Audio By Carbonatix
[
{
"name": "GPT - Leaderboard - Inline - Content",
"component": "35519556",
"insertPoint": "5th",
"startingPoint": "3",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "3",
"maxInsertions": 100,
"adList": [
{
"adPreset": "LeaderboardInline"
}
]
}
]
OK, this is getting weird, but we're enjoying this strange game of people all over the country declaring that they've finally discovered what Detroit is. Like 12 blind men feeling an elephant and each declaring it to be something distinct and different, it's amusing to see people announce Detroit's status as the "New Brooklyn," or the "New Berlin" or the "new Hamptons" or even the "New Detroit." (This even as other cities, from Atlantic City, N.J. to Las Vegas contend to be anointed as the "new Detroit.")
All that said, we just encountered a declaration that stopped US cold: Detroit is the new Los Angeles.
Really? Aside from both cities experiencing their rise during the original auto boom of 1910-1940, it seems a stretch to us. After 1950, Los Angeles kept growing. Detroit, not so much. Also, the use of a few street shots and a handful of supporting paragraphs to make the case causes the reader to wonder how seriously to take this website's argument.
Thoughts? Discuss ...
