Detroit Vs Other Cities (Bridgeport: dorms, neighborhoods, to live in)

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by rdub1968

I was coming back from Chicago a few years ago and there was a big accident that closed I-94. The traffic was routed through Gary and moved at a snails place. We got a good hard look at the neighborhoods and it was not pretty.

It's definitely not the Gary, Indiana from The Music Man movie. I have an image of a little Ron Howard singing, "Gary, Indiana! Gary, Indiana! My home sweet home" in my head and I wonder, WTF happened?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjP2O9Qe4Ek


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ILt3wNTZ7Q


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by edub

This should give you an idea. Maybe 10,000 square was a bit of an exaggeration.

Detroit Real Estate & Detroit Homes For Sale — Trulia.com


Detroit Real Estate & Detroit Homes For Sale — Trulia.com

The moral of this story is that just because a house might be 5000+ feet doesn't mean that it cannot be dilapidated (and in such a bad neighborhood) that its value cannot drop below $110,000. Note that those are all just asking prices and not actual selling prices, which might be 30% less than the asking prices.

[edub]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

The moral of this story is that just because a house might be 5000+ feet doesn't mean that it cannot be dilapidated (and in such a bad neighborhood) that its value cannot drop below $110,000. Note that those are all just asking prices and not actual selling prices, which might be 30% less than the asking prices.

I'm sure if you look around enough you can find even better deals. And not just ones in bad shape but in great shape. Living in any of those areas these days is just flat insane. Now, if one grew up around there it might be different for them. But nobody I know would live in anywhere in Detroit if you paid them. In fact, nearly nobody from the suburbs would.

The same isn't true of Chicago or NY or most other big cities. That is why Detroit really is a unique type of bad.

[stephei2000]

Originally Posted by edub

It seems this keeps coming up a lot so I thought I'd start a thread to clarify it a bit.

There are few if any cities like Detroit. While just about all big cities have their bad sections, Detroit is unique in that it is nearly all ghetto with a tiny spattering of half way decent areas that cover a few street blocks at the most. The areas around Wayne State and down town are fair at best and quite small compared to the miles and miles of crumbling neighborhoods. The "comeback" neighborhoods we are hearing about like "Cork Town" consist of like 3 blocks or around 20 houses. These are areas you could damn near throw a stone across - they are not significant sections of the city.

People from New York, Chicago, LA and just about everywhere can all point to their areas of ghetto. These areas make up usually a minute percentage of the whole city - like 2%-5%. But most of those cities are prime real estate. Detroit is the opposite in that around 95% of it is ghetto and none is really considered desirable.

I don't want to make this about race, but Detroit also has by far the largest black population of any big city at around 85% black - no other city even comes close.

Anyway, the fact is, while one could take a few pictures of occupied buildings, those make up about 20% of all structures with 80% of all structures being vacant. Outside of a few minute areas, Detroit is mile after mile of dilapidated ghetto. I know because I drive through it daily. I don't just walk the WSU campus. There are zero good areas in Detroit, with the few that are not horrible being like a postage stamp placed in a football field.

I've been to LA, Chicago, NY, Miami, etc. None are even remotely similar. People who tell you otherwise either don't know what they are talking about or are lying.

Ok, I need to clarify something. I am original from Detroit lived in the northwest side. I live in Chicago, and Chicago is more than 3-5percent ghetto. The a lot of the southside is very ghetto, and all the westside is terrible! It makes Detroit look good. I was actually scared driving through the westside. I am assuming you are one of those people who went to Chicago never left downtown or only went to select northside neighhorhoods. The bad areas of Chicago make up roughly half of city

[prairiestate]

Originally Posted by stephei2000

... The bad areas of Chicago make up roughly half of city

That sounds about right. Maybe a little less, but certainly way more then 3-5%. If you define bad as high crime rate only, there are some mostly well-kept, intact neighborhoods with a high crime rate, which would lower the number of bad neighborhoods even further. Even at 50%, though, it's a far lower percentage of bad areas then Detroit

[313 TUxedo]

If you use statistical data, yes, Detroit is unique in just how large the black percentage is, however, as a metro area, there is nothing that unusual about Greater Detroit. What is unusual is how in Detroit, racial demographics fell (or use to fall) so distinctly along the city lines, in such a concentric model. Other cities only seem diverse when counted as a whole, but....

Every NYC Borough (except Staten Island) has distinct black, white and other ethnic neighborhoods.

South Central LA (OK, we're supposed to call it South LA) is very well known for non-diversity.

Chicago is a unique case, with the city proper (and not all of it) bustling, fashionable, and downright unaffordable, surrounded by suburbs that resemble Detroit Proper in every respect (except no 1920's skyscrapers). Because these suburbs rarely have more than 30,000 people, their names (with the exception of Gary) are unknown to those outside Northeast Illinois.

Almost all other "diverse" communities, from big cities like Dallas and Cleveland to small towns like Mt. Clemens or Monroe, are divided by North & South or by East & West, usually along a river or a set of railroad tracks.

So why did Detroit wind up like it did? Many of the same reasons cited above are valid. Detroit's failure (or inability?) to annex anything in Oakland or Macomb counties, whites all too ready to abandon the city, the 1967 riots, the 1976 busing decree, insurance redlining and gouging, the deliberate importation of manufacturing jobs out of the US, and the subprime mortgage era (both the rush of easy money and the ensuing collapse) all played their part.

[us66]

Originally Posted by 313 TUxedo

Every NYC Borough (except Staten Island) has distinct black, white and other ethnic neighborhoods.

--Staten Island does as well, but not to the same extent.--

So why did Detroit wind up like it did? Many of the same reasons cited above are valid. Detroit's failure (or inability?) to annex anything in Oakland or Macomb counties, whites all too ready to abandon the city, the 1967 riots, the 1976 busing decree, insurance redlining and gouging, the deliberate importation of manufacturing jobs out of the US, and the subprime mortgage era (both the rush of easy money and the ensuing collapse) all played their part.

I'm not sure if they would have been allowed to annex anything outside of Wayne County. Most neighboring Wayne County municipalities incorporated pretty early, like Dearborn and Lincoln Park. Harper Woods incorporated I believe in 1951...I'm sure they didn't want to be annexed, they could have more control over Eastland's development as a city rather than as a township, and also if I'm not mistaken the area was on the short list for Metro Airport (as was north Warren around 13/Ryan). Redford Township became a "Charter Township" which means it cannot be annexed.

[Tex?Il?]

[quote=313 TUxedo;16737050]If you use statistical data, yes, Detroit is unique in just how large the black percentage is, however, as a metro area, there is nothing that unusual about Greater Detroit. What is unusual is how in Detroit, racial demographics fell (or use to fall) so distinctly along the city lines, in such a concentric model. Other cities only seem diverse when counted as a whole, but....


Chicago is a unique case, with the city proper (and not all of it) bustling, fashionable, and downright unaffordable, surrounded by suburbs that resemble Detroit Proper in every respect (except no 1920's skyscrapers). Because these suburbs rarely have more than 30,000 people, their names (with the exception of Gary) are unknown to those outside Northeast Illinois.
QUOTE]

Wrong. Only the north side (and not even all of that by any means!) and a scant few neighborhoods are fashionable. I don't think you know where the city proper ends and the suburbs begin. Otherwise I'm not sure if you would say that. Large areas of the south and west sides as well as some inner ring suburbs such as Maywood, and many suburbs east of I-57 are like Detroit. The rest of the Chicago suburbs are very much like the Detroit suburbs. Oakland county, MI is just like northern Cook, and DuPage counties. In fact its only downtown and north side that stands out.

[313 TUxedo]

Perhaps I should have rephrased that one line
...with parts of the city proper (but not all of it)....

FWIW, even the south side has Hyde Park, not white, but appealing to some.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by Retroit

1. Rapid industrialization due to obsolescence of Detroit factories and the building of factories in other areas of the country with lower labor costs and other cost advantages.
2. Cultural upheavals caused by rapid industrialization during WWII, which brought in large numbers of southern blacks, which were not quite welcome by white Detroiters. This effect was greater in Detroit than other cities because Detroit was heavily industrialized before and during WWII, thus requiring more workers.
3. Suburbanization attributed to the car culture to a greater extant than other cities, due to the big three auto makers being located here.
4. Lack of industrial/commercial diversity to make up for the reduction in auto jobs. In the first period (WWII till the mid '70s), this was due, in large part, to the high labor costs in Detroit compared to other areas of the country. In the second period (mid '70s to present day), this is attributable, in large part, due to the high cost of labor in the US compared to the rest of the world (Japan, Mexico, and Asia, in particular). Strong unionization here contributed to this.
5. "One Race Rule". Since the '70s, Detroit has been predominant a "black" city and has not been very open to the advice of outsiders. It was a failed experiment in black self-governance. Most other cities have more racial/ethnic diversity.
6. Breakdown in the culture/society. Detroit residents, particularly blacks, have a higher rate of family problems (divorce, illegitimate births, drug use, abandonment, abuse, promiscuity, etc.). This causes other problems, such as crime, school drop-out, lack of work ethics, lack of self-respect, etc. Other cities have these problems, but because these problems are more prevalent in blacks and since blacks make up a higher percentage in Detroit, these problems are higher here.
7. Failure of social welfare programs. When people are taught to depend on the government, they fail to take care of themselves. This is a problem in other cities, but since blacks have been acclimated to dependency and since blacks are pandered to by liberal politicians eager to lock in a 12% voting block, Detroit has been more adversely affected.

...just to name a few.

By not following number 5, Atlanta became a world class city even during white flight.

The Blacks in Atlanta did a good job running Atlanta during the white flight years, that whites are now moving back into the city and now the Blacks fear losing the majority.

This country is so funny.