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.
People will always want to feel secure and will always want their kids to be safe, and well educated. For those reasons, the future of suburbs remains rosy. That doesn't mean the cities can't succeed, too, I think they're faced with a lot of obstacles revolving around the future financial difficulties cities such as Cinti face regarding union pension liabilities that will bankrupt them. I feel more secure in financially strong suburb over the next 20-30 years. I also fear of mass social disorder regarding the national debt situation which will bankrupt the country. The problems that hit Greece this summer are coming to this country and will be in places like downtown Cinti. I can protect my family on my one acre in Mason better than I can in downtown Cinti.
The main difference I see? Strong union presence in the dying cities versus the one's prospering. Unions stymie innovation and progress.
How do you explain Philadelphia's growth and resurgence?
Oh, don't forget NYC. They have been strong union forever and a day. Yet they have one of the most robust rental markets in the country and they gained population in the last census as Philly did.
Really, this introduces a lot of political conjecture/possibilities in the topic. Not to mention your own personal fears. The topic is big US cities boom as young adults shun the suburbs. I have posted many articles from around the nation showing the trend from several angles. It appears that Ohio's cities are not on the short list. So my point is are we behind the curve and catching up? Or just doomed to forever live in the shadows of more desireable places - such as Boston, Philly, NYC and the like.
Personally, I think we are on the right track. All three Cs.
Not a political discussion at all; it's purely economics. How much debt can an entity, government or corporation, service until the interest payments shut things down? Take the US federal debt for example. We keep adding 100's of billions of additional debt a year plus pay cash interest. Eventually interest on the debt becomes too much and all you end up is paying interest. The only end picture I see is to greatly devalue our currency thus repaying the debt with ever cheaper money. The ugly byproduct is hyperinflation in the neighborhood of 20-30% annually. Invest and protect your families as you see fit.
How do you explain Philadelphia's growth and resurgence?
Oh, don't forget NYC. They have been strong union forever and a day. Yet they have one of the most robust rental markets in the country and they gained population in the last census as Philly did.
Not sure about Philly. But if it's one of the few union towns to succeed, then so be it. NYC is 100% dependent on Wall Street. If it succeeds then so does NYC. If it fails then NYC and its unions do, too.
And KjBrill, are you seriously saying that if I walk up to some young city resident and ask them why they live in the city, they will tell me it's because they fear for the future? What a hilariously absurd statement. I, just like many others on this forum, live in the city because we prefer cities to suburbs. End of story.
Not sure about Philly. But if it's one of the few union towns to succeed, then so be it. NYC is 100% dependent on Wall Street. If it succeeds then so does NYC. If it fails then NYC and its unions do, too.
NYC has entire industries housed within it's city limits. If you think all NYC has going for it is Wall Street, then you really know next to nothing about NYC. Boston is also a union town. You really don't get it, but you would if you took off the socio/economic glasses and read the links I posted. Cities all across the nation are growing again, and some are notably outpacing their suburbs in population growth for the first time in years.
I think in particular, Cleveland and Cincinnati have slowed population loss and will start gaining again from whats happening in their urban cores.
I just got back from five days in Pittsburgh and am ready to rumble here!!!
Since Fallingwater was on my "gotta see" list, that meant car rental had to happen. And that in turn meant that it made good sense to dwell in suburbia for its free parking. What made that pill a whole lot easier to swallow? Public transportation! My hotel was an easy three-block walk from a terminal (adjoined, incidentally, by a large parking garage) whence one could take either of two light-rail lines downtown. (Their routes diverged pretty significantly but joined ahead of the Monongahela River to traverse the CBD underground and then wind up RIGHT AT Heinz Field, PNC Park, and the Carnegie Science Museum.) The $3.75 fare seemed a tad bit steep, but stowing the wheels for several hours probably sets one back more than $7.50 - plus there's traffic to fight of course.
For the same fare you can also catch an express bus to/from downtown from the airport. Only one additional light-rail line is operating, also to the southern suburbs, and getting it launched was easy because the tracks and right-of-way from an old "interurban" to Washington (PA) were still there. Local friends told me that Pittsburgh had kept more trolley lines for longer than most cities, and that taking out the other routes was soon regretted. At this point only the "minor detail" of funding prevents some from being (re)opened. In the meantime there's a fairly extensive bus system in place - and lots of people use it. While commuters streamed into the light-rail stations during the late afternoon I was downtown, bus stops were so mobbed that you had to fight your way down the sidewalk. More importantly, there seemed to be no ethnic, age, or class distinction setting the transit users apart. Aside from "Sun Runs" and the Metro lines serving UC you just don't see that in Cincinnati.
One thing Pittsburgh shares with Cincy is the reason that the bus stops and light-rail stations are so busy in the late afternoon. Downtown is more dead than alive. Take out office buildings, old churches, rich people's clubs, fast-food joints, franchise outlets of national pharmacies and other stores (such as the "national headquarters," whoo hoo, of GNC), and the requisite Macy's and there's not much left. The "sketch" factor makes quantum leaps with each passing half-hour after 6 PM. I was there for about 90 minutes and saw the evolution happening.
Although there was plenty of proof that Pittsburgh isn't as prudish as Cincinnati with regard to "adult entertainment" (few places are, after all) there was no section set aside for it per se. Whether inside the city or outside, signs with wording such as "gentleman's club" were the only clue to what an otherwise unremarkable structure was being used for. It could well be that there's restrictive zoning in effect, but that's a far cry from what the Leis/Winburn/Burress brigade has visited on Cincy.
Close to downtown, there is an area called the Strip District, but that's in honor of its being a lengthy and narrow neighborhood (hence "strip.") It boasts numerous and varied restaurants as well as "ethnic" markets and quite a few watering holes and nightclubs. Within the city limits there are several other perennially popular communities surrounding Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, as well as neighborhoods south of the "Mon" that are gentrifying with a vengeance. Redeveloping at a more sputtering pace is the "North Shore" (of the Allegheny River) area. Its crown jewel is the expansive and inviting Allegheny Commons park, home to the National Aviary. The side streets are lined with everything from row houses inviting comparison with OTR to heavily detailed stone mansions which call Avondale to mind. Most of the homes appear to have been refurbished, and there are a few trendy businesses here and there along with several B & B's. What's also there are a YMCA that's seen better days (is that redundant?), drug treatment centers, a major hospital, and enough junk-food outlets that you could eat all your meals out of a bag for a week and not have the same one twice.
In a nutshell - Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are extremely similar. Both have sports-fan "nations" that live to tailgate. Both have experienced retail - and consumer - flight from the 1950's until relatively recently. Both are academic and medical centers that are overshadowed, not always fairly, by more "prestigious" cities. Both contain sections that never lost their allure along with others that are finding new life. Both are blessed with the natural variety and beauty brought by being situated along large rivers. And both were boom towns when the economy was based on manufacturing, looking for new ways to sustain the majority of the populace while those with advanced formal education are on board with the "information society." Where do they differ most markedly? To some extent, with "gentleman's clubs" as an example, Pittsburgh seems to have a smidgen more of a socially tolerant mindset. (By the same token I saw no significantly diverse communities and no streets lined with rainbow flags, and the proportion of pale-faced passengers on the light-rail line grew with each southbound stop the train made.) But the key difference was a viable and well-utilized transit system. The city's two "inclines" that still run, along with light rail, were the catalyst for the rebound of its South Side. Inner-ring 'burbs to the south are seeing the construction of apartment/retail building complexes near stations. The location of the northern terminus makes getting to Pitt and major-league games a breeze. Meanwhile, Cincinnatians pitch endless fits over getting even so much as a trolley "line to nowhere" into being. Had I not known from many years in Boston what a boon to a city good mass transit is, I would've been sold on the concept by what I saw in the 'burgh.
This post wasn't meant to be a travelogue, honest!
I think "shunning" is an overstatement, but there's definitely a trend afoot among those born between 1975 and 1990 to opt for urban living over the subdivisions and strip malls of their youth. And it has absolutely nothing to do with economic jitters. Oddly no one's pointed this out yet, but I think the overcommitment and overprotection perpetrated by many parents is provoking a reaction from their maturing offspring. A generation raised on play dates and barely meeting the neighbors and having to be driven everywhere is saying "later for that." They - perhaps unconsciously - are seeking what was normal for city and suburban children alike before they were born. And in Cincinnati they're finding it not only in the "perennially popular" east-side neighborhoods, Mt Adams, and Clifton but in the still-"ghetto" OTR and in places like Pleasant Ridge and even Hartwell or Westwood. For it's in these places that you can't walk out the door or to the corner without a friendly greeting from someone whose name you know. They're communities where congenial taverns never left, and which can accommodate whatever your taste might lean toward. (Creative cocktails and co-op bicycle mechanics? Northside. Chili at 3 in the morning, or a pint of Irish stout in the evening? Pleasant Ridge. Yuppified hot dogs or waffles? OTR. And so on.) As far as resorting to cheap and dilapidated living arrangements out of financial paranoia or desperation, I call "hogwash" on that! Renting and buying in some of these locales is far from a bargain. And in many parts of town - Roselawn, I hear you calling - it's social prejudice and not the quality of a dwelling that makes for its low sticker price. I truly believe that as segregated as most of the population continues to be, younger people as a rule are far less terrified at the prospect of having neighbors from different backgrounds as their forebears were. And when somebody's not insistent upon calling a concrete cube with big windows their address - for folks like that there's The Banks - it only makes sense to find a comparable living space to one in the 'burbs for notably less money. Sorry, kj, but when you're looking to live solo or only with a spouse/partner there's NO POINT in chasing a McMansion with an acre's worth of lawn. Personally I think there's some collective naivete in effect, but couples who are raising a kid or two seem largely committed to their being brought up not like their parents did with them. This means instilling a sense of caution to be sure, but also means that unlike having to wait until next Tuesday at 4:30 to play with little Susie for an hour it can be agreed, "Yes, you can jump around in the fountains at Washington Park with Susie. But if you're not home by 6 you won't get any dessert." For all their clogging of coffee shop space as they crank their iPods and peck away on laptops, and causing near-collisions behind the wheel or on the sidewalk as they thumb away on a text message that just can't wait, I think the young adults of the 2010's hunger for the social density and stimulation cities provide and suburbs lack.
Goyguy, I repped you for that one. And in particular you answered to me why Pittsburgh is doing better than Cincy in this regard, yet is such a similar city in so many ways. Thanks for all the info from your first hand experience.
I think flashes1 brings up a few good points. You can only do so much with so little. Eventually, something has to give, be it union pensions or the city's financial status. Unlike the feds, other government entities cannot leave an unbalanced budget. Then when city services cannot be rendered, my guess is you will see a sudden stop of inflow. Just as the suburbs grew at high rates before a dead drop, so can cities. You just don't know the future.
Side Note:
Sadly, this country is too polarized and when given a chance, I'm upping it out of here for Singapore, Australia, any place that is more financially sound. Without any leadership, why should I stay? Of course, that could change as its only a long-term forecast.
Granted, I would love to live in the city, given the chance. I do think eventually I'd move further out, unless schools in urban districts become more competitive. And less of a hassle/worry about lotteries or getting my child into a certain, select school. There is a reason Clintonville in Cbus has a rep for young families that move out when the oldest hits kindergarten or at the latest, middle school. It will be interesting to look back 10-15 years from now and see if the same young people are still in cities or if a majority have moved further out of the core.
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.
- it only makes sense to find a comparable living space to one in the 'burbs for notably less money. Sorry, kj, but when you're looking to live solo or only with a spouse/partner there's NO POINT in chasing a McMansion with an acre's worth of lawn. Personally I think there's some collective naivete in effect, but couples who are raising a kid or two seem largely committed to their being brought up not like their parents did with them. This means instilling a sense of caution to be sure, but also means that unlike having to wait until next Tuesday at 4:30 to play with little Susie for an hour it can be agreed, "Yes, you can jump around in the fountains at Washington Park with Susie. But if you're not home by 6 you won't get any dessert." For all their clogging of coffee shop space as they crank their iPods and peck away on laptops, and causing near-collisions behind the wheel or on the sidewalk as they thumb away on a text message that just can't wait, I think the young adults of the 2010's hunger for the social density and stimulation cities provide and suburbs lack.
