Largest cities in the USA 2030.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by CincyBearcats

The wealthy neighborhoods are few and far between in Detroit.

No they're not. They're just concentrated along the periphery of the city. The massive section of the city anchored by the wealthy enclaves of Rosedale Park on the the west and Palmer Woods on the east is solidly middle-class. We're talking about an area of 20+ sq. mi. with a population north of 150,000 and a median income in the $40,000+ range. These are people who live in large single-family homes on relatively large lots with trees, grass, etc.

[CincyBearcats]

Originally Posted by hudkina

No they're not. They're just concentrated along the periphery of the city. The massive section of the city anchored by the wealthy enclaves of Rosedale Park on the the west and Palmer Woods on the east is solidly middle-class. We're talking about an area of 20+ sq. mi. with a population north of 150,000 and a median income in the $40,000+ range. These are people who live in large single-family homes on relatively large lots with trees, grass,
etc.

You obviously want to ignore what I am saying, so be it. Your exact words here, "periphery" which leaves a large portion of the city with the urban field aspect (land in and around downtown, Midtown). They are still few and far between when you look at a majority of the city no matter how much you want to sugarcoat it. My whole point was a large majority of Detroit is vacant or has the wood-framed houses that have a few occupants here and there, then there is large areas of just grassland and fields. It doesn't take much to head in either direction off of Woodward a few blocks to see this.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by CincyBearcats

You obviously want to ignore what I am saying, so be it. Your exact words here, "periphery" which leaves a large portion of the city with the urban field aspect (land in and around downtown, Midtown). They are still few and far between when you look at a majority of the city no matter how much you want to sugarcoat it. My whole point was a large majority of Detroit is vacant or has the wood-framed houses that have a few occupants here and there, then there is large areas of just grassland and fields. It doesn't take much to head in either direction off of Woodward a few blocks to see this.

Obviously at least half the city's residential must be vacant, since the population has been cut in half. It's easy to make that assumption and it should be true, but I usually wouldn't argue with someone who lives there and knows the city well.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by CincyBearcats

You obviously want to ignore what I am saying, so be it.

I'm not ignoring what you're saying. You're essentially trying to say that the average Detroit neighborhood is dominated by dilapidated housing and vacant land. You overestimate just how much of the city looks that way.

Your exact words here, "periphery" which leaves a large portion of the city with the urban field aspect (land in and around downtown, Midtown).

No I said the wealthy neighborhoods are located along the periphery. That leaves a large portion of the city with working-class/poor areas. Yes, a significant chunk of the city is dilapidated, but they are certainly nowhere near a majority.

My whole point was a large majority of Detroit is vacant or has the wood-framed houses that have a few occupants here and there, then there is large areas of just grassland and fields. It doesn't take much to head in either direction off of Woodward a few blocks to see this.

But your point doesn't necessarily mesh with reality. Are there neighborhoods in Detroit that match your description? Sure. But they are hardly the majority. Just look at Google Maps. It's not that hard to find the stable/middle-class neighborhoods.

[CincyBearcats]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

Obviously at least half the city's residential must be vacant, since the population has been cut in half. It's easy to make that assumption and it should be true, but I usually wouldn't argue with someone who lives there and knows the city well.

"Obviously!"

Wow, thanks for pointing out the obvious, I'm sure anyone could have made that point evident. Weren't you the one who started arguing with me before for the sake of arguing? Leave it to a private message if you want to start your little internet fights. I am actually trying to have a real conversation, unlike you, I don't plan to turn things into a big debate.

[CincyBearcats]

Originally Posted by hudkina

I'm not ignoring what you're saying. You're essentially trying to say that the average Detroit neighborhood is dominated by dilapidated housing and vacant land. You overestimate just how much of the city looks that way.



No I said the wealthy neighborhoods are located along the periphery. That leaves a large portion of the city with working-class/poor areas. Yes, a significant chunk of the city is dilapidated, but they are certainly nowhere near a majority.



But your point doesn't necessarily mesh with reality. Are there neighborhoods in Detroit that match your description? Sure. But they are hardly the majority. Just look at Google Maps. It's not that hard to find the stable/middle-class neighborhoods.

I see what you're saying, and I am not trying to make the point that Detroit is without any middle and upper class neighborhoods no matter how much you are trying to make it sound like that's what I am trying to make a point of. The point I am trying to make from the very beginning was Detroit has more troubled spots than it does good. I don't need to look at google maps to see this, I have been to Detroit plenty of times. The neighborhoods you are talking about are the ones bordering the inner suburbs. I am talking about a vast part of the city around the CBD and Midtown (like I have stated before) that do not give Detroit the best image, and you must go through these places to get to the most visited sections of the city. In essence giving the city a negative image. This big area of the city that I am talking about, and have been, is reality.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by CincyBearcats

"Obviously!"

Wow, thanks for pointing out the obvious, I'm sure anyone could have made that point evident. Weren't you the one who started arguing with me before for the sake of arguing? Leave it to a private message if you want to start your little internet fights. I am actually trying to have a real conversation, unlike you, I don't plan to turn things into a big debate.

I was agreeing with you, so the emotional and aggressive reply was really unnecessary. I have no idea who you are and don't recall any interaction with you, but then again you sound like you take this very seriously if you're harboring some animosity towards me.

Your "real conversation" with hudkina sounds very much like an argument. I was just saying that, although I agree with you, I usually try not to argue specifics about a city with someone who lives there.

I will continue to comment where I see fit until a moderator tells me differently, thank you.

[hudkina]

22% of the city's residential housing was vacant in 2010. That obviously doesn't include vacant land but it's certainly not half the city. To give you a comparison, 14% of the housing in Miami was vacant in 2010, 18% of Atlanta was vacant, 19% of St. Louis, 16% of Baltimore, 19% of Cleveland, 12% of Houston, 13% of Chicago, 13% of Las Vegas, and so on. While Detroit obviously has a high rate, it's not that far off from the norm among some major cities.

[cwilson758]

this thread is a lot of "blah, blah, blah"

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by cwilson758

this thread is a lot of "blah, blah, blah"

Thanks for adding to it.

[cwilson758]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

Thanks for adding to it.

You are welcome!

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Bay2Bay

What about Hooterville and Pixley?

They are expected to have a combined population of 22 million in 2030!

[ein okc!]

Originally Posted by Downtown Indy

#1 NYC (No Dip)
#2 Houston (LA fails and Houston is growing much faster than it and not being overrun by Illegals
#3 Los Angeles
#4 Chicago (Could be 5th if the taxes don't go down and Illinois loses more businesses)
#5 Pheonix
#6 Philly
#7 San Diego
#8 Dallas
#9 San Antonio
#10 Indianapolis (Fastest growing region in the Midwest with Growth expected to skyrocket after the Super Bowl this Febuary 5th, 2012)

Honorable Mention
#11 San Jose
#12 Jacksonville (It is not bigger than Indy regardless what the Census says half the city isn't even developed hello Overannexing)
#13 San Fransico
#14 Fort Worth
#15 Charlotte

Do you agree with this list or do you have another list or idea feel free to share them curious what people think.

this is hilarious. since when did rush meddle in urban affairs?

[Otto Racecar]

Originally Posted by ein okc!

this is hilarious. since when did rush meddle in urban affairs?

No kidding! Also I find it interesting that indy is included in the top ten and columbus isn't on the list if this is the criteria being used.Yes indy's metro grew at a rate of 15.2 compared to columbus's 13.9 but if we are solely looking at largest cities which I believe we are, the city of columbus grew at a rate of 10.6 percent compared to indy's 6.1.Columbus's metro is also larger in population and is estimated to be over 2 million currently.That being said who knows whats going to happen in 2030.Columbus could lose all of its population for all I know. Also hosting a super bowl will have absolutely no impact in large amounts of people moving to indianapolis in my opinion.

[CincyBearcats]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

I was agreeing with you, so the emotional and aggressive reply was really unnecessary. I have no idea who you are and don't recall any interaction with you, but then again you sound like you take this very seriously if you're harboring some animosity towards me.

Your "real conversation" with hudkina sounds very much like an argument. I was just saying that, although I agree with you, I usually try not to argue specifics about a city with someone who lives there.

I will continue to comment where I see fit until a moderator tells me differently, thank you.

How were you agreeing with me? You had quite a few undertones in your post that say otherwise. I just remember your little annoying "obviously" comment from a few weeks ago, I am sure you remember, so no need to play it off. An internet forum has no affect on my daily life, as I am sure it doesn't on yours, so no need to throw that insinuation out there. I forgot all about this thread until yesterday when I was at the Reds/Tigers game and met a lot of ex-Detroiters living here in Cincinnati and started talking about the issues the city is facing. I see how this conversation had no point to you at all until you came in with your smart little comment. It's just the little snide comment you threw out there.

No matter how you want to paint it, it was a conversation. I am sorry, when could you tell emotion over an internet forum? Interesting... My discussion, or whatever you want to call it, was just pointing out the original topics I was discussing just one page back. Someone put Detroit in the same sentence as Baltimore and Philly, and I just think Detroit's problems far exceed both of those "healthier" cities.

[CincyBearcats]

Originally Posted by hudkina

22% of the city's residential housing was vacant in 2010. That obviously doesn't include vacant land but it's certainly not half the city. To give you a comparison, 14% of the housing in Miami was vacant in 2010, 18% of Atlanta was vacant, 19% of St. Louis, 16% of Baltimore, 19% of Cleveland, 12% of Houston, 13% of Chicago, 13% of Las Vegas, and so on. While Detroit obviously has a high rate, it's not that far off from the norm among some major cities.

Exactly, but those other cities are not facing near the problems of Detroit. I can find a number of cities anywhere in the country (sunbelt, northeast, Pacific NW, etc) with high vacancy rates whether it be downtown office buildings or residential structures. My main point was Detroit is facing problems just about most major cities in the country are not facing right now. Detroit's problems are on another level. Read the Detroit Free Press for today Monday the 11th.... "Detroit must do something by Friday it DEFAULTS!" Cities like St. Louis and Baltimore have high crime, but have done amazing jobs turning many sections of the city into great livable areas. Chicago and Cleveland have diverse economies that have a lot of game-changer projects happening in several corners of those two. Las Vegas is a whatever, and Houston is certainly doing a lot of good things right now, aside from sprawl. Out of the 8 cities you just mentioned, 7 have some type of rail system. You can't say that for Detroit. That in itself speaks volumes.

I just was making mention of the fact that a lot of Detroit in heavily visited parts of the city is vacant. I had never seen vacancy like that aside from the north side of St. Louis. I think Detroit is awesome, I have so many friends from Detroit that are great people, and no city can beat its history. I just wish Detroit would turn away from the auto industry and stop rising and falling with it year in and year out. There are obvious problems with Detroit, every major city has them, but Detroit is on another level of problems. It really is something riding around the city seeing what once was areas where houses were, and are now miles upon miles of vacant lots. On the borders of Midtown and Downtown (correct me if I am wrong) some of the most productive and active parts of the city, sit these areas which I was discussing, hence the "few and far between."

[CincyBearcats]

Originally Posted by cwilson758

this thread is a lot of "blah, blah, blah"

Well maybe Indianapolis can annex all of the state of Indiana and become the nation's 2nd largest city with over 6.5 million people! Sorry, figured I would take the thread from all "blah, blah, blah" to back on topic.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by CincyBearcats

How were you agreeing with me? You had quite a few undertones in your post that say otherwise. I just remember your little annoying "obviously" comment from a few weeks ago, I am sure you remember, so no need to play it off. An internet forum has no affect on my daily life, as I am sure it doesn't on yours, so no need to throw that insinuation out there. I forgot all about this thread until yesterday when I was at the Reds/Tigers game and met a lot of ex-Detroiters living here in Cincinnati and started talking about the issues the city is facing. I see how this conversation had no point to you at all until you came in with your smart little comment. It's just the little snide comment you threw out there.

No matter how you want to paint it, it was a conversation. I am sorry, when could you tell emotion over an internet forum? Interesting... My discussion, or whatever you want to call it, was just pointing out the original topics I was discussing just one page back. Someone put Detroit in the same sentence as Baltimore and Philly, and I just think Detroit's problems far exceed both of those "healthier" cities.

I guess I can read emotion the same way you can read "undertones". I had no intention of the undertones you mentioned, but maybe you have some extra perception powers that misfired.

The emotion I was referring to was the rudeness in your responses to me. Apparently it was holdover from some discussion that I don't recall but it must have affected you differently. I will try to avoid responding to your posts in the future - I don't enjoy this type of negativity.

[CincyBearcats]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

I guess I can read emotion the same way you can read "undertones". I had no intention of the undertones you mentioned, but maybe you have some extra perception powers that misfired.

The emotion I was referring to was the rudeness in your responses to me. Apparently it was holdover from some discussion that I don't recall but it must have affected you differently. I will try to avoid responding to your posts in the future - I don't enjoy this type of negativity.

Wow, for someone who tries to make it a point that this internet forum is my life, you certainly responded quickly. Good for you! I think it took me over a week to do the very same thing you did in minutes. Pot, meet kettle.

Do you really want to get into a discussion on undertones versus emotion? One is pretty easy to read via WORDS. Case in point, you are typing WORDS. A little clearer for you?

I don't know if I am talking to a wall or not, your little fit a few weeks ago is not hard to go back and find. Your "obviously" comment rang a bell and I remember your little whatever you want to call it you had a few weeks back. I am not throwing out negativity, I am just being matter of fact. That's all.

A little refresher:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...1493561&page=5

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by ein okc!

this is hilarious. since when did rush meddle in urban affairs?

lol I know, his intentions are so obvious. He might as well say, "Chicago's population will drop because of the massive asteroid that will hit it, and an earthquake will cause LA to break apart and fall into the ocean. Oh yeah, and after watching the Super Bowl, everyone will fall in love with Indianapolis and move there in droves"