Detroit "worst city in US" per Daily Mail

[masterblaster]

What other cities:

*Have 40% of its population living in poverty?

*Had 1/2 of its streetlights not functioning?

*Had 1 hour emergency response times?

*Lost over 1 million people and 2/3rds of its peak population?

*Had its mayor convicted and arrested for corruption while in office?

*Had no chain big box / grocery stores?

*Has homes that can be purchased for $1?

*Has 80,000 vacant structures that require demolition

*Had numerous vacant/abandoned skyscrapers in their CBD?

etc., etc., etc...

Detroit's decline into the most undesirable city in the country is an opinion shared by the vast majority of people in the region, state, and the entire nation [[and Canada, too). Just because 1 or 2 posters on this thread want to minimize its destruction doesn't mean most people don't consider our city the Pit of America.

[dtowncitylover]

What other cities:

*Have 40% of its population living in poverty?

*Had 1/2 of its streetlights not functioning?

*Had 1 hour emergency response times?

*Lost over 1 million people and 2/3rds of its peak population?

*Had its mayor convicted and arrested for corruption while in office?

*Had no chain big box / grocery stores?

*Has homes that can be purchased for $1?

*Has 80,000 vacant structures that require demolition

*Had numerous vacant/abandoned skyscrapers in their CBD?

etc., etc., etc...

I mean isn't it a great thing that some of those valid points you make are now past tense?

My initial reaction though to this piece is: who the fuck cares?!

All the negative stuff is just the rehashing of decades old talking points of crime, blight, and poverty. Nothing I don't know. The positive and/or travel articles I prefer to read because I want to know what the author experienced and what they think.

[Detroitdave]

Talk about old and fake news. And did you get a load of the top of the page ?
Sarah Palin and Donald Trump... enough said

[1953]

Are we seriously arguing about whether Detroit is the worst city in the country or not? What a ridiculous conversation, rife with subjectivity and irrelevance. We are all dumber for having read this thread.

[Detroitdave]

I know, but I want to educate myself on what is being said, not that I didn't already, but it's still good to know they are only rehashing old news.
If they cared enough to do more than an old google search and really find out what is going on currently with the city.

Are we seriously arguing about whether Detroit is the worst city in the country or not? What a ridiculous conversation, rife with subjectivity and irrelevance. We are all dumber for having read this thread.

[rex]

Detroit is among the worst big city in the US. I like Detroit and would consider making the move back to city proper but even downtown/midtown has a long way to go.

[Richard]

I know, but I want to educate myself on what is being said, not that I didn't already, but it's still good to know they are only rehashing old news.
If they cared enough to do more than an old google search and really find out what is going on currently with the city.

Way down here,most expats do not even know who the currant mayor is,others are not even aware of the past,other then the history,the rest do not care about the past and look at where the city is today and where it is going to be 5 years down the road and how do they fit into that picture to make thier decisions.

Most do not even think about Detroit in thier daily adventures.

The biggest difference is you guys are doing something about the issues unlike some of the others.That shows promise and movement forward.

You guys are living in the past,present and future,somebody looking to move there are only going to be looking at Today and the future and not biased based on the past.

Sometimes we put to much stock into caring about what others think,sometimes it is maybe better to just keep moving forward and let them make thier own educated decisions and if they cannot,well that is thier loss,I was going to say screw em,but then figured that would not be PC.

[313WX]

And again...

Detroit is America's worst big city to live in, report says

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...worst_big.html

[Richard]

And again...

Detroit is America's worst big city to live in, report says

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...worst_big.html

When one follows the link to the chart,If I was moving,I would pick Detroit over the top 5
all day long.

Virgina beach pulls up the sidewalks after 5,San Francisco,was there in the military
no way in the world I would want to live there,they have to be smoking some good stuff
to write this crap.

The biggest factor is Detroit is moving forward the rest are moving backward.

[iheartthed]

When one follows the link to the chart,If I was moving,I would pick Detroit over the top 5
all day long.

Virgina beach pulls up the sidewalks after 5,San Francisco,was there in the military
no way in the world I would want to live there,they have to be smoking some good stuff
to write this crap.

The biggest factor is Detroit is moving forward the rest are moving backward.

I would pick San Diego over Detroit... But there isn't much Detroit can do to compete with San Diego's weather. However, I would probably pick Detroit over the rest of the top 5. Although Seattle is one of the only major cities I have never visited.

I've been doing a lot of travel this year and Detroit just has an "it" factor that not many other cities will ever be able to compete with. In some ways this has kind of always been obvious, since the city always ends up on some click bait list. This might not be obvious in our Detroit-centric bubble, but Cleveland, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, etc., just don't evoke curiosity and emotion the way Detroit does.

So long term I am not too worried about Detroit. There is already evidence that Detroit is setting up as the alternative to Chicago, which is exactly what we always thought it should be.

[ABetterDetroit]

Detroit offers one thing that many of the others don't. A individual who is willing to roll up the sleeves and get to work can effect change, make Detroit into what it should be in their eyes.

A chance to lead. Detroit needs more young quality leaders. The ability to start as a true freshman if you put the work in. Many opportunities to make a impact all across the board. In many areas. Just pick the passion. There is room for everyone.

[Richard]

I would pick San Diego over Detroit... But there isn't much Detroit can do to compete with San Diego's weather. However, I would probably pick Detroit over the rest of the top 5. Although Seattle is one of the only major cities I have never visited.

I've been doing a lot of travel this year and Detroit just has an "it" factor that not many other cities will ever be able to compete with. In some ways this has kind of always been obvious, since the city always ends up on some click bait list. This might not be obvious in our Detroit-centric bubble, but Cleveland, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, etc., just don't evoke curiosity and emotion the way Detroit does.

So long term I am not too worried about Detroit. There is already evidence that Detroit is setting up as the alternative to Chicago, which is exactly what we always thought it should be.

I guess it boils down to each individuals preferences,but looking at a standard of living aspect or quality of life,I am not sure how they figure the math.

San Francisco,cheapest housing is in the mission district,adverage rent $3950,adverage sales price was $985,000 last month,0% ride bikes to work,3% walk,45% use public transportation and the rest drive. Per Trulio.

Not much of a walkable city.

Miami was really not a place to raise young ones 30 years ago and it has not improved much sense then,and who wants to learn a second language to use as a primary.

Florida has the sun and easy excess to the water if one is into beaches and boating,but it comes at a heavy cost and try riding a bike without getting run over,even with bike lanes,so quality of life issues is extremely subjective there.Even more so in July and August when the only thing you really want to do is make out with an air conditioner.


When you visit different cities they are all the same basically,good parts,bad parts but like I mentioned,they are all stagnant what you see is what you get and for the most part they will stay that way.Or get worse.

I agree with abetterdetroit in what Detroit has that no other city does,the opportunity for a person to actually grow with the city and not just move somewhere and become stagnant,if that makes sense.

3 years out of bankruptcy and starting from the bottom and still makes the list,the city is just getting started,imagine 5 years from now.

[easternshorebird]

I dunno here. When someone else on this thead listed a "Top 9" Hall of Shame list for Detroit and challenged anyone to say any other city could match - started to reply. But stopped. Since this is a forum about Detroit, not Baltimore.
[[just to clarify - Baltimore can match or exceed at least half of that listings - As far as percentages of poverty population/ % of vacant/dilapidated structures/ 1 Hour waits for emerg. response/mayor convicted for corruption/ dwellings can be bought for $1/ almost highest current murder rate in U.S., and so on)
But what really strikes me with this - another eerie similarity - coinciding now with our 50th anniversary retrospective on the riot.
Just as the Detroit police reportedly did 50 years ago at that early morning hour on 12th St when the first bottle was thrown - 48 years later - Baltimore police took the very same stance.
Can you believe it? Normal police response was non-existent. Precinct commanders were given orders to stand down, take no action when bottles, rocks, etc. were being thrown at officers and others. The belief being that any aggressive police action to quell the rioters would only make matters worse. Duh. The 2015 Baltimore riots quickly got really bad, really fast.
This dumb order, coming straight from the mayor served to do only one thing - caused Baltimore riots to spread over much larger area, rather than quietly die out.
No wish to go off-topic here, just wondering how many years does it take [[60-70-100?) For our big cities, with their vast ghetto sections, to grasp basic police theory of how to handle riots? Isn't there a course? Riots 101.1, right?

What's the answer?

[Richard]

Because Baltimore recieved 1.8 billion stimulus to cover the loses and the mayor decided to allow the destruction because she felt it was a part of the grieving process.

Because there was only local PD and volunteers that came in from other cities there was no back up or call to the guard.

Her priority was to stem the loss of life only and not property,115 officers were injured.Kinda like leaving a whole force out there to pay the price of retribution.

Other cities as shown in Portland the officers protect life and property and are given the tools and means necessary.

The Detroit riots are mentioned here because it is a Detroit site,just as it is discussed in the other cites that had equal results at that time,most of those cities have never fully recovered either.

To me anyways there really is no roit 101 per-say and the difference now days is the massive outside influence where non locals jump in to agitate and turn a peaceful protest into chaos,which in turn buries the message.

But in theory has much really changed from the riots of back then verses now? In both cause and effect?

Other then even mentioning the word online triggers a flag somewhere.

[Bham1982]

San Francisco,cheapest housing is in the mission district,adverage rent $3950,adverage sales price was $985,000 last month,0% ride bikes to work,3% walk,45% use public transportation and the rest drive. Per Trulio.

Not much of a walkable city.

SF has a lower rent burden than Detroit. You really think that the cheapest SF housing is $4,000 a month? LOL. SF has a high proportion of households in poverty.

And SF isn't walkable, but Detroit is? Even sillier.

[Richard]

SF has a lower rent burden than Detroit. You really think that the cheapest SF housing is $4,000 a month? LOL. SF has a high proportion of households in poverty.

And SF isn't walkable, but Detroit is? Even sillier.

How is it silly,I did the same thing they did to compile a list without actually going there.

Every city is different because they are comprised of individuals and everybody has different views of how they fit in,places are what you make of them,so what is a list but pieces of compiled data that really is meaningless.

[easternshorebird]

...... Baltimore ... mayor decided to allow the destruction because she felt it was a part of the grieving process.......
there was only local PD and volunteers that came in from other cities there was no back up or call to the guard.....

For the record, correction needed here.
Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 175th Infantry Regiment, Maryland Army National Guard arrived in the city around 6 a.m. on April 28. A couple hours later, it was announced the governor was temporarily moving his office from the capitol to Baltimore. [[And No Doubt mainly due to the incompetence of the mayor that you cited)

[BMoo]

Same thing from a site possibly more to your liking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...roit-No-1.html

I'm laughing so hard that he thought Daily Mail was a MORE reputable source.

[313WX]

SF has a lower rent burden than Detroit. You really think that the cheapest SF housing is $4,000 a month? LOL. SF has a high proportion of households in poverty.

And SF isn't walkable, but Detroit is? Even sillier.

Yeah, I'm not sure what Richard was getting at.

Other than NYC, San Francisco's the most walkable *major* city in the country.

[313WX]

When you visit different cities they are all the same basically,good parts,bad parts but like I mentioned,they are all stagnant what you see is what you get and for the most part they will stay that way.Or get worse.

What does this even mean?

Nashville, Austin, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc. are all growing by leaps and bounds now. They have countless high rises either under construction or soon to start construction that are rapidly transforming their downtown and their skylines as we speak.

Meanwhile, Detroit is the place that remains stagnant. We've been stuck in neutral since the 1970s in terms of population growth and transformative developments, and that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon.

[Richard]

What does this even mean?

Nashville, Austin, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc. are all growing by leaps and bounds now. They have countless high rises either under construction or soon to start construction that are rapidly transforming their downtown and their skylines as we speak.

Meanwhile, Detroit is the place that remains stagnant. We've been stuck in neutral since the 1970s in terms of population growth and transformative developments, and that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon.

Is growth a deciding factor? I was 30 years in Orlando,growth killed it,Miami of the 70s is totally different then today,growth killed it.

So you are saying Detroit of today is no different then Detroit of the 70s and nothing has changed?

You really cannot put Detroit in any comparative situation against other cities as they started rebuilding 30 to 40 years ago,you could say okay this is what they were back then verses now but none of them really started over like Detroit has.

I grew up in Minneapolis,my sister still lives there,I visit and shure it is different then in the early 70s but it is still the same.

I was stationed in VA beach late 70s,nothing to do there back then and it is nicer kinda now but way more violence and still nothing to do,and they were #1 on the list.

Make it easy,find one city that was in the same situation as Detroit was 3 years ago and do a side by side comparison.

Like I posted,if Detroit is as bad as they say it is,why is it even being used comparatively,because even though you do not see it the amount of distance the city has traveled in the last 3 years,is what it took the other cities 20 years.

When I say stagnant I am meaning on a personal level and not a city level,but that again is subjective to the individual.

Some prefer to move to a ready made city and thier life revolves around going to work and staying in the house on the weekends,and after awhile they see themselves caught in a trap of sorts and want more in life. That is why people leave.

People want an energetic city,you can have hundreds of skyscrapers and miles of growth and still feel like you live in the most boring place on earth.

I guess unless one lives in a few different cities it is hard to understand.

You mentioned Austin,visit it,embrace the sprawl and talk to a few locals.

Also if you look at the cities you listed and who is moving there and why,growing by leaps and bounds creates housing shortages and high home values and rents and liberal housing allowances.

Revisit them in 5 years because when they reach their peak cycle that took them 40 years to achieve,Detroit will still be plugging along.

It is not a pissing contest.

[313WX]

Is growth a deciding factor? I was 30 years in Orlando,growth killed it,Miami of the 70s is totally different then today,growth killed it.

Growth killed what about these cities? The two places you listed are more vibrant than ever [[by all measures), thus far from "killed."

So you are saying Detroit of today is no different then Detroit of the 70s and nothing has changed?

In terms of population and economic influence, yep.

And since you asked, I will even go as far as to say Detroit is "worse* off if we're looking at quality of life factors. The infrastructure has never been worse, people on average are much poorer in the wake of autopocalypse, many of the suburbs and school districts are teetering on the verge of financial ruin, etc.

People want an energetic city,you can have hundreds of skyscrapers and miles of growth and still feel like you live in the most boring place on earth.

How is a city that is experiencing a ton of growth and large scale developments not "energetic?"

Also if you look at the cities you listed and who is moving there and why,growing by leaps and bounds creates housing shortages and high home values and rents and liberal housing allowances.

Because they're desirable places to live. It's basic supply and demand. People would rather live in closets in San Francisco for $3,500 per month than a huge McMansion in suburban Detroit with a mortgage of $1,200. It is what it is.

Some prefer to move to a ready made city...That is why people leave.

Absolutely. A lot of people don't want to waste the prime of their lives trying to fix things that have been FUBAR by their parents and grandparents at possibly to no avail. But to dismiss this desire by describing the places they're attracted to as "stagnant" is awfully provincial.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Because they're desirable places to live. It's basic supply and demand. People would rather live in closets in San Francisco for $3,500 per month than a huge McMansion in suburban Detroit with a mortgage of $1,200. It is what it is.

Show me a McMansion in the burbs, with a $1,200.00 mortgage. Do they even exist ?

[313WX]

Show me a McMansion in the burbs, with a $1,200.00 mortgage. Do they even exist ?

It was hyperbole, but my main point is still true. Many people would rather deal with the insane COL in places like San Francisco than live in a place with a very low COL like Detroit.

[Bham1982]

COL basically means housing costs. Housing costs are cheap in areas with poor housing appreciation.

I would MUCH rather pay for a more expensive house if I am virtually assured of long-term appreciation, as opposed to Michigan-style cheap housing with minimal appreciation. Bay Area homeowners are in a vastly more secure spot.

It's like saying Sears stock is better than Amazon stock because it costs less. Hell, no.