Syracuse Suburban Sprawl, good or bad? (New York, Buffalo: movers, crime, loans)

[RollsRoyce]

CKthankgod Wrote:
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 would also add Boston-Edison to the list. Unfortunately, even Detroit's most prominent neighborhoods are being besieged by foreclosures. According to several online websites, some of the palatial homes in these neighborhoods are selling for $100,000 or even $75,000 while the same home would fetch in upwards of $750,000 just over the city line in Grosse Point. Downtown Detroit is probably the safest bet if one had to live within the city limits. Motown has some amazing art deco buildings that easily rival NYC and Chicago. According to articles I've read, prior to the recession, downtown Detroit was experiencing considerable growth in moderate to highend residential units along the lakefront and within the Central Business District.

Although I have not been to Metro Detroit personally, there are some very desirable suburbs that I would rank among the most attractive in the country. The pointes (Grosse Point, Grosse Point Woods, Grosse Point Farms, etc) are/were home to some of the country's most affluent families. Oakland County communities such as Bloomfield, West Bloomfield, Farmington Hills, Rochester Hills, and Birmingham are very desirable as well.


Thankfully Syracuse's upscale neighborhoods like Sedgwick, Bradford Hills, Strathmore, and Berkeley Park haven't been too impacted by foreclosures.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by RollsRoyce

CKthankgod Wrote:
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 would also add Boston-Edison to the list. Unfortunately, even Detroit's most prominent neighborhoods are being besieged by foreclosures. According to several online websites, some of the palatial homes in these neighborhoods are selling for $100,000 or even $75,000 while the same home would fetch in upwards of $750,000 just over the city line in Grosse Point. Downtown Detroit is probably the safest bet if one had to live within the city limits. Motown has some amazing art deco buildings that easily rival NYC and Chicago. According to articles I've read, prior to the recession, downtown Detroit was experiencing considerable growth in moderate to highend residential units along the lakefront and within the Central Business District.

Although I have not been to Metro Detroit personally, there are some very desirable suburbs that I would rank among the most attractive in the country. The pointes (Grosse Point, Grosse Point Woods, Grosse Point Farms, etc) are/were home to some of the country's most affluent families. Oakland County communities such as Bloomfield, West Bloomfield, Farmington Hills, Rochester Hills, and Birmingham are very desirable as well.


Thankfully Syracuse's upscale neighborhoods like Sedgwick, Bradford Hills, Strathmore, and Berkeley Park haven't been too impacted by foreclosures.

I agree with your last sentence and I don't think those neighborhoods will be fine for a while. I also wouldn't be surprised if the West Side neighborhood(Park Ave. area), doesn't get some investment, if the city decides to fix that area up or starts getting it's act together. Can't forget that the South Valley area is still intact and probably will be for a while as well. Same with the North Side north of Grant Boulevard.

[beckyhuggs]

I just saw a very interesting article on how the trend is reversing from building in the Suburbs to building in the Urban areas.
Is your suburb the next slum? - MSN Real Estate

[proulxfamily]

I went to Detroit for the first time a few weeks ago... or rather, I passed it on 75N... on the way to my aunt and uncle's home in Bloomfield Hills and bringing a friend home from visiting her family in Rochester Hills.

Yuck. Besides being in terror that my [5 month old] crossover was going to tear itself to pieces on the road, the surroundings were depressing. Traffic was oppressive, the highways were littered with shredded tires the *entire* way, and it appeared that the entire metro area was closed and for lease to the highest bidder. It was a little strange to look at an on-ramp and not know if it was actually open (those of you who know the old ramps around the Dewitt part from the old highway, where 690 and 481 meet, know what I mean) but for all the enormous cracks, weeds growing through them and COMPLETE lack of signage or even a light at that intersection when one was clearly needed. To turn onto it, I had to turn left into a hotel parking lot and exit right to approach the ramp. Again, no signage anywhere. This is for a MAJOR highway in a MAJOR city, just outside Rochester Hills.

I have no desire to even visit again. It was awful... not to mention the horrible signage, in general, that exists there. I think I saw 6 or 7 roads marked "Square Lake Road" when only one was... and even then, only one side of the road is considered that while the other side is called a different road. The MI D.O.T. could really use a swift kick in the rear... never seen such awful roads and signage in my life, anywhere.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

I agree with your last sentence and I don't think those neighborhoods will be fine for a while. I also wouldn't be surprised if the West Side neighborhood(Park Ave. area), doesn't get some investment, if the city decides to fix that area up or starts getting it's act together. Can't forget that the South Valley area is still intact and probably will be for a while as well. Same with the North Side north of Grant Boulevard.

I meant to say that those neighborhoods WILL be fine for a while.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by proulxfamily

I went to Detroit for the first time a few weeks ago... or rather, I passed it on 75N... on the way to my aunt and uncle's home in Bloomfield Hills and bringing a friend home from visiting her family in Rochester Hills.

Yuck. Besides being in terror that my [5 month old] crossover was going to tear itself to pieces on the road, the surroundings were depressing. Traffic was oppressive, the highways were littered with shredded tires the *entire* way, and it appeared that the entire metro area was closed and for lease to the highest bidder. It was a little strange to look at an on-ramp and not know if it was actually open (those of you who know the old ramps around the Dewitt part from the old highway, where 690 and 481 meet, know what I mean) but for all the enormous cracks, weeds growing through them and COMPLETE lack of signage or even a light at that intersection when one was clearly needed. To turn onto it, I had to turn left into a hotel parking lot and exit right to approach the ramp. Again, no signage anywhere. This is for a MAJOR highway in a MAJOR city, just outside Rochester Hills.

I have no desire to even visit again. It was awful... not to mention the horrible signage, in general, that exists there. I think I saw 6 or 7 roads marked "Square Lake Road" when only one was... and even then, only one side of the road is considered that while the other side is called a different road. The MI D.O.T. could really use a swift kick in the rear... never seen such awful roads and signage in my life, anywhere.

It's been a while since I've been up that way, but that is unfortunate when considering that you were in Oakland County and that is probably the best part of that metro area. Bloomfield Hills, Birmingham and West Bloomfield are very, very nice too.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by beckyhuggs

I just saw a very interesting article on how the trend is reversing from building in the Suburbs to building in the Urban areas.
Is your suburb the next slum? - MSN Real Estate

Not surprised and you are seeing this everywhere to some degree. In Europe, the most affluent areas are in the cities, while the slums or "hoods" are in the suburbs. I think the US might be heading in that direction in many places or there will be sort of a mix where there is variance within the city and suburbs.

[jrice]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

Not surprised and you are seeing this everywhere to some degree. In Europe, the most affluent areas are in the cities, while the slums or "hoods" are in the suburbs. I think the US might be heading in that direction in many places or there will be sort of a mix where there is variance within the city and suburbs.

But keep in mind that Europe always had "serfs" in the countrysides while the Lords were in the population centers (well post dark ages)

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by jrice

But keep in mind that Europe always had "serfs" in the countrysides while the Lords were in the population centers (well post dark ages)

True and why should we think it would be any different now, I guess.

[CNYDC]

Originally Posted by 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.

Herein lies the problem. In a region like Syracuse where there is zero population growth, economic development is a zero-sum game. Its not like some bigger cities with insatiable growth where you can support both urban and suburban development. So, unfortunately, in Syracuse it IS a decision between suburbs and city.

My point has been this: Syracuse has an urbanized core that is not realizing its potential AND we also have beautiful countryside that is a draw for many (I understand, not all) who choose to move here. Why not leverage these two assets instead of turning our back on the downtown and spoiling the natural landscape. Why trade a win-win for a lose-lose?

If we make the Syracuse area a unique, interesting, and vital place, it will attract new residents and the beautiful, well-planned suburbs will follow. Trust me -- they always do. If instead, we first fill the landscape with beautiful, well-planned suburbs, then the downtown will continue to crumble and the natural landscape will be gone and we will have nothing unique left to offer.

While I don't disagree that there are people who will only live in the suburbs and need to see quality suburban housing options, I have never known someone to relocate to an area because they liked a specific suburban neighborhood. People move for other reasons: jobs, family, etc. Housing options are important, but at best, they are tie-breakers between two otherwise equal places.