>> Detroit fell out of the top ten sometime around 1970, IIRC, and is presently sitting at 18.
Do you realize that when you continually compare “the Detroit that was” with “the Detroit that is”, you’re weakening your own argument? You have a tendency to do that.
>> If Cleveland, or for that matter, Sacramento, Birmingham or Memphis, goes into a death spiral first, I would say that the article’s thesis is off.
Wait... we’re talking not merely “cities that go bankrupt” but rather “cities that go bankrupt that are in Detroit’s class”. None of the cities you mention have the “iconic American city” status of Detroit. Hey, Stockton went bankrupt... no one compared Stockton with Detroit. At least not in the states, eh? By the way, whether or not the “heart of rock ‘n roll is in Cleveland”... Cleveland is NOT a city in the same class as Detroit and Chicago.
Detroit is in decline. Chicago is in decline. It does not follow that Chicago is the next Detroit. I am not arguing against Chicago being in decline—I am arguing that there are many places in decline, and so attaching NEXT to a prediction requires that one make a solid case.
You bring up the idea of a city that goes bankrupt in Detroit’s class, and by Detroit’s class you mean a top-drawer city—yes, Detroit was that —in 1950, when it peaked at number five among U.S. cities by population. You’re right—Cleveland was in the same class—it was number 7. Detroit has dropped 13 spots, Cleveland 41. Clearly, Detroit has had a much rougher six decades (Sarcasm on).
Cleveland WAS a city in the same class as Detroit, unless two spots make such a huge difference—in which case the author of the article shouldn’t be talking about top 10 cities but top five cities.
That said, I do not think that by next Detroit the author meant next really, really iconic city to file for bankruptcy but rather next city to hit an economic state which is apocalyptic and causes an effective collapse of society. Cleveland and St. Louis (which was at #8 in 1950 and has since dropped an even 50 spots) have, like Detroit, lost well over half of their population.
In fairness, I should note that my digging around has also unearthed the fact that Detroit was number 10 in population in the 2000 census, so the slide over the last 12 years has been notable—but the glory days are long gone. Cleveland and St. Louis once were glorious as well, they have just had a longer slide.
There is so much vacant land in Detroit that there is talk of establishing farms in the city—I don’t see Chicago headed that way anytime soon—Cleveland maybe, Chicago, no.
BTW—
When it comes to iconic American cities, I do have a certain perspective. While I do sport a Canadian flag on my home page, I grew up in the states, have seen 45 of the lower 48, and have lived in a variety of regions. Stockton isn’t so big a deal, not because it is Stockton, but because Sacramento and the Bay Area are the nexus (nexi) of the area economically etc. It is essentially a cultural suburb or exburb.
In addition, Stockton’s overall economic plunge wasn’t of Detroit’s magnitude.
Yes, Detroit once, briefly, aspired to be the Paris of the West, and had a decent run from 1941-1968. However, fundamental to the steep decline of Detroit was a very badly handled racial question, and that happened back in the 1960’s. Chicago is still a world class city. Detroit, as of 1970, couldn’t legitimately aspire to that status.
In some ways, in terms of being a world-class contender, it is worth noting that the archbishop of Detroit was named a cardinal back in 1946 (and at that time there were less than half the number of cardinals that there are presently). The present archbishop was not a Cardinal, and the last time one was elevated was 1994 (after his predecessor was put in charge of Vatican finances, which, ironically, he did a very good job of cleaning up).
It was on the cusp of world class in 1946, and had residual glory that clung around for a while.
If you are talking cities that have aspired to be world class at some time in the nations history, but are no longer, I would include Boston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and St. Louis (which peaked at number 4 in the 1870’s, and is now back to its 1870 size).
Houston is probably the closest contemporary analogy to Detroit in its hay day. An important regional city, which may or may not be something more in the future. World-wide—well, New York is 18th population wise, and LA 52nd. There are reasons (including history) for moving these and Chicago higher than their population warrants, but Houston has a long way to go.