Would you say that metro Detroit is "uglier" than other metro areas? (low income, condo)

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

fair enough. True about the north shore being Gross Pointes + wealthiest part of Oakland County. Also true about Royal Oak vs. Oak Park, or Birmingham vs. Evanston. They are nothing alike, except that they are some of two of the most well known suburbs in respective metro areas, and are often suggested for those looking for a more "urban suburb"

I will add to the bolded. A huge difference of course is the demographics. I can't think of anywhere in Chicagoland that is majority African American that is nice as Detroit propers nicest areas (specifically majority AA).

Re: bold. Maybe parts of Bronzeville.

The south side has loads of gorgeous residential architecture but, you're right, on average, probably more dangerous than the still borderling middle class Detroit neighborhoods you are referring to.

Black professional neighborhoods like Palmer Woods in Detroit, though, are not what they used to be 10, 20 years ago. They are emptying out and have resorted to hiring private security in some cases.

[usroute10]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Detroit proper's residential architecture is absolutely beautiful.

If Boston Edison, Indian Village and some of the other famous neighborhoods were closer to downtown I think they would be extremely hot properties right now.

Actually Detroit had a neighborhood of pre-1900's mansions just north and east of downtown called Brush Park. However, because that area started to decline in the 1940's and 1950's, it was too far gone by the by the 80's and '90s and most of the neighborhood's old mansions have been demolished.

PastPerfect for the Web, 2008 edition

pg 1

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by usroute10

Actually Detroit had a neighborhood of pre-1900's mansions just north and east of downtown called Brush Park. However, because that area started to decline in the 1940's and 1950's, it was too far gone by the by the 80's and '90s and most of the neighborhood's old mansions have been demolished.

PastPerfect for the Web, 2008 edition

pg 1

My friend is a quasi-historian grew up in Highland Park and said that Brush Park had been a slum since the 19th century, full of bordellos and flophouses.

Most of those houses were way too far gone, save for the exteriors, to be salvaged... many, many, many years ago.

I remember seeing it often in the 90s; it was surreal.

Back then I don't think there was even one inhabitable structure in Brush Park. It was literally a gorgeous, 19th century, abandonded neighborhood, right adjacent to downtown.

Many of the buildings were half fallen apart, and on many only the edifices remained.

Then a few of them were salvaged and some were knocked down.

[Rockmysawks]

19th century = 1800's. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean?

[Rockmysawks]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

There are a number of ways, but it's all regional.

For example, the midwest is full of either post WWI or post WWII ranches. Lots of brick, lots of wood siding.


The west coast/south west: TINY lots (like 2500 sf), stucco, stucco, clay roof tile, and stucco.


New England: Triple deckers



Look at the first picture. Could you figure out which metro area that's from? Would you believe me if I told you it was metro Cleveland? Milwaukee? Detroit? The vernacular architecture of the midwest is close enough together, that that house could be from any midwestern city. It also would be fairly rare in other parts of the country. (It's in Allen Park)

The last picture, if you avoid looking at the car with a Red Sox plate and the T stop, could be almost nowhere but New England. You don't see many tripple deckers outside of New England, ever. The vernacular architecture is quite unique.

Now the middle picture is a bit tougher, just cause I picked new construction. That really could be anywhere. For some reason, lots of Americans want a stucco house with spanish tile when it's not the proper design for the climate... But, that said, it's most common in the south west (which basically extends as far north as the MI-OH state line is, much of it isn't very south). Older houses are much simpler, but the same elements - I just couldn't find an older post-WWII house with stucco and clay tile roof in 30 seconds of google searching

The first and last pictures look like lots of areas on Cleveland

[detshen]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

While I agree with a lot of your post, I am completely dumbfounded when anyone says a Midwestern metro area "wins hands down" in the nature department.

While I understand someone missing rain in southern California (I live in SoCal even though from the Midwest), it is completely inaccurate to says that coastal southern California is "desert" and all the plants have to be watered.

While I will certainly agree that the Midwest obviously has more lakes and perennial rivers, as well as the suburbs being much more leafy (and I do miss urban/suburban neighborhoods that feel very woodland-like - it basically ends there.

First off, the flat, largely agricultural (with random patches of woods) provides much fewer nature study, exploratory and recreational opportunities (you have to go to some of the most remote, harshest climate, rural poverty parts of the Midwest to get any REAL scenery/outdoor recreation opportunity (IE: UP).

And back to SoCal, coastal SoCal is NOT desert. It is Mediterranean climate but on the drier side. Now we are currently in a serious drought, and we are having some of the driest years on record, but we are supposed to be getting rain right now, and once every couple decades, we have gotten more rain than Seattle.

Most of the landscaping vegetation is simply drought tolerant plants that come from parts of the world with a nearly identical climate as California. While some of the trees and shrubs need a lot of water to get started, most of them are evergreen to retain water between the short rainy seasons. Its just an adaptation, no different than deciduous trees, shrubs, and flowers in the Midwest adapting to the six months of frost/freeze.

Secondly, how much did you explore? Do you know there are mountains in southern California less than 2 hours from SD that do get snow and pine forests just like the Sierras or Rockies (IE: San Jacintos)? And then you have countless chaparral covered hills to hike through. And what about the rich marine life of the ocean ecosystems? Do you know about the La Jolla caves?? What about the oranges and avocadoes stands and wineries in some of the more rural areas? Now, on the other side of the mountains are true desert (most notable Anza Borrego) where you can hike to oases that support wild palm groves. I could go on, but I just don't understand when people suggest that anywhere in the Midwest "wins" in the nature department.

That's just my opinion, it's nothing personal, and not meant as an attack on SD. I was being hyperbolic about the desert, but it is very dry, only a couple more inches than Phoenix, just a little above desert threshold. I prefer the green vegetation, and swimming/water sports in lakes rather the ocean, so for me it wins hands down. Some of the landscaping is draught resistant plants which I prefer to see in that area, but way too much watering is done. Too many lawns, and there are pipes that pump water all over many of the roads, that always bothered me.

The ocean is amazing and full of interesting things to see an do, tide pools, caves, all of that are great. I prefer lakes and rivers surrounded by lush greenery. I have a good friend who lives on a lake surrounded by trees. I explored SoCal plenty, I was there 14 years, but I was thinking of the general nature in San Diego, and Detroit areas, not hours out. I'm basically a city person, so that's how I was thinking. I miss mountains, but those aren't in the city. In metro Detroit there are so many little pockets of forest and rivers that are right there, while you aren't truly in nature as far as hiking and such, you can get a quick little escape. . It's all about the green for me. I also LOVE rain. In SD we had one thunderstorm in the 14 years I lived there, I missed rain so much.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Rockmysawks

19th century = 1800's. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean?

Yes, that is what he said/I read, it had been a red light district since the late 19th century.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Rockmysawks

19th century = 1800's. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean?

I'm not sure what he's talking about.

Much of Brush Park wasn't even incorporated and developed until the mid-late 1800s (19th Century).

In fact, according to a more reliable source, it received the nickname "Little Paris of the Midwest" by the late 1800s.

Then again, they also seemed to be of the opinion that Detroit was "dead" by 1968.

[jonnynonos]

Obviously I wasn't around. This is what someone told me who is a very educated person and a Detroit native.

Wikipedia says it was in decline by the end of the 19th century.

This site says 1910:

Alfred St. in Brush Park: A microcosm of Detroit’s early decline | Motor City Muckraker

Same thing happened in several major cities.

With cars the rich could live farther away from their businesses.

[313Weather]

And I'm not sure I would call it a "decline."

It appears Brush Park was still growing population-wise even after the region's elite had moved out of the neighborhood. The inhabitants were instead working/lower-middle class.

Calling it a red light district is surely a gross exaggeration though.