Looking at the 2001 Congressional map, the only division of county political subdivisions occurred among townships with populations below 5,000 people (with the exception of Detroit, whose population was too large in 2000 to fit in one congressional district), adhering to the Apol Standards principle of "least cost." This precedent, which was largely followed in congressional redistricting that occurred prior to 2001, will be considered to be part of the seven traditional districting principles established by the Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno. Any map that gets proposed will likely be challenged in court, and you should assume that someone will try to draw another map that preserves the municipal boundaries, and stands a good chance of subjecting your map to strict scrutiny.

Finally, I think that folks in GR, particularly the GOP business elite, will oppose any map that divides the city between the 2nd and 3rd District. Likewise, the Redistricting Committees in the State House and Senate are not going to do any favors for Amash, and will do much more to preserve their gains in the 1st and 7th District.

Practically speaking, you may be right.  I was drawing a map I'd like to see, not what I think is most likely.  I still don't see why breaking a township is preferrable to breaking a city.  "Business leaders" might like a conventional conservative like Huizinga more than a libertarian like Amash.