First Signs of Crumbling Suburbs are here. (Mexico, Russia: transfer, buy)

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by dma1250

Fred314X, Cities were developed as protection against enemies, not for convenience. Before the first city, people lived in small villages

That was the secondary reason. If you were a shepherd and I was a potter, we had no way to make our wares available to each other, living a nomadic existence. Then someone hit upon the idea of a central location for trade, and the market was born. Someone else had another stroke of genius: if you stayed at that central location rather than wandering the face of the earth, you would always have access to conveniences. Voila! The first villages, which in turn became the first cities. (It turned out that you also had better protection against enemies, which led to the first modification in city design: the wall.)

The first villages were exactly that; I don't see how you could compare them to suburbs, since there was no "central city" for them to be outside of!

[dma1250]

Newtoli, I've lived here for 7 years and know oodles of people. Of those, 2 work in Westchester--one at IBM in Yorktown, 3 miles from where we live, and my wife, who works 6 miles from our house. Everyone else I know commutes to Manhattan by train. Plus there are a few lucky who work from home. So, in my experience, at least 90% of the people I know--and know of--commute to Manhattan. Yes, most of those drive a few miles to the station, though some walk or bike.

At least a third of the few hundred people in my office in Manhattan live in westchester (and a third in NJ)--which has been true at every company I've ever worked at.

[dma1250]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

The first villages were exactly that; I don't see how you could compare them to suburbs, since there was no "central city" for them to be outside of!

Villages and suburbs are both small communiteis where people have a sense of connection and community but also have personal space. It is the balance that all people strive for. They serve the same pyschological function.

To compare cities of 8 million to ancient villages is absurd.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by dma1250

Newtoli, I've lived here for 7 years and know oodles of people. Of those, 2 work in Westchester--one at IBM in Yorktown, 3 miles from where we live, and my wife, who works 6 miles from our house. Everyone else I know commutes to Manhattan by train. Plus there are a few lucky who work from home. So, in my experience, at least 90% of the people I know--and know of--commute to Manhattan. Yes, most of those drive a few miles to the station, though some walk or bike.

At least a third of the few hundred people in my office in Manhattan live in westchester (and a third in NJ)--which has been true at every company I've ever worked at.

Well I lived there for 23 years and all of my family and friends still live there, and it's quite the opposite for me - 90% of the people I know in Westchester work, in Westchester.

Yes, 100 people in your office may live in Westchester, that's 100 out of how many million people who live in the county? You're already asking a group of people who already work in Manhattan, not a variety of different people from Westchester.

I'd love to get input from other Westchester natives.

[analyticalkeys]

Originally Posted by newtoli

Well I lived there for 23 years and all of my family and friends still live there, and it's quite the opposite for me - 90% of the people I know in Westchester work, in Westchester.

Yes, 100 people in your office may live in Westchester, that's 100 out of how many million people who live in the county? You're already asking a group of people who already work in Manhattan, not a variety of different people from Westchester.

I'd love to get input from other Westchester natives.

Most of the people I know that live in Westchester prefer not to leave their little area at all, and especially with the way gas prices are going, even more so.

[AlexisT]

Originally Posted by dma1250

At least a third of the few hundred people in my office in Manhattan live in westchester (and a third in NJ)--which has been true at every company I've ever worked at.

1) A large number of people working in Manhattan live outside it; this doesn't mean most people living in the suburbs work in Manhattan.

2) You can't just extrapolate from your particular suburb. Some neighborhoods are major commuter havens. They attract people in particular jobs or a particular socioeconomic level.

According to the 2000 Census, 61.6% of Westchester workers drove to work alone. 20.4% took public transportation.

[dma1250]

Originally Posted by AlexisT

1) A large number of people working in Manhattan live outside it; this doesn't mean most people living in the suburbs work in Manhattan.

2) You can't just extrapolate from your particular suburb. Some neighborhoods are major commuter havens. They attract people in particular jobs or a particular socioeconomic level.

According to the 2000 Census, 61.6% of Westchester workers drove to work alone. 20.4% took public transportation.

Drove to work meaning soley drove, or drove to the train? Ridership on MetroNorth has grown considerably since 2000, so I'll bet that percentage (whatever it means) is smaller now.

But, yes, like Newtoli I can only talk about the people I know. As I said, the vast majority of those I know in my neighborhood, in my town, in surrounding towns, and that I know through schools work in Manhattan. And every office I've ever been in has a large percentage of people from Westchester. I do agree that it depends on the profession. My area in upper Westchester has a large number of people in publishing, design, film/video, architecture, music, and other professions that are largely based in the city. And the fact that we're a short drive to the train station is one of the draws of the area. But we are a northern burb and I would assume (correctly or not) that the percentage of people commuting to Manhattan would be even higher further south.

If I quit my fab job today and got a job in White Plains, I'd have to drive an extra 20 miles a day. That would cost about $20 a week, or aprox $85 a month. Would that throw off my budget and cause me to change my lifestyle in any way? No, not at all. And my household income is almost exactly the aveage for my town. So even if the invisible masses--that I have somehow missed--are driving to WP, the increase in gas prices still has not caused problems for the majority of them.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by dma1250

To compare cities of 8 million to ancient villages is absurd.

Which, of course, I wasn't doing. But a city of 8 million had to start somewhere, didn't it? Nieuw Amsterdam wasn't anything more than a village.

[AlexisT]

I think it's primary mode of transportation, but I don't know how the question was phrased.

[SouthQueens149]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

That was the secondary reason. If you were a shepherd and I was a potter, we had no way to make our wares available to each other, living a nomadic existence. Then someone hit upon the idea of a central location for trade, and the market was born. Someone else had another stroke of genius: if you stayed at that central location rather than wandering the face of the earth, you would always have access to conveniences. Voila! The first villages, which in turn became the first cities. (It turned out that you also had better protection against enemies, which led to the first modification in city design: the wall.)

The first villages were exactly that; I don't see how you could compare them to suburbs, since there was no "central city" for them to be outside of!

The Dutch Settlement in Lower Manhattan used a wall to protect the settlement. The location was---Wall Street! But I wouldn't call that settlement a city. More like a Town.

It's funny how this conversation is about the viability of suburbs and rural areas when so much of the 5 boros were suburban and rural--some as late as the 1950's, no less. The first Urban areas were most likely Manhattan with their rows of Townhouses--Townhouses are VERY urban. Then if you go to Brooklyn and Queens you see more townhouses in Brooklyn Heights, Carrol Gardens, Astoria, Long Island City, Jackson Heights--again, areas that have been urban for 120+ yrs.

Around the same time, if you go to the further reaches of Queens, you start to see more older single detached houses, which tend to define the suburbs. Areas like Woodhaven, Richmond Hill, Jamaica Estates, Ozone Park were much less populated and not very urban at all. As you head out further east, you would start to find farmland, which tends to define rural areas. The Lindenwood section of Howard Beach was a dairy farm up until the 1950's. Many parts of Jamaica and eastern Queens( and then out to Long Island) were the farms that helped feed the city--again, pretty rural.

So what happened? Don't people in NYC still need to eat? Of course, but the advent of railroads, the internal combustion engine, and cheap oil made it cost-effective to outsource agriculture to the Midwest and the rural parts of the region (Upstate New York, parts of Connecticut, NJ, PA)

Cheap oil played a role in the urbanization of many parts of the city that remained suburban and rural up until 60-100 yrs ago. The building of bridges combined with cars helped to spread the city to places in the outer boros that were once considered too out-of-the way.

Make no mistake, large cities like NYC need cheap oil, too, and are going to suffer in its absence until alternatives are utilized and mass produced.