U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2009, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Polish Hill, Pittsburgh, PA
30,191 posts, read 67,339,144 times
Reputation: 15830

Advertisements

You're all welcome to move up here to Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA! Come on up! If we're good enough for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the Yankees, and "The Office," then surely we're good enough for you too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2009, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Polish Hill, Pittsburgh, PA
30,191 posts, read 67,339,144 times
Reputation: 15830
All kidding aside though I'll agree that the original poster did not adequately consider the alarming trend of suburbanization that has swept over our nation ever since the post-WWII era. For example, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre has begun to GROW again as a metropolitan area over the past several years due to the influx of minorities and transplants from NJ/NYC/SEPA seeking a lower cost-of-living. However, both the core cities of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre continue their decline whereas the suburbs are growing exponentially with more and more trees being felled on a seemingly daily basis (the housing crisis apparently has yet to hit NEPA).

The BosWash Corridor continues to absorb everything in its path like a hungry, hungry hippo. The "Tri-State Area" is now officially the "Quad-State Area," since Pike County, PA has been annexed as part of Greater NYC by the U.S. Census Bureau. I expect Monroe County, PA (Stroudsburg Area) to be added soon as well. Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton and, to a lesser extent, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, are trying to reposition themselves as satellite cities of New York City---both areas are two hours or less away from the heart of either NYC or Philly and still have a relatively high standard of life and low cost-of-living.

I personally don't know when this disturbing trend of every simpleton in America wanting to destroy an acre of pristine woodlands for an ostentatious vinyl-clad McMansion with a garage large enough to house their three SUVs is going to end, but I hope it's soon. Cities like Scranton and Wilkes-Barre have absolutely MAGNIFICENT architecture that just sits and decays because the lemmings in America prefer the suburbs. I've grown up here in the suburban doldrums, and I can't wait to move into one of the trendy new lofts coming to Downtown Scranton in 2010!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 11:41 AM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,938,981 times
Reputation: 3703
Another problem is that NIMBYs are particularly strong in the Northeast. For example, Worcester, Mass., has commuter train service into Boston, but they only have a couple of trains a day because of noise complaints from people in the suburbs along the track. Worcester is a large city (by New England standards) that could provide affordable housing for the Boston Metro Area if it were better intergrated into the transportation network (even the highway bypasses the city). The vested interests in Boston and the suburbs prevent this, thus land stays prohibitively expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 03:20 PM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,372,703 times
Reputation: 10924
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiga9 View Post
those are all great replies, thanks. Also another question, how come suburbanization has not happened in the west yet? Big cities continue to grow, as well as their surrounding suburbs, like...

Las Vegas
Los Angeles
SF By area (anywhere in cali is pretty much all inclining in population)
Dallas
Houston
Austin, TX
San antonio
even Oklahoma city is growing since its birth, and was never in a decline.
Phoenix
Albuquerque, NM

Basically every big city in the west and its suburbs are growing, with non of those cities ever having a period of decline whatsoever. So basically my question is, if the big cities in the east are declining because the people are moving to the suburbs, why isn't it happening to the west side, whereas both the big cities AND its suburbs continue to grow? Are we going to see a east side trend happen to the west side in the near future?

also keep in mind that now 7 of the top 10 biggest cities lie in the west.
That's simple...jeez. Those city were able to increase their CITY LIMITS. Empty land = more houses = more people= growth. Those cities aren't built out. That's by far the biggest key here. Some of those cities are finally starting to be built out for the first time in their history. Go look at the population of some of those places using their 1950 city limits.

I think people dwell on this too much without looking at the big picture.

Why are cities in the Midwest and Northeast declining? Because they had 15,000 or more people per square mile in most cases. Large families crammed into small apartments. America got richer, people wanted more space. Suburbs had yards and more bedrooms, more space. The central cities had used all the empty land within their boundries, so the new houses happened to be built in OTHER cities...suburbs. People moved from the city to the suburbs. There were 25 years or so where the central cities were in decline because of this loss to the burbs, but most places are rebuilding those areas with nice condos and retooling themselves to function in the modern era. Out west and down south many cities just increased their limits. The same new houses were and are being built for new families, but they happen to be in the central city.

Everyone talks like the decline in all those cities went straight to the south and west. In most cases they went to the suburbs. The suburban population of all those big cities that shrunk have grown by MILLIONS. Just as they have been since their birth. We're just breaking it down by lines drawn all over the urban areas that we call city limits. They're quite random if you're trying to compare say Houston with Boston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 07:57 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
That's simple...jeez. Those city were able to increase their CITY LIMITS. Empty land = more houses = more people= growth. Those cities aren't built out. That's by far the biggest key here. Some of those cities are finally starting to be built out for the first time in their history. Go look at the population of some of those places using their 1950 city limits.

I think people dwell on this too much without looking at the big picture.

Why are cities in the Midwest and Northeast declining? Because they had 15,000 or more people per square mile in most cases. Large families crammed into small apartments. America got richer, people wanted more space. Suburbs had yards and more bedrooms, more space. The central cities had used all the empty land within their boundries, so the new houses happened to be built in OTHER cities...suburbs. People moved from the city to the suburbs. There were 25 years or so where the central cities were in decline because of this loss to the burbs, but most places are rebuilding those areas with nice condos and retooling themselves to function in the modern era. Out west and down south many cities just increased their limits. The same new houses were and are being built for new families, but they happen to be in the central city.

Everyone talks like the decline in all those cities went straight to the south and west. In most cases they went to the suburbs. The suburban population of all those big cities that shrunk have grown by MILLIONS. Just as they have been since their birth. We're just breaking it down by lines drawn all over the urban areas that we call city limits. They're quite random if you're trying to compare say Houston with Boston.
First things first, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

If I freaking hear this excuse one more time, I'm going to scream so loud you'll hear me through the computer! That is not the case for every western city! Look at the land areas of SF, Seattle, Portland, even Denver. (They are posted elsewhere on this forum b/c this was just discussed recently.) An amendment to the Colorado constitution in 1976 essentially prevents Denver from annexing any more land. The last annexation was to build the airport, and it involved votes by both counties, etc, etc, in accordance with the constitution.
The city limits of Denver haven't changed much since 1950, except for the annexation of the land upon which DIA is built, plus the "dogleg" out there.

Re: suburbanization, yes that is true to a certain extent, but some cities, like Pittsburgh, have lost population throughout their metro area. When one considers that the population of the US has doubled since 1950, most of these metro areas have not kept up (with a few exceptions).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2009, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,005 posts, read 69,407,118 times
Reputation: 10115
Chicago has lost some people, but Chicagoland has grown in leaps n' bounds since time began. In fact, it continues to grow, even making the top 10 fastest growing metros of 2007. Chicago has always reinvented itself and has more than done its share to stay on top of things. But in this economy, its hard. Then again, all states are suffering. And to be honest? The Great Plains states have the lowest unemployment rate, smallest deficits and least foreclosures. The southern and western states have the some of the highest unemployment rates and foreclosure rates in the nation.

Dont kid yourselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 12:16 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,048,152 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
First things first, I'll repeat what I said earlier:



The city limits of Denver haven't changed much since 1950, except for the annexation of the land upon which DIA is built, plus the "dogleg" out there.

Re: suburbanization, yes that is true to a certain extent, but some cities, like Pittsburgh, have lost population throughout their metro area. When one considers that the population of the US has doubled since 1950, most of these metro areas have not kept up (with a few exceptions).
But you are not taking into consideration the fact that the city of Denver wasn't "built-out" in 1950. Just look at all the post-1950 neighborhoods within the city limits today. Compare to St. Louis or Baltimore or Newark...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 12:35 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
But you are not taking into consideration the fact that the city of Denver wasn't "built-out" in 1950. Just look at all the post-1950 neighborhoods within the city limits today. Compare to St. Louis or Baltimore or Newark...
I don't think there are too many post-1950 homes in the city. Many homes on the very western edge of town were built in the 1920s. Denver annexed a whole city, Highlands, on the west side in ~1900. Certainly there are few post 1970, except for some re-development areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 02:24 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,938,981 times
Reputation: 3703
You could also blame the invention of the air conditioner. That really changed the population distribution of the country, probably more than the automobile. Hardly anyone would live in Phoenix, Las Vegas without air conditioning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 02:57 PM
 
6,046 posts, read 10,049,469 times
Reputation: 2334
Hardly anyone would live in the North without heat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top