Syracuse Suburban Sprawl, good or bad? (Rochester, Farmington: real estate, foreclosures, lease)

[bellafinzi]

CNYDC, even though you look for nature just outside the city limits when choosing a city to live in, most people do not. Rather they look if they can picture themselves living there. Many people want to live in a city where they fit in with their surroundings. So if these people come to visit Syracuse and all they see are run-down buildings, an outdated skyline, litter lining the roads and most of the suburban construction pre-1990....these people think to themselves that Syracuse is not up to par for their standards.

In my opinion, if the Syracuse area had a few more highly visible new upscale suburban communities, more people would could picture themselves living in that setting...which in turn means more people choosing to live here.

[CNYDC]

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

CNYDC, even though you look for nature just outside the city limits when choosing a city to live in, most people do not. Rather they look if they can picture themselves living there. Many people want to live in a city where they fit in with their surroundings. So if these people come to visit Syracuse and all they see are run-down buildings, an outdated skyline, litter lining the roads and most of the suburban construction pre-1990....these people think to themselves that Syracuse is not up to par for their standards.

In my opinion, if the Syracuse area had a few more highly visible new upscale suburban communities, more people would could picture themselves living in that setting...which in turn means more people choosing to live here.

I respectfully disagree with this assertion. Places like Detroit and Cleveland have beautiful, if not spectacular, suburbs -- some of the nicest communities and homes you will ever see. But those places, like Syracuse, suffer from the image and condition of the downtown. Really nice, shiny suburbs do nothing for the overall desirability of the place if the downtown is shabby and depressed. Why? Because that's where people want to go when they visit -- to check out the downtown. I don't know anyone who voluntarily visits a suburban area, except to visit friends and family. Think about it -- when you go to NYC, or Chicago, or DC, you visit the downtown. You are not hanging out in Rye or Lake Forest or Reston (beautiful suburbs of the aforementioned cities). In my opinion, there are plenty of nice suburbs in Syracuse -- Fayetteville, Manlius, Baldwinsville. Adding more sprawl will not do anything to improve the livability of Syracuse. In fact, it will make it worse.

[bellafinzi]

CNYDC, you're comparisons are way off. You cannot compare Syracuse with NYC, Chicago, or DC. They different animals.

Originally Posted by CNYDC

I respectfully disagree with this assertion. Places like Detroit and Cleveland have beautiful, if not spectacular, suburbs -- some of the nicest communities and homes you will ever see. But those places, like Syracuse, suffer from the image and condition of the downtown. Really nice, shiny suburbs do nothing for the overall desirability of the place if the downtown is shabby and depressed. Why? Because that's where people want to go when they visit -- to check out the downtown. I don't know anyone who voluntarily visits a suburban area, except to visit friends and family. Think about it -- when you go to NYC, or Chicago, or DC, you visit the downtown. You are not hanging out in Rye or Lake Forest or Reston (beautiful suburbs of the aforementioned cities). In my opinion, there are plenty of nice suburbs in Syracuse -- Fayetteville, Manlius, Baldwinsville. Adding more sprawl will not do anything to improve the livability of Syracuse. In fact, it will make it worse.

Think of Detroit without their beautiful suburbs.

Think of just farmland surrounding Detroit.

Think of how terrible Detroit's reputation would be without any nice suburbs for professional people to live.

If a professional finds a job in Metro Detroit.... Detroit's suburbs actual make living in metro Detroit a valid option.

Syracuse is not as big or bad as Detroit or Cleveland.

Albany, Rochester and Buffalo are better comparisons for Syracuse.

Rochester and Albany do not have spectacular downtowns.

Rochester and Albany have better reputations than Syracuse.

Rochester's and Albany's better reputations are not based on their downtowns or city living, rather based on their suburbs and professional population living there. The skyline also helps.

If the East Syracuse/DeWitt area, where most of the hotels and businesses are located in metro Syracuse looked as good as Brighton and Henrietta in suburban Rochester then Syracuse's reputation would drastically improve.

The unimpressive skyline AND the sheer ugliness of the Erie Blvd, Carrier Circle, East Syracuse area and the area around Carousel Mall are the main reasons why Syracuse has a worse reputation than Rochester. It has nothing to do with how lively or great downtown is. Rochester's downtown probably has less to do than Armory Square.

In smaller cities like Syracuse people do visit suburbs. Why? Most hotels are located in the suburbs. That means the suburbs are often times people's first impression of a city like Syracuse. Sadly in Syracuse's case most suburban hotels are located in the ugliest and most depressing suburbs.

[bellafinzi]

BTW, this thread is about suburbs, not about whether or not fixing up Downtown Syracuse is a good idea or not.

Of course I'm in favor of building up and improving downtown Syracuse. That could only help Syracuse become a better place to live and create a better image of this region.

Downtown isn't the question.

The question is about Syracuse suburbs and whether growing suburbs are good or bad for Syracuse.

I believe that growing suburbs are good for Syracuse and its reputation.

[jrice]

The suburbs of Syracuse as a whole are on par or better than some of those I have seen while living on the west coast. The only issue I have with my "burb" Cicero is there is hardly anything there (when compared to say Clay or Liverpool). We need more restaurants, etc. The only thing I do not want to see built in Cicero is another grocery store-1 wegmans is enough although I prefer Speras and shop there when I can

[CUPlanner]

CNYDC, even though you look for nature just outside the city limits when choosing a city to live in, most people do not. Rather they look if they can picture themselves living there. Many people want to live in a city where they fit in with their surroundings. So if these people come to visit Syracuse and all they see are run-down buildings, an outdated skyline, litter lining the roads and most of the suburban construction pre-1990....these people think to themselves that Syracuse is not up to par for their standards.

Sorry bella, trying not to hate on you, but where do you get the authority to speak for "most people."

Personally, I think that is what you see, or maybe you heard once, and now are convinced MOST people see that. That is a problem with the Syracuse area in general, RollsRoyce will atest to this. People here look around, see the bad, and believe that that is how everyone from everywhere sees it, sometimes scoffing at outsides who have something positive to say.

I know you work hard to promote the area bella, but dont say that "most people" have that view because there is no way you could possibly know that.

[CUPlanner]

Plus I diagree and think CNYDC makes a valid point having lived with people from outside the area who moved here for school.

Sprawl is THE main topic in the Syracuse area when it comes to economic development. Almost all our civic leadership have focused on stopping sprawl for the past 20 years.

This isnt entirely true either. True, maybe officials have paid lip service to this viewpoint or made piece meal attempts at doing so, but no substantive action has ever been taken. Just like everything else, politicians around here love to talk talk talk about whatever is popular or happening at the time, like sprawl, but then never do anything.

If they really wanted to stop sprawl, the city, county, and all of the surrounding communities would have gotten together and set rigid growth boundaries and limitations and actually enforced them. That is the only way to do it. Nothing like this has ever been done, and most development goes along relatively unimpeded when compared to what goes on in other areas. Cities and towns here do have zoning laws and codes, but lots of that is just about aesthetics and building standards. There is no unified approach across all of these local codes saying 'this is where we draw the line' on sprawl.

[RollsRoyce]

There needs to be a delicate balance concerning development. It seems many are either staunchly opposed to any new development (despite throwing around the term "smart growth" frequently) or want rapid new development without any cohesive plan that takes into account infrastructure and the overall appearance of the community. I agree with bella to the extent that a healthy amount of relocating professionals (specifically those from new growth areas in the midwest and south that have never seen historic homes and/or have little appreciation for them) may prefer new construction. Syracuse like any other metro area needs to have an adequate inventory of new homes to be competitive with other tier 2 metros. Adequate shouldn't be confused with abundant or plentiful. Most of the new construction since the beginning of this deep recession (aside from patio homes and single story ranches targeted toward empty nesters) is comprised of discount builders like Ryan and Eldan Homes. To keep prices low, builders like Ryan offer many standard features a-la-carte, therefore many homes lack paved driveways and trees. Discount homebuilders like Ryan seem to have more lax lending as the addresses of people residing in these newly bought properties appear frequently in the judgment sections of the paper. In my opinion cookie cutter developments like those built by Ryan and Eldan contribute nothing to the community and result in a blight to the landscape. That being said, many national homebuilders such as Toll Brothers and several mid to high-end contractors based in CNY produce an attractive product. Due to the low value of land, relatively low asking prices for new construction, stagnant to declining population, and anemic job growth, Syracuse has been unable to attract national builders with better reptuations like K. Hovnanian, Beezer. Although Ryan is a national homebuilder, their product at least in this market is subpar. Wildreek in Clay is good example of a moderately priced housing development that provides relatively attractive home designs and preserves trees. Since Wildrcreek's completion in the mid to late 1990s, many small to midsized builders have changed their designs to be more generic, relocated to the south, or disbanded operations. Now all that's remaining of the cookie cutter, mass produced home builders is Ryan, Summerset (Mufale) and Eldan. In my opinion, the developments built after 2002 that cater to the middle and upper middle class feature bland designs and lack attractive features such as a swimming pool, landscaping, and signage. Timber Banks will hopefully set a new standard.

I also agree with the other posters that future development should incorporate new urbanism principals and include considerations for transportation and the impact on water and sewer systems. Redeveloping some of Syracuse's more working class inner ring suburbs should also be a priority. Large scale demolition of apartment complexes, seedy motels, vacant industrial buildings, half-vacant shopping plazas and other eyesores should occur. Unfortunately, very little of this will happen if there are more attractive greenfields five miles to the north, west, and east that carry few restrictions. Onondaga County and the city should create a landbank that would serve as a conduit for funding the renovation of distressed properties that have historical attributes. The next mayoral administration must leverage the recently upgraded Historic Property Tax Credit program enacted by the state to further redevelopment.

CNYDC's comment about concentrating new investment downtown is crucial if Syracuse will ever attract and retain its population. In many cities a downtown area is the showpiece for the entire metro area. While I agree that many affluent professionals that work in vibrant cities tend to reside in suburban communities like Fayetteville, Manlius, DeWitt, Skaneateles, and Cazenovia, they also value a downtown that offers cultural attractions, fitness facilities, specialty retail, solid transportation, and activities for children. If Syracuse is going to attract and retain the upwardly mobile, it must also provide vibrant city neighborhoods that offer a clear link to downtown, University Hill, and other business districts that have retail and other essential services. Driving 3 miles to the suburbs for basic services is not sustainable and will push current neighborhoods teetering on the brink of decline into all out slums if middle class residents cannot obtain basic services. This will cause a further outlfow of taxpaying households and cause a steep drop in home prices if city neighborhoods are viewed as islands that are surrounded by blight.

[phaelon56]

I live in the city and wouldn't dream of living in the suburbs.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by RollsRoyce

There needs to be a delicate balance concerning development. It seems many are either staunchly opposed to any new development (despite throwing around the term "smart growth" frequently) or want rapid new development without any cohesive plan that takes into account infrastructure and the overall appearance of the community. I agree with bella to the extent that a healthy amount of relocating professionals (specifically those from new growth areas in the midwest and south that have never seen historic homes and/or have little appreciation for them) may prefer new construction. Syracuse like any other metro area needs to have an adequate inventory of new homes to be competitive with other tier 2 metros. Adequate shouldn't be confused with abundant or plentiful. Most of the new construction since the beginning of this deep recession (aside from patio homes and single story ranches targeted toward empty nesters) is comprised of discount builders like Ryan and Eldan Homes. To keep prices low, builders like Ryan offer many standard features a-la-carte, therefore many homes lack paved driveways and trees. Discount homebuilders like Ryan seem to have more lax lending as the addresses of people residing in these newly bought properties appear frequently in the judgment sections of the paper. In my opinion cookie cutter developments like those built by Ryan and Eldan contribute nothing to the community and result in a blight to the landscape. That being said, many national homebuilders such as Toll Brothers and several mid to high-end contractors based in CNY produce an attractive product. Due to the low value of land, relatively low asking prices for new construction, stagnant to declining population, and anemic job growth, Syracuse has been unable to attract national builders with better reptuations like K. Hovnanian, Beezer. Although Ryan is a national homebuilder, their product at least in this market is subpar. Wildreek in Clay is good example of a moderately priced housing development that provides relatively attractive home designs and preserves trees. Since Wildrcreek's completion in the mid to late 1990s, many small to midsized builders have changed their designs to be more generic, relocated to the south, or disbanded operations. Now all that's remaining of the cookie cutter, mass produced home builders is Ryan, Summerset (Mufale) and Eldan. In my opinion, the developments built after 2002 that cater to the middle and upper middle class feature bland designs and lack attractive features such as a swimming pool, landscaping, and signage. Timber Banks will hopefully set a new standard.

I also agree with the other posters that future development should incorporate new urbanism principals and include considerations for transportation and the impact on water and sewer systems. Redeveloping some of Syracuse's more working class inner ring suburbs should also be a priority. Large scale demolition of apartment complexes, seedy motels, vacant industrial buildings, half-vacant shopping plazas and other eyesores should occur. Unfortunately, very little of this will happen if there are more attractive greenfields five miles to the north, west, and east that carry few restrictions. Onondaga County and the city should create a landbank that would serve as a conduit for funding the renovation of distressed properties that have historical attributes. The next mayoral administration must leverage the recently upgraded Historic Property Tax Credit program enacted by the state to further redevelopment.

CNYDC's comment about concentrating new investment downtown is crucial if Syracuse will ever attract and retain its population. In many cities a downtown area is the showpiece for the entire metro area. While I agree that many affluent professionals that work in vibrant cities tend to reside in suburban communities like Fayetteville, Manlius, DeWitt, Skaneateles, and Cazenovia, they also value a downtown that offers cultural attractions, fitness facilities, specialty retail, solid transportation, and activities for children. If Syracuse is going to attract and retain the upwardly mobile, it must also provide vibrant city neighborhoods that offer a clear link to downtown, University Hill, and other business districts that have retail and other essential services. Driving 3 miles to the suburbs for basic services is not sustainable and will push current neighborhoods teetering on the brink of decline into all out slums if middle class residents cannot obtain basic services. This will cause a further outlfow of taxpaying households and cause a steep drop in home prices if city neighborhoods are viewed as islands that are surrounded by blight.

I totally agree.

For instance, Detroit actually still has a very nice Downtown, in spite of the city's reputation. There are actually quite a few very nice neighborhoods within Detroit city limits like: Indian Village, Palmer Woods, East English Village, the University District and warrendale, among others. That are does have some of the nicest suburbs in the country too. So, inspite of what we hear about the Detroit area, there actually still is some balance to the area.

I think Syracuse needs to be the same way and due to still having a alot of infrastructure in place, it can be done quickly, if the leadership so desires. You would think that they would want to build off of neighborhoods like Westcott and Eastwood, that are still for the most part intact, but also build up the Near West Side, "Little Italy" and the surrounding neighborhoods and even the South Side to at least Colvin or Brighton. I think that, along with getting Downtown along Warren and Salins Streets are key to the city being more prosperous in the future.