Even the dead are fleeing Detroit

[dazzleman]

I hope you're right that the cities will come back at some point, but I'm not sure why you believe that. Living conditions in almost every American city have been worsening for decades. Detroit peaked at nearly 2 million... in 1950?

Not true. I would say the majority of American cities are becoming more liveable. Look at Philadelphia and Baltimore as prime examples. Both cities have a long way to go, but the residential market is booming.

Then explain "white flight."

I already did. White flight doesn't exist in the cities anymore, it's black flight.

Whites are going back in and gentrifying certain neighborhoods.  As a result, the neighborhoods become more expensive, driving out longer-term residents of limited economic means who didn't own their homes, and can't afford the increased rents.

Is that what you mean by black flight?

[Virginian87]

I hope you're right that the cities will come back at some point, but I'm not sure why you believe that. Living conditions in almost every American city have been worsening for decades. Detroit peaked at nearly 2 million... in 1950?

Not true. I would say the majority of American cities are becoming more liveable. Look at Philadelphia and Baltimore as prime examples. Both cities have a long way to go, but the residential market is booming.

Then explain "white flight."

I already did. White flight doesn't exist in the cities anymore, it's black flight.

Whites are going back in and gentrifying certain neighborhoods.  As a result, the neighborhoods become more expensive, driving out longer-term residents of limited economic means who didn't own their homes, and can't afford the increased rents.

Is that what you mean by black flight?

Black flight is what's happening in Prince George's County, Maryland.  The reverse of white flight is that whites and affluent people of all races are moving back in and have gentrified certain neighborhoods, like much of Northwest Washington, D.C. and the Carytown neighborhood in Richmond.

[danwxman]

I hope you're right that the cities will come back at some point, but I'm not sure why you believe that. Living conditions in almost every American city have been worsening for decades. Detroit peaked at nearly 2 million... in 1950?

Not true. I would say the majority of American cities are becoming more liveable. Look at Philadelphia and Baltimore as prime examples. Both cities have a long way to go, but the residential market is booming.

Then explain "white flight."

I already did. White flight doesn't exist in the cities anymore, it's black flight.

Whites are going back in and gentrifying certain neighborhoods.  As a result, the neighborhoods become more expensive, driving out longer-term residents of limited economic means who didn't own their homes, and can't afford the increased rents.

Is that what you mean by black flight?

It can be that, but I am more referring to blacks leaving their city neighborhoods for the suburbs, leaving behind abondoned houses, buildings and businesses. For the most part, the whites have already left these neighborhoods...now the blacks are leaving. Of course in many cases as you point out, whites are moving back in.

[danwxman]

I hope you're right that the cities will come back at some point, but I'm not sure why you believe that. Living conditions in almost every American city have been worsening for decades. Detroit peaked at nearly 2 million... in 1950?

Not true. I would say the majority of American cities are becoming more liveable. Look at Philadelphia and Baltimore as prime examples. Both cities have a long way to go, but the residential market is booming.

Then explain "white flight."

I already did. White flight doesn't exist in the cities anymore, it's black flight.

Umm...?

It's mostly an east coast thing.

[Cashcow]

I hope you're right that the cities will come back at some point, but I'm not sure why you believe that. Living conditions in almost every American city have been worsening for decades. Detroit peaked at nearly 2 million... in 1950?

Not true. I would say the majority of American cities are becoming more liveable. Look at Philadelphia and Baltimore as prime examples. Both cities have a long way to go, but the residential market is booming.

Then explain "white flight."

I already did. White flight doesn't exist in the cities anymore, it's black flight.

Umm...?

It's mostly an east coast thing.

Not really. Blacks are populating suburbs throughout much of the midwest and some of the Pacific states.

[A18]

Gentrification is definitely a great thing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gentrification is definitely a great thing.

No, no it isn't. It just pushes the problem of inner city poverty further out; if anything it can make the problem worse as the displaced population is further away from services than they were before. It can also create a lot of serious other problems and almost always makes whatever tensions the area has (race, religion, class etc) worse.

[dazzleman]

Gentrification is definitely a great thing.

No, no it isn't. It just pushes the problem of inner city poverty further out; if anything it can make the problem worse as the displaced population is further away from services than they were before. It can also create a lot of serious other problems and almost always makes whatever tensions the area has (race, religion, class etc) worse.

I think it's more fair to say that gentrification has its benefits and costs, and produces winners and losers.

If a person owned his home in a run-down neighborhood, gentrification can help him make a killing on it, even if it is a run-down shack.  On the other hand, gentrification is a terrible thing for renters, because it prices them out of the neighborhood in which they have lived, unless there are some controls on their rent (and I don't believe in rent control).

On the other hand, gentrification has made large improvements to neighborhoods that were previously slums overtaken with crime.  I find it hard to argue that neighborhoods that are like that should stay that way.

I'm not saying that every neighborhood overtaken by gentrification was previously a crime-ridden slum.  Some were simply unfashionable working class neighborhoods that suddenly became "hot" because of their location.

So I don't think gentrification is either all good or all bad.  To some, the way in which in happens, and how extreme it is, determines whether it leans good or bad.  It does lay bare the problem of affordable housing in some reasonable proximity to urban areas for people who are on moderate incomes.  This is a serious problem that we haven't really been able to solve.  This issue is one reason I encourage people of moderate means to own their own homes, even if they are modest homes.  Ownership gives a person a certain level of control that they never had as a renter.

In the end, it matters not whether gentrification is good or bad, because it really can't be controlled and will happen anyway.  Even if we deem it to be a good thing, we have to find a good way to cope with the negative side effects of it on certain segments of the population.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think it's more fair to say that gentrification has its benefits and costs, and produces winners and losers.

True but more losers than winners and more costs than benefits

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. And what do most people in inner city areas do? Rent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the excuseable sort of gentrification... if the poor bastards stuck in the slum don't just end up living in a similer sort of dump but further away from services.
Personally I prefer regeneration in those areas to gentrification anyway; gentrification only ever deals with pockets in such areas. The problems remain unsolved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sort of gentrification pisses me off a lot

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gentrification can be controlled if it isn't encouraged by local government. It almost always is...

[dazzleman]

That's the excuseable sort of gentrification... if the poor bastards stuck in the slum don't just end up living in a similer sort of dump but further away from services.
Personally I prefer regeneration in those areas to gentrification anyway; gentrification only ever deals with pockets in such areas. The problems remain unsolved.

It's true that improving one neighborhood often means moving the problem to another neighborhood.  That occurs in cases where the people are the problem, and in chronically bad neighborhoods, the people are often the problem.

I don't know what you mean by "regeneration," but if a neighborhood is dominated by crack-addicted welfare mothers, it isn't going to improve as long as people like that live there in certain numbers.  The only way to improve the neighborhood is to bring in better people; there's no way around it.  And this means displacing the trash that was there previously.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that gentrifying neighborhoods were previously inhabited solely by "trash" but it's unrealistic not to acknowledge that certain neighborhoods are largely inhabited by people who are very trashy, and in close proximity to whom decent people don't want to live.  You don't seem to acknowledge this reality in your post.  The problems remain unsolved because the people that are causing the problems continue to cause them, and the only way to solve this type of problem is to isolate people like that to areas where they can do the least damage.  Many of these people are not going to change, and for the problems that you are talking about to be solved, people have to change.  It's not about buildings or external stimulus; the problem is internal with people like this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's true that improving one neighborhood often means moving the problem to another neighborhood.  That occurs in cases where the people are the problem, and in chronically bad neighborhoods, the people are often the problem.

The people are only ever the problem because the environment that they grew up in and live in is so bad (a lot of people make their own problems worse but then they really *don't* know any better in a lot of cases). Dumping them somewhere else exports the problem rather than deals with it. It's all cycles and stuff really.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's use another phrase; "slum clearances*". Flattening every f***ing tower block in the Bronx would be an example; if you make people grow up in things like that, most of them will not be brilliant human beings.

*And yes, it's well known that clearing out and demolishing the slums does work up to a point

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe actually trying to do something about the drug problem and why there is a drug problem would be a start? Not that that's going to happen

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No that isn't true. How exactly does that help matters? The problem just ends up moving around rather than getting fixed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where to? Gas chambers? They are people too, no matter how messed up and unpleasent they often are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but the question should be why are they like that? Bring those same people up in a different environment and 9 times out of 10 they won't be anything like that. It's just silly to assume otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Understandably so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I think I do

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm... however tempting it is to jail the people that built the Projects, destroyed the economies of inner city areas, yadda, yadda, yadda it's not going to happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And those people are not going to change if they are just dumped someplace else (and even further away from services) and likely get messed up even more in the process, are they?
The causes of the problem of inner city decline and ghettoisation do need to be solved, but there is no political will to do so at the moment (because it can't be solved by token "reforms" or soundbites).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a primary cause? Rubbish. Hey here's an experiment, let's take 100 babies who would have grown up in some inner city f*** hole and swap them with 100 babies that would have grown up in a nice suburb somewhere. Let's see what happens.

[dazzleman]

As a primary cause? Rubbish. Hey here's an experiment, let's take 100 babies who would have grown up in some inner city f*** hole and swap them with 100 babies that would have grown up in a nice suburb somewhere. Let's see what happens.

The problem with your little example is that with the parents these babies have, the place they live in couldn't possibly be a nice suburb.

I know what you are saying, but still, the people are the problem.  You take inner city people and put them somewhere else, and they will simply recreate the conditions they had before.  A nice suburb wouldn't stay nice for very long with these types of people living in them.

Now, if you're going to argue that these kids would be better off removed from the custody of these awful parents, and put with DIFFERENT PARENTS in a nice suburb, then I'd agree with you.

I don't agree with you that slum clearance works.  It only brings more slums, because people create slums.  The awful projects in the Bronx were brought about by slum clearance of previous tenement buildings.  Those buildings were considered awful, so they were knocked down, and "higher quality housing" (the projects) were built in their place.  Well, the people destroyed the projects.  I agree that the projects were very poorly conceived, but I think these people will destroy whatever they are given.

The key is to minimize this segment of the population, by a number of means.  Liberal policies seemed to have as their goal the maximization of the dysfunctional, deficit portion of the population.  Our welfare policies have encouraged irresponsible child-bearing, and that has to stop, though welfare reform was a big step in that direction. 

I support making available alternatives to failing public schools to allow those in urban areas who are interested in their children's education to escape bad schools, and provide their children an education.  Liberals oppose this, of course, but the first step is to provide an escape hatch to people living in these awful areas, if they choose to avail themselves of it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem with your little example is that with the parents these babies have, the place they live in couldn't possibly be a nice suburb.

I know what you are saying, but still, the people are the problem.  You take inner city people and put them somewhere else, and they will simply recreate the conditions they had before.  A nice suburb wouldn't stay nice for very long with these types of people living in them.

Now, if you're going to argue that these kids would be better off removed from the custody of these awful parents, and put with DIFFERENT PARENTS in a nice suburb, then I'd agree with you.

You seem to have misinterpreted me; the idea was to just take 100 babies who would have lived in some inner city f*** hole and swap them with babies would would have lived in some nice suburb and see how both sets grow up etc. Obviously such an experiment won't ever happen because snatching someone's baby for a social experiment is a horrific thing to do, but what the end result would be seems fairly obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does if the people cleared out of the slums aren't given new slums to live in... which is the problem because (as I've said before) there doesn't seem to be any political will to do otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only a small but VERY visable minority. Why punish the majority? Here's an idea; tie living in a new house to trying to get a job if possible. And tie misbehavior to withdrawal of certain services with the promise of giving them back if the misbehavior stops. The final punishment would be eviction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically they made people swap living in slum type I for living in slum type II... I've said it before and I'll say it again; U.S urban policy has been an immense failure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True but then how can you expect people to live in those things? There's been some very interesting studies indicating that there is a *very* strong link between living in high rise buildings and anti-social behavior. Quite scary really.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know whether that's the goal... but it has often worked out that way. Certainly the implimention of such policies by certain race-baiting crooked scumbags do seem to have that as the goal...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Best thing to do with welfare is to scrap it and work out a new system that doesn't perpetuate poverty, doesn't reek of stigma (actually this is a serious problem with the current system. People on welfare currently have no self respect because being on welfare sort of makes them (and others) feel that they are A Leech On Society, which means they don't have any self respect (and often no respect for others either) and this leads to all kinds of problems like drug abuse and anti-social behavior. Stigma like that might be one of the major causes of the current problems. Funny that liberal groups and the sort of scumbag local politician you get in those areas don't seem to want to get rid of that stigma isn't it?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Serious question; what's the funding like for an average public school in a run down part of (say) New York and what is the money spent on?

[dazzleman]

You seem to have misinterpreted me; the idea was to just take 100 babies who would have lived in some inner city f*** hole and swap them with babies would would have lived in some nice suburb and see how both sets grow up etc. Obviously such an experiment won't ever happen because snatching someone's baby for a social experiment is a horrific thing to do, but what the end result would be seems fairly obvious.

But what's your point?  That environment matters?  We know that, but the issue is who creates the environment.  My argument is that people, not buildings, create the environment.  The poor quality of the buildings in slum areas results from the people who live there.

It does if the people cleared out of the slums aren't given new slums to live in... which is the problem because (as I've said before) there doesn't seem to be any political will to do otherwise.

Do you think slum clearance has ever taken place with the intention to create more slums?  The problem is that the people turn whatever they are given and turn it into a slum.  If you gave them a penthouse apartment on Park Avenue, they'd turn it into a slum.

Only a small but VERY visable minority. Why punish the majority? Here's an idea; tie living in a new house to trying to get a job if possible. And tie misbehavior to withdrawal of certain services with the promise of giving them back if the misbehavior stops. The final punishment would be eviction.

Although I don't agree with you that it's a very small minority causing the problem (I think it's a much larger minority, or even a majority in some cases), you make a good point.  Liberal social policy has forced people in these situations to the lowest common denominator by not setting any penalties for bad behavior, and in fact rewarding it.  And people who are unable to buy their way out of it are forced to endure it, and brought as low as those that surround them.  This is essentially the same argument I make in support an escape hatch from public schools in these areas.  But liberals vociferously oppose this.  Until liberals stop blocking potential solutions that have not been tried, rather than advocating what they have forced down our throats which has FAILED MISERABLY, they can't expect the rest of us to be willing to listen to them.

Basically they made people swap living in slum type I for living in slum type II... I've said it before and I'll say it again; U.S urban policy has been an immense failure.

I certainly agree that urban policy has been an immense failure.  And I think most housing projects, especially those in big cities, are very ill-conceived.  But a big part of the problem was the administration of these projects, not just the buildings.  When any type of horrible behavior in the projects received protected status from the liberals because the poor are by definition victims who can't be held responsible for their bad behavior, the projects were doomed.  Even if they weren't dreadful high-rise buildings, the results would be the same.  There are projects in the city next to mine, that are nice, garden style places.  No big high rises.  Still, they are horrible, infested with drugs and violence.  With different people living there, they could be quite nice.  The root of the problem is the people and the way we have chosen to deal with these types of people, not the buildings, bad as many of those projects are.

True but then how can you expect people to live in those things? There's been some very interesting studies indicating that there is a *very* strong link between living in high rise buildings and anti-social behavior. Quite scary really.

What if it's a luxury high-rise?  I don't personally like high-rise living, and I agree the projects are horribly designed.  But high-rise doesn't have to be bad, if you don't have "neighbors" who keep vandalizing the elevators, urinating in the hallways, shooting up drugs in the lobby, etc.  Again, the primary problem is the people.  Living any place with those types of people would be hell on earth, highrise or not.

I agree with much of the rest of what you said.

In response to your question, I will use Connecticut as an example, since I know it better than New York at this point.

Hartford, a typical poor district loaded with kids from dysfunctional homes where the parents are not interested in education for their kids, spends more than the town of Greenwich, one of the wealthiest towns in the state, per student on education.  This is due to massive state subsidies to poor districts.  I can't give you a breakdown on how it's spent, but I think it's fair to say the district is not being shortchanged for funding.

Still, the results are horrible.  Where parents aren't interested in education, you will not have good schools, no matter how much money is spent.  It's really that simple.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But what's your point?  That environment matters?  We know that, but the issue is who creates the environment.  My argument is that people, not buildings, create the environment.  The poor quality of the buildings in slum areas results from the people who live there.

That the difference occurs early on

Do you think slum clearance has ever taken place with the intention to create more slums?

Oh yes. But out of the way and less obviously slum looking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm tempted to say that would be an improvement

Although I don't agree with you that it's a very small minority causing the problem (I think it's a much larger minority, or even a majority in some cases),

Well it does vary from place to place

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. Most of the time the people that devise such policies don't know much about the areas they inflict with it

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Highlighted the very important bit

What if it's a luxury high-rise?

Should have specified; high rise public housing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but the arguement of those studies is that for some reason (and they disagree why) living in highrises makes people more likely to be complete bastards and ruin everyone elses lives. More research should be done into that actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a sneaking suspicision that a very high amount will be wasted on administration/graft/etc... rather than on things like up to date books. That's usually the way with education funding sadly

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True most of the time. Which is why it's very important to make them interested in education.

[dazzleman]

I have a sneaking suspicision that a very high amount will be wasted on administration/graft/etc... rather than on things like up to date books. That's usually the way with education funding sadly

I'm sure you're right, but the problem is that while this type of thing would not be tolerated in a suburban area where parents are interested in education, it is tolerated in urban areas because nobody really cares.

I would love to get more parents interested in their children's education, and if you have any ideas to do that, I'd love to hear it.  It is very hard to change what people are interested in, and what they value.  And education is not valued in urban areas.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but I get sick and tired of the implication from standard liberals (which you clearly are not) that people like me are to blame for the situation, simply because we seek to isolate ourselves from the effects of this situation.  And the best part is, these liberals are hypocrites because most of them are just as isolated from it as I am.