City Center grows, but neighborhoods in rapid decline

[BankruptcyGuy]

The headline is not about Detroit, but about our midwestern neighbor and lodestone, Chicago.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ing10-20161213

From 2000 to 2010, population there is down 200,000.
From 2010 to 2015, most of the areas are flat, the city center gained, and the south side lost a ton of residents.

My point is that I think the trend there, which matches the trend here, is broader than just our city's management. There appears to be an overall trend in that direction. Good thing or bad thing? I don't know. But it's not something particular to Detroit.

[ndavies]

It's directly tied to the cities mismanagement. Chicago has exactly the same problems Detroit has.

High taxes, High Crime and bad schools. Detroit went through Bankruptcy, Chicago is headed towards bankruptcy. No wonder the people are fleeing these 2 cities.

[emu steve]

The headline is not about Detroit, but about our midwestern neighbor and lodestone, Chicago.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ing10-20161213

From 2000 to 2010, population there is down 200,000.
From 2010 to 2015, most of the areas are flat, the city center gained, and the south side lost a ton of residents.

My point is that I think the trend there, which matches the trend here, is broader than just our city's management. There appears to be an overall trend in that direction. Good thing or bad thing? I don't know. But it's not something particular to Detroit.

This is part of the new urbanization.

There is a movement [[migration) back to the city but it isn't equal to what it was.

In other words, maybe thousands left Brightmoor but thousands move to downtown, Brush Park, etc.

There is both de-population [[Brightmoor) and re-population [[downtown) going on.

Someone may prefer a suburb over Brightmoor, but someone else may prefer downtown over a suburb [[or Brightmoor).

No one should assume that if Detroit gains 25K new residents that they will be distributed equally throughout the city. There are hot neighborhoods which will gain most of the new residents and most other neighborhoods will get few.

[Calltoaction]

The wealthy are not fleeing, the south side is just moving out. Which is actually good for Chicago.

Stop your fear mongering.

[DeLemur]

Obviously a multitude of factors but income inequality and the hollowing out of decent, accessible employment like $20/hr jobs with benefits is still occurring. Think about all those workers who took the "buy out" from auto, their money is long gone now and they're likely in a lower paying job. Their neighborhood went from middle class to lower class, plain and simple. The neighborhoods will never turnaround without broad, decently paid jobs.
Now that Trump put in a guy who questions even the minimum wage as head of Labor department and who makes millions in fast food industry dependent on $9hr workers - income inequality and decent paying jobs in the U.S. doesn't look to be on the radar for workers and thus neighborhoods.

Weak city services, crime, broken families those play into it as well but fifty years of income loss for the worker leads to wider neighborhood decline.

[GMan]

This is part of the new urbanization.

There is a movement [[migration) back to the city but it isn't equal to what it was.

In other words, maybe thousands left Brightmoor but thousands move to downtown, Brush Park, etc.

There is both de-population [[Brightmoor) and re-population [[downtown) going on.

Someone may prefer a suburb over Brightmoor, but someone else may prefer downtown over a suburb [[or Brightmoor).

No one should assume that if Detroit gains 25K new residents that they will be distributed equally throughout the city. There are hot neighborhoods which will gain most of the new residents and most other neighborhoods will get few.

People who are moving into the city are moving into the vibrant areas where they can reap the benefits of the revitalization of Detroit.
Can it be sustained and swell the bubble to the outlying areas of the city.
This is the Million dollar question.

[Chicago48]

Obviously a multitude of factors but income inequality and the hollowing out of decent, accessible employment like $20/hr jobs with benefits is still occurring. Think about all those workers who took the "buy out" from auto, their money is long gone now and they're likely in a lower paying job. Their neighborhood went from middle class to lower class, plain and simple. The neighborhoods will never turnaround without broad, decently paid jobs.
Now that Trump put in a guy who questions even the minimum wage as head of Labor department and who makes millions in fast food industry dependent on $9hr workers - income inequality and decent paying jobs in the U.S. doesn't look to be on the radar for workers and thus neighborhoods.

Weak city services, crime, broken families those play into it as well but fifty years of income loss for the worker leads to wider neighborhood decline.

I live in Chicago. True, the [[black/minority) south side and west side are losing residents because of high crime, no commercial businesses and failing schools. The population is increasing in the downtown and Loop downtown areas. Lots of restaurants, condos, apts, retail, lots of activity. But Chicago overall still has a healthy economy. Lots of tourism. I live on the northside and the cost of renting/owning is through the roof. How about $2200 for a one-bedroom apartment?
And these buildings are full occupancy. So yes, the south & west side where the poorer and black people live are losing population.

[Wesley Mouch]

It's directly tied to the cities mismanagement. Chicago has exactly the same problems Detroit has.

High taxes, High Crime and bad schools. Detroit went through Bankruptcy, Chicago is headed towards bankruptcy. No wonder the people are fleeing these 2 cities.

As I've preached before here, nothing is single-factor. This Chi/Det plague isn't just about civic mismanagement. Problems are complex and multifaceted.

I also doubt that this problem is limited to Det/Chi. Seems like you would probably find the same issues in Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo, Cincinnati -- and to go father afield, Oakland, Los Angeles, or Denver.

Suppose that Detroit and Chicago both were perfect managers of older, subdivided neighborhoods? Would those areas still be experiencing decline? I think yes. However I think the obvious mismanagement at city, county, state, and federal levels has made it much, much worse that it might have been.

The decline remains a condemnation of how we've not controlled decay, infrastructure, investment, taxes, and most important -- public safety.

[dangelo]

Chicago isn't all that. It's overpriced, too much crime, too cold!

I don't understand why people use Michigan's weather an excuse to badmouth Michigan but they never complain about the other northern areas [[including Chicago) which have the same cold, snowy weather. Last year some places [[NYC) had even worse weather than Michigan!

[emu steve]

People who are moving into the city are moving into the vibrant areas where they can reap the benefits of the revitalization of Detroit.
Can it be sustained and swell the bubble to the outlying areas of the city.
This is the Million dollar question.

Agree and that has always been about downtowns and building sports facilities there, entertainment venues, eateries, etc. etc. as well as easy transportation [[e.g., QLine) and employment.

When I was in Detroit for Thanksgiving, I drove down Michigan Ave. and wondered what would happen if the QLine was extended west to out by Slows? Would that invigorate the western part of downtown and Corktown? Would Michigan Ave. in that area redevelop?

[emu steve]

This article about Dan Gilbert indicates what I have been posting and posting: What happens downtown effects the other neighborhoods.

If folks don't work downtown they are less [[less is a good word) likely to live in the city.

Best way to get folks to live in the city is have a very large employment center in downtown and folks will try to find suitable [[appropriate, whatever that might be for them) as close to work as reasonably possible.

I think it also shows that downtown employment has created a significant demand for housing 'close in'. And I do believe Gilbert's work in Brush Park makes absolute sense.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...ives/95198306/

[Bham1982]

The wealthy are not fleeing, the south side is just moving out. Which is actually good for Chicago.

Stop your fear mongering.

How on earth is it "good" when Chicago when you have massive middle class flight and the worst population loss in the nation?

Chicago is losing its middle class. The wealthy and poor are generally staying, but the middle class is fleeing. The vast majority of Chicago neighborhoods have population loss, and the city is losing blacks, whites, and others.

[Bham1982]

So yes, the south & west side where the poorer and black people live are losing population.

This is semi-true, but misleading. The South and West Sides are about 70% of Chicago. And the North Side is losing population too. Basically all of Chicago is losing population except the downtown core. The worst population loss is in the South/West Sides, though.

And it isn't just African American people leaving. Chicago is losing whites too, in contrast to other major cities like NYC and LA, which are finally gaining whites.

And the poor aren't leaving; it's the middle class. Chicago is retaining the black underclass, and losing the middle class of all races. This is, in part, why Chicago is in such a deep financial crisis: the city is being

[emu steve]

This is semi-true, but misleading. The South and West Sides are about 70% of Chicago. And the North Side is losing population too. Basically all of Chicago is losing population except the downtown core. The worst population loss is in the South/West Sides, though.

And it isn't just African American people leaving. Chicago is losing whites too, in contrast to other major cities like NYC and LA, which are finally gaining whites.

And the poor aren't leaving; it's the middle class. Chicago is retaining the black underclass, and losing the middle class of all races. This is, in part, why Chicago is in such a deep financial crisis: the city is being

Don't forget d.c.

It is a modern success story of a city which had 'white flight', lost lot of middle income African-Americans, too, was in dire financial straits, etc. etc.

and now folks are moving back in. Lot of folks with nice incomes. Many thousands of new housing units, etc. Strong neighborhoods, like in N.W. D.C., Capitol Hill, etc. are still very strong but formerly bad or non-existent neighborhoods are really doing well. Some are in areas 10 or 20 years ago where one did not go, day or night.

Each big city has its own story and fate. Some 'not too good' while others getting stronger and stronger.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Each big city has its own story and fate. Some 'not too good' while others getting stronger and stronger.

Well, it seems to me the big southern and southwestern cities are doing quite well, Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas and Houston, to name a few. They've all had population increases the last few years.

[emu steve]

Well, it seems to me the big southern and southwestern cities are doing quite well, Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas and Houston, to name a few. They've all had population increases the last few years.[/COLOR]

Yes, there is a pattern.

I think the West [[or Left) coast is doing very well. I have no reason to doubt S.F., Seattle, Portland, etc.

The East coast and mid-Atlantic, etc. are doing well, e.g., D.C., Charlotte, and further south like Atlanta.

Toughest cities are rust belt and cities which really didn't have a lot going for themselves which never caught on late in the 20th century.

[swingline]

Don't forget d.c.

It is a modern success story of a city which had 'white flight', lost lot of middle income African-Americans, too, was in dire financial straits, etc. etc.

and now folks are moving back in. Lot of folks with nice incomes. Many thousands of new housing units, etc. Strong neighborhoods, like in N.W. D.C., Capitol Hill, etc. are still very strong but formerly bad or non-existent neighborhoods are really doing well. Some are in areas 10 or 20 years ago where one did not go, day or night.

Each big city has its own story and fate. Some 'not too good' while others getting stronger and stronger.

Hmm, and isn't it strange how formerly decrepit outer neighborhoods in DC like Shaw, Columbia Heights, 14th & U and the Navy Yard became the targets of over $1 billion in investment right before and immediately after the Metrorail Green line opened? One wonders if there could be some kind of connection there. Nah, probably not.

[Bham1982]

Hmm, and isn't it strange how formerly decrepit outer neighborhoods in DC like Shaw, Columbia Heights, 14th & U and the Navy Yard became the targets of over $1 billion in investment right before and immediately after the Metrorail Green line opened? One wonders if there could be some kind of connection there. Nah, probably not.

Probably not. DC has been booming since the end of WW2. As the seat of world empire, the core has been in a non-stop construction frenzy for basically 70 years.

[swingline]

Probably not. DC has been booming since the end of WW2. As the seat of world empire, the core has been in a non-stop construction frenzy for basically 70 years.

True, the DC region has seen steady growth for decades. But that growth completely bypassed most of the neighborhoods serviced by the Green Line until after 2000 and the line's completion. Through the 80's and 90's places like Shaw, Petworth and Columbia Heights suffered from massive disinvestment and higher crime rates than most other parts of DC. Most retail was of the liquor store and wig shop type. These were inconvenient places to live if you needed to commute to downtown DC or to suburban employment centers. Now, residents can get anywhere on the Metro. Retail and residential investment has mushroomed. Obviously though, transit isn't the panacea for all troubled neighborhoods. Despite the Green Line's arrival, Anacostia still languishes compared to the rest of DC.

[emu steve]

Probably not. DC has been booming since the end of WW2. As the seat of world empire, the core has been in a non-stop construction frenzy for basically 70 years.

D.C. AREA has had great growth during the time I have been there.

But as I've indicated, D.C. has had the same problem as other cities, but it came back strong [[gang busters).

E.g., Fairfax County grew from very little to over a million. Prince Georges County became a very large African-American county.

YET, while this was happening D.C. has come back in the last 25 years.

I wasn't here but in 1968 didn't D.C. have the riots following the death of MLKjr?

It hasn't been all peaches and cream, but no doubt D.C. and the D.C. area has been a great success story.

************* Riots per Wikipedia:
Course of events[edit]

As word of King's assassination in Memphis, Tennessee spread on the evening of Thursday, April 4, crowds began to gather at 14th and U. Stokely Carmichael, the Trinidad and Tobago-born activist and Howard University graduate, had parted with King in 1966, and had been removed as head of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in 1967, but led members of the SNCC to stores in the neighborhood demanding that they close out of respect. Although polite at first, the crowd fell out of control and began breaking windows. By 11 p.m., widespread looting had begun, as well as in over 30 other cities.
Mayor-Commissioner Walter Washington ordered the damage cleaned up immediately the next morning. However, anger was still evident when Carmichael addressed a rally at Howard warning of violence on Friday morning and after the close of the rally, rioters walking down 7th Street, NW, came into violent confrontations with the DC Metropolitan Police Department, as well as in the H Street, NE, corridor. Around midday, numerous buildings were on fire, with firefighters attacked with bottles and rocks and unable to respond to them. By 1 p.m., the riot was in full effect.^[8] Police unsuccessfully attempted to control the crowds using tear gas.^[9]
Military intervention[edit]

Wikisource has the original text of Johnson's order dispatching troops:Executive Order 11403

On Friday, April 5, the White House dispatched some 13,600 federal troops, including 1,750 federalized D.C. National Guard troops to assist the overwhelmed District police force.^[9] Marines mounted machine guns on the steps of the Capitol and Army troops from the 3rd Infantry guarded the White House. At one point, on April 5, rioting reached within two blocks of the White House before rioters retreated. The occupation of Washington was the largest of any American city since the Civil War.

[mtburb]

I wasn't here but in 1968 didn't D.C. have the riots following the death of MLKjr?

Detroit had them too...coincidentally that one started on 12th Street as well.

[emu steve]

Detroit had them too...coincidentally that one started on 12th Street as well.

It took D.C. decades to rebuild areas decimated by the 1968 riots.

It took Mayor Marion Barry to put city offices at 14th and U. St. N.W. which everyone thought was downright crazy and then that area came back and today it is a 'hot' area.

Crazy as it may seem but in D.C. one of the hottest development, in places, was a place where almost 50 years ago it was the site of the riots.

[Bham1982]

D.C. AREA has had great growth during the time I have been there.

But as I've indicated, D.C. has had the same problem as other cities, but it came back strong [[gang busters).

Not true. Downtown DC has been booming nonstop since WW2. There was a massive amount of downtown development from the 1950s through 1990's, probably moreso than today.

The outer neighborhoods were struggling [[and are still struggling, to an extent- most of NE and SE DC are still struggling).

In any case, downtown DC isn't building millions of square feet of office space because of a subway line extension. And it sure as hell isn't building such space because of a sports stadium. It's because DC is the seat of the most powerful empire in global history, and there is voracious demand for public and private sector office space [[which then feeds secondary demand for hotel, residental, and retail space).

Outer neighborhoods could be less desirable than Highland Park or Flint, but as long as there is federal expansion, the office space demand downtown is going to continue.

I wasn't here but in 1968 didn't D.C. have the riots following the death of MLKjr?

What do riots have to do with downtown development? The riots weren't downtown, and wouldn't have any direct effect on whether federal departments need more office space. They obviously sucked for the damaged neighborhoods, but that happened in every American city.

[Bham1982]

Crazy as it may seem but in D.C. one of the hottest development, in places, was a place where almost 50 years ago it was the site of the riots.

It's hardly crazy; it's the norm in many U.S. cities.

Where did 1960's riots occur? The oldest black neighborhoods.

Where are the oldest black neighborhoods? Usually adjacent to the city core.

Where does gentrification occur? On the fringes of the core; an outward expansion of the downtown.

Where did black flight occur? In the first generation legacy neighborhoods. Kids and grandkids are in the suburbs or Atlanta now.

So what neighborhoods are currently booming the hardest? Usually downtown-adjacent older black neighborhoods such as Harlem, Bed Stuy [[NYC) Shaw, H Street [[DC) and the like. Makes perfect sense.

[emu steve]

It's hardly crazy; it's the norm in many U.S. cities.

Where did 1960's riots occur? The oldest black neighborhoods.

Where are the oldest black neighborhoods? Usually adjacent to the city core.

Where does gentrification occur? On the fringes of the core; an outward expansion of the downtown.

Where did black flight occur? In the first generation legacy neighborhoods. Kids and grandkids are in the suburbs or Atlanta now.

So what neighborhoods are currently booming the hardest? Usually downtown-adjacent older black neighborhoods such as Harlem, Bed Stuy [[NYC) Shaw, H Street [[DC) and the like. Makes perfect sense.

'1982, some of your points are generally true, but a lot of them are 'there is more to the story then you describe...'

The 1968 riots were not confined to say 14th and U. Streets N.W. and the Shaw area. I offer this quote from Wikipedia, and it sure sounds 'not to contained."

On Friday, April 5, the White House dispatched some 13,600 federal troops, including 1,750 federalized D.C. National Guard troops to assist the overwhelmed District police force.^[9] Marines mounted machine guns on the steps of the Capitol and Army troops from the 3rd Infantry guarded the White House. At one point, on April 5, rioting reached within two blocks of the White House before rioters retreated. The occupation of Washington was the largest of any American city since the Civil War.

Where non-D.C. area folks get confused is that when I came to D.C. [[1979), a few blocks from the White House were prostitution, drugs, crime, etc.

One could go say three blocks from the WH and it was a block full of strip joints; go another block or two, prostitutes. Goes a few blocks more, open air drug markets.

I believe it was mostly the 90s [[some in the 80s) that the redevelopment moved east and north of say 14th and K. Streets N.W.

1980s were pretty bad. Still. I think the 1990s was the big push forward. Folks remember that in say 1990 [[hope I got the date right), D.C. was the crack epicenter, Murder Capital, etc. etc. I believe the District was in financial trouble. District departments were being taken over via court orders.

Not, not good!!

I keep telling folks here that Detroit does NOT have a monopoly on big city, urban problems. We had drugs, crime, debt ridden government, disliked mayor, etc. etc.