metropolis). (https://patricktreardon.com/chicago-history-the-ten-best-books-about-chicago-and-a-clunker/)
Some key components of a good narrative include: a) it should be true and based on facts, b) it should be broad in the factors and perspectives it considers and incorporates, c) it should promote greater understanding and insights, d) it should inspire positive action.
One of my frustrations is that most if not all of the narratives regarding the Midwest and its major cities – appear to be severely flawed. They are based on misleading or outdated data, don’t provide any real understanding or insight, and don’t inspire positive action. In my opinion, the “rust belt era” is over but the decades old “rust belt” narratives that shape perceptions nationally remain.
One of the attractions for me to your blog is your interest and efforts in trying to shape better narratives for the Midwestern cities.
Thanks so much for your great response! Yes, narratives play a huge role in the growth trajectory of cities. When it comes to cities, most people seem to think of narratives as self-evident, self-perpetuating truths about a place. Not true. A narrative is a set of points that are accepted as fact about a place. If the narrative has its basis in truth, it accomplishes its goal, positively or negatively. If it's not based on truth, it's either a mesofact (https://www.governing.com/community/how-mesofacts-and-their-perception-can-make-or-break-a-city.html) or a fact that was once true but has morphed over time, yet still accepted as true, or it's just plain disinformation. Midwestern cities are particularly susceptible to the mesofact treatment, and that's why I feel a newsletter like this is necessary.
Also, I have a copy and have read William Cronin's Nature's Metropolis. I'd say it's not only one of the best books about Chicago, I'd say it's one of the best city history books, ever. A fantastic read.
Fascinating article as usual! Its great to read of Detroit's continued resilience in the face of such hardship and should be an inspiration to many.
I'm not a professional urban planner or historian by any means but as a native Californian who has spent time around the Golden state and who is deeply familiar with it's uneque history (as I have long studied it) I have an idea LA took a very different path after it's initial crises narrative set in durring the 1990’s. Here's my take. For one thing, simply the difference in timing itself (early 1990’s vs late 60's early 70's) of the two city's initial crises periods is an important difference. But aside from timing, I suspect that the reasons that Los Angeles (as apposed to Detroit) didn't continue to decline (although it has declined some recently since the Pandemic though it's too early to tell if this will continue), as well as that LA's public media lnarrative began improving after the mid 1990’s, is largely attributable to 3 main factors:
1) One is that the most important industry (Hollywood, and entertainment more broadly) never really left the LA unlike auto manufacturing and Detroit.
2)the hilly topography of Los Angeles as well as less uniformity of housing stock and better distinguished neighborhoods (which you have in the past described the lack of as one important factor in Detroit's decline) led to a much greater tendency towards preservation of upscale enclaves within LA over time even durring periods when the city as a whole was rapidly hesding downhill.
3) a basic cultural commitment by a certain portion of well off California residents (unlike in Michigan) to urban living as well as to visiting by suburbanites as one crucial part (though only one part) of California's basic appeal, and in turn to it's major cities. This was true to an extent in not only California but the West Coast as a whole (and I suspect cities like NYC or Boston as well) even durring the period of widespread urban decline that occured in California from the 1960’s into the 1990’s. The historic mass white middle class (and a portion of the wealthy) did largely leave Los Angeles from the 1970's through the early 2000's for the suburbs and beyond (many left California altogather) but others with resources (in part) took their place to some extent throughout that period, so there wasn't just a vacuum left behind by their departure.
And I think that 3rd reason is especially crucial, for ultimately, the large west coast counterculture and subsequent bohemian waves (even before urban professional living became such a big thing) as well as the larger immigrant population on the west coast meant that there was always a large, reasonably well educated and/or well off population commited to California's historic coastal cities (and to the city of Sacramento). This was true in a way that just was not the case in much of the Midwest (and in some parts of the Northeast and and Deep South as well) for a long time untill fairly recently. Indeed, the lack of a similer strong urban cultural commitment or narrative can be seen in the terrible poverty and decay in some inland California cities such as San Bernardino, Stockton, Fresno, etc. or even some of Los Angeles own older blue collar suburbs for that matter.
My wife and I spent last Labor Day weekend in Detroit as tourists. I hadn't been since the early 1990s -- downtown has been utterly transformed since then. We had a fantastic time. We didn't know about the annual jazz festival; we had other plans. But the jazz fest only made the time we spent there better. We'd go back.
I think your statement on the importance of narratives is absolutely correct and something that is underappreciated by many urbanists as well as society in general. I also agree that they are important in not just shaping understanding of cities, countries, or even individual people, but in playing a significant role in the trajectory of those places.
One of the best articles I found on the importance and role of narratives was written by William Cronon – a MacArthur “genius-award” winning environmental historian who retired several years ago from UW-Madison: https://www.williamcronon.net/writing/cronon_place_for_stories_1991.pdf This article was recognized in 1993 by the Organization of American Historians as the most innovative article published in a history journal during the preceding two years. He is also the author of one of the best histories for the City of Chicago (Nature’s Metropolis). (https://patricktreardon.com/chicago-history-the-ten-best-books-about-chicago-and-a-clunker/)
Some key components of a good narrative include: a) it should be true and based on facts, b) it should be broad in the factors and perspectives it considers and incorporates, c) it should promote greater understanding and insights, d) it should inspire positive action.
One of my frustrations is that most if not all of the narratives regarding the Midwest and its major cities – appear to be severely flawed. They are based on misleading or outdated data, don’t provide any real understanding or insight, and don’t inspire positive action. In my opinion, the “rust belt era” is over but the decades old “rust belt” narratives that shape perceptions nationally remain.
One of the attractions for me to your blog is your interest and efforts in trying to shape better narratives for the Midwestern cities.
Thanks so much for your great response! Yes, narratives play a huge role in the growth trajectory of cities. When it comes to cities, most people seem to think of narratives as self-evident, self-perpetuating truths about a place. Not true. A narrative is a set of points that are accepted as fact about a place. If the narrative has its basis in truth, it accomplishes its goal, positively or negatively. If it's not based on truth, it's either a mesofact (https://www.governing.com/community/how-mesofacts-and-their-perception-can-make-or-break-a-city.html) or a fact that was once true but has morphed over time, yet still accepted as true, or it's just plain disinformation. Midwestern cities are particularly susceptible to the mesofact treatment, and that's why I feel a newsletter like this is necessary.
Also, I have a copy and have read William Cronin's Nature's Metropolis. I'd say it's not only one of the best books about Chicago, I'd say it's one of the best city history books, ever. A fantastic read.