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.
Some small deindustrialized New England cities have populations nearly as poor as impoverished rust belt cities. But the surrounding good areas have housing prices out of reach for the poor, so no abandonment.
Some are, some aren't--most parts of the country that have established cities have abandonment issues either in part or in whole, so it's not Midwest exclusive.
I don't buy the premise of this thread....when we are talking about Midwestern cities, virtually all of them, even smaller ones are experiencing increasing investments in their cores. populations are expanding from the core and although it will take time, much of what is blighted and/or abandoned can be rehabbed or built, something that is occurring all throughout the region at varying paces.
having said that...one factor that led to such situation is the fact that most Midwestern cities are surrounded by ridiculously cheap (at least by coastal standards), flat, developable land on all sides for as far as the eye can see. the south has dense forests as does much of the northeast, the west is hemmed in by mountains. So it has historically been cheaper for successive generations of Midwesterns to move to larger more modern homeson the outskirts of the city. Than it has for those in coastal cities. it isn't necessarily population loss. the Midwest as a region has never lost population in a census and continues to grow.
I think the point of the thread is not that Midwestern cities have more bad areas, but that so much of it is abandoned/blighted. And the answer is population loss spurred by deindustrialization.
Here in California, there are probably just as many bad neighborhoods in the East Bay and Los Angeles as there are in Chicago and Cleveland, but in the California cities these bad neighborhoods have actually grown in population while those in the Midwest have had severe population losses. A lot of this is owed to Western cities being strategically located to absorb much of the immigration from Latin America and Asia.
Yes. Great point. I agree.
The bad areas in Los Angeles are actually gaining population, and if you Google Street-viewed these particular bad areas, it wouldn't look too bad at first glance. However, they are still very dangerous, and the main streets are quite dirty and still look relatively run down.
I also want to point out that the bad areas in East Coast and Southern cities also look equally as bad as those in the Midwest. Philly and DC have very gutted and run down areas, and New York City still has very patchy and run down neighborhoods. New Orleans and Miami do as well.
It seems the only part of the country where this is not the case is The West.
I also want to point out that the bad areas in East Coast and Southern cities also look equally as bad as those in the Midwest. Philly and DC have very gutted and run down areas, and New York City still has very patchy and run down neighborhoods. New Orleans and Miami do as well.
It seems the only part of the country where this is not the case is The West.
New York City has much less than most Midwestern cities. Though gritty looking. Decay to the abandonment is not that common in New England.
I live in Indianapolis now and there is a ton of blight and dilapiladated buildings in the core city. Crime is high. Many homes are being sold for under $20k and no one will buy them. Large swathes of the city look completely abandoned.
I went through Cincinatti today and driving on 71 through downtown from the eastern burbs is a lesson in blight and being beaten with an ugly stick. Toledo, Dayton, and Cleveland are all the same way. Detroit is a wreck. I've never been to Chicago or St. Louis, but I'd expect large parts of their cities to also be bad. Kansas City also had a lot of bad parts when I visited. Minneapolis seems to be one of the lone exceptions for big cities.
Why are the Midwestern metros a blighted out mess?
I need to make one correction though. Which specific areas of the core are you talking about? If you're referring to the downtown area of Indy then you are incorrect. Downtown Indy is actually one of the most vibrant downtowns in the country. Now if it's the area northeast of downtown then yes. All cities in the Midwest have varying degrees of depressed areas but not all are the same way. There's a huge difference between say Indy and Detroit when you talk about run down areas. No city in the country is free from it anyway. You're going to have some depressed areas but not to the same degree when comparing each city. You need to be a bit more specific by giving some examples. Downtown Indy is in the core but it's far from being a run down depressed area (now going back several decades downtown was pretty bad). The illustrative examples below makes my point that not all of Indy's core is what you make it out to be. There are some depressed areas but "downtown" isn't one of them. Keep in mind though that downtown Indy isn't one of those downtowns that shut down after 5pm.
Downtown Indy (no blight here) from photos I shot myself.
I live in Indianapolis now and there is a ton of blight and dilapiladated buildings in the core city. Crime is high. Many homes are being sold for under $20k and no one will buy them. Large swathes of the city look completely abandoned.
I went through Cincinatti today and driving on 71 through downtown from the eastern burbs is a lesson in blight and being beaten with an ugly stick. Toledo, Dayton, and Cleveland are all the same way. Detroit is a wreck. I've never been to Chicago or St. Louis, but I'd expect large parts of their cities to also be bad. Kansas City also had a lot of bad parts when I visited. Minneapolis seems to be one of the lone exceptions for big cities.
Why are the Midwestern metros a blighted out mess?
Indianapolis really isn't that bad. With a 10 being Detroit and 0 being Disneyland, I'd give the worst parts of Indy--like the area around 16th Street, just west of the river--a 5 or maybe a 6.
Indianapolis really isn't that bad. With a 10 being Detroit and 0 being Disneyland, I'd give the worst parts of Indy--like the area around 16th Street, just west of the river--a 5 or maybe a 6.
Indy wasn't really heavily industrialized to the degree to what you would see in cities like Detroit or Cleveland. Even Gary (NW Indiana) has larger areas more heavily industrial than Indy. So yes that is correct that Indy really isn't so bad compared to some of the more industrialized cities in the Midwest that have suffered from the Rustbelt syndrome.
I guess I must not live in the Midwest, because there isn't much blight where I live at all. Even the areas we call "the ghetto" here in the Twin Cities look like Mayberry in comparison to lots of other metros.
I guess I must not live in the Midwest, because there isn't much blight where I live at all. Even the areas we call "the ghetto" here in the Twin Cities look like Mayberry in comparison to lots of other metros.
Exactly. North Minneapolis is nicer than most neighborhoods in Syracuse. Yeah, Detroit, Flint, East St. Louis, Gary, parts of Cleveland, and parts of Cincinnati are rough, but as a whole the Midwest isn't any worse than the Mississippi Delta or the Northeast.
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.
