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.
However, I think most of the urbanists talking about the decline and increasing poverty in the suburbs are picturing post-WWII single family home developments going downhill, so how common are those?
LOL. That simply isn't happening up here in Canada. The suburbs are the areas of the country experiencing the greatest population growth rates. I know... I live in one. If the reverse were true, why do we still continue to see new developments being started while hardcore urbanists jump up and down with steam coming out of their ears all the while ranting about the never-ending growth of suburban sprawl?
LOL. That simply isn't happening up here in Canada. The suburbs are the areas of the country experiencing the greatest population growth rates. I know... I live in one. If the reverse were true, why do we still continue to see new developments being started while hardcore urbanists jump up and down with steam coming out of their ears all the while ranting about the never-ending growth of suburban sprawl?
The pattern memph is describing doesn't contradict suburban growth; you can some suburbs decline and other grow. As mentioned earlier in the thread, some midwestern cities have declines in their inner suburbs but new developments in outer suburbs.
The decline of inner suburbs in Detroit isn't as advanced as in some of the rapidly growing cities. In Houston there's neighbourhoods a couple decades newer than Detroit's inner suburbs or outer city at similar stages of decline. Part of that is that Houston has a lot more new suburbs so it's older suburban areas have more competition for attracting the middle class.
A Spanish urban planning glossary used Houston as an example of a "doughnut city". An extremely foreign pattern from a Spanish perspective.
Viewed from a European perspective, the Doughnut City is a phenomenon that goes against nature. If in the cities of the Old Continent proximity to the center means an added value, in the Doughnut City quite the reverse is true: the most eligible urban areas are on the final periphery.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23
Meh, they're really just in the way of the inner city. and Honestly, I really dont care for neighborhoods filled with a bunch of screaming children and teenagers either. Honestly, most of them are architectural hellholes and now is the prime time to bring out the big eraser, and get rid of the mistake that was post WWII suburban expansion.
To each his own, I will be happy to supply a list of neighborhoods in the city that would benefit by being erased...
The pattern memph is describing doesn't contradict suburban growth; you can some suburbs decline and other grow. As mentioned earlier in the thread, some midwestern cities have declines in their inner suburbs but new developments in outer suburbs.
It also depends on the leadership and management of each individual suburb. Some are extremely well run and operate with a low or reasonable tax structure. Other suburbs are poorly run and lose population and have a hard time attracting new residents. It is impossible to extrapolate the results to an entire chronological or geographic category of suburbs.
Having spent most of my life living within 50 miles of Boston, I have never been able to distinguish between pre-war and post WWII neighborhoods. In the northeast almost all towns (outside the big cities) were established in the 17th or 18th centuries as farming towns. In most of the towns I am personally familiar with you have the pre-war and post WWII houses mixed together due to periods of infill over not only decades but centuries now.
Where I live now it is common to see 1960s split entry raised ranches next to 300 year old farmhouses, so it is admittedly hard for me to envision these post WWII neighborhoods and subdivisions as standalone entities. It may explain why I am unable to commiserate with those who despise the concept.
Having looked at many cities on Google earth, Boston, and Philadelphia tend to be hardest to distinguish between city and suburb. this is partially because the urban areas are based more on commuter rail (as well as what you mention with farming towns) Personally, I dont mind that type of suburb when it's not just about on top of the city center, as those places are more like small towns with their quaint feel, great architecture, walk ability, etc. However, I still wouldn't be opposed to seeing Back Bay, or North End II take their place anyway.
However, in most of the US, such as here in Richmond, the suburbs are VERY different, and I would personally be eager to see them all demolished. Personally, If the U.S. was a beautiful, postwar suburban expansion over the past 50 years was like something of your dog using the piece to relieve himself. Personally, I'd like to get the crap off, and fix the piece.
You could be right. With slower population loss in the city (i.e. 90s levels) maybe the ghettos will grow more slowly within Detroit rather than expanding rapidly within Detroit and into some of the inner suburbs.
The decline of inner suburbs in Detroit isn't as advanced as in some of the rapidly growing cities. In Houston there's neighbourhoods a couple decades newer than Detroit's inner suburbs or outer city at similar stages of decline. Part of that is that Houston has a lot more new suburbs so it's older suburban areas have more competition for attracting the middle class.
I don't think Detroit's ghettos 'expanded' in the sense that many were already areas with poor housing that were simply never maintained throughout the city's growth. They become literal ghettoes with the change in demographics but otherwise were ares 'conditioned' for decline. My reasoning for this is this recent redlining map that was posted showing the housing grades for Detroit.
It seems like even in pre-war Metropolitan Detroit, a huge chunk of areas had sub par housing (or at least predetermined for sub par housing). As the blog post points out, by 2009 these same areas, at least within the city, have higher vacancy rates than other parts of the city. Though that might not be as true post-recession given the widespread impact of the housing crash.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that are large section of Detroit's inner-ring suburbs fall into the pre-war category of housing decline rather than post-war housing decline which is the premise of this thread. From my experience, many post-war areas aren't necessarily the most exciting or unique areas to live but they don't show obvious symptoms of decline even with property values. If anything it's simply their age and lack of neighborhood amenities.
I don't think Detroit's ghettos 'expanded' in the sense that many were already areas with poor housing that were simply never maintained throughout the city's growth. They become literal ghettoes with the change in demographics but otherwise were ares 'conditioned' for decline. My reasoning for this is this recent redlining map that was posted showing the housing grades for Detroit.
It seems like even in pre-war Metropolitan Detroit, a huge chunk of areas had sub par housing (or at least predetermined for sub par housing). As the blog post points out, by 2009 these same areas, at least within the city, have higher vacancy rates than other parts of the city. Though that might not be as true post-recession given the widespread impact of the housing crash.
Some of the criteria for sub par housing in those redlining maps are from just being too old in style, too dense or "bad" demographics so the redlining map may not reflect actual housing quality. Detroit was a fairly well off city for the time; I suspect its old housing wasn't in any worse condition than similar housing in Boston other than obvious slum areas, which were right near downtown.
Having spent most of my life living within 50 miles of Boston, I have never been able to distinguish between pre-war and post WWII neighborhoods. In the northeast almost all towns (outside the big cities) were established in the 17th or 18th centuries as farming towns. In most of the towns I am personally familiar with you have the pre-war and post WWII houses mixed together due to periods of infill over not only decades but centuries now.
There are a lot of suburbs in the Northeast well the old farm town area is rather tiny, and very little of the development was pre-war except for maybe the road layout of the larger roads. Long Island and New Jersey both have tract developments where very little older stuff remains. Though often some 50s and 60s neighborhoods can seem not that different from ones from the 20s and 30s. For example, to the east of 110 (New York Ave), north of 15th street is mostly pre-war, south mostly post-war. The housing lot sizes are somewhat smaller and shopping areas tend to be more compact with less parking in the pre-war area. Much of the pre-war area has transitioned to a poorer hispanic population:
In Boston, you can usually notice the difference between towns that were small villages in the early 20th century and ones that were larger population centers in the early 20th century. Most of the suburbs with the SR-128 loop feel rather different from those outside, partly from age.
I don't think Detroit's ghettos 'expanded' in the sense that many were already areas with poor housing that were simply never maintained throughout the city's growth. They become literal ghettoes with the change in demographics but otherwise were ares 'conditioned' for decline. My reasoning for this is this recent redlining map that was posted showing the housing grades for Detroit.
It seems like even in pre-war Metropolitan Detroit, a huge chunk of areas had sub par housing (or at least predetermined for sub par housing). As the blog post points out, by 2009 these same areas, at least within the city, have higher vacancy rates than other parts of the city. Though that might not be as true post-recession given the widespread impact of the housing crash.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that are large section of Detroit's inner-ring suburbs fall into the pre-war category of housing decline rather than post-war housing decline which is the premise of this thread. From my experience, many post-war areas aren't necessarily the most exciting or unique areas to live but they don't show obvious symptoms of decline even with property values. If anything it's simply their age and lack of neighborhood amenities.
Well I'm not sure what the basis for how they classified these housing grades is. How much is structural quality, how much is amenities (ex # of bathrooms, central heating), how much is built form, how much is mixing of uses, how much is age, how much is demographics.
In any case, there are exceptions and exceptions are often where there are the most lessons to be learned:
-SW Detroit (and Hamtramck): pretty much all of it was rated 4th grade, and despite being relatively poor, doesn't have too much vacancy or population loss right now. It was rated worst than the east side, which is a mix of 3rd and 4th grade, and inner NW (i.e. Dexter Linwood, Petosky Otsego, Russell Woods, Boston Edison) which is mostly 3rd grade.
-Brightmoor: mostly 4th grade, however, east of Lahser and between Fenkell and McNichols is considered 2nd grade and east of Blackstone it even improves to 1st grade up to Minock Park. However today's severe abandonment continues several blocks into the 2nd grade and even 1st grade areas. Rosedale Park interestingly is only 2nd grade.
-Also second grade housing is at the epicentre of decay in 48205 near Gratiot Avenue around Houston Whittier and McNichols, meanwhile adjacent areas like Lasalle College Park, Mohican Regent and Regent Park that have lower levels of abandonment are rated 3rd grade
-Boston Edison, Woodbridge and Indian Village are considered only 3rd grade, I guess some of the homes needed to be modernized? In any case they're among the most desirable parts of the city now along with 4th rate Corktown.
-Hazel Park is considered 4th grade! It's not the most desirable suburb but it's certainly doing better than most of Detroit, and Ferndale is mostly 3rd or 4th grade, and relatively desirable. Actually much of what was in the suburbs at the time wasn't rated all that well, the best rated areas were mostly in the city, in the NE and NW around W Outer Drive.
-some areas that were mapped sparsely populated in 1939 are in pretty bad shape right now, like Eminem's childhood neighbourhood around Dresden and State Fair or W Chicago to Tireman west of Southfield freeway
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.
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.
