The Brooklynization of Detroit is going to be terrible for Detroiters

[memph]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Then why is poverty just as entrenched in Chicago as it is in Detroit?

Is it? No doubt there is a lot of concentrated poverty in Chicago but is it as bad as in Detroit? (and I wouldn't consider concentrated poverty and entrenched poverty to be exactly the same)

If nothing else, incomes in Chicago are higher than in Detroit.

Anyways, the main thing with Detroit is that in the core, there's a lot of room for new construction and relatively little existing housing to displace lower income residents from. The lower income residents mostly live in neighbourhoods outside the core that I think are far less likely to appeal to gentrifiers.

The central part of Detroit has about 90,000 residents now in an area of about 20-25 square miles. It used to have about 550,000 residents in 1950. Rebuilt that at moderately high urban densities (but still with a diversity of housing types and not just high-rises, possibly even very few high-rises) and you could fit 500,000 people easily, maybe even over a million people. I rather strongly doubt there's that many people looking to move into Detroit, so there's certainly room.

As for the 90,000 existing residents, some are low income and might get displaced, but there's still no shortage of low rent housing within a few miles of downtown/midtown.

[memph]

Originally Posted by jcchii

I was finally there last month for vacation. Brooklyn it ain't

Really amazing place in terms of abandoned and decaying buildings everywhere. I was blown away by the scale.

There was a local art community bubbling, with murals being painted in spots, but by and large most of the "neighborhoods" were one functioning house on a block, two caving in on themselves and then 10 lots of infant urban forest. It was kind of awesome in a way.

downtown still had some life, but the whole place seemed to be in a state of shock.

anyway, it's a long way from being Brooklyn, and if you are priced out of Detroit, you are out of coins.

Chicago has poverty and violent areas, but at least they are still mostly populated by actual humans walking around. It's like comparing Brooklyn or Chicago to Chernobyl. I'm sure it gets you clicks but it looks silly after, I don't know, 20 minutes in Detroit

Which neighbourhoods did you visit? Many of the most heavily abandoned ones are just outside downtown and therefore the ones visitors are probably most likely to see. Most neighbourhoods do have a noticeable amount of vacant homes/lots, but a good chunk of the city seems to have at least 50% occupied lots.
https://www.motorcitymapping.org/#t=...1892&x=preset2

[dc_denizen]

I need to visit Detroit. I'm sure downtown and midtown are pretty good and worth seeing - and the renovations recently I've read about on Curbed seem to be taking care of most of the more restoration-worthy large buildings. I could really care less about ugly 1930s tract housing gone to seed and demolished.

Really there are several trends going on in Brooklyn at the same time.

Brooklyn's residential core was, in the late 19th century, an extremely affluent area. Like, one of the the richest in NYC. Churchill's mother was born in Cobble Hill. For about 40 years, the area declined, and now - snap - the affluence has returned in earnest in about 10 short years. Atlantic ave, and areas around it, are unrecognizable even from 15 years ago. This isn't really gentrification, its more restoration of sensible economic geography to an area that's been desirable for its entire history.

Then you have the the building boom in formerly industrial areas. This extends across the entire riverfront, really from Court Square in Queens down to Brooklyn Heights, and through to the Barclays center. Again, not gentrification since it's mostly adding housing to plots which were formerly commercial or industrial or empty.

The only area where gentrification is really happening is Fort Greene/Crown Heights; basically the edges of 'historically black Brooklyn' where connections to the city are decent. But these are fully populated areas, and nothing like Detroit's urban prairies.

[jcchii]

Originally Posted by memph

Which neighbourhoods did you visit? Many of the most heavily abandoned ones are just outside downtown and therefore the ones visitors are probably most likely to see. Most neighbourhoods do have a noticeable amount of vacant homes/lots, but a good chunk of the city seems to have at least 50% occupied lots.
https://www.motorcitymapping.org/#t=...1892&x=preset2

most through the belt to the northwest of downtown (as the city is oriented). Crazy in some spots how you would hit the suburban border and it would just pop into being a regular place.

I thought Corktown was the most infused with actual new business and hipster bars etc. The most menaced I felt was by an unleashed pitbull running around the site of old tiger stadium, now a greenfield park with the old infield still in place and used by youth baseball

[dc_denizen]

amazing...



link

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by memph

Is it? No doubt there is a lot of concentrated poverty in Chicago but is it as bad as in Detroit? (and I wouldn't consider concentrated poverty and entrenched poverty to be exactly the same)

Yes, it is.

Originally Posted by memph

If nothing else, incomes in Chicago are higher than in Detroit.

Yes, because Chicago has a more diverse socioeconomic demographic within its borders. The people who actually live in poverty in Chicago are in much the same boat as the people who actually live in poverty in Detroit. Those poor Chicago residents living on the far south side have far more in common with residents of Detroit's North End than they do with residents on Chicago's Gold Coast.

[MiamiSpartan]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

For the life of me, how could this be terrible for Detroit?

this. Detroit is a dump.