Detroit Vs Other Cities (Southfield, Taylor: crime, mortgages, loans)

[edub]

I don't have too much experience in Chicago but from what I have seen and have heard about it it is more like Royal Oak than Detroit.

[Ohio248]

Originally Posted by edub

I don't have too much experience in Chicago but from what I have seen and have heard about it it is more like Royal Oak than Detroit.

Huh? Chicago is obviously much more like Detroit than Royal Oak.

Why would Chicago be compared to a lily-white postwar Detroit suburb?

There are more blacks than whites in Chicago, just like Detroit.

Chicago is (or was) a huge industrial city, just like Detroit.

Chicago is highly segregated by race and income, just like Detroit.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Ohio248

Huh? Chicago is obviously much more like Detroit than Royal Oak.

Why would Chicago be compared to a lily-white postwar Detroit suburb?

There are more blacks than whites in Chicago, just like Detroit.

Chicago is (or was) a huge industrial city, just like Detroit.

Chicago is highly segregated by race and income, just like Detroit.

I think he was referring to the gentrified areas on the north side like Lincoln Park or Lakeview being like Royal Oak, in that there are lots of singles and nightlife in Royal Oak. In fact its considered to be about the best area for that in the Detroit area.

[edub]

Chicago

The racial makeup of the city was 41.97% white, 36.77% black, 4.35% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 0.36% Native American, 13.58% from other races, and 2.92% from two or more races. 26.02% of the population were Hispanic of any race. 21.72% of the population was foreign born; of this, 56.29% came from Latin America, 23.13% from Europe, 17.96% from Asia and 2.62% from other parts of the world.[4] The 2007 community survey for the U.S. Census showed little variation.[5]. Chicago has the fifth highest foreign-born population in the country.

The median income for a household in the city was $38,625, and the median income for a family was $46,748. Males had a median income of $35,907 versus $30,536 for females. Below the poverty line are 19.6% of the population and 16.6% of the families.

Detroit

The racial makeup of the city was 81.6% Black, 12.3% White, 1.0% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 2.5% other races, 2.3% two or more races, and 5.0 percent Hispanic (mostly Puerto Rican and Mexican). The city's foreign-born population is at 4.8%.

For the 2000 Census, median household income in the city was $29,526, and the median income for a family was $33,853. Males had a median income of $33,381 versus $26,749 for females. The per capita income for the city was $14,717. 26.1% of the population and 21.7% of families were below the poverty line.

As you can see, the demographics of Detroit and Chicago are much different. In Chicago, Whites outnumber Blacks 42% to 37%. In Detroit, Blacks outnumber Whites by an amazing 82% to 12%. That''s almost 7 fold. Chicago is not at all similar to Detroit in this regard.

Chicago has 19.6% of people living below poverty; Detroit 26%. Detroit has 36% more people living below the poverty line.

Again, I know Chicago has bad areas that are like some in Detroit, but unlike Detroit, not all of Chicago is bad.

[us66]

The city of Chicago is more like Royal Oak city, Ferndale, and Royal Oak Township put together, then.

[Ohio248]

Originally Posted by edub

As you can see, the demographics of Detroit and Chicago are much different. In Chicago, Whites outnumber Blacks 42% to 37%. In Detroit, Blacks outnumber Whites by an amazing 82% to 12%. That''s almost 7 fold. Chicago is not at all similar to Detroit in this regard.

Uh, you do realize your Census stats completely contradict your point, right?

Blacks are Chicago's largest ethnic group and outnumber whites, which is directly from the Census.

You are listing racial characteristics, not ethnic characteristics. Therefore, no Hispanics are being counted, because they are not a race, but an ethnicity.

So you are grouping Latinos in with whites to claim that there are more whites than blacks (relatively few Latinos identify as black, especially in Chicago, where almost all Latinos are Mexican and you don't have the Latino diversity of a Miami or New York).

According to the Census, as of 2008 Chicago is-

37% black
32% white
25% hispanic (could be any race)
6% other

So Chicago is obviously MUCH more like Detroit, because, like Detroit, blacks are the largest ethnicity (though obviously they do not dominate like in Detroit). They are still the largest group though (and by quite a bit) and actually outnumber (in raw numbers) the number of blacks in Detroit.

And the original claim was that Chicago was more like Royal Oak, which was 94% white in the 2008 Census. How can a city where less than a third of the population is white claim to be similar to Royal Oak?

[ForStarters]

Both Chicago and Detroit are great American cities.

[313 TUxedo]

Originally Posted by edub

<snip>
Detroit

The racial makeup of the city was 81.6% Black, 12.3% White, 1.0% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 2.5% other races, 2.3% two or more races, and 5.0 percent Hispanic (mostly Puerto Rican and Mexican). The city's foreign-born population is at 4.8%.


<snip>

And that was back in 2000, when the sub-prime mortgage boom was just getting started.

Some of the neighborhoods with much of the white population in 2000 (Warrendale, Parkland, East English Village, 8 Mile/Kelly) have had significant (but not complete) change since then.

OTOH, more african-americans left the city during this decade than hispanics did, who, for the most part, stayed put, even grew a little.

[edub]

Originally Posted by Ohio248

Uh, you do realize your Census stats completely contradict your point, right?

Blacks are Chicago's largest ethnic group and outnumber whites, which is directly from the Census.

You are listing racial characteristics, not ethnic characteristics. Therefore, no Hispanics are being counted, because they are not a race, but an ethnicity.

So you are grouping Latinos in with whites to claim that there are more whites than blacks (relatively few Latinos identify as black, especially in Chicago, where almost all Latinos are Mexican and you don't have the Latino diversity of a Miami or New York).

According to the Census, as of 2008 Chicago is-

37% black
32% white
25% hispanic (could be any race)
6% other

So Chicago is obviously MUCH more like Detroit, because, like Detroit, blacks are the largest ethnicity (though obviously they do not dominate like in Detroit). They are still the largest group though (and by quite a bit) and actually outnumber (in raw numbers) the number of blacks in Detroit.

And the original claim was that Chicago was more like Royal Oak, which was 94% white in the 2008 Census. How can a city where less than a third of the population is white claim to be similar to Royal Oak?

You are misinterpreting the data. Chicago has a significant white population - Detroit doesn't. I don't know how to make it any more clear. Chicago is 43% white, plus 26% Latino. And because most Latinos are properly considered white, that puts it closer to 69%.

Anyway, it's 37% black compared to 82% regardless of how you count Latinos. The difference in demographics is huge.

[detwahDJ]

I was in Detroit 50 years, now in W Mich, planning on moving back. No place is one-dimensional. Sounds like some people here have an agenda. I lived on the east side, west side, southwest, and Hamtramck up until '97. Its not black people who ruined Detroit - and I'm as white as you can get! Its not due to "socialist politics" either. There was a plan sometime back to turn Detroit into a "world class city" but it involved regionalization which the suburbs wanted no part of. You cannot deny there has been a degree of racial apartheid in this country and locally as well. Don't blame everything on black peoples' "socialist" attitudes.