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 06-07-2014, 12:30 PM
 
3,262 posts, read 3,002,338 times
Reputation: 1893

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Everywhere has cheaper rents than Manhattan except maybe San Francisco. In the long run, though, what's to stop this "corporate suburb" from taking on the aspect of what it's trying to escape?
Housing and density.

You have suburban sized lots with nice (and thus expensive) single family homes and zoning laws that reduce the construction of multi-family housing, and you need a car to get around so the poorest segment of the population that causes a disproportionate amount of the crime and uses a disproportionate amount of the services in the city stays out because it's not really a pleasant location to live in if you can't finance a car.

There are a few poorer and denser towns in the New York suburbs which are pretty much the definition of the kind of place described in the first post, and they tend to be spokes of the local bus network and the rent is much cheaper than both other suburbs where the residents have more money and than the city where the quality of life without a car is higher. Other towns don't develop that way because local property values and regulations discourage it, and even if a developer could do it and do it profitably, it would be less attractive for impoverish people to live in because living in the 'burbs outside the bus system spokes without a car is miserable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2014, 04:29 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048
The problem is, if you make all the lots really big, you fill up your available space really quickly and then prices go up.

A nearby city called Elk Grove thought they could avoid having low-income housing by only building large houses on big lots. Investors bought them as rentals and multiple families moved into each house, parking their multiple cars on the nice big lawns. If they couldn't finance a car, they bought a cheap used car.

But let's assume for a moment that you manage to avoid this problem somehow. Are you not going to have any convenience stores, fast-food restaurants or other minimum wage jobs in the entire city? If you manage to attract the wealthy, won't they have maids, nannies, gardeners and other working-class staff? Where will they live? I assume your scenario doesn't involve any form of mass transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 04:38 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
45,985 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The problem is, if you make all the lots really big, you fill up your available space really quickly and then prices go up.

A nearby city called Elk Grove thought they could avoid having low-income housing by only building large houses on big lots. Investors bought them as rentals and multiple families moved into each house, parking their multiple cars on the nice big lawns. If they couldn't finance a car, they bought a cheap used car.

But let's assume for a moment that you manage to avoid this problem somehow. Are you not going to have any convenience stores, fast-food restaurants or other minimum wage jobs in the entire city? If you manage to attract the wealthy, won't they have maids, nannies, gardeners and other working-class staff? Where will they live? I assume your scenario doesn't involve any form of mass transit.
Have a few poor enclaves, that's what the poster you quoted described. Long Island, although a lot isn't really big lots, does have restrictive zoning. The poorest single-family detached neighborhoods become rentals, generally for immigrant families, as you describe. The rest are stable. Middle-class areas don't need maids or nannies. Big lot New England suburbs don't get that. There is cheaper housing and rentals in scattered older sections, even if new suburbs are ofeten rental-less there's plenty of older areas. Housing becomes overpiced due to land use restrictions, but it's still lower than the Bay Area, which doesn't have large lot housing and has more rentals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2014, 10:07 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048
Zoning for only large lots certainly sounds like "land use restrictions" to me. What happens when you run out of land, and your suburb is surrounded by already-built suburbs where you're sticking your minimum wage workers, your industrial zones, and other things that you have decided don't belong in utopia-burb?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Zoning for only large lots certainly sounds like "land use restrictions" to me. What happens when you run out of land, and your suburb is surrounded by already-built suburbs where you're sticking your minimum wage workers, your industrial zones, and other things that you have decided don't belong in utopia-burb?
Same place San Francisco and Manhattan place them. Somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 07:07 AM
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
45,985 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Same place San Francisco and Manhattan place them. Somewhere else.
Manhattan has a large amount of rent-stabilized housing* and plenty of housing projects (most per capita of any borough). It has far more low income people than say Long Island has. Skewed by Upper Manhattan (Harlem and Washington Heights). Removing those, see page 18:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/mn_c...core_study.pdf

35% with household incomes below 65k/year. Doesn't do a breakdown between 20k-65k.

*Some dummy posted a thread in the NYC forum how the stats for a Manhattan neighborhood were possible: very high market rate rents, but rather low income. Only possibility he thought were housing projects. The forum response: why is this a puzzle?

Even if the core doesn't have that many poor people, the surroundings areas do, in a way that's not true of Long Island. But as I said, there are poorer enclaves of Long Island. Some low income jobs are also filled by people who live in families where other family members have better paying jobs, and their poorly paid job is just an income supplement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Not sure how much there is in San Francisco, but it's quite a lot as well. Waitlist is somewhere around ten years to get in affordable housing, so the majority just do what I said and go somewhere else. Big problem is there's not much "somewhere" left in the Bay Area.

Also, I don't know if Manhattan is anything like SF but I assume it is in that it's a transient city. A lot of young people move to San Francisco when they get out of college and are make 40-70k, stay a round for a few years, and leave when their incomes go up to start families/settle down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 07:56 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048
I have difficulty finding "somewhere else" on a map. Should one assume that when cities reach a state of development homeostasis (or something approaching it) that further growth and development moves to other metro areas?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,762 posts, read 54,390,602 times
Reputation: 31058
This was tried here but has so far failed on the corporate side, but is wildly successful on the suburb part. Issaquah Highlands was designed, approved and started to be built as an urban village planned community to include a new Microsoft Corporate Campus as well as other large employment centers. When MS pulled out the attraction was no longer there for others, and they ended up with one hospital, and a bunch of retail. I suppose some of the doctors and nurses may live there, but most residents are driving or taking the bus to the jobs in Bellevue, Redmond and Seattle every day. The population is now up to 21,000, median family income $103,000, median home price $592,000 (includes condos).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 01:44 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048
Corporations seem to like keeping their mobility rather than being tied down to a specific location or municipality, especially since the biggest corporations are multinational entities. Maybe they aren't the perfect guarantee of economic success for cities that many seem to think they are?
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