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 03-24-2014, 02:36 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,089,742 times
Reputation: 14811

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Actually, I posted some links a while back that show that people do leave the city for the burbs for schools. You know d*mn well people leave the city to raise kids. And if you post on ANY city thread, you know that schools are a major concern of families when they relocate.

.
But is that responsible for any out migration from California and the northeast?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,802 posts, read 5,473,701 times
Reputation: 3113
In the case of Los Angeles, the answer is yes; having lived here for over six decades and having graduated from high school in 1970, I can attest to the fact that it's no secret that anybody seeking to move here must prepare themselves for the outsized expenses for staples such as housing and gasoline ($3.89/gallon vs. $3.10-$3.25 in DFW, Houston or Austin) or other cities which are booming and actually welcome new businesses.

Tons of folks don't have the $$$$ to buy a $500,000 house in various LA suburbs with top-notch schools starting with Rancho Cucamonga or Upland, but they can certainly move to any of those Texas cities as well as other growing cities such as Raleigh, Nashville or numerous other family-friendly cities nationwide which are overflowing with affordable houses.

The LAUSD, like many other school districts in far too many major cities nationwide, is an extremely bureaucratic top-down monolithic entity which can't stand charter schools, as well as job-protection policies which make dismissing poor-performing teachers extremely time consuming not to mention very expensive.

The same goes for Chicago, which lost over 200,000 residents between 2000-10 according to the US Census Bureau as an editorial in the Chicago Tribune pointed out recently, whereas nearby cities such as Madison, WI & Rochester, MN, two cities which have have perennial members among the top 10-15 best places to live for two decades as Money Magazine's annual survey points out, continue to grow and thrive thanks to top-notch schools, as well as being very safe and overflowing with very well educated residents who can find great-paying jobs relatively easily.

Insofar as the Northeast goes, with taxes which are almost as gruesome as those in CA or IL, hundreds of thousands of folks who can't afford to live in Boston or NYC have been heading to Florida for at least two decades according to news articles which I've seen in tons of newspapers nationwide, only to turn around and head to areas such as the RTP (Research Triangle Park) area of NC.

That booming area which includes Raleigh-Durham and Chapel Hill, and whose residents and local employers are blessed to have three top-notch research universities (Duke/UNC/NC State) in their midst continuing to pump out grads by the truckload in science, tech, business, law, medicine and too many other well-paying discplines to count; they're known as 'halfbacks', as in choosing not to return to the Northeast after not finding Florida to be their cup of tea, yet willing to move halfway back to NC, TN or SC.

It's really pathetic that California has 5 of the top 30 universities in the nation according to US News & World Report (CalTech/Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC) yet can't keep the tons of super-bright grads from those five schools, including lots of immigrants from China who are fleeing that crumbling country courtesy of their very-well heeled parents, from leaving the state because they can't afford to live here for too many reasons to count, including rampant environmental extremists starting with our Governor not to mention Ms. Pelosi, Sen. Boxer & Sen. Feinstein.

But that's what unchecked liberalism and environmental zealots will do for the middle class; not a heck of a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 06:59 PM
 
Location: plano
6,596 posts, read 8,132,187 times
Reputation: 5847
I think this topic is worthy of substantial study. Go after it coaster toasters....it's very confusing I'm sure
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 07:10 PM
 
905 posts, read 798,394 times
Reputation: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
Is it because sprawl is being limited, or because there is no more land left to develop? LA sprawls as far as the eye can see—commuters drive from the Inland Empire for jobs in the city. San Francisco is on a peninsula and land is very limited. It, too, has enormous suburbs that stretch on through Silicon Valley. Where does Mr. Kotkin suggest building cheap, new suburbs? The Northeast and coastal California are expensive for many reasons, but it’s not because the government is discouraging suburbs.

The quote in the article, that the government “wants to destroy the essential reason why people move to California,” is ironic. People moved to California was because it was cheap, warm and allowed working-class people to live a middle class life. It’s the same reason why people now move to Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Florida.

Densification is the only way to bring prices down. It’s not ideology, but mathematics and physics. It’s the only way of fitting large numbers of people into a limited space.
IMHO Kotkin isn't so much as an urban theorist as a suburban sprawl advocate. This isn't to say all his arguments are necessarily invalid, but it is useful to keep his position in mind. He likes sprawl, and judging from what I've seen of his book The Next 100 Million:America in 2050 and its reviews, he believes the future looks like Orange County, where he is associated with Chapman University. He's happy about it. Whenever I hear him on Which Way L.A. or some other local current affairs program, he's almost always the most cheerful-sounding guest they have on.

I like a more urban environment, personally, so by and large I am in favor of policies that promote smart growth. At the same time, such policies could be viewed as an attempt to redress systemic problems that have been generations in the making, and as such they can't be perfect. When it came to handling local population growth from about 1950 - 1990, policy makers pretty much sat on their thumbs when they weren't actively destroying or decimating urban neighborhoods. It almost came to the point where you didn't count if you don't own a suburban SFH. I still see this reflected in local news articles about such quality of life issues as helicopter noise, when the writers use "homeowners" in place of "citizens" or "residents". I suppose if you're a renter, you aren't bothered by chopper noise, indeed it might be you the LAPD is looking for. So now we begin to see loft conversions near Winston and Main--again far from perfect, because it's still Skid Row, even if the area is seeing burgeoning night life and enjoying a renaissance of sorts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,590,013 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv101 View Post
In the case of Los Angeles, the answer is yes; having lived here for over six decades and having graduated from high school in 1970, I can attest to the fact that it's no secret that anybody seeking to move here must prepare themselves for the outsized expenses for staples such as housing and gasoline ($3.89/gallon vs. $3.10-$3.25 in DFW, Houston or Austin) or other cities which are booming and actually welcome new businesses.

Tons of folks don't have the $$$$ to buy a $500,000 house in various LA suburbs with top-notch schools starting with Rancho Cucamonga or Upland, but they can certainly move to any of those Texas cities as well as other growing cities such as Raleigh, Nashville or numerous other family-friendly cities nationwide which are overflowing with affordable houses.

The LAUSD, like many other school districts in far too many major cities nationwide, is an extremely bureaucratic top-down monolithic entity which can't stand charter schools, as well as job-protection policies which make dismissing poor-performing teachers extremely time consuming not to mention very expensive.

The same goes for Chicago, which lost over 200,000 residents between 2000-10 according to the US Census Bureau as an editorial in the Chicago Tribune pointed out recently, whereas nearby cities such as Madison, WI & Rochester, MN, two cities which have have perennial members among the top 10-15 best places to live for two decades as Money Magazine's annual survey points out, continue to grow and thrive thanks to top-notch schools, as well as being very safe and overflowing with very well educated residents who can find great-paying jobs relatively easily.

Insofar as the Northeast goes, with taxes which are almost as gruesome as those in CA or IL, hundreds of thousands of folks who can't afford to live in Boston or NYC have been heading to Florida for at least two decades according to news articles which I've seen in tons of newspapers nationwide, only to turn around and head to areas such as the RTP (Research Triangle Park) area of NC.

That booming area which includes Raleigh-Durham and Chapel Hill, and whose residents and local employers are blessed to have three top-notch research universities (Duke/UNC/NC State) in their midst continuing to pump out grads by the truckload in science, tech, business, law, medicine and too many other well-paying discplines to count; they're known as 'halfbacks', as in choosing not to return to the Northeast after not finding Florida to be their cup of tea, yet willing to move halfway back to NC, TN or SC.

It's really pathetic that California has 5 of the top 30 universities in the nation according to US News & World Report (CalTech/Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC) yet can't keep the tons of super-bright grads from those five schools, including lots of immigrants from China who are fleeing that crumbling country courtesy of their very-well heeled parents, from leaving the state because they can't afford to live here for too many reasons to count, including rampant environmental extremists starting with our Governor not to mention Ms. Pelosi, Sen. Boxer & Sen. Feinstein.

But that's what unchecked liberalism and environmental zealots will do for the middle class; not a heck of a lot.
I am not even sure where to start with this horribly inaccurate post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,467 posts, read 3,778,344 times
Reputation: 9277
From my observations, smart growth occurs in already-expensive places. So I'm going to say no, the net out-migration from CA or the northeast does not have to do with smart growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 10:16 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,585,752 times
Reputation: 4048
A big part of why Los Angeles as a region is so hard to afford is due to suburbanization and a lack of "Smart Growth"--big suburban houses and highway-based development means that commutes can't help but get longer and more arduous as suburbs got built farther and farther out, workplaces got more and more decentralized, and the only transportation infrastructure built was intended for cars and trucks, with maybe a couple of token bus routes. You could say the same for most western metropolitan areas, Los Angeles is just the biggest example. Longer commutes take more gas, which costs more money. Lots of highways require lots of money to maintain, and lots of horizontal sprawl means lots of utility infrastructure, which means higher taxes to pay for its maintenance--and disastrous consequences for utilities and municipalities that don't maintain their infrastructure, like collapsing bridges and exploding gas lines. Before long, suddenly what used to be the pleasant, single-family suburbs get reclassified as "urban inner cities" because they are starting to collapse, and the residents are poor and/or nonwhite. Kind of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy for suburbs.

And why is out-migration necessarily a bad thing? City populations aren't shrinking, they're growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 10:24 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,089,742 times
Reputation: 14811
Los Angeles has the lowest highway miles per capita of any large metro area in the country; its suburban homes have among the smallest lot size (maybe the smallest) in the country. Decentralization all things equal should lead to shorter commutes, not longer. But big metros are prone to very long commutes for at least some people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,590,013 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Los Angeles has the lowest highway miles per capita of any large metro area in the country; its suburban homes have among the smallest lot size (maybe the smallest) in the country. Decentralization all things equal should lead to shorter commutes, not longer. But big metros are prone to very long commutes for at least some people.
Which is why LA has some of the worst traffic, they would need to practically double their highways just to handle all the suburban sprawl in their metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 10:31 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,585,752 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Los Angeles has the lowest highway miles per capita of any large metro area in the country; its suburban homes have among the smallest lot size (maybe the smallest) in the country. Decentralization all things equal should lead to shorter commutes, not longer. But big metros are prone to very long commutes for at least some people.
"Per capita" means very little in this context--Los Angeles' highways are already overloaded, but there isn't really a cost-effective way to make more highways, and as their region is discovering, making more highways doesn't fix the problem, it makes the problem worse. And keep in mind that we're not just talking about the city of Los Angeles here, or even the county, but the megaregion of 20 million people--including folks who commute over the grapevine from Bakersfield to Los Angeles because of the effects of hypertrophied sprawl. LA is reinvesting in transit and promoting the growth of its urban core because it simply can't grow out any farther, can't be any more decentralized, because a fundamental assumption about Los Angeles in the last half of the 20th century is that it has no center.

http://www.amazon.com/Los-Angeles-Ar...5721897&sr=1-1
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