Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which has the worse slums/ghettos?
Baltimore(Bodymore) 93 30.29%
Detroit 214 69.71%
Voters: 307. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-25-2016, 08:55 PM
 
4,087 posts, read 3,198,898 times
Reputation: 3048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwduvall View Post
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.
Yes kind of agree. Why both Philly and Baltimore get this bad wrap by not removing its blight as other cities till gentrification comes. But Baltimore did a great job on its Harbor and Core getting developed.
I also belive we shouldn't be calling blighted neighborhoods <slums>. Even the UN does not classify the US As having ~slums~. Ghettos we can call them yes.

Slum - definition -- A heavily populated urban area characterized by substandard housing and squalor. While slums differ in size and other characteristics, most lack reliable sanitation services, supply of clean water, reliable electricity, law enforcement and other basic services.

Shows world map of the nations of the world with no US or Europeans nations with slums according to UN-habitat. definition.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum
So the term is less valid for US Ghettos as they were built as once middle-class neighborhoods never substandard shanty towns of old and quality housing. Slums of the 3rd world nations and developing world were built as substandard housing without aspects of services we take for granted. So I rather not use the term <slum>for US poor rundown in blight and removed housing or boarded up ones among decent ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small View Post
Detroit's problem is not slums but good neighborhoods that have disappeared through the years. Vast areas of vacant lots and 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.
Detroit actually is a city of single homes with front lawns and back yards that became blighted. Baltimore as Philly is predominately row-housing in areas blighted as Ghettos. These I see look worst then single separated housing blighted too and also look worst with removed housing in parts of once tight rows of homes removed. Some cities as another said too. Did a better job removing the worst of its blight. Chicago is one and it still provides basic services as street-cleaning too.

Maybe all just my opinion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2016, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Detroit
3,671 posts, read 5,840,373 times
Reputation: 2691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernest Southernest C View Post
No it doesn't mean Detroit was the largest city in the country, but it does show that Detroit was one of the largest cities in the country when you look at the numbers and still wonder how the city is still one of the largest cities in the country with over 670,000 people. Same could be said for other rust belt cities.

Percentage change for Detroit from the 1950 census when a lot of rust belt cities had their peak populations to the most current census population estimate for 2015. If you add up the percentage totals from the population history chart including 2015 estimate it equals 91.7%.

Detroit: -91.7%


Baltimore: -40.1%
No, it doesn't equal 91% or anywhere near it. And that chart just proved my point. They are counting a percentage loss from every 10 years, NOT peak population. Your just adding up every percent change from every census, for what reason? idk.

To find the REAL percentage I will take 1950 census which is 1849568 and 2010 census 713777 (I don't count census estimates because they are usually wrong) and find the difference which is -61.40844781051575 or 61%. Which proves, Detroit did not lose 91.7% of it's peak population. 713,777 is not 8.3 percent of 1,849,568.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2016, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
684 posts, read 997,569 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS313 View Post
No, it doesn't equal 91% or anywhere near it. And that chart just proved my point. They are counting a percentage loss from every 10 years, NOT peak population. Your just adding up every percent change from every census, for what reason? idk.

To find the REAL percentage I will take 1950 census which is 1849568 and 2010 census 713777 (I don't count census estimates because they are usually wrong) and find the difference which is -61.40844781051575 or 61%. Which proves, Detroit did not lose 91.7% of it's peak population. 713,777 is not 8.3 percent of 1,849,568.
You asked me where I got the data from and that's what I showed you. That's all. So I've misinterpreted the data. As you concluded that chart shows percentage loss from every 10 years. Added together still puts into perspective how much declining population affects each cities blight which was my point. If you want to clarify the data as misleading you can change it on Wikipedia with a wiki account. Up to you.

Last edited by Northernest Southernest C; 12-25-2016 at 11:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 06:46 AM
 
Location: In the heights
36,885 posts, read 38,781,820 times
Reputation: 20904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernest Southernest C View Post
You asked me where I got the data from and that's what I showed you. That's all. So I've misinterpreted the data. As you concluded that chart shows percentage loss from every 10 years. Added together still puts into perspective how much declining population affects each cities blight which was my point. If you want to clarify the data as misleading you can change it on Wikipedia with a wiki account. Up to you.
The other poster was right--you basically did the math wrong that's all.

Bad losses for both cities with it being worse for Detroit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 06:52 AM
 
Location: In the heights
36,885 posts, read 38,781,820 times
Reputation: 20904
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small View Post
A lot of people with good paying jobs in DC live in Baltimore but usually in the neighborhoods with quick access to I-95 and DC such as Federal Hill and Canton. That doesn't do much good for struggling neighborhoods in West Baltimore.
Sur, but it helps stabilize some neighborhoods from which the city can grow out of and contributes to the city's tax base so it has resources to improve the city as a whole.

Probably the largest benefit from being that close to the growing DC area isn't so much direct employment as it is the indirect employment through being the larger area's main port which generates a lot of money and jobs for Baltimore both directly and down the supply chain. It also gives Baltimore residents more flight destinations from the nearby airport which a metro of its size generally does not get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Detroit
3,671 posts, read 5,840,373 times
Reputation: 2691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernest Southernest C View Post
You asked me where I got the data from and that's what I showed you. That's all. So I've misinterpreted the data. As you concluded that chart shows percentage loss from every 10 years. Added together still puts into perspective how much declining population affects each cities blight which was my point. If you want to clarify the data as misleading you can change it on Wikipedia with a wiki account. Up to you.
The chart on Wiki isn't wrong at all. They are doing it right which is going by percentage from every 10 years. But yea overall, declining population has had a significant effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 10:28 AM
 
1,310 posts, read 1,496,379 times
Reputation: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS313 View Post
The chart on Wiki isn't wrong at all. They are doing it right which is going by percentage from every 10 years. But yea overall, declining population has had a significant effect.
Even highly successful cities like Boston and Washington, DC have had significant population loss since 1950. The real determinant of health seems to be the number of households.

DC and Boston have had very significant growth in the number of households, particularly in recent years. Baltimore is down 4% to 7% on households since 1950 and Detroit is probably down 50%. I was hoping that Baltimore could get back up to its 1950 household count by 2020 but I now think it will fall a little short. The media sells an image of an empty Baltimore to the nation and the world, but the truth is that it is mostly full but still troubled city. Detroit isn't nearly as full as Baltimore. DC and Boston are over-full and have the rents to prove it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Portsmouth, VA
6,514 posts, read 8,384,327 times
Reputation: 3822
Detroit; absolutely no comparison. OP, why do you feel that Baltimore has worse slums than Detroit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 12:03 PM
 
4,172 posts, read 2,911,861 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
I also noticed how the train goes through some rough areas of Philly too. I suppose it's not unusual though, since living next to the tracks is generally a lower income area. But I get the point, in that many cities have run-down areas, especially in the older cities. Even the newer southern cities will someday deal with these types of problems (more so than now), as I believe it's a common life-cycle with a city.

I read somewhere that some cities have sections of abandoned houses torn down, and then less dense housing built. Does anyone know anything about this process (in any city really)? I'm curious if the new housing is public housing only, or if some of it is sold. I'm also curious as to the outcome of this tactic.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4423...7i13312!8i6656

Skyline Terrace replaced a former housing project named Elmore Square. The city of Pittsburgh's Housing Authority reconnected for the street grid and improved the city views. The new development is mixed with subsidized and market rate units. This is one of many Hill District redevelopment projects in Pittsburgh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 06:29 PM
 
Location: BMORE!
10,071 posts, read 9,833,597 times
Reputation: 5725
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Sur, but it helps stabilize some neighborhoods from which the city can grow out of and contributes to the city's tax base so it has resources to improve the city as a whole.

Probably the largest benefit from being that close to the growing DC area isn't so much direct employment as it is the indirect employment through being the larger area's main port which generates a lot of money and jobs for Baltimore both directly and down the supply chain. It also gives Baltimore residents more flight destinations from the nearby airport which a metro of its size generally does not get.
Being close to the DC area could possibly be the biggest hinderence to Baltimore, yet the Baltimore area is still persevering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top