Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. Boston's density is 13,841 people per square mile and Dallas' density is 3,645. A difference of 10,000 people per square mile.
Baltimore's density is 7,671 people per square mile and Detroit's density is 5,142 people per square mile. A difference of 2,500 people per square mile.
If going by structural density, the poster's analogy would have made more sense. There is a big difference between the two in that regard.
No offense to Detroit, because I love the City and am cheering its comeback, but no major city in the country even comes close to Detroit in terms of blight and decay... But note, I'm ONLY voting for on these bases ... To make a value judgement on people, I refuse to do, which would be downright silly. People are people no matter where there from.
Doesn't come close? that's not true at all. I have personally seen multiple parts of St. Louis, Cleveland, and Chicago that come pretty damn close. And I have been to most neighborhoods in Detroit at least once, and although Detroit has some VERY blighted neighborhoods, I've seen more than enough of Detroit to know that the average Detroit neighborhood "doesn't come close" to how people try to make it sound.
Doesn't come close? that's not true at all. I have personally seen multiple parts of St. Louis, Cleveland, and Chicago that come pretty damn close. And I have been to most neighborhoods in Detroit at least once, and although Detroit has some VERY blighted neighborhoods, I've seen more than enough of Detroit to know that the average Detroit neighborhood "doesn't come close" to how people try to make it sound.
Ehhh I'm from Cleveland and I know the city well and there really isn't a whole lot that compares to Detroit slums. Maybe a few pockets, but I feel Detroit is on a whole other level as far as blight goes.
Detroit's problem is not slums but good neighborhoods that have disappeared through the years. Vast areas of vacant lots and empty spaces that used to be homes and neighborhoods. The neighborhoods that are still intact tend to be pretty decent. Baltimore, on the other hand, has large areas of true slums. Block after block of run down or boarded up row houses. Like parts of North Philly.
Ehhh I'm from Cleveland and I know the city well and there really isn't a whole lot that compares to Detroit slums. Maybe a few pockets, but I feel Detroit is on a whole other level as far as blight goes.
If were comparing the worst of the worst you would be right. I was more talking about the average Detroit neighborhood and how people think most Detroit neighborhoods are mostly abandoned. And don't get me wrong... I'm aware that up until 2013... Detroit has done the WORST job at taking care of blight. They literally have been ignoring it for decades and letting it get worse instead of tearing it down like most cities do. Had past leaders been taking care of business like they are now, it wouldn't be this bad.
So which do you think is worse? High density slums or low density ones?
I think having either is something no city should want to deal with, but it depends for me. Baltimore has high density blight, which means that the blight of row homes are mostly concentrated in contained poverty stricken areas. For example, more than 800 of the city’s 16,745 vacant homes are in the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood, the site of Freddie Gray’s arrest and some of the worst looting of the protests. This could be mind blowing seeing so much blight at once to some. On the other end in the residential inner suburb neighborhoods of Baltimore where vacant homes are doesn't look as bad. I don't know if that's because more middle class people that still own their homes live in those neighborhoods or just because there is not as much blight there vs the poverty stricken high density blighted neighborhoods.
As far as numbers that I've researched I found that Detroit does have a lot more neighborhoods that are stressed. Maybe because of the low density and that more vacant buildings are spread out over a larger area. In reality its because of Detroit lost 91.7% of its peak 1950 population, while Baltimore has lost 40.1% peak population.
Here's what I found
Baltimore can fit inside of Detroit
We have to consider that when comparing the two
Baltimore's Housing Typology and Detroit's Median Family Income Map
Based on the legends in each map I circled each group of earnings. Green for the highest of incomes, and Red for the lowest. The earning family income in the middle of the legend I circled Yellow for neutral. Based on that you can see what areas in both cities have the highest incomes and the lowest, which most likely translates to areas with the lowest and highest blight. That doesn't mean what I circled is accurate especially concerning Detroit, but for the most part I know every thing in Baltimore's housing typology map is pretty accurate. A,B,C,D colors in Baltimore's map key are pretty stable areas in the city. E,F,G,H color that I circled Red are the most likely to be a little blighted to extremely blighted.
Report by the Housing Authority of Baltimore, US census Bureau, and University of Minnesota
Found that Nearly 17,000 homes, or about 8% of the city’s housing stock, are deemed unfit for habitation.
Real numbers there are approximately 16,000 vacant buildings and 14,000 vacant lots in the city of Baltimore. the two counts combined total 30,000 vacant properties.
Detroit with at least 70,000 abandoned buildings, 31,000 empty houses, and 90,000 vacant lots. As both cities demolish more vacant building so vacant lots could also increase as a sign of demolition.
Detroit's problem is not slums but good neighborhoods that have disappeared through the years. Vast areas of vacant lots and empty spaces that used to be homes and neighborhoods. The neighborhoods that are still intact tend to be pretty decent. Baltimore, on the other hand, has large areas of true slums. Block after block of run down or boarded up row houses. Like parts of North Philly.
I live in Baltimore and I have never been to Detroit. None the less I can easily believe the Baltimore has the worst slums. That is not because Baltimore is in worse shape overall - because it isn't. Instead, the high expense of removing attached masonry structures gives parts of the city - a quarter or less - a bombed out feel that is hard to replicate without bringing in Russians bombers. Detroit's distressed neighborhoods have been slowly becoming forests for quite a while now. In contrast, many of Baltimore's most distressed neighborhoods still have most of their buildings (even if they are empty) and lots of residents.
In fact, if the density of highly visible abandoned structures in certain neighborhoods were the only measure of city success, Baltimore is probably the nation's worst city. There is a lot more to Baltimore than its slums, but its slums make the city vulnerable to over the top criticism that even Detroit doesn't have to face. Despite the Census trends, most people that I know think Detroit is on its way back while Baltimore is spiraling downward. Demographics don's support either contention, but who cares about the truth in a Donald Trump America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
