Detroit has been called the birthplace of techno. Beginning in the early 1980s – when the city was well in decline – the Detroit techno sound started to emerge, thanks to musicians such as Juan Atkins, Derrick May, and Kevin Saunderson.
Chicago had house music. And Detroit had techno music – among, of course, many other musical genres. But what I find fascinating about Detroit techno, in particular, was how it really reflected the ethos of post-industrial Detroit. It was high-tech. It was about machines. And it was obsessed with the future.
Below is a clip from a 1996 French documentary called Universal Techno. Even if you’re not into electronic music, I think you should at least watch the segment starting at 1:40. I love how Derrick May talks about Detroit, and what should be this balance between the past and the future. It really reflects my own views on city building.
Detroit has been called the birthplace of techno. Beginning in the early 1980s – when the city was well in decline – the Detroit techno sound started to emerge, thanks to musicians such as Juan Atkins, Derrick May, and Kevin Saunderson.
Chicago had house music. And Detroit had techno music – among, of course, many other musical genres. But what I find fascinating about Detroit techno, in particular, was how it really reflected the ethos of post-industrial Detroit. It was high-tech. It was about machines. And it was obsessed with the future.
Below is a clip from a 1996 French documentary called Universal Techno. Even if you’re not into electronic music, I think you should at least watch the segment starting at 1:40. I love how Derrick May talks about Detroit, and what should be this balance between the past and the future. It really reflects my own views on city building.
The Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University recently published the following chart on their blog:
It’s a look at population growth across a few North American cities, broken down according to natural increases, net internal migration from other parts of the respective country, and net immigration from outside of the respective country.
When you sum up the pluses and minuses shown above, you get to population growth numbers that look like
The Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University recently published the following chart on their blog:
It’s a look at population growth across a few North American cities, broken down according to natural increases, net internal migration from other parts of the respective country, and net immigration from outside of the respective country.
When you sum up the pluses and minuses shown above, you get to population growth numbers that look like
Parag Khanna recently published an article in the New York Times calling for a new map for America.
Here’s why:
“The problem is that while the economic reality goes one way, the 50-state model means that federal and state resources are concentrated in a state capital — often a small, isolated city itself — and allocated with little sense of the larger whole. Not only does this keep back our largest cities, but smaller American cities are increasingly cut off from the national agenda, destined to become low-cost immigrant and retirement colonies, or simply to be abandoned.”
This is something that I’ve been writing about for awhile on this blog. As we continue to transition to an urban-based information economy, it strikes me that, here in North America, we’re going to need to refocus our governance structures around cities. We’re going to need to place our metropolitan regions at the fore if we want to continue competing with rising powers like China – which, by the way, seem to be adopting a megacity model.
Here’s another snippet from the article:
“While Detroit’s population has fallen below a million, the Detroit-Windsor region is the largest United States-Canada cross-border area, with nearly six million people (and one of the largest border populations in the world).
Detroit’s destiny seems almost obvious if we are brave enough to build it: a midpoint of the Chicago-Toronto corridor in an emerging North American Union.”
I’ve argued for this before and I continue to believe that it makes a lot of sense.
Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta are monsters in terms of population growth. They’re obviously smaller than New York and Los Angeles, and so on a percentage basis they are really adding a lot of people. Much of this has to do with the ease in which housing can be added in those cities and their relative affordability.
Toronto is competitive with New York and Los Angeles in terms of an absolute number, but again our base is smaller so on a percentage basis we are growing faster. The big story with Toronto is our dependence on immigration to grow.
The one city on this list that might surprise some of you is Chicago. Toronto and Chicago share many similarities and are often compared. But when you look at how the Chicago metropolitan area is shedding people, you see that, at least in this regard, it’s in structural decline.
Parag Khanna recently published an article in the New York Times calling for a new map for America.
Here’s why:
“The problem is that while the economic reality goes one way, the 50-state model means that federal and state resources are concentrated in a state capital — often a small, isolated city itself — and allocated with little sense of the larger whole. Not only does this keep back our largest cities, but smaller American cities are increasingly cut off from the national agenda, destined to become low-cost immigrant and retirement colonies, or simply to be abandoned.”
This is something that I’ve been writing about for awhile on this blog. As we continue to transition to an urban-based information economy, it strikes me that, here in North America, we’re going to need to refocus our governance structures around cities. We’re going to need to place our metropolitan regions at the fore if we want to continue competing with rising powers like China – which, by the way, seem to be adopting a megacity model.
Here’s another snippet from the article:
“While Detroit’s population has fallen below a million, the Detroit-Windsor region is the largest United States-Canada cross-border area, with nearly six million people (and one of the largest border populations in the world).
Detroit’s destiny seems almost obvious if we are brave enough to build it: a midpoint of the Chicago-Toronto corridor in an emerging North American Union.”
I’ve argued for this before and I continue to believe that it makes a lot of sense.
Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta are monsters in terms of population growth. They’re obviously smaller than New York and Los Angeles, and so on a percentage basis they are really adding a lot of people. Much of this has to do with the ease in which housing can be added in those cities and their relative affordability.
Toronto is competitive with New York and Los Angeles in terms of an absolute number, but again our base is smaller so on a percentage basis we are growing faster. The big story with Toronto is our dependence on immigration to grow.
The one city on this list that might surprise some of you is Chicago. Toronto and Chicago share many similarities and are often compared. But when you look at how the Chicago metropolitan area is shedding people, you see that, at least in this regard, it’s in structural decline.
