i’m not quoting anything from this crap article, and i’ll tell you why.
there’s a whole genre of writing being done around “resurrecting” detroit, bringing it back from the grave, etc.
and one of the *conventions* (or: ways you can recognize the genre) of this type of writing is that the force that is “resurrecting” detroit is NEVER born and raised detroiters. it’s ALWAYS people who have moved to the city after they decided to believe in a dying dream.
or—it’s phil cooley. i’m not going to go too much into him, but i am going to say that if any article you read about the ‘resurrection’ of detroit mentions cooley as an expert? that article should be immediately suspect to you. just like if an article about detroit highlights “decaying houses.”
have you read any articles about what born and raised detroiters are doing to transform their neighborhoods? why do you think articles about those who are transforming their communities are not in high demand?
there is a big difference between “saving” detroit—and transforming it. the former implies that folks didn’t see the value of it, threw it away, and some hero grabbed out of the garbage bin and reworked it into shiny gold.
the later recognizes that there are *very* specific reasons that detroit is the way it is. and those reasons are strongly related to post-industrialism, white supremacy, capitalism, etc. people who are transforming detroit aren’t “saving” it—they are fighting a massive fight against injustice, violence, and inequality.
why do you think that none of these “bringing it back from the grave” articles mention key words like “post-industrial” or “globalization” or “white supremacy”?
what is the ultimate function of “hope porn” articles? are they there to serve the needs of the communities?
why should anybody take them seriously if they’re not?