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.
I think these cities probably always had higher average incomes and lower poverty rates than the big Northeastern and Midwestern cities. Still, they were both big port towns with a history of union activism, so obviously they had big blue collar populations at one time. Certainly many of these working class neighborhoods have been gentrified.
Don't confuse "working class" with low income. Traditional working class neighborhoods were historically stable, homogenus places, unlike low income "slums" with high unemployment, poverty and crime.
The author argues that long-term demographic and economic trends will continue to make city living more desirable and suburban living less desirable. The author makes the important point that suburbs with urban amenities (walkable neighborhoods, well-built housing stock, and rail transit) will also benefit from these same trends. Its the tract housing, exurban, auto-centric burbs which will suffer the most.
European cities, which did not embrace the automobile as enthusiastically as American cities did after WWI, have long had this pattern (poorest neighborhoods farthest from the center of the city).
Don't confuse "working class" with low income. Traditional working class neighborhoods were historically stable, homogenus places, unlike low income "slums" with high unemployment, poverty and crime.
I don't. My point is more that Seattle and San Francisco certainly had neighborhoods with below-average incomes that now have above-average incomes. Even if they were better off than Northeastern and Midwestern cities they certainly had lots of low-paid laborers at one time as well.
European cities, which did not embrace the automobile as enthusiastically as American cities did after WWI, have long had this pattern (poorest neighborhoods farthest from the center of the city).
This was a very interesting article sukwoo. Before I even started reading, I thought "If this were to occur, those cheaply-made mcmansions would never hold up as ghettos like 19th and early 20th century houses do/did" And then I read it later on!
Exactly this pattern has happened to San Diego. The city government explicitly began redeveloping downtown in the mid 1980s. It took awhile to take off (the early 90s recession hit So Cal hard and left a number of holes in the ground waiting for a building) but in the late 90s and 2000s downtown San Diego took off.
Also about this time (mid 80s) began the revitalization of some of the neighborhoods closest to downtown: Little Italy, Park West (aka Bankers Hill), and Hillcrest. In these neighborhoods the bulk of the original attractive early 1900s housing was long gone, so what has occurred instead is the building of upscale well-designed apartment buildings with parking underground, first floor retail, and housing above - exactly as described in "The Atlantic" article linked too earlier. City code and city planning explicitly supports this approach and you'll be hard pressed to get Planning Department approval if you don't comply.
The boom or rebirth of older neighborhoods has now moved onto areas that surround Balboa Park, and Mission Hills which was one of those "Upper East Side" areas, always nice and always wealthy. Hillcrest San Diego's (gayborhood) is next to Mission Hills for example, and North Park, and South Park are "surprise" near Balboa Park. The 'halo' effect of the Mission Hills neighborhood, Balboa Park, and views of the bay have helped all of these areas.
Oddly, however, what these revitalizing neighborhoods don't have (except Little Italy) is rail transit. However, they do have the special attributes mentioned above, and they do have excellent bus transit that only has to ridden a short distance to downtown.
The author argues that long-term demographic and economic trends will continue to make city living more desirable and suburban living less desirable. The author makes the important point that suburbs with urban amenities (walkable neighborhoods, well-built housing stock, and rail transit) will also benefit from these same trends. Its the tract housing, exurban, auto-centric burbs which will suffer the most.
This is being discussed on the Denver forum, as it relates to Denver, of course, but it is interesting.
The author argues that long-term demographic and economic trends will continue to make city living more desirable and suburban living less desirable. The author makes the important point that suburbs with urban amenities (walkable neighborhoods, well-built housing stock, and rail transit) will also benefit from these same trends. Its the tract housing, exurban, auto-centric burbs which will suffer the most.
This article is pretty far fetched. Its as if the writer is taking on the role of the devils advocate.Trying to create a point of view that just isnt there.Completely dismissed the fact that the auto oriented suburbs have become the dominant economic engine in most metroes.
In New Jersey, the concept of a completely blighted suburb is unheard of (with the exception of maybe 2 towns that come to mind). Most of the poor live in the old industrial cities.
Exactly that article borders on ridiculousness.
The people now living in Hunterdon,Essex,Somerton,Bergen Counties? Where are they going? What are they running from? Most of the jobs are in office parks within 5-10 miles of their mcmansions.What are they going to move to Jersey City with the poor people and commute 45 minutes to their suburbann office parks?
Manhattan costs a bloody fortune, cant move there. Are they moving to Newark with the horrible schools,crime,homelessness? Why would they want to put their kids into schools that have 45% graduation rate and quadruple their commute to work in the process.
This article is pretty far fetched. Its as if the writer is taking on the role of the devils advocate.Trying to create a point of view that just isnt there.Completely dismissed the fact that the auto oriented suburbs have become the dominant economic engine in most metroes.
Many prominent metro areas have vibrant, and even dominant central cities. NYC, Boston, and Chicago come to mind. Besides, the point of the article is that IF transportation expenses continue to increase, economic activity will, over time, migrate towards lower-cost transit-friendly areas, such as central business districts.
Imagine oil shocks sending the price of gas to 10 per gallon. You better believe that a company with a location in downtown Chicago (with easy rail transit to the entire metro area of 10 million) will be more attractive to potential employees than a competitor in a suburban office park where everyone has to drive to get to work. Obviously an extreme example, but even smaller increases in the price of gas will lead to incremental, but real changes in housing and work developmental patterns.
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.
