Wasn't New York City More Grimey In The 80s & 90s In Constrast To Now

[frshstunna]

Bruh I was just walking around the hospital a few minutes ago.

I'm fine with being a scared *** *****, bruh.

What I wouldn't want to be is one of the thousands of people walking around broad day looking like zombies.

I was in Georgetown over the weekend, and i just kept thinking to myself "damn hanging out in DC only makes me think about how bad off Baltimore is."

I wasn't in the hood in Baltimore, but every third person outside is HELLA sketchy.

So you wasnt in the hood but everybody is sketchy to you huh?..u seen somebody get robbed, hand to hand drug deals, some chick tried to sell you some *****? ..like i said it seem like you just one of them scared dudes, not comfortable in places you not familiar with..dont call Baltimore garbage just cuz you got a problem being around "sketchy" people

 

[ninjahood]

Ninja is not necessarily wrong though



people still want to own but they are seeking to do so in the cities with townhouses or condos or suburbs that are immediately outside of cities that provide immediate access. 

basically...

people here are ignoring da fact that da reason that hipsters ARE moving BACK to da cities is because A. they can no longer afford da type of car centric

lifestyle that living in da burbs demands you to have...B these knew groups of people which are millennials prefer everything to be at walking distance

and want to be in a urbanized enviroment....there's TONS of articles about this phenomenon as we speak..

Ever since the surge in crime that began in the 1960s, cosmopolitan Americans have been on a quest for urbanity, looking for a metropolitan culture that had been lost to social breakdown. They sought safety in the suburbs or in urban enclaves, but they were forced to give up the civic spaces, parks, boulevards and bustling street life that had made cities so stimulating in the past. Alan Ehrenhalt’s 1995 book, “The Lost City: Discovering the Forgotten Virtues of Community in the Chicago of the 1950s,” subtly evaluated all that had been forsaken.

Enlarge This Image

[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com...812Siegel/0812Siegel-articleInline.jpg[/img]
[h6]Illustration by Adam Simpson[/h6]

[h4] [/h4]
THE GREAT INVERSION AND THE FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN CITY

By Alan Ehrenhalt

Illustrated. 276 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $26.95.

Ehrenhalt’s new book, “The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City,” moves in the opposite direction. It is a progress report of sorts on the reclamation of public space and the “re­arrangement of living patterns” that are now taking place. Cities organized around manufacturing may have gone through difficult decades, he says, but while they lost middle-class industrial jobs, they are now becoming centers of postindustrial upscale living. “The late 20th century,” he writes, “was the age of poor inner cities and wealthy suburbs; the 21st century is emerging as an age of affluent inner neighborhoods and immigrants settling on the outside.”

The title of his book refers to both the growth of downtown living in once forbidding neighborhoods and, contrary to expectations, the movement of immigrants into the suburbs. Cities like Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, he argues, are “gradually coming to resemble” European cities like Vienna or Paris in the 19th century, when the well-to-do lived in the center city and the working classes lived in the suburban rings around the downtown.

And according to Ehrenhalt, today it’s not even necessary to move downtown to achieve a sense of urbanity. He’s right, although he doesn’t cite the specifics. New shopping areas like the Glen in suburban Chicago have been built to suggest the feel of an old city center. Similarly, older suburban downtowns in Highland Park, Ill.; Downingtown, Pa.; and Westfield, N.J., have built on their architecture to create thriving districts with chic restaurants, cafes and boutiques. “Much of suburbia,” he argues, “will seek to reinvent itself in a newly urbanized mode.”

Ehrenhalt is most persuasive when describing the texture and feel of gentrifying neighborhoods. “The young and hip” are drawn to Brooklyn’s grim Bushwick, with its decaying manufacturing sites and dilapidated housing, by low rents and people of similar tastes. “Art fairs in Bushwick . . . look for all the world like celebrations designed to shock conservative sensibilities, except that there is scarcely anyone with such sensibilities around to be shocked. These are in reality projects through which a small coterie of local artists seek to display their sheer edginess to one another.”

Admittedly, it’s not all success stories. As Ehrenhalt reports, despite more than a billion dollars in subsidies, Phoenix, with its large overhang of new but empty condos, has largely failed to build a vibrant city center. If downtown Phoenix has a future, he argues, it’s because Arizona State University is expanding in what was supposed to become a commercial and residential hub.

Charlotte, N.C., has attracted dozens of restaurants to its downtown but, despite considerable effort, virtually no retail establishments. Perhaps that’s because, as Ehrenhalt says, “Charlotte, for all the local excitement it generated about upscale in-town living, still has no more than 12,000 residents downtown.”

Ehrenhalt has a hard time explaining what the successes of the new urbanism add up to, though he refers to the writings of Joel Kotkin, whom he describes as “perhaps the most prominent of the downtown debunkers.” Kotkin has claimed, on the basis of census data, that the downtown revival Ehrenhalt applauds is merely a niche phenomenon. It is confined, Kotkin says, largely to singles, childless couples, wealthy empty nesters and recently graduated students transitioning to a delayed adulthood.

This argument shadows Ehrenhalt throughout his book. With Kotkin seemingly in mind, he repeatedly qualifies his conclusions.

“It is true,” Ehrenhalt acknowledges, “that the return to the urban center has up to now been modest in absolute numbers.” In recent years, he goes on, “more people still moved to the suburbs than moved downtown.” But “more,” he insists, doesn’t capture what is happening. It may be true that over the last decade, 91 percent of metro area population growth has been in the suburbs, but Ehrenhalt is making a qualitative case, not a quantitative one. “The importance of the movement” into downtowns, he asserts, “rests on the character of the new population group rather than on its size.” But with that statement, he gets to the heart of what has actually been going on.

The new urban high-end living depicted in “The Great Inversion” represents part of a larger social sorting and class stratification that has accompanied the relative decline of the American middle class. Ehrenhalt writes of “Gazillionaires Row” in Sheffield, a revived Chicago neighborhood not far from the Loop that’s thriving. But this new wealth isn’t producing new private-sector middle-class jobs. The largest employer in Chicago is the federal government, followed by the public school system. Other major employers are the City of Chicago itself, the Chicago Transit Authority, the Cook County government and the Chicago Park District.Meanwhile, new private-sector jobs are coming mainly from servicing the expanding urban class and the wealthy. In Philadelphia, Ehrenhalt rightly describes the vitality of Center City, but notes that just a few blocks away in neighborhoods like Kensington the squalor and violence are overwhelming.

Even the successful cities have become top and bottom affairs. For all its new glitter, Chicago, bedeviled by the cost of public-sector pensions, is flirting with bankruptcy. It has lost 150,000 jobs over the last two decades. In order to meet current payrolls, it has been forced to lease its Skyway toll road for 99 years and its parking meters for the next 75. The upshot, notes Aaron Renn, who has written extensively on Chicago, is that the city’s meld of high taxes and low-quality services has pushed the region’s black and white middle-class families into the exurbs, where they bear the burden of high gasoline costs but avoid paying for Chicago’s huge public sector.

Philadelphia is in an even more perilous condition. As with Chicago, the downtown is well policed, but crime is rampant immediately adjacent to the core. Burdened by a wage tax levied on every job, it has a very low jobs-to-residents ratio, and the largest number of abandoned homes per 1,000 residential units in the country. Philadelphia hasn’t sold its parking meters yet, but it has tried to force bloggers to pay a licensing fee. Like Chicago, it is in economic thrall to an alliance of machine politicians and public-sector unions that show no signs of releasing their expensive grip.

Ehrenhalt writes that while the great recession has temporarily frozen people in place, thus stalling the return to the cities, the long-term trends — like the rise of childless individuals living alone — bode well for the future of the new downtowns. Maybe. The quest for urbanity will no doubt continue among those who can afford to pay for private policing and private schools. But so far, for all the upbeat articles on the clustering of “the creative class” and the very wealthy in the new downtowns of Chicago and Philadelphia, millions in the private-sector middle class continue to head for the exits.

No one is debating that. It's the basic reason for gentrification

The point that I was trying to make (and it seemed others were trying to make) is that these gentrifying hipsters don't give a damn about the "Dominican culture" in the Heights, they simply want to live in Manhattan at the cheapest possible price...

This.

Earlier in the thread dude said the "culture" is being lost.

Because the new people that move in dont want that culture. They bring in their own.

WRONG...they're coming to da city because they're LOOKING for culture thats always been scares in da suburbs. city life gives that they can't have segregated

in a house miles away from a city.
[h1]Suburban Ghetto: Poverty Rates Soar in Suburbia[/h1]
By Brad Tuttle @bradrtuttleSept. 26, 2011Add a Comment

• •  
  •  
  •  
  • inShare
• Read Later

Angel Jiménez de Luis / Getty Images
[h3]Related[/h3]

• Poverty pervades the suburbs CNN Money

• Email
• Print
• Share
• Comment

Follow @TIMEBusiness

For well over half a century, the American dream has typically centered on life in the suburbs. A move to the idyllic suburbs—picket fences, sidewalks, cul-de-sacs, the whole deal—has traditionally signified success, a move up the economic ladder. Lately, however, the ‘burbs host millions more residents living below the poverty level than do America’s “poor” inner cities, and poverty rates in suburbia are rising faster than any other residential setting.

According to the Brookings Institution’s recent analysis of Census data, poverty rates rose all over the U.S. during the recession era: From 2007 to 2010, poverty rates increased in 79 of the 100 largest metro areas, and median household income decreased in 82 of the 100 largest metro areas.

But one type of area in particular—the prototypical American suburb—has gotten poorer quicker, and that’s been the trend even before the financial collapse of 2007. The Brookings report states:

A combination of factors including overall population growth, job decentralization, aging of housing, immigration, region-wide economic decline, and policies to promote mobility of low-income households led increasing shares of the poor to inhabit suburbs over the decade. From 2000 to 2010, the number of poor individuals in major-metro suburbs grew 53 percent, compared to 23 percent in cities.

Overall, urban residents are still far more likely to be poor than their counterparts in suburbia: The poverty rate in U.S. cities in 2010 stood at 20.9% in cities, compared to 11.4% in the suburbs.

(MORE: More Young Adults Are Poor, Live With Their Parents)

But the suburbs are catching up in the race to the bottom, and there are currently more suburban residents than city dwellers living below the poverty level. Per CNN Money’s story about the Brookings Institution’s analysis, there were 15.4 million suburbanites living in poverty in 2010, compared to 12.7 million living below the poverty level in cities. Whereas poverty levels rose 11.5% from 2009 to 2010 in the suburbs, they inched up 5% in cities.

From 2000 to 2010, the poor populations skyrocketed in the outskirts of many cities: The Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, and Milwaukee areas are among the 16 spots around the country where the number of suburban residents below the poverty level more than doubled during the decade. During the recent years of economic strife (2007 to 2010), the U.S. suburbs added 3.4 million poor, compared to 2 million more poor people in cities.

(MORE: The Sad, Sorry State of the Middle Class)

Brad Tuttle is a reporter at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bradrtuttle. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

Read more: http://business.time.com/2011/09/26/suburban-ghetto-poverty-rates-soar-in-suburbia/#ixzz2drB6BuWJ

TONS and TONS and TONS of articles...

Home> ABC Univision>News and Features
[h1]Poverty Isn't Just in City Ghettos; It's Hit the Land of Picket Fences, Too[/h1]
Aug. 13, 2013

By EMILY DERUY @emily_deruy
Emily DeRuy More from Emily »

Politics Reporter

Follow @emily_deruy

Abandoned houses at the Desert Mesa subdivision are pictured in North Las Vegas on November 13, 2011. The housing project by North Las Vegas Housing Authority stared in 2004 but the entire subdivision, which includes about a dozen finished houses that were never lived in, has since fallen into foreclosure and is now owned by the FDIC.
Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Poverty is often associated with inner city ghettos, fenced-off projects, or neighborhoods ridden with vice and crime. But the fastest growing poor population actually resides in the land of minivans, picket fences, and big box stores: suburbia.

According to a recent Brookings Institution analysis, major metropolitan suburbs became home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in the country in the 2000s. Poverty levels increased in nearly every congressional district in the nation, hitting Republican and Democratic districts alike.

So why is poverty moving beyond major city limits?

The authors of that analysis lay out several triggers in a recent book, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America:

Decentralization of Poverty - Some of it has to do with the fact that in the 1970s, 80s, and even 90s, there was a concerted effort to decentralize poverty. Poor families received housing vouchers to move out of city projects and into suburbs. The idea was to move people away from crime and into better schools and housing, but it didn't always work out that way.

Job loss - The most obvious reason is job loss. Manufacturing jobs that kept suburbs around Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and other cities vibrant have disappeared. They've been replaced by low-wage jobs in industries like retail that have been hard hit by the recent economic decline. Workers have lost jobs, which translates to lost income.

Suburban demographics are changing - Suburbs have never been entirely middle-class, but the share of people who hold low-wage jobs is increasing. Industries like construction, retail and hospitality have expanded in suburbs and drawn families to fill those positions that otherwise might have lived in cities. When the economy tanked, workers lost those jobs and families that had been getting by fell into poverty. Immigrants, too, increasingly choose to move to suburbs, the authors found, which has contributed to the swelling suburban poor population.

Aging Population - The nation's suburbs were new and shiny following World War II and the novelty and promise proved irresistible to millions of families. But many of the nation's first suburbs, especially those in the Midwest and Northeast, have aged and fallen into disrepair. So have the people who first populated those suburbs. The manufacturing and industrial jobs that drew workers 50 or 60 years ago have disappeared but an aging and struggling population remains. Houses and schools are older and young families looking to move to suburbs have picked newer towns. That's left aging towns with struggling commercial districts and little to no population growth.

Housing - The housing market crash wrought havoc on suburbs across the country, hitting areas around Las Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta and Charlotte especially hard. As an article in The Economist noted, "During the sub-prime bubble, many people with bad credit scores got mortgages and moved to the suburbs. A shift towards housing vouchers and away from massive urban projects encouraged people in subsidized housing to make the same move."

In addition, people perceive poverty as urban or rural, not as suburban. Lawmakers quite simply aren't focused on the issue. So policies haven't caught up to reality.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/poverty-growing-suburbs/story?id=19947415

What's the point of this stupid video? The American Dream isn't dying per se, but the traditional dream isn't being sought out anymore. The subprime mortgage scandal and ensuing foreclosures did enough damage to that vision. Buying a home is a huge commitment that many aren't willing to make anymore. Families are among those gentrifying. It was once thought that when you had your family, you're out to the home with the picket white fence. Not really true anymore. People are moving back to the cities. The suburbs are going to become the new ghettos and hoods in due time when the people who were displaced by gentrification end up there. Its not a coincidence that the housing crisis and the dramatic rise in gentrification in NYC started around the same time.

The video was posted because dude believes that The new american dream is to move into the city. Maybe for the yuppies, but the idea of owning a house and raising a family in a good neighborhood is still as strong as it once was. Only issue is its become harder to achieve or maintain. Dream is still there and strong.

WRONG.

[h1]Millennials: Why did you choose D.C.?[/h1]
By Lavanya Ramanathan, Published: September 3 at 1:07 pmE-mail the writer

If you live in the District, you’re familiar with the perks: being walking distance from work; excellent coffee shops; all the yoga, happy hours, farmers markets and rustic Italian food you could ever want.

The transformation is evident on 14th Street NW. (Photo by Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Not all of this was here five years ago. Development is being driven in part by a recent population boom in the District, growth that is bringing more 20- and 30-somethings to the city than to most other places in the nation. In the past two years alone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...013/09/03/millennials-why-did-you-choose-d-c/

@ the thought of the burbs becoming the new ghetto, ya must be out your minds, do you know how many small WEALTHY towns are north of the Bronx borderline?....I'm talking OLD MONEY.....these places have been unaffordable way before Brooklyn became what it is today, the people that can no longer afford Brooklyn, NYC...damb sure wont be able to afford say Scarsdale and these communities damb sure wont allow for gentricatjon of the city to overflow low income families into their prestige streets, ya must be out of your mind..

your out da loop...
[h2]Millennials and Baby Boomers Migrating to Cities: What It Means for the City of the Future[/h2]

• Nate Abrams
• in
• Culture
• 9 months ago
•  

Mic this! 12

•  
• 64

•  
• 23

•  

12

Millennials and Baby Boomers Migrating to Cities: What It Means for the City of the Future

Much has been made about the rise of the Millennial generation and the changes that are coming to meet their various attributes and needs. Though the differences between Millennials and Baby Boomers are well noted, especially in the area of work habits, outside the realm of work these two groups have many seemingly disparate traits that combine to create a surprising demographic change. Both groups are moving, en masse, to cities. And the large migration of these two largest generations is driving other changes to which both governments and businesses need to pay attention.

Millennials are values driven, meaning that they will support causes and businesses that hold meaning for them. Many of these businesses provide some sort of social good, whether it be TOMS shoes or the local organic farmer’s market. Connectivity is something else that Millennials value. They like to share. PolicyMic, along with the usual suspects like Facebook and Instagram, are great examples of this need to reach out and connect with others. These connections create experience, another craving for Millennials and, contrary to popular opinion, these connections are not limited to the online variety. What better place to share and connect than in a densely packed city?

Boomers are driven by practicality, especially as their bodies age, making it harder for them to get around, and their incomes shrink, making it harder for them to get the stuff that they want. The other salient fact about the Boomer generation is that as their children (the Millennials) leave home there is little reason for them to hang on to their large, expensive, suburban homes. The aging of the Boomer population has also placed an increased premium on acquiring health and wellness products and services.

The end results of the bracketed population shift to urban cores are many. Sustainable communities that are walkable, energy efficient, and integrated in regards to many of their services are springing up in urban areas and close-in suburbs. Green is increasingly the color of development going forward. Along with affordable, sustainable housing, mass transit is receiving renewed attention in many places. Urban farming and local food movements are increasing in popularity and profitability as the eco-conscious Millennials and the health-conscious Boomers increasingly demand to know what is in their food and where it comes from.

The consequences of the shift for business and government are evident. Large retailers will face an increasingly tough market atmosphere as Millennials go elsewhere to seek value and experience and Boomers move away from the suburban Big Boxes and into city cores. Cities will be forced to adopt more flexible land use policies as increasing numbers of residents demand convenient access to the products and services that they require. Smaller living space means less storage. Consequently, corporations that offer products as services (think ZipCar) or some other intangible value will gain increasing market share as ownership falls out of vogue and Millennials gain more say over what is bought and sold. The same holds for public infrastructure as large backyards give way to need for public parks for green space access and cars are sold in favor of utilization of mass transit.

At 150 million combined representatives, Millennials and Boomers together account for nearly half of the American population and the combination of their needs and wants is set to drive many markets for the foreseeable future. Those needs can be met only through smart policy on the part of both business and government so that the services required by both groups can be adequately met. Businesses and governments alike would do well to plan smartly to engage the requirements of these two unique generations.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...ties-what-it-means-for-the-city-of-the-future

da new young professional doesn't want to travel far from his home, have a long commute, and be isolated in da burbs, thats why they're all coming to da city,

and da surbs are experiencing skyrocketing poverty...da poor will be da suburbs, rich will be in da cities...look at atlanta for example, all da urban sprawl is because

most of da working class people live in da suburubs (metro atlanta) and da more well to do cats live within da city limits downtown.

I mean the poor people of NYC will be pushed to Jersey

Or possibly the poorer parts of upstate

Albany
Buffalo
Newburgh(absolute dump)
Utica

wrong, people who can no longer afford to live in NYC are going down south, filling those suburbs up, while richer people are abandoning da burbs and headed to da city.

so who's gonna be da working class thats actually gonna do service work? this is why NYC has these rent control laws in place,

if there's no one to walk in da city, da city will die because they no longer will be able to attract people to work in lower paying jobs.

da city works because of da mixed income dynamic. hollowing out da middle and lower class would make NYC uninhabitable.

Quote:Originally Posted by Rell826  
 

NY native here, born and raised in both queens & manhattan. NYC is the most expensive city in the USA (google it, its a fact). The american dream is a dream a lot of americans no longer achieve. The gap between the haves and have nots, the upper class and lower class grow while the middle class become one of the other 2 groups.

NYC will soon be a city for the rich. Rents and mortgages are getting higher. Demand > supply in regards to land in nyc.

The majority of people moving in to manhattan and now brooklyn, are people from out of state, and a fair amount are from over seas.

The city won't be able to sustain itself when the middle class is priced out. We're the ones that keep the city afloat. In addition to seeing if crime spikes under the next mayoral administration, the middle class having a place in NYC will be part of their legacy.

bingo.

bottomline is da suburbs are going to be da new ghettos as more and more city centric millenials keeping trying to soak up city life and displacing da middle and lower class.

NYC rent laws are da strongest of da nation because da city govenment understand that what makes New York da place da be is da massive immigrant workforce

that runs everything behind da scenes..you price these people out, you kill da city.

chinatown and washintgon heights have resist gentrification because people OWN da businesses around there and we're having TONS of babies, more then non immigrant

white gentfiyers...can't beat those numbers.

 

[knowledgebones72]

Bruh I was just walking around the hospital a few minutes ago.

I'm fine with being a scared *** *****, bruh.

What I wouldn't want to be is one of the thousands of people walking around broad day looking like zombies.

I was in Georgetown over the weekend, and i just kept thinking to myself "damn hanging out in DC only makes me think about how bad off Baltimore is."

I wasn't in the hood in Baltimore, but every third person outside is HELLA sketchy.

So you wasnt in the hood but everybody is sketchy to you huh?..u seen somebody get robbed, hand to hand drug deals, some chick tried to sell you some *****? ..like i said it seem like you just one of them scared dudes, not comfortable in places you not familiar with..dont call Baltimore garbage just cuz you got a problem being around "sketchy" people

bruh.

Baltimore is sketch.

There's no way around it.

Just because you're more comfortable in a sketch environment doesn't mean it's not sketch.

But it's sketch, bruh.

There's a huge population of college students and working professionals in the city. And those parts are actually very nice. And it's cheap to live in there and just enjoy the "hipster in the city riding a bike and long-boarding and rocking a mustache and drinking National Bohemian" life.

but you only see them in very small, very distinct pockets of the city.

You know why? Because everywhere else is sketch.

It's SKETCH, brah!

 

[deuce king]

I respectfully disagree with you there. 

 

[knowledgebones72]

I feel the same way.


It's funny though because that's like the #1 complaint that Black dudes between 30 and 45 have about younger Black people.


More and more young Blacks are going to college and not having to pretend to be some tough street dude even if they're from the city, and more and more young Blacks are growing up in the 'burbs, but this DMX-era of Black dude just wants to label everyone as soft and homersexual.


All this talk about the feminization of the Black man just strikes me as Papoose lashing out at Kendrick.

Especially when there's def not more gay Black dudes than there have been in the past or anything like that.


But this is a whole other argument for another thread.

I respectfully disagree with you there. 

But are there? Or are there more OPENLY gay dudes?

You think Eddie Long and Luther Vandross and Little Richard just started doing gay stuff when Y2K hit?

 

[dahuhuhyah]

bruh.

Baltimore is sketch.

There's no way around it.

Just because you're more comfortable in a sketch environment doesn't mean it's not sketch.

But it's sketch, bruh.

There's a huge population of college students and working professionals in the city. And those parts are actually very nice. And it's cheap to live in there and just enjoy the "hipster in the city riding a bike and long-boarding and rocking a mustache and drinking National Bohemian" life.

but you only see them in very small, very distinct pockets of the city.

You know why? Because everywhere else is sketch.

It's SKETCH, brah!

Only went to B moore for field trips or on the greyhound and lets just say going through the city.....you see how real it is. But as previously stated, it has good areas and right outside the city they got nice suburbs.

 

[ninjahood]

 

[dahuhuhyah]

DC is still chocolate City!

 

[frshstunna]

Bruh I was just walking around the hospital a few minutes ago.

I'm fine with being a scared *** *****, bruh.

What I wouldn't want to be is one of the thousands of people walking around broad day looking like zombies.

I was in Georgetown over the weekend, and i just kept thinking to myself "damn hanging out in DC only makes me think about how bad off Baltimore is."

I wasn't in the hood in Baltimore, but every third person outside is HELLA sketchy.

So you wasnt in the hood but everybody is sketchy to you huh?..u seen somebody get robbed, hand to hand drug deals, some chick tried to sell you some *****? ..like i said it seem like you just one of them scared dudes, not comfortable in places you not familiar with..dont call Baltimore garbage just cuz you got a problem being around "sketchy" people

bruh.

Baltimore is sketch.

There's no way around it.

Just because you're more comfortable in a sketch environment doesn't mean it's not sketch.

But it's sketch, bruh.

There's a huge population of college students and working professionals in the city. And those parts are actually very nice. And it's cheap to live in there and just enjoy the "hipster in the city riding a bike and long-boarding and rocking a mustache and drinking National Bohemian" life.

but you only see them in very small, very distinct pockets of the city.

You know why? Because everywhere else is sketch.

It's SKETCH, brah!

 

[knowledgebones72]

.........Baltimore is sketch......

 

[milestailsprowe]

New York is very much different then it was in the 90s. I grew up in the 90s and saw violence on the way out. Now Neighborhoods are better but still have have their bad spots.

I remember getting toys stolen and the day my mom was robbed in the train station . Glad things are different

 

[dahuhuhyah]

Crack was the cause of the crime. Blame Crack

 

[americangenius]

All that stuff posted doesn't refute the fact that people are moving to places they can afford, not because they want the culture. If of the hipsters could afford to, they would live in a condo in upper west side overlooking central park.

 

[hennessy]

Classic ninjahood post right there. Pyramid quotes, telling people "wrong" or "out da loop", entire articles copy and pasted with one sentence a bigger font size, oversized images. Even the background color was changing. That post truly had it all

 

[ninjahood]

All that stuff posted doesn't refute the fact that people are moving to places they can afford, not because they want the culture.

this isn't true, because for that you're paying to live in downtown brooklyn, LES, soho, etc. you can get a BIG HOUSE elsewhere, especially in places like

yonkers, and certain suburbs that surround da outer stretches of NYC..they're COMING because they are prefering city life to da suburbs..then you got people from

da suburbs downsizing and moving BACK in da city because living up there with a car and other expensives doesn't make sense to them when they can have everything

in walking distance...its "green" for them.

da people who's losing their spots fastest in NYC are black people, they're all moving down south, entering da suburbs, and shifting poverty there at da same time

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25south.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...northern-cities-that-have-failed-them-655514/

 

[deuce king]

I feel the same way.


It's funny though because that's like the #1 complaint that Black dudes between 30 and 45 have about younger Black people.


More and more young Blacks are going to college and not having to pretend to be some tough street dude even if they're from the city, and more and more young Blacks are growing up in the 'burbs, but this DMX-era of Black dude just wants to label everyone as soft and homersexual.


All this talk about the feminization of the Black man just strikes me as Papoose lashing out at Kendrick.

Especially when there's def not more gay Black dudes than there have been in the past or anything like that.


But this is a whole other argument for another thread.

I respectfully disagree with you there. 

But are there? Or are there more OPENLY gay dudes?

You think Eddie Long and Luther Vandross and Little Richard just started doing gay stuff when Y2K hit?

I was referring to the youth as far as young black gays. 

DC is still chocolate City!

Not sure for how long though champ. The city is changes every day, every month and every year, and has been for quite some time now.   If I remember correctly from an article from The Post last year I think blacks now account for 46% population in the city. 

 

[rell826]

Sums it up:

There's so much culture here and it's all being lost. smh white black latino whatever, there's so much culture in nyc. From the russians in Brighton Beach to the caribean folks in Flatbush/East Flatbush, to the jews in Midwood...it's all gonna disappear. The funny thing is, they're all moving here because nyc is culturally diverse and gritty, yet they're are the ones who will be sucking that all out. (sorry for my grammar, i'm typing fast)

Irony. These kids from the Midwest and elsewhere watch Sex and the City, Friends and Girls and think that NYC is portrayed how it is television. They don't move here because of the opportunity (which isn't much), they move here because of a fictional portrayal then find out the hard way that its real here.

 

[dahuhuhyah]

I was referring to the youth as far as young black gays. 

Not sure for how long though champ. The city is changes every day, every month and every year, and has been for quite some time now.   If I remember correctly from an article from The Post last year I think blacks now account for 46% population in the city. 

Reading the wrong post because that is false. 50 percent black

 

[ninjahood]

Classic ninjahood post right there. Pyramid quotes, telling people "wrong" or "out da loop", entire articles copy and pasted with one sentence a bigger font size, oversized images. Even the background color was changing. That post truly had it all

It's like having a discussion with someone and them talking over you or yelling at you to make it seem like their right.

All he knows how to do is google random hit and copy paste, that automatically makes him correct

umm its called what i talk about is backed by #facts troll.

dont be mad im right, got da articles to back up my claim, and embarrass your sorry *** in da process.

im still waiting for that google maps screen shot of that bodega you "walked by in da heightz" that only had 1 gallon a milk.

hell im still waiting for you to post under your REAL SN, troll...i got a feeling da more you step into **** with me higher powers

gonna expose who you really are so you can't hide.

#factsonly

 

[dahuhuhyah]

Lol the losing side always screams "troll"

 

[ninjahood]

Lol the losing side always screams "troll"

why dont you go take a gander at da JJ wat screenmane..its rep system is disabled because its a 2nd /backup screenname

do some homework.

i've posted numerus arcticles that back my claims as usual and as usual you gonna have da usual **** riders that will neglect facts because

IM da one thats bringing them up.

here's a couple more.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...llennials-don-t-buy-cars-homes-153340750.html

[h1]The Real Reason Millennials Don’t Buy Cars and Homes[/h1]By Rick Newman | The Exchange  – Fri, May 31, 2013 11:33 AM EDT

• Email
•  
•  
• 166
•  
• Print

They’re narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered. And addicted to their four-inch screens.

If you believe the conventional wisdom about the millennial generation — those 16 to 34 years of age, by most calculations — you’ve got considerable reason to worry about the future of the U.S. economy. Millennials show far less interest in buying cars, homes and other big-ticket items than their parents did at the same age, which has generated an intense effort among companies that produce those things to crack the code of these crazy kids and figure out how to sell them stuff.

But the millennials may not be as mystifying as an army of sociologists makes them out to be. “Every generation eventually sheds their most extreme characteristics,” says Jason Dorsey of the Center for Generational Kinetics, a consulting firm in Austin, Texas. “What is different about millennials is delayed adulthood. They’re entering into many adult decisions later than ever before.” And the reason may be fairly straightforward: They don’t have much money. Not yet, anyway.

[See related: Why More Families Are Shunning Cars]

One of the biggest mysteries of millennials is why they seem to have little interest in cars, which have been an irresistible source of freedom and mobility for young people since the interstate highway system opened the whole country to Chevys and Mercurys in the 1950s. Yet millennials seem to scoff at the open road. The percentage of 16-to-24-year-olds with a driver’s license has dropped sharply since 1997, and is now below 70% for the first time since 1963. “Millennials are demonstrating significantly different lifestyle and transportation preferences than older generations,” declared a recent report by the U.S. Public Interest Group. Overall, it concluded, “the driving boom is over.”

Smartphone: The new starter car?

One common theory is that the smartphone is the new starter car, with social networks providing new kinds of freedoms for young people, and new ways of connecting with friends. Yet millennials, as a whole, are also buying homes later than prior generations, having children later and delaying their careers. It’s as if America’s youth are rejecting social conventions that generations have held in common for decades.

At a recent panel discussion on millennials sponsored by Ford Motor Co. (F) in New York City, a fairly mundane explanation surfaced: This generation simply faces a far tougher economy than their elders tend to realize, which has made it much harder to reach traditional life and career milestones. “We attract a ton of millennials,” said David Rabkin of American Express (AXP). “But we aren’t able to approve them for a lot of products that we have. Young people who once graduated from school and would go into a traditional corporate job now might move back in with their parents.”

There’s plenty of evidence that younger workers may face the most difficult economy since the Great Depression. The national unemployment rate is 7.5%, but it’s 16.1% for 16-to-24-year-olds. Many baby boomers are working longer, to rebuild wealth lost during the recent recession, which has pushed the retirement age to the highest level in more than two decades. That has reduced turnover in the labor force, further limiting openings for younger workers in an already challenging job market.

Many young people have done what they’ve been told to do and gone to college, since education remains an important pathway to success. But many are graduating with heavy student-debt burdens and finding they can’t get jobs that pay enough to make the hefty payments on those loans. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that high student-debt loads may be one of the biggest reasons young people buy fewer cars, homes and other appurtenances of modern life.

There are a few other reasons younger people may not be embracing cars the way their freewheeling parents did. Insurance premiums for young drivers can be exorbitant these days. With more focus on safety, a lot of parents don’t want their teenage kids behind the wheel and they’re quite happy to delay "driving day." And more Americans of all ages are moving closer to cities, which cuts down on the need for a car.

Once millennials find their financial footing, however, they might just turn into materialistic spenders who love cars and other costly things — just like their parents.

“Millennials are not going to buy cars? That’s hogwash,” Dorsey said at the Ford panel. “You’re going to see those big purchases starting to happen but they’re just not there yet.” Maybe living with their parents and saving money is just what millennials need to do to become the powerhouse purchasers of the future.

[h1][/h1][h1] [/h1][h1]Why Millennials Are Ditching Cars And Redefining Ownership[/h1]

by Noah Nelson

August 21, 2013 3:03 AM

Partner content from:

5 min 8 sec

•  
•  
•  

Zach Brown's preferred mode of transportation is his skateboard. Brown, 27, is an artist and actor who doesn't own a car.
Courtesy of Zach Brown

Part of a series of stories produced in collaboration with on the changing car culture in America.

You might think there's one place in America you absolutely need a car: Los Angeles. You'd be wrong.

"I have been in L.A. without a car for two years now," says Alyssa Rosenthal, a makeup artist.

Rosenthal's job means lugging a professional makeup kit — think of a small toolbox filled with enough supplies to make a supermodel or a zombie (or a zombie supermodel). Point being: It's heavy, and it's her responsibility to get it to the movie set.

"It's not easy. It's definitely a big challenge, but I make it happen," Rosenthal says. "Public transit really is blowing up in L.A. right now. The trains go a lot of places, and it makes it sometimes easier to get to locations with traffic and everything in L.A."

That "blowing up" Rosenthal refers to is new transit options like the Metro Expo Line, which opened last year. It's already surpassing rider projections.

Here's a stranger fact: At 28, Rosenthal is part of a trend of millennials who are giving up, putting off or just not buying cars.

This has left car companies scratching their heads.

"As we've talked to consumers in this age group about how they feel about owning the car, the car companies kind of think about this as, 'Well, that's sort of a silly question because of course everybody wants to own a car,' " says Jill Hennessy, clinical professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. She studied the attitudes of millennials toward the car-buying process. The short answer: They're a lot different from baby boomers and Gen Xers.

"When we've talked to millennials, they actually answer that question quite thoughtfully," Hennessy says. "While they do still want to own a car — not as much as they want to own a smartphone, by the way, that's the physical possession they're most attached to — they are thinking about, 'Do I need a car or not?' in a way that I think five years ago or 10 years ago we wouldn't have seen to the same extent."

It's not just cars that millennials question owning. Nearly any possession you can think of stopped being an "of course" and became a "hmmmm" for millennials. Hennessy says they're wondering whether "it's not so great to own everything anyway." She says the economy has been a big part of that shift. Millennials have witnessed the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. They've watched their parents struggle with financial insecurity no matter their education level.

For someone born before Ronald Reagan was in office, this sounds like a nightmare. But Hennessy says that millennials are so gosh-darn optimistic that they put a positive spin on it. "They're much more likely to find value in experiences than they are to find value in things," she says.

This is a paradigm shift — mark your '90s retro bingo card — that extends beyond cars to things like housing. What's helping drive this trend? It's all those smartphone apps — with their emphasis on social networks and on sharing experiences.

Take Zach Brown, 27, an L.A. artist and actor who doesn't own a car.

"I don't feel like I actually buy things for myself. Like, people will go out and buy clothes or buy music or electronics or things like that. Most of my spare time is spent just hanging out with friends, and you don't necessarily have to purchase anything in order to do that," Brown says. "Art supplies and food — that's the majority of where my excess money that I don't spend on a car goes to."

Brown is friends with Rosenthal, who finds herself spending her spare cash less on things and more on experiences. "I love going to the movies and I like going to concerts a lot," she says, "and I like listening to music. I use Spotify and I listen to Pandora and things like that, but as far as purchasing those things I don't typically do it."

That's why we see all kinds of companies — from movie studios pumping out films in IMAX to Apple adding iTunes Radio to their phones — putting an emphasis on the experiences they can provide as the shift from an industrial to a service economy enters a mature stage.

For these two millennials, food is a big line item.

"It is a culture that I really do enjoy — going out to eat," Rosenthal says. "Getting a good drink and being in that atmosphere; it's a lot of fun."

The simple pleasures and the bare necessities. Perhaps millennials are on to something.

to have a car means most of these people are FLOCKING to cities that have robust mass transit (NYC) and are ditching da suburbs and cars. da economy isn't da same

this is why they are picking to living in brooklyn vs getting a house somewhere.

its too easy to son some of ya up in here b.

 

[dahuhuhyah]

You don't even read what you post. Half of the time it goes against what you are even arguing. Just because you don't own a car doesn't mean the rest of the world is following your footsteps. Keep in mind that is only a SMALL group leaving behind cars. So small that the majority don't give a damn. Please keep in mind the MAJORITY IS OUTSIDE OF THE MAJOR CITIES. So please defuse yourself with that centrality. Its useless. Just like responding to you.......I'd be better off arguing against dog fart.

 

[knowledgebones72]

Real talk I'm tryna move to the city mostly because of the car issue.

Nowadays i feel like it's a big scam.

Registration, tickets, inspection, emissions tests, insurance, on and on.

I might as well drop a couple hundred bucks a year on public transportation in a big city where no one needs a car so it's not even a status symbol.

That influenced my decision to work in and possibly move to Baltimore.

That influenced my decision to enroll in NYU and hopefully find permanent employment in NYC after i finish that program.

That influenced my decision to most likely live in Downtown Silver Spring if i end up staying in the DMV.

PG County is not all that cheap unless you wanna live in the slums. A nice place in PG is the same as a super regular place closer to DC in a more "hip" and "urban" setting.

I don't often agree with Ninjahood, but I'll admit that he's right on that account.

BTW I'm a Black dude but if I move anywhere I'll probably be gentrifying because I'm a young professional and I'll more than likely move to a hood-ish area that's cheap but filled with hipsters.

 

[dahuhuhyah]

Real talk I'm tryna move to the city mostly because of the car issue.

Nowadays i feel like it's a big scam.

Registration, tickets, inspection, emissions tests, insurance, on and on.

I might as well drop a couple hundred bucks a year on public transportation in a big city where no one needs a car so it's not even a status symbol.

That influenced my decision to work in and possibly move to Baltimore.

That influenced my decision to enroll in NYU and hopefully find permanent employment in NYC after i finish that program.

That influenced my decision to most likely live in Downtown Silver Spring if i end up staying in the DMV.

I don't often agree with Ninjahood, but I'll admit that he's right on that account.

BTW I'm a Black dude but if I move anywhere I'll probably be gentrifying because I'm a young professional and I'll more than likely move to a hood-ish area that's cheap but filled with hipsters.

its a small group that are willing to trade the car into for public transport and most of the time its to move into the major cities. The majority is not thinking that way.

The comfort of having a car is not disappearing. Car sales are on the rise and will continue to rise.

The things that come with public transport....strangers/delays/WSSH/etc. I'm good.... unless I have no choice.

 

[-Red-]

So much to respond to in this thread

Overall, almost no city is as bad as it was in the early 1990s with few exceptions (those being Detroit, St. Louis, East St. Louis, Gary, Camden, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc.). This has been the result of a number of factors, including the economic rebound of the 1990s, the stabilization of drug markets after the early 1990s, general regression to the mean, etc.

Baltimore is nowhere close to being as bad is it was in the 90's..this is a common misconception..

Baltimore's average annual homicide rate from 1990-1998 (no data for 1999) = 44.4

Baltimore's average annual homicide rate from 2000-2011 = 39.5

I would say that's pretty damn close, especially considering the fact that essentially every city other than the ones I listed has seen their homicide rates decrease by half or more within that time period...