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 11-12-2014, 07:17 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,468,927 times
Reputation: 1483

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Chicago's south side might have a worse retail density for its population density compared to other urban black neighborhoods. Not sure why. To begin with, the South Side is less than the North Side pushing to the realm not enough will be in walking distance.

Why Is So Much of Chicago a Commercial Desert? | Chicago magazine | The 312 May 2013

Chicago

Translated: that means Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods are tremendously business-poor, even compared to other cities’ poorest neighborhoods. As the author, Marco Luis Small, puts it: “In some cases, the difference is stark. Chicago has 82% fewer small restaurants, 95% fewer small banks, and 72% fewer small convenience stores than a black poor ghetto in the average city…. The average black poor neighborhood in the U.S. does not look at all like the South Side of Chicago.”

No, not saying chirack lives in a poor neighborhood, but making some comments on Chicago
What I would add is Bad neighborhoods in especially Eastern cities LOOK FAR WORSE then MOST, won't say all in Chicago???? Why.... because in the east are those ENDLESS UP TO THE SIDEWALKS BLOCK AFTER BLOCK OF ROW HOMES as rather ugly brick boxes?
Not nearly as prevalent in CHICAGO...actually to me many of CHICAGO'S bad neighborhoods look pretty good with single homes and decently kept up Bungalows on front lawn streets. Its just they are in the gang territory areas.

But on the thread topic. What happens to Millenials who grow up? Just like the Hippies of the 60s? Most cut their hair and lost the tie-dyed shirts and found jobs, raised families. Millenials will give up the skinny jeans and do the same? LOL But sadly, some of both did or will Fall through the cracks to success and become part of our underclass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2014, 08:49 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,963,974 times
Reputation: 5383
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is quite the false assessment you just made on Portland, not even sure where to start. Though you do realize the population of Portland is growing and is ranked as one of the cities that is attractive to millennials.

Millennials and Jobs: The Top 10 Places for Young Workers on the Move

You lived in Portland 20 years you say? So when did you move out of Portland because there seems to be a lot of people here that like having light rail.

So I should ask you, what is a "good planned" city in your opinion? As for bad choices for urban renewal, you are also incorrect. Portland has made some good and some bad choices with urban renewal, but no where near as bad as many other cities. Portland still has a very healthy downtown full of historic buildings.
No, you're wrong. You regularly make things up in an attempt to support your opinions that were formed before you knew the facts.

I left Portland in 2007. I rode the light rail over a hundred times before I left and used mass transit extensively.

"Ranked as". Everyone that knows anything about rankings knows that they are crap because it is a couple employees assigning arbitrary weightings to various census data fields and then recording which places got the top scores. I already provided a relevant piece for you about where the younger generation was actually moving. The piece I provided was extensively well researched.

Some people do like the light rail, but you are falling to a logical fallacy when you assume that it is the vast majority. There are also some people like that like spending time with prostitutes, some people that like doing meth, and some people that like cutting themselves. The fact that some people like something does not automatically make it "good".

Unfortunately, you are incorrect about bad choices for urban renewal. Unlike you, I actually lived there for two decades. Tough luck. Portland has an absolutely awful downtown. Having a few old buildings is not enough to make a downtown "very healthy". The parking is vastly insufficient, there are homeless people on every street, the road system is insufficient to allow people to get from one location to another because the city and state management is so in love with trees that they prevent new road construction. The resulting effect is more pollution as people sit on the roads with their cars idling in bumper to bumper traffic.

I'm sorry that you had to be wrong about a city that you admire so much, but you just didn't have the facts straight and decided to press the issue against someone with more experience and education. I hope you can make the move to Portland at some point and experience the city for a decade so you can enhance your qualifications in that regard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
No, you're wrong. You regularly make things up in an attempt to support your opinions that were formed before you knew the facts.

I left Portland in 2007. I rode the light rail over a hundred times before I left and used mass transit extensively.

"Ranked as". Everyone that knows anything about rankings knows that they are crap because it is a couple employees assigning arbitrary weightings to various census data fields and then recording which places got the top scores. I already provided a relevant piece for you about where the younger generation was actually moving. The piece I provided was extensively well researched.

Some people do like the light rail, but you are falling to a logical fallacy when you assume that it is the vast majority. There are also some people like that like spending time with prostitutes, some people that like doing meth, and some people that like cutting themselves. The fact that some people like something does not automatically make it "good".

Unfortunately, you are incorrect about bad choices for urban renewal. Unlike you, I actually lived there for two decades. Tough luck. Portland has an absolutely awful downtown. Having a few old buildings is not enough to make a downtown "very healthy". The parking is vastly insufficient, there are homeless people on every street, the road system is insufficient to allow people to get from one location to another because the city and state management is so in love with trees that they prevent new road construction. The resulting effect is more pollution as people sit on the roads with their cars idling in bumper to bumper traffic.

I'm sorry that you had to be wrong about a city that you admire so much, but you just didn't have the facts straight and decided to press the issue against someone with more experience and education. I hope you can make the move to Portland at some point and experience the city for a decade so you can enhance your qualifications in that regard.
Sorry I don't hate Portland as much as you do it seems, but your post is nothing more than your opinions. As for parking downtown, I have never had an issue with parking and the city has transit that makes it so they don't need a parking garage attached to every building like cities that have poor transit.

Hopefully you have moved to a city that has ample parking for you and no pesky transit to get in your way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
My life situation kind of fits into the OP's question. I believe my wife and I are right on the edge of being "millenials", as we are right around 30 years old.

At the beginning of the year we had our first kid. We moved from Hollywood to Pasadena right around the time she was born for a variety of reasons, but mainly because there was nothing in Hollywood in our price range. Pasadena ended up providing the perfect combo of affordability, DTLA-adjacency, solid transit access and pedestrian-friendliness. By living in Pasadena (albeit downtown Pasadena) we are living a slightly more "suburban" lifestyle in Pasadena than in Hollywood - though we use our car around the same amount and probably walk more, in fact the biggest difference is probably just atmosphere and a noticeable-but-not-drastic decrease in density.

We are happy with our choice to move from what could be considered a neighborhood on the fringes of LA's core to a city that is more along the lines of an overgrown street-car suburb, and I think a lot of that has to do with not having to deal with homeless people sleeping in our doorway and the sidewalks smelling like human pee. We do still experience some levels of what I guess you could call "urban discomfort" in Pasadena - our bike was stolen and a car window smashed in, and right now there is construction happening on two sides of our building. However, I think the benefits of raising my daughter in more urban setting where she sees people speaking lots of different languages, thinks walking to the grocery store is normal, and rides the trains more often than she gets into her car seat is worth these sorts of discomforts happening every once and a while.

I think overall there will be three groups: a small minority that remain in the city-center and inner core neighborhoods and then a split between the remaining of people that move to outer-ring streetcar suburbs (sort of what I'd consider a place like Pasadena / Berkeley, CA) and those that opt for newer suburbia. There will be more people choosing urban or semi-urban settings than the last few decades, but not some nation-altering sea change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
I'm almost 24 and I've been married for a year. Hubby and I are definitely wanting out of the city. Not just out of San Francisco, but out of California.

We're planning on having 2 kids, and we feel that California isn't a good place to have a family. Too expensive, too many taxes, state budget is a mess, public schools aren't good, and the environment isn't a great influence on kids, IMO. To avoid the latter two issues, we'd have to be in a prohibitively expensive part of CA.

And San Francisco itself is not a family-friendly place at all. I wouldn't even want to be pregnant while living in the city. Hard to get around, I see pregnant women being treated like a nuisance or gawked at by strangers, it's expensive, too much city stress, etc.

And good luck being a mom for the first two years if you live in a $3000/mo moldy roach box in the Tenderloin with no dishwasher, a laundromat 5 blocks away, no car, and neighbors that complain because they can hear your baby crying through the super thin walls. And forget about saving money by having roommates. They'd complain about the constant messes, noise, etc.

There's a reason I don't know anyone my age in the city who's married with kids.
What about in neighborhoods like the Sunset or Richmond, or the neighborhoods around Daly City? Seems like there are at least a few family friendly neighborhoods in SF - though none of them will be cheap of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2014, 12:00 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,575,764 times
Reputation: 4048
San Francisco is hardly a yardstick by which to judge the rest of California--it's 49 square miles surrounded by reality. State budget a mess? We're running in the black and just established a rainy-day fund to cushion future recessions.

Millenials will get old like everyone else, and there will be more young people growing up after them. Lots of GenXers' kids are growing up right now, and the ones who decided against a long commute and life in the suburbs are bringing up their kids in cities. Those young adults will grow up seeing American cities once again in ascendance, with populations and economies that are growing, while suburban decay sets in on the outskirts. As adults they will have city instincts, grow up with the idea that bikes and buses are how Mom and Dad gets around, cars are something their Boomer grandparents seem obsessed with, and their Millenial aunts and uncles like to come visit them in the city where they live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,005 posts, read 10,456,251 times
Reputation: 4730
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeps View Post
What I would add is Bad neighborhoods in especially Eastern cities LOOK FAR WORSE then MOST, won't say all in Chicago???? Why.... because in the east are those ENDLESS UP TO THE SIDEWALKS BLOCK AFTER BLOCK OF ROW HOMES as rather ugly brick boxes?
Not nearly as prevalent in CHICAGO...actually to me many of CHICAGO'S bad neighborhoods look pretty good with single homes and decently kept up Bungalows on front lawn streets. Its just they are in the gang territory areas.
While row homes can be ugly, many row homes neighborhoods are magnificent with the symmetry of the architecture creating highly desirable neighborhoods.

I don't want to bash anybody, but, Baltimore seems to have many row homes of undistinguished character. On the other hand, Boston, New York, Chicago, and eastern Pennsylvania, (Philly/Lehigh Valley) have many well-built, well-designed, highly desirable row home neighborhoods.

If the front sidewalks are wide enough to support street trees, and maybe the owners throw in some potted plants on the front stoop, a row home neighborhood can create a very green urban experience with all of the benefits of walkability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:38 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,432,789 times
Reputation: 6703
Munchitup, we have much in common. We moved from our fabulous apartment in Hollywood to an equally wonderful place in South Pasadena around age 30 when we had a kid (would have been just as happy in or near Pasadena itself, but we found the perfect rental on the South Pas side). Hollywood just wasn't good for a kid; at the time, the playground near us didn't have many kids in it, and there were needles on the ground, and we wanted to upgrade from a 1-BR to a 2-BR, which wasn't possible in our Hollywood building. In South Pasadena and Pasadena we could still walk everywhere (and took the Gold Line to daycare), but it suited our stage in life. That said, if we had had a 2-BR I'm sure we would have stayed in Hollywood longer, lousy playgrounds and all.

When we moved to San Francisco we found a place in the Richmond District, which is VERY family-friendly and is a great place to raise a kid... IF you can afford it. It's still cheaper than many parts of San Francisco, but it's well outside the budget of many middle-class families. We don't live there now, and if we moved back I know we couldn't afford it. We later lived in Alameda, which has tons of young families looking for semi-affordable housing that offers some "urban" amenities; we could walk everywhere there and easily live without a car; lots of city of SF expats there who were looking for cheaper housing with good local schools but still wanted to be able to walk to stores and restaurants and other amenities. Both Alameda and Old Pasadena were more "urban" than what you find in many city neighborhoods elsewhere in the country. We live in one of the more urban neighborhoods in our city now, and there are lots of other families with kids around. Probably more GenX than Millennial (I think in part due to cost), but certainly lots of people who don't have any interest in an outdated auto-dependent family life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
Munchitup, we have much in common. We moved from our fabulous apartment in Hollywood to an equally wonderful place in South Pasadena around age 30 when we had a kid (would have been just as happy in or near Pasadena itself, but we found the perfect rental on the South Pas side). Hollywood just wasn't good for a kid; at the time, the playground near us didn't have many kids in it, and there were needles on the ground, and we wanted to upgrade from a 1-BR to a 2-BR, which wasn't possible in our Hollywood building. In South Pasadena and Pasadena we could still walk everywhere (and took the Gold Line to daycare), but it suited our stage in life. That said, if we had had a 2-BR I'm sure we would have stayed in Hollywood longer, lousy playgrounds and all.

When we moved to San Francisco we found a place in the Richmond District, which is VERY family-friendly and is a great place to raise a kid... IF you can afford it. It's still cheaper than many parts of San Francisco, but it's well outside the budget of many middle-class families. We don't live there now, and if we moved back I know we couldn't afford it. We later lived in Alameda, which has tons of young families looking for semi-affordable housing that offers some "urban" amenities; we could walk everywhere there and easily live without a car; lots of city of SF expats there who were looking for cheaper housing with good local schools but still wanted to be able to walk to stores and restaurants and other amenities. Both Alameda and Old Pasadena were more "urban" than what you find in many city neighborhoods elsewhere in the country. We live in one of the more urban neighborhoods in our city now, and there are lots of other families with kids around. Probably more GenX than Millennial (I think in part due to cost), but certainly lots of people who don't have any interest in an outdated auto-dependent family life.
Yes we do have a lot in common! I remember reading your posts about Hollywood, I believe our places in HW were both on Yucca... Same with us RE: a 2BR, there just are not many available in Hollywood.

What is funny is that my wife is from the Bay and wants to think about going back up there. The nature of her job requires she work in the city, so maybe Alameda will be an option for us (would love to live in SF but way too expensive).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,079 posts, read 16,109,257 times
Reputation: 12652
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
What about in neighborhoods like the Sunset or Richmond, or the neighborhoods around Daly City? Seems like there are at least a few family friendly neighborhoods in SF - though none of them will be cheap of course.
Kind of.

Aunt and cousin live in the Sunset. The school he got assigned to was in the barrio. The solution was private school. His dad makes good money so the $20,000 tuition isn't an issue.
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