Are slums disappearing from US cities?

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

...except if you turn to the left about 45 degrees on the streetview link you provided there is a perfectly modern, clean, and unremarkable apartment complex a couple yards away from the "dilapidation porn" image you chose there.

Sorry, that is now how slums are defined. Go back to square one.

[DenseCityPlease]

If you have indeed traveled extensively and experienced actual slums in the developing world, then please do elaborate on your assertion that impoverished North American urban areas are in some way worthy of that title...

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

If you have indeed traveled extensively and experienced actual slums in the developing world, then please do elaborate on your assertion that impoverished North American urban areas are in some way worthy of that title...

Sorry, that is not how slums are defined. Go back to square one.

[DenseCityPlease]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Sorry, that is not how slums are defined. Go back to square one.

Oh? Please enlighten the forum then. How are slums defined Xelebes?

[brickell]

I wouldn't call them slums per se, but inner city Miami has plenty of dilapidation

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

Oh? Please enlighten the forum then. How are slums defined Xelebes?

Slums are communities of inadequate housing that can include shantytowns, tent cities and dilapidated ghettoes. They are characterised by poverty and consequent neglect and crime.

Edmonton had a tent city form in 2005 to 2007, where people were dying in the cold. That was a temporary slum that was taken down.

The reserves in the James Bay region are quintessential slums with housing made of scrap materials. That region persists in lack of development and commitment to do so.

[DenseCityPlease]

Dilapidation, poverty, neglect, and crime exist in all countries and all regions of the world. These characteristics do not equate to slum living, and that is your error.

The difference is that in wealthy, developed nations the underlying built environment and infrastructure is highly regulated by government-enforced minimum standards such as building codes and land use restrictions. Inadequate housing cannot legally be constructed, and anything built without permits it is torn down by the government and its residents relocated. As a result, no dwellings are built, rented, or sold without construction documents approved by municipal planning departments. This means floors and ceilings, functioning toilets, running water, proper electrical connections, basic structural integrity, fire safety devices, etc.

This is why, again, slums simply do not exist in North America.

The definition of slums, in a sentence, is unpermitted ad-hoc residential settlements built en masse for (and often by) immigrants to urban areas on land they do not own. Slums are characterized by infrastructural discontinuity with the rest of the city, having no sewage, plumbing, or electrical connections to the larger network except those bootleged by residents on an individual basis. They lack complete oversight in their planning and architecture, and comply with no health and safety regulations. Finally, nearly all slums see their health and safety risks exacerbated by intense overpopulation and overbuilding.

In other words, peeling paint and vacant city lots do not a slum make.

[memph]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

...except if you turn to the left about 45 degrees on the streetview link you provided there is a perfectly modern, clean, and unremarkable apartment complex a couple yards away from the "dilapidation porn" image you chose there.

A single old, unkempt mobile home surrounded by vacant lots and warehouses is not a slum, it's an abandoned neighborhood with a handful of residents.

The other links you provided are even less compelling for your argument. I see a row of mostly intact shotgun houses, probably about 1000 square feet each, with visible air conditioning, satellite TV, recent painting, porches, and sidewalks all fronting a paved street. Clearly these are not wealthy people, but slums? Give me a break...

I think only certain native reserves have all the conditions you describe.

The most crowded census tract in Toronto, and possibly the most crowded of any major Canadian city is in Thorncliffe Park btw (although pretty sure it's still a fair bit better than the likes of Attawapiskat). The apartment buildings there were designed with childless yuppies in mind but are now how to many families with children, much of them immigrants from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Average household size is 3.64

Average # of rooms per unit is 3.5

Average # of bedrooms per unit is 1.5

So 2-3 people per bedroom is the norm, which means sometimes it's less, sometimes it's even more.

62% of households live in "unsuitable housing" based on this definition

Suitable housing

Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and make-up of resident households, according to National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements. Enough bedrooms based on NOS requirements means one bedroom for:

each cohabiting adult couple;
unattached household member 18 years of age and over;
same-sex pair of children under age 18;
and additional boy or girl in the family, unless there are two opposite sex children under 5 years of age, in which case they are expected to share a bedroom.

A household of one individual can occupy a bachelor unit (i.e. a unit with no bedroom).

http://cmhc.beyond2020.com/HiCODefin...able_dwellings

Anyone know how that compares to other American cities?

[harls]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

Dilapidation, poverty, neglect, and crime exist in all countries and all regions of the world.

All regions of the world, but not North America?

[memph]

Other neighbourhoods for comparisons sake

Census Tract 5350528.36, a densely populated neighbourhood of 1990s snout houses in SW Brampton with many basement apartments and many Punjabi immigrants.

Average Household Size: 4.4
Average Number of Rooms: 6.4
Average Number of Bedrooms: >3.26*
% of households in housing deemed "unsuitable" (overcrowded): 24.5%

Households in basement apartments are counted as separate from the household in the main part of the house btw. The average house has 6-7 residents.

St James Town, it has a reputation for being overcrowded and a highrise slum, but the stats are much better than for the CT in Thorncliffe Park and only slightly worse than for the suburban neighbourhood.

Average Household Size: 2.08
Average Number of Rooms: 3.0
Average Number of Bedrooms: 1.4
% of households in housing deemed "unsuitable" (overcrowded): 28.1%

CT 4620364 of Outremont in Montreal. Not that crowded for all the attention it's been getting.

Average Household Size: 2.93
Average Number of Rooms: 5.5
Average Number of Bedrooms: >2.41*
% of households in housing deemed "unsuitable" (overcrowded): 14.7%

CT 4620223.01 of Parc Extension is more crowded and I think the most crowded one in Montreal.

Average Household Size: 2.64
Average Number of Rooms: 3.9
Average Number of Bedrooms: 2.0
% of households in housing deemed "unsuitable" (overcrowded): 25.9%


*(several dwellings described as having 4 bedrooms or move, but it doesn't say how much more)

[DenseCityPlease]

Originally Posted by harls

All regions of the world, but not North America?

Yes certainly in North America. In fact, compared to other wealthy and developed regions these problems are especially visible in North America.

But that has nothing to do with the presence of slums, of which there are none.

[memph]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

Dilapidation, poverty, neglect, and crime exist in all countries and all regions of the world. These characteristics do not equate to slum living, and that is your error.

The difference is that in wealthy, developed nations the underlying built environment and infrastructure is highly regulated by government-enforced minimum standards such as building codes and land use restrictions. Inadequate housing cannot legally be constructed, and anything built without permits it is torn down by the government and its residents relocated. As a result, no dwellings are built, rented, or sold without construction documents approved by municipal planning departments. This means floors and ceilings, functioning toilets, running water, proper electrical connections, basic structural integrity, fire safety devices, etc.

This is why, again, slums simply do not exist in North America.

The definition of slums, in a sentence, is unpermitted ad-hoc residential settlements built en masse for (and often by) immigrants to urban areas on land they do not own. Slums are characterized by infrastructural discontinuity with the rest of the city, having no sewage, plumbing, or electrical connections to the larger network except those bootleged by residents on an individual basis. They lack complete oversight in their planning and architecture, and comply with no health and safety regulations. Finally, nearly all slums see their health and safety risks exacerbated by intense overpopulation and overbuilding.

In other words, peeling paint and vacant city lots do not a slum make.

With the exception of the fact that the Native settlements aren't squatting, and I guess they're more like moving (100 years ago) from living in the bush to small permanent settlements rather than from rural to urban, and stand out relative to the rest of the country rather than the rest of the city for lack of infrastructure and such, there are reserves that do meet your criteria. The situation seems worst in remote northern regions inhabited by people like the Cree and Inuit.

Lack of running water and sanitation is a common problem with just slop buckets and communal outhouses in some communities. In the worst cases, you have families with several children in make-shift single room homes built with press-board and just blankets attached to the walls for insulation and wood burning stoves for heat (fire hazard) and extension cords for electricity (at least as of 2011). Crowding is pretty bad too, some communities average at 6 people per house, and we're talking houses of almost always under 1000 sf. The overcrowding also leads to a much higher prevalence of certain health problems than in Canada as a whole.

[James Bond Agent 007]

I'm sorry, but DenseCityPlease has it correct. Please re-read my posts on the first page to see what I meant when I said "slums." The photo below shows a slum. Dilapidated housing, well below decent living standards. Holes in walls, crumbling roofs, plumbing doesn't work, etc.

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I agree about the "ghetto" thing, but of course that's not what I was talking about. What I was trying to point out was that you rarely, if ever, see stuff like this anymore. According to the caption, this was actually inhabited.

And stuff like the photos below.

Chicago slums in 1954

[tech12]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

The difference is that in wealthy, developed nations the underlying built environment and infrastructure is highly regulated by government-enforced minimum standards such as building codes and land use restrictions. Inadequate housing cannot legally be constructed, and anything built without permits it is torn down by the government and its residents relocated. As a result, no dwellings are built, rented, or sold without construction documents approved by municipal planning departments.

This is generally true, except that you're assuming there are no exceptions to this in North America. You're assuming there's no one bypassing the law and doing things on their own, and that there isn't any corruption in regards to any development anywhere on an entire continent. Housing built to low standards/out of junk and with no permits or not following proper regulations/codes, does exist in North America, as do tent cities of homeless people, though obviously it's not too common, and areas with housing like that are tiny compared to the huge slum districts and poor towns and such in third world nations. So I guess it's almost non-existent in a comparative sense, but it certainly does exist.

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

This means floors and ceilings, functioning toilets, running water, proper electrical connections, basic structural integrity, fire safety devices, etc.

I already posted an example of North American housing with some problems like this on the first page of this thread (though they have floors and ceilings at least, and basic structural integrity for the most part)...and it's in one of the most wealthy cities in North America (San Francisco), so if it's possible here, (in government-provided housing no less) you can be sure there's more sub-standard housing out there in this country. To be fair, the housing I'm referring to in SF wasn't originally built with problems like that, and was at one time nice enough, but things tend to go bad when you dump a bunch of really poor people in the same isolated place and then neglect maintenance for half a century.

PS: I assume that the definition you're using of "North America" is excluding mexico/central america? Because your entire argument (no slums in North America) really goes out the window if we're including them in this debate.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Houston has some slums just a mile from downtown:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7459...TcnuEO0U7A!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7441...DGHuI62hGg!2e0



https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7387...YnyutIQpzg!2e0

What you didn't note was that the first two locations are in an area just east of downtown that is rapidly being cleared for condos, lofts, etc., i.e., rapid gentrification. Not noting this is forgivable if you don't know the city (I'm assuming you don't). In just a few years that area will be completely rebuilt. I'm not familiar with the third location.

[James Bond Agent 007]

And so yet another "slum" bites the dust from a US city (or is about to), thus contributing to the phenomenon I described at the outset.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I'm sorry, but DenseCityPlease has it correct. Please re-read my posts on the first page to see what I meant when I said "slums." The photo below shows a slum. Dilapidated housing, well below decent living standards. Holes in walls, crumbling roofs, plumbing doesn't work, etc.

Then prepare yourselves for the pictures of Kaschechewn and Attawapiskat.



Adrian Wyld - http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...nt_solved.html



Alison Dempster http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbur...998140?cmp=rss



Troy Media http://beaconnews.ca/calgary/2011/12...ousing-crisis/

[James Bond Agent 007]

Are slums disappearing from US cities?

So THERE!

[James Bond Agent 007]

You piqued my curiosity, so I looked up the Pine Ridge/Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota, which is pretty well-known as the poorest Native community in the US. After looking around I found Pine Ridge, SD. The worst street I could find was this. Lots of boarded-up houses, though other streets in the town weren't as bad.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

So THERE!

To the original question, you are right. But not the point you were quoting. That didn't support your point but rather was only a restatement ad absurdum of your point.