Inner-City Grand Rapids (Detroit, Flint, Saginaw: low income, rental, lofts)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, changing the murder rate based on whether it's black on black or not? To show that Grand Rapids is almost as dangerous as Detroit? This is pure comedy. Keep it coming. There were a total of Nine (9) murders in the city of GR last year. That's 4.5 murders per 100,000 residents, for the mathematically challenged.
If you have some special place in your heart for Detroit, good for you. And I don't have a bad perception of Detroit because it's predominantly black. I have a beef with Detroit because it's one giant ****-hole bringing the whole State of Michigan down. OK, sorry, it's 85% ****-hole. There are half a dozen decent miles out of the 145 square miles.
As many people have said on this forum: you can't compare GR to Detroit. You just can't.
You just don't get it! What I was attempting to communicate is what life is like for many blacks in Grand Rapids. What blacks experience on a daily basis in Grand Rapids is not the same as what is experienced by the typical white person in regards to neighborhoods and crime. Thus, as an African American who lived in both Grand Rapids black community and Detroits black community.....It was not a big adjustment. What I am doing is juxtaposing life for blacks in Grand Rapids with Detroit....which is an 85% black city. Get it? Grand Rapids as a whole has statistics that represent its white majority and hence no its not as dangerous as Detroit because Detroit is not a white majority city. However, if Detroit were to annex Oakland county to the degree that the New Detroit is 70% white....then its statistics would be more in line with the city of Grand Rapids. When you juxtapose the city of Grand Rapids with the city of Detroit, you are contrasting a majority white city with a majority black city which will always show the white city being better statistically if both cities are microcosms of whites and blacks in the nation due to the fact that NATIONALY there is a big statistical difference between the races.
You just don't get it! What I was attempting to communicate is what life is like for many blacks in Grand Rapids. What blacks experience on a daily basis in Grand Rapids is not the same as what is experienced by the typical white person in regards to neighborhoods and crime. Thus, as an African American who lived in both Grand Rapids black community and Detroits black community.....It was not a big adjustment. What I am doing is juxtaposing life for blacks in Grand Rapids with Detroit....which is an 85% black city. Get it? Grand Rapids as a whole has statistics that represent its white majority and hence no its not as dangerous as Detroit because Detroit is not a white majority city. However, if Detroit were to annex Oakland county to the degree that the New Detroit is 70% white....then its statistics would be more in line with the city of Grand Rapids. When you juxtapose the city of Grand Rapids with the city of Detroit, you are contrasting a majority white city with a majority black city which will always show the white city being better statistically if both cities are microcosms of whites and blacks in the nation due to the fact that NATIONALY there is a big statistical difference between the races.
You're right, I don't get what you're saying at all. For someone living in Detroit, the chances of being a victim of a crime (like murder) are 10x greater than the average person living in Grand Rapids. Detroit can annex any neighboring city it wants; it's not going to change that just because it makes the stats look less ugly.
Location: Ocqueoc, MI - Extreme N.E. Lower Peninsula
275 posts, read 441,992 times
Reputation: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
You're right, I don't get what you're saying at all. For someone living in Detroit, the chances of being a victim of a crime (like murder) are 10x greater than the average person living in Grand Rapids. Detroit can annex any neighboring city it wants; it's not going to change that just because it makes the stats look less ugly.
But otherwise, nice pictures.
I do agree that skewing the numbers doesn't change the fact that Grand Rapids is a MUCH safer place to live on the whole than Detroit. However, I do agree with the OP that if you are a black person wanting to live in an upscale black neighborhood you can do this in Detroit and not in Grand Rapids. If you make a comparison of the "best" black neighborhood in Detroit to the "best" black neighborhood in Grand Rapids and then use this comparison when deciding where to live, in my mind what the OP is saying makes perfect sense.
Not that it should matter, but I'm a middle aged white guy living in central Ohio, who used to live in Detroit, who then lived in Grand Rapids, and who will soon be living in northern Michigan.
I do agree that skewing the numbers doesn't change the fact that Grand Rapids is a MUCH safer place to live on the whole than Detroit. However, I do agree with the OP that if you are a black person wanting to live in an upscale black neighborhood you can do this in Detroit and not in Grand Rapids. If you make a comparison of the "best" black neighborhood in Detroit to the "best" black neighborhood in Grand Rapids and then use this comparison when deciding where to live, in my mind what the OP is saying makes perfect sense.
Not that it should matter, but I'm a middle aged white guy living in central Ohio, who used to live in Detroit, who then lived in Grand Rapids, and who will soon be living in northern Michigan.
There are definitely larger middle class and upper middle class black neighborhoods in Detroit than GR, for sure. But that's not really what the OP is saying with his photo essay. He's basically saying "that's all there is, there ain't no more," when it comes to GR, which isn't true. It has "agenda" written all over it.
Plus, why as a black person would you seek out an all black neighborhood? Or a white person seek out all white?
I do agree that skewing the numbers doesn't change the fact that Grand Rapids is a MUCH safer place to live on the whole than Detroit. However, I do agree with the OP that if you are a black person wanting to live in an upscale black neighborhood you can do this in Detroit and not in Grand Rapids. If you make a comparison of the "best" black neighborhood in Detroit to the "best" black neighborhood in Grand Rapids and then use this comparison when deciding where to live, in my mind what the OP is saying makes perfect sense.
Not that it should matter, but I'm a middle aged white guy living in central Ohio, who used to live in Detroit, who then lived in Grand Rapids, and who will soon be living in northern Michigan.
Thank you for having a mind open wide enough to see my point. I did not live in ALL of GR. I live in a particular area of GR that was about 90% black. The statistics in that community in regards to poverty, unemployment, crime and the like is much worse than the statitics for Grand Rapids as a whole. That is what MY perspective is in juxtaposing it with what I experienced in Detroit. The fact that the Crime Rate and problems of GR in the aggregate are not on par with Detroit does not mean that Grand Rapids does not have areas where the rate of crime is as high as Detroits aggregate rates. Of course, Detroit has some areas that have crime rates much worse than the worst part of Grand Rapids AND much worse than the aggregate crime for the city of Detroit.
In short, using logic, what is true for the whole cannot be assumed to be true of all its part and what is true of a part of the whole cannot be assumed true for the whole. A great basketball team does not mean that every player (or any for that matter) on that team is a great players. On the other hand, a terrible basketball team does not mean that there does not exist a great basketball player on the team. Hence, extrapolating from this logic one cannot say that Grand Rapids does not have areas with big problems just because Grand Rapids as a whole does not have big problems.
The bush that people are beating around, out of their insecurity about themselves, is the issue of race. Every since black people arrived in this nation they have had a different experience and standard of living than whites. That has not changed. Blacks spent centuries being oppressed in this nation and have not fully recovered and neither has the nation fully recovered from its racist ways. Hence, nationally you have a reality in which black poverty is 3 times that of whites, black unemployment is twice that of whites and black wealth is 15 times less than whites. Thus, its stands to reason that when a majority whites city is juxtaposed with a majority black city, both being microcosms of the nation as a whole, that statistically the black city will be much worse off and which is why Grand Rapids statistically looks much better than Detroit......but for a black person living in the black community in Grand Rapids.....they see Detroit different because the people are African American like they are.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-06-2010 at 08:19 AM..
There are definitely larger middle class and upper middle class black neighborhoods in Detroit than GR, for sure. But that's not really what the OP is saying with his photo essay. He's basically saying "that's all there is, there ain't no more," when it comes to GR, which isn't true. It has "agenda" written all over it.
Plus, why as a black person would you seek out an all black neighborhood? Or a white person seek out all white?
My photo essay only says "Inner-City" Grand Rapids. How can I have been saying "that is all there is" when I qualified the scope by the SUBSET "inner-city". I did not say "Grand Rapids". When people show bad neighborhoods in Detroit, they don't qualify it with "the Brush Park or the Brightmore areas or whatever. No...its JUST DETROIT....leaving the impression that all of Detroit is like that when not even half of it is.
All black communities were created as a result of whites not wanting to live around blacks. Every black community in Michigan was once an all white community in which blacks moved into and then whites moved out of. Inner-SE-Grand Rapids used to be all white, Flints North side, Detroit.....when blacks move in whites eventually move out and hence its blacks who integrate into white communities only to find that whites tend to flee these communities when it reaches about a 20% threshold. So no one is seeking out black communities.....they just exist from the creation of people who are uncomfortable living around a lot of black people who then move away and stay away and then look at these black areas as Sh...t holes!.
I am just curious, is there a predominately black area in any city that is nice? I am not aware of any. It seems that the Black perspective that you depict is pretty much the same for any major city in the US. People will argue until they turn purple over whether this is because blacks are forced to live in the awful areas, because black culture makes the areas awful, or simply because a huge percentage of blacks live in poverty and, because of this, where blacks congregate, poverty also congregates.
It is interesting to be reminded that where so many of us see a beautiful and mostly thriving city, others see mostly blight, poverty and decay. It is more than just a question of your attitude and what you are looking for, it is an issue of perspective and the types of places that you go. For example, I go to Detroit quite a lot (pretty much every day), but I stay out of the bad areas, so I rarely see them. What I see is a pretty neat city with a lot of cool things to do and neat places to live. I know that the awful areas are out there, but I rarely see them. Thus, for me, the nice parts become representative of Detroit. Awful areas exist, but they are easily avoided. I see a really neat City with some bad areas.
Other people go into Detroit and they see only the blight and decay. They rarely go into the neat and exciting areas either becasue of finances, or because they have no reason to go there. They believe that that is representative of all of Detroit. They see a really horrible city with a few tiny leftover specks of decency. Neither perspective is entirely correct.
Grand Rapids is obviously the same way. I visited Downtown Grapids last week for the first time in over 25 years. I was amazed at how nice it has become. The areas that I saw are lively quirky, quaint and fun (I was on Ionia SW fairly near Michigan Street). I got lost for a while looking for an ATM and all of the areas and neighborhoods that I saw were really neat. A few boarded up buildings here and there, but an equal number being restored. I went home and told my wife that downtown Grand Rapids would be a great place to live (sans children).
I.S. presented a very different view of Grand Rapids, one that I never saw or considered. One viewpoint is not more correct or valid than the other. Both the nice parts and the not so nice parts actually exist (just like Detroit and almost every other city). It is just a combination of perspective (what parts you need to go to), and the nature of the person. Different people focus on different issues, in part becasue of where they must go or what purpose they have in the city, and in part becuase some people tend to focus on the positive while others see more of the bad things. It is just a difference in nature. Just like two people can come back from the same vacation and one will say "It was wonderful. The weather was great. It did not rain at all, the food was unique and intersting to try, and the different culture was quite a neat experience" While another who did the exact same things would say "It was awful. It was too hot, I was constantly worried about being robbed and the people live like pigs. Plus the food was terrible" Both woudl be correct. It is just what they focus on. I have five kids. Some of them are like the former and some like the latter. It is just a different perspective.
One group gets referred to as dreamers, or "rose covered glasses"; while the other type gets referred to as negative nellies; or pessimists. I do not think either one is more correct than the other. Both can support their viewpoint with valid facts and examples. It is jsut a different viewpoint.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 12-06-2010 at 08:40 AM..
There is no perfect city. Every city has at least some blight. And if those pictures are the worst things he could find in GR, then he is basically proving that GR is a nice city. None of those houses were caving in, or burned out. I didn't see bars on the windows or graffiti. Just lower-middle class or low-end housing, which exists in every medium to large-sized city on Earth.
And the pictures give the impression that the residential areas are fighting the good fight and winning a fair amount of the time. The cars parked on the street are in the middle of their lifespans, most homes appear to be in livable condition, and the vacant lots have relatively little litter in them. As you said, there's a lack of grafitti and other low level vandalism present. Yeah, it's pretty rough around some edges, but there's probably life and hope there.
You'll find worse in so many other parts of the US, whether you're taliing big city, small metro or rural. Heck, most of the neighborhood pictured is in better shape than select parts of the city of Wyoming.
I am just curious, is there a predominately black area in any city that is nice? I am not aware of any. It seems that the Black perspective that you depict is pretty much the same for any major city in the US. People will argue until they turn purple over whether this is because blacks are forced to live in the awful areas, because black culture makes the areas awful, or simply because a huge percentage of blacks live in poverty and, because of this, where blacks congregate, poverty also congregates.
It is interesting to be reminded that where so many of us see a beautiful and mostly thriving city, others see mostly blight, poverty and decay. It is more than just a question of your attitude and what you are looking for, it is an issue of perspective and the types of places that you go. For example, I go to Detroit quite a lot (pretty much every day), but I stay out of the bad areas, so I rarely see them. What I see is a pretty neat city with a lot of cool things to do and neat places to live. I know that the awful areas are out there, but I rarely see them. Thus, for me, the nice parts become representative of Detroit. Awful areas exist, but they are easily avoided. I see a really neat City with some bad areas.
Other people go into Detroit and they see only the blight and decay. They rarely go into the neat and exciting areas either becasue of finances, or because they have no reason to go there. They believe that that is representative of all of Detroit. They see a really horrible city with a few tiny leftover specks of decency. Neither perspective is entirely correct.
Grand Rapids is obviously the same way. I visited Downtown Grapids last week for the first time in over 25 years. I was amazed at how nice it has become. The areas that I saw are lively quirky, quaint and fun (I was on Ionia SW fairly near Michigan Street). I got lost for a while looking for an ATM and all of the areas and neighborhoods that I saw were really neat. A few boarded up buildings here and there, but an equal number being restored. I went home and told my wife that downtown Grand Rapids would be a great place to live (sans children).
I.S. presented a very different view of Grand Rapids, one that I never saw or considered. One viewpoint is not more correct or valid than the other. Both the nice parts and the not so nice parts actually exist (just like Detroit and almost every other city). It is just a combination of perspective (what parts you need to go to), and the nature of the person. Different people focus on different issues, in part becasue of where they must go or what purpose they have in the city, and in part becuase some people tend to focus on the positive while others see more of the bad things. It is just a difference in nature. Just like two people can come back from the same vacation and one will say "It was wonderful. The weather was great. It did not rain at all, the food was unique and intersting to try, and the different culture was quite a neat experience" While another who did the exact same things would say "It was awful. It was too hot, I was constantly worried about being robbed and the people live like pigs. Plus the food was terrible" Both woudl be correct. It is just what they focus on. I have five kids. Some of them are like the former and some like the latter. It is just a different perspective.
One group gets referred to as dreamers, or "rose covered glasses"; while the other type gets referred to as negative nellies; or pessimists. I do not think either one is more correct than the other. Both can support their viewpoint with valid facts and examples. It is jsut a different viewpoint.
Michigan's cities are the most segregated in the country, even Grand Rapids. There are definitely cities where there is a lot of diversity (integrated), and they are nice/wealthy areas.
My photo essay only says "Inner-City" Grand Rapids. How can I have been saying "that is all there is" when I qualified the scope by the SUBSET "inner-city". I did not say "Grand Rapids". When people show bad neighborhoods in Detroit, they don't qualify it with "the Brush Park or the Brightmore areas or whatever. No...its JUST DETROIT....leaving the impression that all of Detroit is like that when not even half of it is.
All black communities were created as a result of whites not wanting to live around blacks. Every black community in Michigan was once an all white community in which blacks moved into and then whites moved out of. Inner-SE-Grand Rapids used to be all white, Flints North side, Detroit.....when blacks move in whites eventually move out and hence its blacks who integrate into white communities only to find that whites tend to flee these communities when it reaches about a 20% threshold. So no one is seeking out black communities.....they just exist from the creation of people who are uncomfortable living around a lot of black people who then move away and stay away and then look at these black areas as Sh...t holes!.
Fine. And I never labeled black areas as sh**holes. In fact, there are some areas of NW Grand Rapids that are predominantly white that look worse than the photos you posted. There are also areas of Kentwood, which is predominantly white, that I'd be afraid to step foot in at night. Poverty = how a neighborhood looks, not color, in my opinion. Fewer owner-occupieds means fewer homeowners who take care of their homes and each other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were a total of Nine (9) murders in the city of GR last year. That's 4.5 murders per 100,000 residents, for the mathematically challenged.
