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 07-01-2008, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Kentucky
6,749 posts, read 19,954,392 times
Reputation: 2129

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcm1986 View Post
My first votes would be for:
A. Gary, b/c it has lost nearly 50% of its population since 1960. Entire neighborhoods sit desolate, crumbling, uninhabitable, and a roaming land only for the druggies and prostitutes;
B. East St. Louis, b/c it has lost nearly 85% of its population since 1960. Yes, 85%. In the early 1950s it was designated as an All-American City. What a shame to see a once very nice area just tumble so quickly; and
C. Detroit, b/c, well, that's self-explanatory. It too has lost over 50% of its population since 1960, a number much greater than Gary and ESL combined. Miles and miles of streets exist with all but a very few inhabitants, pawn shops, convenience stores, and not much else. It's the only major American city without the presence, in any capacity, of any big box/large corporate retailer or grocer!!!

Other honorable mentions:
A. Chicago, b/c it has lost 1,000,000 people since 1950. Parts of the south and especially west sides are very dangerous. In fact the combined East/West Garfield Park areas rivaled the danger that prevailed in NYC neighborhoods such as Soundview and E.N.Y. during the crack epidemic.
B. Milwaukee, parts of that city hold their own.
C. Cleveland, ditto (B).
D. Cincinnati, ditto ^.
E. St. Louis, ditto ^.
Wow I didn't know all that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2008, 05:21 PM
 
1,071 posts, read 4,019,235 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcm1986 View Post
My first votes would be for:
A. Gary, b/c it has lost nearly 50% of its population since 1960. Entire neighborhoods sit desolate, crumbling, uninhabitable, and a roaming land only for the druggies and prostitutes;
B. East St. Louis, b/c it has lost nearly 85% of its population since 1960. Yes, 85%. In the early 1950s it was designated as an All-American City. What a shame to see a once very nice area just tumble so quickly; and
C. Detroit, b/c, well, that's self-explanatory. It too has lost over 50% of its population since 1960, a number much greater than Gary and ESL combined. Miles and miles of streets exist with all but a very few inhabitants, pawn shops, convenience stores, and not much else. It's the only major American city without the presence, in any capacity, of any big box/large corporate retailer or grocer!!!

Other honorable mentions:
A. Chicago, b/c it has lost 1,000,000 people since 1950. Parts of the south and especially west sides are very dangerous. In fact the combined East/West Garfield Park areas rivaled the danger that prevailed in NYC neighborhoods such as Soundview and E.N.Y. during the crack epidemic.
B. Milwaukee, parts of that city hold their own.
C. Cleveland, ditto (B).
D. Cincinnati, ditto ^.
E. St. Louis, ditto ^.
great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Galewood
3,744 posts, read 8,690,755 times
Reputation: 2174
[quote=jcm1986;4299631]My first votes would be for:
Chicago, b/c it has lost 1,000,000 people since 1950. Parts of the south and especially west sides are very dangerous. In fact the combined East/West Garfield Park areas rivaled the danger that prevailed in NYC neighborhoods such as Soundview and E.N.Y. during the crack epidemic.
quote]

East Garfield Park isn't as bad as West Garfield. They are really trying to clean up and revitalize the area. As for West Garfield Park, it's still pretty rough over in that area because of K-Town a section in West Garfield Park where all of the streets start with K and is synonymous with the word "kill". IMO Englewood and North Lawndale are worst than the Garfield neighborhoods. Good post jcm1986
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 11:45 PM
 
Location: USA
13,266 posts, read 10,394,274 times
Reputation: 4228
[quote=noid_1985;4305340]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcm1986 View Post
My first votes would be for:
Chicago, b/c it has lost 1,000,000 people since 1950. Parts of the south and especially west sides are very dangerous. In fact the combined East/West Garfield Park areas rivaled the danger that prevailed in NYC neighborhoods such as Soundview and E.N.Y. during the crack epidemic.
quote]

East Garfield Park isn't as bad as West Garfield. They are really trying to clean up and revitalize the area. As for West Garfield Park, it's still pretty rough over in that area because of K-Town a section in West Garfield Park where all of the streets start with K and is synonymous with the word "kill". IMO Englewood and North Lawndale are worst than the Garfield neighborhoods. Good post jcm1986
Yea parts of Chicago has become war zones. It's ironic that there is still so much violence in isolated neighborhoods as the city booms. A little over a month ago there were 36 shootings in one neighborhood. All but maybe 2 of them were isolated in te south and west sides of the city. Hopefully this will spawn more community support for those areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2008, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago
187 posts, read 477,323 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
East St. Louis, Gary, Detroit, St. Louis.
Your right about Gary. I wouldn't be caught dead in Gary. LOL! Unfortunately, that's the way a lot of people are found in Gary. The other cities mentioned, one can just stay in the nice areas when one visits. But Gary, there are no nice areas. My friends and I drove through Gary, when we were in college, and we were terrified to stop at the stop lights(during the day). That's how bad their reputation has been for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2008, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Miami, Florida
210 posts, read 1,063,729 times
Reputation: 161
East St. Louis, IL or Gary, IN or Flint, MI
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2008, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,289,371 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcm1986 View Post
My first votes would be for:
A. Gary, b/c it has lost nearly 50% of its population since 1960. Entire neighborhoods sit desolate, crumbling, uninhabitable, and a roaming land only for the druggies and prostitutes;
B. East St. Louis, b/c it has lost nearly 85% of its population since 1960. Yes, 85%. In the early 1950s it was designated as an All-American City. What a shame to see a once very nice area just tumble so quickly; and
C. Detroit, b/c, well, that's self-explanatory. It too has lost over 50% of its population since 1960, a number much greater than Gary and ESL combined. Miles and miles of streets exist with all but a very few inhabitants, pawn shops, convenience stores, and not much else. It's the only major American city without the presence, in any capacity, of any big box/large corporate retailer or grocer!!!

Other honorable mentions:
A. Chicago, b/c it has lost 1,000,000 people since 1950. Parts of the south and especially west sides are very dangerous. In fact the combined East/West Garfield Park areas rivaled the danger that prevailed in NYC neighborhoods such as Soundview and E.N.Y. during the crack epidemic.
B. Milwaukee, parts of that city hold their own.
C. Cleveland, ditto (B).
D. Cincinnati, ditto ^.
E. St. Louis, ditto ^.
Just a minor point. Chicago at its maximum census, 1950 had a population of 3.6 million. The most recent 2000 census had its population at just under 2.9 million for a net loss of a little over 700,000. Not quite one million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2008, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,289,371 times
Reputation: 3827
Another point, is that statistically speaking, you are in far more danger of becoming a fatal victim of an automobile accident in an auto-centric suburb than you are likely to be murdered by a stranger while walking through Detroit or Gary. Thus the true most dangerous city in the midwest is probably some tiny exurb nobody has ever heard of built with low density housing and many fast four lane roads.

Contrary to popular belief, exurbs more dangerous than cities
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2008, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Baton Rouge
1,734 posts, read 5,060,610 times
Reputation: 651
Detroit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 11:30 PM
 
98 posts, read 443,171 times
Reputation: 52
Detroit for the most part but when da D have an off year St.Louis usually takes the cake...So I would have to say Detroit and St.Louis.
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.
Similar Threads
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