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.
I'll throw in a vote for Newburgh, N.Y., a disaster on the Hudson overrun with gangs.
Yeah Newburgh has some.....issues. But worst looking? I think the late 19th century Hudson Valley architecture is stunning there, if horrendously decayed.
I've been to Detroit in the last year and outside of downtown/midtown it's pretty horrible. For pure ugliness, I think Toledo takes the cake - never seen something so ugly in my life.
Detroit, by a long shot. A complete disaster. And hideous!
I disagree actually. In Detroit many of the abandoned buildings have been torn down and "urban prairie" has grown in. Whereas in cities like Baltimore there are whole city blocks that have been completely abandoned for decades, yet still remain standing. Detroit is still more dangerous than B-more, but visually I don't think it's as bad.
Otherwise, I think this thread has gone on a little too long, and all possible contenders have been discussed ad nauseam.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantronix4204
For those interested in American ghettos, and it's obvious the topic is popular on sites like this, I suggest looking into the work of a photographer named Camilo Jose Vergara.
The site below is interesting. It has many, many pics of Harlem, Richmond, CA, and Camden. On the left, click on "Enter" the city you want to explore. There's a map that pops up with colored squares to click, showing where the various pics were taken.
After reviewing that site, I have to recant my earlier post. Although the iconic pictures you see of Camden are taken in N. Camden, it looks like the entire city is dilapidated.
This site below is very interesting and has many pics from Harlem, Chicago, Detroit, the Bronx, Camden, Brooklyn, LA, Newark, and Gary. There's a section called Old NY with pics from 1970-73. On the site, the pics are time-lapsed, so there's more than one pic under each heading. So click on the pic to get the menu or click "next" in the bottom right corner. Clicking "caption" shows the date of each pic.Camilo Jose Vergara - 01_Former Michigan Central Railroad Station, Detroit, 1993_-DUP9.jpg
Many of the iconic pictures of America ghettos that we recognize were taken by Vergara. He's famous for taken time-lapsed pics, returning to the same places over the extent of many years to show how the neighborhoods change, such as this pic in N. Camden, for example.
Years ago, I read his book called the New American Ghetto. I don't want to waste your time going on and on about it, but I truly could not put it down. It may be a little dated now, having been published in 1995, but it explores in detail the people and the buildings in these neighborhoods, and he tells amazing personal stories about how he was able to get his shots, such as hiring protection from gang leaders to escort him through the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago as well as getting to various rooftops in Harlem.
He's not political. It's just photographs and his story. I recall that he says that when he first came to America, he became fascinated with the ghettos and just couldn't put the subject down.
Some of YOUR INFO AND SIGHTS ARE OUTDATED as you stated 1995.Chicago has TORE DOWN "ALL" its "FAILED" Housing Projects of the 60s ARE GONE. The Robert Taylor One is gone. Starting over 10 years ago and completed in 2007. When were the Robert Taylor projects torn down | ChaCha These Housing Projects housed a one time 200,000 people. Some feel that is part a reason the previous census showed a loss of 200,000 for the city? Not knowing where some went despite the Downtown BOOMING with over 100,000 new residences. SADLY SOME "ONLY" REMEMBER the Bombed out looking areas of the past.
I remember going from the Suburbs of Cicero and Berwyn into Chicago proper's West side OMG in the 80s yet like entering a ww2 bombed area. THAT IS ALL GONE. Actually looks good
today 1000% better then then.
But blight still exist in areas that has decent housing but still did not regain its vibrancy. Some parts remind me of going through a small prairie town. Not big city. With empty grassland between some homes.
Under the Previous Mayor. The city did a Great job REMOVING WORST OF THE BLIGHT. Leaving Parts of blocks on the Southside returning to Prairie till new development can reach it. Examples
Once again, maybe I am naive but I don't understand why people would choose to live in these crapholes. I have traveled all over this country and there are SO MANY possibilities, places you can move to where you could reinvent yourself. Driving through Kansas once, I remember thinking, just in that state alone, there are so many different places you could move to which are totally safe, offer great quality of life, very low cost of living, decent economy, I don't get it!
Because they're trash. They were born in trash so that's where they're comfortable.
Some of YOUR INFO AND SIGHTS ARE OUTDATED as you stated 1995.Chicago has TORE DOWN "ALL" its "FAILED" Housing Projects of the 60s ARE GONE. The Robert Taylor One is gone. Starting over 10 years ago and completed in 2007. When were the Robert Taylor projects torn down | ChaCha These Housing Projects housed a one time 200,000 people. Some feel that is part a reason the previous census showed a loss of 200,000 for the city? Not knowing where some went despite the Downtown BOOMING with over 100,000 new residences. SADLY SOME "ONLY" REMEMBER the Bombed out looking areas of the past.
I remember going from the Suburbs of Cicero and Berwyn into Chicago proper's West side OMG in the 80s yet like entering a ww2 bombed area. THAT IS ALL GONE. Actually looks good
today 1000% better then then.
But blight still exist in areas that has decent housing but still did not regain its vibrancy. Some parts remind me of going through a small prairie town. Not big city. With empty grassland between some homes.
Under the Previous Mayor. The city did a Great job REMOVING WORST OF THE BLIGHT. Leaving Parts of blocks on the Southside returning to Prairie till new development can reach it. Examples
^ Those Chicago infill examples look interesting, we get a similar red brick with white vinyl siding in St. Louis. I actually kind of hate it, because there is no imitating the original brownstones.
I disagree actually. In Detroit many of the abandoned buildings have been torn down and "urban prairie" has grown in. Whereas in cities like Baltimore there are whole city blocks that have been completely abandoned for decades, yet still remain standing. Detroit is still more dangerous than B-more, but visually I don't think it's as bad.
Otherwise, I think this thread has gone on a little too long, and all possible contenders have been discussed ad nauseam.
Baltimore and Philly are strong "contenders" here, to no one's surprise, but yes, this thread has gone on for five years--much too long.
FYI--I don't think that it's possible to have a "meantball sandwich"...
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.
OMG in the 80s yet like entering a ww2 bombed area. THAT IS ALL GONE. Actually looks good 
