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.
Chicago and Detroit have poverty, but as far as the status of the infrastructure and housing - even the worst areas of Chicago are quite a bit more intact than Detroit. Look at google maps satellite views of both cities. There certainly are areas on Chicago's south side with a lot of vacant lots, but given the size of the south side as a whole - it's quite a small portion. Even the worst areas still generally have 50%+ buildings still intact. I was actually shocked when I started looking at areas on the south side. Many of the extremely rough areas actually look fully built and functional.
Detroit on the other hand has vast areas with almost no buildings, or everything is abandoned.
Chicago has blight and really rough areas, but most areas of the south/west sides are actually held together pretty well. Then go to the northern half of the city and it's almost 100% intact.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycjowww
it seems as if your saying philly,s and nyc segregation is on the same level of chicago when in reality its not at all.
Haha. Never said those two are as segregated or more segregated than Chicago, but they're actually VERY close to Chicago level segregation (New York distantly though compared to Washington DC & Philadelphia to Chicago) and in many ways comparable in many aspects, and I do mean it statistically. Most Midwestern & Northeastern cities do a very poor job at integration compare to the West & South.
Segregation, however its negatively viewed, but what people fail to realize is how it has its perks too, Chiantown's, Little Italy's, Little Anything actually is a result of that and those are some pretty cool neighborhoods to have.
Chicago has segregation and it gets a bum rap for segregation too, but places like Washington DC & Philadelphia (about statistically the same for all 3 actually) are utmost extremely comparable when it comes into regards of segregation, New York to a distant lesser extent though.
A few more: Rockford, Cape Girardeau, Anderson, Bloomington, Columbus (IN), Elkhart(IN), Evansville, Fort Wayne, Gary, Kokomo (IN), Lafayette (IN), Michigan City, Muncie, Terre Haute, Racine (WI), Jansville (WI), Fon du lac (WI), Oshkosh (WI), Appleton (WI), Kenosha, Eau Claire, Champaign, South bend,
All of these metro areas are within a few hundred miles BTW
lmao I dont know if I'd throw Cape Girardeau in as a place where people may have went from Chicago. You could be in Central Mississippi before you could get to Chicago from there.
Yeah but he said everything. I'll give you SOC and PG. But not everything. Also, the majority of Lancaster and Duncanville are not poverty stricken areas. C'mon now.
I know this is an old thread, but I found it interesting that my little suburb came up in a "big city" discussion.
Spade's quote is correct. I don't understand how someone could label these communities "poverty stricken" when a quick search of the city-data statistics show that both have poverty rates (Duncanville - 8.3%, Lancaster - 11.3%) notably lower than the state average (17.2%). There are other Dallas suburbs with higher levels of poverty than these communities. Of course there are income variations from neighborhood to neighborhood, but that's the case in just about any sizable city. Despite the frequent blanket generalizations that are made about them, including the prevalent one that simply lumps them together with the southern half of Dallas proper as if there is no discernible difference, the southern suburbs of Dallas - DeSoto, Lancaster, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, etc. - are all mostly middle-class cities that experienced significant growth and development over the past decade.
For those who are interested, I created a photo thread for my hometown of Lancaster, Texas. The pictures come from various neighborhoods throughout the city: http://www.city-data.com/forum/dalla...er-photos.html.
I know this is an old thread, but I found it interesting that my little suburb came up in a "big city" discussion.
Spade's quote is correct. I don't understand how someone could label these communities "poverty stricken" when a quick search of the city-data statistics show that both have poverty rates (Duncanville - 8.3%, Lancaster - 11.3%) substantially lower than the state average (17.2%). There are other Dallas suburbs with higher levels of poverty than these communities. Of course there are some income variations from neighborhood to neighborhood, but that's the case in just about any sizable city. Despite the frequent blanket generalizations that are made about them, including the prevalent one that simply lumps them together with the southern half of Dallas proper as if there is no discernible difference, the southern suburbs of Dallas -DeSoto, Lancaster, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, etc. - are all mostly middle-class cities that experienced significant growth over the past decade.
I hate people complaining about the census counts. The census isn't supposed to be an exact count. They make an effort to count everyone they can, and make every effort to estimate how many people they missed. If 30%+ of the population refuses to participate, there's not a whole lot they can do now is there?
I know this is an old thread, but I found it interesting that my little suburb came up in a "big city" discussion.
Spade's quote is correct. I don't understand how someone could label these communities "poverty stricken" when a quick search of the city-data statistics show that both have poverty rates (Duncanville - 8.3%, Lancaster - 11.3%) notably lower than the state average (17.2%). There are other Dallas suburbs with higher levels of poverty than these communities. Of course there are income variations from neighborhood to neighborhood, but that's the case in just about any sizable city. Despite the frequent blanket generalizations that are made about them, including the prevalent one that simply lumps them together with the southern half of Dallas proper as if there is no discernible difference, the southern suburbs of Dallas - DeSoto, Lancaster, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, etc. - are all mostly middle-class cities that experienced significant growth and development over the past decade.
For those who are interested, I created a photo thread for my hometown of Lancaster, Texas. The pictures come from various neighborhoods throughout the city: http://www.city-data.com/forum/dalla...er-photos.html.
I hate people complaining about the census counts. The census isn't supposed to be an exact count. They make an effort to count everyone they can, and make every effort to estimate how many people they missed. If 30%+ of the population refuses to participate, there's not a whole lot they can do now is there?
Eh... anecdotal evidence but I was not counted in the census and I am a registered voter / legal citizen / live in nice neighborhood. ComEd, Peoples Gas and City of Chicago don't have a problem sending me a bill or a new city sticker for the car, how is the census so much of a blunder?
Anyway, who cares if some areas are losing population, the core neighborhoods are getting denser, and more built up and there was a crapload of new nice buildings that went up 2000-2010.
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.
