3 ms·

>> Detroit was one of the biggest benefactors of the urban renewal... according to the stats- population wise they went from ~1 mil in 2009 to under 700k in 20

>> Detroit was one of the biggest benefactors of the urban renewal... according to the stats- population wise they went from ~1 mil in 2009 to under 700k in 2016. there are a couple of decent 1x1 mile enclaves there - midtown, greektown and nearby sports arenas other than that it sucks. >> Cleveland much nicer than it used to be overall but plenty of areas where you have to watch your back. also, while not as drastic as Detroit, population figures are declining as well. Milwaukee is marginally better than it used to be but barely a poster child for "urban renewal".

freehunter 9y ago
Why do so many people hear "urban renewal" and think it has to impact 100% of every city equally at the same time? That's like judging a town of 500,000 people saying "yeah but NYC is so much more massive, so your town is useless because the population isn't as big". Can we not just agree that Detroit (et al) are better off than they were 20 years ago and that this is a good thing overall? You can nitpick "yeah but it's still not the greatest city in the world" all you want, but you might find that no one else gives a fuck about your definition. Progress is progress no matter how you want to redefine it. >much nicer than it used to be That's quite literally all I'm saying. That's the very definition of "urban renewal". Better than it used to be.
- ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
  >> Progress is progress no matter how you want to redefine it. but them numbers don't lie either :) if some city has it's population go down by 30% I don't think this qualifies as "renewal" even if a couple of areas has gotten better within that same timeframe. gentrification - as in very targeted/high density (in some cases literally a few blocks type deal) move of young-ish professionals into formerly dilapidated areas - it does exist no doubt and in some (very few) cases - like LES in Manhattan - can be a pre-cursor to a more global "renewal". But these types of cases are few and far in between. I guess my point is there hasn't been a significant urban renewal to speak of lately, the kind that can be "over" because it has to kick in first before that can happen.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Is the goal purely population based? You seem to be making the claim that a city is only worth its raw population numbers, which I tried to refute. Detroit used to be a dead city full of slums and ghettos with a population of 1+ million people. Today it's a city with a thriving downtown that's on the economic upswing with 700,000 people. Even if "economic upswing" means people finally have enough money to move to another city. That's still better than it was. Still better than Flint, where they can't. Think of it this way: if I refactor my app so it runs faster and hits more customer use cases, but has 1000 fewer lines of code, would you argue that it's a worse app now? I live in the Midwest and I've seen these cities first-hand over the course of several decades, and honestly your opinion is so dramatically off from the reality of these cities that all I can say is "you're so incredibly wrong" and walk away. You're so incredibly wrong.
    - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
      >> if I refactor my app so it runs faster and hits more customer use cases, but has 1000 fewer lines of code, would you argue that it's a worse app now? That's not apples to apples though. Smaller app == good. City population declining is not necessarily "bad" per se but doesn't scream "urban revival" either. Then there's the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history they went through in 2013. Doesn't really help with painting a picture of a thriving community even if they managed to clean up a few blocks here and there. >> Still better than Flint... you're not setting the bar very high are you :)

freehunter 9y ago

Why do so many people hear "urban renewal" and think it has to impact 100% of every city equally at the same time? That's like judging a town of 500,000 people saying "yeah but NYC is so much more massive, so your town is useless because the population isn't as big". Can we not just agree that Detroit (et al) are better off than they were 20 years ago and that this is a good thing overall? You can nitpick "yeah but it's still not the greatest city in the world" all you want, but you might find that no one else gives a fuck about your definition. Progress is progress no matter how you want to redefine it. >much nicer than it used to be That's quite literally all I'm saying. That's the very definition of "urban renewal". Better than it used to be.

ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
>> Progress is progress no matter how you want to redefine it. but them numbers don't lie either :) if some city has it's population go down by 30% I don't think this qualifies as "renewal" even if a couple of areas has gotten better within that same timeframe. gentrification - as in very targeted/high density (in some cases literally a few blocks type deal) move of young-ish professionals into formerly dilapidated areas - it does exist no doubt and in some (very few) cases - like LES in Manhattan - can be a pre-cursor to a more global "renewal". But these types of cases are few and far in between. I guess my point is there hasn't been a significant urban renewal to speak of lately, the kind that can be "over" because it has to kick in first before that can happen.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Is the goal purely population based? You seem to be making the claim that a city is only worth its raw population numbers, which I tried to refute. Detroit used to be a dead city full of slums and ghettos with a population of 1+ million people. Today it's a city with a thriving downtown that's on the economic upswing with 700,000 people. Even if "economic upswing" means people finally have enough money to move to another city. That's still better than it was. Still better than Flint, where they can't. Think of it this way: if I refactor my app so it runs faster and hits more customer use cases, but has 1000 fewer lines of code, would you argue that it's a worse app now? I live in the Midwest and I've seen these cities first-hand over the course of several decades, and honestly your opinion is so dramatically off from the reality of these cities that all I can say is "you're so incredibly wrong" and walk away. You're so incredibly wrong.
  - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
    >> if I refactor my app so it runs faster and hits more customer use cases, but has 1000 fewer lines of code, would you argue that it's a worse app now? That's not apples to apples though. Smaller app == good. City population declining is not necessarily "bad" per se but doesn't scream "urban revival" either. Then there's the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history they went through in 2013. Doesn't really help with painting a picture of a thriving community even if they managed to clean up a few blocks here and there. >> Still better than Flint... you're not setting the bar very high are you :)