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.
First, think freedom. People should be able to live where they want, not where the government says. Second, I agree, it makes sense for everyone to live closer to the regional hub.
But... drive through many city neighborhoods and you can see that they are not welcoming places. Have you tried working with local governments in reguard to demolishing a building and rebuilding? The cost and regulation is unbelievable. You're looking at $30-40,000 more than just finding a lot to build on. Government policies basically force people away from the hub, but cities like Portland believe that you can create another law to reign people in.
Another foolish thing they are doing nowadays is buying development rights to large swaths of land. That simply pushes development futher and costs taxpayers millions. Recently Hilton did this with about 80 acres adjacent to the village. While everyone in Parma complains that the town is being overdeveloped, this land could have added to the walkable village. Instead, someone will build a new house on 5 acres in a former farm field.
What you said about people being able to live is right, but your last statement is essentially an example of smart growth that didn't come to fruition. Smart growth can mean building around a dense center like a village too. It doesn't necessarily mean to just build strictly in or directly around a major city. With that said, I think that many urban neighborhoods in cities can be magnets for people if the right investments are put into them. This is occurring here in Syracuse, with businesses coming back into the city and some investment in one of the city's roughest neighborhoods. Some refurbishing of homes has occurred in working class neighborhoods with a "softer" reputation as well. So, there are some examples for cities to run with.
Exactly the opposite of what Rochester is doing - the suburban sprawl without the population growth, destroying farmland and forests to build new devolopments instead of demolishing and reusing land that's already been built on. This, in turn, is leaving empty buildings and urban decay in its wake.
Rochester seems extremely susceptible to sprawl because of its great highway infrastructure and relative underpopulation. You can get anywhere within the metro in 20 minutes. So long as housing and gasoline remain relatively cheap, there is a strong incentive for people to gravitate out of the hub, especially where you have the added benefit of lower taxes in the outlying counties.
Did anyone ever stop to think that just maybe people like having their own decently sized yard? Even if the city was worth living in, there are few homes I'd want to actually live in because the plots are too damn small. I have a feeling I'm not in the minority when I say it's nice to have a big back yard and space to play with the dog, and my son when he's old enough. Or maybe people like less traffic when going to and from home. Or maybe they like less noise and commotion. Or maybe even all of the above.
There are a few reasons suburbs exist and have grown in popularity.
Rochester seems extremely susceptible to sprawl because of its great highway infrastructure and relative underpopulation. You can get anywhere within the metro in 20 minutes. So long as housing and gasoline remain relatively cheap, there is a strong incentive for people to gravitate out of the hub, especially where you have the added benefit of lower taxes in the outlying counties.
I don't know if gas is necessarily cheap, but considering the economic and political implications of realying on gas as is, I can see and there is some reinvestment in cities and more densely populated areas.
Such areas can also address issues in terms of health, if you have nice, walkable communities/neighborhoods. I say that considering the obesity reality in this country.
Also, in a country where there seems to be a decline in the sense of ccommunity to some degree, such neighborhoods can possibly bring some of that back.
There will also be a market for those that want suburbs, but I think having more dense, walkable places wouldn't hurt. You could even have communities with both some space, as well as neighborhoods with sidewalks that have parks and businesses close by.
There actually was a great article in the Syracuse Post-Standard's opinion section that discusses aspects of smart growth within cities that have worked.
ovretaxed, calm down, nobody is saying that people should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to live in the suburbs. I live in the suburbs in North Greece myself and enjoy life here very much. Even so, I still see the value of investment in the city of Rochester and encourage anyone who may want to or is curious about living in the city to do so. When all of our kids are out of the house (which should be in about 11 years), we have definitely put buying a nice old house in the city into consideration. Lower taxes (in general), less yard to take care of, walkable to shops, restaurants, etc. and the brilliance of the old architecture. If you want to see what a region looks like when only the suburbs are considered "livable" and the city is considered the place to avoid at all costs; take a look at Detroit.
ovretaxed, calm down, nobody is saying that people should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to live in the suburbs. I live in the suburbs in North Greece myself and enjoy life here very much. Even so, I still see the value of investment in the city of Rochester and encourage anyone who may want to or is curious about living in the city to do so. When all of our kids are out of the house (which should be in about 11 years), we have definitely put buying a nice old house in the city into consideration. Lower taxes (in general), less yard to take care of, walkable to shops, restaurants, etc. and the brilliance of the old architecture. If you want to see what a region looks like when only the suburbs are considered "livable" and the city is considered the place to avoid at all costs; take a look at Detroit.
Just to be fair to Detroit, there are a few relatively affordable and nice neighborhoods in the city like Osborn, Warrendale and Rosedale Park, but for the most part you are correct. At least with Rochester and other Upstate NY cities, you can still find nice urban neighborhoods that aren't pockets.
ovretaxed, calm down, nobody is saying that people should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to live in the suburbs. I live in the suburbs in North Greece myself and enjoy life here very much. Even so, I still see the value of investment in the city of Rochester and encourage anyone who may want to or is curious about living in the city to do so. When all of our kids are out of the house (which should be in about 11 years), we have definitely put buying a nice old house in the city into consideration. Lower taxes (in general), less yard to take care of, walkable to shops, restaurants, etc. and the brilliance of the old architecture. If you want to see what a region looks like when only the suburbs are considered "livable" and the city is considered the place to avoid at all costs; take a look at Detroit.
LOL
general rule of thumb: if you think something is bad where you're at, visit Detroit--because it's far, far worse there.
general rule of thumb: if you think something is bad where you're at, visit Detroit--because it's far, far worse there.
I don't think it's a matter of it's worse there, but as a person with family in that area, there is a big divide between the city and suburbs in that area. If you go to the Detroit forum on city-data, you will see that if someone suggests or asks about living in the city of Detroit, it is usually discouraged for the most part. I think even the most cynical people about Rochester can admit that there are some nice neighborhoods within the city limits. You hardly get that with the Detroit area. So, what he said has some validity to it.
I don't think it's a matter of it's worse there, but as a person with family in that area, there is a big divide between the city and suburbs in that area. If you go to the Detroit forum on city-data, you will see that if someone suggests or asks about living in the city of Detroit, it is usually discouraged for the most part. I think even the most cynical people about Rochester can admit that there are some nice neighborhoods within the city limits. You hardly get that with the Detroit area. So, what he said has some validity to it.
I agree. I was just noting how Detroit can be a scapegoat for pretty much anything.
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.
