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'm not trying pick on the Sun Belt here, but I really don't think a lot of people are considering how much the cost of oil is going to impact urban/suburban/exurban development over the next few decades. That said, unless cities that are considered much more autocentric (most of those listed) immediately start to invest in more public transit, their growth will undoubtedly slow -- and possibly reverse. Granted, there's not a lot of movement in general during national recessions, but if energy prices keep trending upwards, then you can guarantee that there will be strong relocation demands:
A.) To live in places where public transit is already established.
B.) To live closer to places of employment, causing greater densification of already urbanized areas.
C.) To live in areas with much more walkable infrastructure to run errands without getting into a car.
All things considered, New York is best suited to handle what the future will likely hold.
The thing is though - people grow attached to their cities. People aren't going to leave the sunbelt just because of gas prices. They're more likely to buy hybrid cars or start carpooling than to pick up and move across the country.
That said, even cities like Atlanta and Houston have plenty of dense, walkable neighborhoods. And Atlanta actually has improved their public transportation a lot.
The thing is though - people grow attached to their cities. People aren't going to leave the sunbelt just because of gas prices. They're more likely to buy hybrid cars or start carpooling than to pick up and move across the country.
That said, even cities like Atlanta and Houston have plenty of dense, walkable neighborhoods. And Atlanta actually has improved their public transportation a lot.
That is an excellent post. I agree with you. I honestly don't think there are going to be very many people who will move to NY or Chicago just because of the high cost of gas. Before they'd move to places with frigid winters and higher taxes they'll probably make other changes to adjust for the high gas prices.
And in fact, the high gas prices might actually encourage more sprawl. Businesses and shopping centers will be built closer to where people live (suburbs) since it's unlikely many people with kids will want to suddenly move to the inner-city just to save a few bucks on gas.
Yeah, JMT. I've noticed that happening. More major businesses are moving to the suburbs to be closer to where people live. Suburbs are becoming mini-cities themselves with their own downtowns and everything.
I can't say that I agree with you there. Unless Chicago can gets its act together and stop doing asinine things like having the highest sales tax in the nation (yes, starting today, we do ), then I don't see that to be the case anytime before we clean political house (they all need to go at this point, I gave Daley a fair shot for years, and yes, even liked him in the beginning, but he needs to go too).
I predict that medium sized cities with good public transportation systems (given the cost of gas) and low crime will be the fastest growing cities of the future.
The thing is though - people grow attached to their cities. People aren't going to leave the sunbelt just because of gas prices. They're more likely to buy hybrid cars or start carpooling than to pick up and move across the country.
That's not exactly what I meant. The main impetus for Sun Belt growth was low cost of energy that didn't need to focus on the older 19th century model of a dense urban core.
Since we're talking about the future, my overall point is that people will be less inclined to continue to migrate to areas without adequate walkable infrastructure and public transit. I'm not prognosticating a definite outcome, but it seems only logical that would be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT
And in fact, the high gas prices might actually encourage more sprawl. Businesses and shopping centers will be built closer to where people live (suburbs) since it's unlikely many people with kids will want to suddenly move to the inner-city just to save a few bucks on gas.
That's exactly what I was referring to, but it's the exact opposite of "sprawl." In other words, if businesses, housing, etc. densify already urbanized areas, then sprawl -- that is, an outward spread of development into areas of farmland/open space -- will come to a halt. Although you're right in that families -- particularly with young children -- will not suddenly become inner-city dwellers, it has implications of people wanting to live closer to urban centers, as opposed to increasingly farther away from their jobs/shopping/other amenities. Does that mean the cities in the Sun Belt currently experiencing high growth will suddenly become ghost towns? Hardly. However, I'd be willing to bet that eventually they will no longer have the corner on the relocation market, as the general public will increasingly have to figure transportation costs into their budgets.
Ummm...the main attraction for the Sun Belt is relatively low cost of living/business operations which results in a more active job cycle. The relatively low cost of energy is superfluous. (Though I don't really think it's cheap here, either.)
Overall, I think cities that offer jobs, goods/services and wages that keep up with their populations' needs and expenditures and have sufficient space will continue to see growth.
Last edited by theSUBlime; 07-01-2008 at 12:08 PM..
Ummm...the main attraction for the Sun Belt is relatively low cost of living/business operations which results in a more active job cycle. The relatively low cost of energy is superfluous. (Though I don't really think it's cheap here, either.)
How is the low cost of energy superfluous when it was what lead to building sprawling freeways surrounding cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta? Cities such as these epitomized the automobile age in being able to drive around endlessly when the supply of oil seemed endless. Those days are long gone, however -- and my point refers to what can potentially happen in the aftermath.
You're correct that the low cost-of-living and friendly business atmosphere resulting in job growth is what attracted transplants. However, with business incentives being offered in cities all over the country and cost-of-living -- such as transportation, utilities, food prices -- all being significantly affected by oil, then the topic of low energy costs with regard enticing people to the Sun Belt is certainly not "superfluous."
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.
), then I don't see that to be the case anytime before we clean political house (they all need to go at this point, I gave Daley a fair shot for years, and yes, even liked him in the beginning, but he needs to go too).
