Hannah Langsdorf

Dr. Cavin

HON 1000

7 Nov. 2016

In Detroit's Corktown district, amidst run-down neighborhoods and ill-kept streets, lies

the Michigan Central Station. It sticks out like a sore thumb and dwarfs the surrounding

buildings. Designed in Beaux-Arts style1, the train station remains visually pleasing, despite

much neglect. The beauty of the station is a sharp contrast to its surroundings- it seems perverse

that such a magnificent building is now so decayed. The once well-kept flowerbeds in front of

the station are now filled with thistles and weeds. Beyond the flowerbeds lies Roosevelt park,

originally designed as the station's grand entryway2. Today, it is home to goose poop, broken

bottles, and chunks of concrete vaguely resembling sidewalks. The station itself is surrounded by

a barbed wire fence and plagued with warning signs. Visitors to this site may wonder what

caused such an architectural masterpiece to reach this degenerative state. Furthermore, one may

wonder why it was placed so far from other more prevalent areas of Detroit, and if this

placement factored into the station's eventual downfall. I propose that a major reason for the

failure of the Michigan Central Station can be attributed to its location, failure to address the

automotive industry, and Detroit's need to outperform other American cities.

The Michigan Central Station opened on January 4th, 19143. The station was eagerly

anticipated, and the Detroit Free Press said it would be an "ornament to the city" 4. The Michigan

Central Station was designed by the same firms as the Grand Central Station in NYC, and were

1Kavanaugh, Kelli B. Detroit's Michigan Central Station. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2001. Print.
2Kavanaugh, Kelli B. Detroit's Michigan Central Station. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2001. Print.
3Kavanaugh, Kelli B. Detroit's Michigan Central Station. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2001. Print.

4"THE NEW STATION." Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), Detroit, Mich.,

1883.http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/561393293?accountid=14925.
opened 6 months apart from each other. Why then, do these two train stations who were designed

at the same time and by the same people, vary so greatly in their later successes? One reason

may be a difference in location. While the Grand Central Station was placed in a thriving area,

Michigan Central Station was placed in a more isolated area with no other significant structures

around it. It was hoped that placing the Michigan Central Station in this relatively undeveloped

area would make the area thrive. Basically, the station was built where it was to develop the area

and attract more people. By this logic, it would seem that Detroit was anticipating major growth

both in population and economically. During this period right before the 20s, people were

flocking to the city, and it appears the placement of the train station was in anticipation of this.

Although Detroit's population would skyrocket until the 1950s 5, Corktown never fulfilled the

development the station designers had hoped for. Overall, the isolation of the train station and

separation from major parts of the city contributed greatly to its failure.

Another flaw in the design of the station is that it did not anticipate the importance of the

automobile. The Michigan Central Station was created before the automotive industry had

gained prominence, and thus was not designed to adhere to the needs of automobiles 6. In fact,

cars were not considered at all in the design process of the station, as they were not a dominant

force in Detroit yet. Over the years, Detroit's infrastructure has changed to accommodate

automobiles- streets have been widened, areas cleared for parking, and eventually, highways

built7. Most, if not all, buildings afterwards have been designed with the needs of car owners in

5 Kavanaugh, Kelli B. Detroit's Michigan Central Station. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2001. Print.
6 Kavanaugh, Kelli B. Detroit's Michigan Central Station. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2001. Print.
7 Ryan, Brent D. "The Restructuring of Detroit: City Block Form Change in a Shrinking City,

1900-2000." Urban Design International 13.3 (2008): 156-68. ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2016.
mind. Unfortunately, the Michigan Central Station was designed in a time when this had not yet

become apparent.

However, the placement of the train station and lack of foresight into the automotive

industry tie into a third reason for the station's eventual decline. I believe that overall, the

Michigan Central Station's downfall is related to the pressure Detroit placed on itself to compete

with other American cities. During the period the station was built, Detroit was beginning to

emerge as an influential American city. It seemed that Detroit was competing with other

prominent American cities to be "the best", but at the same time unique. At the time of the

Michigan Central Station's construction, these hopes of "out-doing" other cities became heavily

focused on the station's construction. An article in the Detroit Free Press proclaimed: "when

completed the structure will be one of the finest of the kind in the West and very different in

appearance from any of them"8. As mentioned previously, Roosevelt park was created as an

aesthetic entryway into the station. A neighborhood was cleared out to make room for the park,

although many residents objected to this. According to another article in the Detroit free press,

the reasoning behind the park was not purely for visual reasons: "...that Detroit, in order to keep

pace with the other progressive American cities, should build an extensive and beautiful park

around the entrance of the new Michigan Central Station...". The park too had become a way for

Detroit to express its superiority over other American cities. Given how ruinous the park looks

today, it is reasonable to say the park may not have been the best idea. It displaced residents in

their homes and now it is an eyesore. While whether or not the addition of Roosevelt park was

8"THE NEW STATION." Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), Detroit, Mich.,

1883.http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/561393293?accountid=14925.
the right decision, it seems irrefutable that both it and the station were designed with the goal of

out-performing other cities in mind.

Perhaps the Michigan Central Station was constructed hastily and perhaps Detroit's

competitiveness with other cities led to the station being poorly planned and unwisely located.

The odd placement in Corktown led to an eventual abandonment and loss of connection to busier

areas of the city. The lack of foresight into the automotive industry and inability to adhere to the

needs of car owners also contributed to the station's downfall. And finally, out-performing other

cities was prioritized over careful planning. These factors did not lead in the station's immediate

failure, but built up over time to result in the abandoned yet breathtaking train station we have

today. Perhaps one day, I hope, the station will be revived and its dignity restored.
Works Cited

"ASK BIG SLICE FOR STATION APPROACH." Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), Detroit,
Mich.,
1912.http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/565214996?accountid=1492
5.
Kavanaugh, Kelli B. Detroit's Michigan Central Station. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2001. Print.
Ryan, Brent D. "The Restructuring of Detroit: City Block Form Change in a Shrinking City,
1900-2000." Urban Design International 13.3 (2008): 156-68. ProQuest. Web. 7 Nov.
2016.
"THE NEW STATION." Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), Detroit, Mich.,
1883.http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/561393293?accountid=1492
5.