What is the shadiest street stretch you have ever seen?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I don't know about this.

I mean, if we remove NYC from the equation, we have a problem with this model.

Boston never had a particularly large African American population to begin with, and that's the crux of the issue. If you lump DC into the "east coast", the SE side of DC definitely has a LOT of urban decay.

All of those cities were declining in population up until the past 15-20 years or so.

I think the only model that really fits to explain the "degree" of urban decay is how much of a city's formerly white population got replaced by black people in in the mid 20th century. In the case of Detroit and Cleveland it was a HUGE proportion. In the case of Chicago, Philly, etc it was still far below 50%. Whichever areas were affected were the ones that are decaying today.

Probably the best indicator is the city's percentage of population that is foreign-born. This indicator even explains why Boston has less decay than D.C., since Boston has a larger foreign-born population.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Probably the best indicator is the city's percentage of population that is foreign-born. This indicator even explains why Boston has less decay than D.C., since Boston has a larger foreign-born population.

it also explains why chicago faired better than many of its rust belt peers. massive amounts of mexcian immigration in the 80s/90s soaked up A LOT of housing that would have otherwise been left to rot.

and now that the mexican immigration spigot has been shut-off, along with an overall trend of international immigration into chicago slowing, there's more rot on the horizon in the windy city.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pretty much every Rust Belt city has this. Flint, Saginaw and Youngstown, proportionally, are likely worse. Gary, Benton Harbor, and East St. Louis much worse. Cleveland is about as bad. St. Louis is better, but not by much.

I was just talking about major cities, and I don't consider Flint, Youngstown, Gary, etc. as major cities. I haven't even heard of Benton Harbor lol. Among major cities (use pro sports team cities as a proxy I guess) I would maintain that Detroit is pretty unique in both the scale/intensity of its abandonment, as well as the geographic dispersion of it.

As I mentioned, the north side of St. Louis and the Lower 9th Ward in New Orleans are the only places I know of that match the total desolation that is present in many of Detroit's urban prairie neighborhoods. But both of those are relatively contained areas, and most of the rest of their respective cities don't have similar levels of abandonment. So they might match Detroit in the level of destruction, but not geographic dispersion.

I know Cleveland has some pretty pockmarked neighborhoods on the East side like this area: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cl...!4d-81.6943605

I found a couple of small neighborhoods that look to be pretty much entirely torn down: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cl...!4d-81.6943605

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cl...!4d-81.6943605


but both of those are quite small, and again, all of these neighborhoods are contained to the same general area on the East side. Pittsburgh's Hill District is similarly worn pretty thin, and you can find small hillside neighborhoods in Cincy that have basically reverted back to nature, but again, these are small areas of these cities. In Detroit, you can find similar situations all throughout the city. I'm not picking on Detroit, but I think the on-the-ground realities there are just much different than basically any other major city in the US.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it also explains why chicago faired better than many of its rust belt peers. massive amounts of mexcian immigration in the 80s/90s soaked up A LOT of housing that would have otherwise been left to rot.

and now that the mexican immigration spigot has been shut-off, along with an overall trend of international immigration into chicago slowing, there's more rot on the horizon in the windy city.

^ That's correct, unless we can do something to stem black flight or increase investment from outsiders into these areas.

Not sure what the future holds...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it also explains why chicago faired better than many of its rust belt peers. massive amounts of mexcian immigration in the 80s/90s soaked up A LOT of housing that would have otherwise been left to rot.

and now that the mexican immigration spigot has been shut-off, along with an overall trend of international immigration into chicago slowing, there's more rot on the horizon in the windy city.

Yeah, in absolute numbers, Chicago has one of the largest foreign-born populations of any city in the world. The two cities with the largest populations are about even, but are pretty far ahead of any other city in the world. It shouldn't be too shocking which cities those are: NYC and London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...rn_populations

Miami's percentage of foreign-born blows every other city out of the water. Toronto's is pretty amazing too.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, in absolute numbers, Chicago has one of the largest foreign-born populations of any city in the world. The two cities with the largest populations are about even, but are pretty far ahead of any other city in the world. It shouldn't be too shocking which cities those are: NYC and London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...rn_populations

Miami's percentage of foreign-born blows every other city out of the water. Toronto's is pretty amazing too.

Interesting that at the metro level, Los Angeles has more foreign born people than both London and Toronto, and only trails NYC globally.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Not sure what the future holds...

a city of haves and have nots.

some areas will look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9480...7i16384!8i8192

other areas will look more like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7995...7i16384!8i8192

ALL american cities have their good and bad, but no US city is being pulled harder in both directions simultaneously than chicago.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

How long did it take them to demolish so much of Detroit? I'm in shock at how much of the city was returned back to nature....almost like neighborhoods were never there in the first place. Legit, looks like the countryside.

There used to be an annual tradition in Detroit every Halloween when gangs of teenagers would roam around torching abandoned buildings throughout the city. Detroit's version of urban renewal.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

a city of haves and have nots.

some areas will look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9480...7i16384!8i8192

other areas will look more like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7995...7i16384!8i8192

ALL american cities have their good and bad, but no US city is being pulled harder in both directions simultaneously than chicago.

^ That's the present.

I for one hope that's not the future. If it is, then it's a failure on multiple levels

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's the present.

I for one hope that's not the future. If it is, then it's a failure on multiple levels

i haven't seen much in the way of any evidence that the near-term future of chicago will be any different from its present.

black flight continues.

immigration slows.

wealthy-ish white kids from the burbs flip a couple more neighborhoods.

supertalls for downtown. urban prairies for englewood.

hi ho.



by all means, hope as hard as you can for a full-blown rebirth of the entire southside from 18th to 138th, but that's quite a long shot in my eyes.

good chicago and bad chicago will continue to get gooder and badder from what i'm seeing. it's a BIG city. we don't have anywhere near enough new blood coming in to save it all.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

Interesting that at the metro level, Los Angeles has more foreign born people than both London and Toronto, and only trails NYC globally.

LA is larger than London and many times larger than Toronto. One would expect a larger foreign-born population.

[edale]

double post

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA is larger than London and many times larger than Toronto. One would expect a larger foreign-born population.

I thought greater London was around 14 million people, and the LA metro is about 13 million. This list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population) shows LA at 18 million, and London at 14 million. Guess they're using CSA for LA and....? for London.

Regardless, larger population doesn't have to equate to a larger foreign-born population. Tokyo and Shanghai both have over 30 million people in their metro areas, and neither comes close to having the foreign born population of even Chicago.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i haven't seen much in the way of any evidence that the near-term future of chicago will be any different from its present.

black flight continues.

immigration slows.

wealthy-ish white kids from the burbs flip a couple more neighborhoods.

supertalls for downtown. urban prairies for englewood.

hi ho.



by all means, hope as hard as you can for a full-blown rebirth of the entire southside from 18th to 138th, but that's quite a long shot in my eyes.

good chicago and bad chicago will continue to get gooder and badder from what i'm seeing. it's a BIG city. we don't have anywhere near enough new blood coming in to save it all.

It was actually surprising to me when I looked at a Chicago shootings map that Westside neighborhoods (basically in/around West Garfield Park) seem much more dangerous than anything on the South Side. Is this because this area isn't as blighted as the South Side yet?

[eschaton]

As an aside, Pittsburgh has some pretty tremendous blight levels in predominantly White areas. Though most of them are transforming into either black neighborhoods or lowkey gentrifying.

Here are a few examples:

Allentown
East Deutschtown
Elliott
Esplen
Spring Garden
Woods Run

At the moment, those are all areas where 50%+ of the population is white - in some cases 75%+

[Crawford]

To me, West Side ghettohoods look more decayed and intimidating. The streets immediately north of Little Village (North Lawndale?) are the roughest I've seen in Chi city proper.

[IrishIllini]

On average the west side of Chicago has a higher population density and the blight found on the west side is more intensely concentrated. The worst neighborhoods on the west side are surrounded by stable and even ritzy communities for the most part. It changes pretty drastically within a few blocks.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

the only place where ive ever actually been violently accosted was here in portland, or. i was wasted and some tweaker pulled a knife on me downtown. i hastily windmill punched him in the face and took off quickly. it happened in front pioneer place. not a scary part of town....

I lived in Saginaw, Lansing and Detroit most of my life. I got jumped once in Saginaw when I stepped in on a domestic dispute, but aside from that I never had any problems in any of them despite all three frequenting the highest violent crime per capita lists and looking post apocalyptic in places.

However, I've lived in Portland for 4 years now and I've been actually afraid for the very same reason you mention. The tweaker with a knife quotient is remarkably high here, and people desperate for drug money will do almost anything.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that said, i think it's pretty disingenuous to claim that urban decay in detroit is over as a thing. there are definitely parts of detroit that are still in the process of getting worse as well.

I never said it was over as a thing more like the ruin porn jewels are all being redeveloped so there's nothing special for blight tourists to see. The era of abandoned beaux arts masterpieces is over.

Those are all the aftermath of the great recession/foreclosure crisis of which I'm well aware. However that spiral is not happening anymore, foreclosures have dropped dramatically and most neighborhoods are stabilizing.

IMO Much of Chicago will easily get much worse in the next 5-10 years, and it's only more enforced by Illinois being in complete crisis and having a trifecta of city, metro and state losses which accelerate every year. This is not the situation in Michigan or Detroit which shows a different trend of stabilizing and/or growth. Real estate in metro Detroit looks better as well since even totally undesirable places like Redford or Warren have home values above early 2000's late 90's peaks.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by The North One

IMO Much of Chicago will easily get much worse in the next 5-10 years, and it's only more enforced by Illinois being in complete crisis and having a trifecta of city, metro and state losses which accelerate every year. This is not the situation in Michigan or Detroit which shows a different trend of stabilizing and/or growth. Real estate in metro Detroit looks better as well since even totally undesirable places like Redford or Warren have home values above early 2000's late 90's peaks.

I don't know what makes you imagine that Detroit is "stabilized and turning around" while Chicago somehow has "yet to turn the corner". They both have problems and ongoing decay. Difference being, Chicago is much more of a massive churn of people from all walks of life whereas Detroit really isn't. There is hope with the downtown revitalization going on in Detroit that we may some day see a true anchor of wealth within city limits that will be enough to right the ship.

The State finances in Illinois are unfortunate, but I don't think that's really what we're talking about.