Holding a line on sprawl (Rochester, Syracuse: new house, neighborhoods, to buy)

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by proulxfamily

Bravo! (Brava?)

This is exactly what I try to explain to people but I've never been able to express it so well. Syracuse is the kind of place where you can belong. When I see suburbs pushed for their developments, it's somewhat upsetting. How on earth are miles and miles of cookie cutter neighborhoods a unique draw? Why buy new building here when you can buy in an area with lower taxes and warmer/sunnier weather? (And notice I didn't say nicer weather - I LOVE Syracuse's weather... the southeastern states' hot and blindingly sunny and buggy and humid cimate isn't "nice weather", in my opinion.) What's so hard to express is the feeling of being wanted... or missed. I cannot tell how much of an everyday thrill I get when I go out and about. I see someone I know or meet new people THROUGH someone I know, through friendly conversation, just about every time. The St. Patrick's Day parade, the great NY state fair, going for the first full walk of spring down the walkway at Onondaga Lake, dinner and drinks downtown that return to houses up in Westcott, Eastwood, and the 'burbs for parties, going to Green Lakes to burn yourself to a crisp and cooling off in the deep end, hiking through Highland Forest and Pratts Falls parks, free concerts and festivals and market fairs downtown, SSO's Concerts in the Park... especially on a breezy summer night, on the lawn of Lorenzo Mansion, surrounded by a thousand elegant wine picnics in the grass and little girls twirling around to the music in the soft light of dusk. Sensational. THAT is Syracuse's draw. Not some 3000sq. ft., 4bd, 4ba, media room from a builder's catalog. ugh - I can't believe that it even needs to be said. I'm not sure what kind of homes are standard to find in other markets but Syracuse has some truly stunning homes - SMALL homes included. Detailed woodwork, 100 year old stained glass window headers, stately staircases, fireplaces with all the glorious mouldings that frame that idyllic, bygone era, wide porches to actually SOCIALIZE with passersby... so why on earth so many are drawn to stock housing is beyond me. Yes- I can see how it's a draw for many people... but not everyone. Why pander to just that one demographic?

And if people want to work for a great company, do it the "American Way" - the old fashioned way. There are a million people here... find a need, then fulfill it. It's simple and requires work - a LOT of work - but the opportunity is there. And really, one will find that anywhere, you need to bust your a$$ if you want it all... moving to some magical location that supposedly makes all your dreams come true isn't the answer.

Exactly.....There is more to the area than the suburbs, especially when there are still quite a few nice neighborhoods in the city. It would be different if there were hardly any good neighborhoods in the the city of Syracuse, but that's not the case.

[bellafinzi]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

First of all, lets stop comparing ourselves to the city next door. If we really want Person A, we need to attract them from Charlotte, LA, Portland, New York, etc. Otherwise its all person Bs. If they move to Rochester, it won't be solely about the kind of house they can buy, although I'm sure it factors in. I can almost guarantee that there wouldn't be the same job in Syracuse and Roch offered to the same person at the same time anyway, both markets are just too small!

People perceive a city as a whole, regardless of whether they spend their lives in the suburbs or not; after all I say I'm from Syracuse when really I'm from Onondaga. When I was interviewed in dublin, they took me to a fantastic restaurant after the interview, showed me some cool neighborhoods, told me about its history. You need to get someone to fall in love with the city, and then of course the type of house they can buy matters. I was able to get a great apartment but it wasn't the dealbreaker. People move to Tampa because it sounds like fun, not because of the housing options.

I brought a friend of mine from Hong Kong to Syracuse, and he loved it. Even considered moving there. We went to dinosaur bbq and Ohm, and went skiing at Lab. Its all about selling the story of the city, and Syracuse falls short on that sometimes because a lot of the city itself is pretty abandoned. You don't solve that with new developments, but by investing in your core and then building more suburbs when you have a growing population to fill them. I think the best way to do it would be a "Move to Syracuse guide," from insiders, explaining the city, highlighting cool bars, hidden restaurants, and historical tidbits, and yes also housing options that include both city and suburb. Or even people who volunteer to drive people around and show them all about the place.

Back on topic.... Onondaga Hill is great!!!!

No I won't stop comparing Syracuse to Rochester.

Rochester is what Syracuse could become if the Syracuse area grew in population. Syracuse and Rochester are basically sister cities that have a lot in common. The major difference is the perception of each city is very different. People have a better perception Rochester based two things....1) Rochester has a nice looking skyline - Syracuse does not. 2) Rochester has vast areas of new, attractive, easily seen suburbs - Syracuse does not.

I truly believe that if Syracuse has a skyline similar to Des Monies and as many new attractive suburbs as Rochester, people's perception of the Syracuse area would vastly improve.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

No I won't stop comparing Syracuse to Rochester.

Rochester is what Syracuse could become if the Syracuse area grew in population. Syracuse and Rochester are basically sister cities that have a lot in common. The major difference is the perception of each city is very different. People have a better perception Rochester based two things....1) Rochester has a nice looking skyline - Syracuse does not. 2) Rochester has vast areas of new, attractive, easily seen suburbs - Syracuse does not.

I truly believe that if Syracuse has a skyline similar to Des Monies and as many new attractive suburbs as Rochester, people's perception of the Syracuse area would vastly improve.

Actually, Rochester has always been bigger than Syracuse. so, it is kind of tough to necessarily compare the two.

Also, I don't know how you can see Rochester's suburbs easily. It is actually pretty far off from the Thruway and you don't really see too much of the area from I-90.

Yes, Rochester has a nice skyline, but it really isn't that dense. This was shown in a comparison between the skylines of Buffalo and Rochester. Syracuse could add more to it's skyline, but it isn't a complete loss.

Lastly, a lot of Syracuse's newer suburban developments are in places like Onondaga Hill, Pompey, the Fayetteville-Manlius area, Camillus, Minoa and Cicero. There are others spread throughout the county too.

[bellafinzi]

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

No I won't stop comparing Syracuse to Rochester.

Rochester is what Syracuse could become if the Syracuse area grew in population. Syracuse and Rochester are basically sister cities that have a lot in common. The major difference is the perception of each city is very different. People have a better perception Rochester based two things....1) Rochester has a nice looking skyline - Syracuse does not. 2) Rochester has vast areas of new, attractive, easily seen suburbs - Syracuse does not.

I truly believe that if Syracuse has a skyline similar to Des Monies and as many new attractive suburbs as Rochester, people's perception of the Syracuse area would vastly improve.

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

Actually, Rochester has always been bigger than Syracuse. so, it is kind of tough to necessarily compare the two.

Also, I don't know how you can see Rochester's suburbs easily. It is actually pretty far off from the Thruway and you don't really see too much of the area from I-90.

Yes, Rochester has a nice skyline, but it really isn't that dense. This was shown in a comparison between the skylines of Buffalo and Rochester. Syracuse could add more to it's skyline, but it isn't a complete loss.

Lastly, a lot of Syracuse's newer suburban developments are in places like Onondaga Hill, Pompey, the Fayetteville-Manlius area, Camillus, Minoa and Cicero. There are others spread throughout the county too.

I stand by my post.

Outsiders can see Rochester's new attractive vast suburbs if they 1) stay at almost any of the hotels in suburban Rochester or 2) drive 490 into downtown Rochester.

Syracuse's best suburbs are hidden away from highways and hotels. And even when you find them, they are comparably small compared to Rochester's. Most of Syracuse's suburban growth took place before 1990. Rochester's suburban development continued on strong into the 1990s since the metro area grew about 35,000 in population in that decade.

Skyline. Rochester's skyline is aesthetically pleasing in overall form and height. Syracuse's skyline is not only ugly, but it's too short to be impressive. Syracuse's skyline looks unfinished. It would have been better if Syracuse never built any tall buildings in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, rather than have like it is today forever. That way the Syracuse skyline would at least looked historic. Almost every other US that built as many ugly buildings in the 1950s to 1970s as Syracuse, also had new construction of beautiful skyscrapers built in the 1980s, 1990s or 2000s. Syracuse didn't, so the skyline looks stuck in time....in a time that had the worst architecture in the history of mankind...the 1970s!

[proulxfamily]

Bella!!!

I don't WANT to live next to the highway! :P The idea that the nicest areas be next to highway steams me- truly! Why would you pay more to live near the highway?

It sounds to me like those buyers of nice-developments-on-the-highway are a little daft, getting that kind of "value" for their real estate dollar. They should move somewhere a little less desperate, housing-wise... like central New York. <---and yes, all you sensitive people- that was tongue-in-cheek. Matka Polska. :P

[justflow1983]

Let's self-flagellate some more and see if it helps the city!

Proulxfamily, I wouldn't think so lowly of the buyers of those houses. Most of that new construction has to do with developer economics, not buyer preference. In fact, a lot of the worst aspects of it started because people didn't want to live so far out, like the large lots.

Here's how it works. A developer has to pay a certain amount for getting things on-site regardless of how many units they build, so they try to put as many as they can into the same place. In order to do that, they need an area that has the available land to build a lot without fussy neighbors. After that comes the land costs.... if they were to build 30 new-builds on the near northside, they'd have to buy out the existing houses at $40-80,000 per lot. If they buy some broke farmer's old land, they might be able to buy 30 acres for $1,000,000 which means 60 lots at $15,000 each. Also, since the lots are larger, they put larger homes in, which are designed to look good in a photograph from a certain angle. They omit things like sidewalks because it drives the costs up and would require smaller lots. Cash-starved rural towns ok the the development, and pay for roads & sewers, etc, because they need the tax base. Taxes stay low though because these communities don't provde things like transit, low income health clinics, civic centers, etc. Also, because there are no old homes adjacent to the development as a pricing example, the developer pulls a number out of a hat and sells for that price. In all, a builder makes many times the the profit by building on greenfield sites than redeveloping within the city.

Buyers who want a new house and modern amenities have to go where they're built, so they buy these houses, and eventually it becomes the norm for them. After a few generations, people just buy them on autopilot.

By restricting sprawl, the main effect is to have the developers start re-using already built land; it doesn't mean there won't be nice new houses.

[justflow1983]

Aside from the above, my point with Rochester is that its also a rust-belt city with a declining economic base, albeit slightly larger and more affluent than Syracuse. If you want a city to emulate, you should set yourself some higher standards so that theres actually something to aspire to.

[proulxfamily]

I was definitely over-simplifying the issue. :P Tongue-in-cheek, again. (I try to avoid sweeping generalisations when I can. lol)

But- I will never understand why people settle when there are better homes to be had, often for a lesser price. It takes a lot of searching and patience but such homes are out there. I try to give people the benefit of doubt, thinking that they'll buy the home that best fits their family and lifestyle, rather than playing into the advertising of a developer and whatever pressure they feel from their peers to buy in a development - but I suppose that's asking too much. It really does baffle me that people will buy a 4bd, 2.5 bath in Minoa or Cicero for $250K when there's a 5bd, 2.5 bath grand Tudor in Bradford with extensive Old World type landscaping and stunning architectural detail - completely renovated - for $225K. I don't understand it but also realize that my personal preference isn't shared by all.

[justflow1983]

I definitely agree with you, I'd take the old tudor myself. I guess its partly a lack of imagination, there are so many of those tract homes that it makes it very easy to buy one.

My parents moved to one when I was 10 (Brittany Hills in Onondaga Hill) because our old 1950s house needed too much work, and now they're renovating the "new build" because it didn't age so well. My mom didn't want to have to deal with repairs anymore and they thought it was a good option.

As an architect, I really am appalled by the low quality design and construction of the new builds, but often that puts me at odds with the consumer who like things like doric columns around their front door. I do commercial work, so I don't ever deal with house design myself.

[RollsRoyce]

The best collection of tudors is in Berkeley Park (Berkeley Drive, Windsor Place, Circle Road), Bradford Hills (Shirley Drive, Bradford Pkwy, Hurlburt Road), Sedgwick (all over), and Strathmore (Robineau/Roberts). There are also some on Parsons Drive in Westvale, the Piercefield section of Solvay, and in the Orvilton neighborhood of DeWitt.