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.
...came "Section 8" and a mass of new tenants from a "poorer southern neighbor" moved en mass to a nearby apartment complex that wasn't diligent about asking if they were here legally. It may just be coincidence, but from there, property values began to plummet, vandalism and crime went up, and there was a mass exodus (my family wasn't the only one). I had my car windows smashed enough times, but to top it off the playground of the school my children attended was spray painted with gang insignia, the brand new fiberglass equipment and slides broken. We drove by there a couple of years ago - it is obvious that the pride and upkeep of the properties isn't there anymore. I don't know who is living there now, nor do I care.
Maybe it wasn't just the immigrants that caused that - though they may have been associated with the change.
I saw that in Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s. Then they called it "white flight", as the original residents moves to the suburbs. Whereas in NYC, they stayed and prospered. Part of the reason that people stay in NYC, was that neighborhoods were not "cut to shreads" by huge highway projects. Nice old walkable neighborhoods were left intact in NYC, with the subway connecting them. Same thing in London and Chicago. And all those mass transit cities prospered, while car-dependent Detroit died - or is on its way to dying.
Seeing how this worked over many years is one of the things which has made me a staunch critic of Car Only communities. You'd better hope it does not happen to yours !
The free market plays a major role in this. If you try to "force" people into congested neighborhoods, they will move to other areas. Most people want some space to themselves.
You got that right. Where I live there are 0.93 square miles (2.4 square kilometers) for every man, women, and child living in the State, and it is still too crowded for my tastes.
Maybe it wasn't just the immigrants that caused that - though they may have been associated with the change.
I saw that in Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s. Then they called it "white flight", as the original residents moves to the suburbs. Whereas in NYC, they stayed and prospered. Part of the reason that people stay in NYC, was that neighborhoods were not "cut to shreads" by huge highway projects. Nice old walkable neighborhoods were left intact in NYC, with the subway connecting them. Same thing in London and Chicago. And all those mass transit cities prospered, while car-dependent Detroit died - or is on its way to dying.
Seeing how this worked over many years is one of the things which has made me a staunch critic of Car Only communities. You'd better hope it does not happen to yours !
I'm not totally blaming the immigrants - just making a correlation to crime/property values/vandalism/gang graffiti before and after. It is too marked to be just a coincidence. In fairness, the influx of slum lords and "Section 8" housing into the neighborhood didn't help either. It used to be a very nice neighborhood, with close walking access to library, school, park, church, and swimming pool. When we lived there, the school encompassed grades K through 5, and our children could walk the couple of blocks in groups with friends. At the time we left, there were so many new immigrant students from a "poor southern neighbor" (many who could not speak English), that there were plans on bussing the 4th graders to the crowded inner city middle school. Then came the destruction of the playground and the gang insignia. After that, nobody let their kids walk to school or anywhere anymore - parents started to walk or drive their kids the couple of blocks. Many put their kids in private school - that Catholic school got a lot of new non-Catholic students. No bus service - they had to be driven.
A walkable neighborhood sounds good in theory, and can work, but undesirable outside influences can affect it very quickly.
Some people take driving and car expenses as a "given", and don't even consider ways of cutting those costs. When I consider moves, I take NO CAR as a given, and try to work out other ways to get around, and build the lifestyle that I want to have.
And that is great. Nobody would try and tell you to do otherwise. The problem is you thinking that what you want is best for everyone.
It's good you found a living situation you are happy with: living in high-rise, stacked flats in a high density city.
But many, very many, of us loathe that type of living. I'm quite liberal, yet I loathe city life and high density living. My dream is to have a home in the mountains far from any city. But I support public transit options for those who live in cities. It makes sense in those situations. I also support alternative fuel developments and electric vehicle options. I agree we need to get off our oil addiction, and advancements are being made. But I vehemently disagree that everyone should pack it in, give up cars, and move to high density areas. To me, that's a very depressing lifestyle. So how about you live in your expensive city without a car, I'll stay near the mountains, far away from huge cities, where it's not so expensive even with a car, and we'll both be happy.
Cars svck, and car owners have an expensive addiction.
(The headline was an intentionally provocative statement.)
It is time to demand better:
Walkable neighborhoods, and decent public transport
A smart new political agenda would be : CARS ARE LAST !
Get them out of your streets, and out of your lives. Save $8,000 - 10,000 per annum by not owning a car,
and invest that money in a decent property in a Walkable neighborhood.
Design neighborhoods with denser living, where cars are not needed.
Start building capital, and rebuilding the country. It is about time !
Why don't you move back to one of those cities you claim to have lived in - Chicago, NYC, Boston, etc.? People live there without cars. Your partner should be happy. What is your problem with this, or does this thread belong in the Relationships forum? Because it sounds like you are projecting your personal issues on others, and on the US, because you cannot agree with your partner on where to live.
Maybe you want to make money on cheap real estate so you are avoiding bigger cities? Then you complain about smaller cities not being set up like larger cities. It sounds like somone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Cars svck, and car owners have an expensive addiction.
(The headline was an intentionally provocative statement.)
It is time to demand better:
Walkable neighborhoods, and decent public transport
A smart new political agenda would be : CARS ARE LAST !
Get them out of your streets, and out of your lives. Save $8,000 - 10,000 per annum by not owning a car,
and invest that money in a decent property in a Walkable neighborhood.
Design neighborhoods with denser living, where cars are not needed.
Start building capital, and rebuilding the country. It is about time !
DISCUSS !
A perfect world.
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.
