Best & Worse Cities in the Metro Detroit area (Ann Arbor: crime, houses)

[us66]

The vast majority of Michigan falls into the "nothing to see here, move along" category. I've also noticed over the years that a lot of people in SE MI consider anything over ten miles (some seem to don't like going further than five) to be like driving halfway around the world. My wife used to work at a store at Partridge Creek and I heard stories of customers feeling inconvenienced because they had to come "all the way from Troy" or "all the way from St. Clair Shores."

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by us66

The vast majority of Michigan falls into the "nothing to see here, move along" category. I've also noticed over the years that a lot of people in SE MI consider anything over ten miles (some seem to don't like going further than five) to be like driving halfway around the world. My wife used to work at a store at Partridge Creek and I heard stories of customers feeling inconvenienced because they had to come "all the way from Troy" or "all the way from St. Clair Shores."

Yes. I don't understand this. In most other cities, the same distances would be considered close and convenient. If things were any closer then we'd essentially be living in an urban walkable environment. I work in Troy but I live in Eastpointe and people were surprised that I drive "so far". Even during rush hour, it's around a 15 to 20 minute commute which isn't bad at all. But occasionally, I've known friends of relatives (and teachers for some reason), who live in some places like Ypsilanti Township but work in Sterling Heights. Now that's a bit far to me, especially during the winter, but I guess people in Metro Detroit don't like spending time in their cars as much as you'd think they would.

Also I read a post in another thread that Troy is apparently in a downhill spiral because everything is getting old. What?! I'm hoping that was a troll post because I live in a far older suburb next to an even more old as dirt city and Troy is starting to go downhill? Oi!

[us66]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Yes. I don't understand this. In most other cities, the same distances would be considered close and convenient. If things were any closer then we'd essentially be living in an urban walkable environment. I work in Troy but I live in Eastpointe and people were surprised that I drive "so far". Even during rush hour, it's around a 15 to 20 minute commute which isn't bad at all. But occasionally, I've known friends of relatives (and teachers for some reason), who live in some places like Ypsilanti Township but work in Sterling Heights. Now that's a bit far to me, especially during the winter, but I guess people in Metro Detroit don't like spending time in their cars as much as you'd think they would.

Yeah, the long commutes are sometimes puzzling. I wouldn't find it nearly as weird if we had better winters, though. I work down your way and I've had a number of co-workers who lived well into St. Clair County, including one who lived for a time forty miles away from work and had to ask us for gas money to get home. If winters weren't so bad, there's a number of places 25-50 miles away I'd much rather live than Macomb County, but I'm a wuss when it comes to winter driving.

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Also I read a post in another thread that Troy is apparently in a downhill spiral because everything is getting old. What?! I'm hoping that was a troll post because I live in a far older suburb next to an even more old as dirt city and Troy is starting to go downhill? Oi!

Metro Detroit doesn't like old things, for the most part. The industry here, the manufacture of automobiles, was designed with the concept of planned obsolence. It's in the culture here. Older areas are often forsaken when the next big thing opens up several miles north. Some portions of your city are still okay (east of Kelly for one) and some are not going to hold on much longer (most of town between Toepfer and Stephens, the fire station and McDonald's is a good example.)

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by us66

Metro Detroit doesn't like old things, for the most part. The industry here, the manufacture of automobiles, was designed with the concept of planned obsolence. It's in the culture here. Older areas are often forsaken when the next big thing opens up several miles north. Some portions of your city are still okay (east of Kelly for one) and some are not going to hold on much longer (most of town between Toepfer and Stephens, the fire station and McDonald's is a good example.)

That makes sense I guess. But it seems like an exaggeration when Troy is considered old. Royal Oak and Ferndale are actually older but the homes are kept up and yet it's still a trendy place to live. It probably was because of all the new high rise and mid rise apartments they built recently. Otherwise, it seemed like both cities could have fallen into the same trend that other similarly aged suburbs went through (especially Ferndale).

I personally would rather have all the newness located in Detroit before there's more sprawl (because it seems like, for the most part, more sprawl is inevitable). Something like San Francisco's Mission Bay around Cass Corridor or Brush Park. In an extreme case, Rivertown could be developed like Chicago's South Loop. But that's using a fair amount of optimism while disregarding the culture here. But also I don't want to believe it's completely impossible within an appropriate time frame.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

That makes sense I guess. But it seems like an exaggeration when Troy is considered old. Royal Oak and Ferndale are actually older but the homes are kept up and yet it's still a trendy place to live. It probably was because of all the new high rise and mid rise apartments they built recently. Otherwise, it seemed like both cities could have fallen into the same trend that other similarly aged suburbs went through (especially Ferndale).

I personally would rather have all the newness located in Detroit before there's more sprawl (because it seems like, for the most part, more sprawl is inevitable). Something like San Francisco's Mission Bay around Cass Corridor or Brush Park. In an extreme case, Rivertown could be developed like Chicago's South Loop. But that's using a fair amount of optimism while disregarding the culture here. But also I don't want to believe it's completely impossible within an appropriate time frame.

Hire some house movers. Move everything built in South Lyon/Lon township in the last 25 years to Detroit. That would make me happy and it would pretty much infill the Detroit vacancies. .

[YohnCarter]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Hire some house movers. Move everything built in South Lyon/Lon township in the last 25 years to Detroit. That would make me happy and it would pretty much infill the Detroit vacancies. .

You're not moving my house. I just built it.

[one is lonely]

OK, so am I the only one that finds it ridiculously suspect how the topic creator gives these flippant one or two sentence appraisals of most cities, only to then turn around and give these long, effusive paeans to the Bloomfield and Rochester areas? Talk about biased! Admittedly, Detroit and Highland Park have some very bad areas, and some of the inner ring suburbs aren't what they used to be, but this list just takes it too far.

According to Mkrajenke, anything that as borders Detroit is generally hell, and that areas like Midtown in Detroit are virtually uninhabitable. Sorry, but I think that greatly undersells what Detroit and the inner ring suburbs still have to offer.

First, let's address the suburbs. I go through towns like Eastpointe, Mt. Clemens, Roseville, Oak Park, and etc. all the time, and they are far from "scary." Yes, there is more crime in those cities than Bloomfield Hills, but that's a natural consequence of higher population density. And higher population density has its benefits. Simply put, there's just more life and "there" there in those cities than Bloomfield Hills.

A few highlights: Eastpointe has surprisingly good housing stock and architecture in areas, and deserves its original moniker of East Detroit. Mt. Clemens has a very interesting if somewhat struggling downtown. Roseville is a bit boring, but is still a solid bastion for the middle class. Oak Park may be looking a bit ragged in a few areas, but it has a lot of unique, older businesses and is far from dying.

Then there's Detroit. Yes, Detroit has more than its fair share of problems, but areas like Midtown, Corktown and Mexicantown are probably the most cultural significant neighborhoods in the region and are still very livable (you could throw in Hamtramck, too, although it's its own city). Those neighborhoods also have a far richer history than "historic" Rochester Hills can offer, which in reality was just a very small farming community until the tentacles of sprawl wrapped itself around the area.

Of course those areas aren't as safe as Bloomfield Hills or Rochester Hills. I would never say that. Whether you would prefer a place like Midtown or a place like Bloomfield Hills depends on your values. Are crime and current school funding levels all you care about? Then run for the Hills. But if you if believe that we shouldn't just give up on an area because those two measurables are down, then you might want to consider some of the cities and neighborhoods I just highlighted.

OK... I guess if absolutely gigantic lawns are that important to you, and you truly, truly love driving, than the Hills may really be the only option. Otherwise, I'd recommend giving more thought to where you plan to live. Really, a region like Metro Detroit deserves much more nuanced evaluations than what the topic poster cobbled together. That was just a collection of prejudices.

[one is lonely]

Just for the sake of discussion: Did you know that Utica has a worse overall crime rate (according to Neighborhood Scout) than Roseville, Ferndale, Hazel Park, Oak Park, Dearborn, and Eastpointe? But how could that be?!?!!? It borders Hall Road, after all!

[PosterExtraordinaire]

Originally Posted by one is lonely

Just for the sake of discussion: Did you know that Utica has a worse overall crime rate (according to Neighborhood Scout) than Roseville, Ferndale, Hazel Park, Oak Park, Dearborn, and Eastpointe? But how could that be?!?!!? It borders Hall Road, after all!

the crime rates given are widely inaccurate, subject to biases and are incomparable between areas. Take everything you see for any city with a big grain of salt.

but this is a good question. So many people here are certain detroit, highland park, hamtramck, inkster, and pontiac are crime ridden dangerous areas. How do those people know that (and I'm calling out all who said that as advice to other posters). Areas like southfield, warren, eastpointe, ferndale, oak park etc are considered marginal and best to be avoided. Again, how do you guys KNOW that? Did you live there? What are you basing this on? The looks of the place? The race of the people living there? Its proximity to detroit? The news? your own experiences? what?

I'm genuinely curious

[one is lonely]

Originally Posted by PosterExtraoridinaire

Again, how do you guys KNOW that?

It's simple... they drove by the areas in their locked cars and noticed that some of the buildings were old and that there was a shocking amount of racial diversity.

Sorry, I know I'm trolling a little bit, but comments like "but is full of arabs" bother me a lot.