U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2014, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm guessing those left in Hoboken might have been childless descendants of the former population, plus some living in rather large spaces (say, a couple living in an entire brownstone). The rent must have been really cheap in the 70s. I wonder how much of the new growth is using existing housing or new housing.
You can zoom in on Hoboken on the NYTimes 2010 census map. Growth from 2000 to 2010, at least, seems to have been focused on the waterfront and formerly industrial areas in the northwest and southwest (e.g., places I see recent infill apartment buildings). Some areas in central Hoboken actually had modest declines (up to 17% along the main commercial corridor on Washington Street). This seems to be some combination of gentrification and perhaps conversion of former residences into offices and storefronts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2014, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,295,360 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
I think part of it is German frugality - White Midwesterns are mostly of German Catholic stock. They're not into interstate interchanges filled with flowers or Crape Myrtle trees in medians. "If it's not practical it's not worth it" is the mentality. On Street View the most similar thing I've found to Midwestern cities is in Japan, which is also affluent but frugal.

Part of it is also that the Midwest had larger cities longer ago so there's more old infrastructure than in Southern boom cities where the population has doubled since 1970.
I grew up in Kansas City, and do notice things overall looking more run down there than here in Denver or in Southern California, where I lived for many years. Western cities are newer, denser, and seem more landscaped than Midwestern cities. IDK why, but freeway interchanges here are often landscaped, as are medians in surface streets. There are "bad neighborhoods" in Denver, but not vast areas, like you find in KC. In KC, there are large areas where the housing all looks run down, overgrown, and streets are in disrepair. Even empty lots where abandoned houses have been town down. Almost "third world" looking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 12:11 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,223 posts, read 17,969,169 times
Reputation: 14673
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In Pennsylvania, the line between urban growth/blight is pretty stark, basically following the foothills of the Appalachians. Harrisburg is the main exception, but it's only 18% Latino. Possibly Chester as well, although these days it's too small to be considered a second-tier city even, and the Latino population is even smaller (9%). Reading and York are growing now, but not strongly. Lancaster and Bethlehem are close to all-time highs, and Allentown is currently at peak population. Not bad considering with the exception of small parts of Lancaster and Bethlehem these towns have nothing resembling gentrification.

Once you ascend into the mountains, however, it all changes. The Wyoming Valley cities (Scranton and Wilkes-Barre) are overwhelmingly anglo white and way off peak population. The same is true of the various small boroughs in the Coal Region. Once you hit rural Western Pennsylvania, the really deep levels of "borough blight" can be seen.
Blue Mountain is a significant natural and psychological barrier. It's why Pittsburgh has only been "discovered" by people on the East Coast within the last 10 years. The 15 counties that are entirely or partially south/east of Blue Mountain -- Adams, Berks, Bucks, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia and York -- have a combined population of 7,002,193, which leaves 5,771,608 in the other 52 counties.

Because of southeastern Pennsylvania filling up the way it has, many of the small towns are enjoying a spillover effect, which gives them more population and more money for upkeep. In the future, I expect northeastern Pennsylvania to benefit from overflow from both Philadelphia and New York, despite the ongoing lull right now, which is mostly related to the real estate hangover. Even without it, towns like Jim Thorpe, Stroudsburg, and even Wellsboro tend to be well-kept despite stagnant populations. Hazleton and East Stroudsburg are examples of what's in store for northeastern Pennsylvania once the real estate market sorts itself out.

On the other hand, many (most?) small towns west of Blue Mountain and the Susquehanna River are in bad shape. The average small town in western Pennsylvania is more shabby and run-down than the average small town in eastern Pennsylvania. There are a handful of nice ones around Pittsburgh and State College, such as Ligonier and Bellefonte, but not nearly to the extent that there is in eastern Pennsylvania. In the future, there won't be a rural "T" in Pennsylvania. There will be a heavily urban southeast, an increasingly (re)developing northeast, and a stagnant west outside of Pittsburgh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,750 posts, read 3,855,421 times
Reputation: 3565
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm guessing those left in Hoboken might have been childless descendants of the former population, plus some living in rather large spaces (say, a couple living in an entire brownstone). The rent must have been really cheap in the 70s. I wonder how much of the new growth is using existing housing or new housing.
Hoboken is also very anti-development and has height restrictions more strict than DC due to NIMBYs. The rent there is very high ($2000+ a month for a studio) and if they wanted to they can easily build large apartment towers like in nearby Jersey city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 03:47 PM
 
3,751 posts, read 3,721,569 times
Reputation: 3526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
One reason could be because they are older than most western cities. They have had more time to decay. They are also larger than many western cities. I think though, if you really look at some of the western and PNW cities that allegedly do not have bad appearing sections you will find them. They may not look as run down as those in the midwest and may be smaller but give them time and they will look just as bad as any midwestern slum.
A lot of the Puget Sound area looks really run down to me. Tacoma in particular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 03:48 PM
 
3,751 posts, read 3,721,569 times
Reputation: 3526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster View Post

It seems the only part of the country where this is not the case is The West.
I guess you've never been to Stockton then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,331 posts, read 3,056,995 times
Reputation: 3925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn.Davenport View Post
Crime in North Minneapolis is worse than anywhere in Syracuse--for sure, but it doesn't look burnt out or dangerous. As depressing as Syracuse is, I felt it to be a pretty safe city. North Minneapolis looks similar to the Eastwood Neighborhood in Syracuse: mostly residential with a lot of two-story, wooden, single-family homes and two-flats built in the early 20th Century with modest lawns. There are no abandoned buildings, no vacant houses, the sidewalks are all in good condition, there's no trash on the side of the road, the streets are freshly paved, and there's usually a corner store, a barber shop, and a small restaurant at all the intersections.

North Minneapolis: https://goo.gl/maps/aL2aX (keep in mind this is probably the worst part of the city)

Syracuse: https://goo.gl/maps/WJb4n (this is on Syracuse's Northside, which is not even as bad at the city's South and Westsides).

Despite the visual differences, North Minneapolis is more dangerous.
This was something that really confused me when I first moved here (which was back when the city was much crazier). As a newcomer it was very hard to tell when you were in a bad neighborhood. None of the stuff I knew worked in Minneapolis. All of the city looked nice, but in mid '90s parts of the north and south sides were as dangerous as anywhere in America, they didn't look it though. I learned that it isn't abandoned buildings that make a neighborhood dangerous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,392 posts, read 1,276,936 times
Reputation: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I doubt it. There was large scale abandonment in many rust belt cities. It may not be repeated elsewhere. Boston is older than rust belt cities, it has bad areas but not much decay.
Boston was never a major industrial power like cities in the rust belt states so when deindustrialization started in the United States it didn't effect Boston as it did Rust Belt states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Note western NY and western PA has similar decay patterns to the Midwestern cities mentioned, Minnesotan cities don't. Neither do Iowan cities and perhaps Wisconsin ones. It doesn't follow exact "Midwest boundaries".
Pennsylvania and New York are part of the rust belt. Minnesota and Iowa are not part of the Rust Belt so no they didn't get hit as hard from deindustrialization as rust belt states did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
New York City has much less than most Midwestern cities.
Last time I was in NYC I was in Brooklyn and honestly the place looked just a bad as Gary Indiana. Only place I can think of off the top of my head that was definitely worse then Brooklyn was Baghdad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984 View Post
Boston was never a major industrial power like cities in the rust belt states so when deindustrialization started in the United States it didn't effect Boston as it did Rust Belt states.
Untrue. Boston (and Eastern Massachusetts more widely) was a manufacturing center - it was just light manufacturing like textiles, rather than heavy manufacturing. NYC was big on textile manufacturing too. This industry collapsed a lot earlier than heavy industry did (it was already flailing in the 1930s, and in the 50s, when textile plants moved South, it basically died), but there certainly is a major industrial heritage in the region.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984 View Post
Pennsylvania and New York are part of the rust belt. Minnesota and Iowa are not part of the Rust Belt so no they didn't get hit as hard from deindustrialization as rust belt states did.
The rust belt is not so much a geographic area as conceptual - anywhere there's run down manufacturing towns which haven't found a new way forward. Although geographically isolated, Duluth is pretty clearly rust belt in character. In Iowa, the Davenport/Bettendorf area (Quad Cities) along with Dubuque are pretty clearly rust-belt towns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984 View Post
Last time I was in NYC I was in Brooklyn and honestly the place looked just a bad as Gary Indiana. Only place I can think of off the top of my head that was definitely worse then Brooklyn was Baghdad.
I dunno where you were, but while parts of Brooklyn look grimey, there really isn't that much abandonment and vacant lots. An area like this was considered "the ghetto" not long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Kent, UK/ Rhode Island, US
626 posts, read 576,122 times
Reputation: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984 View Post
Boston was never a major industrial power like cities in the rust belt states so when deindustrialization started in the United States it didn't effect Boston as it did Rust Belt states.



Pennsylvania and New York are part of the rust belt. Minnesota and Iowa are not part of the Rust Belt so no they didn't get hit as hard from deindustrialization as rust belt states did.



Last time I was in NYC I was in Brooklyn and honestly the place looked just a bad as Gary Indiana. Only place I can think of off the top of my head that was definitely worse then Brooklyn was Baghdad.
Highly highly doubt this.
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top