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 think if you were to ask most blacks would they take 1950s Detroit or 2010s Detroit, they would take 1950s Detroit in a heartbeat (flaws and all), at least blacks old enough to remember it.
At least their neighborhoods (as crappy as they may have been) were intact (they could walk everywhere, didn't have to leave the city for anything, everybody knew everybody in the neighborhood), jobs (as crappy as they were) were still aplenty, and they still received basic, sufficient services from the city (schools were at least tolerable, busses/streetcars ran on time, police/fire department did at least show up, etc.), even if the white neighborhoods received "better" services.
From a first world standpoint (and from a major city standpoint), there's absolutely nothing redeeming about 2010s Detroit, regardless of race. That's why many blacks, if they didn't move to Southfield, Harper Woods or Oak Park (and those blacks probably felt "forced" out of the city by socio-economic forces, they likely didn't move out of the city by choice), have moved completely out of state to cities such as Atlanta and Chicago, where things are at least functional and progressing.
Thing is though, that although yes Chicago has a lot more career opportunities and a lot more nice, functional, livable neighborhoods.
The areas that ARE majority black are NO BETTER THAN DETROIT. The South side is 60% of the city and really no better than Detroit. You may not have quite the urban prairie or abandoned areas (the city is pretty good with tearing down abandoned buildings) yet however, although Chicago has some beautiful upper middle class/upscale majority black neighborhoods like Beverly-Morgan Park, or Hyde Park-Kenwood, Chicago does NOT have the collection of neighborhoods of Indian Village/Boston-Edison/North Rosedale/Palmer Woods/University District.
As great as Chicago is, I seriously don't think that Chicago is really a major destination of black people that are leaving Detroit. The condition of the south and west side would be too familiar, and might be turned off. The nice areas on the north side are basically, Royal Oak/Birmingham/Ferndale just on a giant urban scale.
Atlanta however, yes is a destination for black professionals and is a Black Mecca. I get the sense there, that they are at a critical mass that Atlanta more than other areas, is where there is a distinct upper middle class/upscale Black culture, that retains there African American culture.
Thing is though, that although yes Chicago has a lot more career opportunities and a lot more nice, functional, livable neighborhoods.
The areas that ARE majority black are NO BETTER THAN DETROIT. The South side is 60% of the city and really no better than Detroit. You may not have quite the urban prairie or abandoned areas (the city is pretty good with tearing down abandoned buildings) yet however, although Chicago has some beautiful upper middle class/upscale majority black neighborhoods like Beverly-Morgan Park, or Hyde Park-Kenwood, Chicago does NOT have the collection of neighborhoods of Indian Village/Boston-Edison/North Rosedale/Palmer Woods/University District.
As great as Chicago is, I seriously don't think that Chicago is really a major destination of black people that are leaving Detroit. The condition of the south and west side would be too familiar, and might be turned off. The nice areas on the north side are basically, Royal Oak/Birmingham/Ferndale just on a giant urban scale.
Atlanta however, yes is a destination for black professionals and is a Black Mecca. I get the sense there, that they are at a critical mass that Atlanta more than other areas, is where there is a distinct upper middle class/upscale Black culture, that retains there African American culture.
The only areas in Chicago that truly resemble majority of Detroit are the neighborhood around the Dan Ryan, namely in the 30th-50th street area (around the Robert Taylor homes). Once you get into West Englewood and head further north on the Dan Ryan you get into the Hispanic/Asian neighborhoods and once you get east of that corridor around the Dan Ryan you're on the University of Chicago's campus. The southside south of the aforementioned corridor would have likely resembled the neighborhoods we have along the 7 Mile and 6 Mile corridors in Detroit about 20-25 years ago, but not so much now (the 7 Mile corridor has gotten much worse).
As for the lack of Indian Villages, meh, Chicago has them. They just sacrificed the mansions like we have here in Detroit for the higher density development. It was a trade off. However, the fact of the mater is their wealthy residents still occupy their welathy areas and our wealthy residents no longer do.
The only areas in Chicago that truly resemble majority of Detroit are the neighborhood around the Dan Ryan, namely in the 30th-50th street area (around the Robert Taylor homes).
Really?? You don't think everything down the Indiana Border and beyond doesn't resemble Detroit? Like around the Calumet harbor area? What about west on the Green line or the Eisenhower?
Once you get into West Englewood and head further north on the Dan Ryan you get into the Hispanic/Asian neighborhoods and once you get east of that corridor around the Dan Ryan you're on the University of Chicago's campus.
West Englewood? Really? That doesn't remind you of Detroit? I mean maybe the streets aren't reduced to ONE house remaining but there are still plenty of overgrown vacant lots and bordered up houses. There is only ONE Asian neighborhood that you are talking about: Chinatown, and that is still north of the I-55. Yes there are more hispanic neighborhoods. But they are simply Detroits Mexicantown X 10-20. How many whole-in-the-wall taquerias in still grimy undesirable neighborhoods like Back in the Yards to you need. Hyde Park is beautiful. And with a little more progress, Midtown around Wayne State and the Arts District area can and will be just as nice, as that is where the progress is happening.
The southside south of the aforementioned corridor would have likely resembled the neighborhoods we have along the 7 Mile and 6 Mile corridors in Detroit about 20-25 years ago, but not so much now (the 7 Mile corridor has gotten much worse).
As for the lack of Indian Villages, meh, Chicago has them. They just sacrificed the mansions like we have here in Detroit for the higher density development. It was a trade off. However, the fact of the mater is their wealthy residents still occupy their welathy areas and our wealthy residents no longer do.
Nah, Chicago never really quite had fabuluos neighborhoods quite to that extent. Detroit was one of the wealthiest cities in the country from the turn of the last century through WWII. And the housing stock clearly shows it. Chicago had and still has a lot of "workers" cottage style houses/apartments and small bungalows. There may have been some mansions that were torn down for high density residential areas such as in the Gold Coast, but mostly residential high rises were built as urban renewal building on old industrial land, rail yards, etc. Yes there are PLENTY more wealthy residents in Chicago, but the average household income in Palmer Woods and Sherwood Forest is around 90,000, about the same as Chicagos Gold Coast. University District, Indian Village, and North Rosedale Park are between 65,000 and 70,000. Not bad.
Mine in Red. Detroit may have more problems, but seriously, the difference between the south and west sides of Chicago and Detroit is splitting hairs. Chicago retained its world class status by neglecting and foresaking 2/3 to 3/4 of the city and focusing on turning its downtown and north lakefront into a mini-Manhattan. And it has done that quite well. And it has done this, because Chicago grew up with homogenous Irish Catholic neighborhoods that were highly effective politicians that overlooked corruption. Read "Boss" by Mike Royko. Its a little old, written in the 70s, but it gives you the REAL story as to why Chicago and Detroit went down different paths. Although of course it doesn't talk about Detroit at all, but it does focus on the Daley adminstration era of the mid-60s to mid-70s, the ciritical years when the two cities were going in opposite directions.
Chicago retained its world class status by neglecting and foresaking 2/3 to 3/4 of the city and focusing on turning its downtown and north lakefront into a mini-Manhattan.
That's definitely part of the reason. But was a regional and state effort as well.
The folks of NE Illinois and all of Illinois realized having a strong, healthy core would be more beneficial to them. SE Michigan and all of Michigan thought otherwise. Thus they directed all of the capital into Chicago. This is why Chicago never lost much of its tax base.
You better believe however, if Illinois and NE Illinois had favored policies which encouraged flight from Chicago, it would look a lot more like Detroit.
Detroit's at a point where it must decide whether to lose more of its population and lose its big city status for cutting services further to improve what was the shell of its downtown, because the rest of SE Michigan and Michigan refuses to direct its capital into the city.
As for the rest of your posts, you're debating whether or not the south side is infrastructurally similar to much of Detroit. Yes, it is. However, with the exception of the areas I mention, much of the south side is still heavily populated and received sufficient services for the taxes they pay. That's really the difference between the two, thus my point.
By and large, many of the streets on the southside are still densely populated, and the commercial streets, while somewhat more suburban now, still have commercial activity along them.
Many of the neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago still has an average density of 20,000-30,000 people per square mile (the LEAST densest areas even have an average desnity of 10,000 to 15,000 per square mile), where as the DENSEST part of Detroit is along the 7 Mile corridor, with 10,000 people per square mile.
If anything, I would argue the neighborhoods Detroit has lost (the ones closer to downtown) since the 1960s (Lower East Side for example) were more equivalent to Chiucago's southside than much of occupied Detroit in 2012.
Last edited by 313Weather; 05-04-2012 at 12:59 PM..
That's definitely part of the reason. But was a regional and state effort as well.
The folks of NE Illinois and all of Illinois realized having a strong, healthy core would be more beneficial to them. SE Michigan and all of Michigan thought otherwise. Thus they directed all of the capital into Chicago. This is why Chicago never lost much of its tax base.
You better believe however, if Illinois and NE Illinois had favored policies which encouraged flight from Chicago, it would look a lot more like Detroit.
Detroit's at a point where it must decide whether to lose more of its population and lose its big city status for cutting services further to improve what was the shell of its downtown, because the rest of SE Michigan and Michigan refuses to direct its capital into the city.
As for the rest of your posts, you're debating whether or not the south side is infrastructurally similar to much of Detroit. Yes, it is. However, with the exception of the areas I mention, much of the south side is still heavily populated and received sufficient services for the taxes they pay. That's really the difference between the two, thus my point.
By and large, many of the streets on the southside are still densely populated, and the commercial streets, while somewhat more suburban now, still have commercial activity along them.
Many of the neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago still has an average density of 20,000-30,000 people per square mile (the LEAST densest areas even have an average desnity of 10,000 to 15,000 per square mile), where as the DENSEST part of Detroit is along the 7 Mile corridor, with 10,000 people per square mile.
If anything, I would argue the neighborhoods Detroit has lost (the ones closer to downtown) since the 1960s (Lower East Side for example) were more equivalent to Chiucago's southside than much of occupied Detroit in 2012.
Fair enough, I can totally see your points.
Except for one minor point. Saying the "folks of Northeast Illinois and Illinois in general realized that having a strong healthy core would be more beneficial, while folks in Michigan felt the opposite" I think that is giving too much credit to the average Illinois Joe. The man on the street still wanted a bigger house, a bigger yard, and to "flee" when his old neighborhood was "changing." I can tell you for one thing, my extended family and neighborhoods in the Chicago suburbs that I grew up in were like this.
I would argue that there were a few visionary politicians (yet tolerant of corruption) that realized that if you have a strong healthy core, the suburbanites who left the city, and even those of the rural hinterlands would want to visit, work, enjoy, and support the city.
If Detroit had a different mayor than Coleman Young, one that made Detroit stronger and more appealing to the suburbanites/rural Michiganders, Detroit would be more like Chicago today.
But don't give too much credit to the average Joe of NE Illinois.
If Detroit had a different mayor than Coleman Young, one that made Detroit stronger and more appealing to the suburbanites/rural Michiganders, Detroit would be more like Chicago today.
But don't give too much credit to the average Joe of NE Illinois.
Detroit was already losing whites long before young and the riots. This is not something talked about, but white flight started here in the 50s. That white flight allowed young to win by the mid 70s. He is a cause not an effect.
Except for one minor point. Saying the "folks of Northeast Illinois and Illinois in general realized that having a strong healthy core would be more beneficial, while folks in Michigan felt the opposite" I think that is giving too much credit to the average Illinois Joe. The man on the street still wanted a bigger house, a bigger yard, and to "flee" when his old neighborhood was "changing." I can tell you for one thing, my extended family and neighborhoods in the Chicago suburbs that I grew up in were like this.
I would argue that there were a few visionary politicians (yet tolerant of corruption) that realized that if you have a strong healthy core, the suburbanites who left the city, and even those of the rural hinterlands would want to visit, work, enjoy, and support the city.
If Detroit had a different mayor than Coleman Young, one that made Detroit stronger and more appealing to the suburbanites/rural Michiganders, Detroit would be more like Chicago today.
But don't give too much credit to the average Joe of NE Illinois.
I agree with majority of this post.
Likewise however, just as you say don't give too much credit to the "Average joe" of NE Illinois, it wouldn't be wise to say Detroit would be better off without Coleman Young.
What happened in Detroit likely would have happened either way. Coleman Young did the best he could with what he had. Leaders in Detroit and Michigan had already made up their mind that they no longer wanted anything to do with Detroit. They now like to use him as a scapegoat of course (for example, twisting his "criminals can hit 8 Mile Road" comment into something racial). Now, 40 years later, we're still around here with a burnt-out urban core and a slowly shrinking region and the leaders around here are cluelessly wondering why as the reasons and solutions are hidden in plain sight to them and the "average joe" in SE Michigan.
But at the end of the day, Detroit is in a league of its own.
I don't think it can be compared to any 1st Worl city at this point.
No other city has the wealth inequality that Detroit has (astounishingly poor city and astounishingly wealthy suburbs), an no other city (except maybe Cleveland) has lost 2/3 of its peak population and continues to shrink. No other city has the racial divide Detroit has either.
Even if one makes a comparison of Detroit with Cleveland, Cleveland is still THE CENTER of their region, their light years ahead of us in mass transit, not to mention Cleveland and its suburbs embraces regionalism with its.
Chicago has only lost a maximum of 25% of its peak population, mostly out of the Englewood area, and it has one of the top 5 largest GDPs in the country, if not world, much of which is still centered in its city center.
Detroit was wonderful.
Christmas shopping at Hudsons with their wooden escalators at the upper floors and their window displays.
Dining, Vernors etc.
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.
