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.
The people I don't like are the ones who care, maybe "care" isn't the correct term. The people I'm talking about are the ones who moved, not the ones who grew up in the suburbs. The adults who take away their money from the city and wonder why everything is how it is. But would be quick to hop back in the city limits whenever conditions improve. I'm not blaming the parents who move because of their children's safety, that's a primary concern and I respect that, as a parent should do. It's putting the burden on the current tax paying citizens of the city and the city services.
They are interested in improving their current suburb or neighborhood but they don't have the slightest clue as to how. Neither do the parish/city/county leaders. The latter is also true.
Heat cannot be fixed.
P.S. I appreciate your objectivity.
The last time I checked, we still had a freedom of association in this country, that is, the choice to live wherever we want.
Regardless of whether anyone's choice was the "right" choice, anytime there's a situation where the city is much poorer (or even just has a higher concentration of poorer people; not quite the same) than the suburbs the city will get much less tax revenue but need to offer more services to support the poorer population.
Plus, since I generally prefer older more urban neighborhoods over newer ones, I'm not happy that parts of cities have tended to become concentrations of decay and poverty.
The suburbs are affluent and white varies by drastically region. At least for postwar suburbs (using that cutoff because it excludes old industrial towns as well having drastic density differences between those before) few in the Northeast have become impoverished, though some become more diverse, there are some Long Island towns that are almost entirely non-hispanic white (most aren't but many still are rather white, 80-90%) while the metro's non-hispanic white % is slightly under 50%.
The rural spots make for nice photos but I'd be bored stiff after about two hours. The town in the first photo looks charming but everything probably closes down by 5 PM except a beer bar or two. The city shot makes me want to wander the streets looking for interesting grit and thrift stores...and I'm pretty sure those things in the foreground in the second photo are these "trees" that many speak of, they're just all sleepy in winter. And *gasp* to the right is a child! Don't they know raising children in cities is a form of child abuse?
You'r much more of a city person than me. I enjoy either setting equally well. Hills and forest provide great atmosphere and are fun to explore. Greenery is a bit misused in this forum, at least in northern climes, plants aren't green for almost half the year.
In other news, a rural area may or may not have given me sunburn — I have trouble telling.
Maybe they also live in a city that has been adversely affected by significant disinvestment and abandonment?
Well, that would be a good reason to move out, wouldn't it? I just don't get people who feel they have some moral imperative to live in a situation that is not good (for them) b/c it's "the city".
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
But more importantly, no one else has bothered to comment on my photos.
You'r much more of a city person than me. I enjoy either setting equally well. Hills and forest provide great atmosphere and are fun to explore. Greenery is a bit misused in this forum, at least in northern climes, plants aren't green for almost half the year.
In other news, a rural area may or may not have given me sunburn — I have trouble telling.
Well, nei, I was going to comment, but I've had two hard, and I do mean hard days at work, and when I got home, I was way to exhausted to do anything more than look at them. I liked them, all of them. I love rural areas, and I have exactly no desire,unlike one of the commenters, to explore thrift shops and the like. I can entertain myself quite well after 5 PM, with or w/o a beer bar. My niece is raisinga child in the city and I haven't turned her in for child abuse yet!
Reverse rose-colored glasses, huh? Because something occurs in a few cities it is universally occurring everywhere is what you're telling us.
And yes, you absolutely can compare failed cities to non-failed cities. In fact, anyone with any interest in cities would be very well advised to do just that. It's a simple undeniable fact that cities are not by their very nature destined to become decayed and abandoned. It's worth talking about why Newark, Trenton, et al are the way they are. It's not worth talking about how, in general, suburbs are nothing but bedroom communities for the white affluents and cities are nothing but poor and decaying and blighted.
If you're going to talk about then you also need to look at public policy. It's no coincidence that people left cities in America while in Europe in other countries they remain fairly in tact following WWII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
But more importantly, no one else has bothered to comment on my photos.
You'r much more of a city person than me. I enjoy either setting equally well. Hills and forest provide great atmosphere and are fun to explore. Greenery is a bit misused in this forum, at least in northern climes, plants aren't green for almost half the year.
In other news, a rural area may or may not have given me sunburn — I have trouble telling.
You'r much more of a city person than me. I enjoy either setting equally well. Hills and forest provide great atmosphere and are fun to explore. Greenery is a bit misused in this forum, at least in northern climes, plants aren't green for almost half the year.
In other news, a rural area may or may not have given me sunburn — I have trouble telling.
I liked your photos! Are any of them trick photos, and really in a city?
These are within the Youngstown city limits:
I'd probably enjoy both urban and rural living. (assuming I was able to access food, without having to slaughter it myself) As long as I still had access to the internet, and a nice old farmhouse to work on, I could be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Well, that would be a good reason to move out, wouldn't it? I just don't get people who feel they have some moral imperative to live in a situation that is not good (for them) b/c it's "the city".
Well, nei, I was going to comment, but I've had two hard, and I do mean hard days at work, and when I got home, I was way to exhausted to do anything more than look at them. I liked them, all of them. I love rural areas, and I have exactly no desire,unlike one of the commenters, to explore thrift shops and the like. I can entertain myself quite well after 5 PM, with or w/o a beer bar. My niece is raisinga child in the city and I haven't turned her in for child abuse yet!
I'd rather stay, and do what I can to help the city improve. Not necessarily because of some moral imperative, (although I do think it's extremely wasteful to abandon our cities) but because, despite it's problems, it still offers more for me than any of the surrounding suburbs.
If you're going to talk about then you also need to look at public policy. It's no coincidence that people left cities in America while in Europe in other countries they remain fairly in tact following WWII.
Given the condition that Europe is in, I do not count myself in the Europhile camp. London's population decreased by nearly 2 million in the years following WWII, Inner London's populaton declined by 40% in the decades following WWII and had been dropping before that too. Nor is Inner London alone in its decline of rust belt proportions. Copenhagen saw a similar 40% decline in population from the 1950-1990, Glasglow nearly 50%. Paris has declined by ~800,000 while the metro area has more than doubled to 12 million. Berlin's population has stabilized at ~800,000 fewer residents, but another 1 million are from immigration. Madrid declines from 1970-1990 and the decline halted in 1990 only because of international immigration.
Once again, rose-colored glasses. Detroit is not representative of cities in America. And saying "It's not comparable" to the many American cities that are perfectly intact is disingenuous. In the last three decades, Athens has lost more than a quarter of its population. It's not an intact city.
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.
