ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The data used In this study were collected through the cooperation of several organizations. I am particularly Indebted to the staff of the Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation In Detroit and Pontiac for providing me with free access to their files. I would also like to thank the members of the Detroit Real Estate Board and the staff of the Burton Historical Collection of the Detroit Public Library for their help. I would like to thank John Hollingsworth of Indiana University for constructing the tables, figures, and maps used in this project and Sharron Brown for editing and typing the manuscript. I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Sam Bass Warner, Jr., Peter Gosling, and especially Ann Larimore and John Nystuen, the committee chairman, for their encouragement and guidance during the last four years. Finally, I would I Ike to thank my wife, Barbara, whose Inexhaustible patience, understanding, and support allowed me to complete this project.

-11­ TABLE OF CONTENTS !:!g,e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • i I LIST OF TABLES. viii LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF MAPS ••• ...... xl

I. INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••• 1.1 Initial Considerations ••••• 1.2 The Upper Class as Residential Trend Setters • • • • • • I 1.3 The Research Question • 3 1.4 Theoretical Orlntatlon 4 1.5 Purpose • • • • • • • 5 1.• 6 Procedu.re • • • • • • 5 1.7 References 6

II. THE CHANGING LOCATION OF PREFERRED UPPER CLASS RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN DETROIT 8 2.1 Introduction ••••• • ••••• 8 2.2 Operational Definitions •• 8 2.2.1 Study Period •••••• 8 2.2.2 "Detroit" ••••• 8 2.2.3 "Upper Class" •••• 13 2.2.4 nUpper Class Residential Areas" ••••••••• 14 2.2.5 npreferred Upper Class Res I dent I a I Areas" 18 2.3 Observations ••••• 18 2.3.1 Introduction . .;; 18 2.3.2 Outward Movement 19 2.3.3 Visual Reconnalsance 28 2 • 4 Sumrna ry • • • 29 2.5 References • • • • • • • 35

III. A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF RESIDENTIAL AREA LOCATION ••••••• 36 3.1 Introductory Remarks ••••• 36 3.2 A Theoretical Framework •••• 36 3.2.1 The Kaiser-Weiss Formulation 36 3.2.2 Summary ••••• 37

-111­ 3.2.3 Application of the Theoretical Framework to the Upper Class 38 3.3 The Consumer Submodel ••••• 39 3.3.1 "Intendedly Rational" Behavior • • • • • 39 3.3.2 "Place Utility" •••• 40 3.3.3 "Action Space" •••• 40 3.3.4 Summary •••••••• 41 3.3.5 The Submodel. Stated Verbally 41 3.4 The Individual Decision to Seek a New Residential Location ••••••••••• 42 3.4.1 The Voluntary Decision ••••• 42 3.4.2 Changing Expectations and the Dwelling Unit •••••• 42 3.4.3 Neighborhood Complaints 49 3.5 The Search within an Action Space ••••• 50 3.5.1 Travel Preferences •• 50 3.5.2 Soclo-Economic Character! sti cs 51 3.5.3 Cognitive Images. 52 3.5.4 The Search Space • 52 3.5.5 Information Sources In the Search Space • • • • • 52 3.6 The Evaluation of Alternatives. 54 3.6.1 Levels of Evaluation •••• 54 3.6.2 The Initial Evaluation Level 57 3.6.3 The Intermediate Evaluation Leve 1 •••••••••••• 59 3.6.3.1 Space requirements •••• 59 3.6.3.2 Housing unit requirements 59 3.6.3.3 Lot size •••••• 60 3.6.3.4 Neighborhood housing quality •••••• 61 3.6.3.5 Accesslbi lity 61 3.6.3.6 Physical amenities. 62 3.6.4 The Final Evaluation Level 62 3.7 The Matching Procedure: The Consumer Submodel 63 3.7.1 Introductory Remarks. 63 3.7.2 The Producer Submodel 63 3.7.2.1 Contextual Factors 65 3.7.2.2 Decision Agent Characteristics •• 65 3.7.2.3 Site Characteristics. 67 3.7.2.4 Summary 67 -iv­ 3.8 The Producer Submodel: An Empirical Examination. 67 3.8. I The Decl s ion to Cons I der Land for Purchase • • • • • 69 3.8.1.1 The marketing approach 69 3.8.1.2 The contact approach 69 3.8.2 The Land Purchase Decision 70 3.8.2.1 The economic feasibility test •••• • • • • • 70 3.8.2.1.1 Land engineering study • • • • • • • • 70 3.8.2. I.2 Marketab I 11 ty study • 70 3.8.3 Decision to Develop Land 71 3.9 The Application of the Existing Literature to a Behavioral Explana­ tion of the Changing Location of Preferred Upper Class Residential Areas • • • • • • • • • • • • 72 3.9. I Introductory Remarks 72 3.9.2 Concrete Contributions 72 3.9.3 The Consumer Submodel • 75 3.9.3.1 The decision to seek a new residence. • • • • • 75 3.9.3.2 The search for potential residential alternatives within an action space • • • • • • •• 76 3.9.3.3 The evaluation and elimin­ ation of potential residen­ tial alternatives unti I a decision is made 77 3.9.4 Summary. • • • • • • • • • • 81 3. 10 References. • • • • • • • • • 82 IV. UPPER CLASS RES IDENT IAL PREFERENCES, OVER TIME •••••••••• 93 4. I Introductory Remarks 93 4.2 Some Basic Considerations. 93 4.2.1 Upper Class Residential Preferences • • • 93 4.2.2 Units of Analysis •••• 94 4.2.2.1 Sectors ••••••• 95 4.2.2.2 Upper class subdivisions 95 4.3 Initial Evaluation Level Preferences • • • • • • • • • • • 103 4.3. I Access to r~jor Transportation Routes ••••• • • • • • • • 103 4.3.1.1 Introduction 103 4.3.1.2 The hypothesis ••••• 103

-v­ Page

4.3.1.3 Findings and analysis. 103 4.3.1.4 Information taken from subdivision brochures. 109 4.3.2 Area Desi rability • • • • • • 110 4.3.2.1 The hypothesis • • • • • • 110 4.3.2.2 Operational definition: desl rable sector 110 4.3.2.3 Operational definition: first families • • • • • 110 4.3.2.4 Findings and analysis. • III 4.3.2.5 Information taken from subdivision brochures. • 115 4.4 Intermediate Evaluation Level Preference •• • • • • • • • • • I I 7 4.4.1 Exclusive Golf and Country Clubs. • • • • • • • • • • 117 4.4.1.1 Introduction • • • • • • • • • • •• 117 4.4.1.2 The hypothesis 117 4.4.1.3 Operational definitions 119 4.4.1.4 Findings and analysis. 119 4.4.1.5 Area dissatisfaction corol­ lary: exclusive recreation f ac I I I ties • • • I 23 4.4.2 Natural Amenities. • • • • 123 4.4.2.1 Introduction •••••• 123 4.4.2.2 The hypothesis 124 4.4.2.3 Operational definitions. 124 4.4.2.4 Findings and analysis. 124 4.4.3 Exclusiveness Hypothesis 126 4.4.3. I Lot size •• • • • • • 127 4.4.3.1.1 The hypothesis 127 4.4.3.1.2 Operational definitions. 127 4.4.3.1.3 Findings and analysis. 127 4.4.3.1.4 Lot size as an exclu­ siveness mechanism 129 4.4.3.1.5 A lot size exclusive­ ness hypothesis. • • 129 4.4.3.1.6 Findings and analysis. 129 4.4.3.2 Neighborhood quality 132 4.4.3.2.1 The hypothesis 132 4.4.3.2.2 Operational definitions. 132 4.4.3.2.3 Findings and analysis. • 133 4.4.3.3 The exclusion of objectlon­ ab Ie peop 1e • • • • • • • • • 136 4.4.3.3.1 Introduction • • • • • • 136 4.4.3.3.2 Historical develop~nt of the race restrictive covenant notion. • • • • 136

-vl­ Page

4.4.3.3.3 The hypothesis ••••••• 138 4.4.3.3.4 Operational definitions 140 4.4.3.3.5 Findings and analysis 140 4.4.3.3.6 The gross Grosse Pointe point system ••••••• 140 4.4.3.3.7 Area dissatisfaction corollary: tlobjection­ able" people. 143 4.4.4 Summary 145 4.5 References 147

V. CONCLUSIONS •• 152 5.1 The Changing Location of Preferred Upper Class Residential Areas 152 5.2 Contributions to the Understanding or Residential Area Location ••• 155 5.2.1 Revealed Residential Prefer­ ences •• • • • • • • • 155 5.2.2 Suggestions for Further Research • • • • 155 5.2.2.1 The decision to seek a new resl dence 155 5.2.2.2 The action space •• 156 5.2.2.3 Place uti Iity 157 5.2.2.4 The producer model • 157 5.3 Contributions to the Understanding of Future Residential Growth 157

BIBLIOGRAPHY ••••••• 159 fjooks • • • • • • • • • • • 159 Articles and Periodicals 161 Pub I I c Cbcuments 165 ~t,ap s • • • • • 165 Directories •••••• 165 Unpubl ished rvlaterials • 166 Other Sources • • • • 166

-vi i­ LIST OF TABLES Table

United states: Population Change in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. by Rack: 1900-1960 ••• 10

2 United States: Privately Owned Passenger Car Registrations 1900-1965 ••••••••••• II

3 Distribution of Upper Class Resi­ dences. within Residential Areas. 27

4 Classification of Recent ~bvers 43

5 The Mobil Ity Inclinations of Different Household Types 47

6 Complaints About Dwelling Unit Space and Mobil ity Incl inations 48

7 Assessment Ratings of Information Sources •••••••• 55

8 Upper Class Subdivisions. 99

9 Old Upper Class Subdivisions. 101

10 Fi rst Famll ies of Detroit 1850-1899 112

II First Faml lies of Detroit 1900-1950 113

12 Exclusive r~lf and Country Clubs •• 120

13 Distance between Upper Class Sub­ divisions and Existing Exclusive Golf and Country Clubs. 122

14 Lot Size •••••••• 128 15 Ranking of Upper Class Residential Areas which Developed between 1920­ 1970. In Terms of Preferability and Average Lot Size • • • • • • •• 130

-vi i i­ Table 16 The Presence of Sui Iding Restric­ tions Guaranteeing Neighborhood Quality in Upper Class Subdivi­ sions, For Detroit ••••••• 134

17 Detroit Standard ~~tropol Itan Statistical Area: Population Change, by Rack: 1900-1960 139

18 The Presence of Race Restrictive Covenants in Upper Class Subdivi­ sions, For Detroit •••••••• 141

-Ix­ LI ST OF FIGURES

United States: New Private Housing Units Authorized in Permit Issuing Places: Annually 1910-1965 •••• 9

2 Typical Page Taken from The Social Secretary of Detroit and-m-c~ 1968 ..:-. • • • .-.-. • • 15

3 A Downtown Subdivision (1886) • 30

4 An Uptown Subdivision (1892) 31

5 A Palmer Woods Subdivision (1915) •• 32

6 A Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills Subdivision (1923) ••••• 33

7 The Spatial Context In Which Residential Decisions are Made 53

8 The Residential Land Development Process: Sequence of States and Key Decisions ••••••• 64

9 Elements In the Residential Develop­ ment Decision Process •••••• 66

10 The Residential Land Development Process: Sequence of States, Key Decisions, and Decision Factors. 68 II Map of Subldlvlslon Indicating Proximity of Prominent Detrolters, Taken from Brochure tor Radnor Park, Grosse Pointe Farms, 1937 • • • • • • •• 118 12 Typical Wording of a Race Restrictive Covenant, Contained In Building Restrictions for Upper Class Sub­ divisions, In Detroit ••• 142

13 The Reference Report System Form 144 -x­ LIST OF MAPS

Detroit standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1960 12

2 Upper Class Residences. 1925 16

3 Upper Class Residences. 1965 17

4 Upper Class Residential Areas in Detroit S.M.S.A. 20 5 Upper Class Residential Areas. 21

6 Distribution of Upper Class: 1925 22

7 Distribution of Upper Class: 1936 23 8 Distribution of Upper Class: 1945 24

9 Distribution of Upper Class: 1955 25 10 Distribution of Upper Class: 1965 26 Sectors of Detroit ••• 96 "12 Upper Class Subdivisions 100 13 Old Upper Class Subdivisions 102 14 Major Transportation Routes. 1901 104

15 Major Transportation Ibutes. 1925 • 105 16 Major Transportation Routes. 1970 • 106

17 Major Transportation Routes. 1863 •• 108

18 First Families of Detroit. 1850-1899 114 19 First Families of Detroit. 1900-1950 116

20 Exclusive Golf and Country Clubs 121 -xi­ CHAPTER I

I NTRODUCT ION

1.1 Initial Considerations I have always been fascinated by the observable spatial regulari­ ties which seem to exist among upper class residential areas in northern cities. These areas always appear to be located adjacent to major traffic arteries originating at the center of the city, either on roiling wooded topography, or by rivers and lakes, near "exclusive" country cI ubs, and c lose to the mans! ons of the "fl rst cabl n" fam! lies. This fascination lead to my Initial consideration of upper class residential areas as a focus for geographical study.

g The ~ ~!!! Res! dentlal --rrend Setters My early reading in urban upper class residential literature revealed the existence of an Interesting paradox. By their own definition, the urban upper class make up a small though exclusive proportion of the urban population. It is therefore Interesting to note the number and significance of studies which have focused on the urban upper class. For example, Hoyt's sector theory Is based on an Inductive consideration of "high rent" areas In American cltles. l An examination of the speclJlc Illustrative examples used by Hoyt revealed that "high rent" areas and upper class areas are synonymous. Flrey, In his study to demonstrate the role played by what he referred to as "sentiment and symbolism" In urban land use, made use of upper class residential areas In Boston to Illustrate his argument.2 Johnston, In the first of his essays dealing wlth the Internal structure of Melbourne, Australia, focused on the location of "high status residential areas.,,3 He took this direction after a review of the II terature convl nced him that" I n many of the theoretl ca I concepts of city structure, distribution of high status residential areas appears to be the keystone.,,1t Perhaps the social scientist's fascination with upper class residential areas stems from their keystone role In urban development described by Hoyt as follows: "The movement of the high rent area Is In a certain sense the most Important because It tends to pull the growth of the entire city In the same dlrectlon."S While Rodwln contends that Hoyt's notions of urban social structure are over-simplified and therefore that the role played by "high rent areas" In pulling the growth of the entire city Is exaggerated,6

-1­ -2­ there Is little doubt_ at the very least, that the upper class can be considered "residential trend setters."* Three examples_ selected at random_ Illustrate this point. An 1851 handbook on Cincinnati contains a chapter on the city's suburbs In which the author discusses the homes of the wealthy built In areas "unsurpassed for healthful­ ness, removed from the smoke and dust of the city_ enjoying pure air and water.,,7 From this description_ It would appear that the upper class of Cincinnati were participating In the "flight to the suburbs" to escape the Ills of the city at least half a century before such a movement became generally popular. An article appearing In a 1968 copy of Business WeekS discusses the "growing trend" towards the golfing community whlCfiTnvolves expensive houses built around a golf course. Home owners buy a complete social life revolving around the course and country club In which they are given dining and clubhouse privileges. Such a community was developed In 1916 for the upper class of Detroit In Pa Imer Woods. Around 1920 the Van Sweringen Brothers developed Shaker Heights outside Cleveland. 9 Shaker Heights Is generally considered an upper class residential area although the developers did Introduce Into their overal I plan sections of cheaper homes_ kept separate so as not to depress the prices of the more expensive homes. According to Glaab and Brown_ the Van Swerlngen Brothers employed many features of suburban development which eventually were to become standard: abandon­ ment of the traditional gridiron and the substitution of curving and semi-elliptical roads running from main automobile boulevards; strict architectural and decorating requlrements. 1D If one assumes that real estate developers In their development decisions are sensitive to the demands of the housing consumer whom they are attempting to attract_ then this Is another example of the trend setting role played by the urban upper class. In a period of academic history when social scientJsts are con­ cerned with "relevant" research and many of those Interested in cities are focussing their attention on urban Ills_ to examine upper class residential area development simply because It Is Intrinsically Interesting seemed somewhat out of step with the times. However_ In thinking of the upper class as residential trend setters, I was re­ minded of a pertinent statement made by Richard Meier_ then at the University of Michigan. He suggested that to gain Insight into the future behavior patterns of a majority of the American population_

*Th Is ro I e may be cons I dered another man Ifestat Ion of the "tri ck Ie effect" discussed in sociological literature_ whereby "new styles or fashions In consumption goods ••• [are] Introduced by the socio­ economic elite and then passed down." See Lloyd A. Fallers, "A Note of the 'Trickle Effect_'" in Ctass_ Status_ and Power, ed. by Reinhard Bendl x and Seymour Li pset (New York:~Free-Press_ 1966) _ p. 402. -3­ It Is sometimes useful to examine the present behavior of the "trend setters." This statement Implies that an understanding of future general residential development can be gained through an examination of existing upper class residential development. On this basis, upper class residential development could be a relevant research topic in the current sense of the term. Therefore, I decided to focus my attention on the upper class.

1.:1 ~ Research Question The basic question asked In this study may be stated as fol lows: how does one explain the changing location of preferred ~ class r=esfaentt'a-rareas? r'FilS Is a question whlchls both geographlcarry Interesting ~elevant to the understanding of residential development In general. The only geographer to address himself specifically to this question has been R. J. Johnston In his article, "The location of High status Residential Areas."ll In his study, Johnston attempted to explain the changing location of high status r~sldentlal areas In Melbourne, Australia, over time, In terms of a model based mainly on Burgess12 (as modified by SChnore13) with contributions from Hoyt. 14 The Johnston model involved three basic stages: (I) "The original location of the high status area Is close to the city centre on one side of the city only. Its siting is determined by features of the local topography and It may be sur­ rounded by lower status areas." (2) "With the onset of industrial i­ zatlon and its attendant features [rapid population growth, a compartmentalization of the population consequent upon the division of labor, and Intra-urban transportation Innovations] ••• the area makes Its first move, the high status residents migrating from the city centre to a peripheral location within the same sector." (3) "Continued population growth occasions a process of gradual outward movement of the high status areas which retain their position on the urban perl phery. ,,15 in summary, Johnston's mode I exami ned the changing location of high status residential areas In terms of four societal phenomena: environment--Intra-urban topographic differentiation makes some areas more attractive than others; population growth; Intra-urban transportation Innovations; and the compartmentali­ zation of the urban population. Johnston pieced together the history of high status residential area location for the period 1835 to 1962. He found that while the model developed fit the data reasonably well, there were elements of the changing distribution which could not be explained. He concluded that there was a need to incorporate certain relevant human factors into the model. 1S As a human geographer, willing to heed Brookfield's admonition that we not restrl ct the "search for exp lanation I n human geography so as to exclude the varieties of human behavior and social organi­ zatl on, 1117 I wou I d state the shortcoml ngs of Johnston's mode I, whl ch -4­ may be viewed as a summary statement of the ecological, mechanical approach, somewhat more strongly. The spatial distribution of households results from locatlonal decisions made by members of these households. The distribution Is not caused by societal phenomena, but rather by how people perceive and respond to these phenomena. Thus, for example, If there Is a reasonable fit between decentralization and transportation Innovations, It Is not because the latter causes the former, but because a large percentage of urban households have taken advantage of transportation Innovations to move farther from the city center. I am suggesting that rather than simply Introducing "certain relevant human factors" Into an otherwise mechanical model of the changing location of upper class residential areas, a more realistic approach would Involve developing a behavioral explanation of such a distribution. This Is the approach to be pursued In this study.

1.4 Theoretical Orientation A particularly Intriguing theoretical framework for examining residential development, a framework which will underlie the behavioral explanation of the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas to be considered In this study, has been developed at the University of North carolina by Kaiser and Welss. 1S They have established a micro-scale, Interaction and decision-making model In which "the land development pattern of the urban region ••• [Is viewed] as the cumulative result of a complex of decisions and actions by Individuals and groups, each being guided by his own Incentlves."1S In this model, It Is the Interaction between the consumer and producer of housing, and the locatlonal decisions made by them, which lead to the formulation of distinct residential areas In cities at particular locations. The consumer of new housing chooses from among the residential alternatives offered by the producer in terms of the consumer's preferences. The producer attempts to anticipate the preferences of the consumer, to whom he Is oriented, and translate these Into subdivision characteristics. Because consumer preferences are locatlonal* in nature, both consumer and producer make a commitment to location. In terms of the Kaiser-Weiss model, upper class residential areas can be viewed as the spatial outcome of locatlonal decisions made by upper class consumers weighing potential residential alternatives presented to them by real estate producers I n terms of shared preferences.

*That Is to say, Involving site and situational considerations. -5­ In terms of the Kaiser-Weiss model, an understanding of the nature of upper class residential preferences over time is basic to an explanation of the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas over time. The existing micro-scale residential development literature provides only a series of suggestions concerning upper class residential preferences. In this study, hypotheses concerning upper class preferences, over time, based on these suggestions wi II be developed and tested using data from the Detroit metropolitan area.

~ Purpose The purpose of this study may be stated specifically as follows: to contribute to a behavioral, micro-scale explanation of the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas by (I) articulating a theoretical framework that can be used for such an explanation; (2) reviewing the existing empirical micro-scale residential develop­ ment literature, (I) to determine whether elements of this theoretical framework have been verified empirically, and (I i) to determine what contributions the existing literature make to the understanding of upper class residential preferences over time; and (3) developing and testing hypotheses concerning upper class residential preferences. My goal Is to contribute Inputs to a general behavioral model of changing upper class residential area location and to provide some insight Into future general residential development.

1.6 Procedure Chapter II Involves a description of the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas In Detroit. The purpose of the chapter Is (I) to Introduce a series of operational definitions which are basic to the study and the description, and (2) to Introduce the reader to the changes which have taken place In the location of preferred upper class residential areas In one northern city. The purpose of Chapter II I is to determine what contributions the existing literature can make to a behavioral explanation of the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas. The chapter begins with the establishment of a theoretical framework to underlie such an explanation. The formulation Is amplified in Sections 3.3 and 3.7. The existing empirical micro-scale residential development literature is reviewed within the context of the amplified theoretical framework. In Chapter IV a series of hypotheses concerning upper class preferences suggested by the empirical literature reviewed In Chapter II I are developed and tested. Chapter V Involves a series of conclusions. -6­

~ References for Chapter 1

1Homer Hoyt, The structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods In American CTfles (Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, -rn-39). -­

2Walter Firey, Land Use In Central Boston (Cambridge: Harvard University Pre~1958):- --­

3R. J. Johnston, "The Location of High status Residential Areas," Geographiska Annaler, 48 (B)-I (J966), p. 24. 4Ibld., pp. 23-24. 5Hoyt, p. 114. 6L1oyd Rodwin, "The Theory of Residential Growth and Structure," Urban Housing, ed. by Wi Ilram Wheaton, Grace Mi Igram, and Margy Meyerson

7As quoted In Charles N. Glaab, The American City: ~ Cbcumentary History (Homewood, I I Iinols: The Cbrsey Press, Inc., 1963), p. 229. a"Personal Business," Business Week, August 3, 1968, p. 97. 9Charles N. Glaab and A. Theodore Brown, A History of Urban America (New York: The MacMillan Press, 1967), j). 283. --­

10~., p. 283. 11Johnston, pp. 23-35. 12Ernest Burgess, "The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project,ft The f!.!y, ed. by Robert Park and Ernest Burgess (Chicago: Universl~o~icago Press, 1967), pp. 47-62. 13"On the Spatial Structure of Cities in the Two Americas," The Study of Urbanization, ed. by Philip Hauser and Leo Schnore (New York: JOhn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 347-398. 14Hoyt.

15Johnston, p. 26.

16 Ibid., PP• 32 , 34. 17H. C. Brookfield, "Questions on the Human Frontiers of Geography," Economic Geography, 40, 4 (October, 1964), p. 287. -7­ 18For a review of the work being done at North Carolina see Edward Kaiser and Shirley Weiss, "Decision Agent Models of the Residential Development Process: A Review of Recent Research," Traffic Quarterly, 23, 4

19Shlrley Weiss ~~., Residential Developer Decisions: ~ Focused View of the Urban Growth Process, An Urban Studies Research ~ionograpnChapel 'RTiT': Center of Urban and Regional Studies. Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Ca ro I I na. I966), p. I. CHAPTER II

THE CHANGING LOCATION OF PREFERRED UPPER CLASS RES IDENT IAL AREAS I N DETRO I T

2.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter Is to describe the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas In Detroit. Certain basic operational definitions must first be presented. Once a term is operationally defined, it may be assumed that the definition developed Is being used whenever the term appears again.

2.2 Operational Definitions 2.2.1 Study Period This study Is concerned wIth the period between 1920 and 1970. The years selected reflect the span of tIme during which the types of data utilized In this project were available. Even a cursory examination of the history of upper class residential development in American cities reveals that all activity was not confined to the period after 1920. However, the period that is considered in this study represents an Interesting and varied chapter in the story of the growth and location of upper class resIdentIal areas. For example, this era felt the Impact of four distinct periods of building activity separated by the vertical lines on Figure I. Cities during this period experienced a rapid growth of their Negro populations, largely as the result of migration. This growth is reflected in Table I, which compares the percentage of change in the Negro popu­ lation of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas,* by decade, to that of the total population In these areas. Furthermore, In the years following World War I an ever-Increasing number of Americans operated automobiles. This trend is reflected in Table 2. Each of these phenomena Influenced the growth and location of upper class residential areas. 2.2.2 "Detroit" In this study the boundaries of the Detroit Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as they existed for the purposes of the 1960 census, are used to define Detroit (see Map 1).1 Using this definition,

*S.M.S.A.'s: The population of the areas--countles and other administrative areas--included In the 1960 S.M.S.A.'s were traced back through the census to the beginning of the century. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, ~ ~.2f.. Population: l.222.. Selected Area Reports, Standard Metropolitan Statlstlcal~. Final Report P.C.~--IU (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. Ix. -8­ -9­ Figure 1 UNITED STATES: New Private Housing Units Authorized in Permit - Issuing Places: Annually 1910 - 1965

13

12

(i) 11 "'Cc:: co (I') 10 :::s 0 ..c:: I- 9 "'C ~ "'C c:: :::s ~ en !::: z: ::::> u.. 0 IX L&..I co :::IE ::::> z:

YEARS

Source: 1) U.S. Bureau of the Census: Housing Construation Statistias: 1889-1964 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966), Table B-1 2) U.S. Bureau of the Census: Housing Authorised by Building Permits and Publia Contraats: August 1969" (U.S. Government Printiag Office, Washington, D.C., 1963), Table 2 10­

Table 1

UNITED STATES: Population Change in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, by Race: 1900 - 1960 PERCENT OF CHANGE WHITE NEGRO TOTAL 1900 - 1910 32.6 19.9 32.0 1910 - 1920 25.2 25.8 25.0 1920 - 1930 26.0 40.7 27.1 1930 - 1940 8.2 17.0 8.8 1940 - 1950 20.7 43.2 22.6 1950 - 1960 24.1 45.9 26.4

Source:

U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Popu~ation: 1960. Se~eated Area Reports. Standard Metropo~itan Stati8tiaa~ Areas. Final Report PC(3)-lD. (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,l963), Table 1. -11­

Table 2

UNITED STATES: Privately Owned Passenger Car Registrations 1900 - 1965

1900 8,000 1905 77 ,400 1910 458,377 1915 2,332,426 1920 8,131,522 1925 17,439,701 1930 22,972,745 1935 22,494,884 1940 27,372,397 1945 25,694,926 1950 40,190,632 1955 51,960,532 1960 61,430,862 1965 74,903,163

Source: Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Michigan, Automobile Faots and Figures, 1968, p. 19. -12­

Map 1 DETROIT,­ STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA: 1960 I ~-". 1__.1 j.___l_ I ! i I I ! ! jilt t------_·_·t--·---·---'r--' I ! i I I i I ! I I I ,--- r:~l'l--' ---'-1--­ I ,".r" i . i i ,.. J: I r---.-": ,>, I I . f''J)~ i '-,_:­...... ,-.-!--W.-L.L- ! '.' i -.-.-.-~.-._ ! i I i .. ­ If--" I It~··: : .__ ...... )! . I L--'--r-'-'"!""!--+--'~'-- I l..--' I : ! I I LAKE I I 1 I ST. CLAIR ~II ~ -. - _.-·t· --:~.::.t--L ..; o . c· ~~ ~~_)==~:JTJL .. 'o I I 1 I: • . I~" i ! i . ! I I~------1---'-+- . : -..--...... , .. -11,1

I I I _.-._- COUIIlY IIOUIIDIY I L' !- 10WilSHIP IIOIJIUlMY i I L_._._.--1-·_-_·__·L . 'JJI...... 1ICUIIlMY ~ 2 1 illitES -13­ Detroit includes Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties. This deflnft-ion recognizes that during the period under consideration an ever­ increasing percentage of families lived beyond the political boundaries of central cities but were stili functionally tied to these central cities. Thus, "Detroit" extends beyond the boundaries of the City of Detroit.

2.2.3 "Upper Class" For the purposes of th I s study the term "upper cl ass" refers to a group of families, descendants of functionally and financially successful Individuals, who stand at the top of the social class hlerarchy.2 That Is to say, upper class Is viewed here as an ascribed status based on descent and wealth. On the basis of an extensive empirical study, Baltzell concluded that the Social Register could be used as an Index of the upper class In certain American citles. l The Social Register, to quote from the first vol ume publl shed, is a "reco;::a-or-soc lety, comprl sing an accurate and careful list of Its members, with their addresses, many of the maiden names of the married women, the club addresses of the men, officers of the leading clubs and social organizations, opera box holders, and other useful social informatlon."it Flrey,5 Dewey,6 and Baltzel1 7 have used addresses taken from the appropriate Social Register to plot the distribution of upper class families I~on, Milwaukee, and Phi ladelphla, respectively. The Social Register does have certain shortcomings as an Index of the urban upper class, however. Flrey points out, for example, that "some of the entries represent famlll es of qui te modest means whose forebears, however, have been well to do or otherwise prominent •••• [Furthermore] not a few traditional elite faml lies have allowed their membership to lapse and are consequently not Iisted.lts Despite these shortcomings, Flrey agrees with Baltzell that tpe Social Register does provide a reasonably adequate index of upper class status. 9 The Social Register only published a Detroit edition between 1919 and ~ However, a similar directory, the ~ Secretary of Detroit and Michigan, referred to as "the bible of local society" bY the Soclar-Editor of the Detroit News, has been published continuously since 1918. 10 The names-Tn the Social Secretary came originally from the guest list of Detroit's distinguished Barbour faml'y.11 There Is no reason to assume that a wealthy, well-established family such as the Barbours would Include In their guest list faml lies that were not similarly well established and wealthy. Other names were added to the Social Secretary upon written recommendation of two families already I~Z It may therefore be concluded that the Social Secretary of Detroit ~ Michigan Is the Detroit equivalent -14­ of the Social Regt ster and therefore provi des a "reasonably adequate Index of upper class status" in Detroit. In this study, then, the upper class of Detroit are defined as those faml lies whose names appeared in the Social secretaor ~ Detroit ~ Michigan between 1920 and 1970 and who~ in Detro t during that period. Figure 2 represents a typical page taken from the 1968 edition of that dl rectory.

2.2.4 "Upper C I ass Res I dentl al Areas" A distInction must be made between members of the DetroIt upper class who live In sIngle dwelling units and those who live In multiple housing units (hotels, apartments, town houses, etc.). Given the theoretical orientation of this study, outlined briefly In Chapter I and to be expanded In Chapter III, a consideration of both single and multiple unit consumers would constitute two separate studies. With this in mind, the decision was made to focus only on single dwelling units and to conceive of upper class residential areas as containing only single dwelling units. Even with this restriction, a vast majorlty--78 per cent-- of the Detroit upper class were Included In the study. This figure was determined by averaging the proportions of upper class people living In single dwelling units for the mld-year* of each decade In the study period (mid-year data were used to represent the entire decade). Data were taken from the appropriate ~ Secretary. For the mid-year of each decade In the study period (again, mid­ year data were used to represent the entire decade>, addresses of al I single dwelling units taken from the appropriate Social Secretary were plotted on large-scale maps of Detroit. These f~strlbuttons of upper class resIdences were used as the basis for delineating upper class residential areas. The plottIng revealed that, whl Ie Isolates existed, upper class people tended to cluster In certain well-defined areas. This observation Is Illustrated by Maps 2 and 3 which are, respectively, small-scale equIvalents of the 1925 and 1965 upper class address maps mentioned above.** With this In mind, an operational definition of upper class residential areas was developed. If in any decade between 1920 and 1970 at least 5 percent of al I upper class faml lies

*The mid-year was defined as the sixth year of a decade. Data for 1935 were not available; 1936 data were substituted. **For the exact number of upper class families located In each upper class resIdentIal area, by decade, examine Table 3 along with Map 5. -15­

Figure 2

Typical Page Taken from THE ~ SECRETARY OF DETROIT AND MICHIGAN

THE SOC A L SEC RET

PARCEllS. Dr. and Mrs. Frank Hubbard PARKER. Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. L (Anne DeArmond Leete) (Virginia Cudney) 1014 Buckingham Road. Grosse Pointe Park Summer Home: Pointe aux Barques. Mich. 48467 48230 W~~~~r3~~~r 650 Isle of Palms. Ft Lauderdale, 882-4834 Clubs. Dr. 12-110-Mrs. 20-53·86 Clubs. Mr. ·12·Lauderdale Yacht Club-Mrs. Mr. Jefferey Hubbard Parcells (Stevens Inst. of 56(Ft. Lauderdale)·84 Technology) Mr. and Mrs. William N. Moore (EleanorC. Mr. Steven Jay Parcells (Phillip Andover) Parker). Flagstaff. Ariz. Miss Gretchen Parcells Capt. and Mrs. Arthur M. Parker. II {USAF}

PARDEE. Mrs. Steward Henry PARKER. Mrs. James Wentworth (Adaline Marie Kiebler) (Verna Elmslie Dow) 16841 Cranford lane. Grosse Pointe 48230 1150 Heatherway. Ann Arbor. Mich. 48104 TU 2-4512 NO 3-7234 Club. 45 Clubs. 26·68-105-108-Faculty Women's Club. Miss Mary Elizabeth Pardee U. of M.·U. of M. Alum. Club·Ann Arbor Town Club Mr. and Mrs. Alan Breck Parker (Ethel M. PARK. Mr. and Mrs. John Edward Shaw)-Mr.41 (Ann Blackburn Wedthoff) Mrs. Robert E. Valk (Ann Cole Parker) 28 Oldbrook lane. Grosse Pointe Farms 48236 Mr. Paul Hetherington Dow 881-8057 Clubs. Mr. 12-15-38-97-Mrs. 46-56-91 PARNIE. Mr. and Mrs. Alexander David Mr. John E. Park. Jr. (G.P.U.S.) (Elaine Helmer) 1000 Chestnut Street, San Francisco. Calif. 94109 PAR KE. Mr. and Mrs. Hervey C. Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Oliver Ormsbee (Ann (Mary C. Gage) Stewan Pamie) 364 University Place. Grosse Pointe 48230 Mr. Alexander David Pamie. Jr. TU 1-0609 Mr. and Mrs. John Roger Purcell (Patricia Clubs. Mrs. 56-84 Elaine Parnie) Mr. Hervey Coke Parke. III. 68 Roseland. Somerville. Mass. 02143 PARRISH,. Mrs. Cheslie Elliott "Mr. and Mrs. Reuben M. Waterman. Jr. (Frances Balle) (Constance Kimball Parke) 630 Neff Road. Grosse Pointe 48230 Miss Mary Virginia Parke-84 885-8040 Mr. James Cushman Parke Club,12 Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Elliott Parrish (Mary PARKER. Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carroll Elizabeth Gaughan) (Mary Deming) Mr. and Mrs. Francis Jones (E/izaberh Moran "Old Orchards". Route 2. 2626 Brocker Road Parrish). 8 Lake Avenue. Broadmoor. ColoradO East. Metamora. Mich. 48455 Springs. Colo. 80906-Mr. 12-21-71 OS 8-2258 Mr. and Mrs. Morley Morgana (Margarer Staley Clubs. Mr. 62-97 Parrish). 755 Delgado Drive. Baton Rouge; Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carroll Parker. Jr. La. 70808 (Lynda Helen Deming) PARSONS. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Holcombe (Sarah Caswell Angell) PARKER. Mr. and Mrs. Frederick W .. Jr. 1335 Willow Lane. Birmingham, Mich. 48009 (Geraldine L. Grinnell) 646-6258 354 Washington Road. Grosse Pointe 48230 TU 5-6743 Summer Home: Chicago Club. Charlevoix. Mich. 49720 Summer Home: Lake Wallenpaupack. Pa. Winter Home: 177 Clarendon. Palm Beach. Clubs. Mr. 12·21·23-26·27·69-Cornell Club of Fla. 33480 Mich.-Mrs. 58· Bennett Coli. Alum. Assn.­ Clubs. 23-27-97-110-Bhm. Athletic Club-Bath COlorado Coli. Alum. Assn. and Tennis. Palm Beach·Everglades. Palm Mr. Robert Grinnell Edgar-12-15·27-Tennis House Beach-Mrs. 29-55-101 Miss Gay Grinnell Edgar-56 PARSONS. Mr. Joseph H. 15840 Lakeview Court. Grosse Pointe 48230 PARKER. Mr. George E.• Jr. 822·6316 171 Lewiston Road. Grosse Pointe Farms 48236 Clubs. 21-23-26·30-33-47 -71-81-Seigniory TU 5-7924 Club Clubs. 12·21·22·23-26-27-97-111 Mr. and Mrs. R. Guy Chamberlin (Martha M. PARSONS. Mr. and Mrs. Montgomery Howard Parrer). 33 Meadowbrook Road. Short (Leta Bird Tisdale) Hills. N. J. 07078 180 Lakeview Avenue. Grosse Pointe Farms 48236 PARKER. Mr. and Mrs. George E.• III 885-7460 (Margaret G. Koehler) Mr. and Mrs. Boyd Ray Jackson (Abigail 62 Meadow Lane. Grosse Pointe Farms 48236 Tisdale Parsons). 4626 Balfour Road. 886·0271 Detroit 48224 Clubs. Mr. 80·97·98-Mrs. 20·27·56 Mr. Montgomery Howard Parsons. Jr. (M.S.U.)

170 -16­

Map 2 UPPER CLASS RESI DENCES, 1925 r-·_·--·_·_·_·_·_ ...... ·_·_·_·_·_·_·_·_·_·_·_·_·T·_·_·_·_·-'-'-'-'-'-'----'-'! I . I i ! i ! I i Ii· iii i ! i iii iii I c!c i . § 1 § i I ", did . ~ii I .J;!. 0 ~I ~ i o.~ i I i i i 0 i i i i i i i i i LAKE i ! i ' I 51, (LliR I.-·-·-·-'r·-:-·~:-·-·-·-'--·-·-'-·-·-·:·-O·-·-'·-·-·--·-·-'-':'

i i I I>. !c: 15 f~ I;. i~ i i i NUMBER OF RESIO£NCES 750 i 500 i i 100 I i ~ i 1_._._, _,_.r-'-'-'-'-'-', \\1) "'"'''''' " -17­

Map 3 UPPER CLASS RESIDENCES, 1965 r------...---·------·-----·------,------.------, ! i ,I I. I . i i i i i

:-~-'·· -- --"' X- - - - : , , .:, .... i ' : ' ;~ -! : :------:

LAKE .: :-. . : : -. ST. CLAIR

-N­~ rr:NUMB£R Of RESIO(IIC[S ~ \c100 - 1 (Other Detroit AIDs)

MILES -18­ plotted for that decade* clustered In one of these well-defined areas, and If that area was no larger than a standard townshlp,** It would be considered an upper class residential area. Using this definition, nine upper class residential areas were delineated for the period 1920 to 1970 (see Map 4). For every decade during the study period, approximately 85 per cent, ranging from 84.1 to 90.3 per cent, of all upper class faml lies clustered In the areas delineated.

2.2.5 "Preferred Upper Class Residential Areas" During anyone decade, not al I of the upper class residential areas contain 5 per cent of al I upper class fami lies plotted for that decade. Those which do are defined as preferred upper class residential areas. The higher the percentage of upper class people living In an area, the more preferred It Is considered. Families not included among the upper class of Detroit also live In upper class residential areas. These fami lies will not be considered In this study.

2.3 Observations 2.3.1 Introduction With the establishment of these operational definitions, It Is now possible to describe the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas In Detroit over time. Map 5 Identifies the nine upper class residential areas delineated In Detroit for the period 1920 to 1970.*** Maps 6-10 describe the changing preferability

*approxlmately 110 families **36 square miles ***Where possible, political boundaries were used to define upper class residential areas. This was possible for Grosse Pointe Park, Grosse Pointe, Grosse Pointe Farms, and Grosse Pointe Shores. Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills was defined as al I of Bloomfield Township except those areas Included In the City of Pontiac. For other residential areas, the following definitions were used: Indian Village: A. From Mack south to Jefferson From E. Grand Blvd. east to Burns B. From Mack south to Jefferson From Pennsylvania east to Fairview C. From Jefferson south to the Detroit River From Marquette east to Alter (cont.) -19­ o{ these nine areas over time as reflected by the percentage of all upper class people living in each one. The data described In these maps are also presented In Table 3.*

2.3.2 Outward Movement There has been a general movement of preferred upper class residential areas outward from downtown Detrolt** between 1920 and 1970. *** I n a study of Detrol t, Thomas Pryor was ab I e to draw the

(cont.) Pa Imer Woods: From 8 Mile Rd. south to 5 Mile Rd. From Schaffer east to Woodward, excluding Highland Park Downtown: A. From Hendrie south to Adams From Lincoln east to St. Antoine B. Both sides of Jefferson and Congress from Woodward to st. Aubin Uptown: Webb and Woodland on the north Oakland on the east Grand Blvd. of the south Grand River and Livernois on the west

*It is interesting to note that despite the constant rapid growth in the number of households in the Detroit S.M.S.A. for the period under consideration, this growth is not reflected In the number of upper class residences. For example, between 1950 and 1970 the number of single dwelling units In the Detroit S.M.S.A. Increased by over 80 per cent from 514,749 to 930,703. Between 1945 and 1965 the number of upper class residences In Detroit remained Virtually unchanged. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Housing: 19.50, Vol. I, General Characteristics, pt:-4, ~an-New York (Washington, D.C.: GOvernment Printing Office, 1953), Table 17. See also U.S. Bureau of the Census, ~. Census of Housing: 1970. Advance Report General Housing Character~,~c (VI)--24, Michigan (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 5. **Downtown Detroit is defined as that area on Map 2 which Is south of the major segment of Residential Area I and west of the minor segment of Residential Area I. ***Stanley Mackum found that outward movement from downtown Detroit characteriZed Pol Ish settlement as well. See Stanley Mackum, "The Changing Pattern of Polish Settlement In the Greater Detroit Area: Geograph I ca I Study of the Ass imil at I on of an Ethn I c Group," (unpub I I shed Ph.D. dissertation, University of MiChigan, 1964), Maps 23, 24, 25 and 28. -20­

Map 4 UPPER CLASS RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN DETROIT SMSA

LAKE ST. CLAIR

, , UPPER CLASS RESIDENTIAL AREAS

------COUNTY BOUNDARY _ ._- _ ._. TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY ------MUNICiPAl IOJNOAAY -.i

MILE S -21­

I Map 5 UPPER CLASS RESIDENTIAL AREAS

-H­~ I Lake 51. Clair

1. DOWNTOWN 2. UPTOWN 3. INDIAN VILLAGE 4. PALMER WOODS 5. GROSSE POINTE PARK 6. GROSSE POINTE 7. GROSSE POINTE FARMS 8. GROSSE POINTE SHORES 9 BIRMINGHAM-BLOOMFIELD HILLS

._-._.-.-­ 6 miles -~.....-==-= "'\·1 -22­

I Map 6 DISTRIBUTION OF UPPER CLASS' 1925

Oakland County Macomb County Wayn";C;;;;t"Y_·-'-·_---- ~~~I~~~-·---"-·----{ Lake 51. Clair

-':'-y...Jfl:~~~

1. DOWNTOWN Percent Upper Class 2, UPTOWN in Each Residential Area 3, INDIAN VILLAGE 4, PALMER WOODS . !::::;:::::I 0·4.9 5, GROSSE POINTE PARK 6 GROSSE POINTE 5·9.9 7, GROSSE POINTE FARMS 8. GROSSE POINTE SHORES 10 14.9 9. BIRMINGHAM-BLOOMFIELD HillS • 15 19.9 11120 . 24.9 .25+ -23­

Map 7 DISTRIBUTION OF UPPER CLASS· 1936 I r "'~ r-7 I 'J :I II i II I ! 9 I II i I I i L . ~ . ~ . ~'. ~. ~ ..J i i i i Oakland Caunty i Macomb County Wayn·;C;;;;'~-·-·-·-·-·I-: -~.-.,--.-.-.-.-.-----..~ I' \ l: • t\ L. ____1 I_tlh S/. (filiI'

l. DOWNTOWN 2. UPTOWN Percent Upper Closs 3. INDIAN VillAGE in Each Residential Area 4. PALMER WOODS 5. GROSSE POINTE' PARK 1::::::::::1 0 - 4.9 6. GROSSE PO INTE 5 - 9.9 7. GROSSE PO INTE FARM S D 8. GROSSE PO INTE SHORE S . ') 10 - 14.9 9. BIRMINGHAM -BLOOMF iEl D HILL S . 15 -19.9 .20 - 24 .9 .25+ -24­

Map 8 DISTRIBUTION OF UPPER CLASS· 1945

Oakland County Macomb County Wayne C~Y-----·---i ![~~~\ .~.-----.-.----

Lake 51. Clair

1. DOWNTOWN Percent Upper Closs 2. UPTOWN in Each Residential Area 3. INDIAN VILLAGE 4. PALMER WOODS j::: :::;J O· 4.9 S. GROSSE POINTE PARK 6. GROSSE POINTE 1'1 5·9.9 7. GROSSE POINTE FARMS B. GROSSE POINTE SHORES l' . 10· 14.9 9. BIRMINGHAM-BLOOMFIELD HillS III 15·19.9 • 20·24.9 II 25 +

6 miles ...... -=:=*'--==--== -25­

Map 9 DISTRIBUTION OF UPPER CLASS· 1955

Oakland County Macomb County Wayne County ------[ =}-~------

Lake fCillJB~}1 SI. Clair

~~~~

I. DOWNTOWN 2. UPTOWN Percent Upper Closs 3. INDIAN VILLAGE in Eoch Resident iol Area 4. PALMER WOODS 0 4.9 5. GROSSE POINTf PARK D 6. GROSSE PO INTE 5 9.9 7. GROSSE POINTE FARMS 0 8. GROSSE POINTE SHORES

':"" 10 14.9 9. 8IRM INGHAM-8LOOMFIELD HILLS III 15 19.9 III 20 24.9 • 25 +

6 mil es ---===-~--===' -26­

Map 10 DISTRIBUTION OF UPPER CLASS· 1965

-H-~

Oakland County Macomb County Wayne ounty ------ljJi-~·------I Lake _."<\ St. Clair CfzJ$~}1

~~:=::::7""-

L DOWNTOWN 2. UPTOWN Percent Upper Class 3. INDIAN VILLAGE in Each Residential Area 4. PALMER WOODS S. GROSSE POINTE PARK 1:«1 0 - 4.9 6. GROSSE POINTE 5 -9.9 7. GROSSE POINTE FARMS D 8. GROSSE POINTE SHORES 1111 10-14.9 9. BIRMINGHAM-BLOOMFiElD HILLS • 15-19.9 .20 - 24.9 1125 + Table 3 Distribution of Upper Class Residences, Within Residential Areas

UPPERCLASS 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 RESIDENTIALAREAS No. %total No. %total No. %total No. %total No. %total

1. Downtown 197 9.5 75 3.4 16 0.7 6 0.3 1 0.04 2. Uptown 745 35,9 392 18.0 237 10.4 98 4.2 30 1.3 3. Indian Village 508 24.5 366 16.8 216 9.5 133 5.7 62 2.7 4. Palmer Woods 29 1.4 158 7.3 198 8.7 166 7.1 73 3.2 5. Grosse Pointe Park 80 3.9 182 8.4 240 10.5 254 10.9 209 9.2 6. Grosse Pointe 116 5.6 271 12.4 296 13.0 315 13.5 329 14.6 7. Grosse Pointe Farms 76 3.7 251 11.5 400 17.5 568 24.3 712 31.6 8. Grosse Pointe Shores 30 1.4 35 1.6 61 2.7 75 3.2 120 5.3 9. Birmingham - I Bloomfield Hills 92 4.4 201 9.2 254 11. 1 369 15.7 444 19.7 N --J I %OF ALL RESIDENCES * 90.3 88.6 84.1 84.9 87.6

OTHERDETROIT AREAS

1. Other Detroit 25 1.2 53 2.4 94 4.2 75 3.2 46 2.0 2. Other WayneCo. (outside Detroit) 131 6.3 103 4.7 144 6.3 150 6.5 131 5.8 3. Other Oakland Co. 42 3.0 85 4.0 121 5.3 112 4.8 80 4.4 4. MacombCo. 3 " 0.1 7 0.3 6 0.3 17 0.7 17 0.8

%OF ALLRESIDENCES * 10.6 11.4 16.1 15.2 13.0

TOTALRESIDENCES 2,074 2,179 2,283 2,338 2,252 ------

* Does not equal 100% because of pounding -28­ same conclusion for the period 1900 to 1930. 13 Similar observations have been made with respect to the upper class In other American cltles.l~ This movement took place within two sectors, both beginning in an area adjacent to downtown Detroit, one following Woodward Avenue north Into Oakland County, the other following Jefferson Avenue east Into the Grosse Polntes~ (refer to Map 4). In the 1920's Downtown had been already eclipsed as the most preferred upper class residential area In Detroit by two close-In suburbs, Uptown and Indian Village. Beyond these, only Grosse Pointe had become preferred. By the 1930's the residential situation had changed substantially. Downtown was no longer preferred, although some upper class families st! II lived there. The close-In suburbs were declining In terms of preferability whl Ie the residential areas at a greater distance from downtown Detroit were being settled by Increasing numbers of upper class faml lies. During the 1930's Palmer Woods, Grosse Pointe Park, Grosse Pointe Farms, and Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills became preferred. The 1940's were marked by a gradual growth of the outlying residential areas and the continued decline of the Close-In suburbs. In 1945 there were only sixteen upper class families Inhabiting single dwelling units Downtown. By the 1950's Palmer Woods, the only outlying upper class residential area within the City of Detroit, began to decline In terms of preferability. Uptown was no longer preferred. Grosse Pointe Farms and Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills Increased In preferability at the fastest rates. The distribution of preferred upper class residential areas In the 1960's was distinctively different from the situation which existed In the 1920's. In the 1960's there were no preferred upper class residential areas In the City of Detroit. Grosse Pointe Farms had become almost as preferred In the 1960's as uptown had been In the 1920's. The second most preferred residential area In the 1960's-­ Birmingham-Bloomfield HI Ils--ls farther from downtown Detroit than any other upper class area. All of the Grosse Polntes were preferred in the 1960's, although It Is Interesting to note that Grosse Pointe Park, the Grosse Pointe community ~Iosest to downtown Detroit, had declined In terms of preferability.

2.3.3 Visual Reconnaisance A visual reconnalsance of the nine upper class residential areas has Indicated that In addition to changes which occurred In the relative position of the preferred areas with respect to downtown Detroit, changes In the site characteristics of these areas also took place. -29­ This observation Is Illustrated In the following series of plat maps and pictures representing subdivisions within the upper class residential areas along Woodward Avenue. It should be noted that the evidence presented here Is used only to portray the visual reconnalsance and does not attempt to prove the hypothesis that the site characteristics of preferred upper class residential areas have changed over time. The reconnalsance begins with a consIderatIon of a subdIvIsion In Downtown which was publicly registered In 1886 (see Figure 3). The residential lots on Ferry Street are uniform In size. all having a 70 foot frontage. The corner lots are somewhat larger. The sub­ divIsion and the adjacent streets form a grid pattern. The area Is almost totally devoid of trees. Houses are quite close together and set back about 15 feet from the front line. In Uptown (Figure 4)* the subdivision Illustrated. which was recorded In 1892. Is also laid out in a grid pattern. However. the lots vary In size. ranging up to 95 foot frontages. The houses are again quite close together and the set backs are similar to Downtown. Nevertneless. one does get the feeling of Increased spaciousness since boulevards have been Introduced to the subdivision. Unlike Downtown. there Is an abundance of trees. which may have been planted by the developer. In Palmer Woods (Figure 5) the subdivision illustrated. which was recorded In 1915. Incorporates winding roads rather than grid pattern streets. Again the lots vary In size. but here they begin with 80 foot frontages and range up to 125 feet. Also. the lots vary in shape. The houses are set back farther from the street than was the case In Uptown. Furthermore. they are farther apart. thus adding to the feeling of spaciousness. Again trees are abundant. Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills is illustrated with a subdivision recorded In 1923 (see Figure 6).** The lots again vary in size but are measured in acres rather than In front feet. The'subdlvlslon Is obvIously spacious with houses set about 75 feet back from a curving Improved road. Trees are abundant, screening the houses from the road and neighbors.

2.4S~ry With certain basic operational definitions established, it was possible to describe the changing location of preferred upper class

*It should be noted that the street referred to as Chicago Boulevard on the plat map Is the extension of Chicago Boulevard east of Woodward Avenue, now cal led Arden Park. **In Figure 6 only a part of the plat map is shown. -30­

Figure 3 A Downtown Subdivision (1886) I -31­

Figure 4 An Uptown Subdivision (1892)

-r HfZJt7,fh'h"bY ~Y"v.JXf'..¥J:.. _. J'USl''''' TA';

Figure 5 A Palmer Woods Subdivision (1915)

P .'\L;\Il:::R WOe'I"

c~ -33­

Figure 6 A Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills Subdivision (1923) -34­ residential areas In Detroit. There was a general outward movement of preferred residential areas from the center of the city. Further­ more, a visual reoonnalsance of upper class residential areas Intimated that site characteristics associated with these areas had also changed over time. -35­

~ References for Chapter .!l

lU.S. Bureau of the Census, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (Wash Ington, D.C.: Government Pri ntlng offt ce, 1967), p. 14.-­

2E. Digby Baltzell, "'Who's Who In America' and 'The Social Register,'" Class, Status and Power, ed. Rienhard Bendix and Seymour Llpset 1"FreWYork":lhi'"Free Press, 1966), p. 267.

3lbld., pp. 266-275.

'+As quoted in Ibid., p. 269.

SWalter Flrey, Land Use In Central ~ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947). ----­

6Rlchard Dewey, "Peripheral Expansion In Milwaukee County," American Journal £t Sociology, 54 (January, 1948), pp. 118-125.

7E. Digby Baltzell, Philadelphia Gentleman (New York: The Free Press, 1958), pp. 173=222.

8Flrey, ~. E!!., pp. 71-72.

9Ibld., p. 72. lO"The Social Secretary Is the Bible of Local SOCiety," Detroit ~, February 18, 1960, Section 4, p. 2. llDetrolt News, February I, 1957, p. 35. l2lbid. l3Thomas Pryor, "Selected Processes in BI ighted Area~," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1934), pp. 11-20.

1'+1. Homer Hoyt, The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods In American tJtles

II • Emest Bu rgess, "The Growth of the City: An I ntroductIon to a Research Project," The CI ty, ed. Robert Park and Ernest Burgess (Chicago: Unlversl~of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 47-62.

II I. FI rey, ~• .£!.!..

Iv. Baltzell,.£E.. E!!. CHAPTER III

A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF RESIDENTIAL AREA LOGAT ION

3. I Introductory Remarks The purpose of Chapter I II is to determine what contribution the existing literature on residential development can make to a behavioral explanation of the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas. In Section 3.2 a theoretical framework Is discussed In terms of Its appllcabi lity as the basis for such an explanation. The formulation is accepted. The next several sections of the chapter involve an amplification and empirical examination of the theoretical framework. Section 3.9 discusses the application of the reviewed empirical material to an explanation of the changing location of preferred upper class residential areas.

3.2 A Theoretical Framework The purpose of this section is to determine whether a theoretical framework exists which can act as a foundation for behavioral explanations of the changing location of upper class residential areas. Such a formulation must provide an explanation of residential area location, account for changing location over time, and be applicable to the upper class.

3.2.1 The Kaiser-Weiss Formulation A comprehensive, micro-scale, location-oriented, theoretical framework for examining residential development has be~n formulated at the University of North Carol Ina by Kaiser and Welss. l They have constructed an Interact Ion deci s ion-maki ng mode I In wh Ich ttthe land development pattern of the urban region [Is viewed] ••• as the cumulative result of a complex of decisions and actions by Individuals and groups, each guided by his own incentives.tt2 Their notions concern the development of subdivisions made up of new, single-family dwellings at the periphery of the city. Kaiser and Weiss focus on three key decision makers In urban residential development: the predevelopment landowner who decides whether or not to sell land that Is not already in urban use; the developer who decides where to locate subdivisions; and the house­ holder who chooses among alternate residential packages. 3

-36­ -37­ According to the North Carolina School, "an understanding of the residential developer decislons--especlally developer location declsions--Is essential to an understanding of the residential land development process.,,1t Kaiser and Weiss argue that the developer's pivotal role results from the fact that on the one hand the consumer of new housing "most often must make ••• [a residential] selection from among the available supply of packages provided by developers. tlS On the other hand, it Is the developer who ultimately decides whether or not land offered for sale by the predevelopment landowner actually becomes part of a city's residential stock. In this situation residential development Is seen as the result of a series of decisions made by developers. Kaiser and Weiss feel that a variety of factors influence the decisions made by the developer at every stage of development. Two of these factors have an Impact on his location decisions. They argue that the characteristics of the three key decision agents will Influence the locatlonal decisions of the developer. For instance, the characteristics of the consumer--life cycle stage, fami Iy status, education, income--are important because the developer bases his decisions on his perception of consumer preferences. 6 The implication is that preferences vary with consumer characteristics. The site characteristics of pieces of land--for example, topo­ graphy, proximity to Incompatible uses, and ground cover--are also considered to playa role in the locational decisions of developers. 7 Kaiser and Weiss argue that, while the successful developer considers other things, he "will attempt to anticipate the preferences of the consumers."a The preferences of consumers, as they are viewed, by the North Carolina School; match the site characteristics described quite closely. Therefore, if the developer has a particular market in mind when considering the purchase of a piece of land for develop­ ment, the site characteristics of that piece of land wi II influence his decision. 10

3.2.2 Summary The Kaiser-Weiss formulation involves a micro-scale, decislon­ making model, concerned with explaining the location of subdivisions consisting of single family dwellings at the periphery of the city. While residential development is thought to be the result of a series of decislons--including locational decisions--made by developers, it is clear that actual distinguishable residential areas may be viewed as the spatial outcome of location decisions made by consumers who weigh alternatives presented by developers In terms of shared preferences. In Kaiser-Weiss terms, then, an explanation of the location of specific residential areas Involves an examination of the Interaction between producer and consumer and the locational decisions made by them. The role of the predevelopment landowner -38­ is preliminary to the decisions made by producers and consumers and therefore only indirectly influences actual residential development. Thus the predevelopment landowner is not considered In this study.

3.2.3 Application of the Theoretical Framework to the Upper Class The Kaiser-Weiss model suggests that upper class residential areas can be viewed as the spatial outcome of locational decisions made by upper class consumers who weigh potential residential alternatives presented by developers in terms of shared preferences. An examination of upper class resldences* in Detroit revealed that they were located, with a few exceptions to be discussed in Chapter IV, In subdlvisions.** Furthermore, it is Inconceivable that upper class people would move Into subdivisions previously inhabited by members of other social classes. That is to say, upper class consumers deal directly with developers. It may be concluded, therefore, that the notion of consumer-developer interaction, basic to the Kaiser-Weiss theoretical formulation, is applicable to the upper class. The conceptual ization views residential area location as the result of an initial commitment to location by developers made on the basis of the anticipated preferences of the consumers to whom they are directed, and of a latter commitment to location by consumers made on the basis of their preferences. In this context, change In the location of residential areas wi II occur under two circumstances: either consumer preferences, and therefore sub­ division site characteristics, change,' or while consumer preferences remain the same, the site characteristics necessary to satisfy these preferences Change. The Kaiser-Weiss formulation provides an explanation of residential area location, Incorporates the element of,residential area location change, and In Its basic elements is applicable to the upper class, at least In Detroit. Therefore, It is accepted as the theoretical foundation underlying the explanation considered In this study. The elements of the framework must now be amplified and examined empirically. To accompl Ish this task, the Kaiser-Weiss

*As mentioned In Section 2.2.4, this study is concerned only with single dwelling units. **Thls examination was accomplished by comparing maps describing the distribution of upper class residences with subdivision maps taken from the Baist Atlas for Detroit supplemented by township section maps on-rrre at the Registrar of Deeds Office in Wayne and Oakland Counties. -39­ formulation Is divided Into two Interrelated parts: the consumer submodel and the producer submodel.* In the next several sections of this chapter these submodels are developed and the pertinent empirical literature is then reviewed within the framework produced.

3.3 The Consumer Submodel ------In this section a residential consumer submodel Is developed. Brown and Moore have constructed a micro-scale, Intra-urban migration model which focuses on the decision making of households. ll Their formulation is considered here.

3.3.1 "Intendedly Rational" Behavior

When dealing with Individual residential decision making, social scientists have often turned to the concept of the "economic man," which relies on the assumptions of perfect knowledge, complete rationality, and maximization of uti Ilty, as the basis for their formulations. 12 Whl Ie using such a conceptual framework can lead to the construction of operational models, the approach has demonstrated a limited abl I ity to predict reality because the assumptions made do not reflect the conditions under which decisions are actually made. 13

Speaking directly to the notion of "complete rationality," Harbert Simon suggested that In the development of decision-making theories, it was "time to take account ••• of the empirical limits on human rationality, of Its finiteness In comparison with the complexities of the world with which It must cope.,,14 He therefore developed the "principle of bounded rationality" which states that "the capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems is very sma I I compared with the size of the problems where solution Is required for objectively r~tlonal behavior In the real world, or even for an approximation to such objective rat Iona I i ty•,,1 5

Fol lowing Wolpert's lead,16 Brown and Moore Incorporated Simon's perspective Into their model using the concept of "Intendedly rational" behavior, a consequence of the principle of bounded rationality,17 as a keystone. Simon stated that "the Intended rationality of an actor requires him to construct a simplified model of the real situation In order to deal with it. He behaves rationally with respect to the roodel.,,18

Having accepted the notion that the residential decision maker operates on the basis of a "simplified model of the real situation," Brown and Moore were faced with the task of articulating the basic

*The division of the Kaiser-Weiss formulation into submodels Is consistent with their research orientation. -40­ components of the simplified model. The concepts developed were place uti Iity and action space, the simplified behavioral model equivalents of maximization of uti Iity and complete knowledge, respectively. These notions were adapted from Wolpert's study of the decision to mlgrate. 19

3.3.2 Place utility Stated simply, place uti lity may be thought of as a "measure of the attractiveness or unattractiveness of an area, relative to alternative locations, as perceived by the Individual decision maker.,,20 The emphasis on perception In this definition recognizes that the "actor bases his decisions and behavior on the image that he has of rea II ty,,,21 rather than on rea I i ty .p!!:. see In th I s situation, the household's perceptual framework--aTso referred to as "expectatlons"--is "a function of ••• [Its] experience or attainments or Its present (and al I past) residential sites and Its vicarious experience or attainments derived through acquaintances, mass med Ia, and other Information sources.,,22 Implicit In the principle of bounded rationality Is the notion that the decision maker, In choosing from among alternatives, Is directed by the goal of satisficing, of finding a course of action that Is "good enough," rather than the goal of maxlmlzlng.23 It Is In terms of this goal orientation and the perceptual frame­ work or expectations mentioned above that the place uti litles of alternate residential locations are considered.

3.3.3 Action Space Spatial decision making takes place within an areal setting conta I n I ng the a I ternat I ves ava-II ab I e to the actor. Theoret I ca I I y, In the case of residential location selection, the InQivldual may have knowledge of all alternate sites In the city. Typically the decision maker Is aware of a much more constricted set of alternatives. The segment of the total urban space, about which the Intended migrant has knowledge, is referred to as his awareness space,24 or what Wolpert calls action space.25 Described in the context of Intra-urban change of residence, the action space Is that subset of all locations In the urban area "to which the intended migrant assigns place utilities to which he responds.,,26 Information relevant to the formulation of the action space is derived from two major sources: the household's activity space and its Indirect contact space.27 The household's activity space refers to the role played In the acquisition of knowledge by a wide range of spatial behavior such as journey to work, shopping, and vlsltlng.28 The activity space Is spatially biased as the