Howcome the crime, poverty, and decay ends at the city limits.

[miketoronto]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

In most cities the city limits are like a wall between the bad and good.

But what stopped the crime from moving over the city limits into the suburbs?

Do the suburban police departments patrol the city limits more, to keep people out? Overall it just seems weird how the poverty, crime, and decay stops at a street that just happens to be the city boundary.

I know some suburbs have faced some decay. But overall the conditions are not as bad as the inner cities, and they have for the most part escaped the problems of the city, even if they border it.

But still it is interesting how the problems just sort of vanish once you pass the city boundary.

Take Grosse Pointe and Detroit. How have the mansions, etc that side right across the street from burned out house, stay well kept, crime free, etc?

What is stopping the decay from creeping over that city boundary?

[Chicago3rd]

Doesn't all the time...we have inner suburbs and they are just as messed up as portions of Chicago. Harvey is one.

Also, poverty is very rural too.

You do understand that in the US many social programs that are in the city/county attract people who need such services?
I.E. Cook County hospital is where the ring counties send their poor too.......

Decay...guess you haven't been to small towns where the oil dried up or the factory moved out.....

Too bad their isn't a printed study on this. Wonder why?

[crisp444]

I don't know of any areas that are like this to be honest with you.. decay in the city limits just blocks away from nice neighborhoods in the suburbs? I think the change from good to bad is more gradual in most places. I can attempt to answer for why this may occur in certain places though, and as much as Americans hate to hear this, it probably has to do with schools. I have seen areas where comparable homes that are literally just blocks away from another municipality sell at a large premium due to the fact that they are in a well-performing (measured by test scores) school district. Though these homes are quite literally in the same area (but are located in different cities/suburbs/municipalities), one may sell for $200,000 whereas another across the dividing line will sell for $300,000. Due to this difference in price, there are likely wealth and income differences between the populations of city A and city B and the lower income area school is more likely to have lower test scores and more social problems than its higher income equivalent. A great example I know is in suburban New Jersey: Plainfield (lower middle class suburb with a fair share of grit) versus Scotch Plains ("blue ribbon" suburb). The difference here is very pronounced: I would say that $400,000 for a 3/2 house in Plainfield versus $700,000 for something similar in Scotch Plains even though many neighborhoods in these cities border each other and if it weren't for arbitrary city boundaries, would be one in the same. However, according to greatschools.net, 70% of students in Plainfield's schools participate in the free and reduced price lunch program (which is a good income of % of students from low income families) versus 3% in Scotch Plains schools!! In my opinion, schools are undoubtedly the #1 reason that keeps middle class people (usually with families) from buying into certain areas.

[krudmonk]

Different tax bases and thus different spending.

[brickell]

Don't forget the outright racism of redlining and districting.
But like crisp says, I can't think of any places like you're describing. I've seen it drastically change from neighborhood to neighborhood an this sometimes lies along city borders, but at least around here, many of the inner-ring suburbs are the "inner city"

[totheskies]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

In most cities the city limits are like a wall between the bad and good.

But what stopped the crime from moving over the city limits into the suburbs?

Do the suburban police departments patrol the city limits more, to keep people out? Overall it just seems weird how the poverty, crime, and decay stops at a street that just happens to be the city boundary.

I know some suburbs have faced some decay. But overall the conditions are not as bad as the inner cities, and they have for the most part escaped the problems of the city, even if they border it.



But still it is interesting how the problems just sort of vanish once you pass the city boundary.

Take Grosse Pointe and Detroit. How have the mansions, etc that side right across the street from burned out house, stay well kept, crime free, etc?

What is stopping the decay from creeping over that city boundary?

Because black tar heroin and crystal meth pick up where they left off. It ain't all purrrty in them soocer vans kids :banana:

[hudkina]

Only one portion of the Grosse Pointes actually touch a neighborhood like that. Most of Detroit's far east side blends into the Grosse Pointes in a smoother way.

My guess is that even though the neighborhoods have been abandoned they aren't necessarily hotspots for crime, poverty, etc. They're just empty neighborhoods with a few houses here and there with low income families. And it's not a crime to be low income. Just because someone lives in a not so-nice neighborhood doesn't mean that they're going to want to go a few blocks down a rob a wealthier person...

[JManc]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

that's not the case here in houston.

[Downtown Bolivar]

Mike you ought to know better being so near to Buffalo. Crime is starting to spill over from the city into inner ring 'burbs such as Kenmore and Amherst.

[fflint]

The premise: crime, poverty and decay ends at city limits in "our nation".

Is that premise true? Not universally. Some of the worst poverty and crime in greater Los Angeles, for example, is located in suburbs. There are other metro examples that effectively torpedo the universality of that premise as well.

[mrherodotus]

Here in Pittsburgh, there are tons of crappy places outside of the city.

Wilkinsburg
Braddock
Rankin
Homestead
Duquesne
McKeesport
Clairton
New Kensington
Allequippa

These range from awful (Braddock), to gritty, but fairly safe (New Ken). All are outside of Pittsburgh. The issue of schools has played a large role in concentrating poverty inside of the cities though. Before busing, most kids went to school near where they lived. Thus, the kids who lived in safe areas of a city generally went to safe schools that were located in those areas. In this situation, there was no disadvantage to living in a nice city hood, as far as schools were concerned. Busing made parents look at the school district as a whole.

[stax]

In my opinion, schools are undoubtedly the #1 reason that keeps middle class people (usually with families) from buying into certain areas.

That's assuming that there is no crime in that area as well. People can get around the crappy school situation, a la private school, but high crime will simply blacklist a neighborhood instantly. And I am talking about violent crime, moreso than property crime. It's one of the problems that me and my wife are having with moving back into DC. We can make adjustments, and move into a smaller space for more money, I can get rid of one of the cars to make sure that my kids go to a charter school, or maybe finagle them into a magnet program, but it's the sheer violent crime factor that makes it a non-starter. But we love the city so much, that we are trying to work around that.

But yeah, crime aside, I have to agree: schools are the number one factor with middle class families, mainly because of the types of kids that your children would be going to school with. That's one of the reasons that DC is working so hard to get the schools in line, because someday, many of the residents who moved into these gentrified neighborhoods will have kids, and some of them are already making plans to leave the city once this happens.

[miketoronto]

Mike you ought to know better being so near to Buffalo. Crime is starting to spill over from the city into inner ring 'burbs such as Kenmore and Amherst.

I did not know about that. Kenmore and Amherst border very stable and nice areas of inner city Buffalo. So that is interesting if crime is spilling over.

But even on the east side, which has Buffalo's worst neighbourhoods, the decay and crime has not seemed to seep into Cheektowaga or anything like that.

You see it in Chicago to. You ride the Green Line out to Oak Park, and the west side neighbourhoods are all decayed, and then you hit the Oak Park city limits, and its all nice and safe.

[fflint]

Mike, you're begging the question. It isn't obviously true that crime, poverty and decay are magically contained only within big-city boundary lines.

[dimondpark]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?
That's not the case in The Bay Area. Daly City, Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, Richmond, San Pablo, Vallejo, Pittsburg, Antioch, San Leandro, Hayward, East Palo Alto, and San Jose all have areas that could use a good scrubbing and/or have abnormally higher rates of crime.

[Steely Dan]

You see it in Chicago to. You ride the Green Line out to Oak Park, and the west side neighbourhoods are all decayed, and then you hit the Oak Park city limits, and its all nice and safe.
yes, the austin/oak park contrast is stark mike, but chicago is a huge friggin city, and in most border areas, the city and burbs are virtually indistinguishable from each other. check out edison park to park ridge, or rogers park to south evanston or mount greenwood to evergreen park or riverdale to dolton.

you can't pick one stark example like austin to oak park and then claim that all city to suburb borders are like this everywhere in north america, it's simply an absurd logical jump to make.

[miketoronto]

I know not all borders are like that.

But it is interesting how this has happened in a number of cities. Again not all borders. But in some it makes you wonder how they stopped the decline from going over the city limit.

[Chicago3rd]

I did not know about that. Kenmore and Amherst border very stable and nice areas of inner city Buffalo. So that is interesting if crime is spilling over.

But even on the east side, which has Buffalo's worst neighbourhoods, the decay and crime has not seemed to seep into Cheektowaga or anything like that.

You see it in Chicago to. You ride the Green Line out to Oak Park, and the west side neighbourhoods are all decayed, and then you hit the Oak Park city limits, and its all nice and safe.


YOu see it in Chicago and you are going south and there is decay and you hit the city limits and there is still decay. It appears to be antidotical. It doesn't happen in Seattle, San Antonio, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland or Denver either.

[Chicago3rd]

I know not all borders are like that.

But it is interesting how this has happened in a number of cities. Again not all borders. But in some it makes you wonder how they stopped the decline from going over the city limit.

It would be interesting to hear how Oak Park does keep the nasty stuff from spilling over into it from Chicago's Austin neighborhood. It is almost night and day.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Q: How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?
A: They haven't.

[Kenneth]

Ha! from what I have been seeing, crime has found every corner of the country. Sometimes being wealthy invites certain crimes like stress,(because stress kills), which in return causes upper class citizens to committe murder and larceny. Thats why alot of these people are on drugs or just wigged out their minds.

[Downtown Bolivar]

I did not know about that. Kenmore and Amherst border very stable and nice areas of inner city Buffalo. So that is interesting if crime is spilling over.

But even on the east side, which has Buffalo's worst neighbourhoods, the decay and crime has not seemed to seep into Cheektowaga or anything like that.

That's because the Cheektovegas police aren't very nice to people from Buffalo. But there's definitely tranisition zones there, especially at night.

I see your point though. Another example on a smaller scale is moving from Highland Avenue in Niagara Falls, NY to the Deveaux section. It's only really separated by a railroad viaduct. Again move from North Main street into Deveaux, once again under a railroad viaduct and the same thing happens. In fact Deveaux is litterally surrounded by the Niagara River gorge on one side and largely housing projects, rough neighborhoods and abandonded industry. It's definitely night and day and I'm not sure the reasons. In fact outside of Cayuga Island, Deveux is Niagara Falls' last great neighborhood. Hyde Park, LaSalle, and Downtown(4th Street and vicinity) have all fallen victim to creeping blight and poverty. There are nice areas, but there are definitely transition zones.

[ColDayMan]

What a weird subject. In Cincinnati, there are suburbs that make even the worst areas of Cincinnati look like Malibu (talking to YOU Lockland, Lincoln Heights, and Woodlawn).

[Cambridgite]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

In most cities the city limits are like a wall between the bad and good.


This coming from a Torontonian. How are Toronto's inner suburbs any better off than its inner-city? Last time I checked, Jane and Finch, Rexdale, and Malvern are known to be among the roughest parts of Toronto, and they are in the inner suburbs, not the inner city. Other than Regent Park, St. Jamestown, and maybe Parkdale, what ghettos does inner-city Toronto even have?

I suspect you're not making the correct distinction between inner city and central city. Inner city deals with urban form (grid pattern, mixed-use streets, etc.) and central city is the central municipality, based on political boundaries. Scarborough and North York may be in the central city, but they are not in the inner city. Calgary has all of its development within a central city. Does that mean it has no suburbs?

[arbeiter]

YOu see it in Chicago and you are going south and there is decay and you hit the city limits and there is still decay. It appears to be antidotical. It doesn't happen in Seattle, San Antonio, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland or Denver either.

Well, Seattle hits some pretty dicey suburban areas near Tukwila/Federal Way, but otherwise you're right. But the grit and poverty starts IN seattle and bleeds over the city limits.

[Policy Wonk]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

Have you spent any time in the Meth Belt?

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Drexel!

[westak]

It would be interesting to hear how Oak Park does keep the nasty stuff from spilling over into it from Chicago's Austin neighborhood. It is almost night and day.

It can still be sketchy on the Oak Park side of Austin Blvd. Also, while Austin isn't the greatest neighborhood, it's not exactly Englewood.

[shappy]

I know not all borders are like that.

But it is interesting how this has happened in a number of cities. Again not all borders. But in some it makes you wonder how they stopped the decline from going over the city limit.

isn't this true for neighbourhoods as well? You have good neighbourhoods bordering bad neighbourhoods all the time. This entire concept is a very loaded sociological phenomenon.

[arbeiter]

Why must we ask a generalized question which is obviously not always true? It's partially true, partially untrue. Therefore it's hardly worth describing.

[alleystreetindustry]

atlanta is going to be reversed within 15-20 years. at this rate all the middle class+ are moving back in, renovating the city's bungalows and manors. our crime is going down significantly, and almost all of the "decay" is flipped into lofts or torn down and replaced.

but for the past: transportation, racism, and white flight destroyed atlanta. all of the middle class on up moved out for "suburban luxury". during this time industry (or the business that managed to exist after most bottomed out) existed only in the city (of which most of the workers were lower class). office space then followed its employees to office parks. this is why atlanta was described as a doughnut, because everything happened outside the city. during this time, marta was denied access to major counties such as gwinnett and cobb. basically because (in that time) a majority of the citizens didn't want the crime and poverty to come into their neighborhoods (and being racist they associated this with the lower class african americans of the city). so there we have poverty (unemployed and lower class workers), decay, and crime (which is almost in every case associated with lower class citizens). all of which is going to be [almost] inexistent in atlanta within the coming years.

[Strayone]

Decay and poverty are obviously more centralized in cities, it goes without saying. Nobody moves their family to the burbs to live in a slum, the American Dream calls for a 3k sq ft Cookie Cutter Custom. I'm not sure about the crime element, people are more likely to live in smaller rentals and older apts. closer in that are cheaper to afford, I'm not referring to upscale condo living more likely the fringe DT areas that are left to rot . And simple numbers show more people more bad things happen. A better analysis would be crimes per capita. I live in the north central area of town and have never considered it to be in decay or crime ridden and there is alot of rental property, but the area is fairly high priced. Sure some areas are questionable in certain areas but it really comes down to what the local government is willing to do to police areas with the customary inner city crimes such as drugs and gang like activity. It is sad for an urban thinking person to see the core of many metro areas are plagued with these issues, since we really hope for diverse and robust central development. The exciting aspect is that the future will hopefully attract people to live more centralized and areas that are in question will turn over thus becoming a safer and more attractive alternative to the burbs. One day the inner poverty ridden areas will become a very sought after locale, and also again sadly very expensive.

[Echo Park]

Hmm...South Gate, Vernon, Lynwood, Maywood, Compton, Fontana, Colton...

not sure this thread was well thought out.

[Buckeye Native 001]

not sure this thread was well thought out.

Welcome to the half-baked world of miketoronto.

There are spots in Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Orange, Anaheim, and Buena Park that are comparable to parts of Los Angeles County as far as crime, poverty and decay are concerned.

[Buckeye Native 001]

DP :hell:

[glowrock]

atlanta is going to be reversed within 15-20 years. at this rate all the middle class+ are moving back in, renovating the city's bungalows and manors. our crime is going down significantly, and almost all of the "decay" is flipped into lofts or torn down and replaced.

but for the past: transportation, racism, and white flight destroyed atlanta. all of the middle class on up moved out for "suburban luxury". during this time industry (or the business that managed to exist after most bottomed out) existed only in the city (of which most of the workers were lower class). office space then followed its employees to office parks. this is why atlanta was described as a doughnut, because everything happened outside the city. during this time, marta was denied access to major counties such as gwinnett and cobb. basically because (in that time) a majority of the citizens didn't want the crime and poverty to come into their neighborhoods (and being racist they associated this with the lower class african americans of the city). so there we have poverty (unemployed and lower class workers), decay, and crime (which is almost in every case associated with lower class citizens). all of which is going to be [almost] inexistent in atlanta within the coming years.

Wow, talk about seeing your city with rose-colored glasses... :rolleyes:

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who believes their particular city/metro area is going to really reverse the trend of poverty, crime, and the like dramatically in the next 15-20 years, thus transferring all of that element to the suburbs, is sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but these elements will always be in human society, and will thus always be in any urban areas (hell, rural as well!). No city can be completely or even mostly free of said elements, and that's all there is to it.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[UglymanCometh]

In Detroit, most of the border neighbourhoods and suburbs look alike. That ONE part of the Detroit/Grosse Pointe Park border is more the exception than the rule... even here in Detroit.

[Rusty van Reddick]

East Chicago Indiana is WAY worse than Hegewisch or the East Side in Chicago. I know it's been said but selective observation is a horrible source for sweeping conclusions, Mike.

[MolsonExport]

Huh? Plenty of poverty in the inner city suburbs of Montreal (former suburbs of Maisonneuve, St. Michel, Montreal-Nord), Verdun, Lasalle, Lachine, etc. All very old burbs, with plenty of crime, poverty, and decay.

There is no evidence to support your assertion.

[Tony]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

Do you not live in SCARBOROUGH? What about Jane & Finch etc..? are they not in NORTH YORK.


What on earth are you talking about?!

[miketoronto]

I am not talking about Canadian cities. I am talking about American cities. I have been to many American cities, and seen the same thing in almost every city. Poor crime ridden inner city hood on the city border, and then well kept crime free suburb on the other side of the city border.

Again its not like that in all cases. But it happens in more cases then not, and its just weird how the problems end at the city border.

[NewYorkYankee]

First off, the city often covers a wide area and obviously handles more people. This creates strain on services, especally since a high crime rate probably means said city's finances are not in order. For example, Oak Park only has to worry about Oak Park. Chicago meanwhile has Austin, Lawndale, Englewood, Bronzeville, Rogers Park, Pilsen, Far south side and the list goes on and on.

Also, most suburbs are single family homes, so home prices bouy them.

That could be a reason.....

[Echo Park]

...and seen the same thing in almost every city...Poor crime ridden inner city hood on the city border, and then well kept crime free suburb on the other side of the city border.


Is this a fact? You're just basing this on anecdotal evidence. Meanwhile the consensus, in this thread at least, appears to contradict your statements. What was the point of this thread?

[Steely Dan]

Again its not like that in all cases. But it happens in more cases then not

no, it doesn't mike, that's what dozens upon dozens of posters in this thread have been trying to tell you. your premise is simply wrong, accept it and move on.

now if you want to have a more specific discussion about how certian areas of city-to-suburb transition zones show such stark contrasts from each other, as in your austin-to-oak park example from chicago, then we can have a constructive and enlightening discussion about that, but please stop inventing this fabrication that most city-to-suburb transitions are as drastic as that rather extreme case of poverty to wealth.

[plinko]

...ya know what I don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand??
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/andyrooney.jpg

How come time didn't just stand still in 1959. Life was just so much better then.

[SuburbanNation]

as far as i have seen, crime, poverty, and decay does NOT end at the "city" limits in the american midwest.

wellston, mo is a good slap in the face, for instance.

[SuburbanNation]

Have you spent any time in the Meth Belt?

theres a little meth in the untillable low mountains of the northeastern ozarks. it's such a pretty land otherwise..some of the streets of st. louis city lead into the red granite that is the riverfront.

[crooked rain]

as far as i have seen, crime, poverty, and decay does NOT end at the "city" limits in the american midwest.

wellston, mo is a good slap in the face, for instance.

Nor does it at the city limits in Canada. People on this site tend to be oblivious to rural decay, crime and poverty. There are a lot of small cities and towns across the continent which have decayed significantly, are beset by poverty and have localized crime problems.

[LMich]

Yeah, the general consensus seems to be what anyone should have expected and that is that crime rarely ends or begins at a city-suburb border, rather, that more often than not it transforms, and that is to be expected, isn't it?

[TexasBoi]

I
You see it in Chicago to. You ride the Green Line out to Oak Park, and the west side neighbourhoods are all decayed, and then you hit the Oak Park city limits, and its all nice and safe.

When you get off the train, get on the bus and head jussssst a little bit more to the west. At least about 3 or 4 miles. You will run into a quaint, beautiful, family-oriented neighborhood with virtually nothing really bad happening at all. The name of this quaint and serene suburb is Maywood, 5-7 miles west of the city of Chicago. Take my word for it;)


That;) should give you a hint.

[L41A]

Wow, talk about seeing your city with rose-colored glasses... :rolleyes:

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who believes their particular city/metro area is going to really reverse the trend of poverty, crime, and the like dramatically in the next 15-20 years, thus transferring all of that element to the suburbs, is sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but these elements will always be in human society, and will thus always be in any urban areas (hell, rural as well!). No city can be completely or even mostly free of said elements, and that's all there is to it.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I didn’t get the implication that Alleystreetindustry was trying to place a different or better light on Atlanta. I don’t think at all that he is looking through rose-colored glasses. These broad strokes are generalizations are not true anyway. Under the premise of these generalizations, his depiction is not farfetched. But under a more modest premise, there has been a shift or dilution of poverty in the inner city of Atlanta.

Anyone who has lived (not visited) in Atlanta for the last 10 to 15 years would agree that Alleystreetindustry gave a pretty accurate depiction of Atlanta when it comes down to poverty in the inner city. The transformation of the inner city in Atlanta started prior to the Olympics and specifically with the neighborhood near Georgia Tech with the redevelopment of the Techwood Homes Housing Project into a mixed income development and Olympic athlete housing/dormitories. This redevelopment of housing projects to mixed income development has continued until today from the East Lake Meadows Housing Project to the Holmes Housing Project near the Georgia Dome to the Capitol Homes Project near Turner Field. This redevelopment coupled with the influx of people buying high rise condos and loft conversions has shifted the dynamic of poverty in the inner city of Atlanta.

I am not even implying that redevelopment / shift is better but nonetheless it is true. As a matter of fact, I loved Atlanta just as much if not more in the 80’s than I do now. However, I don’t agree with the depiction that Atlanta was ever “destroyed” by transportation, racism and white flight. Granted the city lost population, namely white folk, during the 70’s and 80’s, but businesseses and headquarters never did leave (Coca-Cola stayed, BellSouth came, Georgia Pacific came, etc). But white folk moving out for the racist reasons does not “destroy” a city in my opinion.

[Capsule F]

I didn't read this thread, but answering the title, is basically does. I hope you guys haven't been disputing and trying to prove that its not just the cities that have crime in them this whole time.

[sjs2017]

Without a doubt in mind, its the higher taxes on wages/lower property tax combined with poor schools that bus kids in from other neighborhoods. Why would a middle class family send their kids to a crappy school when they can cross the city line and go to one with just their neighbors?


How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

In most cities the city limits are like a wall between the bad and good.

But what stopped the crime from moving over the city limits into the suburbs?

Do the suburban police departments patrol the city limits more, to keep people out? Overall it just seems weird how the poverty, crime, and decay stops at a street that just happens to be the city boundary.

I know some suburbs have faced some decay. But overall the conditions are not as bad as the inner cities, and they have for the most part escaped the problems of the city, even if they border it.

But still it is interesting how the problems just sort of vanish once you pass the city boundary.

Take Grosse Pointe and Detroit. How have the mansions, etc that side right across the street from burned out house, stay well kept, crime free, etc?

What is stopping the decay from creeping over that city boundary?

[lawsond]

Take Grosse Pointe and Detroit. How have the mansions, etc that side right across the street from burned out house, stay well kept, crime free, etc?


because the mansions are owned by people that don't need to engage in street crime to make a living. duh.
and the mansion's streets are well policed and observed at all times.
and because people don't talk much about class in the u/s and canada, but they are METICULOUS about observing class boundaries.
in toronto, just look at rosedale and st jamestown.
or regent park and cabbagetown.
people know their "place".
even criminals.

[alleystreetindustry]

Wow, talk about seeing your city with rose-colored glasses... :rolleyes:

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who believes their particular city/metro area is going to really reverse the trend of poverty, crime, and the like dramatically in the next 15-20 years, thus transferring all of that element to the suburbs, is sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but these elements will always be in human society, and will thus always be in any urban areas (hell, rural as well!). No city can be completely or even mostly free of said elements, and that's all there is to it.

Aaron (Glowrock)

i have to disagree with you. the way atlanta currently is, a majority of the east side neighborhoods are undergoing gentrification. even the 'nastiest' neighborhoods are being flipped into something new. many people in the city (most of whom belong to the lower class) associate this with our current mayor's (shirley franklin's) role to build atlanta into one of the most prestigious communities in the country.

throughout central and east atlanta, people are flocking to the city. and they have reason too; atlanta has a good live music scene along with good restaurants. because those [and many other] activities appeal to these people, they decide to move near locations that sport them. therefore, homes (bungalows, victorians, ranch homes, etc.) are renovated and sold to the buyers.

anyways, the process our [poorest] neighborhoods are undergoing pushes out a majority of the people that were originally there. because of this, people think shirley franklin is "sending the poor outside the city". you look at what has happened with inman park in the 1980's and you can see that now in most parts of the city. i was surprised when this began to happen. major spots of crime in the city are blooming into mature and [decently] safe places to live (for those that know, an example would be kirkwood).

along with east atlanta, the entire city of atlanta (or the neighborhoods in need of "fixing") is going to undergo this process at some point within the next 20 years (most because of the atlanta beltline). this project will flip every neighborhood within walking distance of its new parks, development, and rail lines.

therefore, i would think it was unlikely that most of the city of atlanta would be home of crime, decay, and poverty in 20 years. some spots in west and south atlanta may retain some, but if any, very little.

[alleystreetindustry]

I didn’t get the implication that Alleystreetindustry was trying to place a different or better light on Atlanta. I don’t think at all that he is looking through rose-colored glasses. These broad strokes are generalizations are not true anyway. Under the premise of these generalizations, his depiction is not farfetched. But under a more modest premise, there has been a shift or dilution of poverty in the inner city of Atlanta.

Anyone who has lived (not visited) in Atlanta for the last 10 to 15 years would agree that Alleystreetindustry gave a pretty accurate depiction of Atlanta when it comes down to poverty in the inner city. The transformation of the inner city in Atlanta started prior to the Olympics and specifically with the neighborhood near Georgia Tech with the redevelopment of the Techwood Homes Housing Project into a mixed income development and Olympic athlete housing/dormitories. This redevelopment of housing projects to mixed income development has continued until today from the East Lake Meadows Housing Project to the Holmes Housing Project near the Georgia Dome to the Capitol Homes Project near Turner Field. This redevelopment coupled with the influx of people buying high rise condos and loft conversions has shifted the dynamic of poverty in the inner city of Atlanta.

I am not even implying that redevelopment / shift is better but nonetheless it is true. As a matter of fact, I loved Atlanta just as much if not more in the 80’s than I do now. However, I don’t agree with the depiction that Atlanta was ever “destroyed” by transportation, racism and white flight. Granted the city lost population, namely white folk, during the 70’s and 80’s, but businesseses and headquarters never did leave (Coca-Cola stayed, BellSouth came, Georgia Pacific came, etc). But white folk moving out for the racist reasons does not “destroy” a city in my opinion.

and.. i didn't mean for someone to interpret my depiction of atlanta as being "destroyed" because of lack of white people. atlanta was not "THE american city" then. most people associate a successful city with LITTLE poverty, crime, and decay (not to mention good infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc.). therefore, the old atlanta was "DESTROYED" by the lack of serious business and life. the olympics along with gentrification has made atlanta into a successful city.

i have taken many history courses with a.p.s., read dozens of books about atlanta and her history, and interviewed many atlantans and important people on the topic of atlanta (past and present). im pretty sure my knowledge is on par with those that lived here decades ago. i haven't, in any way, put passion into something that could be a lie. thankyou L41A for agreeing.