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 10-06-2014, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,917,166 times
Reputation: 10536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
That shouldn't be the case in more affluent, booming cities like San Francisco, New York, Seattle, etc. that have some of the highest median incomes and property values in the country. These wealthier cities could certainly afford to pay for high quality schools, public and private.
It's not an issue of money. I may be a left-winger, but the left-wing orthodoxy on schools (that if you throw more money at under-performing schools, they'll become better) is just wrong.

Nine times out of ten, you need to alter school demographics to make a substantial change to performance on standardized testing. This means less disadvantaged minorities (particularly Blacks and Latinos), and more upper-middle class families (note, more upper-middle class kids in the schools actually seems to improve disadvantaged minorities scores too - perhaps because the peer culture of performance changes).

This sort of change is semi-organically happening in many cities - or at least in portions of many cities. First racially mixed areas become much whiter, resulting in a big drop in neighborhood school enrollment. Then a handful of "pioneer parents" (usually moms) make a pact to enroll their kids at the neighborhood school. A few years later there's big "improvements" in test score performance, and it becomes increasingly seen as the default for middle-class parents in the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2014, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
It's not an issue of money. I may be a left-winger, but the left-wing orthodoxy on schools (that if you throw more money at under-performing schools, they'll become better) is just wrong.

Nine times out of ten, you need to alter school demographics to make a substantial change to performance on standardized testing. This means less disadvantaged minorities (particularly Blacks and Latinos), and more upper-middle class families (note, more upper-middle class kids in the schools actually seems to improve disadvantaged minorities scores too - perhaps because the peer culture of performance changes).

This sort of change is semi-organically happening in many cities - or at least in portions of many cities. First racially mixed areas become much whiter, resulting in a big drop in neighborhood school enrollment. Then a handful of "pioneer parents" (usually moms) make a pact to enroll their kids at the neighborhood school. A few years later there's big "improvements" in test score performance, and it becomes increasingly seen as the default for middle-class parents in the area.
And then shortly after the "minorities" (and we mean blacks and latinos here, as other minorities do better in school than whites) move out. You want to change that, you need to change black and latino culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 10:17 AM
 
409 posts, read 388,829 times
Reputation: 495
As they get older, millennials will abandon their idealistic viewpoints and come back to reality (hopefully).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 10:20 AM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,189 posts, read 2,936,509 times
Reputation: 2030
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Having a high-density of people also means high-density of vehicle traffic congestion, and the noise and stress that comes with it.
Why not use public transit instead of a car? I do it because I can't afford a car, but I don't experience stress from traffic. I just kick back and browse the web on my phone, play games, watch videos etc.

Quote:
I got tired of living in downtown San Francisco and moved for that reason. It's not a very family-friendly environment.
Totally disagree. I grew up in a suburb and I would much rather have grown up in a denser area like San Jose or SF where you are close to public transit and can get to good stuff easily. In the suburb where I grew up, for example, there's an outdoor sports complex that draws a lot of users, but it's not directly accessible via public transit. You have to either walk a mile from the closest bus stop or drive there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 10:25 AM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,857,480 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
Why not use public transit instead of a car? I do it because I can't afford a car, but I don't experience stress from traffic. I just kick back and browse the web on my phone, play games, watch videos etc.



Totally disagree. I grew up in a suburb and I would much rather have grown up in a denser area like San Jose or SF where you are close to public transit and can get to good stuff easily. In the suburb where I grew up, for example, there's an outdoor sports complex that draws a lot of users, but it's not directly accessible via public transit. You have to either walk a mile from the closest bus stop or drive there.

I would have preferred the burbs. The big lawn, less worry about traffic as well as things like arcades, malls, laser tag, pizza hut(didn't have those in the city in the 80ies). Would have been fun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 11:47 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,989 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
Why not use public transit instead of a car? I do it because I can't afford a car, but I don't experience stress from traffic. I just kick back and browse the web on my phone, play games, watch videos etc.



Totally disagree. I grew up in a suburb and I would much rather have grown up in a denser area like San Jose or SF where you are close to public transit and can get to good stuff easily. In the suburb where I grew up, for example, there's an outdoor sports complex that draws a lot of users, but it's not directly accessible via public transit. You have to either walk a mile from the closest bus stop or drive there.
Please, no more of this "my suburban childhood was so awful" stuff!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 12:16 PM
 
3,267 posts, read 5,047,310 times
Reputation: 4600
My wife and I are 27 and 29 respectively. We moved into what I would call kind of a "2nd ring suburb" in our area but as of now we definitely want our next house to be much closer to downtown, if not walkable. Then again we are strange. Our vacations usually consist of going to a major metro that is walkable + public transit and just bumming around/exploring so we both really enjoy the more urban vibe and lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,654,530 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
I would have preferred the burbs. The big lawn, less worry about traffic as well as things like arcades, malls, laser tag, pizza hut(didn't have those in the city in the 80ies). Would have been fun.
What would you do with that big lawn? I spent a lot of time raking grass clippings. (I was lucky that my step dad insisted on doing the mowing.)

You're right that one doesn't have to worry as much about traffic. I could ride my bike up and down the street, over and over, without worrying about too many cars.

How would you have gotten to the arcades, malls, laser tag, pizza hut, before you were 16?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Please, no more of this "my suburban childhood was so awful" stuff!
As soon as there's no more of that "my urban childhood was so awful."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 12:54 PM
 
1,971 posts, read 2,490,556 times
Reputation: 2170
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
That shouldn't be the case in more affluent, booming cities like San Francisco, New York, Seattle, etc. that have some of the highest median incomes and property values in the country. These wealthier cities could certainly afford to pay for high quality schools, public and private.
these cities are unique and have different educational issues

Seattle schools are mostly decent.

San Francisco has a lot of enclaves and a school system that is still bent out of shape from 1960s style social experiments. Kids are subjected to a school lottery and most middle class people don't want to deal with that so they leave town once their kids are past kindergarten. The super rich just send their kids to private school and poorer people just deal with the lottery.

New York is massive and has a lot of income inequality as well as ability inequality. The top performing students compete in a cutthroat environment to try to get into some of the top public schools which act as feeders into the Ivy League. Then there are a lot of private day schools for the uber rich which cost absurd amounts. Then there are all the low performing schools in the poorer neighborhoods. Then there are a lot of relatively reasonable schools that nobody every talks about which exist in the uncool neighborhoods that nobody every talks about.

Property values don't mean better schools in the city like they do in the suburbs because so much residential property is a RENTAL in places like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.

Anyway to address the original question, I don't think things will be much different in 12 years than they are today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 01:16 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,708,360 times
Reputation: 9029
American cities aren't as ghetto as they used to be so city life is actually going to be an easy option for us millennials.
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