# Are slums disappearing from US cities?



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

This is a topic I've been wanting to start for a while.

I spend A LOT of time looking around at different cities on Google street view. One thing I'm always interested in is, what's going on in the most downtrodden parts of US cities, just out of a kind-of morbid curiosity. When I don't know offhand which are the worst parts of a given city, I look online for a crime map of that city to see which areas have the highest crime rates. I figure those must be the areas with the poorest people and thus, the "slums." I then go to Google street view to check 'em out.

And with the exception of a relative handful of cities, what I find is, most of those neighborhoods don't really look bad. Don't get me wrong, they aren't what I would call fancy, but still, most of them I wouldn't call "slums" either.

Take Chicago, which is one of my most obvious examples. You can browse through some of the pics from the 1940's in the Charles Cushman collection and find out that, yes indeed, there used to be genuine slums in Chicago. Like *this*, or *this*, or *this* or *this* (which might be abandoned) or *this* (which was actually inhabited).

No doubt about that, those are slums.

Can I find anything like that on Google street view in Chicago anymore?

Not that I can find.

So I looked at a crime map of Chicago, and picked the *shootings* map. Looks like an area to the west of Garfield Park is the worst. Surely those are crime-infested slums - right?

Well ... crime-infested, yes. Slums? Not so sure about that.

Let's go to the area around the intersection of about West Chicago Ave, and Laramie Ave.

So I click on a random spot in that neighborhood and this is what I get:
*8920 S Bishop St, Chicago, IL*.

It's not that bad at all. For the most part I see relatively well-maintained yards, no paint peeling off the houses, there's some boarded-up houses on the street but they don't appear to be in bad condition, there's kids on their bikes and these people *here* are busy fixing up their yard. By my reckoning, people keeping their yards in good condition indicates a certain pride of place, which is a positive thing. Not something you'd expect from slum-dwellers. But of course that's because they aren't slums!

I'll go south a bit to an area near the Washington and Cicero intersection, which is also in an area with lots of shootings on my map. So I randomly click *here*.

Again, not fancy, and on the street there's a few lots where it looks like houses have been torn down. But really, it's not in bad condition. People maintain their yards (for the most part), the houses aren't in horrible condition, the trees look in decent condition, and so on.

That area was on the West Side, but as everyone knows, "the South Side of Chicago; is the baddest part of town." Let's see if we can find Leroy Brown!

If my information is correct, the area around the University of Chicago is one of the worst areas. Let's check it out:

On the aerial I can see that west of the campus there appears to be a lot of abandoned lots. Let's *go here* at random. I see a few boarded-up houses, but they've got nice architecture and don't appear to be in particularly bad condition - at least from what I can tell by this picture. I then find a really empty-looking area and click on it, and *this is what I get*.

Well, if there once were slums there, they're gone by now! The houses that are remaining, for the most part, don't look too bad, and the ones that are boarded up, the boarding-up process looks about as neat and orderly a boarding-up as one could hope for. It's like a kind-of neat-and-tidy abandonment, really.

I decide to go south a bit still in search of Leroy Brown, and in another neighborhood which appears to have lots of torn-down buildings, I get *this*.

No slums there, either.

Another area that looks bad on my crime map is an area around W 71st and S Halsted. Let's go there.

So I pick a random residential street *here*. Again, the abandoned lots are simply reverting to nature, and what's remaining isn't in terribly bad condition. I don't see anything resembling what I saw in the Charles Cushman photos above.

Anyway, I'm dwelling a lot on Chicago, but I've noticed this in most other cities I've checked out. There isn't ANYTHING in NYC I'd call a "slum" anymore (not even close, frankly), and nothing anywhere on the West Coast I'd call a slum, either. The houses in Watts and East LA aren't fancy, but they're not falling apart, either.

The only cities I've seen that have what might still be called "slums" have been in Detroit, Camden, and East St Louis. Even most of the neighborhoods in Gary, IN didn't look horrible (though downtown is certainly abandoned). Maybe there are some others I haven't checked yet, but if there are I'd like to hear from people here what I might have missed.


----------



## grs1 (Mar 21, 2014)

lots of people still live in old mobile homes that are really uninsulated, drafty, plywood shacks. but as long they are hooked up to utilities i wouldn't consider it a slum. maybe. good topic.


----------



## nareik (Nov 23, 2013)

Have alook at Baltimore and Philadelphia, both cities have more than their fair share of 'slum' areas.


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

Yes, Philly does have some pretty bad areas. But they definitely could be worse. After all, I didn't say _no_ US cities had slums any more, I said they were becoming increasingly rare.

Typical bad-looking streets in Philly would be like *this* or *this*. But both of those aren't nearly as bad as the old photos of Chicago in my first post. And the physical extent of these kinds of areas isn't very big, maybe half a square mile here and there.

Baltimore doesn't seem to be as bad, streets like *this*, *this* and *this* typify the worst areas of the city. It's mostly a case of boarded-up abandonment, not like this:









^
THAT is a genuine slum.


----------



## nareik (Nov 23, 2013)

I'd say there's some worse areas in Baltimore. Have a look at 1928 Perlman Place on google maps, you can see that people are still living there.


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

^
Yeah that street is pretty bad. But there aren't many people living on it anymore. I think I see maybe 3-4 occupied houses on that street. All the others are boarded up.

Most of the remaining "slums" in the US nowadays are simply abandoned, excepting maybe a few houses here and there. After all, I never said slums were "gone," just "disappearing." I'm not sure I consider abandonment to be a "slum." "Ghost neighborhood" might be a better term.


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

I think this is more what I had in mind. You just don't see very much of this anymore, except maybe in a handful of really bad streets here and there and some very poor rural towns in the South:

*Chicago slums in 1954*


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

They're not disappearing, but they are being displaced from the city cores as inner-city living is once again becoming highly desirable (depending on the city). Here in Boston, for instance, we have "gentrified" certain areas, such as the old "Combat Zone" by the Theater District, so that the inner city itself is becoming safer and includes higher percentages of the more affluent crowds. However, there are still plenty of high crime neighborhoods, it's just that they're no longer right by the downtown itself.

On the flip side, some of the smaller cities within Metro Boston are as slummy as you can get. For examples, check out Lawrence, MA, as well as Fall River and New Bedford. Crapholes.


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

There is absolutely nothing in Lawrence, Fall River and New Bedford I would remotely categorize as a slum. Not even close. There are some houses here and there that need a paint job. That's about it.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

I don't think the developing world concept of slums ever existed in the US for any extended period of time. That being said, huge parts of outer borough NY look quite "tough" aesthetically (but the rents are obviously well beyond slum range)


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Closest places I've seen are Port Arthur, TX and parts of New Orleans. Still not "slums" but really, really substandard and depressing places. Port Arthur has hit seriously wtf levels of decay.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

BarbaricManchurian said:


> I don't think the developing world concept of slums ever existed in the US for any extended period of time.


But surely US was developing some time?
US real GDP per capita reached 6000 in 2009 dollars, which is about 6400 in 2013 dollars, poorer than China now, first in 1900. Fell back to 5998 in 1908. First passed 7000 in 1918. Peaked at 8669 in 1929 - fell back to 6192 in 1933. Recovered to 8881 in 1939.

So. What did US slums look like in the period 1900 to 1940, when USA was only slightly richer than China in 2013?
In what sense were they then different from "developing world concept of slums"?


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

The Five Points area in NYC was considered one of the worst slums in the western world. Charles Dickens himself wrote in 1842:

"What place is this, to which the squalid street conducts us? A kind of square of leprous houses, some of which are attainable only by crazy wooden stairs without. What lies behind this tottering flight of steps? Let us go on again, and plunge into the Five Points."

"This is the place; these narrow ways diverging to the right and left, and reeking everywhere with dirt and filth. Such lives as are led here, bear the same fruit as elsewhere. The coarse and bloated faces at the doors have counterparts at home and all the world over."

"Debauchery has made the very houses prematurely old. See how the rotten beams are tumbling down, and how the patched and broken windows seem to scowl dimly, like eyes that have been hurt in drunken forays. Many of these pigs live here. Do they ever wonder why their masters walk upright instead of going on all fours, and why they talk instead of grunting?"


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

While there has been advances in urban renewal/revitalization I would not say that slums are disappearing in the US in general. Any visit to either Gary, East St. Louis, various small towns in the South or along the Mexican border will prove that to not be the case.


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

Bond James Bond said:


> There is absolutely nothing in Lawrence, Fall River and New Bedford I would remotely categorize as a slum. Not even close. There are some houses here and there that need a paint job. That's about it.


Lawrence: City of the Damned
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/02/city-of-the-damned-lawrence-massachusetts/

It's the worst city in Mass by far. It was built extremely dense to be a more "efficient" version of Lowell. However, once the textile mills closed, the density became the perfect slum, and unlike Lowell (amazing turnaround), Lawrence shows no signs of bouncing back. I think you would change your mind if you actually went there. It's not just the neglected buildings and infrastructure. The locals are a pretty scary group of people!


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

Show me a single street in Lawrence in Google street view that is a slum.


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

Bond James Bond said:


> Show me a single street in Lawrence in Google street view that is a slum.


It's tough because I'm not from there and not entirely sure which part of the city to look. Here's a pretty crummy looking area. Do the 360 in street view then continue Northeast down Methuen Street.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lawr...=8J0k0AH7VQkn7ULD1s1HfQ&cbp=12,20.07,,0,-6.54


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

Not only is that not a slum, it's not even a residential area!


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

Just because there are trees and the architecture is decent, doesn't mean this isn't totally ghetto. Some of the buildings are more run down than others. It's the people that truly make it ghetto, not the structures themselves. These are mostly triple deckers, and the "sameness" is actually pretty uncommon around here. There's a clue that it's a crappy neighborhood.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawr...6DAjqxrtHUhyofPLkK539Q&cbp=12,216.24,,0,13.17

"No Paking"

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawr...=_GzJeFtgPkTLRdkXVYte0Q&cbp=12,56.95,,0,20.21


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

A ghetto is not the same thing as a slum.

Those two links you gave me showed houses and apartments in good condition. Those are not slums, not even close.


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

not exactly slum, but this is taken in a parking lot behind a cluster of run-down buildings in Dorchester, MA.

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h385/disturbingreality/massachussetts/IMG_1255_zps07ced493.jpg


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

This one's in New Jersey!

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums...overs Plane spotting/IMG_5744_zps3f6a8bf7.jpg


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

nareik said:


> Have alook at Baltimore and Philadelphia, both cities have more than their fair share of 'slum' areas.


Baltimore's bad areas/ghettos are not even as bad as the pictures above. Actually, if you go to Baltimore's ghettos, you'd see row houses with lots of character!


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

That one in NJ looks like a victim of a fire, not a "slum" per se. In any case I'd be willing to bet it's not going to be there for long.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 1, 2008)

As you said, parts of North Philly look pretty bad. Looks more dense, building- and population-wise, than the likes of East St Louis and Camden.
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=Philadelphie,+Pennsylvanie,+%C3%89tats-Unis&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=39.978567,-75.179572&spn=0.024368,0.052314&sll=38.625568,-90.154977&sspn=0.006244,0.013078&oq=philadelp&t=h&gl=fr&hnear=Philadelphie,+Comt%C3%A9+de+Philadelphie,+Pennsylvanie,+%C3%89tats-Unis&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.978585,-75.179703&panoid=f3GQRUiE8hiT_k8PMdcEkw&cbp=12,308.54,,0,-2.36

Apart from crime maps, at least for row house cities like Philadelphia, you'd have to look for areas where black roofs prevail over white roofs on satellite maps.


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

Bond James Bond said:


> That one in NJ looks like a victim of a fire, not a "slum" per se. In any case I'd be willing to bet it's not going to be there for long.


I'm sure it's going to be if not already torn down. That photo is like 6 months old. I took that and a few more photos because I can't believe I'd see anything like that in the U. S. I haven't even seen places that bad in the ghettos of the dreaded city of Baltimore (I can't believe it has such a reputation when it's really not bad, IMO). There's construction everywhere on that street though, hopefully it's better now!:cheers:


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

BarbaricManchurian said:


> I don't think the developing world concept of slums ever existed in the US for any extended period of time. That being said, huge parts of outer borough NY look quite "tough" aesthetically (but the rents are obviously well beyond slum range)


Hoovervilles in the 30s looked like slums in some of the Worlds poorest countries currently.


----------



## djrules5454 (Aug 1, 2005)

The reasons slums you're expecting don't exist anymore are, among other things, building codes, welfare safety nets, higher average incomes relative to building material costs, and laws and ordinances designed to try to keep landlords from letting buildings become completely neglected or otherwise unsafe, as well as ordinances that mandate the demolition of unsafe or uninhabited buildings that happen to be squatter or crime magnets. The closest you'll get these days in the USA is a run-down building that's still inhabited or an abandoned building that has yet to be demolished.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

the housing stock is good, I think we can all agree those neighbourhoods could easily look upmarket and desirable when all spruced up. The problem is the glaring lack of social net and civic maintenance.

You can find places like that in most Developed cities, eg the historic Georgian yet notorious St Paul's district of Bristol:


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Looks like a lovely area.


----------



## Delirium (Oct 8, 2005)

Only two of those photos are of the St Pauls neighbourhood (the church and the second one down) most of them are photos of Totterdown and Hotwells which aren't nearby. That said, they're all essentially inner city neighbourhoods that were transformed by industry, declined and have subsequently gentrified or are in the process of doing so.


----------



## chilcano (Jun 25, 2014)

sebvill said:


> Hoovervilles in the 30s looked like slums in some of the Worlds poorest countries currently.


that ugly...seem poor neighborhoods that have today chile


----------



## Marsupilami (May 8, 2005)

chilcano said:


> that ugly...seem poor neighborhoods that have today chile


Vraem...no te cansas...hno:


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

diablo234 said:


> While there has been advances in urban renewal/revitalization I would not say that slums are disappearing in the US in general. Any visit to either Gary, East St. Louis, various small towns in the South or along the Mexican border will prove that to not be the case.


Unlike basically dead places like East St. Louis, or the old Lawrence of the 1950s, Today's Lawrence, in contrast with the depressed milltown of half a century ago, town is a very vibrant & vital smaller city. 

Why has Lawrence made a rebirth, while other once vital towns like E. St Louis have nearly died? Lawrence has attracted the largest community of immigrants mostly from the the Dominican Republic aside from NYC, So Lawrence has a very vibrant market district with lots of small Latino & other ethnic resaurants & stores.


----------



## Bori427 (Jan 6, 2007)

So theres a decent population of dominicans in the St.Louis suburb?


----------



## Major Deegan (Sep 24, 2005)

UN-HABITAT defines a slum household as a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following:

1. Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions.

2. Sufficient living space which means not more than three people sharing the same room.

3. Easy access to safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price.

4. Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private or public toilet shared by a reasonable number of people.

5. Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions.


In that sense, I don't believe US have any slums (native reservations is a different story).


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Major Deegan said:


> UN-HABITAT defines a slum household as a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following:
> 
> 1. Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions.
> 
> ...


Well there are the Colonias along the US-Mexico border that lack sufficient living space, sewage, garbage collection, or durable housing.

*Wikipedia: Colonia (United States)*

*ABC News: Hidden America: 'Forgotten Ones' Struggle to Survive in Texas' Barren 'Colonias'*


----------



## George W. Bush (Mar 18, 2005)

chornedsnorkack said:


> So. What did US slums look like in the period 1900 to 1940, when USA was only slightly richer than China in 2013?
> In what sense were they then different from "developing world concept of slums"?


The slums were in form of tenement buildings with more or less nice looking outer facades concealing the poverty inside, as in many European cities of that time. 
Many of those buildings once offering appalling living conditions still exist and have been upgraded and redeveloped since then.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

George W. Bush said:


> The slums were in form of tenement buildings with more or less nice looking outer facades concealing the poverty inside, as in many European cities of that time.
> Many of those buildings once offering appalling living conditions still exist


Yes, but they were built by formal owners and with nice outer facades to begin with.

Real slums, built as slums to begin with, would include Hoovervilles - and colonias.

Where are colonias now? Are they disappearing, or being expanded and founded?


----------



## George W. Bush (Mar 18, 2005)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Yes, but they were built by formal owners and with nice outer facades to begin with.
> 
> Real slums, built as slums to begin with, would include Hoovervilles - and colonias.
> 
> Where are colonias now? Are they disappearing, or being expanded and founded?


There simply weren't that many, because law enforcement in the US was stricter than in other parts of the worlds. If you started to raise a ramshackle hut in the midst of a city on a piece of land you did not even own you would have gotten evicted very quickly and maybe even shot in case of aggressive resistance. Strict law enforcement (and migration control) is also the reason why large Chinese cities never developed large quasi-lawless slum areas like Latin American cities, despite not being any richer.


----------

