U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Do you believe that development of the upstate NY region would make it a more attractive place to li
Yes, I would move from the 5 boroughs of NYC and live in upstate NY if it were developed. 5 10.00%
No, I would not move from the 5 boroughs of NYC to live in upstate NY for any reason. 13 26.00%
Yes, I believe that development of the upstate NY region would cause the high cost of living in NYC to go down. 8 16.00%
No, I do not believe that development of the upstate NY region would cause the cost of living in NYC to go down. 24 48.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 06-27-2011, 08:35 AM
 
982 posts, read 2,300,789 times
Reputation: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkBorn View Post

I understand your skepticism.....but if the region is developed in an attractive way.....there is no reason that people would not want to live there.

For example:

Bring new companies to the region
Nothing short of a march of Albany with pitchforks would make NYS business friendly. I think JC would agree with me on that.
Build new affordable housing that would target the middle class.
Who? Trump? Toll Brothers? Do they build on spec, before all these new companies move in? OR after, when all the middle class ore living in bungalow colonies.
New restaurants and shopping
Again, before or after this economic miracle.
Bus service that would connect the towns in upstate NY
The only well used bus service upstate are the buses traveling among the state prisons through out the region.
Bus service? What would be the point of living in the country if you had to take a bus to the Olive Garden?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:52 AM
 
30,843 posts, read 35,900,853 times
Reputation: 6154
Just to dispel some myths about Upstate NY, metros like Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Glens Falls and Ithaca actually gained people this decade. Cities like Plattsburgh, Watertown, Saratoga Springs, Utica, Schenectady, Troy, Albany, Ithaca and Binghamton either gained or held steady in population this decade. All metros and smaller cities have bus systems. Foreclosure rates for Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester and Albany are among the lowest for top 100 biggest metros, with Syracuse being number 1. There are arts and sports offerings in many metros and schools are generally good, including some urban schools. If you are in the health care, education or even technology sectors, you can find some jobs up here. Central NY(Syracuse/Utica-Rome, etc.), has the second biggest insurance/risk management sector east of the Mississippi River. So, jobs depend on what you can do. Central New York Jobs

There are affordable suburbs with good schools and some diversity as well. Districts like Rush-Henrietta, Liverpool, Sweet Home, Cleveland Hill, Gates-Chili, Greece, Onondaga Central, Jamesville-DeWitt, Johnson City, Union-Endicott, South Colonie, North Colonie, Brighton, Amherst, East Irondequoit, West Irondequoit and some others come to mind. If you want something small town/rural with some diversity, Lyons, Clyde, Sodus, Newark, Albion, Medina and some others fit. Companies like Corning Inc. have been trying to get more people of color in the workforce there. Same with the many colleges. Good place to start a niche small business too.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 10:09 AM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,901 posts, read 4,513,340 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkBorn View Post
That is the point.....there would be no need for commutes because the upstate NY region would be developed similar to the conveniences that are enjoyed today in the 5 boroughs. In other words people would be living in the same place that they work.

The only reason these places that you mention in upstate NY are dying is because most of the development over the years has been concentrated in the 5 boroughs and not in upstate NY. Had it been the other way around and some serious development was done in upstate NY those areas would not be dying today. In other words reversing the trend. Anything is viable if people begin living there and companies begin putting their operations there. If you neglect an area for years of course the area begins to die because no one see's its potential.
I understand what you are trying to say, BUT it lacks a bit of basis/foundation.

It is all well and good to say and think, it w/b great to live and work in the same place as you put it. Sure seems sensible, but is it viable?

In order for such to occur there MUST be economic forces which compel such development.

It cannot simply be socially developed. In cannot be socially engineered.

Development is an organic process!

I urge you to study the history of development, and what forces inspire development. Specifically the history of NYS and NYC. NYS was dubbed the 'Empire State' for a reason. You need to discover how that came to be.

Your quote above and particularly the bolded part is (no insult intended) naive and somewhat unknowing.

For example, quickly, NYS/NYC development is based upon certain natural and man made consequences.

First is NY harbor, one the best natural harbors in the world.
Second, the Hudson river.
Third, the great lakes, specifically the one bordering NYS.
Fourth, the size of NYS, encompassing all that and reaching from the mid-Atlantic to the mid-west, and bordering New England. What is significant is that all those resources fall under the same political control.

NYS/NYC development is keyed to linking the great harbor to the great lakes. They are linked by the natural Hudson in conjunction with the man made Erie Canal w/o which NYS/NYC would not have developed into the Empire State nor a manufacturing (up until a 4 decades ago) and financial capital.

Through this series of waterways, raw materials could be funneled to the port of NY and out to the world. Similarly, finished goods funnled thru the port to the midwest.

Albany's location, nor any of NYS cities were socially engineered nor located. They are organically located at strategic points, Albany and Buffalo at either end of the Erie Canal, Rome, Syracuse, and Rochester at strategic points in between.

Development was organic, and NOT CONCENTRATED UPON THE FIVE BOROUGHS. Buffalo for some time was virtually the equal of NYC. NYS/NYC development was centered upon this water system. Later the railroad replaced the canal along the same route reinforcing development of the cities.

The point of all that is to highlight for you that development of the five boroughs was NOT at the expense of the State/upstate; but, rather, State development fueled the development of the five boroughs.

The opposite of your viewpoint, and significant enough for a rethink and review of your thought and viewpoints re development.

All development is natural and organic, sometimes with a little help, like the building of the Erie Canal.

In order for what you, sensically, desire to occur, there would need to be some organic incentive. Such cannot be socially nor politically engineered.

On the positive outlook, the development of the Internet, instant communications, high speed freight and passenger transportation (rail and plane) at relative low cost, among a few other things, are laying the foundation for a de-centralized society.

It will be a bit different than you are envisioning, rather than enabling people to 'live where they work', it will allow people to live anywhere and to virtually commute. Simply put, rather than living where you work, people will work where they live.

Modern NYC is a consequence of pure 'centralization', the need and/or want for businesses and people to benefit from central association.

As society de-centralizes, the reason for NYC's existence will become less necessary and the city will become less viable. Just as NYS' once great erie canal cities. Their reason for being is no longer viable. As truck and plane have replaced first the canal, and then the railroad. All the past and present efforts to renew and revitalize the cities have and will fail. As there is no longer any underlying organic reason for them to exist.

A more extreme exemple, but equal in cause and effect, is outside NYS; and is the city of Detroit and its surrounding support cities, such as (Michael Moore's) Flint. There is no longer reason for the city of Detroit to exist. There is no need for the centralization the city and the surrounding resources provided. Also, one could examine the state of Ohio and come to a similar conclusion for an entire state!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Bronx, New York
1,765 posts, read 4,057,541 times
Reputation: 480
The policy of encouraging people to leave the city and go to the suburbs was done years ago. It proved to be a disaster for the city!

As was said, one has to increase supply and decrease demand. Hard to increase supply because there is little land left in New York City. Hard to decrease demand because New York is the 'it' city and everyone wants to live here!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 12:24 PM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,901 posts, read 4,513,340 times
Reputation: 1837
Without elaborating the high cost is due to POLITICS which inhibits and discourages growth and investment.

The laws and political attitude of this city simple does not allow nor encourage a profitable environment that would incent private investment in middle and working class housing.

In this city there is no economic reason to invest on any level other than on the upscale housing.

For example, look at the recent rent law proposals. I am not sure what the final agreements are or will be, BUT imagine that one major aspect of the proposals is enacted, that is:

The repeal of deregulation, presently rent regulated apartments are eligible to be deregulated when rents exceed $2000 and/or the tenant has a certain income level (I forget the specific number).

The proposal is to repeal the above and to return to full regulation. ALSO, and most shockingly, to so RETROACTIVELY! Perfect example of idiotic laws which pander to the public, BUT are fully anti+investment!

Imagine a residential real estate investor build a rental building within the last few years. His business plan, and profit model and investment incentive was based on an expectation of receiving market rent. Addtionally, his lender provided a mortgage based on the income derived from market rents for the lifetime of the mortgage.

You build and then state and city government with a single pen stroke destroys your business plan, your profit model and puts your mortgage in jeopardy, as the lender may demand more collateral or a sale of the building.

The whole project based on market rents; profit expected to grow as the market grows, but as a result of government, profit and growth will be limited and determined by some politically appointed BOARD which will dictate rents and rent increases, among other limitations upon the operation of the LLs property and running of his business.

What investor will invest in an environment where profitability cannot be forcasted w/o government interference. Where pofitability can be taken away and/or limited not by market forces. Ut by government.

There is NO reason to invest in such an environment.

Presently, only upscale rental housing, because it is not regulated, makes economic sense. Which is why there has been a boom of upscale housing.

If the law is passed and applied retroactively there be no incentive to invest.

As long as even newly built middle and working class rental housing falls under regulation, there is no economic incentive to invest. Which is why there has been literally no rental housing built for the middle and/or working class without government subsidy in DECADES!

The ONLY solutionis to permanently remove regulation for new housing. Doing so will end government interference in the market. Then the forces of Supply and Demand will create an efficient market which would naturally fill the demand for housing at all levels.

Of course allowing a capital market in a capitalist country to function is just too much to ask of the Socialist Republic of NY!

Investment requirs a stable profitable environment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 01:41 PM
 
Location: New York City
1,555 posts, read 2,143,938 times
Reputation: 904
I am enjoying all of your responses...very interesting topic. But part of the problem is that the focus is too much on NYC.....which has been done to death.

I am talking about the upstate NY region having new housing and new companies that decide to locate there. Not talking about making it a extension of NYC. The region would have its own unique identity separate from NYC and providing people with options. In other words instead of everybody automatically looking at NYC as the place to locate maybe people would look at the upstate NY region as an option instead.

When I was living in South Carolina just as an example....the state provided tax incentives to entice companies to locate there. It worked....BMW now has its headquarters in SC, Boeing is now getting ready for its new location in SC etc.

If New York state provided tax incentives for development in the upstate region I see no reason why any company would not want that kind of tax break....especially considering the price tag that comes along with having a location in Manhattan.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 02:48 PM
 
982 posts, read 2,300,789 times
Reputation: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkBorn View Post
When I was living in South Carolina just as an example....the state provided tax incentives to entice companies to locate there. It worked....BMW now has its headquarters in SC, Boeing is now getting ready for its new location in SC etc.
You should read the papers more often. SC is a right to work state, New York is not, that's why BMW and especially Boeing are moving there (trying to move there). Any tax incentives are a drop in the bucket compared to getting a non-unionized labor force.
JC's history lesson is for the most part spot on. I'll quibble with the fact regarding the Erie Canal. It was pretty much obsolete when it was opened. BUT, your premise is simple minded to presume NYC and by default "upstate" developed or can develop in a vacuum, separated from each other.

Quote:
If New York state provided tax incentives for development in the upstate region I see no reason why any company would not want that kind of tax break....
Why not simply go to South Carolina? Do you think there's some prestige to having a NYS address?

Last edited by modsquad81; 06-27-2011 at 03:20 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,060 posts, read 19,388,899 times
Reputation: 10110
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkBorn View Post
I am enjoying all of your responses...very interesting topic. But part of the problem is that the focus is too much on NYC.....which has been done to death.
Done to death...in a New York City forum? Not possible!

The way you define 'development' for upstate New York would result only in losses for the city. For that reason I had to vote "no" on all counts. Why would I want to see the city lose business on account of the rest of the state? I don't care about the rest of the state--and if you take a quick look at the last three centuries' worth of history, you'll see that the rest of the state has very little use for the city, except possibly as a punching bag/whipping boy.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Bronx, New York
1,765 posts, read 4,057,541 times
Reputation: 480
While not advocating "upstate development", a high-speed rail along the Hundson/Empire/Adirondack line from NYC to Buffalo can do wonders for upstate!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 07:29 PM
 
Location: New York City
1,555 posts, read 2,143,938 times
Reputation: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
Done to death...in a New York City forum? Not possible!

The way you define 'development' for upstate New York would result only in losses for the city. For that reason I had to vote "no" on all counts. Why would I want to see the city lose business on account of the rest of the state? I don't care about the rest of the state--and if you take a quick look at the last three centuries' worth of history, you'll see that the rest of the state has very little use for the city, except possibly as a punching bag/whipping boy.
Again too much focus on NYC....this is not about NYC and yes it has been done to death! Most of the time when people come on this forum seeking information it is about moving to NYC. We are already at over 8 million people living here....how many more people can we have move here or should I say how much higher would you like the cost of living to become because the demand keeps increasing here? You have confused what is being discussed. Nobody is talking about taking any business (jobs) away from NYC. Discussing creation of new jobs and new affordable housing in the upstate region.

  • New companies locate in upstate NY - this attracts development of affordable housing - this attracts people that will move to upstate NY instead of the 5 boroughs - this in turn means more jobs available for those still living in the 5 boroughs, more affordable living and a better quality of life.
High demand = high cost of living....decrease demand = lower cost of living! I mean maybe I missed something here....I am asking for solutions that will keep more money in all of our pockets and bring about a happier quality of life for everyone who lives here. But maybe those living here enjoy forking over ridiculous amounts of money for shoe box size apartments!

I really should be ashamed of myself for ever thinking that people would want to consider solutions instead of talking about problems all the time. I guess from now on when I see fellow New Yorkers complaining about the high price to live here I should just look at it like people are complaining just to be complaining. What is the use complaining about the cost to live here when we have a big state that can be developed, yet no one wants to consider the possibilities? So far this has been a productive thread even if we all do not share the same views....lets keep it that way and not allow this thread to turn into petty fights.

Last edited by NewYorkBorn; 06-27-2011 at 07:53 PM..
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.


 
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 $84,000 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 > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top