Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [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 07-14-2011, 09:38 AM
 
408 posts, read 989,041 times
Reputation: 146

Advertisements

Tell me why I SHOULD live in the city?

I have better schools. I have lower taxes. My house is much newer than most in the city (less maintenance and unpredictable expenses). I can get to shopping or the rural parks or on a highway the hell out of here more quickly. Crime is lower. We have less squatters, transient renters, crack houses, etc - My neighbors are all hard working folks or retired people that value their property and maintain it well (thus maintaining my property value). I don't have pest problems caused by neighbors. I have far less risk of flood. I know my neighbors much better than in the city - there are less of us so people bond rather than ignore or giving a vacant nod. If I have a problem, my township office is readily accessible. There's less litter. There's wildlife to enjoy.

AND I can take advantage of everything you city folks do, too.

You want me to put all that aside to support some theoretical ideal of urban efficiency? Seriously?

I prefer city living.. but it's a hard choice to make around here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:45 AM
 
1,781 posts, read 2,076,725 times
Reputation: 1361
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlstreet View Post
I'm not interested in population trends from 1980 onward. What the 2000 and 2010 census shows us is that population decline in the city looks to be leveling out. And the metro population over the same period as a whole (not looking at specific hot spots because they will always exist) has not seen a dramatic jump. So, I'd infer that many of these suburbanites are either coming in from outside of the region or moving from other suburbs.

I guess I scratch my head over the whole debate. From the data we have now, it appears as if both the city and the surrounding suburbs will see population growth going forward. So what is the big problem? Id prefer moderate, sustainable city growth over a rush of new residents.
No. I chose 1980 but basically the same trend has happened from 2000-2010. I believe that the "leveling out" that you are inferring is the cumulative metro population, not the city itself if I remember correctly.

So the exurbs are continuing to grow at a pace that is greatly above the rest of the metro area. This trend does not appear to be slowing down, although it is true that the city has recently been slowing its own rush of population loss. It remains to be seen if this can in fact eventually become a positive trend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:48 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,907,757 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by the-writer-guy View Post
no, it would not be a disaster at all, simply the cities would grow to accomadate the newer people.
Grow in what sense? Again, in Pittsburgh I think you could get to around 450K without having to tear down existing neighborhoods, but not much farther. I'd argue that population growth which would require tearing down existing neighborhoods is in fact a "disaster", because it wastes resources, destroy communities, and so forth. Fortunately, there is an alternative . . . .

Quote:
Most "anti-sprawl" people at least such as myself, are not opposed to the "suburbs" that are small scale and walkable, that are within walking distance of shops, schools and public transportation, and are close to a more densly populated areas.
So rather than just trying to pack everyone into existing central cities, instead we should also encourage the suburbs to develop along this path, including ultimately the creation of new cities out of growing, densifying suburbs. That isn't inconsistent with some population growth also occurring in underutilized central cities like Pittsburgh, but limiting future population growth to just the current geographic boundaries of existing central cities doesn't make sense, and wouldn't work if you tried.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:48 AM
gg
 
Location: Pittsburgh
26,137 posts, read 25,825,203 times
Reputation: 17378
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
I have better schools. I have lower taxes. My house is much newer than most in the city (less maintenance and unpredictable expenses). I can get to shopping or the rural parks or on a highway the hell out of here more quickly. Crime is lower. We have less squatters, transient renters, crack houses, etc - My neighbors are all hard working folks or retired people that value their property and maintain it well (thus maintaining my property value). I don't have pest problems caused by neighbors. I have far less risk of flood. I know my neighbors much better than in the city - there are less of us so people bond rather than ignore or giving a vacant nod. If I have a problem, my township office is readily accessible. There's less litter. There's wildlife to enjoy.
Hard to argue against any of it. Hence the suburbs have crushed the city in growth. White flight has been continuing for a long time and I don't think it is going to change anytime soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:52 AM
 
1,781 posts, read 2,076,725 times
Reputation: 1361
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
Tell me why I SHOULD live in the city?

I have better schools. I have lower taxes. My house is much newer than most in the city (less maintenance and unpredictable expenses). I can get to shopping or the rural parks or on a highway the hell out of here more quickly. Crime is lower. We have less squatters, transient renters, crack houses, etc - My neighbors are all hard working folks or retired people that value their property and maintain it well (thus maintaining my property value). I don't have pest problems caused by neighbors. I have far less risk of flood. I know my neighbors much better than in the city - there are less of us so people bond rather than ignore or giving a vacant nod. If I have a problem, my township office is readily accessible. There's less litter. There's wildlife to enjoy.

AND I can take advantage of everything you city folks do, too.

You want me to put all that aside to support some theoretical ideal of urban efficiency? Seriously?

I prefer city living.. but it's a hard choice to make around here.

Its not as simple as you make it out to be, its not a city vs. suburbs thing. There are many well designed older suburbs that are designed in a efficient and urban manner, are well connected to the city through various transit options, and have different and interesting architecture. Then there are the brand new sprawling exurbs on the fringes of the metro area that lack pretty much all of what I mentioned. Which type of suburb do you live in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:54 AM
 
1,781 posts, read 2,076,725 times
Reputation: 1361
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis View Post
Hard to argue against any of it. Hence the suburbs have crushed the city in growth. White flight has been continuing for a long time and I don't think it is going to change anytime soon.
h curtis, it's not a city vs. suburbs thing... read my post above
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:57 AM
 
1,781 posts, read 2,076,725 times
Reputation: 1361
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
So rather than just trying to pack everyone into existing central cities, instead we should also encourage the suburbs to develop along this path, including ultimately the creation of new cities out of growing, densifying suburbs. That isn't inconsistent with some population growth also occurring in underutilized central cities like Pittsburgh, but limiting future population growth to just the current geographic boundaries of existing central cities doesn't make sense, and wouldn't work if you tried.

This pretty much sums up the thread. I can almost guarantee that everyone, both pro-city and pro-suburb will come to some sort of an agreement on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:58 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,907,757 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
Tell me why I SHOULD live in the city?
This may or may not apply to you personally, but one of the chief advantages of living in central cities for many people is shorter commutes, more walkable amenities and shorter trips to other amenities, better access to public transit, and generally less need to use a car. That can have various financial, health, safety, and other benefits for you and your family (if you have one).

It is a complex tradeoff, of course, and not right for everyone. However, in many U.S. metros housing prices (controlling for other factors) have a fairly straightforward correlation with proximity to the central area of the central city. Pittsburgh has been a little unusual in that respect, but recently I think it has started converging on the same pattern.

Edit: Here is a fun little graph showing the correlation between the price of land in the New York metro area and distance from the Empire State Building:

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...-of-manhattan/



Of course that is land and not housing prices, but very likely they have roughly the same correlation. Note that is a log scale, so the increase in land prices as you approach the center is even more dramatic than you would otherwise think.

Last edited by BrianTH; 07-14-2011 at 10:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
29,656 posts, read 34,161,455 times
Reputation: 76733
Quote:
Originally Posted by airwave09 View Post
Its not as simple as you make it out to be, its not a city vs. suburbs thing. There are many well designed older suburbs that are designed in a efficient and urban manner, are well connected to the city through various transit options, and have different and interesting architecture. Then there are the brand new sprawling exurbs on the fringes of the metro area that lack pretty much all of what I mentioned. Which type of suburb do you live in?
It's definitely not city vs. suburbs, like you said. There are neighborhoods in the city that have houses with yards and driveways, nice neighbors and decent schools, and no crack houses or homeless people.

Honestly, when I bought in the city limits the idea of taxes never occurred to me. I can be to work in 20 minutes and I would have no problem sending my hypothetical future children to the neighborhood schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 10:01 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,907,757 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis View Post
White flight has been continuing for a long time and I don't think it is going to change anytime soon.
It already has been changing in many U.S. cities, and I think Pittsburgh is clearly on the same track. Here is one representative article:

The End of White Flight - WSJ.com

Snippet:

Quote:
For much of the 20th century, the proportion of whites shrank in most U.S. cities. In recent years the decline has slowed considerably -- and in some significant cases has reversed. Between 2000 and 2006, eight of the 50 largest cities, including Boston, Seattle and San Francisco, saw the proportion of whites increase, according to Census figures. The previous decade, only three cities saw increases.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top