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 09-28-2014, 12:24 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
They don't need to move en masse, they already live in these urban districts. Last time I was in the Pearl District, buildings were full of residents.

I am sure there is an urban district in Denver that is like the Pearl District. You should find out the type of people who live in that district.
The Pearl District was a vacant industrial area 15 years ago. Much of this talk of urban renaissance falls upon deaf ears to people who haven't been to a big-city downtown since 1985.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2014, 12:30 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Notice I used quotation marks. They weren't forced to move to the suburbs by the government. Those who didn't care either way, or those who didn't want to leave the city, moved to the suburbs due to their unwillingness or inability to deal with the problems caused by others moving to the suburbs. If you're into conspiracy theories, (I know you're not, and neither am I) one might argue that the government purposefully promoted suburbia to cause these problems, and thus forcing people to the suburbs. But, I believe the deterioration of US cities was simply an unintended consequence of pro-suburban policies, and no one was forced to do anything.
Many people were forced out of downtowns by the government--redevelopment leveled many densely populated downtowns, whether or not the properties were inadequate, on the basis of "blight," a term used to describe neighborhoods that are not slums but were likely to become slums, a determination that could be drawn because the neighborhood had "inappropriate uses" (liked stores and residences in the same neighborhood,) "obsolete uses" (like multi-family housing), "inappropriate uses" (like single-family housing converted to apartments) or "invasion" (meaning the presence of nonwhites.) The other big relocator of downtown residents was the freeway system, which simultaneously made it easier for suburban residents to get downtown and moved people who lived in the path of the freeway through the heart of downtowns--typically the poorest sections of downtown, or the urban waterfront, where people had the least economic/political power to fight back.

Does this constitute a conspiracy? It's not a conspiracy if everyone knows about it, it was just national policy with consequences that weren't necessarily unintended, but its effects on those it hurt was not considered a reason to change the policy. People were forced out of downtowns, on the basis that living in cities was an unacceptable way to live for anyone. Not all of the displaced could move to the suburbs, because many were still segregated, so they moved to older suburbs not subject to segregation, which often became the next "redevelopment zone" based on that "invasion" criterion again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 12:34 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonesuch View Post
Some researchers define anything positive as an "urban amenity", even including things like waterfronts, street lights, fast wireless Internet, green space, or nice weather in their definition.

None of those are really "urban" amenities, many rural small towns in New Hampshire have all of the above, but groups like Granite State Future see this as insufficiently urban, and are pushing the development of high-density town cores throughout the state.
By "urban amenity" I mean features that are desirable for an urban neighborhood, not features that only appear in urban neighborhoods. I have been to plenty of small towns that have restaurants, bars, boutiques and art galleries, which I'm sure nobody would argue are part of the "urban amenities" category. Urban neighborhoods actually share a lot of features as traditional small towns: corner stores, corner churches, local businesses, and residences within walking distance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 12:39 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,999 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The Pearl District was a vacant industrial area 15 years ago. Much of this talk of urban renaissance falls upon deaf ears to people who haven't been to a big-city downtown since 1985.
I was in downtown Denver about a month ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,519,126 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh, and aren't you the clever one! It looks like the Pearl District is full of young adults, especially young males, who do not have kids. About 1/4 are in their 20s, 1/4 in their 30s, and 1/4 in their forties. Not too many empty nesters even in their 40s. Considering the median household income there, they'd be nuts to try to raise families. It looks like a lot of people living with roommates. I doubt they're young professionals with that low of an income. They're probably students, or baristas, given that it's Portland. My daughter made more than $22K/year working in a day care center.

Since you feel free to criticize my thinking (and get away with it), I'll say, get your head out of the concrete.
Yeah, I wouldn't take the income level for the Pearl District too serious. The Pearl District has a number of low income buildings in it that skewer the numbers. If you look to the right of your link, you will see units for sale in the Pearl. Someone making $22K isn't the ones buying $500K condo.

Not sure where you get the roommate idea because it says 1.3 is the average household, that means it is mostly individuals (young professionals) and some couples. It is sort of like the Commons Park West in Denver. Hardly a neighborhood home to students and baristas.

You are really trying hard to prove that empty nesters and young professionals don't live in pricey urban districts even when the facts are not in your favor. Why this need to deny that empty nesters and young professionals live in urban districts? This isn't some outlandish claim I am making, it is a reality.

This gives a better breakdown of income levels in the Pearl District.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

$76,608 is the median of home owners in the Pearl District. That is much higher than the $22K you are claiming. The Pearl District also has 22.8% below the poverty level, which is due to the number of low income and limited income elderly housing that also exists in the Pearl.

Last edited by Yac; 10-08-2014 at 06:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,519,126 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The Pearl District was a vacant industrial area 15 years ago. Much of this talk of urban renaissance falls upon deaf ears to people who haven't been to a big-city downtown since 1985.
Exactly, places like the Pearl District are a great example that there is a real demand for these types of urban districts, even if some people try hard to claim these demands don't exist....which is a mind boggling claim for anyone to make when there are proof of new growing urban districts in a number of cities in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 05:54 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,194,181 times
Reputation: 3351
The main reason so many seniors are moving to urban areas is that urban areas offer many more housing options; big/small, expensive/cheap, ground floor, midrise or highrise, walkable, near transit etc etc.
It is always good to have many options.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 06:48 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,999 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Oh, no they're not, according to link #1:
**Boomer growth in big, dense cities also fell just short of growth in the big-city suburbs and lower-density cities. . . . All of the metros with the fastest growing boomer population were in the South and West, with Texas and the Carolinas dominating the list:**

Now Texas does have a few large cities, but they're not considered "urban" by many urbanists on this board, and the Carolinas really don't have any major cities.

Stupid "fluff" articles like the Wapo one, long on personal anecdotes and short on statistics, do not give much information.

The last article was written by someone who doesn't understand statistics, which seems to be the vast majority of people writing such articles, and it also cherry picked a lot of statistics. It totally avoided the stated preference for single family homes and privacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 06:49 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,999 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
The main reason so many seniors are moving to urban areas is that urban areas offer many more housing options; big/small, expensive/cheap, ground floor, midrise or highrise, walkable, near transit etc etc.
It is always good to have many options.
Except "many" are not moving to urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2014, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,519,126 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Except "many" are not moving to urban areas.
Many DOES NOT MEAN most. You even said yourself in the post just before this one that big city dense growth fell short of growth compared to suburb growth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh, no they're not, according to link #1:
**Boomer growth in big, dense cities also fell just short of growth in the big-city suburbs and lower-density cities. . . . All of the metros with the fastest growing boomer population were in the South and West, with Texas and the Carolinas dominating the list:**

Now Texas does have a few large cities, but they're not considered "urban" by many urbanists on this board, and the Carolinas really don't have any major cities.

Stupid "fluff" articles like the Wapo one, long on personal anecdotes and short on statistics, do not give much information.

The last article was written by someone who doesn't understand statistics, which seems to be the vast majority of people writing such articles, and it also cherry picked a lot of statistics. It totally avoided the stated preference for single family homes and privacy.


Notice how the top two are almost equal, that looks like a "many" to me.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that many, not most, boomers are populating urban districts? There is plenty of proof that has been provided to you that says this is a fact.
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