Detroit News poll: Crime drives Detroiters out; 40% expect to leave in 5 years

**iheartthed** · October-12-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I wasn't around in that time period, but I really do think Detroit is on another level than NYC back then.

Non-yuppie Detroit is very, very difficult to traverse from a pedestrian's perspective, IMO. I have tried, as I enjoy urban exploration, but there are too many wild dog packs and potential human confrontations, and just horribly crappy sidewalks, crossings and lighting. You always have to have your guard up.

NYC, even in its worst years, was always pedestrian and transit oriented, so I think the pedestrian realm, perhaps by default, was not quite as daunting. Most people walked, because that's how you get around. In Detroit, most have a car, and a pedestrian is kind of a sitting duck.

Well, if your point is that lack of transit detracts from Detroit's walkability then yes, I agree. But I've walked through some high crime areas of Detroit with relative ease back in the day. The difference now is that there just isn't as much to walk to anymore. Also, let's not forget that Detroit's crime rate today is actually lower now than when it was a more "walkable" place in the 70s and 80s.

**MidTownMs** · October-12-12, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by michimoby

Here's the burn, though: she loved the city...going to Tigers games, Cliff Bell's, the view from my loft. She even volunteered at the homeless shelter in Cass Corridor...but when it came to the non-flashy, the mundane...woah, step back.

I get the sense that a lot of suburbanites seem to enjoy Detroit when it's their playground, but when it comes to actually investing in it, remaining present...well, THAT's where the line is drawn. Unfortunately, I'm just not cut from that cloth.

Too bad you and your girlfriend weren't cut from a similar cloth.

**michimoby** · October-12-12, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by MidTownMs

Too bad you and your girlfriend weren't cut from a similar cloth.

Thanks; that's life, sometimes.

**bailey** · October-12-12, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well, if your point is that lack of transit detracts from Detroit's walkability then yes, I agree. But I've walked through some high crime areas of Detroit with relative ease back in the day. The difference now is that there just isn't as much to walk to anymore. Also, let's not forget that Detroit's crime rate today is actually lower now than when it was a more "walkable" place in the 70s and 80s.

Let's not forget Detroit is half the size. The per capita violent crime rates are not that much different. besides they are way higher than anything that could be considered tolerable.

Shollin · October-12-12, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by poobert

I'm done with him. He has only derision for people who want something besides living in Metro Detroit suburbs. Cities have parks. Cities have domiciles that aren't lofts. You can walk to places besides bars. You think you've got it made in Roseville? Fine, very happy for you. It is a free country. Your way of life is not the way for everyone, though.

And I sure as fuck want better for my kids than having to hang out at Eastland Mall.

We all know you're better than the people that live in Macomb county. You're happy living in a city? Your way of life is not the way for everyone, yet I keep hearing this narrative that Detroit needs walkable streets. Detroit needs jobs. All these cities that have thriving urban cores have some sort of economic base. I don't live in Roseville. Now you're acting as if I said all cities don't have parks. I'm talking about Detroit. Back in the late 80's and early 90's when my kids were growing up, hanging out malls was the thing to do. Eastland also wasn't the mess it is now, and I sure as fuck want better for my kids then Detroit. I want better than the worst public schools in the nation, one of the highest crime rates among cities in a developed country, neglected parks, and having to worry about my kids being recruited by neighborhood gangs.

**iheartthed** · October-12-12, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Let's not forget Detroit is half the size. The per capita violent crime rates are not that much different. besides they are way higher than anything that could be considered tolerable.

I didn't forget that Detroit is half the size, it's just irrelevant since I specifically said crime rate. Detroit's crime rate is significantly below what it was in the early 1990s... And the 1990s was the decade that Detroit lost the fewest amount of population of any decade between now and 1950.

**Detroitnerd** · October-12-12, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

I sure as fuck want better for my kids then Detroit. I want better than the worst public schools in the nation, one of the highest crime rates among cities in a developed country, neglected parks, and having to worry about my kids being recruited by neighborhood gangs.

Note the snarling hostility, the anger, the defensiveness, the almost irrational hatred. No wonder people who treasure and love cities leave this area. They listen to people like this rant on and on unchallenged and say, "Welp, I'm not going to waste my energy on a region that is so hostile to the kind of possibilities I want to explore."

And so Detroit remains disinvested, which doesn't help the metropolitan economy, and makes its "nice" areas seem dated and tawdry, and people in suburban decampments feel looked down upon and vent their rage [[which, psychologically speaking, is a kind of shame in disguise) which in turn causes more people to look at the landscape and leave, which leaves Detroit disinvested, which doesn't help ...

Shollin · October-12-12, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Note the snarling hostility, the anger, the defensiveness, the almost irrational hatred. No wonder people who treasure and love cities leave this area. They listen to people like this rant on and on unchallenged and say, "Welp, I'm not going to waste my energy on a region that is so hostile to the kind of possibilities I want to explore."

And so Detroit remains disinvested, which doesn't help the metropolitan economy, and makes its "nice" areas seem dated and tawdry, and people in suburban decampments feel looked down upon and vent their rage [[which, psychologically speaking, is a kind of shame in disguise) which in turn causes more people to look at the landscape and leave, which leaves Detroit disinvested, which doesn't help ...

Yea I know, I heard this story. It's all the white person's fault who lives in the suburbs. Detroit is just the poor victim. People leave Detroit because there are no jobs in the city core, high crime, and poor schools, not because someone from a suburb posts on a message forum

**bailey** · October-12-12, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I didn't forget that Detroit is half the size, it's just irrelevant since I specifically said crime rate. Detroit's crime rate is significantly below what it was in the early 1990s... And the 1990s was the decade that Detroit lost the fewest amount of population of any decade between now and 1950.

ok...except you didn't say 90s you said 1970&80s and its relative "walk-ability" then.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Detroit's violent crime rate is far and away greater than anywhere else [[besides Flint..the current Champ). saying it is marginally less bad today than in earlier decades doesn't really resound with many folks.

**Detroitnerd** · October-12-12, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

Yea I know, I heard this story. It's all the white person's fault who lives in the suburbs. Detroit is just the poor victim. People leave Detroit because there are no jobs in the city core, high crime, and poor schools, not because someone from a suburb posts on a message forum

No, the whole metropolitan region is the victim. People leave metro Detroit because it can't provide a variety of environments. It can't provide a functioning city. Increasingly, it can't provide viable inner ring suburbs. It has an oversupply of exurban homes, many of which sit empty. It can provide a few areas that are really quality, but they too are mostly suburban. It's as if the metropolitan Detroit area is saying to people and businesses who might locate here, unless you are mostly satisfied with living in the dream home of 1965-2005, and are satisfied with having to drive everywhere for everything, we really don't want you.

And so the region suffers. And so all our homes are worth less. And so fewer businesses care to locate here. And yet there is such rage against the city and its ills that the larger problem is never considered: In a time when people can choose to locate or live anywhere they want, most people increasingly view metro Detroit as unattractive, and largely because it refuses to restart investment in its urban core.

**iheartthed** · October-12-12, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Detroit's violent crime rate is far and away greater than anywhere else [[besides Flint..the current Champ). saying it is marginally less bad today than in earlier decades doesn't really resound with many folks.

Bham implied that walkability has something to do with the crime rate. I was pointing out that it doesn't. That's pretty much it.

Shollin · October-12-12, 02:51 PM

Most people don't move to Detroit because there are no jobs. If Detroit had a viable economic center, business would form around it, transit would develop, and a functioning city would develop. People in Detroit want to put the cart before the horse and try to create some faux urban experience. It isn't working. People are still leaving in droves. Walkability ranks way down on the list of reasons not to live in Detroit.

**iheartthed** · October-12-12, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

Most people don't move to Detroit because there are no jobs. If Detroit had a viable economic center, business would form around it, transit would develop, and a functioning city would develop. People in Detroit want to put the cart before the horse and try to create some faux urban experience. It isn't working. People are still leaving in droves. Walkability ranks way down on the list of reasons not to live in Detroit.

Oh okay. Thank you for your opinion.

Shollin · October-12-12, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Oh okay. Thank you for your opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's common sense.

**Detroitnerd** · October-12-12, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

It's not an opinion, it's common sense.

It's an opinion if I ever saw one.

Shollin · October-12-12, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

It's an opinion if I ever saw one.

and yours is not?

**maverick1** · October-12-12, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

Most people don't move to Detroit because there are no jobs. If Detroit had a viable economic center, business would form around it, transit would develop, and a functioning city would develop. People in Detroit want to put the cart before the horse and try to create some faux urban experience. It isn't working. People are still leaving in droves. Walkability ranks way down on the list of reasons not to live in Detroit.

Not true. This statement may have been true 70 years ago. Not today. People move to vibrant walkable to semi-walkable cities. People move to places where there are plenty of things to do. Not a job. A while ago I got more job inquiries from out of state businesses than in Michigan. For someone like me single without a children or a wife I need more than a job to relocate. There are 168hrs in a week and 96 of those hours are spent working and sleeping. People want things to do for those remaining 72 hours. No one wants to stay in the middle of nowhere with a fat check. No one wants to have to drive a hour [[in good traffic) to shop, bar hop, etc. No one wants to have to get in a car for minor purchases or short trips. My cousin in Toronto has a pharmacy, Jamaican restaurant, chinese restaurant, pizza place, clothing stores, all within a 30 minute round trip on foot. Why would someone without kids or a family need a house in the suburbs? If you have a family I understand but for those of us that don't we want this type of living.

**Bham1982** · October-12-12, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by maverick1

Not true. This statement may have been true 70 years ago. Not today. People move to vibrant walkable to semi-walkable cities. People move to places where there are plenty of things to do. Not a job.

That's quite obviously false.

The MSA with the highest U.S. job growth in the past year was Oklahoma City. Oklahoma City is about as unwalkable, sprawling, and auto-oriented as it gets. It makes Detroit look like Manhattan or Paris.

The Top-10 MSA with the highest job growth in the past year was Houston. Dallas was #2 among the top 10.

Do you really think that people are taking jobs in Oklahoma City because of walkability or things to do? Don't you think that these areas are growing primarily because economic reasons [[the energy boom, specifically?).

Detroit currently has the second highest job growth in the Midwest. Magically, its economy improved, even though its the same sprawling mess. You think that might have something to do with the automobile recovery?

Granted, it helps to have transit, urbanity, cool architecture, mountains, forests, etc. There are many attributes that can draw newcomers. But people need a job; everything else is secondary.

**Detroitnerd** · October-12-12, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

and yours is not?

Research on millenials -- probably the most heavily researched generation in history -- proves that millenials choose where they want to live first, based on a number of factors that include human scale, transit, walkability, etc., and then, if there are no jobs, start their own businesses.

**bailey** · October-12-12, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Research on millenials -- probably the most heavily researched generation in history -- proves that millenials choose where they want to live first, based on a number of factors that include human scale, transit, walkability, etc., and then, if there are no jobs, start their own businesses.

If that were true then why are most of the fastest growing metro areas in the US pretty much poster children for sprawl... as bham notes?

**Detroitnerd** · October-12-12, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

That's quite obviously false.

The MSA with the highest U.S. job growth in the past year was Oklahoma City. Oklahoma City is about as unwalkable, sprawling, and auto-oriented as it gets. It makes Detroit look like Manhattan or Paris.

The Top-10 MSA with the highest job growth in the past year was Houston. Dallas was #2 among the top 10.

Ooooh! Oklahoma City and Houston haz jobs!

That doesn't prove mav wrong. It just says large corporations are still siting jobs where they have been for years, in the central U.S. It doesn't mean people are flocking there. Hell, the way the economy is all screwed up, most of those jobs are probably gobbled up by the people who've been unemployed for the last five years and are used to living in those hellholes.

What you want to look at is inflow of educated twentysomethings to an urban areas. I doubt you'll find any sprawly messes in those chart-toppers.

**Detroitnerd** · October-12-12, 03:39 PM

http://greatist.com/health/best-cities-for-twenties/

See how all these cities have wastelands for urban cores, no transit and "world-class suburbs."

Oh, wait. They don't.

**bailey** · October-12-12, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Ooooh! Oklahoma City and Houston haz jobs!

That doesn't prove mav wrong.

um. yeah, it kinda does when they are #1 and #2 on the list of growing metros.

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

http://greatist.com/health/best-cities-for-twenties/

See how all these cities have wastelands for urban cores, no transit and "world-class suburbs."

Oh, wait. They don't.

...and in almost each one of the blurbs "lots of job ops" is a key factor.

Besides, no one is disputing what the "preference" is. I would prefer to live in Paris... I don't though because I work here.

**poobert** · October-12-12, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

It's not an opinion, it's common sense.

That's great that you can back up your wild and inflamatory claims with solid citations such as "common sense." Top of the class, weren't we?

**Detroitnerd** · October-12-12, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

um. yeah, it kinda does when they are #1 and #2 on the list of growing metros.

You're right. If they are. And they're not.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/citi...n-america/3755

Originally Posted by bailey

...and in almost each one of the blurbs "lots of job ops" is a key factor.

Um ... why don't you look at the methodology instead of cherry picking how four or five mention employment specifically?

"Our ranking took into account everything from health and wellness [[gyms, walkability of streets, obesity statistics), to sustainability [[air quality, recycling practices), to fun and affordability [[happy hours, breweries, employment). Not every city scored impeccably for each factor, but made the list for stand out stats in certain categories. And while the U.S. is made up of a ton of awesome cities, we chose to highlight these 20."

Wow. Doesn't that just shout: Twentysomethings are only interested in jobs, split-level pads and driving everywhere, especially in places with bombed-out city centers, smug, self-satisfied suburbs and zero transit?