# San Jose replaces Detroit as the 10th Largest US City



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

A suburb, a non stop array of freeways and strip malls-call it what you may, But San Jose, oft considered a suburb of San Francisco is now the 10th Largest US City according to the Census Bureau, by surpassing Detroit.

July 4,2005

According to a recent report by the United States Census Bureau, the pecking order of the most populous U.S. cities has changed. The report, issued June 30, shows in 2004 San Jose, with an estimated population of 904,522 is the nation's 10th-largest city, overtaking Detroit with its smaller population of 900,198.

The U.S. Census traditionally releases population figures for the year previous to the date the figures are made public.
'Capital of Silicon Valley' still an unknown among Americans
According to a report in the San Jose Mercury News, Mayor Ron Gonzales is saying the new ranking may help people across the U.S. be more interested in San Jose and think of it as a world-class city. "It puts us in a very distinguished class," he told the paper.

But for many, northern California's largest city, the self-proclaimed "Capital of Silicon Valley" remains an enigma. In a country not noted for its geographical knowledge prowess, many Americans have no idea where San Jose actually is. Culturally, the city may be best known as the title location of a Dionne Warwick hit song with the ironic title, Do You Know the Way to San Jose?

Many locals claim the city suffers from a self esteem problem stretching back to 1852 when San Jose lost the honor of being the California state capital to Sacramento. Additionally, for most of its existence, San Jose has been overshadowed by its smaller and more glamorous neighbor to the north, San Francisco.

"San Francisco has been in the limelight since 1849, and it was the capital of everything west of the Mississippi - it was a huge presence in the psyche of the world, and we can never replace that," David Vossbrink, San Jose city spokesman told the San Francisco Chronicle.

It doesn't stop with San Francisco, San Jose is routinely outshined by other Bay Area cities such as Oakland, California, which is one-third its size. Additionally, the city's own Silicon Valley suburbs, including Palo Alto and Cupertino, regularly steal the national spotlight from San Jose.

As far as the workkforce is concerned, San Jose continues to reel from the dot-com meltdown of the early 2000's. With an unemployment rate of 5.5 percent, it has a higher jobless rate than the national average of 5.1 percent. For a couple of years after the 2000 tech crash, San Jose lost population as thousands of unemployed fled to look for work elsewhere.

But the city is on the mend and does have some legitimate bragging rights aside from sheer size. Despite the unemployment, San Jose is America's wealthiest big city with an average household annual income of $70,000. It consistently ranks as "The Safest Big City in America," according to FBI crime statistics as having the lowest violent crime rate for any U.S. city with a population over 500,000. The local public university, San Jose State is the largest within the California State University system.

Economically, an increasing number of large companies also are opting to call San Jose home, including Cisco Systems, Knight Ridder, eBay and Adobe Systems.


Slowdown in 'Motown' a long time coming
For many media outlets covering San Jose's ascendence into the ranks of the United States' Top 10 cities, the real story has been the decline of Detroit and its symbol as a Midwestern industrial giant.

For decades, Detroit, the self-styled "Motor City," rested its fortunes with the American automobile industry. Each of the Big Three automobile manufacturers, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, maintained headquarters there.

But with the shift of the U.S. economy away from heavy industry to services and technology, cities like Detroit suffered, while cities like San Jose prospered.

Detroit's decline in population is not a new phenomenon. In the 1950s, the city had a population of about 1.8 million, ranking as the fourth-largest U.S. city. But its fortunes started changing in the 1970s with the OPEC oil embargo and the rise of Japan as an automobile-producing powerhouse. As the city's fortunes waned, many residents fled Detroit for the suburbs or opted to leave Michigan altogether.

"It's part of a pattern for the heavily industrialized cities, but I think Detroit is a specific case. There's been an ongoing dynamic here of people, middle-class people in Detroit, fleeing the city looking for better schools, better lifestyles, better services. So it has been a particularly hard fall," Dana Johnson, chief economist at Comerica Bank in Detroit said in an interview with the New York Times.

Detroit has also been taking its knocks in recent statistics. Unlike San Jose's reputation for being a safe place to live, Detroit tops the list of most violent U.S. big cities. In the past year, Time magazine named Detroit Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick among the worst mayors in the U.S.

Along with the exodus of people and 7.8 percent unemployment rate, Detroit harbors a sight unseen in San Jose, blocks of vacant housing. For years these vacant buildings have been the targets of arsonists on the so-called Devil's Night, where blocks of homes have been set ablaze in Detroit.

Additionally, unlike San Jose, which is in the process of moving 1,800 employees into a new $388 million city hall and faces shortage of police officers, shrinking Detroit faces a $300 million budget deficit and the prospect of laying off 700 police and fire-fighting personnel in the next few months. 

In 1950, Detroit was nearly 20 times the size of San Jose, with a population of 1,849,568, compared with San Jose's 95,280. 

Source: US Census Bureau


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Good on SJ, but city (proper) populations aren't the be all and end all.


----------



## tmac14wr (Oct 12, 2004)

It's depressing to see this sort of stuff concerning Detroit. To think that it was once a HUGE thriving city and has gone through such tough times is sad. I suppose that's what happens to a city that relies so heavily on a single industry. Hopefully the American auto companies will get a much needed boost, but I am doubtful. Does anyone know what rate Detroits population is declining at? How low do you think Detroit will go before some form of rejuvination happens, if it ever happens?

Sorry for the negative post, congrats to San Jose.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

It's great for SJ   

Detroit will probably keeps decline to under 500,000 in next 2050 but it's my prediction.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Not that anybody cares, but San Jose covers an area of 175 sq. mi, while Detroit covers an area of 139 sq. mi. For a true apples to apples comparison Detroit would have a population of 1,183,612 if it annexed 36 sq. mi. of its suburbs to equal the same land area of San Jose.


----------



## Dallascaper (Jul 19, 2005)

hudkina said:


> Not that anybody cares, but San Jose covers an area of 175 sq. mi, while Detroit covers an area of 139 sq. mi. For a true apples to apples comparison Detroit would have a population of 1,183,612 if it annexed 36 sq. mi. of its suburbs to equal the same land area of San Jose.



How much land did Detroit cover when its population was 1.8 mil?

All I know is that when critics warn that Dallas could become the "next Detroit" civic leaders crap in their pants; the thought alone is a great motivator for change. I wish Detroit well, but it's possible that it exists now only to serve as a warning to other cities.


----------



## SDfan (Apr 7, 2005)

San Jose is a suburb city, but thats changing hopefully.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Detroit has been 139 square miles since the 1930's.


----------



## 612bv3 (Oct 10, 2004)

Where's San Jose? :dunno:

:jk:

I don't really find San Jose interesting, even if it's the 10th largest city in the US. It's just a big sprawling suburban city with malls and freeways.


----------



## Lmichigan (Aug 23, 2002)

It was only a matter of time, though as has been pointed out, San Jose is noticably larger in size than Detroit. I predict Detroit's population loss will end somewhere in between 2015-2020 at the very latest. With all of that said, Detroit is still a big city in every sense of the world, something San Jose won't truly become from some time. It has the population, but nowhere near the urbanity. Downtown San Jose is much more comparable to downtown Grand Rapids or downtown Phoenix.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

hudkina said:


> Not that anybody cares, but San Jose covers an area of 175 sq. mi, while Detroit covers an area of 139 sq. mi. For a true apples to apples comparison Detroit would have a population of 1,183,612 if it annexed 36 sq. mi. of its suburbs to equal the same land area of San Jose.


In 1950, Detroit was nearly 20 times the size of San Jose, with a population of 1,849,568, compared with San Jose's 95,280. Detroit's disadvantage has very little to do with San Jose's larger physical size. Even if you threw in the additional sq miles-San Jose would eventually outgrow it still.

I do think that San Jose is nothing more then a sprawlsburg with no real center and will always be in San Francisco's shadow. But it's also now, our nation's 10th biggest city-like it or not.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Lmichigan said:


> It was only a matter of time, though as has been pointed out, San Jose is noticably larger in size than Detroit. I predict Detroit's population loss will end somewhere in between 2015-2020 at the very latest. With all of that said, Detroit is still a big city in every sense of the world, something San Jose won't truly become from some time. It has the population, but nowhere near the urbanity. Downtown San Jose is much more comparable to downtown Grand Rapids or downtown Phoenix.


I know of no Metro were a 2nd city has truly emerged as a _real_ city. San Jose will never be that with San Francisco being only 50 miles away.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

612bv3 said:


> Where's San Jose? :dunno:
> 
> :jk:
> 
> I don't really find San Jose interesting, even if it's the 10th largest city in the US. It's just a big sprawling suburban city with malls and freeways.


I think you should take that back. Any city is interesting. Just because it looks a certain way is the result of people's freedom to live anyway and anywhere that they want. You should not forget that San Jose has been the capital of the world's hi-tech industry since the 40's. It started and is leading the information age. The standard of living that the city has achieved is the opitemy of the world. You can't find a city this large anywhere in the world with a higher standard of living. The city and the county are extremely diverse, both with no majority group and the people live in better harmony than in most places. It is a very interesting city and shows the world that taking risks is worth it. Segregating yourself from others is immoral and will damage the city in the long run as we see by Detroit's history.


----------



## illmatic774 (Jul 20, 2005)

its not that big of a land difference at all. Detroit prolly could gain a good 600,000 if the juggernaut east side urban prairies were filled, and if the decay just disappeared. 

This is very, very old news....


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

Detroit's story is seriously a tragedy, it makes any great lover of urbanity, cities, blue collar America, and close-knt-family-oriented communities sad. San Jose really is too close to San Francisco to ever be considered real cultural destination.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

San Jose isn't just "like a suburb". It IS a suburb. Yes it was once a separate city as many suburbs were. But now it's part of the Bay Area in terms of its workforce, its institutions, everything that binds a city together. 

If you broke up San Jose into ten smaller suburbs, nobody would know the difference. It could have a name like "South Bay". Kind of like the Eastside near Seattle, which by the way has a much bigger downtown in Bellevue.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Even if San Jose has a larger population, I personally would rather live in Detroit any day of the week. The only thing San Jose has going for it is its proximity to San Francisco and the Pacific Ocean. Detroit has a better skyline, more beautiful and distinct neighborhoods, better housing stock, and is far more urban.


----------



## Guy Legend (Jan 14, 2006)

Taking pride in city limit populations is nothing to really take notice of. Total area populations (city + suburbs) are really all that matters in judging the size of an area. 

While, San Jose has developled into a large "city", I find this proclamation to be rather useless.


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

hydrogen said:


> Even if San Jose has a larger population, I personally would rather live in Detroit any day of the week. The only thing San Jose has going for it is its proximity to San Francisco and the Pacific Ocean. Detroit has a better skyline, more beautiful and distinct neighborhoods, better housing stock, and is far more urban.


Better skyline? fine.
More beautiful and distinct neighorhoods? Debatable
Better Housing Stock? Debatable
Far more urban? Fine
San Jose is also a lot safer, cleaner, has better public transportation...and is much more interesting for high-tech people like myself
Btw old news.


----------



## 612bv3 (Oct 10, 2004)

polako said:


> I think you should take that back. Any city is interesting. Just because it looks a certain way is the result of people's freedom to live anyway and anywhere that they want. You should not forget that San Jose has been the capital of the world's hi-tech industry since the 40's. It started and is leading the information age. The standard of living that the city has achieved is the opitemy of the world. You can't find a city this large anywhere in the world with a higher standard of living. The city and the county are extremely diverse, both with no majority group and the people live in better harmony than in most places. It is a very interesting city and shows the world that taking risks is worth it. Segregating yourself from others is immoral and will damage the city in the long run as we see by Detroit's history.


Sorry if I offended you, but I'm not going to take that back. I said "I". I wasn't speaking for anybody else. San Jose is the "capital" of the world's hi-tech industry and I acknowledge that. I applaud San Jose for being the safest city with a population over 500,000, it's recovery from the dot-com bust and for taking risks, but that still doesn't make the city interesting in my eyes. Maybe that's because San Francisco is a few miles away. I don't hate San Jose in anyway, it just doesn't have anything that I find worth going to, maybe in the future but not today.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

7x the Median Income for San Jose: ($539,900)









7x the Median Income for Detroit: ($290,000)









10x the Median Income for San Jose: ($745,000)









10x the Median Income for Detroit: ($415,000)


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

Hudinka is making a pretty good argument.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

Wow! That really is amazing. Some beautiful houses there hudkina, and what a bargain!


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

hudkina said:


> 7x the Median Income for San Jose: ($539,900)


*grin* One of the reasons for San Jose's overpriced housing market is because of it's very large Asian population. I have noticed that Asians in general are willing to spend a much greater proportion of their income on homes. Why???

I have absolutely no idea, that's just the way they are.

However IMHO it's only a matter of time before San Jose shares Detroit's fate...to become a city in decline. When computers no longer remain the dominant technology San Jose will go into decline. History has shown that no technology remains dominant forever. It's only a matter of time before some new technology comes along and grabs all the attention.

begin 20th century - steel manufacturing
mid 20th century - cars
end 20th century - computers
21st century - ???


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

I highly doubt it has anything to do with San Jose's Asian population. They only account for about 27% of the population. Also, even though the numbers are outdated, these were the median home value of San Jose in 2000 broken down by race/ethnicity:

White - $414,900
Asian - $383,500
Black - $365,800
Hispanic - $325,800

As you can see Whites generally paid the most for housing (8% more than Asians, and 27% more than Hispanics)

The reason San Jose (as well as the rest of the Bay Area) is so expensive is that the land is extremely limited. Add to that the desirabilty and prestige of the Bay Area and the housing costs soar.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Honestly,
You should probably show those pictures to people in Oakland County because they are a direct reason why houses in Deroit are so cheap. Maybe it could motivate them to come back.

People in San Jose and other expensive cities are well aware that places like Detroit are a lot cheaper, but they are perfectly willing to pay the price to live there because they dont want to live elsewhere.

Its all a matter of preference.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

bay_area said:


> Honestly,
> You should probably show those pictures to people in Oakland County because they are a direct reason why houses in Deroit are so cheap. Maybe it could motivate them to come back.
> 
> People in San Jose and other expensive cities are well aware that places like Detroit are a lot cheaper, but they are perfectly willing to pay the price to live there because they dont want to live elsewhere.
> ...


Exactly. It's all about location, location, location. I wouldn't want to live in the Detroit Metro if the average house there cost $10,000 and I wouldn't leave NYC if the average house here cost $10,000,000.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

And that's why we are able to enjoy a high standard of living at a much lower cost. We don't have crazy coastalites paying an exorbant amount for a house that is barely worth 1/10th of the price paid. That's not to say metro Detroit doesn't have it's own little bubbles.

For instance, this house in suburban Birmingham, MI costs $4.25 million









This one costs $3.4 million


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

hudkina said:


>


Man, I LOVE that building. To me it's absolutely perfect. Regardless of what problems Detroit may have, there's no denying that it has an impressive architectural heritage.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Ironically that was supposed to be the eastern wing of a much larger complex. There was supposed to be a mirrored duplicate to the west with a center tower that was taller. The Great Depression halted the construction of the two other phases.


----------



## Citygazer83 (Oct 21, 2005)

What you guys are all forgetting is that a higher house price makes a place BETTER, not worse. Most people already own homes, and the MORE their home value is worth, the BETTER off they are. In terms of buying, right now there is no down payment, so anyone could basically walk in and "buy" a house. The housing affordability index is no different. Someone show me what the home ownership rate in Detroit is vs. San Jose, its almost certainly much lower.

A person who lives in San Jose could sell their house and buy 5 houses in Detroit, quit their job, retire, and live off the rent for the rest of their lives! Not vice versa. 

This is why California voters will not repeal Proposition 13 which is responsible for the high housing prices in that state.

But what's different from all this argument, San Jose is the country's richest city, Detroit is the country's poorest. Detroit has about 300 murders per year, plus the highest crime in the nation, the worst reputation. Its basically not even a city any more. It only has giant hollowed out shells and a massive slum population. I don't see how anyone could argue that Detroit was anything but a complete embarassment, while San Jose is one of the nation's greatest cities (better than San Francisco btw... San Francisco has virtually no children living in it, and no families at all. Its a dying city with a falling population, lower than either Detroit or San Jose)


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

> 21st century - ???


biotech.


----------



## illmatic774 (Jul 20, 2005)

Citygazer83 said:


> What you guys are all forgetting is that a higher house price makes a place BETTER, not worse. Most people already own homes, and the MORE their home value is worth, the BETTER off they are. In terms of buying, right now there is no down payment, so anyone could basically walk in and "buy" a house. The housing affordability index is no different. Someone show me what the home ownership rate in Detroit is vs. San Jose, its almost certainly much lower.
> 
> A person who lives in San Jose could sell their house and buy 5 houses in Detroit, quit their job, retire, and live off the rent for the rest of their lives! Not vice versa.
> 
> ...



:rofl:


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

Citygazer83 said:


> What you guys are all forgetting is that a higher house price makes a place BETTER, not worse. Most people already own homes, and the MORE their home value is worth, the BETTER off they are. In terms of buying, right now there is no down payment, so anyone could basically walk in and "buy" a house. The housing affordability index is no different. Someone show me what the home ownership rate in Detroit is vs. San Jose, its almost certainly much lower.
> 
> A person who lives in San Jose could sell their house and buy 5 houses in Detroit, quit their job, retire, and live off the rent for the rest of their lives! Not vice versa.
> 
> ...


:rant:

Ohh man, that was great. :lol:


----------



## Citygazer83 (Oct 21, 2005)

"All truth passes through three stages: 

First, it is ridiculed; 
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident." 

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

I wonder how accurate you truly think your view of Detroit is. Do you really think a city of 139 sq. mi. and nearly 1 million people is exactly how you described it?


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

It is sad to see a once great city like Detroit fall into such disrepair. 
Yes, the slump in the auto market doesn't help but it started way before that. 
The race riots of the 60s especially sent all the middle class whites out to the suburbs and left the generally low incomme blacks. 
The % of Detroiters who are black and poor is obscene. 

Detroit CHOOSE its current situation by being almost the only city its size outside of Africa with no rapid transit or trains at all. And before you say it, don't pretend the little tonka toy going around the core is real transit. 
By encouraging freeway type development it has left a hole were a city use to be. 
It didn't have to be this way, just look at Cleveland. 

Cleveland, the "mistake by the Lake" has gone from a dying, dirty, industrial rust belt city to the Come-back Kid. Its downtown population is growing. There are many exciting developments downtown backed up with good transit and urban planning. 
Cleveland has become a model of what a once horse town can become when its all bad news but the city fights back and decides to turn lemons into lemonade. 

Cleveland is getting a well deserved international recognition of a city 
that refused to die while Detroiters seem to have just accepted the fact that their once great city will just continue on its downward slide. 

Call me mean but I think Detroit is just reaping what it has sown and forget the auto giants, Detroit and Detroiters have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## Citygazer83 (Oct 21, 2005)

hudkina said:


> I wonder how accurate you truly think your view of Detroit is. Do you really think a city of 139 sq. mi. and nearly 1 million people is exactly how you described it?


1. Does Detroit NOT have over 300 murders per year?
2. Is Detroit NOT the nation's poorest city?
3. Does it NOT have a giant slum population? Did Eminem just build his musical rap career by making sh!t up about his life?
4. Is it NOT generally an embarassment?

Come on, unless you can refute the facts.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

Citygazer83 said:


> Most people already own homes


how old are you?


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Funny thing is, Cleveland has the lowest income level in the country. 
Wealthy cities like in the south have the money to do something but instead are turning into nothing more than a cleaaner Detroit with new skyscrapers. 
That said many are now building rapid transit which is helping to develope their downtown to their once former glory. 
Dallas with its DART is a good example.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

ssiguy2 said:


> It is sad to see a once great city like Detroit fall into such disrepair.
> Yes, the slump in the auto market doesn't help but it started way before that.
> The race riots of the 60s especially sent all the middle class whites out to the suburbs and left the generally low incomme blacks.
> The % of Detroiters who are black and poor is obscene.
> ...


I dont buy that mass transit was the cause of Detroits problems. The cause of Detroits problems, like most of the Rust Belt are job losses in manufactring, poor schools, and most of all--the citizens themselves. Yes, we live in a country were we try to put the blame on others--but the people need to take responsibility. The people in Detroit murdering each other (usually, for minor disputes, drugs, or some other pointless reason), too lazy to get a job, too lazy to finish high school, too addicted to crack, and those who have children with 3-4 mothers--instantaneously making the prospect of those women and children being successful bleak.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

Citygazer83 said:


> 1. Does Detroit NOT have over 300 murders per year?
> .


1)NYC, Chicago, and L.A. have higher numbers of murders a year. And the areas of the city that play host to these murders are probally similar to Detroit in population. However, these three cities are not thought of as being "bad cities" even though they each have over 500 murders...much more than their European/Asian/Oz counterparts.

And you said that San Jose is a better city than San Francisco?! I do agree with the children thing though--San Fran much like those European cities are too expensive to have children and too liberal to keep them alive in the womb. :runaway:


----------



## The anti-cheesehead (Jul 7, 2004)

Citygazer83 said:


> 1. Does Detroit NOT have over 300 murders per year?
> 2. Is Detroit NOT the nation's poorest city?
> 3. Does it NOT have a giant slum population? Did Eminem just build his musical rap career by making sh!t up about his life?
> 4. Is it NOT generally an embarassment?
> ...


Lol, it doesn't matter what you say. For some people in here, Detroit is unfairly "stereotyped". Look at all of the house pictures on this thread, you'd think Detroit is a bargain and San Jose is way overpriced. It almost makes you wonder why so many suckers chose to live in San Jose when they could buy a house in a place like Detroit for so much cheaper. 

Supply and demand. I'll say it again, supply and demand.

*Believe it or not, there are reasons why San Jose is expensive and Detroit is cheap.*

The Bay Area is one of the most beautiful places to live in the country.

Detroit is Detroit.


----------



## Citygazer83 (Oct 21, 2005)

The anti-cheesehead said:


> Lol, it doesn't matter what you say. For some people in here, Detroit is unfairly "stereotyped". Look at all of the house pictures on this thread, you'd think Detroit is a bargain and San Jose is way overpriced. It almost makes you wonder why so many suckers chose to live in San Jose when they could buy a house in a place like Detroit for so much cheaper.
> 
> Supply and demand. I'll say it again, supply and demand.
> 
> ...


Thanks anti-cheesehead. 

Why are housing prices so low in Detroit? Let's see... one of the biggest determinants of real estate value is the neighborhood's schools. How good are the public schools in Detroit? What percentage of those kids go on to college? 

I have no _exceptional_ dislike of Detroit, btw. I think my opinion of it is pretty much the same as anyone's. I wish with all my heart that it can be a great city. 

However, it is shocking to see people here comparing America's poorest, most crime-ridden city (the _rate_ of crime in Detroit is _far_ higher than NYC, LA and even Chicago. NYC has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation) with one of America's most prosperous, fast-growing, and safest cities (FBI classified San Jose as America's safest city with pop>500k in six categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and auto theft.)

What's especially surprising is some people are using the cities' _skylines_ as an argument. By that reasoning, Brazil would have the world's greatest cities and London would just be an average city. It's the kind of logic one would expect from a six-year old, not posters at a forum specializing in urban affairs. 

However, there is a large price to be paid about trying to paper over a city's problems (which includes extreme racial segregation, btw) and make it seem good when it is not. Covering over problems allows one to ignore them, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. New Orleans tried to cover over its problems for years, and it paid the price. Detroit pays the price every day in its lackluster economy, falling population, unsavory reputation (for those not living in a bubble), and high crime.


----------



## illmatic774 (Jul 20, 2005)

Citygazer83 said:


> 1. Does Detroit NOT have over 300 murders per year?
> 2. Is Detroit NOT the nation's poorest city?
> 3. Does it NOT have a giant slum population? Did Eminem just build his musical rap career by making sh!t up about his life?
> 4. Is it NOT generally an embarassment?
> ...



oh great, you use eminem as an example here. what are you, 13?

and secondly, Eminem was right above 8 Mile, the northern border of the city. he didnt experience the inner city ghetto life nearly as much as he experienced the 'within the family trauma'.

Heres where Eminem lived...


----------



## illmatic774 (Jul 20, 2005)

The anti-cheesehead said:


> Lol, it doesn't matter what you say. For some people in here, Detroit is unfairly "stereotyped". Look at all of the house pictures on this thread, you'd think Detroit is a bargain and San Jose is way overpriced. It almost makes you wonder why so many suckers chose to live in San Jose when they could buy a house in a place like Detroit for so much cheaper.
> 
> Supply and demand. I'll say it again, supply and demand.
> 
> ...


oh boy, you're just asking for it...

I'm gonna to tell you what I truly believe is keeping Detroits population down:




% of Blacks gained/left the city match pretty much any other city in the region. Its the whites that are leaving in exodus.

I truly, honestly think that some of these whites are intimidated by the giant african american presence here, so they decide to sorta stay 'into their neck of the woods, where they feel safe. Its kinda pathetic how low the human race will stoop to keep their blood 'pure' and staying segregated.

Yes its true; METRO DETROIT'S PROBLEM IS ITS OWN CITIZENS

Lets take a look... (thanks detroitrising.com)

Arden Park-East Boston Neighborhood Stats:
Population: 3,217
Racial Breakdown
White: (2.9%)
*Black: (93.9%)*
Native American: (0.3%)
Asian: (0.1%)
Other: (0.4%)
Multiracial: (2.1%)
Latino: (1%)
First developed: Early 1900s
Distance from CBD: 4.5 miles




































Bagley Community Neighborhood Stats:
Population: 15,394
Racial Breakdown
*White: (0.9%)*
Black: (96.9%)
Native American: (0.2%)
Asian: (0%)
Other: (0.2%)
Multiracial: (1.6%)
Latino: (0.5%)
First developed: 1920s
Distance from CBD: 11 miles

(very surburban neighborhood i might add)




























Boston Edison Neighborhood Stats:
Population: 4,856 
Racial Breakdown
White: (5.2%)
Black: (92.2%)
Native American: (0.2%)
Asian: (0.1%)
Other: (0.5%)
Multiracial: (1.4%)
Latino: (0.8%)
First developed: 1890s
Distance from CBD: 4.3 miles 























































And it just so happens to be that Detroits most dilapidated neighborhood is 21 % black.

Delray Neighborhood Stats:
Population: 1,891
Racial Breakdown
White: (53.7%)
Black: (21.2%)
Native American: (0.9%)
Asian: (0.1%)
Other: (19.8%)
Multiracial: (3.9%)
Latino: (31.9%)
First developed: 1850s
Distance from CBD: 4.5 miles











Joseph Berry Neighborhood Stats:
*Population: 3,904
Racial Breakdown
White: (23.4%)
Black: (73.4%)
Native American: (0.2%)
Asian: (0.5%)
Other: (0.7%)
Multiracial: (1.5%)
Latino: (1%)
First developed: 1910s
Distance from CBD: 4 miles



















i LOVE this tower




















Look, these hoods are all about 90 percent black. Its mostly false perception that drives people away (just because its black, means that it is a ghetto). Once the mindstate of our people change and when people start coming back (and it has already started, slowly but surely), is when you will know that Detroit's time is here (,bitches). And I guarantee you, Sheed style, that time will most definetely come someday.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

ssiguy2 said:


> It is sad to see a once great city like Detroit fall into such disrepair.
> Yes, the slump in the auto market doesn't help but it started way before that.
> The race riots of the 60s especially sent all the middle class whites out to the suburbs and left the generally low incomme blacks.
> The % of Detroiters who are black and poor is obscene.
> ...


I keep hearing all of this positive stuff on how cleveland is turnaround city and how it's made an amazing comeback from people on this forum. But that's about the only place I hear it from. The media paints a picture of a city that is still losing population fast (and the census estimates support that) and is still experiencing a ton of white flight. I would love to discover that Cleveland really was making a huge turnaround and prospering again, but I just haven't seen any proof of that yet. Same case in Detroit.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

I think the problem is that a lot of people like *the anti-cheesehead* think "black" and assume that it is ghetto. Read this carefully: There are more black households in the city of Detroit that earn over $60,000 a year than there are total black households in all of Minnesota. I'll say that again. If you took all of the black households (rich or poor) in all of Minnesota and put them all together in Minneapolis, they would not outnumber the amount of black households in Detroit that earn over $60,000 a year. And just so everyone knows, the median income for a black househould in Minnesota is $28,926.

Not only that, but there are 74,543 families in the city of Minneapolis. The median family income in Minneapolis is $48,602. That means half the families in Minneapolis earn less than $48,602 and half the families earn more than 48,602. In the city of Detroit, there are 72,672 families alone that earn over $50,000, with over half of those 72,672 families earning more than $75,000. That means there are nearly just as many families in Detroit that earn over $50,000 a year as there are total families (rich or poor) in Minneapolis.

But then, we're supposed to believe that Detroit is nothing but one giant slumscape. There's no way in hell that there could be any nice neighborhoods left. There is nothing left but crack houses and abandoned lots. Those pictures that *illmatic774* posted are lies and figments of our Detroit imaginations.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

And while I doubt anyone will watch it, I actually created a video capture with my digital camera of a typical middle-class neighborhood in Detroit. For some reason, people don't believe the pictures are an accurate portrayal, so hopefully the video will dispell the idea that there are no middle class neighborhoods left in Detroit. This type of housing stretches from 8 Mile south about 2.5 miles and from Woodward west several miles. This particular neighborhood is called the University District. The total size of the video is about 3MB and the video lasts about 2:40 seconds.

http://www.downriverdetroit.net/detroit2.wmv


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

The anti-cheesehead said:


> Minneapolis-St. Paul. Both real cities.


Dallas-Fort Worth
Seattle-Tacoma
New York City-Newark NJ
Philadelphia PA.- Wilmington Del.
Kansas City Mo.-Kansas City Kan.
El Paso Tex-Juarez Mex.
An arguement could be Made that Bloomington Minn is a third real city In the area of Minneapolis-Saint Paul.

The arguement that 2nd cities can't be real cities is nonsense. San Jose is a real city. Some people can't recognize the difference betweeen "real city" and "real city with limited tourist attractions."


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

Actually, there are quite a few things worth seeing in San Jose. Its computer museum, the WInchester mystery House, The Rosecrusian Museum; there is major league hockey; Stanford University is just a little way out of town, so is Great America, Santa Clara and Cowell Redwoods. Santa Cruz with its boardwalk is less than an hour away. Santa Jose has a small Chinatown and plenty of restaurants and performing venues. The problem is that Santa Jose is extremely close to San Francisco, and lets face it that's tough competition for your tourist dollar. If San Jose was sister city to Dallas, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## emutiny (Dec 29, 2005)

Nobody wants to buy a house in detroit because there are no jobs. Thats why they are a bargain. If your lucky enough to land a high paying job in detroit your the only ones who can take advantage of their housing market. Who wants to raise their kids in detroit, a town which the child will have limited oppourtunities comparted to other areas.


----------



## The anti-cheesehead (Jul 7, 2004)

hudkina said:


> I think the problem is that a lot of people like *the anti-cheesehead* think "black" and assume that it is ghetto.


I never said anything about race and I never compared Minneapolis to Detroit. 

Hudkina loves to set up straw man arguments.

This is Hudkina's debating strategy:

*Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.*

I never said and have never said that Detroit is 100% slum.

The statistics used as metrics of a city's health are what they are and Detroit does not compare favorably with most large US cities.

Refute that, or don't respond to this post at all.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

But that's my point. You like to paint a picture of Detroit that is not as accurate as you think it is. Obviously Detroit does have large areas that could only be described as slums. Obviously Detroit has large areas where crime and murder are a fact of life. Obviously Detroit's school district isn't a shining star. And obviously Detroit statistically is the worst major city when it comes to quality of life. I can't refute those statistics and that was never my intent. However, statistics are just one way of looking at the big picture and you can use them in any way you want. In fact most cities use warped logic when they spout off statistical abstracts. (Most theatre seats, etc.)

The way you look at it, Detroit sucks because it has one of the worst poverty rates in the nation. The reality is that 70% of Detroit residents do not live below the poverty line. To you, Detroit sucks because it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. The reality is that 99.958% of Detroit residents were not murdered. Compare that to San Jose where 99.997% of residents were not murdered. In other words your chances of being a victim of murder in just about any American city is less than 1/10 of 1%. And your chances are greatly reduced if you are not involved in the drug trade. And lastly, to you Detroit sucks because it has one of the largest amounts of dilapidated and abandoned housing. The reality is that most abandoned homes and lots are concentrated in two or three areas of the city. On the other hand, you are much more likely to find neighborhoods that more resemble urban neighborhoods of other older U.S. cities.

So again, my intent has never been to get you to think that Detroit is a perfect city where everything is fine and dandy. My intent has been to show you that Detroit is more than slums (which you know is what most people think of when they hear the word Detroit.) My intent has not been to cover up the poverty and crime that runs rampant in parts of the city, but rather to show you the sides of the city that most do not know exist.


----------



## Jaybird (Sep 8, 2003)

San Jose may have surpassed Detroit as the tenth largest city, but it still has nowhere near the rich history, culture, urbanity and importance (except in the technology field) that Detroit has had and does. I still love Detroit, no matter if some cheesy suburb surpassed it in population. If only more people could only sympathize with the tough and tragic times and bad luck Detroit has gone through since the early 1960s with losses of jobs, money, and (very unsmartly) putting almost the whole city economy on the automotive sectors. Both cities are in different scenarios right now.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

svs said:


> Dallas-Fort Worth
> Seattle-Tacoma
> New York City-Newark NJ
> Philadelphia PA.- Wilmington Del.
> ...


You should have added San Francisco and Oakland to that list... both real cities in extremely close proximity. San Jose is quite suburban outside of the city center, however there is no denying that it is a 'real' city.


----------



## AndySocks (Dec 8, 2005)

When my girlfriend who grew up in Santa Clara county is back home, and I'm on the phone with her, and she says she went to "the City" that day, I know she's talking about San Francisco fifty miles to the north, not San Jose a few short miles east. 

As long as people who live in the suburbs of San Jose claim they are from the suburbs of San Francisco, I don't think the place can have any credibility as an urban center.


----------



## mongozx (Sep 30, 2005)

hmmmm, people seem to be taking this as some sort of city vs city thread. San Jose overtaking Detroit as the 10th largest city doesn't necessarily mean that SJ is the better city. But for those who suggest San Jose isn't a real city you just seem bitter. San Jose is as much of a real city as NYC or even Wichita KS. Get over yourselves.


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

sbarn said:


> You should have added San Francisco and Oakland to that list... both real cities in extremely close proximity. San Jose is quite suburban outside of the city center, however there is no denying that it is a 'real' city.


I agree; just left it out because of proximity to Sante Fe. Could also really include Los Angeles/Long Beach.


----------



## illmatic774 (Jul 20, 2005)

And its not like DPS is the only thing accounted for when we speak of Detroit education. While its easy to see that the public school system is quite an embarrassment, the city has a great collection of charter or vocational schools (like Cass Tech). If the trend of increasing charter school population and decreasing DPS population continues, Detroit will actually have more students attending charter schools. So when looking at our education, dont just look at DPS and quickly point a finger; look at what good the city has to offer.


----------

