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 09-06-2014, 12:11 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,348,447 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Only one of the possible funding options mentioned was private corporations.


Also, as I pointed out in the other thread, after gas service is extended, (probably at tax payer expense) it won't be long until new housing developments start getting built.
So why is it a problem that new housing developments would get built?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2014, 07:28 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
So why is it a problem that new housing developments would get built?
Newcomers, and newly formed households such as college grads leaving the family home, newlyweds,etc, are supposed to live in tents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,894 posts, read 7,654,530 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
So why is it a problem that new housing developments would get built?
Because there is already a surplus of housing in the region, and I don't want to see my tax dollars subsidizing the problems that accompany continued sprawl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Newcomers, and newly formed households such as college grads leaving the family home, newlyweds,etc, are supposed to live in tents.
See above. Your post doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 08:58 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33058
If you are opposed to the idea of extending utilities at taxpayer expense, talk to your local legislators. Your area, like my home area not far away, has a lot of empty housing. Some of it should simply be removed. I know that's an anathema to urbanists, but a lot of this housing was substandard 50 years ago. There's obviously not a market for it. People forming new households don't want to live there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 09:14 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,348,447 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Because there is already a surplus of housing in the region, and I don't want to see my tax dollars subsidizing the problems that accompany continued sprawl.
Seems to me that other people's tax dollars are subsidizing your lifestyle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
See above. Your post doesn't make sense.
Of course her post made sense. She was exposing how silly your argument was.
As far as your alleged "housing surplus" - apparently you fear that the "surplus housing" wouldn't be perceived as preferable or desirable when people have choices. Maybe you should focus on why there is a surplus of undesirable housing in your area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 10:42 AM
 
3,262 posts, read 3,002,974 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
If you are opposed to the idea of extending utilities at taxpayer expense, talk to your local legislators. Your area, like my home area not far away, has a lot of empty housing. Some of it should simply be removed. I know that's an anathema to urbanists, but a lot of this housing was substandard 50 years ago. There's obviously not a market for it. People forming new households don't want to live there.
I dunno, in the northeast a lot of people live in houses and apartments that are over a century old. Same for housing that was built on the cheap in areas which later became more desirable; it's not a big deal and they are completely fine. Usually when there is housing that no one wants to live in the reason is a human element -- the area has become unattractive to people considering moving in to the degree that the market rent can no longer cover the cost of maintaining the property. The core underlying problem is the socioeconomic decay and outflow of people from some urban and rural areas; heavily decayed housing is a symptom rather than a cause. People will either fix up and live in or replace without government intervention housing that was originally poorly or cheaply constructed if the area it is in is doing well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Because there is already a surplus of housing in the region, and I don't want to see my tax dollars subsidizing the problems that accompany continued sprawl.
If you restrict development where it is desired by people because nearby areas have reached the point where the human element has resulted in decline and decay you won't 'save' the declining areas with their surplus housing (which is only surplus because of that decline), all you'll do is drive up housing prices and cost of living in the adjoining areas which are doing okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 11:21 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
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
If you are opposed to the idea of extending utilities at taxpayer expense, talk to your local legislators. Your area, like my home area not far away, has a lot of empty housing. Some of it should simply be removed. I know that's an anathema to urbanists, but a lot of this housing was substandard 50 years ago. There's obviously not a market for it. People forming new households don't want to live there.
There's at least as much old housing here as in Ohio or Western Pennsylvania. Seems functional*. Some of it could use improvements, maybe or maybe not it would cheaper to improve rather than tear it down? In any case, if it was just the housing was substandard, they could tear it down and build new housing on top of it rather than building new housing on the outskirts, constructing new infrastructure and leaving the inner areas vacant.

*There was a link I posted that said Pittsburgh housing in 1950 had a much higher portion sub standards (1/3 vs 1/8) compared to Boston. But Cleveland was roughly the same as Boston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 12:28 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
I dunno, in the northeast a lot of people live in houses and apartments that are over a century old. Same for housing that was built on the cheap in areas which later became more desirable; it's not a big deal and they are completely fine. Usually when there is housing that no one wants to live in the reason is a human element -- the area has become unattractive to people considering moving in to the degree that the market rent can no longer cover the cost of maintaining the property. The core underlying problem is the socioeconomic decay and outflow of people from some urban and rural areas; heavily decayed housing is a symptom rather than a cause. People will either fix up and live in or replace without government intervention housing that was originally poorly or cheaply constructed if the area it is in is doing well.



If you restrict development where it is desired by people because nearby areas have reached the point where the human element has resulted in decline and decay you won't 'save' the declining areas with their surplus housing (which is only surplus because of that decline), all you'll do is drive up housing prices and cost of living in the adjoining areas which are doing okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
There's at least as much old housing here as in Ohio or Western Pennsylvania. Seems functional*. Some of it could use improvements, maybe or maybe not it would cheaper to improve rather than tear it down? In any case, if it was just the housing was substandard, they could tear it down and build new housing on top of it rather than building new housing on the outskirts, constructing new infrastructure and leaving the inner areas vacant.

*There was a link I posted that said Pittsburgh housing in 1950 had a much higher portion sub standards (1/3 vs 1/8) compared to Boston. But Cleveland was roughly the same as Boston.
Taking these two together.

@ALackofCreativity: I know this. Although I now live in Colorado, I grew up in the same general area as JR_C, just on the other side of the Pennsylvania/Ohio line. It's old steel mill country. A lot of the 100+ year old housing was substandard as nei stated. A lot of it has been empty for 20-30 years, and wasn't in the greatest shape when abandoned. Youngstown/Mahoning County is closer to Pittsburgh than Cleveland. The other issue for families is that other topic urbanists don't like to talk about: schools. Now I'm not a huge fan of GreatSchools, but this does give you some idea. Also look at the demographics in Y-town: median household income about 1/2 that of the general US, and slightly more than half of that of Ohio; home values < 1/2 of the rest of Ohio, about 1/3 that of the general US; high crime. Unemployment now about the same as the US in general, although those numbers look out of date.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 12:39 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
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
@ALackofCreativity: I know this. Although I now live in Colorado, I grew up in the same general area as JR_C, just on the other side of the Pennsylvania/Ohio line. It's old steel mill country. A lot of the 100+ year old housing was substandard as nei stated. A lot of it has been empty for 20-30 years, and wasn't in the greatest shape when abandoned. Youngstown/Mahoning County is closer to Pittsburgh than Cleveland. The other issue for families is that other topic urbanists don't like to talk about: schools. Now I'm not a huge fan of GreatSchools, but this does give you some idea. Also look at the demographics in Y-town: median household income about 1/2 that of the general US, and slightly more than half of that of Ohio; home values < 1/2 of the rest of Ohio, about 1/3 that of the general US; high crime. Unemployment now about the same as the US in general, although those numbers look out of date.
Yes, my point was that substandard isn't really the cause. Old houses can be knocked down and new ones placed in the same lot or rehabbed. As for schools, that's one cause of flight, though I think for Youngstown and some other Ohio cities, the inner suburbs are also seeing some flight in a negative outward cycle. Likely the inner suburbs had decent schools, but with the move outward they're declining. School quality may not be the most mentioned topic, even less mentioned is causes of their low quality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2014, 12:48 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Yes, my point was that substandard isn't really the cause. Old houses can be knocked down and new ones placed in the same lot or rehabbed. As for schools, that's one cause of flight, though I think for Youngstown and some other Ohio cities, the inner suburbs are also seeing some flight in a negative outward cycle. Likely the inner suburbs had decent schools, but with the move outward they're declining. School quality may not be the most mentioned topic, even less mentioned is causes of their low quality.
Then you have the issue of owning the most expensive house in the neighborhood, never a good idea for resale, especially when many of the occupied homes are not in much better shape. You also have the issue (in the area we are discussing) of having a plethora of elderly neighbors, no kids within walking distance for your kids to play with, etc. As far as "inner suburbs", etc, Youngstown's population at its peak (1930, 84 years ago now) was only 170,002, and has declined every decade since, except for a small gain in 1950, likely the result of the post-war boom. So I'm saying, I don't think there were a lot of "inner-ring" and "outer-ring" burbs there. In fact, I'd say Youngstown is probably an outlier.

Youngstown, Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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