"The White City" - implications for Detroit

**kathy2trips** · November-08-09, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Coleman Young was probably the biggest supporter of a transit system for Detroit.

Citing one of the most worst mayors in US history [[in management terms) as a reference for a discussion of urban issues simply weakens, rather than strengthens, any argument. All he cared really about was Black autonomy, and it took 20 years, but he finally got it.

**Danny** · November-10-09, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by crawford

What is wrong about my statement? Have you ever been to Chicago?

The South and West Sides are depopulated, and the North Side is not.

The South and West Sides, which comprise roughly 60% of Chicago, are no different than Detroit. Even a quick drive through either area would confirm this fact.

Even the North Side is not particularly dense. Assuming a density of 22,000 for this small area, it is still significantly less dense than NYC, which includes huge unpopulated or suburban swaths of Staten Island, and partly suburban Eastern Queens.

You might want to log on Google Maps and look at how dense the Chicago is from the North Side to the far South Sides. Also log on U.S.Census.gov and click on the percentage of densely populated areas.

crawford · November-10-09, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

You might want to log on Google Maps and look at how dense the Chicago is from the North Side to the far South Sides. Also log on U.S.Census.gov and click on the percentage of densely populated areas.

Danny, you are correct that Chicago's North Side is fairly dense [[for U.S. standards), but Chicago's South and West Sides aren't dense at all.

In fact, Chicago's South and West Sides [[about 60% of the city) have roughly the same population density as Detroit.

Like Detroit, most of Chicago has suffered considerable abandonment and high vacancy.

**Fury13** · November-10-09, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by crawford

Chicago's South and West Sides aren't dense at all.

Regarding the South Side, that depends if you count the Southwest Side. Those areas are pretty dense and growing, as are areas like Hyde Park.

**Fury13** · November-10-09, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by crawford

Name ONE non-Mexican South or West Side neighborhood that isn't depopulated.

Bridgeport, Beverly, Chinatown, Hyde Park, Kenwood, Mt. Greenwood, Clearing...

**Fury13** · November-10-09, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by English

... all of the megacities in the United States can be seen as "White Cities" because that is who holds the political power.

Probably true. But I like to think that we are moving toward pluralism in terms who has power.

I would like to see more groups empowered, as opposed to one group feeling the need to be "in control" and forcing its agenda on others. Seems like we all want quality of life...

**iheartthed** · November-10-09, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

Citing one of the most worst mayors in US history [[in management terms) as a reference for a discussion of urban issues simply weakens, rather than strengthens, any argument. All he cared really about was Black autonomy, and it took 20 years, but he finally got it.

Uh... Even if all that you said about Coleman Young is true, it is still irrelevant in the context of why he was mentioned. The point is that Detroit would have a mass transit system now if at the time it were solely his call to make.

And Detroit by no means has a black autonomy.

crawford · November-10-09, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Fury13

Regarding the South Side, that depends if you count the Southwest Side. Those areas are pretty dense and growing, as are areas like Hyde Park.

This is true; the SW Side bungalow belt is quite different from the rest of the South Side.

I am not sure I would call bungalows "dense", and I am not really sure if they are growing or shrinking [[Chicago's overall population is shrinking, and I assume the yuppie areas are growing, so it would make sense that most of the other neighborhoods are shrinking).

I think the bungalow neighborhoods that may be growing are those that are rapidly transitioning from white ethnic to black and/or Mexican, such as the area around Midway Airport, which has gone from Polish to Mexican very quickly.

crawford · November-10-09, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Fury13

Bridgeport, Beverly, Chinatown, Hyde Park, Kenwood, Mt. Greenwood, Clearing...

Mt. Greenwood, Beverly and Clearing ARE depopulated. How are they any different from Detroit? Clearing may be worse than typical Detroit.

Chinatown and Bridgeport are not depopulated, but they are tiny ethnic enclaves close to downtown, and Bridgeport is transitioning to Mexican, which was the noted caveat.

Hyde Park and Kenwood are not depopulated, but it's only because of the University of Chicago. Go a few blocks from the University [[such as the other side of Jackson Park) and the blocks are every bit as devastated as the East Side of Detroit.

**Fury13** · November-11-09, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by crawford

Mt. Greenwood, Beverly and Clearing ARE depopulated. How are they any different from Detroit? Clearing may be worse than typical Detroit.

Chinatown and Bridgeport are not depopulated, but they are tiny ethnic enclaves close to downtown, and Bridgeport is transitioning to Mexican, which was the noted caveat.

Sorry, I beg to differ... I've spent quite a bit of time in all of these areas. Mt. Greenwood, Beverly, and Clearing are stable, not depopulated. There is no visible abandonment in any of those areas. These are livable, pleasant areas with little crime, no boarded-up homes, and healthy commercial strips [[for this economy). There are people on porches and kids playing on sidewalks. Same with Bridgeport. And it is inaccurate to say that Bridgeport is "transitioning to Mexican" -- it has become a very stable mix of Chinese [[moving south from Chinatown), white-ethnics and Mexican-Americans, and is moving up on the socioeconomic ladder. It is one of Chicago's up-and-coming neighborhoods, as it is also attracting a younger professional demographic as those folks are increasingly priced out of the North Side. McKinley Park will follow suit, mark my words, as it offers good housing stock, proximity to the Orange Line and the Loop, and is next door to Bridgeport.

**Danny** · November-11-09, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by crawford

Danny, you are correct that Chicago's North Side is fairly dense [[for U.S. standards), but Chicago's South and West Sides aren't dense at all.

In fact, Chicago's South and West Sides [[about 60% of the city) have roughly the same population density as Detroit.

Like Detroit, most of Chicago has suffered considerable abandonment and high vacancy.

I do not see what source did you get your data, but here is my source from Chicago Historical Society, MCIC [[ Metro Chicago Information Center) and the U.S.Census Bureau:

There were 2,896,016 people, 1,061,928 households, and 632,909 families residing within Chicago. More than half the population of the state of Illinois lives in the Chicago metropolitan area. The population density of the city itself was 12,750.3 people per square mile [[4,923.0/kmÂ²), making it one of the nation's most densely populated cities. There were 1,152,868 housing units at an average density of 5,075.8 per square mile [[1,959.8/kmÂ²). Of the 1,061,928 households, 28.9% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 35.1% were married couples living together, 18.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 40.4% were non-families. The median income for a household in the city was $38,625, and the median income for a family was $46,748. Males had a median income of $35,907 versus $30,536 for females. Below the poverty line are 19.6% of the population and 16.6% of the families.

Maybe you want to correct that population density in most Chicago's West and South Sides.

http://www.demographia.com/db-chi-nhd2000.htm

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Neda Soltani, The greatest Iranian political liberator.

**tallboy66** · November-11-09, 01:56 PM

In fact, Chicago's South and West Sides [[about 60% of the city) have roughly the same population density as Detroit.

Like Detroit, most of Chicago has suffered considerable abandonment and high vacancy.

Yes and much like Detroit the high rises/dense apartment buildings are near the lake and the further north you go the lake moves West making it closer to mass transit, I can walk to the cta and Metra where as the South And West sides are not as well connected by mass transit and also have more single/multi family homes rather than 25+ story apartment buildings.

**kathy2trips** · November-17-09, 01:17 AM

I want to DRIVE, man! Fees are too high! It should be ultra-cheap to have a car and drive in Detroit, like it is cheap to smoke in NC or lobster is cheap[[er) in Maine. Tax something else, you government lackeys. License plates should be $5-$10. Leave our cars alone.

Screw the rail, those overpasses are intrusive and ugly. Hate those damn things. Yeah, let's block the freaking sky and the sun, whenever we have it. Nothing like tons of oppressive concrete hanging over your head. Idiots.

If MI got the Army Corps of Engineers and Federal help to sell energy created by strategically placed water turbines along the Great Lakes, everybody could have 2 cars AND we could probable get rid of the state income tax, too. Why do you think it's hard to dive into the river? The current. What do you need for a water turbine to function continuously? Oh, a steady, strong current. Hmm. We could get the $ like that, but we'd better hurry, right Gov? Don't know how long that will last.

God, Jennifer, do I have to tell you everything?