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 01-22-2015, 02:28 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,352,590 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Or they will help strengthen those inner city neighborhoods and streetcar suburbs and make them great areas to raise a child without needing to move out to the suburbs. I always find it funny when people think that it is only young people without children that would want to live in the city and then once they want kids they move to the suburbs, buy three cars, and never step foot on a public transportation vehicle ever again.
Not sure what "strengthen those inner city neighborhoods" means. People are dynamic, not perpetual monuments. The rhetoric sounds like social pablum. Your child wouldn't be a child by the time you made "them great areas to raise a child" if such an objective is even feasible.

... "Who is laughing" might be determined after you get a little older and actually have a kid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2015, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,538,049 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
That's because you don't know how to shop not because healthful food is more expensive per say. It can be depending on what you buy. I don't buy a lot of fancy steaks or $4.99/pound asparagus. Stick with your basics (oatmeal, rice, pastas, legumes) for your empty calories is cheaper than junk food.
What Does 200 Calories Cost? The Economics of Obesity

And no, go read what I said.

Average work hours by quintile:
Shrinking Workweeks: Decline in Work Hours and Recovery from Recession
Long work hours in low SES linked to increased rates of diabetes, no correlation in high SES.
Long working hours, socioeconomic status, and the risk of incident ... - PubMed - NCBI
Actually I am very well aware how to shop for groceries, I do it each week and my cart is loaded with veggies, meat, and other things that I can cook. I look for things that are not processed. The point I was making is that the people you follow in the grocery store are picking up junk food because those empty calorie items are often times cheaper and last longer on the shelf. I am not saying that is a good thing because it isn't. People would be better off learning how to cook and understanding how they read labels in order to eat healthier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 02:55 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
45,989 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Can we get back to transit and driving?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,538,049 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Not sure what "strengthen those inner city neighborhoods" means. People are dynamic, not perpetual monuments. The rhetoric sounds like social pablum. Your child wouldn't be a child by the time you made "them great areas to raise a child" if such an objective is even feasible.
What about it is confusing you? Strengthen those inner city neighborhoods should be pretty clear to understand so I don't know what your confusion is.

I have seen neighborhoods change from bad to good in less than a decade, and all it took is enough people willing to invest in these neighborhoods to make it a place to raise their children and for future residents to raise their children. Neighborhoods are not static, they can and do change.

Quote:
... "Who is laughing" might be determined after you get a little older and actually have a kid.
I don't know who you are quoting here because I never said "who is laughing" in that post you were commenting on...so are you talking to me or someone else with this sentence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,094,154 times
Reputation: 12647
I saw above. Your link contradicts you.
1910-20: 29.57% growth in suburban population
'20-30: 50% growth
'30-40: 10% growth
'40-50: 52% growth
'50-60: 32%
'60-70: 21%
'70-80: 19%
'80-90: 3%
'90-2000: 8%

Population growth for comparison
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post WWII is not remarkable in accelerating suburban growth. It just picked off from where it was already at prior to the GD/WWII is all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,538,049 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I saw above. Your link contradicts you.
1910-20: 29.57% growth in suburban population
'20-30: 50% growth
'30-40: 10% growth
'40-50: 52% growth
'50-60: 32%
'60-70: 21%
'70-80: 19%
'80-90: 3%
'90-2000: 8%

Population growth for comparison
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post WWII is not remarkable in accelerating suburban growth. It just picked off from where it was already at prior to the GD/WWII is all.
Who are you talking to here? If it is me, then send me a PM if you wish to continue this conversation because we are starting to get off topic here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 03:23 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,876,835 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I saw above. Your link contradicts you.
1910-20: 29.57% growth in suburban population
'20-30: 50% growth
'30-40: 10% growth
'40-50: 52% growth
'50-60: 32%
'60-70: 21%
'70-80: 19%
'80-90: 3%
'90-2000: 8%

Population growth for comparison
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post WWII is not remarkable in accelerating suburban growth. It just picked off from where it was already at prior to the GD/WWII is all.
The 1910-20 & 1920-30 growth percentage looks large because suburbs were still such a small percentage of the national population.

1910 7.1% of population in suburbs
1920 9.2% of population in suburbs
1930 13.8% of population in suburbs
1940 15.3% of population in suburbs
1950 23.3% of population in suburbs
1960 30.9% of population in suburbs
1970 37.6% of population in suburbs

And this along with the population growth identified in your link.

How about ratios:

1910 2.98 times as many city-dwellers as suburb-dwellers
1920 2.69 times as many city-dwellers as suburb-dwellers
1930 2.23 times as many city-dwellers as suburb-dwellers
1940 2.12 times as many city-dwellers as suburb-dwellers
1950 1.40 times as many city-dwellers as suburb-dwellers
1960 1.04 times as many city-dwellers as suburb-dwellers
1970 0.83 times as many city-dwellers as suburb-dwellers

In other words, far more rapid change from 1940 - 1970 than from 1910 - 1940.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,094,154 times
Reputation: 12647
It's all the same data. It also shows the trend of suburbanization continued. I gave you the rates of change, but if you prefer you can go back from your data and calculate them for yourself. Eg, 7.1*X=9.2, X=1.2957, or 29.57%. I'd posit my data is just simply easier to comprehend and less likely to lead one to erroneous conclussions such as far more rapid change from 1940 - 1970 than 1910 - 1940. Fact is there is not.

1910 to 1940 averages 29.85% increase in suburban population.
1940 to 1970 averages 35% increase in suburban population.

That's not actually correct usage. 1940-1950 really should be dropped as more than half of it is not post WW2. You'd really need individual year data which does not exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 04:18 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,876,835 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It's all the same data. It also shows the trend of suburbanization continued. I gave you the rates of change, but if you prefer you can go back from your data and calculate them for yourself. Eg, 7.1*X=9.2, X=1.2957, or 29.57%. I'd posit my data is just simply easier to comprehend and less likely to lead one to erroneous conclussions such as far more rapid change from 1940 - 1970 than 1910 - 1940. Fact is there is not.

1910 to 1940 averages 29.85% increase in suburban population.
1940 to 1970 averages 35% increase in suburban population.

That's not actually correct usage. 1940-1950 really should be dropped as more than half of it is not post WW2. You'd really need individual year data which does not exist.
But you have to admit that the ratio of urban to suburban undergoes a massive shift starting in the 1940-50 range.

From the link:

"During the early part of the century, the metropolitan population grew quickly, due in part to the influx of immigrants into large cities, while the nonmetropolitan population changed very little. The smallest increase in the metropolitan population occurred during the 1930s (8.2 million people). This was also the last decade when the nonmetropolitan population increased, although it remained larger than the metropolitan population into the 1940s.

By 1950, the U.S. population had become predominantly metropolitan for the first time, and the metropolitan population exceeded the nonmetropolitan population by 18.3 million people."

Total population from 1910 to 1940 rose from 92 million to 131.7 million. In that same period, "metropolitan" population (urban + suburban) rose from 26.1 million to 63 million. Suburban population rose from 6.5 million to 20.2 million.

Total population from 1940 to 1970 rose from 131.7 million to 203.2 million. In that same period, "metropolitan" population rose from 63 milllion to 140.2 million. Suburban population rose from 20.2 million to 76.4 million.

A smaller percentage change with a much smaller population is far less growth. And the skewing of the urban/suburban ratio accelerated dramatically. If you don't want to deal with 40-50, then cut it out entirely and compare 1910-1930 and 1950-70. The ratio skewing remains dramatically more evident in the latter period.

Your way of presenting the data obscures the change in suburban population as a % of total population (and in relation to urban population).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 04:36 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,956,746 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Suburbanization did not occur in the 1890s, but the 1940s and 1950s. While the earliest "street car" suburbs appeared earlier, the mass suburb migration was after WWII. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf

"From 1910 to 1960, the population of central cities accounted for a larger proportion of the total population than the population living in suburbs. . . .
. . . .
. . . From 1940 onward, suburbs accounted for more population growht than central cities and, by 1960, the proportion of the total U.S. population living in the suburbs (31 percent) was almost equal to the proportion of the population living in the central cities (32 percent).
. . . By 2000, half of the entire U.S. population lived in the suburbs of metropolitan areas."
I appreciate your diligence but it's not necessary to throw up dozens of quotes and links when the topic isn't controversial. I don't think anyone here is debating the validity of the stats - just your analysis of them. Repeating the same numbers isn't going to fix that.

Suburbanization accelerated with improvements in technology from horse drawn trolley to steam engines and ferries to electric traction motors to mass produced cars. With each step it was easier and easier for people to commute to and from the suburbs and it was easier for more and more of them to do it.

Drawing a numerical line of suburban population then assuming that interstates were the causal factor doesn't work for a lot of reasons. For one before 1950 there wasn't a middle class large enough to populate the suburbs in the way that it is now. In part because there wasn't much of a middle class and in part because the US population exploded with the baby boom.

Quote:
The interstates allowed people to live away from job centers (which allowed for "white flight") while commuting in by car.
Again, suburbanization, even in the 1950s started long before the introduction of most urban interstates. In the Philadelphia area I-95, 295, 476, etc weren't finished until the 80s and 90s. The same is true of a lot of other major metros. The 50s was just the beginning of that but suburbanization was already well under way.

So called "white flight" was a 60 year phenomenon that began well before the black population of northern cities was numerically relevant. If you call something that takes 60 years a "flight" then I'd hate to see your definition of a stampede.

Quote:
Redlining started just before the crucial suburban period--in 1935 with the FHA--and lasted as a legal practice until 1968, when racially restrictive covenants were struck down by the US Supreme Court. There is extensive research on the impact of redlining on the development of American cities and suburbs, and on its post-1968 impact on American development patterns.
Right. And 1935 was the middle of the great depression when people were still losing homes and hardly anyone was buying one. Especially african-americans. The black poverty rate was still in the 80% range so the impact it had on black people buying houses is negligible especially considering that it only applied to certain FHA backed loans. It also had little impact on the rise of black homeownership in the 1950s - at least in northern cities - what it meant was that black families were limited (not completely) in some states to buying houses in the city but again, this wasn't the impetus for suburbanization as the pattern had already begun more than 80 years earlier before the black populations of northern cities were relevant. So, for all intents and purposes, FHA restrictions were relevant for 18 years, only impacted certain types of loans, and weren't pivotal when it comes to urban decline/suburbanization

Quote:
It is probably significant to note that the great increases in suburbanization occurred in the midst of the Great Migration, as blacks left the South for opportunities in the North and West.
the great increases in suburbanization happened after WWII when the money and infrastructure was available to facilitate it. It doesn't mean that future hadn't been already decided in the 1920s.

Quote:
Suburbs kept local property tax revenue, which was very important for schools (in addition to police funding and other local government matters). This had a big impact on the places that were left out: East of Palo Alto’s Eden: Race and The Formation of Silicon Valley | TechCrunch

In North Carolina, while school funding was not so locally controlled, schools were simply legally segregated until 1954. North Carolina continued trying to figure out how to segregate its schools after Brown. http://www.ncdcr.gov/Portals/7/Colla...rate.speed.pdf
Right - NC (and other states) have a state funding formula for schools and suburbanization happened anyway.

Quote:
In short, I think you have to look at America's residential segregation history to explain the rise of the suburb in the mid-20th century.
residential segregation is but a part of the problem of urban decline. Obsolescence and household sizes that were around 6 or 7 in some places (and then fell to below 2) were much bigger players in the move to the suburbs, in the decline of cities, and in the subsequent return to the cities.

And on New Zealand, Auckland (1.5 million) accounts for 1/3 of the country's population. But that population is for Auckland's "Urban Area," which probably compares best to our MSA (425 sq. miles to meet that population). Auckland City has only 450,000 people, or about 10% of the country's population. I think that Auckland compares pretty nicely to Denver's place in Colorado.

Quote:
Auckland is a spread out city with a small and dense center (where the 450,000 live). Other cities in New Zealand follow similar patterns. But people there commute by car at a far lower rate than Americans. It is not just Houston, Atlanta, and L.A.--it is Des Moines, Youngstown, Augusta, Austin, San Mateo, Eugene, Olympia, etc.

Take Australia if you prefer, with a much larger landmass. It has ~70% of commuters by car. Two in three Australians drive to work, study of commuting habits finds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I just spent the last two years in Australia, seeing most of the bigger cities there, and visiting Auckland. Aussies and Kiwis generally live in suburban style developments that are similar to what you'd find in the denser west coast suburbs in the US. The difference is that CBD parking (now - not so much 20 years ago) is tightly controlled, there is a regional planning regime that is much more powerful than here in the US, and not only does it keep employment concentrated but it also drives transportation planning. Transit is a lot more expensive there but it's also a lot more comprehensive - at least during the commute times. Oakland could have the same level of transit ridership if employment was as dense downtown and if the transit system was as robust as say Brisbane. That's not to say that a lot of people still don't drive but more people take transit because it's easier to.

Quote:
See above. The big shift was after WWII. Australia and Canada still have better transit access than the U.S., and a lower percentage of car commuters.

Europe actually has more land area than the United States, but it is very close (and it does have far more people). I don't buy a lack of land as the reason Europe did not develop U.S.-style suburbs. And in the 1940s and 1950s, I don't buy lack of affluence as the reason the Soviets did not develop them.
Europe didn't expand into the suburbs because most countries were broke and just didn't have the money for it and couldn't afford to start building on their farms. When the European economy started to take off in the 80s you did start to see suburban development in France, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. although it's denser than in most of the US and mostly twins, townhouses and garden style apartments.

It doesn't really matter if you buy that the Soviets didn't have the money for suburbs - that's what happened - they were never a wealthy country and they were spending almost 20% of GDP on their military. It bankrupted them.
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
Similar Threads
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