Is Royal Oak changing? (Detroit, Ann Arbor: 2013, houses, promotional)

[jonnynonos]

No offense but saying "this has been going on forever" is implying that there is little difference between a cigarette lighter and a bonfire.

Statistically you may very well that there are fewer whites in Chicago than there were 20 years ago, and also that there are fewer young people.

However, the transplant population has absolutely skyrocketed. I don't have the data, if you don't believe me you can look it up yourself. Anyone who is remotely familiar with Chicago knows that is true. The inner core neighborhoods were largely run down in the 80s and 90s. River North, Wicker Park, Bucktown, Old Town, the South Loop, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and every north side neighborhood from Andersonville to Ravenswood have been drastically, drastically revitalized over the last 20 years, and communities from Logan Square to Humboldt Park are not far behind.

I'm not beating a drum for Chicago; I couldn't care less if people like it or not. This is just reality.

And as I said, I'm sure there are people who move back to Michigan. I personally don't know any.

[scolls]

Chicago is one of the fastest declining cities in the country. They lost 200,000 people since last census and have lost population every decade except one since 1950. For every one person moving to Chicago, there has to be 2-3 leaving.

[jonnynonos]

In the outlying neighborhoods, true, and statistically in terms of population, also true. But downtown, the near South Side, the near West Side and virtually the entire north side, that could not be farther from the truth.

Basically half of the city is way up, half of the city way down. That is a huge oversimplification but more true than not.

So statistics do not even come close to telling the whole story.

[weteath]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

In the outlying neighborhoods, true, and statistically in terms of population, also true. But downtown, the near South Side, the near West Side and virtually the entire north side, that could not be farther from the truth.

Basically half of the city is way up, half of the city way down. That is a huge oversimplification but more true than not.

So statistics do not even come close to telling the whole story.

Ya, basically the poorer folk(below middle class) are leaving. Also many section 8 types have been forced out the city since the 90s, all those housing projects being brought down. I mean I think that as a good thing.

[scolls]

If the poor folk are being forced out of Chicago and replaced with yuppies, why aren't the poverty rates decreasing? Because a handful of Michigan grads move to Chicago doesn't make it a magnet for all college grads. I don't know many from the coasts who go to Chicago.

[weteath]

Originally Posted by scolls

If the poor folk are being forced out of Chicago and replaced with yuppies, why aren't the poverty rates decreasing? Because a handful of Michigan grads move to Chicago doesn't make it a magnet for all college grads. I don't know many from the coasts who go to Chicago.

I've met people from all over in Chicago, and the poverty issue, what city doesn't have highly impoverished areas? Even NYC does. In Chicago though it seems to be pretty divided. In the good areas of the southside it'll be mostly white. For example, my cousin took me to this roof top eatery near university of Chicago, literally a couple blocks to the west we went to a party store and outside were all blacks basically. I'm not trying to say it's a race thing but more of a money thing. My cousin was talking about how it is wrong how businesses will be built in the good areas, which happen to be white majority, but near where he lives he said nobody cares and they aren't building up nothing new etc.

I mean if you were running a business, tell me, where would you choose to build? The answer, until more people with money move to said area, things wont change, some people get forced out though.

Heck, my cousin in Detroit who is 21, said things are changing in parts, but he says it feels like more blacks will be forced out. For the good people that have stayed thru the bad in any city, and specifically Detroit, it'd be wrong to just force them out when things get better. I'd have some kinda rent control policy in place for those folk.

[MS313]

In Kalamazoo, I met just about as many people from Chicago as I did Detroit. That may not be the case for the Metro Detroit area, especially around UofM. Honestly, I see much more people talking about moving to Atlanta, NYC, or LA. Mostly young people who don't even do their homework when thinking about moving to a new place. Then reality sets in. Once people start realizing the grass isn't always greener and different doesn't necessarily mean "better" many people move back or just stay. Now when talking about jobs, that's a different story.

[weteath]

Originally Posted by MarvinStrong313

In Kalamazoo, I met just about as many people from Chicago as I did Detroit. That may not be the case for the Metro Detroit area, especially around UofM. Honestly, I see much more people talking about moving to Atlanta, NYC, or LA. Mostly young people who don't even do their homework when thinking about moving to a new place. Then reality sets in. Once people start realizing the grass isn't always greener and different doesn't necessarily mean "better" many people move back or just stay. Now when talking about jobs, that's a different story.

Ya, I'd agree peoples top choice would be NYC or LA. However, my friend from Michigan(now in San Fran), I asked him if he wanted to go on a trip to Chi while he was living here... he said no because Chicago is still the Midwest, mind you he had never been. Chicago isn't as Midwest as people assume. If he'd had went with me I know his opinion would have changed. Anyways, another reality is Chicago is much cheaper than LA or NYC, while having great transit, and being somewhat of a crossroads for people from the rest of the country and other countries. Of course it isn't to the scale of NYC but that doesn't mean it isn't present.

Also what do you mean by different?

[Almont1]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

No offense but saying "this has been going on forever" is implying that there is little difference between a cigarette lighter and a bonfire.

Except there is no evidence that the current situation is a "bonfire". The last time Chicago had as few people as now was before 1920. As for whites probably sometime deep into the 19th century.

Statistically you may very well that there are fewer whites in Chicago than there were 20 years ago, and also that there are fewer young people.

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

However, the transplant population has absolutely skyrocketed. I don't have the data, if you don't believe me you can look it up yourself.

We do have the data, and it shows there are actually fewer than before. There are tons of transients to Chicago still, however, and Chicago will always draw from neighboring states.

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Anyone who is remotely familiar with Chicago knows that is true. The inner core neighborhoods were largely run down in the 80s and 90s. River North, Wicker Park, Bucktown, Old Town, the South Loop, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and every north side neighborhood from Andersonville to Ravenswood have been drastically, drastically revitalized over the last 20 years, and communities from Logan Square to Humboldt Park are not far behind.

This isn't true, and gentrification has been happening in every city.

First, core Chicago was not "largely run down" in the 80's and 90's. Many areas were even more vibrant than now. There were still 4 or 5 department stores on State 20 years ago; now there's 1. There was still the Maxwell Street market, now it's a parking lot. There was still industry and jobs along Clybourn; now it's suburban strip malls. Michigan Ave. had more department stores and malls than now. Chicago Place Mall closed, Lord & Taylor closed, so did Carsons in the West Loop.

Overall, I agree that downtown is better now than then, but it really depends on what you're looking at. There are more residents downtown, but fewer office jobs. There are more restaurants, but fewer big stores. It really depends.

Yes, there has been lots of gentrification and development too, but almost every major city in the U.S. has seen tons of inner city gentrification. Obviously that doesn't mean that every city has been attracting people from everywhere else in greater numbers. That would be impossible. If one place gains, the other loses. How can every city gain and none lose?

And you're also exaggerating the changes. Places like River North were gentrified 30 years ago. Old Town was gentrified 50 years ago. Lincoln Park 40 years ago. Wicker Park 20 years ago.

Then other places you mention still aren't that gentrified. Andersonville is Uptown, and mostly not gentrified. It's a decent community, but was decent 20 years ago. I'm old enough to remember Andersonville in the 80's/90's, and it wasn't that different from today. It was very gay friendly diverse, and a nice mix. Overall, Chicago about the same overall level now compared to back then, though some neighborhoods got better, and others got worse.

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

I'm not beating a drum for Chicago; I couldn't care less if people like it or not. This is just reality.

And the reality is that Chicago isn't an outlier. It isn't attracting more people than in the past, and doesn't have stronger population growth than other areas. It's just that random just-out-of-college types think they're the first young people to live in cities. They don't know that Carl Sandburg Village was already planned in the 50's, for exactly that purpose. They don't know that gays have been living in Boystown since the 60's.

[DTWflyer]

I was kind of looking forward to having a discussion about Royal Oak, but oh well.....