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.
They've razed bunches of homes in North Philadelphia (historic Victorian crackhouses, as an acquaintance of mine described them). I don't think you'll see too many suburbanites moving there, though.
Perhaps this will lead to the destruction of excess housing, thus creating the possibility of a suburban lifestyle..within the confines of the old city. If you have a street loaded with boarded-up housing, but in close proximity to other housing, then just raize the unoccupied homes, plant some new grass and trees, and pave over some of the remaining land for driveways, and volia!...instant suburbia. This will certainly lure those out in exurbia to become "urban pioneers"...
Any street loaded with boarded housing is normally too decayed to attract anyone who has the means to live elsewhere, scarcely attractive for those interested in exurbia. While perhaps those who like suburbs might find suburban housing in a city a way to improve a city; in my opinion it could create the worst of both worlds. Let cities be cities.
Idea of suburban housing in an area of abandoned homes makes me think of ranch homes in the South Bronx. In the background, you can see brick apartment buildings in style that used to exist on that street.
Sorry, got called into work before I could post any more about this. Anyone who does not think that the morality of the suburbs has been discussed, with some posters saying that it's not the people it's the system (though they may have used a different word) should do a search for the words "moral" and "immoral" on this very thread, also in this forum.
Perhaps this will lead to the destruction of excess housing, thus creating the possibility of a suburban lifestyle..within the confines of the old city. If you have a street loaded with boarded-up housing, but in close proximity to other housing, then just raize the unoccupied homes, plant some new grass and trees, and pave over some of the remaining land for driveways, and volia!...instant suburbia. This will certainly lure those out in exurbia to become "urban pioneers"...
Destroying most of the housing stock doesn't make the property any more appealing--it only destroys the best things about the housing--its historic character, its walkability and its position within an existing neighborhood. Not to mention that the only neighborhoods that could receive such treatment are neighborhoods that are already suburban (predominantly single-family homes) because you can't exactly do that to a neighborhood of attached row houses or apartment buildings.
Perhaps this will lead to the destruction of excess housing, thus creating the possibility of a suburban lifestyle..within the confines of the old city. If you have a street loaded with boarded-up housing, but in close proximity to other housing, then just raize the unoccupied homes, plant some new grass and trees, and pave over some of the remaining land for driveways, and volia!...instant suburbia. This will certainly lure those out in exurbia to become "urban pioneers"...
It isn't working here, either. I agree with the concept of Youngstown 2010--to right-size the city; to bring the infrastructure in line with the population--but most people feel this should be done by thinning out the housing all across the city, and making it (even) more suburban. No effort--except for demolition--is made to stabilize neighborhoods that are still intact. The only people who are pleased, are those who wanted to live in the suburbs, but couldn't afford to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
They've razed bunches of homes in North Philadelphia (historic Victorian crackhouses, as an acquaintance of mine described them). I don't think you'll see too many suburbanites moving there, though.
Any street loaded with boarded housing is normally too decayed to attract anyone who has the means to live elsewhere, scarcely attractive for those interested in exurbia. While perhaps those who like suburbs might find suburban housing in a city a way to improve a city; in my opinion it could create the worst of both worlds. Let cities be cities.
Idea of suburban housing in an area of abandoned homes makes me think of ranch homes in the South Bronx. In the background, you can see brick apartment buildings in style that used to exist on that street.
I have neighbors who want to see every other house in our neighborhood razed, so that the remaining houses can have bigger yards. I'm horrified by this idea, and is a small part of the reason I'm restoring a house in a different--historic--neighborhood in the city. That neighborhood isn't immune to the wrecking ball, either. But there, it's seen as a last resort, at least.
I'm not universally opposed to tearing down disued homes. We are missing just shy of 400,000 citizens from our peak. We have blocks upon blocks of abandoned rowhomes that have limited redevelopment potential. However, tearing down with no plan for the property usually just leads to another weedy, trash-strewn lot here.
Of course, just as people make money from the development of an area, lots of people make money from teardowns. The city owns perhaps 15,000 vacant houses. Lucrative government demo contracts are doled out to those contractors with connections. Repeat. It's a big business here, just like bail bonds.
I've been participating in this forum for about a year, and what amazes me is that in all that time I've never seen a thread from urbanist that actually discusses the reasons people leave for the suburbs and how they can keep there. I still believe the biggest problem that cities struggle with is keeping parents in the city to raise kids in decent but not great neigborhoods and attend the struggling schools. You guys keep pointing out to me that the reason the schools struggle is because all the good students attend private schools or schools in the suburbs and leave the struggling kids at these public schools. I agree with that, but how do you going to stop the cycle? That I believe will make a huge difference in building the city back up and creating more walkabale environments. I know the 2010 census showed an increase in people coming back to the city, but would good does it do if once they have kids and make more money, they take it to the suburbs? I mean crime is still a big issue in major cities, but that never gets talked about here on this forum. School, crime, housing, job that has been moved to the suburbs, etc are all reasons that people leave, yet I never see a thread that starts "what can we do convince people to stay in the city?". This is a common issue that comes up all the time, a guy and his wife or girlfriend live in a decent neighborhood. They like their neighbors, close to everything they need, can walk to any bar they want, or restuarant, art gallery, park, whatever you can think of. The problem is, there are houses that get broken into, cars get jacked, the police seem to be around more than they would like, and that elementary school is a 3 block walk, but the school rating is about a 3. Next thing you know, wife gets pregnant. They actually decide to stay in that rowhouse, twin, condo, apartment until the kid is 4, but than they have the ultimate decision, stay and make it work or move to the suburbs? Exactly what are the cities doing that is convincing that parent to stay and make it work? You guys always talk about the downtown areas that are expensive and in high demand, that will always exist. You need to convince that couple who lives in a shaddy neighborhood to stick it out and help rebuild the area, and it needs be a collect effort, it can't just be 1 or 2 people. Cities can't just gentrify every neighborhood. That is just my opinion, you actually have to convince people to do it on their own, but what motivation do they have?
I've been participating in this forum for about a year, and what amazes me is that in all that time I've never seen a thread from urbanist that actually discusses the reasons people leave for the suburbs and how they can keep there.
I have neighbors who want to see every other house in our neighborhood razed, so that the remaining houses can have bigger yards. I'm horrified by this idea, and is a small part of the reason I'm restoring a house in a different--historic--neighborhood in the city. That neighborhood isn't immune to the wrecking ball, either. But there, it's seen as a last resort, at least.
Funny that city people want bigger yards. Maybe in the end we all want the same things. I know there are people who don't care a fig about yards, but if you want a yard, you want a yard.
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.
