Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my experience it's harder to build multi-family developments in the suburbs relative to the cities. At least in the NYC Metro area, the suburbs have prevented most new multifamily building by zoning and NIMBYism while they've built a lot of new (often rather generic) multifamily housing across the city.
That is not the case in any other city I'm familiar with. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Omaha, all have apts in the burbs. Maybe NYC is the outlier.
That is not the case in any other city I'm familiar with. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Omaha, all have apts in the burbs. Maybe NYC is the outlier.
I didn't say no apartments in the burbs. I said there are fewer apartments in the burbs than in the city and it's much harder to build in the burbs. Much of Long Island is zoned single-family and the residents want to keep it that way. Cities in my experience have less restrictions.
Growth in urban areas doesn't necessarily have to push out lower income residents, nor is that necessarily a desirable thing. Talking about walkability and such is kind of ridiculous if the kid who works at the frozen-yogurt place in your "dense, walkable new urbanist neighborhood" has to drive to work from a suburb ten miles away.
One thing to consider: When a neighborhood goes from depressed to desirable, are there opportunities for those who are already in the neighborhood? When a new restaurant or retail business opens, can those already in the neighborhood get jobs there, helping them economically? Does the increase in tax revenue help buoy local schools? Does the rising tide in the neighborhood raise all boats--in essence, instead of replacing the existing population, moving at least some of them into better economic circumstances?
But because the middle class is dwindling away, I'm not sure how cities will remain affordable for the shrinking working class. SF and NYC are prime examples of cities that have turned around, but have become largely unaffordable for the working class (unless they owned a house before it got expensive). Chicago is actually very affordable, so I'm not sure what's different there (maybe adequate housing stock?). It seems that most areas in affordable US cities either have expensive nice areas or inexpensive areas that are really rough. Again, I don't mean to generalize, but I'm trying to focus on majorities.
Because there aren't a ton of truly great urban areas in the US (proportionally to the population IMO), when a place becomes walkable, diverse, amenity-rich and relatively safe, housing prices seem to sky-rocket. Let me take a shot at the questions you asked above:
When a neighborhood goes from depressed to desirable, are there opportunities for those who are already in the neighborhood?
Yes, but it's only sustainable for them if 1) they had high paying jobs and inhabited the area even though it was cheap, or 2) they own a house and are locked in at a lower amount. If they rent, and they don't meet #1's criteria, I say they get priced out eventually.
When a new restaurant or retail business opens, can those already in the neighborhood get jobs there, helping them economically?
Yes, but service jobs are low-paying, and if the cost of the neighborhood increases dramatically, they will ultimately be priced out of living in the neighborhood. They can move to other neighborhoods, but as the city gentrifies, they risk being priced out there as well.
Does the increase in tax revenue help buoy local schools?
Yes, I believe it does, but I supposed it depends on how local schools are funded (if the tax base is relevant to the geographic location of the school).
Does the rising tide in the neighborhood raise all boats--in essence, instead of replacing the existing population, moving at least some of them into better economic circumstances?
In rare cases. If a neighborhood increases in popularity, but maintains the COL, then yes. If not, then those who previously inhabited the area get priced out (unless they meet my 1 & 2 criteria as stated above).
If the middle class is dwindling away, then gentrification is less of a worry because they won't have as much money for soy lattes and overpriced lofts--a sinking tide drops all boats, I suppose. At worst they would be looking to occupy the same neighborhoods, but if their own economic outlook is dimming, they won't be able to outprice and displace existing residents as readily. But if for some reason sense takes over and the middle class ends its slump, we might be more ready to acknowledge our connection to people closer to the bottom of the pile, having gotten a closer look at it.
A lot depends on a city's low-income housing policy, and the diversity of housing stock. Older buildings tend to be more affordable--a big argument for preservation of existing neighborhoods is the greater ease with which they can be kept affordable. Set-aside percentages for new construction can also moderate the effects of rising rents, although there is the specter of "government control" there. Essentially, in mid-century a lot of cities demolished their downtown affordable housing stock rather than fix it up, with the assumption that cities would be abandoned. The cities that didn't get around to destroying so much will be better set to maintain affordable housing. For reasons cited above (yogurt shop employees who have to commute) it makes more sense (to me, at least) to susbidize low-income housing in the city than subsidize transportation networks to allow poor people to commute.
Rather than discounting Chicago, I'd say look more closely at them to see what they're doing right. If they can maintain affordability and income diversity, maybe there are lessons to be learned that other cities can emulate.
Philadelphia did wind up growing, although not as much as originally estimated. 0.3% growth. First time since the 1950 census there has been growth.
More exciting, Reading, PA, where I grew up near and has seen some pretty terrible times, and is a city that I love and really want to see succeed had pretty astounding growth. It's highest high point was 111,000 in the 1930 census. It's lowest low of the decline was 78,000 in the 1990 census. 2000 was 81,207. The estimate for 2010 was 80,997, and the actual was 88,032, and 8.5% increase.
Allentown, PA rose by 10% to 118,000, which is a new high.
I don't know where exactly the growth is happening in those cities, and in what form. I know Downtown Reading has really spruced itself up. Last time I was in Downtown Allentown it seemed decent, not great - but I have no idea what to compare it to, really, I haven't spent a ton of time there, moreso in the suburbs where I have relatives. But it's good - particularly for anyone who is aware (which I'm guessing isn't many on here) of the past decline of Reading, a place which never got too big to manage in the first place.
If the middle class is dwindling away, then gentrification is less of a worry because they won't have as much money for soy lattes and overpriced lofts--a sinking tide drops all boats, I suppose. At worst they would be looking to occupy the same neighborhoods, but if their own economic outlook is dimming, they won't be able to outprice and displace existing residents as readily. But if for some reason sense takes over and the middle class ends its slump, we might be more ready to acknowledge our connection to people closer to the bottom of the pile, having gotten a closer look at it.
I think it's less black and white than the middle class simply dwindling away. I think what's happening is people are either moving toward upper-middle class or lower-middle class, leaving the middle of the spectrum more and more uncommon. The upper middle class is what I see as the group that's pushing people out. The lower middle class is hanging on, but can only do so for so long (many are working class families that either can't find work or have not had adequate wage increases over the last 10+ years).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
A lot depends on a city's low-income housing policy, and the diversity of housing stock. Older buildings tend to be more affordable--a big argument for preservation of existing neighborhoods is the greater ease with which they can be kept affordable. Set-aside percentages for new construction can also moderate the effects of rising rents, although there is the specter of "government control" there. Essentially, in mid-century a lot of cities demolished their downtown affordable housing stock rather than fix it up, with the assumption that cities would be abandoned. The cities that didn't get around to destroying so much will be better set to maintain affordable housing. For reasons cited above (yogurt shop employees who have to commute) it makes more sense (to me, at least) to susbidize low-income housing in the city than subsidize transportation networks to allow poor people to commute.
I agree with what you're saying, however, "government control" typically doesn't work out real well in the long run. I wonder if some of this affordable housing will turn into project-type housing. In fact, at one point, projects were safe and were for those who couldn't afford housing, but worked. Over the years, many housing projects relaxed their policies, thus creating an environment where a sizable portion of residents didn't work (and then didn't respect the affordable housing that was subsidized for them).
I guess what I'm saying is that there's no replacement for lost jobs, and that I feel gentrification and class division will continue to affect cities. Either you end up with a gentrified Boston, SF, NYC where the COL is through the roof, or a Philly/Chicago where the COL is great, but there is a large disparity between classes and areas of the city (some safe and healthy, some unsafe and disfunctional...but on a large scale). The southern cities are largely healthy and still growing, but the urban fabric is very different, and they have the key word: jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Rather than discounting Chicago, I'd say look more closely at them to see what they're doing right. If they can maintain affordability and income diversity, maybe there are lessons to be learned that other cities can emulate.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as though I was discounting Chicago. Chicago is a big city, and I think city planners have made a lot of good decisions in their revitalization efforts. However, I also think the weather and the location keeps it from being a SF/Boston.
I think it's less black and white than the middle class simply dwindling away. I think what's happening is people are either moving toward upper-middle class or lower-middle class, leaving the middle of the spectrum more and more uncommon. The upper middle class is what I see as the group that's pushing people out. The lower middle class is hanging on, but can only do so for so long (many are working class families that either can't find work or have not had adequate wage increases over the last 10+ years).
I figure if there are fewer people in the upper middle class, there will be fewer gentrifiers all that interested in taking over a neighborhood--while more lower middle class
Quote:
I agree with what you're saying, however, "government control" typically doesn't work out real well in the long run. I wonder if some of this affordable housing will turn into project-type housing. In fact, at one point, projects were safe and were for those who couldn't afford housing, but worked. Over the years, many housing projects relaxed their policies, thus creating an environment where a sizable portion of residents didn't work (and then didn't respect the affordable housing that was subsidized for them).
The way to avoid such things happening is to keep those affordable housing units in the same neighborhood where the jobs are arriving (due to the influx of the middle class.) We're also talking about two very different things: constructed housing projects on the Pruitt-Igoe/Cabrini-Green model, which didn't work very well (to say the least), vs. a neighborhood of buildings whose occupants are already low-income being able to rent the same places in the same neighborhood. Where I live, there are multiple levels of "low-income" housing, ranging for incomes up to $30-40,000 a year, which is more than one makes on welfare. The other difference is to mix income levels within a neighborhood, or a single building. This kind of "workforce" housing is more convenient than having people working entry-level or service jobs living the next county over. It's also a better solution than just letting low-income housing be destroyed and replacing it with nothing, which has been the current solution for the past few decades, resulting in a permanent culture of homelessness that is more expensive and problematic than just providing sufficient low-income housing in the first place.
Quote:
I guess what I'm saying is that there's no replacement for lost jobs, and that I feel gentrification and class division will continue to affect cities. Either you end up with a gentrified Boston, SF, NYC where the COL is through the roof, or a Philly/Chicago where the COL is great, but there is a large disparity between classes and areas of the city (some safe and healthy, some unsafe and disfunctional...but on a large scale). The southern cities are largely healthy and still growing, but the urban fabric is very different, and they have the key word: jobs.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as though I was discounting Chicago. Chicago is a big city, and I think city planners have made a lot of good decisions in their revitalization efforts. However, I also think the weather and the location keeps it from being a SF/Boston.
I agree that there is no replacement for lost jobs, and there isn't really much that municipal governments can do about that--about the closest things we can maybe manage is trying to arrange cities so there are a certain number of jobs in maintaining the city itself: jobs fixing up the old neighborhoods to maintain the existing housing stock and a certain level of affordability, and the service jobs to support those fixing up the neighborhood. Creating jobs is the private sector's job, so to speak.
I figure if there are fewer people in the upper middle class, there will be fewer gentrifiers all that interested in taking over a neighborhood--while more lower middle class
I've always imagined the upper middle class as those who are riding a wave, trying to keep above the rift in the two middle classes. These folks are usually white collar people or entrepaneaurs, and I feel like many live off of the wealth the US has attained in the past. For example, I currently work for a F500 company as a Senior Analyst, but my company's product is contingient on people being able to spend. The more people that move into poverty, the less people that can keep my company afloat.
So, you're right, if the upper middle class dies off, gentrifiers will no longer be around....however, the trend seems that there's a sizable upper-middle class, but obviously it's far out-numbered by the lower-middle class. Btw - sorry for the rambling on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The way to avoid such things happening is to keep those affordable housing units in the same neighborhood where the jobs are arriving (due to the influx of the middle class.) We're also talking about two very different things: constructed housing projects on the Pruitt-Igoe/Cabrini-Green model, which didn't work very well (to say the least), vs. a neighborhood of buildings whose occupants are already low-income being able to rent the same places in the same neighborhood. Where I live, there are multiple levels of "low-income" housing, ranging for incomes up to $30-40,000 a year, which is more than one makes on welfare. The other difference is to mix income levels within a neighborhood, or a single building. This kind of "workforce" housing is more convenient than having people working entry-level or service jobs living the next county over. It's also a better solution than just letting low-income housing be destroyed and replacing it with nothing, which has been the current solution for the past few decades, resulting in a permanent culture of homelessness that is more expensive and problematic than just providing sufficient low-income housing in the first place.
I like what you've stated, I just hope that municipal governments stick with this model and don't let interest groups to "lobby-down" the requirements. Something tells me they wont' be able to, because municipal governments can no longer afford to spend spend spend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
I agree that there is no replacement for lost jobs, and there isn't really much that municipal governments can do about that--about the closest things we can maybe manage is trying to arrange cities so there are a certain number of jobs in maintaining the city itself: jobs fixing up the old neighborhoods to maintain the existing housing stock and a certain level of affordability, and the service jobs to support those fixing up the neighborhood. Creating jobs is the private sector's job, so to speak.
True, and I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but the private sector can only breathe if the government doesn't tax it to death. Unfriendly business climates are only a symptom of a receding tax base that's burdened by heavy public policies and infrastructure.
True the very distant suburbs of NYC have grown the fastest by %. But only a small fraction of the metro lives out there, so those areas aren't a huge contribution to numerical population growth.
But it's sprawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
In any case, those areas are so far out that they're impracticable for commuting to the center city, though they are for some suburban job centers. Of course, those areas could ennact laws to prevent housing from killing farmland.
But they won't because they want growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Hmm. The one Poconos county included in the NYC Metro area grew the fastest of any county (65% in 1990-2000; 28% in this decade) But only 60,000 people live there. Queens county in NYC added 270,000 people from 1990-2000.
At one time Long Island was like the Poconos. Then New York City passed laws against building this or building that and required this approval or that approval and builders moved into Long Island. Then the suburbs there passed laws requiring this and requiring that, and now the sprawl is moving as far as Pennsylvania. It's really pretty predictable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
