Which suburbs in your MSA have the most blight?

[dxdtdemon]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

In Central Ohio, Dayton comes to mind.

Dayton is not a suburb. But in addition to the blight in Dayton, many of the places that some people use to claim that Cincinnati and Dayton are being more connected are now even more blighted.

[66nexus]

Originally Posted by lammius

Even the places mentioned above aren't blighted. True, these places have high crime, and many of the buildings are old and probably not well maintained. But that's not the same as blight. Blight is when you have large-scale abandonment of a city or neighborhood, where you can go block after block and see boarded up, vacant, crumbling buildings. Newark, the Oranges, Paterson, Greenville, etc. aren't like that. People live there, their populations are (for the most part) growing.

For example, here's an area of Camden, NJ that I would consider blighted.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=camde...276.38,,0,2.28

Whereas in East Orange, this residential block probably isn't "beautiful" and leafy green like most suburbs, but people live here. It's not abandoned and crumbling, and I can't think of (or find on street view) an area that is.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=East+...124.83,,0,2.46

I can think of small areas (maybe several areas of a block or two each) in Newark and Bridgeport where you have abandoned structures, but I can't think of anywhere in the metro area where you have whole neighborhoods that are vacant and crumbling.

^Pretty much this.

I was surprised when the earlier poster stated "almost all of Newark". A lot of areas in Newark aren't necessarily desirable ones, but they certainly aren't blighted. Areas I can think of that are blighted are perhaps the supreme eastern edge of the Ironbound (the industrial zone), and maybe a few parts around the airport (which most airports in the US usually have).

Newark=satellite city