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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2013, 12:46 PM
 
Location: South Park, San Diego
4,948 posts, read 7,610,211 times
Reputation: 9283

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
I agree. That's how I lived when I couldn't afford to live in the suburbs. No way I'd want to do that again. They can have it!
It's usually the city that most people can't afford. Suburbs are popular because they tend to be much cheaper than the city for living space. My small house would go for about 1/2 of the value that it has in the city (streetcar suburb) in an outlying suburb away from the city core. I agree with you in exactly the opposite direction, I definitely wouldn't take twice the house and lot size if I had to live out there, they can have it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2013, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
9,256 posts, read 8,331,147 times
Reputation: 20171
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon View Post
It's usually the city that most people can't afford. Suburbs are popular because they tend to be much cheaper than the city for living space. My small house would go for about 1/2 of the value that it has in the city (streetcar suburb) in an outlying suburb away from the city core. I agree with you in exactly the opposite direction, I definitely wouldn't take twice the house and lot size if I had to live out there, they can have it!
I could get a big house for the cost of my condo. With a pool and some serious landscaping however I've had the really big house with a pool in the burbs. No thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,298 posts, read 12,533,436 times
Reputation: 19538
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Perhaps it is mainly C-D users, or perhaps it is a real new wave and movement; honestly I'm inclined to believe it is a bit of both, this comes from the mindset of most posters here and the population trends in cities. Anyway, what is the driving force behind this urban trend that is sweeping the nation? People clamor for and love density, areas teeming with people, living units stacked on top of each other, etc.

I'm a millennial, and maybe I am old fashioned or of a different upbringing, but I like my space. I think suburbs, neighborhoods with spaced out houses, or homes on the countryside are the better places to raise a family and are overall less stressful and more easy going, albeit probably more expensive.

What is it with hipsters and these new trendy yuppies who are all about living in the heart of the city?

I am in no way shape or form against this! Also, I am glad that some people are moving back to the cities, this is resurrecting countless downtowns across the nation, which is a good thing! However, downtown and urban life is not something everyone wants, but what is driving this new trend?
Count your blessings. If they didn't cluster in cities they would be out messing up the countryside just like they mess up the cities.

The real reason is that living is easier in the city. When the water system breaks or the sewage system breaks, it's not your responsibility to fix it. Somebody else maintains the streets. Shopping is close and convenient. You can go to a movie without scheduling an extra hour and a half for the drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,708,722 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
Who is this we you are speaking about? Have you not been to Atlanta, Nashville, any of the boom cities where infill housing abounds. I understand CA has a lot of building restrictions so that could provide a distorted view.
This infill housing is quite new. Only in the recent 10 years or so, particularly in those places. They are just now catching up to the demographics and wanting to reclaim downtowns.

In my own city, the housing was built in chunks. Hotels/apartments around 1890-1920s in downtown Oakland. Single family homes out in the hills and flatlands from around 1900-1920.

Then not much development until around 1950-1970. These were mostly ranch homes in Oakland in the hills and the flats, and in the center city 20 unit apartments all over town. Then nothing until new larger apartments and condos and downtown from 1990s-early 2000.

The neighboring cities had a boom of suburban development from 1950-1980s with a handful of garden apartments and miles of tract homes. And then during the boom, in the 1990s it was mostly tract homes in further flung suburbs.

I also lived in South Carolina, and up and down the coast, the only homes were mostly tract home or occasional trailer parks. Very very few multi family structures of any kind.

And even your building booms in atlanta's core are much smaller than the suburban tract homes booms into the green lands of the neighboring counties, much of the recent development in ATL is still suburban and sprawling. We have been under building denser housing in most areas for a very very long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 05:46 PM
 
5,712 posts, read 8,775,783 times
Reputation: 4928
Jade, I'm confused. What did you mean by your comment

Quote:
The only housing we have built over the past 70 years is car oriented sprawl.
When you acknowlege that infill housing exists. Is the "we" you are speaking of the city of Oakland?

Are you willing to relocate for new infill housing or are you just expressing a complaint about Oakland.

I think what I am trying to say is if you want more urban infill housing, then by golly, vote with your feet/pocketbook and move into it if possible. If it is unaffordable in CA, can you move somewhere cheaper?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 06:46 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,719,218 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
Who is this we you are speaking about? Have you not been to Atlanta, Nashville, any of the boom cities where infill housing abounds. I understand CA has a lot of building restrictions so that could provide a distorted view.
I don't know who is providing you information but there are probably 500 acres of green field development on the fringes of Atlanta or Nashville for every acre of infill. Atlanta and Nashville are some of the sprawliest cities in American - with Atlanta, of course, taking the medal having beat out both the nightmarish Houston and the dreadful Phoenix for title of worst city in America for sprawl.

Of course, I wish the phenomena of sprawl was limited to those three sad sacks, unfortunately the auto dependent patter of development was fairly ubiquitous throughout the later half of the 20th century in most of the south and west.

The 21st Century is the century of the city. Shame we spent 60 years destroying our cities and will have to spend a 100 building them back together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 06:47 PM
 
7,968 posts, read 18,096,359 times
Reputation: 2597
Well, I can explain why I live in an urban environment.

1. I don't drive and I prefer to either walk or use mass transit when possible. In many metros, cities and closer-in suburbs make that choice easier.

2. I like being close to dining, cultural and other nightlife events. For me at least, taking the train (let alone driving) for an hour or more each way would be a pain. I can respect that for some, their home is their castle.

3. My kids have all been of the four-legged variety. I'll admit that suburban/exurban locations would be a consideration if I were a parent for "better" schools etc.

Once a year or so, my wife and I visit her family who live about an hour outside of Dallas TX. Among the pros are a feeling of security strong enough to leave doors unlocked as well as every midscale chain amenity being found within a twenty-minute drive. Among the cons (for me): no mass transportation for 20 miles, the closest destination within walking distance is a strip mall with Wal-mart as its anchor and a "downtown" that is about six square city blocks wide. I love my family but being out there is like Bizarro World for me.

I'm an "elder" of Generation X and for me, the trend or preference for urbanish environments has been with me since I started heading into the city as a teenager with my friends. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Last edited by FindingZen; 12-27-2013 at 12:04 PM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 07:54 PM
 
3,288 posts, read 5,066,263 times
Reputation: 4660
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Perhaps it is mainly C-D users, or perhaps it is a real new wave and movement; honestly I'm inclined to believe it is a bit of both, this comes from the mindset of most posters here and the population trends in cities. Anyway, what is the driving force behind this urban trend that is sweeping the nation? People clamor for and love density, areas teeming with people, living units stacked on top of each other, etc.

I'm a millennial, and maybe I am old fashioned or of a different upbringing, but I like my space. I think suburbs, neighborhoods with spaced out houses, or homes on the countryside are the better places to raise a family and are overall less stressful and more easy going, albeit probably more expensive.

What is it with hipsters and these new trendy yuppies who are all about living in the heart of the city?

I am in no way shape or form against this! Also, I am glad that some people are moving back to the cities, this is resurrecting countless downtowns across the nation, which is a good thing! However, downtown and urban life is not something everyone wants, but what is driving this new trend?
29 here. grew up in a mixture of a suburbs as well as semi-rural (1.5 acre plot) neighborhoods. My wife and I recently bought our first house just a few miles outside the edge of suburbia and downtown in my city because I thought that is what we were "supposed" to do. While suburban living has its merits, we both plan for our next dwelling to be in the heart of this city of a future city if we move.

We prefer to walk, bike, or use mass transit. We prefer not to have a lot of excess land to take care of (as long as we still have a reasonable amount of privacy). We like having a small, but high-quality dwelling that costs very little to maintain (believe it or not, that is hard to find in the suburbs..it is either large, low-to-mid quality homes or too-large quality homes).

It just fits our lifestyle. I personally think it is much less stressful being close to everywhere we go. Walking or mass-transit >>> cars for us personally. We carpool to work and put maybe 15 miles on our main car daily but even that is too much driving for me.

I don't expect everyone to understand (my parents certainly don't; they are all about big, country lots) but it's just a personal preference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,708,722 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
Jade, I'm confused. What did you mean by your comment



When you acknowlege that infill housing exists. Is the "we" you are speaking of the city of Oakland?

Are you willing to relocate for new infill housing or are you just expressing a complaint about Oakland.

I think what I am trying to say is if you want more urban infill housing, then by golly, vote with your feet/pocketbook and move into it if possible. If it is unaffordable in CA, can you move somewhere cheaper?
Only is an exaggeration but it wouldn't be too far if to saw we built 80% of the housing we have built in the past 70 years, due to policy not demand, has been suburban.

Oakland is getting infill housing and us increasing in density but be bulk of Bay Area housing hast been built as sprawl. As a consequence we have the google bus phenomenon where large suburban companies like google and Facebook have shuttle services running 30-40 miles to San Francisco because 30-50% of their employees live there. (In the past few weeks there have been a dozen articles about this issue)

Additionally rents are up 50-70% in Oakland in denser areas with transit due to demand. 30% in the past year. San Francisco housing is up about 75% over the past 5ish years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 09:20 PM
 
1,314 posts, read 1,025,197 times
Reputation: 3398
There's a crap ton of people everywhere and in order to survive the only option is density. Would be nice if people would stop having kids.
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