U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 11-12-2011, 10:55 PM
 
5,029 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3210

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
I'd be interested in seeing the data on this. I doubt that Detroit grew very much more in area than the other cities mentioned. Even if you measure area growth per population growth, I don't think Detroit was much different. But I will stand corrected if you can support your claim. I've been to many American cities and the sprawl seems to be quite equal, maybe even greater in some of the newer cities (as compared to ones that reached their peak population during the era when housing lots were smaller).



It was actually very logical from the point of view of the actual home buyers. You may be one who believes that the government should tell people where to live and that government should make people live in high density. But if you are someone like myself who can appreciate the free market and letting people live where they choose to live, it is quite understandable why most Americans (and not just white Detroiters) choose to live in newer (than the ones they grew up in) subdivisions.



I think the noticeable difference between Detroit and most other cities is that, although all other cities grew outward as much as Detroit, Detroit never maintained the core inner city population. This can be attributed to a few factors:
  • Lack of immigrant population, including Mexicans. Because immigrants generally are poorer, they choose to live in the older inner city neighborhoods (although they also tend to move out after a generation or two).
  • Poor government leadership, caused by the lack of racial diversity in that leadership which tended to isolate Detroit's problems (and solutions) from the suburbs.
  • Lack of continuity in the major employers in the city, i.e. when the factories left, the people left. Abandoned factories leave a big footprint that divides the community.
  • General dysfunction of the black culture, which Detroit is predominantly composed of. Many cities have more whites -- especially hispanics -- which moderate this.
Retroit,

Your post is right on, although I'm not sure I agree with you totally on a couple points.

Sure, Detroit may not be in the top metro areas in terms of immigration and foreign born in this day in age (it was 50-100 years ago!!), but despite all of Detroits stagnation, the immigration that has occurred is certainly nothing to overlook.

METRO Detroit (I know you already know this, but) has the largest Arab community in the nation. And that is not just Arab ancestry, it is a vibrant community that is made of recent immigrants. Refugees from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and other countries give a strong international feel.

Thing is though, its mostly in the suburbs (with Dearborn as the center certainly). Every Arab-american here in the Chicago area has relatives in the Detroit area.

Hamtramck I know has attracted immigrants from diverse groups from Albanians to Bangladeshis replacing the aging and assimilating Poles (and Ukrainians to a lesser extent). And SW Detroits Mexican community may not be anything like California, Texas, or Chicago, but it is a vibrant neighborhood.

And this is just my personal opinion, but I don't necessarily perceive urban hispanic communities as being less dysfunctional necessarily than black communities.

I think there is a MAJOR rift in terms of neighborhoods that separate middle class stable black communities from the poverty and crime infested black neighborhoods.

However, in many recently arrived hispanic communities, you come across people that glorify and glamourize gang-life almost as an extension of their ethnic pride.

I know this is the case in Chicagos Puerto Rican community in Humboldt Park. Hispanics are slightly more like the way that Sicilians were back in the old days. The gang mentality was actually highly integrated into family life.

Whereas in the black community, when the family is very strong, I think they tend to reject ghetto values that lead to crime, and go and form their own nice, middle class communities (in Detroit this would includes areas on the far NW side where you have pretty nice areas like Palmer Woods/University District/7-mile/Livernois as well as big areas of Southfield-Lathrup Village).

 
Old 11-12-2011, 10:57 PM
 
5,029 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3210
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Chicago (metro) has doubled in population since 1960 (from 5 million to 10 million).

Los Angeles (CSA) has increased from 7 million in 1960 to 18 million today.

Even Philadelphia's MSA had 4 million in 1960 and is now at 6 million.

It's common knowledge that Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo never had as huge of an issue with sprawl, especially due to geographic and topographic factors, but I listed them as examples because their population never demanded it and they knew it didn't make sense to build excess infrastructure. If they had sprawl equivalent to Detroit their MSAs would be to Rochester, Youngstown and Erie right now.

Meanwhile in Detroit, back in 1950 and even 1960, everything west of Telegraph and north of I-696 was essentially forest and farmland while the Mack and Chalmers area was a bustling working class neighborhood. Now you can't even drive pass US-23 or M-59 without still being bombarded by sprawl (especially in Macomb County) while the Mack and Chalmers area is darn near a ghost town, even though the region still must bare the burden of maintaining the infrastructure at MAck & Chalmers AND the new infrastructure at 23 Mile and Garfield since there are still taxpaying residents and businesses to cater to in these areas, no matter how many or few.

This website explains it pretty well...

Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com

Anyways, your move!!!
Good post,

although your population figures are clearly different from the website.

Metro Chicago was just under 7 million in 1960, and around 9 million today.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 11:04 PM
 
7,238 posts, read 5,166,430 times
Reputation: 5345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
Good post,

although your population figures are clearly different from the website.

Metro Chicago was just under 7 million in 1960, and around 9 million today.
By bad, the 5 million was from 1950.

Either way, the point still stands. All of the aforementioned cities faced the same issues as Detroit (racism, deindustrialization, highway construction, white flight, etc.), yet tehy continue to grow and create new wealth by leaps and bounds. So again I would like to know the reason (metro) Detroit is still stuck at the same place it was in 1950-1960, with only just a doubling of the land area for whatever reason. It can't be no other reason than poor leadership and planning from all ends, because the money is there as recent statistics show. And that structural problem right there has to be corrected for any meaningful renaissance in Detroit.

And for Chicago it's more like 9.5 million now in the MSA and 9.7 million in the CSA. It's close enough to 10 million, and based on basic math rules it does round up to 10 million.
 
Old 11-12-2011, 11:43 PM
 
2,674 posts, read 2,079,374 times
Reputation: 1475
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Excellent post. I've tried to explain this to Black Americans who say "well this city in Africa is worst" . Certainly they are right but they miss the point that these Africans are entirely self sufficient and in many cases have substantially lower levels of crime.

In my view there should be no housing agency in Detroit if you can't afford to buy a home or a patch of grass for $2,000 and build it up than there is no hope for you. Then again some government bureaucrat would tell them it's not up to code and order it torn down. It's a vicious cycle.

If I was responsible for rebuilding Detroit, I'd make it like Hong Kong, allow for as much free wheeling capitalism as possible.

Ed. Really. You're Black. Stop writing as though you are outside of the group. We can discuss Africa ad nauseum, but this is America, not Africa.

Inconsistent POV and references make me call a false flag, again.

Detroit never diversified from its industrial past, there is no other dominant industry as of now and it is feeling this pain, it's happened to Indianaplois and many other cities.
 
Old 11-13-2011, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Maryland
17,407 posts, read 7,949,964 times
Reputation: 5490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
I'd be interested in seeing the data on this. I doubt that Detroit grew very much more in area than the other cities mentioned. Even if you measure area growth per population growth, I don't think Detroit was much different. But I will stand corrected if you can support your claim. I've been to many American cities and the sprawl seems to be quite equal, maybe even greater in some of the newer cities (as compared to ones that reached their peak population during the era when housing lots were smaller).



It was actually very logical from the point of view of the actual home buyers. You may be one who believes that the government should tell people where to live and that government should make people live in high density. But if you are someone like myself who can appreciate the free market and letting people live where they choose to live, it is quite understandable why most Americans (and not just white Detroiters) choose to live in newer (than the ones they grew up in) subdivisions.



I think the noticeable difference between Detroit and most other cities is that, although all other cities grew outward as much as Detroit, Detroit never maintained the core inner city population. This can be attributed to a few factors:
  • Lack of immigrant population, including Mexicans. Because immigrants generally are poorer, they choose to live in the older inner city neighborhoods (although they also tend to move out after a generation or two).
  • Poor government leadership, caused by the lack of racial diversity in that leadership which tended to isolate Detroit's problems (and solutions) from the suburbs.
  • Lack of continuity in the major employers in the city, i.e. when the factories left, the people left. Abandoned factories leave a big footprint that divides the community.
  • General dysfunction of the black culture, which Detroit is predominantly composed of. Many cities have more whites -- especially hispanics -- which moderate this.
 
Old 11-13-2011, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Maryland
17,407 posts, read 7,949,964 times
Reputation: 5490
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyDay View Post
Ed. Really. You're Black. Stop writing as though you are outside of the group. We can discuss Africa ad nauseum, but this is America, not Africa.

Inconsistent POV and references make me call a false flag, again.

Detroit never diversified from its industrial past, there is no other dominant industry as of now and it is feeling this pain, it's happened to Indianaplois and many other cities.
You don't want to compare Indianapolis to Detroit do you? I don't think that's a road you want to travel.

What about Pittsburgh, the steel industry left there too they seem to be holding their own. I wonder why?
 
Old 11-13-2011, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Maryland
17,407 posts, read 7,949,964 times
Reputation: 5490
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
By bad, the 5 million was from 1950.

Either way, the point still stands. All of the aforementioned cities faced the same issues as Detroit (racism, deindustrialization, highway construction, white flight, etc.), yet tehy continue to grow and create new wealth by leaps and bounds. So again I would like to know the reason (metro) Detroit is still stuck at the same place it was in 1950-1960, with only just a doubling of the land area for whatever reason. It can't be no other reason than poor leadership and planning from all ends, because the money is there as recent statistics show. And that structural problem right there has to be corrected for any meaningful renaissance in Detroit.

And for Chicago it's more like 9.5 million now in the MSA and 9.7 million in the CSA. It's close enough to 10 million, and based on basic math rules it does round up to 10 million.

Also some say racial polarization is why Detroit failed. Yet Chicago by many accounts is even more racially polarized.
 
Old 11-13-2011, 08:05 AM
 
7,238 posts, read 5,166,430 times
Reputation: 5345
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyDay View Post
it's happened to Indianaplois and many other cities.
There are very few major cities that didn't experience growth or stop their decline in the last census (especialy Indianapolis which just took Detroit's place as the 2nd largest midwest city and columbus which just passed Detroit up as the 3rd largest midwest city).

Also, the dynamics in Indianapolis are completely different (they're strongly pro-regionalization). To prevent sprawl, just about all of Marion County was annexed by Indianapolis. It would be hell on earth if someone in Detroit suggested that. About the only problem Indianapolis faces in comparison to Detroit's is mass transit, but even then I would say they're way ahead of us in addressing the problem. The mayor of Indianapolis, on his own, just presented an extensive mass transit plan to the state, not caring about any tax increases, just because of the fact that he knows that mass transit will still have a greater positive effect on the city than anything else, including a marginal tax increase.

So do you have something to back your claim up with?
 
Old 11-13-2011, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Your computer screen.
6,096 posts, read 4,769,842 times
Reputation: 5946
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Chicago (metro) has doubled in population since 1960 (from 5 million to 10 million).

Los Angeles (CSA) has increased from 7 million in 1960 to 18 million today.

Even Philadelphia's MSA had 4 million in 1960 and is now at 6 million.

It's common knowledge that Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo never had as huge of an issue with sprawl, especially due to geographic and topographic factors, but I listed them as examples because their population never demanded it and they knew it didn't make sense to build excess infrastructure. If they had sprawl equivalent to Detroit their MSAs would be to Rochester, Youngstown and Erie right now.

Meanwhile in Detroit, back in 1950 and even 1960, everything west of Telegraph and north of I-696 was essentially forest and farmland while the Mack and Chalmers area was a bustling working class neighborhood. Now you can't even drive pass US-23 or M-59 without still being bombarded by sprawl (especially in Macomb County) while the Mack and Chalmers area is darn near a ghost town, even though the region still must bare the burden of maintaining the infrastructure at MAck & Chalmers AND the new infrastructure at 23 Mile and Garfield since there are still taxpaying residents and businesses to cater to in these areas, no matter how many or few.

This website explains it pretty well...

Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com

Anyways, your move!!!
Okay, but I'd like to see data that the area of metro Detroit has grow disproportionately to other cities. There is no doubt that the City of Detroit has become more vacant than most other inner cities, but that doesn't mean that the metropolitan area has increase more than others (in proportion to population growth).
 
Old 11-13-2011, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Your computer screen.
6,096 posts, read 4,769,842 times
Reputation: 5946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
Retroit,

Your post is right on, although I'm not sure I agree with you totally on a couple points.

Sure, Detroit may not be in the top metro areas in terms of immigration and foreign born in this day in age (it was 50-100 years ago!!), but despite all of Detroits stagnation, the immigration that has occurred is certainly nothing to overlook. True, but I'm speaking more of the City of Detroit proper as opposed to the metro area.

METRO Detroit (I know you already know this, but) has the largest Arab community in the nation. And that is not just Arab ancestry, it is a vibrant community that is made of recent immigrants. Refugees from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and other countries give a strong international feel.

Thing is though, its mostly in the suburbs (with Dearborn as the center certainly). Every Arab-american here in the Chicago area has relatives in the Detroit area.

Hamtramck I know has attracted immigrants from diverse groups from Albanians to Bangladeshis replacing the aging and assimilating Poles (and Ukrainians to a lesser extent). And SW Detroits Mexican community may not be anything like California, Texas, or Chicago, but it is a vibrant neighborhood.

And this is just my personal opinion, but I don't necessarily perceive urban hispanic communities as being less dysfunctional necessarily than black communities. I believe the crime rates in the hispanic areas of Detroit are less than the black areas of Detroit. I don't think they are equal to white suburban areas by any means, but certainly better than black areas. Also, hispanics tend to blur the boundaries between blacks and whites, so that both blacks and whites feel more comfortable in a hispanic area than they would in a white (if black) or black (if white) area.

I think there is a MAJOR rift in terms of neighborhoods that separate middle class stable black communities from the poverty and crime infested black neighborhoods. That's an important point. The black community has really stratified into income groups. Almost to the point where many upper income blacks and lower income blacks disassociate with each other.

However, in many recently arrived hispanic communities, you come across people that glorify and glamourize gang-life almost as an extension of their ethnic pride.

I know this is the case in Chicagos Puerto Rican community in Humboldt Park. Hispanics are slightly more like the way that Sicilians were back in the old days. The gang mentality was actually highly integrated into family life.

Whereas in the black community, when the family is very strong, I think they tend to reject ghetto values that lead to crime, and go and form their own nice, middle class communities (in Detroit this would includes areas on the far NW side where you have pretty nice areas like Palmer Woods/University District/7-mile/Livernois as well as big areas of Southfield-Lathrup Village).
.
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 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 > Michigan > Detroit

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top