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 agree with you HSW. Some of this journalistic rhetoric is wishful thinking on the part of certain factions of liberals who want this to happen. It doesn't mean any trend has been established or is ongoing.
Most people I know won't give up there comfortable suburban setting to live in a city. Besides, there only so much room to pack them into the city.
Wishful thinking is exactly what it is. Every so often we hear similar stories about how the suburbs and other areas outside of cities are losing their appeal and how cities are more ideal places to live. And every time one of these 'journalists' writes one of these types of stories you can almost hear them hoping and cheering that people who live in the suburbs will "come to their senses" and leave their three bedroom houses and backyards for a cramped, "socially conscious", closet sized apartment in an overcrowded city. Equal misery for everyone comrade.
This is a quote from a thread in the Cincinnati forum, but I think it illustrates the problems the suburbs are going to face in the (near?) future pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrosen
What are the inner rings suburbs going to do? You have 50-60 year old housing stock that isn't historic and is small for today's standards. Not only that, all the housing stock in these tiny jurisdictions was built within a few years, so it is all at about the same age and level of deterioration.
The original owners are in a lot of these homes, and as they get older they are less likely to support school levies and increases in the property tax due to fixed incomes.
what kind of future do these places have? It doesn't look good. If someone wants to live in the city, they will live in the city; if someone wants to live in the suburbs, they will probably go to a new suburb where the houses aren't much more expensive and are new.
So, do we continue to sprawl out and allow our older suburbs to fall into decay just like the cities? Instead of always seeking new green pastures, shouldn't something be done about this theoretical "expanding ring of blight?"
Wouldn't believe everything one reads, esp when written by often-socialist journalists who tend to live in a dumpy part of some city in a rathole and ride lovely mass transit to get to their highly paid job....
Actually, in past 10yrs, would argue trend has intensified for many of wealthiest, most educated and <40yo to live and work in suburbs, e.g., SiliconValley and Greenwich....and rarely visit the alleged "city"...
Suspect most middle-class families in urban regions prefer a newer, 3K sq ft house on 0.4 ac; good, safe public schools; ability to easily drive one's new Camry/Accord, etc ?20mins to one's office in a suburban office park: the model of life for many in places like Plano, TX; Naperville, IL; Irvine, CA; Cupertino, CA; CherryHill, NJ; Scarsdale, NY, etc etc....
Most families aren't big on nightlife, tourist attractions, skyscrapers and exposure to poverty/violent crime on a daily basis....easy enough to watch/read about all that stuff on one's high-res screen in suburbia somewhere....
Great post, though I disagree that Scarsdale is "middle class." The median household income is over $200k and the median house value is over $1.1m.
OP -
In Connecticut at least, suburbs are booming. Many corporations are moving from the cities into the suburbs, which IMO might make some cities struggle in the coming years. In CT the inner-cities are suffering with high crime rates...then you drive a mile, cross the town line and you think...what recession?
It'll be a loooooong time before we will ever see well-established suburbs falling victim to blight. JMHO
Last edited by kidyankee764; 09-13-2008 at 10:33 PM..
If the suburbs go to hell, then there will literally be no quality public schools in this country. That is the BIGGEST thing the suburbs have going for it is that it in general has the best public schools in a region. I wouldn't mind living in an urban city, but I would not want to put my kids at the bad public schools that plague urban cities. Private school shouldn't be a necessity like it is in most major cities. Until the cities can get their schools in line, the suburbs will be the prefered place for most families.
If this reversal does happen, the first families to sacrifice their kids to urban public schools are a brave bunch.
Do you have any ideas about how city schools can improve themselves?
The biggest reason most city schools are in trouble in the first place, is because the middle class left the city for the suburbs.
Well we can blame the exodus on why schools got bad, but I sure won't be the first one to sacrifice my kids to a crappy education at some of our nation's urban schools. If you want to enroll your kids in schools there, go ahead. Knowing that the "good schools" are often in the suburbs, it will be hard to convince families to be the first ones to shift to the central city.
I agree that having the families that want their kids to exceed and can support them will help the urban schools perform better and these students can be an example to others, but again, it will be a very brave bunch that starts the shift. Just think about what is the first thing families ask on the state subforums:
"Hi, I'm moving to the Atlanta area with two kids and want to know where the best schools are?"
"Hi, I'm moving to Chicago and am wondering which suburb has the best schools?"
"I need to know where the best schools are in the Seattle area for a family of five"
The list just goes on and on and on and on..... These are the type of people that could revitalize an area, but without good schools, I see little hope for the innermost city.
****I think young people will continue to fill in the urban cities and even they eventually end up in the suburbs once they hit 30 and have kids.
The only way they can become blighted is by it becoming such that no one could possibly live there - and I don't mean the "wow I'm paying a lot to commute, let's rethink" type - I mean that absolute, literal forcing of folks to leave, and gas prices are still a long way from that, especially with many folks' commute keeping them in the suburbs anyway. Most suburban folk like it better and will do what they can to stay in a suburb as long as it is in their power - social conscience alone won't dictate to most how to live.
So I've learned today! Apparently every urban journalist is a socialist and/or endorses some form of socialism. There's quite a bit of hackery going on here, I'll say.
But young people will always move back to the city. Ask any young person from any small town or suburb and the vast majority of them will tell you that they absolutely cannot wait to leave to find bigger and better things. Not only does it fill the excitement role, but it helps meet new and diverse kinds of people, network for upcoming business and careers, and stay at the forefront of culture. All things that No-Name-Suburb USA cannot typically provide.
Then, we'll move into boring and homogeneous suburbs. But while you all may value the fact that you have it easier starting a family in the suburbs, can those of us who do value the fact that starting a life in the city is easier be left to that without being socialists and general ne'er-do-wells?
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.
