Syracuse Suburban Sprawl, good or bad? (Hope: home, neighborhoods, law school)

[bellafinzi]

justflow,

I want to build up the city so that young people are attracted to Syracuse too.

My point is that sprawl is not to blame for the city's problems. Sprawl didn't cause the city to die. What caused the city to die is lack of job growth in the area, poverty, drugs, crime, poor schools and lack of population growth in the Syracuse area.

If you fix what caused the city's problems, then you'll see an influx of new residents and more redevelopment in the city.

[justflow1983]

And what I'm saying is that to a large part, those problems are magnified by sprawl and White Flight. It is an effect of those problems that has also been a cause, and the further that families and working people and the educated get from residing in the city center, the further it will decline. Its called Passive Surveillance, and its what makes cities safe.

Anti-sprawl attitudes won't fix the city. But by adopting an anti-sprawl stance, it forces those who have abandoned the city to deal with it directly. If done in a positive way, through selective increase of transit links, the establishment of walkability rules, etc, then its not an issue of being urban pioneers or anything but just one of people taking one of many good options.

Suburbs themselves are a normal condition of cities. My parents are from a suburb of Barcelona. Right now, in america, the suburbs ARE the cities, and thats what bothers me so much. Syracuse has one of the best urban plans around, and with its park system and medium density it has the opportunity to really flourish in as a healthy community if it weren't so easy to just buy a cookie cutter house in Fayetteville and commute. Look at all the people moving to the Radisson's "planned community," they're just moving to something that already exists in older areas. Its a return to urbanization in a lot of sort of blind ways.

[mycrows]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

And what I'm saying is that to a large part, those problems are magnified by sprawl and White Flight. It is an effect of those problems that has also been a cause, and the further that families and working people and the educated get from residing in the city center, the further it will decline. Its called Passive Surveillance, and its what makes cities safe.

Anti-sprawl attitudes won't fix the city. But by adopting an anti-sprawl stance, it forces those who have abandoned the city to deal with it directly. If done in a positive way, through selective increase of transit links, the establishment of walkability rules, etc, then its not an issue of being urban pioneers or anything but just one of people taking one of many good options.

Suburbs themselves are a normal condition of cities. My parents are from a suburb of Barcelona. Right now, in america, the suburbs ARE the cities, and thats what bothers me so much. Syracuse has one of the best urban plans around, and with its park system and medium density it has the opportunity to really flourish in as a healthy community if it weren't so easy to just buy a cookie cutter house in Fayetteville and commute. Look at all the people moving to the Radisson's "planned community," they're just moving to something that already exists in older areas. Its a return to urbanization in a lot of sort of blind ways.

Moderator cut: Personal Attacks When all the rich people vacate a municipality, taking their tax dollars with them, any problems are going to multiply. It doesn't take an urban planner to see that widespread poverty in a community is directly related to widespread crime, drugs and violence. The fact that suburbs are considered financially "independent" is one of the biggest jokes in our country's recent history. Until people start thinking of metropolitan areas as one unified system these problems won't change.

Even if bellafinzi's dream of a Syracuse without crime, drugs or decay came true, it would mean that the poor people had just been displaced to the outskirts of the city (as in Europe, as in Chicago, as in NYC). Although I am part of the forces of gentrification in my city (why deny it) I see the other side of revitilization (displacement) and I don't think of repairing city neighborhoods as a purely positive social action. As a matter of fact, it's worse to be poor in a suburb than a city, because the urban planning sucks so much out there.

[justflow1983]

Originally Posted by mycrows

Until people start thinking of metropolitan areas as one unified system these problems won't change.

You may enjoy this website SYRACUSE 20/20. its an organisation looking at consolidating the various suburban governments in order to address the metro area.

While gentrification does push poorer people to the suburbs, in some ways it also helps alleviate some of the direct problems of poverty by mixing income groups into close contact. In a city like Syracuse with a large oversupply of housing, the city can be safely gentrified in some areas while retaining lower-income neighbourhoods in others pretty safely. The current problem is that the nice areas tend to be 4-block islands in a sea of ghetto.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

And what I'm saying is that to a large part, those problems are magnified by sprawl and White Flight. It is an effect of those problems that has also been a cause, and the further that families and working people and the educated get from residing in the city center, the further it will decline. Its called Passive Surveillance, and its what makes cities safe.

Anti-sprawl attitudes won't fix the city. But by adopting an anti-sprawl stance, it forces those who have abandoned the city to deal with it directly. If done in a positive way, through selective increase of transit links, the establishment of walkability rules, etc, then its not an issue of being urban pioneers or anything but just one of people taking one of many good options.

Suburbs themselves are a normal condition of cities. My parents are from a suburb of Barcelona. Right now, in america, the suburbs ARE the cities, and thats what bothers me so much. Syracuse has one of the best urban plans around, and with its park system and medium density it has the opportunity to really flourish in as a healthy community if it weren't so easy to just buy a cookie cutter house in Fayetteville and commute. Look at all the people moving to the Radisson's "planned community," they're just moving to something that already exists in older areas. Its a return to urbanization in a lot of sort of blind ways.

A very good and honest post. People seem to forget those factors you brought up in terms of the set up of the city of Syracuse and what caused a population decline.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

You may enjoy this website SYRACUSE 20/20. its an organisation looking at consolidating the various suburban governments in order to address the metro area.

While gentrification does push poorer people to the suburbs, in some ways it also helps alleviate some of the direct problems of poverty by mixing income groups into close contact. In a city like Syracuse with a large oversupply of housing, the city can be safely gentrified in some areas while retaining lower-income neighbourhoods in others pretty safely. The current problem is that the nice areas tend to be 4-block islands in a sea of ghetto.

Or if you notice that most of the nicer neighborhoods in the city are East of I-81 due to the University presence and a history of being mainly a more affluent and stable area, even before the population decline. If there are nice neighborhoods West of I-81, they are usually on the edge of the city limits like Tipp Hill, Strathmore, Elmwood(South of Glenwood) and most of the Valley section.

Also, as for gentrification, this has already been occurring in the area. For instance, haven't you noticed how certain apartment complexes in the suburbs accept Section 8? That's due to some neighborhoods changing like parts of Westcott, Hawley-Green and now the Near westside with the Near Westside initiative that is in conjunction with SU and Home HeadQuarters. It's not like these complexes are "bad" or at least in the case of Springfield Gardens in DeWitt, "bad" anymore.

[justflow1983]

The University is a great example. Because it can't move, it maintains a steady population of (more or less) affluent residents and the stability that goes along with that. Each of the neighborhoods has its own attraction that allows it to continually renew its residents.

Tipp Hill is full of my friends from high school, so I can vouch for what keeps it going. Coleman's, Nibsy's, Rosie's, and cheap apartments. Many younger people who want to be able to walk to the bar on the weekend and not worry about who's driving will move into an area that has both housing and those amenities. Tipp Hill has a lot of cheap, decent housing for people just out of college as well as those bars I mentioned that keep people entertained and foster a sense of community. If downtown were more accessible, some of these people would probably live there instead.

Strathmore has beautiful old houses and Hiawatha park. For some reason, it seems to draw retirees and empty nesters, and since it has the reputation of being the place to go at that age, it has a steady replacement of somewhat wealthy people who don't mind the upkeep on the houses. Its a nice area even though its surrounded by some rough areas. I remember a classical music concert in the park from when I was 7 or 8 that has stuck with me ever since as one of the most beautiful nights of my life.

Eastwood and the Valley have a strong sense of community, which keeps them vibrant. They're like well kept secrets to those who live there, and word of mouth preserves the population. In the case of Eastwood, it has a similar convenience as Tipp Hill, but with a larger center that has more than just a few bars, so the population is more diverse. My classmates from high school who don't live on Tipp Hill and stayed in 'cuse live in Eastwood for the inexpensive housing and walkable community. We're all originally suburbanites, but when you're 26 you don't really want to live somewhere as disconnected as a 4 bed suburban house.

If the city can offer ways for these residents to stay in the city, mostly through an increase in upscale housing and schooling options, I'd bet a proportion of these groups stay in the city limits throughout their life periods. A big issue is transit, because once you become car-dependent, you are less inclined to stay in the same local area because you are equally mobile no matter where you live. People in the habit of using mass transit tend to stay near it for convenience even when they do own vehicles.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

The University is a great example. Because it can't move, it maintains a steady population of (more or less) affluent residents and the stability that goes along with that. Each of the neighborhoods has its own attraction that allows it to continually renew its residents.

Tipp Hill is full of my friends from high school, so I can vouch for what keeps it going. Coleman's, Nibsy's, Rosie's, and cheap apartments. Many younger people who want to be able to walk to the bar on the weekend and not worry about who's driving will move into an area that has both housing and those amenities. Tipp Hill has a lot of cheap, decent housing for people just out of college as well as those bars I mentioned that keep people entertained and foster a sense of community. If downtown were more accessible, some of these people would probably live there instead.

Strathmore has beautiful old houses and Hiawatha park. For some reason, it seems to draw retirees and empty nesters, and since it has the reputation of being the place to go at that age, it has a steady replacement of somewhat wealthy people who don't mind the upkeep on the houses. Its a nice area even though its surrounded by some rough areas. I remember a classical music concert in the park from when I was 7 or 8 that has stuck with me ever since as one of the most beautiful nights of my life.

Eastwood and the Valley have a strong sense of community, which keeps them vibrant. They're like well kept secrets to those who live there, and word of mouth preserves the population. In the case of Eastwood, it has a similar convenience as Tipp Hill, but with a larger center that has more than just a few bars, so the population is more diverse. My classmates from high school who don't live on Tipp Hill and stayed in 'cuse live in Eastwood for the inexpensive housing and walkable community. We're all originally suburbanites, but when you're 26 you don't really want to live somewhere as disconnected as a 4 bed suburban house.

If the city can offer ways for these residents to stay in the city, mostly through an increase in upscale housing and schooling options, I'd bet a proportion of these groups stay in the city limits throughout their life periods. A big issue is transit, because once you become car-dependent, you are less inclined to stay in the same local area because you are equally mobile no matter where you live. People in the habit of using mass transit tend to stay near it for convenience even when they do own vehicles.

As for schooling options, right now, you have certain programs in the city HS's like the IB program at Corcoran, the Syracuse Academy of Science in the old Sacred Heart school building, a couple of other charter schools and some programs within the city schools. Hopefully, Central Tech will come back soon too. I would like to see an arts based high school like Rochester and Buffalo have. A couple of charter HS's wouldn't hurt either. Some of the old Catholic schools that recently closed would be great locations for such schools too.

You're right about Westhill kids moving into Tipp Hill, as a lot of my classmates live there too. Some people move to the Westcott/University area too.

I also think an area if it was gentrified a little bit that would get some people would be the Elmwood neighborhood due to having some businesses there already and the potential for other businesses as well.

[justflow1983]

I wish they'd put that stuff on some city website, I didn't know anything about it. Well, at least put it there in a way that makes it useful, the official city site is crap City of Syracuse . The city of Syracuse, UT even comes up first in the google search and they have like 1300 residents.

compare that website with two that I've overly familiar with (since I've had recent projects going in those cities and they have their planning regs on the site):
City of London
Dublin City Council: Services, information and support for the people of Dublin

[ckhthankgod]

Here's some of the information on the schools:Syracuse Academy of Science Charter School

Southside Charter Academy :: Charter School in Syracuse, New York :: NY Premier Charter School

Corcoran - International Baccalaureate Program

Institute of Technology @ Syracuse Central

Career and Technical Education programs

http://weblink.scsd.us/~corcoran/envir/index.htm

Home Page

About the Business Academy.

About Liberal Arts & Human Services Academy.

About Science, Engineering & Health Academy.

and more info.:Nottingham High School

Corcoran High School-Syracuse City School District

This school was on the Westside before it moved out to Warners to a bigger school building:Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God Church and Academy - Home Page

and the city school district website:http://www.syracusecityschools.com/