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 07-31-2014, 10:33 AM
 
56,533 posts, read 80,824,285 times
Reputation: 12482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Thanks for the information.

My parents are boomers, and they've lived rural and suburban. For most of my life, they painted a depiction of the city as crime-ridden, overcrowded, tons of traffic, wall-to-wall concrete, etc. That's in reference to Rochester NY...which is anything but. Over the past few years, they've started going into the city to have lunch in the Park Ave area, and my father always remarks that it's so beautiful and relaxing. Hardly the exaggerated concept of trying to wade through Times Square in high tourist season.
My sister lived there when she first moved to Rochester and when I first went to the neighborhood in the early 90's, I was impressed then. I think it comes down to people honestly not knowing what is within city limits outside of what the media shows in a limited amount of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2014, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,078,123 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
We don't do this in my region. New development is generally going up in empty lots, surrounded by other buildings. Former gas stations. Surface parking lots. Industrial office parks. ....

There is very little former green space being developed.
Oh, we have this going on around here too... And the empty lots and surface parking lots are not being replaced by homes with yards--mostly gated townhouses and midrise condo complexes, even 20 miles outside of the city center. Now in the '80's they were building gated communities with houses and yards. Then in the 90's and the real estate boom of the early 2000's gated zero-line lot communities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Ak-Rowdy, OH
1,522 posts, read 2,482,598 times
Reputation: 1121
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
I know those of you who are younger think people should flock back to urban areas and you think that is the wave of the future. Maybe it is the wave of the future in the short term, but I think it will come full circle again when YOUR children decide they don't want to live in a population dense area and want room to spread out like their grandparents did.
I flocked from suburbs to a city neighborhood. Have kids. Kids love it. Can walk to park, library, stores, restaurants, movie theater. Can ride bikes to stadiums, museums, festivals, fireworks, you name it. Near Metro Parks, bike trails, etc. Can hop on the x-way and be to major shopping areas in 15 minutes.

That's not to say my kids can't make their own choices but they so far haven't seemed to have been particularly impressed when visiting friends in developments. Although I'm sure they haven't full thought it through, I think they pick up on the quality of life issues you have when you don't have easy access to anything but your own cul-de-sac after coming from a neighborhood where you can get to most things within 4 or 5 blocks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
1,716 posts, read 2,546,804 times
Reputation: 1658
This whole thread just cracks me up. "It's ok for people to live in urban areas as long as they don't force it down our throats or shove it in our faces." Is Urban living the new civil rights movement or something?

I am pretty split between what I want which is why I live in west LA. There are single family homes and apartment towers so it's a mix. I want to eventually live closer in and near a subway line. My dream would be to get by without a car but still be in an area where I can walk around without feeling unsafe.

Suburbs can only spread so far and what we're seeing in California now is that the outer edge new suburbs are filling in with hood. They aren't close to jobs which hug the coastal cities. So you get these shiny new developments with cheaper homes that house 2-3 formerly urban families. Some of them commute crazy distances on metro link trains or commuter buses into LA. We're out of room in the coastal basins close to job centers and until the jobs out there in inland areas pick up, those shiny new suburbs are pretty hood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,327,543 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
My sister lived there when she first moved to Rochester and when I first went to the neighborhood in the early 90's, I was impressed then. I think it comes down to people honestly not knowing what is within city limits outside of what the media shows in a limited amount of time.
Agreed. Anyone in a routine to watch the evening news will be overwhelmed with murders, car accidents and other crime. Precisely why I don't watch any news on tv (or any tv at all really). Best way to find the truth sometimes is to find out for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 11:23 AM
 
226 posts, read 194,841 times
Reputation: 274
Jukesgrrl has it right; the changes that have given cities a push are strongly tied to changes in family structure such as deferring marriage and child-rearing.

They're also due to the fact that successful cities are creating jobs faster than their suburban brethren. That in turn creates an influx of people and consequent demand for housing. That's precisely what's happening in Seattle, where I live. In fact, according to the most recent Census data, the growth in Seattle's population now exceeds that of its suburban neighbors on a percentage basis.

While I don't agree with those who argue that sinister forces are pushing people to live anywhere, it's pretty clear that government at all levels is trying to discourage automobile use. To the extent that the private auto stands as a proxy for car-dependent suburban living, then yes, one could make the case that to some degree government policy now is hostile to suburban development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 11:29 AM
 
56,533 posts, read 80,824,285 times
Reputation: 12482
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Agreed. Anyone in a routine to watch the evening news will be overwhelmed with murders, car accidents and other crime. Precisely why I don't watch any news on tv (or any tv at all really). Best way to find the truth sometimes is to find out for yourself.
Exactly and that way you become pleasantly surprised to find some things you never knew existed until you actually do so. This happened to me around that same time in regards to Syracuse's Westcott Street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,327,543 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by tifoso View Post
Jukesgrrl has it right; the changes that have given cities a push are strongly tied to changes in family structure such as deferring marriage and child-rearing.

They're also due to the fact that successful cities are creating jobs faster than their suburban brethren. That in turn creates an influx of people and consequent demand for housing. That's precisely what's happening in Seattle, where I live. In fact, according to the most recent Census data, the growth in Seattle's population now exceeds that of its suburban neighbors on a percentage basis.

While I don't agree with those who argue that sinister forces are pushing people to live anywhere, it's pretty clear that government at all levels is trying to discourage automobile use. To the extent that the private auto stands as a proxy for car-dependent suburban living, then yes, one could make the case that to some degree government policy now is hostile to suburban development.
What do you mean by the bold? I just don't see it. Roads are still receiving a big piece of the funding pie, politicians refuse to raise the gas tax in most cases, toll roads are still pretty rare, and last time I checked, suburban housing is still very much considered a good thing economically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 11:31 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,877 posts, read 42,085,992 times
Reputation: 43276
Just as a throw in, some of you need to look at some of the state wide planning documents being developed if you don't think there's a push to bring development out of urban areas to a halt.

PlanMD is one such. It limits or denies funding to suburban or rural areas for infrastructure improvements or schools. The Flush tax is collected from every household in the State, whether on sewer or septic, but originally only urban sewer plants were eligible to use it to upgrade to the new ENR requirements. Small rural sewer facilities were ineligible to use the funding to bond their required upgrades. The cost of those upgrades were underestimated by 60%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,650,120 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Back when people had to rely on walking because other transportation was too costly, things were walkable. Nowadays, not really. Older cities like NYC are often very walkable. Younger cities tend not to be. LA isn't really that walkable. Certainly most people do not walk to their jobs in LA. There's still a lot of it that is mixed-use.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...3e0395e48aa1e4

Seems very single-use to me. The difference is mostly a gradient of scale. Of course, Park Slope was built as a bucolic suburb for wealthy people to escape the urban core. Later with the streetcar, it became one of the places that the people spilling out of the urban core (LES) could sprawl out into. Today it's much more urban, but thanks to zoning and historic districts it has large stretches of preserved suburban housing the wealthy built before the sprawl engulfed it.

Basically, I think I'd just disagree with your assertion that Park Slopes is suburban. To me, it's an urban neighborhood. That it wasn't built from the ground up for people to live, work, and shop within walking distance doesn't really much matter. It's been urban for a long time now and the vast majority do not work within walking distance. They mostly work in Manhattan or maybe Brooklyn's downtown area, although even that is a pretty long walk.
I think we put way too much emphasis on walking to work. Even though we spend a lot of time at work, we don't make many trips to work on the scheme of things. We go to a lot of other places, and in reality, it is nicer if the other places we go are in walking distance. You might change jobs, but you don't change grocery stores often.
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