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.
BTW, nobody answered my question (perhaps that's because the answer would be "No"?). Any fiscal conservatives on this Board? Social conservatives? Vote for Bush, McCain or Romney?
Anybody shop at a Wal-Mart in the last month?
Anybody eat at buffet bar in the last month?
Anybody's kids involved in the Scouts?
Anybody drive an SUV (or want to drive one)?
Anyone buy anything from QVC in the last year?
Yes, I vote Republican. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
No, I hate Walmart.
No.
My son and stepkids are mid twenties to thirty, I am a Gen X and my husband is a Boomer.
I believe that for most issues like these, (i.e. people who prefer to drive vs. those who prefer not to drive, or urban living vs. suburban living) society falls on a bell curve. You have a few die-hard radicals on either end of the spectrum, and a lot of people who don't care either way, in the middle.
My old neighborhood, for example, is relatively urban by Midwest standards: small SFHs (1200 s.f. +/-) on small lots, (40x125) walkable, with easy access to public transit. For most of its history, it was a regular, middle-class neighborhood. Families lived there, and raised kids there for generations. It was only recently, (in the last 10-15 years, when the schools really started to decline) that families who could, started to leave for the suburbs.
edit to add: I guess if there was a point to me example, it's that there wasn't an ideological drive behind why the families in that neighborhood lived there. They didn't care that it was in the city, or that it was relatively urban, and if they felt compelled to live in the suburbs, they would have made the move before the schools declined.
Last edited by JR_C; 02-28-2014 at 09:23 AM..
Reason: add
If the nice walkable areas are gentrified, and people really want walkable, there are some not so nice walkable areas that would be prime targets for gentrification by those displaced from the previous location leading to an upwards spiral in quality which would seem to be a very rare phenomenon.
I do believe that we will have a shift towards more "walkable" areas, though I think when doing research on preferences it is very important to define "walkable" because I don't think the average survey-taker will know what it means. I think the issue will be compounded by the expense of cars and gas. The disparity of wealth in America is increasing as good wage blue collar jobs have largely disappeared. Lack of money, and advances in technology may cause a major shift towards more walkable areas. If you were developing a new area and planning to sell it, so that you had to accept market pressures rather than just building whatever you felt like, wouldn't you be compelled to use the latest technology to set up long streets with tons of identical houses sharing concrete walls. Noise levels could be contained and the entire area could be walkable. However, figures such as "X% would pay more for walkable areas" does not denote how much more they would pay. I would have happily paid 1% more to cut my commute distance. However, the market demanded more like 30% more.
If the nice walkable areas are gentrified, and people really want walkable, there are some not so nice walkable areas that would be prime targets for gentrification by those displaced from the previous location leading to an upwards spiral in quality which would seem to be a very rare phenomenon.
Actually, that is happening where I live. They have put TOD near almost all of the train stations. They sold/rented fairly quickly. Some are in nice areas. Some are in not so nice areas. And TOD is done in some (i.e. the not so nice Fruitvale Station and West Oakland, both areas are prime hipster gentrification targets). Breaking ground now (Macarthur, which was not so nice but within 1/2 a mile of really nice areas. Now the lead up to the station has gentrified a lot. 10 years ago, I wasn't so sure about walking alone at night back to my home a mile away, 5 years ago I was fine with it. Now it is even better and the foot traffic picked up a ton with trendy bars/cafes/restaurants/shops opened or along the way.) Now the in between land of my neighborhood and the station is pricy and gentrified. The same thing has happened in 2 of the downtown stations. Lots of new development and new housing.
And the last station, where the Coliseum is, but it is in an industrial area, also has a bunch of TOD proposed. Separately, there are 2 areas that skewed working class/lower middle class that are inching up, that are reasonably transit friendly, and have big commercial districts in walking distance that are queuing up too (Laurel District, East Lake.) And two middle class areas with walkable main streets that are skewing to upper class (Glenview, Dimond District).
Basically anywhere in Oakland that has a walkable main street or BART (our train) access is inching up in price. Some areas are up about 30-40% over the past 5 years. Some areas were already pricy and are only up 20%. In most of these, any inventory rents or sells really quickly.
Icehouse beer as a cultural marker? Who knew - What does that say about me?
I shop at Trader Joes and Kmart and live in an inner city neighborood that is not walkable by urbanist standards, but people walk all the time, mostly because they are poor.
Quote:
There are actually some nice small and medium size cities in North Carolina
You say this like it is a shock and a revelation. I suppose it is to some northerners.
West Asheville fits my definition of walkable, but it has only been gentrified in the last 15 years. I don't see Asheville as an urbanists' delight as its downtown is cut off from nearby neighborhoods. Only recently have new urban style developments been built immediately south of downtown.
Chattanooga, however, THAT is an urbanist's paradise. I swear if I see another mixed use brown brick 4-8 story development in north Chattanooga I will barf. Very sterile. The northside does have an attractive older commercial area right by the pedestrian bridge so it has that going in its favor.
A few of the chain restaurant markers are more regional patterns, some of those chains are less common in some parts of the country (Northeast?) so people of all classes are less likely to go there.
Icehouse beer as a cultural marker? Who knew - What does that say about me?
I shop at Trader Joes and Kmart and live in an inner city neighborood that is not walkable by urbanist standards, but people walk all the time, mostly because they are poor.
You say this like it is a shock and a revelation. I suppose it is to some northerners.
West Asheville fits my definition of walkable, but it has only been gentrified in the last 15 years. I don't see Asheville as an urbanists' delight as its downtown is cut off from nearby neighborhoods. Only recently have new urban style developments been built immediately south of downtown.
Chattanooga, however, THAT is an urbanist's paradise. I swear if I see another mixed use brown brick 4-8 story development in north Chattanooga I will barf. Very sterile. The northside does have an attractive older commercial area right by the pedestrian bridge so it has that going in its favor.
Actually I grew up in Virginia and at one point in my life wanted to move to North Carolina, the cities and towns there are actually quite nice.
It's rail that's a partisan issue. Conservatives will stand behind buses, but usually not rail. Liberals will stand behind rail first, and buses second.
I think the rail/bus debate brings out the ferocity of two political extremes. Most people probably have some views on it but don't feel that strongly one way or the other (just like most people have views on abortion but don't really get activated over the issue). So in that sense, the issue is not as partisan as blogs and internet articles suggest.
Odd.
I lean more liberal than conservative, mostly because I'm a fiscal conservative and the liberals are more fiscally conservative than the conservatives have been in the recent past. Also, I'm a social liberal who believes in limited government which means both parties fail to represent my interests. Still, if you have to have a big government I'd prefer a welfare state to a imperialist one. I'd be happiest if we cut both the welfare state and military caste in half. I eat hummus, tapas, sushi, drink microbrew, am somewhat of a coffee snob, own several guns, tend to think rail is usually a complete waste of money, listen to both NPR and TED, played ODP soccer but the only soccer apparel I've ever owned were uniforms I played in. The Patagonia stuff I have is older than I am.
BTW, nobody answered my question (perhaps that's because the answer would be "No"?). Any fiscal conservatives on this Board? Social conservatives? Vote for Bush, McCain or Romney?
Fiscal conservative. None of the others.
Quote:
Anybody drive an SUV (or want to drive one)?
A Subaru Forester is an SUV, so, yes. No to the others.
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.