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.
The term "central business district" is a 20th century invention--prior to that, it was just the "business district," but even then, it was still generally a densely populated place. And I suppose it also depends how you count the "wealth" of a district. If a neighborhood's wealth is measured by the income of its residents, how do you calculate the average wealth of a block occupied by a bank building where nobody lives? If you count only the wealth of a neighborhood's businesses, does a multi-billion dollar corporation who doesn't pay much mind to the starving people on the street mean a "rich neighborhood" can look very poor from the sidewalk--that "wealthy" does not equal "healthy"?
Once folks started heading for the suburbs in droves 40+ years ago, the same retailers who'd dominated many of those same downtowns followed them, a trend with no end in sight in spite of the current urban planner fetish of infill housing, which only exacerbates the housing shortage currently paralyzing many major cities starting with Los Angeles.
Such idiocy certainly explains California's national-worst poverty level as a front-page LA Times story pointed out recently.
Are you saying that Los Angeles has a housing shortage because they didn't build enough suburbs, or because they are building more infill housing? How does building more infill housing (adding housing) exacerbate a housing shortage? Does Los Angeles bring to mind archetypes of pedestrian-filled streets and densely-packed row houses, or single-family bungalows and crowded freeways?
Unlike his dad who built I-5 connecting southern California with the SF Bay area, Gov. Brown, the earliest open space/no growth zealot I know long before anybody had ever heard of Al Gore, Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi, essentially brought mass development to a halt in this state which explains our sky-high housing prices which open space mandates have only exacerbated.
Forcibly taking billions of acres of open land out of the development marketplace certainly explains why prices for a starter home in an LA suburb with excellent schools begin at $350K as opposed to a suburb of a booming city such as Houston or San Antonio as well as DFW.
Economics 101---restrict the availability of a product and the price skyrockets SOLELY as a result of government mandates, and the resulting destruction of the middle class as well as well as the state's formerly thriving manufacturing base are bound to follow.
Suffice it to say that such a shortsighted mentality in a state home to 5 of the top 25-30 universities in the nation (CalTech/Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC) which collectively produce THOUSANDS of bright grads annually in well-paying disciplines including engineering, law, medicine, business and scores of others who have to leave the state in order to buy a house thanks to government coercion is bound to wreak incalculable devastation to the state's finances and the ensuing plunging birthrate to below replacement levels as a recent USC study pointed out.
You'd think that a state in which SEVENTY-PLUS percent of the new cars sold in California annually are imports would be decades, whichG with auto manufacturing plants statewide, but this IS California, the most irrationally run state in the nation for over three decades which despises well paying jobs despite breathless insistence that such is not the case.
When the current CEO of a California-born company such as Carl's Jr stated recently that Texas and not California will be getting 300-plus new restaurants by the end of this decade which include very respectable salaries ranging from $35K for a restaurant GM to $65K or more for a regional GM, any assertions that Democrats are business-friendly supporters of a thriving middle class and a booming statewide/nationwide standard of living for the citizens it 'allegedly' represents can only shake their heads in disbelief at such a towering pile of constipated BS.
Okay. I know as most everybody on this forum is aware that there are indeed exceptions to the rule. However, on my travels to many cities around this nation that after 6 pm or on weekends many downtown areas look like modern ghost towns. Sure many cities may have a block or two of moderate vibrancy, but I always found it odd that the heart of any metro region (usually the downtown area) almost always seems to be the most desolate.
My question is, how and when did it get this way? I only find it interesting because so many downtowns have some wonderful hidden gems that so many residents never seem to take advantage of.
The T-ford was introduced in 1908 and in 1916 the United States started to build high ways all over the country. In late 1940 the United States had not only a good system of roads but it also saw economic progress. Americans had finally enough money to buy fast and modern cars. It made it possible for them to buy cheaper land and housing in the suburbs and still keep their job. Today, US downtowns are growing because young people want to live urban lives. It is also a fact that young people cannot afford buying their homes anymore so renting a small apartment in central parts of the city is cheaper. In Europe, the downtown area has always been much larger because they were built before the car. That is why middle-sized European cities with 500,000 inhabitants can have downtowns in size of Central Chicago. There are plenty of interesting downtown areas in United States like Seattle, Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, New Orleans, Miami, Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Providence, Portland (Maine), Annapolis, Boston, Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Nashville, St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Detroit, Kansas City, Des Moines, Denver, St. Augustine, San Jose, Honolulu, Madison, Fort Lauderdale and so on. Sure, US downtowns are nothing compared to comparable cities abroad but there are still some pretty vibrant and fairly large downtowns. Personally, I only think New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco are “impressive” from an international perspective. Either way, the only good thing with the massive poverty, unemployment and bad economy in United States is that downtown areas will continue to grow by necessity. Just as in Europe the downtown areas will turn into middle to upper middle class areas while the poor leave for rural suburbs.
As someone above already said, I think it's about the sprawl. Plain and simple. We end the sprawl, and suddenly we have city centers again that are hustling and bustling with entertainment and activity.
If we "end the sprawl" doesn't that negatively affect the affordability of existing housing options?
By extension, why would one want to purchase an overpriced roach motel in a decaying ghost town? Hell, why would anyone want to live in a city where there are limited entertainment, shopping and dining options in its downtown core?
Detroit is the best example I can think of as far as a downtown core resembling "the town that feared sundown" after 3:00 PM goes. Guess what? You could outlaw "sprawl" in the entire state of Michigan and Detroit would continue to rot at its ever-increasing pace.
No, ending sprawl does not have to negatively affect the affordability of existing housing options. And it positively affects the affordability of transportation: folks who live in transit-oriented or transit-adjacent neighborhoods have much lower transportation expenses than folks who live in more auto-centric suburbs. Meanwhile, home mortgage interest is tax-deductible while the cost of a car, insurance and gasoline is not.
Outlawing "sprawl" in the entire state of Michigan would help trigger a renaissance of Detroit like the country hasn't seen since Oregon put a stronger urban growth boundary around Portland. There is plenty of vacant space inside Detroit to hold another million or more people, quite comfortably!
Urban growth boundaries do negatively affect the affordability of housing options, though. Portland is ranked one of the least affordable cities in the country.
Downtown Pittsburgh really fell in activity with the advent of the internet and DVD/VHS machines in the 80's/90's.
The Liberty Avenue corridor was a smutarama, a real mecca of degeneracy- peepshows, hookers, dirty movies, strip shows, massage parlors- along with supporting restaurants, newsstands, bars for the patrons and employees.
The internet ended all of this, prostitutes advertise on craigslist, people can watch porn without leaving their houses. In addition, the city fathers didn't like it. They pushed out numerous businesses out at the end of their leases and that was that.
When those folks all left, the restaurants and that closed too.
Place was left pretty dead, the only businesses really remaining from that era are a handful of gay joints.
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.
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.
