HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:35 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
You don't think the huge numbers of people that were born and raised here that are leaving Chicago for very obvious reasons related to crime and poverty has any relevance in this thread? I mean do you really think that this trend should just be ignored when people are asking "is the trend of Millenials moving to the city ending" and that it's not relevant to point out how many Millenials who started off in the city are leaving?

Oh and by the way, despite whatever negatives come with the dissolution of some of these communities, the dissolution of concentrated segregation and poverty is, in fact, something to be quite gleeful about. I don't understand why anyone is like "YES! I love that there are huge ghettos where impoverished African Americans are totally segregated from society!" like you are. In what world is that a good thing? These persons are not moving because someone is chasing them with a hot iron forcing them to leave, they are leaving for greener pastures elsewhere on their own accord. And I believe they are finding them too whether it's in smaller Midwestern cities or elsewhere in the country. Des Moines, IA, with the 8th highest per capita GDP in the United States, can handle a little dilution of their lily white demographics. It is good for everyone involved for some of the South or West side to relocate there where they will have more opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and live a much more fair existence.

So you can paint it as people being "gleeful blacks are moving out" or you can admit that you have some sort of strange love for the maintenance of legacy segregation by race and income. My personal opinion is that any community that is nearly 100% segregated by race and poverty is inherently bad for everyone involved no matter what kind of "support structures" or whatnot the community has evolved to get by. We, as a society, can keep giving these communities fish (i.e. "support structures" and hot air from patronizing politicians who do nothing to actually help) and allow the status quo or entrenched poverty to continue, or we can teach them how to fish and help break the cycle. Personally I would much rather see the people on Chicago's South and West sides break out and be able to join mainstream American society with all it's opportunity. That will never happen as long as we allow the status quo to continue to perpetuity.
A) "I don't understand why anyone is like "YES! I love that there are huge ghettos where impoverished African Americans are totally segregated from society!" like you are."

no one said this

B) "It is good for everyone involved for some of the South or West side to relocate there where they will have more opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and live a much more fair existence. "

you arent actually excited about this because of any idealistic notions of people "pulling themselves up by their boostraps" because theyre leaving violent neighborhoods or being pushed to other low income areas (as if you care whats happening in Des Moines, but nice pep talk Ronald). youre excited because you have substantial real estate holdings in these areas and stand to profit mightly from the demographic shift.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:36 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
That was no perception, it was reality. Yes, NYC/ Manhattan always had extravagant wealth (personified by Trump among others) but step outside of that bubble and things were pretty rough..up until about 20-25 years ago where there become a renewed interest in urban living. I remember NY back then. Stripped down cars and bombed out buildings all over the place. I went back to some of these areas decades later and you would have to make millions to live there.
But the point Crawford is making (I think) is it's a difference of degree, not kind.

The first inklings of gentrification occurred way back in the 1960s with the boomers - hell, arguably the Beat Generation. I'm talking about areas like Soho and Greenwich Village in NYC, Haight-Ashbury and The Castro in San Francisco, etc. The grouping was pretty small in the 1960s, not enough to halt decline in any city, but it stabilized individual neighborhoods.

By the 1980s, things had begun to change already, NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Portland had all begun growing again. New immigrants were partially responsible, as was the annexation of some land in the Pacific Northwest, but these were also the traditional cities that began the turnaround from the "urban crisis" the fastest.

Every decade since then, another few major cities - like Denver, DC, and Philly - get added to the list. But fundamentally what we've seen is just the dynamic which was initially confined to a handful of neighborhoods, and then a handful of cities, spread across the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:43 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
But the point Crawford is making (I think) is it's a difference of degree, not kind.
Yes. I could pull up NYT articles from, say 1980, with New Yorkers swearing that gentrification was out of control and all the poor were doomed. It's just that the core zone of affluence has massively expanded since then.

The "why did they stay with all the problems" is a separate conversation. The fact is that there were many upper income households in the largest U.S. cities in the 60's, 70's and 80's (and I would wager, in some cases, a higher proportion of metropolitan wealth was in the core 40 years ago than today).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:47 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yes. I could pull up NYT articles from, say 1980, with New Yorkers swearing that gentrification was out of control and all the poor were doomed. It's just that the core zone of affluence has expanded.

The discussion about crime/chaos/urban decline is essentially irrelevant. The why doesn't matter. The fact is that there were many upper income households in the largest U.S. cities in the 60's, 70's and 80's (and I would wager, in some cases, a higher proportion of metropolitan wealth was in the core 40 years ago than today).
also, crazy-ass violent crime and chaos can simultaneously co-exist in a city that's also going through rapid gentrification/demographic changes as well.

just look at chicago 2018.

the human mind's natural inclination towards binary thinking often clouds us into believing that things can only be one way or the other, when they're often both.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:47 PM
Kenmore Kenmore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Uptown
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
A) "I don't understand why anyone is like "YES! I love that there are huge ghettos where impoverished African Americans are totally segregated from society!" like you are."

no one said this

B) "It is good for everyone involved for some of the South or West side to relocate there where they will have more opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and live a much more fair existence. "

you arent actually excited about this because of any idealistic notions of people "pulling themselves up by their boostraps" because theyre leaving violent neighborhoods or being pushed to other low income areas (as if you care whats happening in Des Moines, but nice pep talk Ronald). youre excited because you have substantial real estate holdings in these areas and stand to profit mightly from the demographic shift.
profiteering with libertarian veneer
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 5:10 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
@ eschaton: That makes sense. Gentrification went from counter-culture to mainstream.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yes. I could pull up NYT articles from, say 1980, with New Yorkers swearing that gentrification was out of control and all the poor were doomed. It's just that the core zone of affluence has massively expanded since then.

The "why did they stay with all the problems" is a separate conversation. The fact is that there were many upper income households in the largest U.S. cities in the 60's, 70's and 80's (and I would wager, in some cases, a higher proportion of metropolitan wealth was in the core 40 years ago than today).
You're fixated on the wealth. Third world countries have higher concentrations of wealth in their cities as well...plus millions of people shitting in a ditch. New York and other cities might have never missed a beat with the rich folks but they were also a lot poorer too. Look at photos of Manhattan of the 70's and 80's and compare them today. The differences are striking. I remember seeing the limousines and exotic cars all over the Wall Street area as a kid but walk over a few blocks and you'd find stripped cars on blocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 5:23 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Third world countries have higher concentrations of wealth in their cities as well...plus millions of people shitting in a ditch. New York and other cities might have never missed a beat with the rich folks but they were also a lot poorer too. Look at photos of Manhattan of the 70's and 80's and compare them today. The differences are striking. I remember seeing the limousines and exotic cars all over the Wall Street area as a kid but walk over a few blocks and you'd find stripped cars on blocks.
In a lot of ways, what's happening in the U.S. is just that the radical diversion from the global norm is ending. If you look virtually everywhere in the world, you'll see there isn't a strong connection between urbanity and wealth. City centers have a mixture of poor and rich areas, as do outlying areas. The U.S. diverged from this norm for about two generations, but is now moving back to the global mean.

It is interesting to note, however, that even in high-income desirable core urban areas in Europe there typically aren't a lot of families with children. Yes, low birth rates in Europe among the native-born plays a role, but it's still the case even taking this into account - despite things like local school quality typically not playing a role in those nations. Historic demographic studies have found that prior to modern sanitation, every major city had a higher death rate than birth rate, with population growth only possible via continually escalating migration from the fecund rural hinterlands. Thus cities may just be "demographic sinks" due to a quirk of human psychology.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:25 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In a lot of ways, what's happening in the U.S. is just that the radical diversion from the global norm is ending. If you look virtually everywhere in the world, you'll see there isn't a strong connection between urbanity and wealth. City centers have a mixture of poor and rich areas, as do outlying areas. The U.S. diverged from this norm for about two generations, but is now moving back to the global mean.

It is interesting to note, however, that even in high-income desirable core urban areas in Europe there typically aren't a lot of families with children. Yes, low birth rates in Europe among the native-born plays a role, but it's still the case even taking this into account - despite things like local school quality typically not playing a role in those nations. Historic demographic studies have found that prior to modern sanitation, every major city had a higher death rate than birth rate, with population growth only possible via continually escalating migration from the fecund rural hinterlands. Thus cities may just be "demographic sinks" due to a quirk of human psychology.

I wish I could "like" this comment. Very informative.

Up until relatively recently, cities were pretty much the only option. Either than or rural areas. For some reason, Europe never bought on the Levittown sprawlburbs that we did, post war rebuilding, land constraints, etc...not sure. Their cities certainly grew outward, and poorer and yes, our cities are resembling theirs in that regard; suburbs are lower income with city centers for upper middle class to wealthy. Here in Houston, there is a ring of poverty in between the "Inner Loop" and the stable, pricier exurbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 5:42 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
For some reason, Europe never bought on the Levittown sprawlburbs that we did
And thank god for that. Though there is still too much blah suburbia even here in the UK.

The main difference is that Europe had been fully settled before industrialization, and pre-Industrial settlements all grew rapidly during this period, but were many. Sure some cities became major metropolises, but in France or Germany or Italy one doesn’t need to go far to reach a town with a real, developed urban core. The population expansion was thus diffused among many, many locales as opposed to continued outward expansion of a handful of major cities.

The US, on the other hand, was first settled during industrialization, at least outside of the Northeast coast. Most of its small towns and cities never matured before the industrial economy gave way to the information economy and the draw of the real major cities became stronger. That’s why the Midwest is full of towns that are basically disappearing. And in places like Texas, everyone is in a sprawlburb of a major city, between which there is essentially nothing.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov

Last edited by 10023; Jun 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 10:53 AM
pico44's Avatar
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
A) "I don't understand why anyone is like "YES! I love that there are huge ghettos where impoverished African Americans are totally segregated from society!" like you are."

no one said this

B) "It is good for everyone involved for some of the South or West side to relocate there where they will have more opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and live a much more fair existence. "

you arent actually excited about this because of any idealistic notions of people "pulling themselves up by their boostraps" because theyre leaving violent neighborhoods or being pushed to other low income areas (as if you care whats happening in Des Moines, but nice pep talk Ronald). youre excited because you have substantial real estate holdings in these areas and stand to profit mightly from the demographic shift.

Yeah, it's pretty gross. "Greener pastures" is obviously a euphemism for "anywhere but here". Lots of poor people in New York "escaped" to places like Hempstead, Newburgh and Poughkeepsie. I don't think it worked out for them very well. And it didn't work out for Poughkeepsie either. Whereas the people I meet when I work in the Bronx seem to be doing very well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 3:09 PM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
Well, the labels make sense. Each generation in the US during the 20th century has been generally distinct from one other based on the historical events they have been through. Even the young Baby Boomers would not be similar to the young Millienials right now.
I don't think they make much sense. Of course people born in 1946 will have different tastes and experiences than people born in 1996, but is there really much difference between somebody born in 1979 and somebody born in 1980? Why have some arbitrary year as a cut off point between these different generational labels?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 4:02 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
As with any topic, reality has gray areas. Defined boundaries are only for statistical purposes etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:59 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.