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 03-02-2015, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,872 posts, read 13,543,222 times
Reputation: 29032

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampdown69 View Post
... It really almost seems like there is an agenda to make suburbs go south, so that people who have to be in proximity to a city for work have no other option than living in the city unless they're a millionaire..I have even read people in this forum talking about their great idea that gas prices should be arbitrarily raised via taxes to encourage people to live by transit in "higher density" because they won't be able to afford to drive anymore...sounds pretty much like an agenda to me.

I'm trying to find a nice suburban community in a cheaper state to start my family with my fiancé, but this suburban decline bunk is making me uneasy about purchasing, what if in 10 years my mall is half dead and half my neighbors are section 8 and the schools are failing with half the kids on free lunch..
Who would be engineering this decline? Most suburbs are operated by their own mayors/town managers, not to mention planning commissioners and zoning officials. What motivation could they possibly have to drive people away from their communities? Now if you want to argue that they don't do their jobs properly and don't work to attract jobs and don't engage in active campaigns to get young people to move into their communities, I might believe that. But I think it's pretty paranoid to assume there is an agenda to destroy something. I'd say it's more sins of omissions, in some cases made by people who weren't very well qualified to make the decisions they were making.

I have two relatives who served terms on zoning/planning commissions in suburbs of Chicago. I can't believe what time-consuming hard jobs they were doing for no pay. Luckily for their towns, they were well-educated people who weren't on the take. So they voted for sound proposals. In one case, the town was developing a huge swath of property that was abandoned by the military and turned over to local government for development. What did they create? Another suburb! So they certainly weren't trying to drive people away from that lifestyle.

Keep this in mind: The vast majority of American suburbs mushroomed over the land following World War II. ~60 years ago. Your Long Island is a perfect example of that. (Levittown anyone?) People built/bought homes there, and stayed, raising families. They wore those houses out. Is it any wonder that those suburbs, big as some of them are, have gone downhill and are less desirable than other alternatives for their children and grandchildren who perhaps can't really even get good jobs there? Not to mention, what people desire in a home has changed. Cape Cods with tiny closets and closed off rooms aren't it, even if they are on what would today seem like big building lots.

That "greatest generation" has, by and large, now died out. The question is, did they imagine that people would always want the lifestyle they wanted, did they grow their community and keep up with the times in terms of attracting employers or providing efficient transportation to the areas where jobs are? If not, of course these areas are going to die out. The well-used home, put up by builders not exactly using Victorian building techniques, are only attractive to people of low income brackets, although in some cases they still aren't inexpensive if they have proximity to a major city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2015, 01:14 PM
 
312 posts, read 359,382 times
Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post

Their children WILL go to school with yours, and, yes, many will qualify for Section 8 housing.
Why is that considered a good thing? Why is that a goal that excites you?

You do realize that poor kids' proximity to middle class kids does not increase their achievement by any reasonable measure. No one benefits but kids whose parents actually have jobs and are middle class will suffer because their classmates will be...ghetto trash (of all colors), or people who need ESL services that take money away from American children by requiring to be taught in their native language.

At a point you are gonna see middle class white people with children simply abandon urban areas, move to farm country and find a new way to make money. As the ghetto expands people are just gonna keep moving away because they will essentially keep being chased down. Freedom of association. Call it classist but the wellbeing or education of poor students is not the problem of the middle class, it's not their fault that poverty exists.

It's much more expensive to police large swathes of suburban tract ghettoes, then it is to police a neighborhood in the Bronx or South Chicago. It is harder to administer those social services you probably love so much when everyone is spread out. The resources are already in the city. Spreading around crap doesn't make it smell better, it just makes a larger area smell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 05:53 PM
 
Location: bend oregon
929 posts, read 843,383 times
Reputation: 351
most people in cities live in small houses in the suburbs in the us. weird thread
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,223 posts, read 12,491,644 times
Reputation: 19369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampdown69 View Post
Why is that considered a good thing? Why is that a goal that excites you?

You do realize that poor kids' proximity to middle class kids does not increase their achievement by any reasonable measure. No one benefits but kids whose parents actually have jobs and are middle class will suffer because their classmates will be...ghetto trash (of all colors), or people who need ESL services that take money away from American children by requiring to be taught in their native language.

At a point you are gonna see middle class white people with children simply abandon urban areas, move to farm country and find a new way to make money. As the ghetto expands people are just gonna keep moving away because they will essentially keep being chased down. Freedom of association. Call it classist but the wellbeing or education of poor students is not the problem of the middle class, it's not their fault that poverty exists.

It's much more expensive to police large swathes of suburban tract ghettoes, then it is to police a neighborhood in the Bronx or South Chicago. It is harder to administer those social services you probably love so much when everyone is spread out. The resources are already in the city. Spreading around crap doesn't make it smell better, it just makes a larger area smell.
What we are seeing here is social workers sending poor people to the suburbs because housing there is cheaper and the section 8 money goes farther. Unfortunately, there are no jobs in suburbs and no grocery stores in housing developments, so the neighborhoods rapidly crumble. While cities are gentrifying and forcing poor people out, the suburbs are turning into the classic weed choked yards and Chevvy on blocks in front of the garage with garbage everywhere. As you note, police presence in spread out areas is expensive, so they don't get patrolled much.

It is very realistic for the OP To be concerned about a suburban neighborhood turning into a ghetto and eating his investment. He would be well advised to stick to areas with over 90% owner occupancy and keep his fingers crossed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 07:13 PM
 
478 posts, read 648,529 times
Reputation: 492
The suburbs are hardly undergoing an "engineered decline." If anything they are on the whole being propped up by the tax and job bases of the cities that they surround. Many, many subsidies and zoning/planning ordinances have been put in place and continue to exist encouraging suburban living and development.

What you find happening are two main things: 1) young people and professionals, on the whole, are moving back into cities. This drives up inner city rent and leads to gentrification. 2) Those pushed out economically need to find areas still commutable to their jobs, so they find affordable, commutable inner ring suburbs wherever they can when not able to afford city rent anymore. Both of these are pretty natural consequences of current economic and demographic trends and are in no sense being engineered.

I think that some other posters also have a point when they mention that many post WW2 suburban houses were not necessarily built exceptionally well, and this trend continues today for some suburban houses, particularly affordable ones. Thus, the physical quality of these neighborhoods has declined relative to cities, which have seen a revitalization, making them less desirable to potential residents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,654,530 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampdown69 View Post
Why is that considered a good thing? Why is that a goal that excites you?

You do realize that poor kids' proximity to middle class kids does not increase their achievement by any reasonable measure. No one benefits but kids whose parents actually have jobs and are middle class will suffer because their classmates will be...ghetto trash (of all colors), or people who need ESL services that take money away from American children by requiring to be taught in their native language.

At a point you are gonna see middle class white people with children simply abandon urban areas, move to farm country and find a new way to make money. As the ghetto expands people are just gonna keep moving away because they will essentially keep being chased down. Freedom of association. Call it classist but the wellbeing or education of poor students is not the problem of the middle class, it's not their fault that poverty exists.

It's much more expensive to police large swathes of suburban tract ghettoes, then it is to police a neighborhood in the Bronx or South Chicago. It is harder to administer those social services you probably love so much when everyone is spread out. The resources are already in the city. Spreading around crap doesn't make it smell better, it just makes a larger area smell.
Coincidentally, in today's local paper:
Quote:
“The bottom line is that districts participating in open enrollment are not being academically impacted by students from outside districts, even when students migrate from the poorest-performing schools,”
- See more at: Youngstown News, Open enrollment school districts not harmed by policy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 07:45 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,901,398 times
Reputation: 18049
What I love living away from city is being close to unspoiled land .I hate concrete/ buildings. I can walk about three blocks and be in unspoiled areas with natural wildlife.But like you say OP to each his/her own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 07:49 PM
 
312 posts, read 359,382 times
Reputation: 384
It is a nation wide trend that close in suburbs that were mostly blue collar white people have now gone to hell. I am thinking of a town that was mostly white (over 85%) with a large proportion of people who were Union member workers, people who owned small businesses in Queens/Brooklyn like pizzerias or bodegas, NYPD/FDNY/MTA (bus driver) employees. It was a nice place to live.

Fast forward to now, it's probably less than half white when looking at all statistics (lots of illegals who don't do the census) and most people are either grunt laborers or people who work one day per month and that day goes something like this: Awake early and stand by the door waiting to come out once the mail man arrives, he has a check to drop off and if je is left unattended for 15 seconds it will get stolen just like tires or children , then starts the arduous task going to one of numerous new check cashing establishments (which are popping up quite frequently to complelement places such as "Pawn Maxx", "Big Tony's Liquor", "Exotik Phantasies Adult Superstore") and wait in a line and then present a severe looking woman with a mans haircut your license and wait several minutes while she confirms that no one is scamming them, after which they hand back money...after all that it's time for a lunch break so one can stop at one of the filthy and unlicensed food carts that serve Classic all American dishes like Pollo con E. coli y los Hanta Virus, it's a delicacy! After lunch the second day half of the day begins with a short phone call on a prepaid cell phone, the conversation goes like this: "Yo, is this Big Q. Yeah bro, 'it's (insert name heste), 'member me? Cool cool so you holdin? Can I swing by? I want an oz of yo best Dro and 2 g's of yayo, aight sweet I'll be there in 20".

Now that same town that I just talked about is getting a freaking casino plopped there by the state...


Wanna know why the town changed? It's because pretentious urbanistas move into ghetto black or Spanish areas that have "historic" (no, the white house is historic..your brownstone is just old) homes and make it a bastion of things like "feminist, eco conscious woodworking collectives who illustrate the plight of one legged women in the Punjab" or "$9 bacon wrapped sugar cookies in the shape of famous central American socialists" etc. oh and Kate Spade, Marc Jacobs and lots of urban outfitters and Starbucks. The kind of people who are into this thing usually grew up in the middle of the country and are supported via generous remittances from their dads, and landlords knowing that unlike the locals these people will pay $3900 for 220 square feet and cockroaches. The resident government dependent lumpenproletariat is squeezed out and their wrath and blight is unleashed on older blue collar burbs. This is unfair to the suburbanites who paid a premium not to see poverty whereas people who live in the city know that this is where LFBs (lowest forms of being) live. They are in one area in the city killing themselves...perhaps a man with herpes will cure himself by exposing the affected ares to as many uninfected parts of others as possible but more likely he just start a herpes epidemic. We don't want them near us, infecting the communities that have maintained their safety without losing the blue collar..it seems nowadays having homes that are affordable is a liability. The only protection is zoning ordinances to ban multifamily homes, sales tax on rent and plain ol high cost of entry. And don't you dare call me a racist for all this. If you move to my area and you're black and are economically self sufficient and act like a good community member you will be fine..but those people already moved to the burbs years ago and aren't part of the wave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 07:58 PM
 
312 posts, read 359,382 times
Reputation: 384
However, at least in Long Island and north jersey urbanists will be happy to hear that downtowns are vibrant as ever in the burbs. For years the next town was just some hair and nail salons, pizza and Chinese food, and a cvs.

Now it has pawn, liquor, check cashing and 24 hour activity. You've got a rich cultural experience for the whole family when a drunken immigrant curses at you and then exposes himself and 24 hour activity complete with some entrepreneurial chaps selling heroin and who can forget obese and likely underage street walkers!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Proxima Centauri
4,802 posts, read 1,980,636 times
Reputation: 5238
You want to know what country living is like?
It's riding your bicycle on a country road and having a close call with someone in a pickup truck who is still drunk from the night before.
It's driving at five miles over the speed limit and having someone still on your tail at 50 MPH.
It's getting a deer to kiss the bumper of your car.
It's living three miles from a trailer park that you didn't know about when you bought.
It's living forty miles from a mall that is not going out of business.
It's going to the doctor every other month because you got bit by a deer tic again.

Then there's the peace and quiet of having five acres all to yourself and your family.
It's like everything else. Everything in moderation.
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