Syracuse Suburban Sprawl, good or bad? (Rochester, Manlius: home builders, school district, university)

[CNYDC]

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

Even if you are correct, then how would you stop families from moving to the suburbs where there are better schools, larger homes, less depressing environment?

I am not suggesting that we prevent people from moving to the suburbs. There are plenty of nice suburbs in the Syracuse area. What I am saying is that there is no need to create MORE suburbs when what we have is satisfying the current demand and there are compelling reasons to improve downtown for the good of the overall economy.

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

The logic of thinking about sprawl as a problem is flawed. Sprawl happens for a reason. No one is making people move to the suburbs. They move there because they chose to do so.

Sprawl did/does happen for a reason. It happens because since the 1950's the suburbs have benefitted from trillions of dollars in government subsidy in the form of interstate highways and water/sewer extensions that made the suburbs viable. Without those investments, the suburbs as we know them never could have happened. Because there was no commensurate government investment in existing cities over the same time period, we began the well-documented cycle of urban decline and population flight which resulted in further decline. Thus, we have the situation which you have described with the disparity in living conditions. It wasn't always this way. There were plenty of urban neighborhoods in Syracuse that used to have great schools and a very nice quality of life. The situation you see now is a relatively recent phenomenon. There is no reason it can't be reversed as it has in many other cities nationwide.

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

This whole debate is self-defeating in my opinion. It takes away from the true problem like the local economy. If the area was booming, the city would be revitalized....end of story. Stopping sprawl will not bring new jobs.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think there are many like-minded people (some of which you have seen on this board) who feel that the economic future of Syracuse and cities like it is dependent on the health of the downtown. I know of no cities which have a depressed downtown and healthy suburbs that are regarded as economically vital places (the so-called donut cities). Again, its not about "stopping sprawl". Its about funneling the little development we can muster into the places where it makes the most sense and will have the greatest impact. In a place like Syracuse with little or no overall population growth, suburban sprawl happens entirely at the expense of the downtown.

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

How do you even know that people would move to the Syracuse area if they had to live within the city limits? I know I wouldn't. And if Syracuse can't attract professionals from the outside, businesses will not locate here and jobs will not increase.

There is a well-established segment of the housing market that wants to live in cities. Unfortunately, there is very little we can offer them in Syracuse right now, so we are losing that entire segment of the workforce (the so-called "creative class"). But in cities where there are good urban options, its usually the most sought after housing, achieving the highest rents and sale prices. Again, I am not arguing that the city is for everyone. But if we keep building new suburbs at the expense of the city, we will never be able to provide the city as a housing option.

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

Even if you win the debate, it will still not change the negatives of the city and the positives of the suburbs.

I'm sorry, but this is just not accurate. There are hundreds of examples of cities that have turned around their downtowns and made them viable alternatives to the suburbs. When the middle class returns to the city, schools and livability can return to what they were before the population flight of the mid-late 20th century.

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

I say, make the city a great place to live and work and people will chose to live there and do business there. Forcing the sprawl issue will just divide this community even more.

This is where we all agree. Its just how we get there that we apparently disagree.

[bellafinzi]

Originally Posted by CNYDC

I am not suggesting that we prevent people from moving to the suburbs. There are plenty of nice suburbs in the Syracuse area. What I am saying is that there is no need to create MORE suburbs when what we have is satisfying the current demand and there are compelling reasons to improve downtown for the good of the overall economy.

So what you are saying is we should somehow stop construction of all new housing, restaurants and stores in the suburbs?

How would we go about doing that?

[jrice]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Park

Re: "we need to stop thinking that stopping suburban development will automatically transform the city."

I'm on the record as a happy urbanite; while I do not like the suburbs, I don't wish to impugn anyone who wishes to live out there. I also haven't thought "that stopping suburban development will automatically transform the city." However, put that way, it's an interesting thought.

To all suburbanites out there: Are you good people? Good neighbors? Educated sorts who get along well, like to have cookouts, go have a catch with the neighbors' kids? Leave your porch light on, pick up any litter you might see on the curb?

If so, bringing you into the city would likely transform it -- quite literally overnight. Again, not intending to criticize your current home. But if every neighborhood in the city had that critical mass of good citizens -- eyes on the street, active in the community -- who moved in from the suburbs, yes: the city would indeed be transformed by the cessation of suburban development.

(Of course, those of us who are intimately familiar with the city know that there are many neighborhoods that have all those positive characteristics, and more. Anyone who denigrates the city as "depressing" or even having bad schools clearly has absolutely no idea of what life is really like in the city. But where the citizens behave like citizens, there's no better place to be. Urban, exurban, or anyplace in between, the quality of the people really makes the place.)


Also, regarding that Hamptons correction, I'd respectfully disagree. The bulk of the wealth out there is seasonal. Most of the full-time population out there on the island is more upper-middle class; the uber-wealthy are summer folk (and would likely much rather be high above Park Avenue than out on the island during the cold winter months). Many wealthy cosmopolitans in this country have maintained permanent residences in urban areas, rural seasonal retreats notwithstanding.

First, I agree. Take many of us out of the suburbs and into the city and I am sure you would see a reverse of types of things that have happened over the years to the city. Problems with that are:

House values: A transformation like that would take awhile to develop and mature, and I as well as seeing my home as just that a home, I also see it as an investment. And just like the decay of the urban centers took decades a reverse transformation would take the same. And while my house in the "burbs will most likely appreciate over the next 10 years or so the same can not be said about homes in the city

Land: The suburbs have one thing Americans love in general--big spacious yards. And while you can find some city homes with decent size yards on average most do not.

As far as my hamptons comment I should have gave another example like Atherton CA (near Silicon Valley), the 7 Hills Section of Las Vegas, or even parts of LA. While its true homes in the hamptons tend to be seasonal they ultimately represent, for most of those that live there, a symbol of their status. Homes, to the rich, are often a testament to their position on life. And I have read quite a few books on the rich and successful, and many have said that if they didnt need to leave the Hamptons they wouldn't do so.

[jrice]

But if we keep building new suburbs at the expense of the city, we will never be able to provide the city as a housing option.

How is that true when nobody wants to live in our city? Its not like we are denying them a chance to live there--they choose not to and with good reason. Look at those lofts they built in "Little Italy"--they are still unoccupied. So its not a lack of intent but rather a lcak of desire.

Change the economic outlook for the city--bring in other industries besides retail and people will come back. Until that happens we are headed the way of Flint MI, and Detroit--rotting shells

[bellafinzi]

I think people falsely believe I'm in love with sprawl. I'm not. I'm in love with attractive development. The most attractive part of the Syracuse area happens to be the suburbs. If the city wasn't so unattractive, I wouldn't have trouble recommending it.

Originally Posted by CNYDC

The situation you see now is a relatively recent phenomenon. There is no reason it can't be reversed as it has in many other cities nationwide.

The reason why many other cities nationwide have reversed the decline in the city is because of economic growth and population growth in the metropolitan area.

I do not know of any metro that has stopped construction of suburban development thereby revitalizing the city.

Originally Posted by CNYDC

There is a well-established segment of the housing market that wants to live in cities. Unfortunately, there is very little we can offer them in Syracuse right now, so we are losing that entire segment of the workforce (the so-called "creative class"). But in cities where there are good urban options, its usually the most sought after housing, achieving the highest rents and sale prices. Again, I am not arguing that the city is for everyone. But if we keep building new suburbs at the expense of the city, we will never be able to provide the city as a housing option.

Good point. If I were to move to Montreal I'd probably move to the city, not the suburbs of Montreal. The problem with cities like Syracuse is that most city neighborhoods are very bland and are not much different than living in the suburbs. That's why as it is today, I see no major plus to living in the city of Syracuse over the suburbs.

In booming, cosmopolitan cities like Montreal the city is young, vibrant and you don't need a car to get around.

Syracuse is not young, most of the young adults move away....not because Syracuse is more "boring" than a cosmopolitan city, rather because of the lack of jobs in Syracuse.

Which is why I believe jobs are the number #1 issue.

If the Syracuse area had good paying jobs for young people, those young people would start revitalizing the city.

So even if you managed to stop suburban development, you are still left with the same demographics in the area. You aren't attracting young people unless there were jobs here for them.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by jrice

How is that true when nobody wants to live in our city? Its not like we are denying them a chance to live there--they choose not to and with good reason. Look at those lofts they built in "Little Italy"--they are still unoccupied. So its not a lack of intent but rather a lcak of desire.

Change the economic outlook for the city--bring in other industries besides retail and people will come back. Until that happens we are headed the way of Flint MI, and Detroit--rotting shells

I think difference between us and Flint and Detroit is that we at least have a diversified econmy to build off of. Those two cities really didn't have that or to the degree we have here.

Again, I think if we increase the educational footprint of the city in terms of higher education and public school options, that's where you will see more demand for the city. Think about Columbus Ohio, where that is the case, along with state government and white collar companies like Nationwide and Wendy's, among others. Imagine if we could get the Westside with it's warehouses to become transformed for housing, entertainment and economic purposes. WCNY is moving to that area and a few others are as well, but we can get more.

[jrice]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

I think difference between us and Flint and Detroit is that we at least have a diversified econmy to build off of. Those two cities really didn't have that or to the degree we have here.

Again, I think if we increase the educational footprint of the city in terms of higher education and public school options, that's where you will see more demand for the city. Think about Columbus Ohio, where that is the case, along with state government and white collar companies like Nationwide and Wendy's, among others. Imagine if we could get the Westside with it's warehouses to become transformed for housing, entertainment and economic purposes. WCNY is moving to that area and a few others are as well, but we can get more.

See I disagree, education is only going to go so far because even if we become a mecca for learning those students are still going to leave the area.

We are alittle more diversified to a degree than those two mentioned cities but not by much. And it was more of an accident than planned. When manufactoring moved out (and is still) we are lucky we have the university to fall back on. But even thats not enough to revitilze our community. We need more, and alot more, especially if everyone wants for the city to become a hub for life again. Everyone wants lofts, and a soho like atmosphere for downtown, problem is that none of the remaining industry left around pays well enough for those types of communities. Even if we build upon what we already have--the mdical industry--bring in those companies that supply to and sell for those industries--offer them things--like those warehouses you mentioned--they are abandoned, give them those to occupy free. That way we have tax revenue rolling in, property tax rolling in, more pople are employed--more income and sales taxes, etc

[CNYDC]

Originally Posted by jrice

How is that true when nobody wants to live in our city? Its not like we are denying them a chance to live there--they choose not to and with good reason. Look at those lofts they built in "Little Italy"--they are still unoccupied. So its not a lack of intent but rather a lcak of desire.

If the same amount of government money that has been spent building and propping up the suburbs was instead spent in the cities, the city would be on a more even playing field with the suburbs and would become more desirable. If the government stopped building and maintaining interstate highways and extending water/sewer lines to virgin land then all of a sudden the burbs wouldn't be such a wonderful place anymore.

If instead you spent that same money on improving the city schools and incentivizing new development downtown (just like roads and sewers incentivize suburban development), suddenly its more appealing to live in the city. It takes more than building a few lofts in Little Italy to create a desirable living environment.

What many people don't realize is that suburban sprawl is not a product of the "free market". It was financed almost entirely on the backs of taxpayers who subsidized the infrastructure that made it happen. Without that government investment, there would be no suburbs.

[beckyhuggs]

Originally Posted by CNYDC

If the same amount of government money that has been spent building and propping up the suburbs was instead spent in the cities, the city would be on a more even playing field with the suburbs and would become more desirable. If the government stopped building and maintaining interstate highways and extending water/sewer lines to virgin land then all of a sudden the burbs wouldn't be such a wonderful place anymore.

If instead you spent that same money on improving the city schools and incentivizing new development downtown (just like roads and sewers incentivize suburban development), suddenly its more appealing to live in the city. It takes more than building a few lofts in Little Italy to create a desirable living environment.

What many people don't realize is that suburban sprawl is not a product of the "free market". It was financed almost entirely on the backs of taxpayers who subsidized the infrastructure that made it happen. Without that government investment, there would be no suburbs.

Well Said, I would give you more rep points if I could!

Onondaga County wouldn't be near what it is today if hadn't been for the intial taxpayers of the city during it's peak.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by CNYDC

What many people don't realize is that suburban sprawl is not a product of the "free market". It was financed almost entirely on the backs of taxpayers who subsidized the infrastructure that made it happen. Without that government investment, there would be no suburbs.

There are definitely many variables specific to Syracuse that I can't speak to...but sprawl is a touchy subject in every location around the country. So, generically I'll comment while resigning the fact that I do not know all of the history behind this area. And not every comment is in response to you CNYDC.

Sprawl, in general, is financed by the same people who use it. The government does not "earn" money...it taxes "earners" and determines what to do with it. The taxes you're speaking of are paid progressivley higher by wage earners that pay into the localities with things like property taxes, local sales tax (if applicable) and many other municipal fees/taxes, etc.

The government is also the same entity that typically starts the entire distortion of the free market in the first place. Well-intentioned programs like HUD served their purpose in their day, but they have had long standing after effects. Sprawl didn't start one day because some county official thought it would be great to dig up land in the SW side of the county...it was a demand being placed upon him/her, by constituents who pay taxes and vote. Those who do not pay taxes and vote do not typically get this level of pull with government officials (right or wrong).

Why is there a demand? Many reasons...things like section 8 housing have helped to migrate the higher income wage earners away from city neighborhoods for decades since they started it around the Great Depression. As more people leave those neighborhoods in search of a "better" life, they also take a part of that better life with them...themselves. So, everybody is working to get out of these areas, not back in them.

If you really want to fix a city, you have to address the issues of the city first. If it's low income generating cycles of poverty from generation to generation, then address that with more secuirty (if/where needed), economic opportunity(such as free building use for certain types of businesses), and improved public schools to prevent the cycle from recurring. Likely in that order as well, but there are probably some 1000 other things one could in between each of those.

But getting upset or mocking people with children (or even those who don't) who don't want to volunteer to be first to move back to the (figurative) city is not going to really solve anything. The first people you can attract are the very young adults, older adults w/o children first. Concentrate on their needs first...as a truly healthy city is not always affordable/conducive for middle class people w/ children to afford homes with yards, etc. in the city itself.