Quite a depressing link.

[Whitehouse]

Comparing google streetview and bing at different dates and locations.....

https://imgur.com/gallery/YwKHO


Brrr...
Also, read the comments.

[Zacha341]

Yeah, somehow I knew that site would eventually make its way here....

[313WX]

Comparing google streetview and bing at different dates and locations.....

https://imgur.com/gallery/YwKHO


Brrr...
Also, read the comments.

For those who say Detroit has bottomed out, that's a good link for them to see....

[Whitehouse]

This one must have been posted before but this is another example...

http://gizmodo.com/the-destruction-o...e-af-844161810

[Jimaz]

This one must have been posted before but this is another example...

http://gizmodo.com/the-destruction-o...e-af-844161810

Yes, it has but that's well worth reposting. That took some real talent to compose those shots. Note that all of the "before" shots are within the "after" shots. It could have been done the opposite way but I think this is better.

I like to imagine what today's well-kept buildings will look like after they decompose. Nothing lasts forever. The chimneys always seem to go last.

At a cosmological scale even diamonds will decompose someday. It doesn't have to be sad. It's only natural.

[animatedmartian]

It's not really all that depressing to me because as I quite remember, Detroit faced both the foreclosure crisis and the auto industry bankruptcies, yet people seem to be completely oblivious to the effects of those two events. While Detroit has been decaying for a long time, the particular neighborhoods pictured entered an accelerated rate of decay because of the economy of the time period. What, half the auto industry collapses, unemployment jumps to 32% and everyone just forgets that Mitt Romney said "let Detroit go"? [[or something like that). I fail to see what's so depressing other than the fact the people simply don't pay attention.

[313WX]

It's not really all that depressing to me because as I quite remember, Detroit faced both the foreclosure crisis and the auto industry bankruptcies, yet people seem to be completely oblivious to the effects of those two events. While Detroit has been decaying for a long time, the particular neighborhoods pictured entered an accelerated rate of decay because of the economy of the time period. What, half the auto industry collapses, unemployment jumps to 32% and everyone just forgets that Mitt Romney said "let Detroit go"? [[or something like that). I fail to see what's so depressing other than the fact the people simply don't pay attention.

With the other severe problems Detroit already had between the deplorable level of city services, poor schools and high crime levels, the recession pretty much just compounded on the negative feedback loop of decline that Detroit was already facing [[or as one poster called it, the "Detroit creep").

In other words, whatever chance there was of saving a lot of the city prior to the foreclosure crisis or auto industry bankruptcies has been completely shot.

[animatedmartian]

In other words, whatever chance there was of saving a lot of the city prior to the foreclosure crisis or auto industry bankruptcies has been completely shot.

But see, "saving the city" is such a broad and vague statement that no one really knows what a "saved city" would look like. Detroit could have population growth but still have high crime. Would that be a "saved city"?

Not only that, but in case you haven't noticed, the recession ended a couple of years ago. Homes in Detroit are being renovated, projects are being restarted, and, while it can't be confirmed yet for another year or so, the spread of blight has slowed down significantly. That's not to say the population isn't still falling, but there shouldn't be any reason for it to still fall at the same rate as it did during the recession.

[RO_Resident]

Yes, it has but that's well worth reposting. That took some real talent to compose those shots. Note that all of the "before" shots are within the "after" shots. It could have been done the opposite way but I think this is better.

I like to imagine what today's well-kept buildings will look like after they decompose. Nothing lasts forever. The chimneys always seem to go last.

At a cosmological scale even diamonds will decompose someday. It doesn't have to be sad. It's only natural.

The author used the Google Streetview timeline feature. The pictures are self-composing, depending on the image location.

You can see the same destruction on Brentwood east of Woodward in 2009, 2011, and 2013. Just use the timeline dropdown on the top left of the image. You may have to zoom in or out to get the same view.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4314...VTvUF4DFbg!2e0

It is amazing and incredibly sad how quickly an intact neighborhood can turn.

[antongast]

But see, "saving the city" is such a broad and vague statement that no one really knows what a "saved city" would look like.

Fucking thank you. So many people fail to grasp this. All of us want the city to be "better," and all of us have somewhat different pictures in our heads, and it's not necessarily a given that our efforts at "improvement" are in any way compatible with each other. This element is glaringly absent from so many improvement plans that just sort of assume that everyone is on the same page and that their page is the one everyone else is on.

[aj3647]

but there shouldn't be any reason for it to still fall at the same rate as it did during the recession.

Crime isn't a reason? Even during the good economic years of Clinton's presidency, people were still fleeing the city.

For those blaming the economic crisis for deteriorating neighborhoods, ask yourself this: Did a similar deterioration happen in Detroit during the Great Depression? Did people victimize each other and steal and destroy and ravage entire neighborhoods like locusts? No, they did not. And times were WAY worse then. People literally faced starvation.

How many of those homes look they way they do because of scrappers, arsonists, thieves, and other assorted criminal pieces of shit? People weren't raping and murdering each other like it was a post-apocalyptic nightmare during the Great Depression, so you can only blame the economy so much before it becomes just another excuse for people's inherent bad behavior and lack of personal responsibility.

[animatedmartian]

Crime isn't a reason? Even during the good economic years of Clinton's presidency, people were still fleeing the city.

Not at 25% per decade. From 1990-2000, Detroit only lost 7.5% in population, yet the 90s was a pretty bad decade for crime in Detroit. 1994 was one of Detroit's worst years in homicide rate with 54 homicides per 100,000 residents [[or roughly 544 homicides by the end of the year). Crime is not the end-all driving force behind population decline. It's certainly a contributor to a negative quality of life that people factor in when deciding when choosing their place of residence, but it's not that black-and-white.

[DetroitPlanner]

Crime isn't a reason? Even during the good economic years of Clinton's presidency, people were still fleeing the city.

For those blaming the economic crisis for deteriorating neighborhoods, ask yourself this: Did a similar deterioration happen in Detroit during the Great Depression? Did people victimize each other and steal and destroy and ravage entire neighborhoods like locusts? No, they did not. And times were WAY worse then. People literally faced starvation.

How many of those homes look they way they do because of scrappers, arsonists, thieves, and other assorted criminal pieces of shit? People weren't raping and murdering each other like it was a post-apocalyptic nightmare during the Great Depression, so you can only blame the economy so much before it becomes just another excuse for people's inherent bad behavior and lack of personal responsibility.

No.

In the depression the govt hired more cops in order to allow money to get to the workers and keep the peace. Detroit laid off hundreds of them.

All of them. No cops = free for all.