Interesting

Aug 04, 2009 02:04

So, while at the 4th of July party this year, a couple of my friend were talking about moving to Detroit to take advantage of the dying city that it is. I thought it was a great idea and was quite enganged in the discussion.

However, today I was reading an article (several really) about how my own beloved S.F. ain't all that far different right now. The percentage of homes with no one living in them is only about .3% different. S.F. was at about 3.8% vacancy rate, while Detroit was about 4.1%. Now, they discussed this fact, but they said they were totally different reasons.

In Detroit, much of it was caused by a drastic decline in jobs and thus money to pay for homes. In S.F., it was due to much supply, and not enough demand, with inflated costs of homes. Though the general unemployment rate in the area was also a contributing factor, as it is also quite high.

At any rate, the whole thing made me thing that the Detroit idea wasn't such a hot one after all. I really don't like the cold after all. Perhaps one of the other dead or dying cities, with a more appealing climate, would be the choice for me.

Anyway you look at it, I think that it's interesting that you hear a lot more about how Detroit is a dying city, while you really don't hear about S.F. or Las Vegas, or even Miami. Those too were high on the lists of dying cities in the articles.

Makes me wonder what kind of a shit hole Detroit must be if it gets mentioned, and no else does.
Previous post
Up