American Ruins: Gary's Once and Future Terminal.

[wallyworld]

Consumer sacrifice depends on who authors the catalog we order from. As a reductionist rationale for the lack of sacrifice on the part of our political brethern taking a legislative leash to multinationals, it personally doesnt work for me. Political illiteracy is a defacto economic tumor. Infotainment..bread and circuses...kept the Romans at a safe distance from Ceasar business and the business of America is business. The soft collapse of this pyramid scheme is as inevitable as the squeeze on the middle class to milk new cash, while tax codes are in the hands of the kids who run the candy store and so it goes. Those who resell, subdivide and reshuffle the cash reap the rewards of those who produce the profits. Cheap overseas labor or cheap labor crossing the border all adds to the bottom line. There is no longer any tension between the goals of capitalism and democracy, labor and management..Teddy Roosevelt would wince...Henry Ford was a s____t who spied on his employees, had a private army of goons and held some of the most racist ideas outside of the Third Reich.. He wasn't a beneficent spiritual leader of economic growth...that is a populist romantic myth not fit for a twelve year old.  

 

 

 

[Poppa_Zit]

Henry Ford was a ____ who spied on his employees, had a private army of goons and held some of the most racist ideas outside of the Third Reich.. He wasn't a beneficent spiritual leader of economic growth...that is a populist romantic myth not fit for a twelve year old.  

I'm sure you noticed in my post I did not intend nor attempt to make value judgements on Henry Ford as a person, or of his character or beliefs. And I don't dwell in convenient myths, nor introduce them into discussions, as you have done for absolutely no good reason except to take a cheap shot at someone. So why even bring this up?

I'm also sure you noticed that I used him as an example of one thing, and one thing only  -- pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout. Only a 12-year-old would believe that.

[edblysard]

Poppa,

One of the things rarely published about the $5.00 day and myth about Ford's idea to pay his workers a salary that allowed them to purchase a car is this...

First, any Ford employee who wished to purchase a Ford car had to submit to a in depth inspection of their home, personal finances, and suffer having their neighbors interviewed by Ford's in house security/police force...all aspects of their personal life was looked at, those who had a hint of anything considered unsatisfactory by Henry Ford standards...drinking, smoking and such were big no-nos...divorce was guaranteed to exclude you, in fact, that alone might cost you your job.

 

Then, if you passed Ford's morality/living standards, the payment for your car was removed from your paycheck, after taxes...you never got the money in the first place.

Industry leaders noticed something interesting about that...it meant Ford never had to give the money out in the form of paychecks, but instead, could hold on to the money, bank it and collect the interest, along with the interest from the "company financing" of the car.

The remainder of the auto industry followed suit quickly.

 

Ford had an entire secret police force dedicated to investigating his employee's personal life, spying on them, which at the time was perfectly legal.

He owned several sections of small towns plus several apartment buildings and leased homes to his employees in the same manner he sold them cars, along with a local grocery store that worked the same way.

Ford police could inspect your house at any time, without your say so.

 

Ford held health classes in his factories, all under the guise of social reform, his version of it anyway...and those folks found to have any personal or "moral" habits that didn't fits Fords concept of what a "good person" should be were out of a job real quick....but oddly enough, he also founded a hospital for his employees, which provided top notch medical care for the day and age, all at low or no cost to his employees and their families.

 

Often, being a Ford employee was likened to being an indenture servant.

The control he exerted over his employee's personal lives was, in short, phenomenal.

 

 

He resisted attempts to organize a workers union, to the point the Ford police force ended up beating several union organizers to the point that they required hospitalization.

Good friends with Edison, and Harvey Firestone, Ford explored several ways to cut manufacturing cost, even going so far as to buy rubber plantations overseas...outsourcing back then....he explored using a soy based plastic product for body panels, owned his own railroad at the Rouge plant, ore ships and mines also wore the Ford name.

 

Excellent book to read on the man, "Ford, the Man and the Machines"...I can't remember the author's name, but it is still in publication, paperback that is.

 

Point is, the public persona and myth, and the man behind one of the most successful and wide spread companies in the world are quite different...most folks like to believe the myth, but the facts are that Henry Ford was a die hard capitalist, who looked at all opportunities to squeeze ever single dime out of the public and his employees he could.

Myth aside, Ford was something we don't see often any more...a person dedicated to using any means he could to make a profit...and depending on whether you were the factory worker who built the car, or the guy who could afford to buy one, Ford was either a smart businessman, or a demon.

 

But, he made Ford a world wide name and at one time employed more people than the US government did, including the armed services.

You have to respect the fact that he went from a dirt poor machinist apprentice to one of the most powerful people in the world.

All based on a simple concept...made a fairly good product and sell it at a price people are willing to pay...remove all the rest of the facts and myths, and that alone would guarantee his success.

 

 

Remember, you could buy a model A in any color you wanted, so long as it was black!

 

[wallyworld]

Henry Ford was a ____ who spied on his employees, had a private army of goons and held some of the most racist ideas outside of the Third Reich.. He wasn't a beneficent spiritual leader of economic growth...that is a populist romantic myth not fit for a twelve year old.  

I'm sure you noticed in my post I did not intend nor attempt to make value judgements on Henry Ford as a person, or of his character or beliefs. And I don't dwell in convenient myths, nor introduce them into discussions, as you have done for absolutely no good reason except to take a cheap shot at someone. So why even bring this up?

I'm also sure you noticed that I used him as an example of one thing, and one thing only  -- pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout. Only a 12-year-old would believe that.

This is a well documented historical fact-no cheap shot. Henry Ford crossed that line between being an employer and being a quasi govermental force of nature in his community. He is a good albeit negative example of the difficulty one has when you try to divide the business of business and the synergy-economic and otherwise between it the the larger community which surrounds it-It also indirectly poses a question still perhaps more potent today-at what cost do you make a profit? Human or otherwise. It is'nt a philothropic point of view to not isolate the business of business from the welfare of your employees and\or your customers. No man, hence no business is an island. The welfare of the community sooner than later impacts business if anything, this is a practical point of view.

.

[Poppa_Zit]

All based on a simple concept...made a fairly good product and sell it at a price people are willing to pay...remove all the rest of the facts and myths, and that alone would guarantee his success.

That was my point, Ed. That, and only that.

How we got spun off to character judgements and myths is beyond me.

What Ford did was not illegal, though, as you say. Most of our railroads -- and the steel industry, and coal mining industry -- were built the same way. That was the way one did business in that era, and thank goodness times have vastly improved for the American worker.  (See George Pullman, Andrew Carnegie, Jay Gould, Connie Vanderbilt, James Fisk, Henry Flagler, Leland Stanford, C.P. Huntington, Edward Harriman, et al)

This is a well documented historical fact-no cheap shot. Henry Ford crossed that line between being an employer and being a quasi govermental force of nature in his community.

I never disputed its accuracy. I just pointed out Ford's character had nothing to do with this discussion. The point I was attempting to make was that Ford's assembly-line concept didn't reduce jobs, as many claimed it would. Instead, the ripple effect created new industries and millions of new jobs. That's all.

[wallyworld]

Again there is only an artificial seperation between the character of a company founder like Ford and how that character and effective behavior impacted the larger community was my point. The point of business is only profit is a fallacy and a illusion born of a reductionist argument. That was and is an important point that we disagree on. While the robber barons of old were more identifiable, they have not gone away but they are more adept in keeping under the radar of public perception. Some are easily recognizable because they toot their own horns as community members abit too loudly...On the other hand, the fact that there are some companies who do not consider community investment as a charity case but rather a prudent long term investment is another important point..I have worked with several in Illinois and Wisconsin specifically in construction management for community building by providing affordable senior, low income and AIDs facilities. So, I think your statement that a firms sole responsibility is profit and is distinct from character whether individual or corporate as well as from philanthropic activities is just simplistic and reductionist and wrong. They may chose not to involve themselves but that is another matter. 

[Anonymous]

Ok,

Lets try this...

Assume AG gets the Antigates Motherboard Company(AMC) up and running...where will the company purchase the basic product...the wafer board, the machines to drill the board, the capacitors and such...the automated solderer and laser cutters...all that stuff?

And American made computers to run the program to do the work...from who would you purchase them?

My bet is that almost all of that is made overseas, so you would be adding to the container traffic with the purchases...and which Americans will do to small amount of assembly needed, if any?

 

The current "problem" did not comeabout overnight, so it would be foolish to assume a workable solution could be implemented overnight as well.  Where did we get our needed componentry BEFORE there were factories in Asia to draw from?  Right here. I seriously don't see the legitimacy of throwing in the towel, and saying "it's too late , we're too far gone, we have to roll with the punches ever after.

Tarriffs can work quite well ,

 

Maintain perspective please  that the tariffs do not by them selves create an overnight prohibition upon import, they just level the playing field on the cost of production.

 

If you are  Ed Motorola, and are building walkie talkies, you can continue to buy your capacitors abroad, albeit at a price roughly equivalent (by virtue of the tariff) to your cost of procuring  them domestically. 

 

A smart way to implement such incentives would be to phase them in, incrementally.  Perhaps over a 5-7 year period with a certain additional percentage kicking in each year, giving the means of production time to tool up, and an incentive to not be lagging. 

And my guess is that if Ed knows that in 8 years that imported capacitor will cost him 110% of a domestically aquired one...he'll prioritize accordingly. 

These sniveling excuses by some of the corporate appologists trying to plea that we are beyond some mythical point of no return, are just  trying to smokescreen their ambition to preserve the status quo.

 Don't blame 'em for trying, but I refuse to sympatize with them.

 

The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now. 

 

 

[Datafever]

The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now. 

Not at all.  Tariffs have consequences.  We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now. 

[Anonymous]

The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now. 

Not at all.  Tariffs have consequences.  We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now. 

 

Forgive me if I doubt you.  

[Datafever]

The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now. 

Not at all.  Tariffs have consequences.  We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now. 

 

Forgive me if I doubt you.  

Okay.  If you doubt me, then I forgive you. 

[Anonymous]

Okay.  If you doubt me, then I forgive you. 

 

Thanks..., because I do  (not that tariffs don't have consequences, because they do. I just doubt that we couldn't rise above them.)

 

Our ace in the hole is having the largest consumer market on the planet, right here between these shores 

[wallyworld]

I think tariffs are a back end solution focused on goods manufactured offshore by multinationals located in this country, returning by import. There may be a leveling of the playing field in some cases due to media exposure as some firms now audit their subcontractors to avoid sweatshop conditions although this is a PR stance, not a panacea. Tax benefits, enviromental concessions and a general lower standard of living reflected in the wages, and working conditions make this to my way of thinking, largely a throwback or continuation of Robber Baron exploitation. They can't get away with that nonsense here so they moved it over there. They are more sophisticated now...granted, I honestly saw people living in cardboard boxes who worked at an American firm down the road in a certain country. Maybe I am an idealist but it seems that eventually there is a price to be paid when we go beyond a reasonable amount of profit, and avoid community reinvestment and capital reinvestment, and focus soley on the growth of stock, etc...I would give the same tax incentives upfront that they receive offshore to grow jobs and investment here versus China...JFK said a long time ago-you cannot export democracy..you can make this country an exemplar however, that other countries want to emulate.

[SactoGuy188]

Not at all.  Tariffs have consequences.  We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now. 

 

Remember the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that went into law in 1930? That ultra-high import tariff made the Great Depression worse and if they had never implemented the tariff the Great Depression would not impact so many Americans.

By the way, what I find interesting is that many DaimlerChrysler, Ford and GM automobiles have far more content and final assembly done outside the USA than the majority of Honda and Toyota models! In fact, my 1998 Honda Civic HX CVT coupe was assembled at Honda's East Liberty, Ohio assembly line with at least 75% USA-assembled parts, including the engine itself (the only true imported part was the CVT automatic transmission, which was built at Honda's own transmission factory in Japan).

 

[doghouse]

Michigan Central looks much like the Buffalo Terminal....David Plowden, who has taken some of my favorite railroad photographs, has a book out on the theme of buildings in the heartland reverting to their natural state. It's called a Handful of Dust. The photo below is the Michigan Central ruin. Using my imagination, I could see it as a once bustling, noisy place full of activity.

http://davidplowden.com/

 

There is an abandoned station that sits near the exit to the tunnel under the Detroit river from Windso. The yard belongs to one of the canadian rr's.  Is this the one? 

 

Yes

It looked familiar.  Been in it(2003) .  The office tower as well.  Tragic to loose this wonderful piece of history.  Is it still standing?  Last I heard it was to be torn down.  

[Poppa_Zit]

Again there is only an artificial seperation between the character of a company founder like Ford and how that character and effective behavior impacted the larger community was my point. The point of business is only profit is a fallacy and a illusion born of a reductionist argument. That was and is an important point that we disagree on. While the robber barons of old were more identifiable, they have not gone away but they are more adept in keeping under the radar of public perception. Some are easily recognizable because they toot their own horns as community members abit too loudly...On the other hand, the fact that there are some companies who do not consider community investment as a charity case but rather a prudent long term investment is another important point..I have worked with several in Illinois and Wisconsin specifically in construction management for community building by providing affordable senior, low income and AIDs facilities. So, I think your statement that a firms sole responsibility is profit and is distinct from character whether individual or corporate as well as from philanthropic activities is just simplistic and reductionist and wrong. They may chose not to involve themselves but that is another matter. 

Well, we'll disagree because you are still misconstruing what I wrote. I'll repeat it so it can't be twisted again: "...pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout."

I still say the first order of any business is to make a profit. Anything else is secondary and a bonus. Being able to voluntarily exercise one's philanthropic urges is one of those bonuses. You seem to have issues with successful business owners.

Do you know the salaries of the top people/owners of your "community-builders"? They cannot operate at a loss, now can they? They don't build affordable housing to make money? And just how to they consider "community building" as a "long-term investment"? How will that investment pay off, if not in future revenue? What's the difference in working toward immediate profit or making a long-term profit?

Even the top honchos at the nation's biggest charities knock down some pretty hefty salaries. In 2005, the average yearly salary for the CEO of over 4,200 charities was nearly $150,000.

Full report at Charity Navigator

 

[Datafever]

Philanthropy is just another route to enhance the bottom line.  Many businesses have realized that customers are attracted to a good, clean company image.

[edblysard]

Poppa,

I wasn't demonizing Ford, nor aggrandizing him, just pointing out the fact that how he is presented to the world at large and how he really acted are vastly different...and he was a very interesting and complex man.

One who was, by any benchmark, highly successful in a fiercely competitive market by using all the tools available to him at the time.

 

James Hill, Pullman, Gould, all did the same thing, took advantage of the opportunities available at the time.

While some here rant and rave about the land grants, simply put there would be no major population in the western US, with the exception of the costal areas, with out the railroads and the use of land grants.

Morality aside, it worked, generated business, built towns which later became major cities, and helped move several million people into those areas.

 

Take Bill Gates, AG's arch nemesis of sorts...

I would hazard a guess that the majority of this forums participants are using one of his products...not because they are better than others, which they aren't, but simply because it does the job, at a price we are willing to pay.

 

EMD found this out the hard way...they do build a better locomotive, but not at a price the railroads are willing to pay, hence GE filled in the niche with cheaper locomotives, both in quality and price.

Railroads took advantage of the fact, and GE is now the predominant builder.

Simple business decision, if I can buy 3 GEs at the price I would pay for 2 EMDs, and both accomplish the same thing, pulling trains, why wouldn't I take advantage of that?

 

Blaming the union worker for GMs current mess is silly, all the union did was take advantage of what was offered....but had GMs management instituted changes in how they built cars, and the products they built, well, if all three of the major American car makers had done so, the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

I know they did internal studies back in the late 80s that told them such a point would come about, and the studies were quite accurate, which would lead one to think that if the management of the big three knew about it, they should have done something to prevent it from happening.

They didn't, of course, and continued with business as usual.

 

But here's a funny fact...GM now builds more models of automobiles that get 30 mpg or better, with a higher quality rating, than Honda and Toyota do combined...yet the public still perceives that the "imports", most of which are built here in America, are more efficient gas wise and better built quality wise.

 

So, lets take AGs AMC corp. out to the west coast, say he does build the best mother board in the world, and has a customer in Chicago who wants to buy those mother boards in volume, big, big volume...wouldn't it make sense for AG to find the most cost efficient way to transport his product from LA to Chicago?

And, if that happened to be by stuffing them in containers and sending them by train, wouldn't that be a good business decision?

 

 

To postulate that railroads have some moral or patriotic obligation to help revitalize domestic production of anything is, in my opinion, wrong.

All railroads, or any business for that matter, can do is react to and take advantage of the current situation, and plan for the future based upon their knowledge of their market.

 

Railroads have one obligation...to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.

Anything beyond that is incidental.

 

If hauling containers that originate in Asia from LA to Chicago makes more money than picking up single car loads, then they should do just that, haul the containers.

If building lines into the Powder River basin and dragging out monster coal trains makes them more money than moving boxcars full of truck frames, they lay those tracks and let's get after it.

 

Simplistic, but still...what if we ended up being just what Andrew Jackson envisioned America to be...an agrarian society that imported most of its manufactured and finished goods and exported agriculture products?

[Anonymous]

Tax benefits, enviromental concessions and a general lower standard of living reflected in the wages, and working conditions make this to my way of thinking, largely a throwback or continuation of Robber Baron exploitation. They can't get away with that nonsense here so they moved it over there..

 

Good point,  exploitatively low wages are not the sole motive, I'll conceed.

 Avoidance of enviro regs, and being able to escape affirmative action, (and  the  whole "alledge discrimination as a tool to guide ones career path" mentality) certainly play a part.

I think that what the discussion of tariffs vs no tariffs actually boils down to, is one of  dividends versus wages.

 I personally doubt that this nation will do the smart thing, because the "dividend lobby" seems to have this government bought and paid for.Meaning wage earners in this country will continue to take it on the chin

 But eventually it will come back and bite them in the cushion duster.

 

[wallyworld]

Again there is only an artificial seperation between the character of a company founder like Ford and how that character and effective behavior impacted the larger community was my point. The point of business is only profit is a fallacy and a illusion born of a reductionist argument. That was and is an important point that we disagree on. While the robber barons of old were more identifiable, they have not gone away but they are more adept in keeping under the radar of public perception. Some are easily recognizable because they toot their own horns as community members abit too loudly...On the other hand, the fact that there are some companies who do not consider community investment as a charity case but rather a prudent long term investment is another important point..I have worked with several in Illinois and Wisconsin specifically in construction management for community building by providing affordable senior, low income and AIDs facilities. So, I think your statement that a firms sole responsibility is profit and is distinct from character whether individual or corporate as well as from philanthropic activities is just simplistic and reductionist and wrong. They may chose not to involve themselves but that is another matter. 

Well, we'll disagree because you are still misconstruing what I wrote. I'll repeat it so it can't be twisted again: "...pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout."

I still say the first order of any business is to make a profit. Anything else is secondary and a bonus. Being able to voluntarily exercise one's philanthropic urges is one of those bonuses. You seem to have issues with successful business owners.

Do you know the salaries of the top people/owners of your "community-builders"? They cannot operate at a loss, now can they? They don't build affordable housing to make money? And just how to they consider "community building" as a "long-term investment"? How will that investment pay off, if not in future revenue? What's the difference in working toward immediate profit or making a long-term profit?

Even the top honchos at the nation's biggest charities knock down some pretty hefty salaries. In 2005, the average yearly salary for the CEO of over 4,200 charities was nearly $150,000.

Full report at Charity Navigator

 

Theres no misconstruing your meaning and the picture you assemble is as clear as ice water. I could provide you with a laundry list to match yours full of companies that do exactly what I said they do for long term purposes, but it's rather pointless isn't it? You can make a profit and you can take a portion of it and reinvest it in the community in which you operate. Hitler created the autobahn and put alot of germans back to work and printed enough money to bring down the price of bread..anything else he did was...well...beside my point. By the way, Henry Ford was, and still is a s__t and by your logic of seperating effective behavior from profit making is schitzoid at best...I was successful enough to have retired some time ago..... very comfortably as far my issues with success that you managed to have weasled in there..how about you? off topic are we? Shame on you Mr Zit...

[wallyworld]

Again there is only an artificial seperation between the character of a company founder like Ford and how that character and effective behavior impacted the larger community was my point. The point of business is only profit is a fallacy and a illusion born of a reductionist argument. That was and is an important point that we disagree on. While the robber barons of old were more identifiable, they have not gone away but they are more adept in keeping under the radar of public perception. Some are easily recognizable because they toot their own horns as community members abit too loudly...On the other hand, the fact that there are some companies who do not consider community investment as a charity case but rather a prudent long term investment is another important point..I have worked with several in Illinois and Wisconsin specifically in construction management for community building by providing affordable senior, low income and AIDs facilities. So, I think your statement that a firms sole responsibility is profit and is distinct from character whether individual or corporate as well as from philanthropic activities is just simplistic and reductionist and wrong. They may chose not to involve themselves but that is another matter. 

Well, we'll disagree because you are still misconstruing what I wrote. I'll repeat it so it can't be twisted again: "...pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout."

I still say the first order of any business is to make a profit. Anything else is secondary and a bonus. Being able to voluntarily exercise one's philanthropic urges is one of those bonuses. You seem to have issues with successful business owners.

Do you know the salaries of the top people/owners of your "community-builders"? They cannot operate at a loss, now can they? They don't build affordable housing to make money? And just how to they consider "community building" as a "long-term investment"? How will that investment pay off, if not in future revenue? What's the difference in working toward immediate profit or making a long-term profit?

Even the top honchos at the nation's biggest charities knock down some pretty hefty salaries. In 2005, the average yearly salary for the CEO of over 4,200 charities was nearly $150,000.

Full report at Charity Navigator

 

Theres no misconstruing your meaning and the picture you assemble is as clear as ice water. I could provide you with a laundry list to match yours full of companies that do exactly what I said they do for long term purposes, but it's rather pointless isn't it? You can make a profit and you can take a portion of it and reinvest it in the community in which you operate. Hitler created the autobahn and put alot of germans back to work and printed enough money to bring down the price of bread..anything else he did was...well...beside my point. By the way, Henry Ford was, and still is a s__t and by your logic of seperating effective behavior from profit making is schitzoid at best...I was successful enough to have retired some time ago..... very comfortably as far my issues with success that you managed to have weasled in there..how about you? off topic are we? Shame on you Mr Zit...

[Poppa_Zit]

Theres no misconstruing your meaning and the picture you assemble is as clear as ice water. I could provide you with a laundry list to match yours full of companies that do exactly what I said they do for long term purposes, but it's rather pointless isn't it? You can make a profit and you can take a portion of it and reinvest it in the community in which you operate. Hitler created the autobahn and put alot of germans back to work and printed enough money to bring down the price of bread..anything else he did was...well...beside my point. By the way, Henry Ford was, and still is a s__t and by your logic of seperating effective behavior from profit making is schitzoid at best...I was successful enough to have retired some time ago..... very comfortably as far my issues with success that you managed to have weasled in there..how about you? off topic are we? Shame on you Mr Zit...

I punt.

This is getting too irrational and weird. I refuse to dignify it with a response.

[Erie Lackawanna]

Michigan Central looks much like the Buffalo Terminal....David Plowden, who has taken some of my favorite railroad photographs, has a book out on the theme of buildings in the heartland reverting to their natural state. It's called a Handful of Dust. The photo below is the Michigan Central ruin. Using my imagination, I could see it as a once bustling, noisy place full of activity.

http://davidplowden.com/

 

There is an abandoned station that sits near the exit to the tunnel under the Detroit river from Windso. The yard belongs to one of the canadian rr's.  Is this the one? 

 

Yes

It looked familiar.  Been in it(2003) .  The office tower as well.  Tragic to loose this wonderful piece of history.  Is it still standing?  Last I heard it was to be torn down.  

 Last I knew, the Detroit Police Department took ownership, with the inention of restoring it and turning it into a new police headquarters.

[Anonymous]

Theres no misconstruing your meaning and the picture you assemble is as clear as ice water. I could provide you with a laundry list to match yours full of companies that do exactly what I said they do for long term purposes, but it's rather pointless isn't it? You can make a profit and you can take a portion of it and reinvest it in the community in which you operate. Hitler created the autobahn and put alot of germans back to work and printed enough money to bring down the price of bread..anything else he did was...well...beside my point. By the way, Henry Ford was, and still is a s__t and by your logic of seperating effective behavior from profit making is schitzoid at best...I was successful enough to have retired some time ago..... very comfortably as far my issues with success that you managed to have weasled in there..how about you? off topic are we? Shame on you Mr Zit...

I punt.

This is getting too irrational and weird. I refuse to dignify it with a response.

(......munch, munch.......)

What'd I miss?

[underworld]

The Gary Station is still there. It's my favorite building that I see when going to Chicago. The Detroit Station is also still standing. It's not by the tunnel though....it's a bit south of the old Tiger Stadium. There may be a fund raiser for the Detroit Station if all of the details can be worked out.

 

underworld

[doghouse]

The Gary Station is still there. It's my favorite building that I see when going to Chicago. The Detroit Station is also still standing. It's not by the tunnel though....it's a bit south of the old Tiger Stadium. There may be a fund raiser for the Detroit Station if all of the details can be worked out.

 

underworld

Its about 1.5 to 2 miles from the exit, correct?

[underworld]

About that. You can see it when approaching from the south....just past the refinery area (also known as Zug Island). It is a very stuunin structure if you ever get to see it up close.

 

underworld

[Erie Lackawanna]

The Gary Station is still there. It's my favorite building that I see when going to Chicago. The Detroit Station is also still standing. It's not by the tunnel though....it's a bit south of the old Tiger Stadium. There may be a fund raiser for the Detroit Station if all of the details can be worked out.

 

underworld

It all depends on your definition of "by." It's on the line to the tunnel and fairly close.  I

[doghouse]

The Gary Station is still there. It's my favorite building that I see when going to Chicago. The Detroit Station is also still standing. It's not by the tunnel though....it's a bit south of the old Tiger Stadium. There may be a fund raiser for the Detroit Station if all of the details can be worked out.

 

underworld

It all depends on your definition of "by." It's on the line to the tunnel and fairly close.  I

Now we all agree!

[scottychaos]

What does "once and future" mean?

I have never understood what that expression is trying to say.. 

thanks,

Scot

[wallyworld]

It goes back to the Arthurian legend of King Arthur, an English king whose historical reality is still being debated, although most consider his existance a myth. He was a King who brought an age of enlightenment, if you will, to the British people..he fell from grace...and vanished into legend...the myth portends his return at some future date... much like alot of religious predictions of spiritual kings in Islam, Christianity, Mayan, Aztec...etc ..his mentor, Merlin is supposedly asleep in suspended animation in a crystal cave...who may also wake up from his slumber...hence, once and future king....I thought it apt as these stations and some of the cities they were once the heart of, have fallen into decline...sometimes ruin...it was a perhaps overly optomistic wish and hint at restoration of their golden age...