U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2013, 04:02 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035

Advertisements

I was recently reading this article by Joel Kotkin which is a critique of the results of Richard Florida's creative class idea here:


Richard Florida Concedes the Limits of the Creative Class - The Daily Beast


(Florida's reponse can be read here: Did I Abandon My Creative Class Theory? Not So Fast, Joel Kotkin - The Daily Beast)


In his article he mentions something that I've read about before, but never really thought much about:

Quote:
But over the past decade, most “cool cities” have not been enjoying particularly strong employment or population growth; in the last decade, the populations of cities like Charlotte, Houston, Atlanta, and Nashville grew by 20 percent or more, at least four times as rapidly as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Chicago. This trend toward less dense, more affordable cities is as evident in the most recent census numbers than a decade.
When I first heard the term "affordable city", my first thought was to think that it meant a densely populated urban city that had low rents/housing in or around the city limits. Now when I hear it, I now think of cities that have a less dense core, not very walkable, and quickly transitions into single family housing. So in other words, they have pockets of density, but most of the growth lies in the area surrounding the city. Now my question is: what does this mean for the future of urban planning. The most apparent implication to me is a higher focus on autocentricity since those cities are not very walkable and don't have the density or build environment to create walkable environments. I know there is a recent trend towards alternative transit, but it could simply be a passing fad due to the economy and ridership is only consistently high in older more dense cities. The way high speed rail is being handled in the US could indicate that a significant amount of Americans are already satisfied with existing infrastructure for getting around.

Another implication that I immediately thought of is that is promotes the idea of the inner city as simply being a place where people go to work and not a place where live, work, and interact with the city. Charlotte is a growing city, but aside from 9-5 Monday through Friday, downtown is fairly quiet with not a lot going on. By a lot going on, I don't mean NYC or Paris levels of activity, I simply the city being a place where people want to hangout when they aren't working.

I guess for now, all I can really is that affordable cities are just utilizing their comparative advantage, but I have to wonder that will mean for those cities when land scarcity due to building outwards drives real estate prices upwards with not a lot of options of using vertical space because of so many detached homes. Those cities will have the prices of NYC, LA, or Chicago without the things that make those cities attractive enough that people are willing to pay high rents to live in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2013, 04:07 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,901,398 times
Reputation: 18049
Its always those who have low infrastructure upkeep and little actaully public support whcih trnalates to subsidised public systems. often it means most taxbase is inductrial and when that goes for whatever reason ;so goes the city. Wehave seen this agi ain and again in post wwII as the demographic shift stared form othet areas having transport and power to compete. One often doe realise that it took war development to make much of the coutnry to have facilities avialble to compete.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2013, 05:17 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,098,346 times
Reputation: 3117
Kinda sick of Richard Florida.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2013, 06:56 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
I guess for now, all I can really is that affordable cities are just utilizing their comparative advantage, but I have to wonder that will mean for those cities when land scarcity due to building outwards drives real estate prices upwards with not a lot of options of using vertical space because of so many detached homes. Those cities will have the prices of NYC, LA, or Chicago without the things that make those cities attractive enough that people are willing to pay high rents to live in them.
This doesn't make economic sense. If people aren't willing to pay a lot to live in "affordable cities", real estate prices wouldn't be driven up in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2013, 07:12 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Kinda sick of Richard Florida.
Same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
This doesn't make economic sense. If people aren't willing to pay a lot to live in "affordable cities", real estate prices wouldn't be driven up in the first place.
That wouldn't become apparent until real estate value begins to rise caused by excess demand for housing and a limited supply of housing. Real estate in the northeast corridor is a prime example of this. High housing cost, among other reasons, is causing many people to leave that area of the US and relocate further south where housing is much less expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 06:31 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
That wouldn't become apparent until real estate value begins to rise caused by excess demand for housing and a limited supply of housing. Real estate in the northeast corridor is a prime example of this. High housing cost, among other reasons, is causing many people to leave that area of the US and relocate further south where housing is much less expensive.
Like I said, it doesn't make economic sense. If high housing costs in the NE push people to other places and make them more expensive (without having the same amenities people like in the places they left), people will stop moving there; you'll get a new equilibrium.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 10:03 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Like I said, it doesn't make economic sense. If high housing costs in the NE push people to other places and make them more expensive (without having the same amenities people like in the places they left), people will stop moving there; you'll get a new equilibrium.
My response to this is the same as my previous one. That does not contradict any sort of model and equilibriums static the way you view them in a textbook. Census data shows people leaving the Northeast and cheaper sunbelt cities such as Atlantic, Charlotte, Raleigh, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas are some of the prime recipients for those transplants. That migration of the Northeast will most likely continue until the real estate prices in the Northeast significantly decreases and vice versa for the newer cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 11:43 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
That migration of the Northeast will most likely continue until the real estate prices in the Northeast significantly decreases and vice versa for the newer cities.
That much is correct, but I don't see why you think the real estate prices in the now-affordable cities will become as expensive as NYC, LA, or Chicago if they aren't as inherently desirable as NYC, LA, or Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Ypsilanti
389 posts, read 400,417 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
That much is correct, but I don't see why you think the real estate prices in the now-affordable cities will become as expensive as NYC, LA, or Chicago if they aren't as inherently desirable as NYC, LA, or Chicago.
I agree, it's not quite that simple... even if that did happen it'd take quite some time. I may even be old by then lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 11:30 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
That much is correct, but I don't see why you think the real estate prices in the now-affordable cities will become as expensive as NYC, LA, or Chicago if they aren't as inherently desirable as NYC, LA, or Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weteath View Post
I agree, it's not quite that simple... even if that did happen it'd take quite some time. I may even be old by then lol.
I think there we're arguing past each other. I don't think these changes are going to happen soon. These older, more expensive areas have growing for decades, if not centuries, before the country was even founded. I don't think we'll see any real changes until most people here are in nursing homes. The countries really young so it's still in the process of establishing itself when it comes to these cities. Going back on topic though, the older cities were very much developed pre-wwII and their build design reflects that. The newer cities reflect the post-wwII thought of anti-urbanism and I created this topic because I am interested in hearing what other people have to say about the way they think these cities will continue to grow in the future. DC is a fast growing city, but it is an odd man out since it's pretty established and the local government plans its growth around its currently existing infrastructure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top