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 03-03-2015, 12:26 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
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
To a great degree you are right. I'd quibble that the suburbs were built out for a number of other reasons besides avoiding "the poors" however, including a desire for lower pollution, more outside space, and modernized housing.
I'd largely disagree. In many cases, the purpose of suburbs was new housing and various market and non-market forces favored lower density housing. In the western US, where most neighborhoods are rather new, there's often the city vs suburb regarding poverty is minor; in Canada often non-existent.

Quote:
However, to the degree that suburbs are a "product" (the individual homes certainly are) they undergo depreciation as an asset over the years, all other things being equal. More capital investment may shore them up (e.g., modernized infrastructure, homes remodeled to fit more contemporary taste, or even destruction of the original housing stock and replacement with modern infill). Or they may have assets which increase in value again over time (larger historic housing, walkable business district) or resilient characteristics (like a good school district). But in the long run, since newer suburbs will be built, older suburbs will mostly decrease in comparable value, and attract a lower class of residents.

This would be true even without gentrification of the urban core. Indeed, in the case of Long Island, I'm simply not certain how much of a role gentrification of NYC is playing. Gentrification in Brooklyn is limited to maybe 1/3rd of the borough (from around Greenpoint down to Windsor Terrace or so). Central/South Brooklyn is not really gentrifying, just filling up with immigrants. In Queens, I can't think of anywhere outside of Astoria which has seen considerable gentrification, although the Asian population is exploding there. Regardless, New York State as a whole has a white population shrinking not just in relative, but absolute numbers (and the same is likely true for the native-born black population), so it's not surprising that suburban areas in Long Island are getting more diverse.
If we're discussing Long Island, there's no depreciation of most older suburbs. And why would newer suburbs being built be a given? As for displaced poor of NYC moving into Long Island, I don't think that's true except in a few limited cases. The illegal immigrant types the OP is complaining about on Long Island mostly moved directly to Long Island not via the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2015, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,427 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
But let us look honestly at what inner city and first ring areas are gentrifying, how that is happening and who is doing it. It is a movement of the young and still unsettled, the gay, the "empty nesters" and in some cases the elders. It is not the family raising people--they remain solidly suburban and even exurban.
As Nei has noted, even in Europe, where urban public schools are good, and crime isn't particularly high, there aren't many children in the most urban neighborhoods in cities. Hell, throughout history cities have been population sinks, with negative fertility rates, where only continued migration from elsewhere kept them growing. So none of this is new.

What it comes down to in the present era, as I said in another thread recently, is this: If you're a parent, you need more room than a single person, given ultimately your children are roommates who don't pay you rent. Particularly if you have more than one child, finding a three-bedroom unit can be difficult. Add onto this the cost of feeding and clothing your child, daycare, saving for college, and you are dramatically poorer than a DINK couple at the same income level. That means you come to one of two conclusions. One, you decide to live perpetually on thin margins, despite making a good salary, to stay in the same sort of neighborhood you were in before. Two, you move somewhere less desirable. Chances are this won't mean an area transitioning from the ghetto if you have kids - it means making compromises on walkable amenities, even if you don't go full-on suburb.

I honestly do not see any way this equation could be solved, unless we rebuilt our infrastructure to the point there was way, way more walkable urban infrastructure than today - to the point that it would be affordable to middle-class families en masse as well. However, I don't hold my breath that this will happen in my lifetime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 12:45 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
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Two, you move somewhere less desirable. Chances are this won't mean an area transitioning from the ghetto if you have kids - it means making compromises on walkable amenities, even if you don't go full-on suburb.
That's only true if walkable amenities are in short supply and something that a significant minority are willing to pay extra for. If the proportion of safe, walkable neighborhood is rather high they may command little price premium. I suspect the amount of compromises a Spanish family would make is limited, there's plenty of walkable neighborhoods to choose from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,268 posts, read 12,507,549 times
Reputation: 19430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
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.
What is this obsession with mall shopping? Do people still shop in those things? Country living means shopping online. It also means holding it to 45 mph after dark so you don't hit a deer. If someone is on your tail, just pull over and let them pass. It's not like there is that much traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,427 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'd largely disagree. In many cases, the purpose of suburbs was new housing and various market and non-market forces favored lower density housing. In the western US, where most neighborhoods are rather new, there's often the city vs suburb regarding poverty is minor; in Canada often non-existent.
Are you disagreeing with me or him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
If we're discussing Long Island, there's no depreciation of most older suburbs. And why would newer suburbs being built be a given? As for displaced poor of NYC moving into Long Island, I don't think that's true except in a few limited cases. The illegal immigrant types the OP is complaining about on Long Island mostly moved directly to Long Island not via the city.
Obviously in the case of Long Island, given the geography, there was nowhere further to sprawl into. But as a metro area's population increases, there is demand for new housing units, which needs to be met somewhere. With the exception of public housing, these new units will be catered to those who can afford new construction - upper middle to upper class people. As a result there will be price shuffling elsewhere in the housing market, which depreciates the price of many of the older housing units.

One example of this can be seen in many metros - the "garden apartment" complexes of the mid-late 20th century. These apartment complexes were often built with young professionals in mind - single people who needed to commute to the city, and didn't want to settle down into a house yet. Given the "great inversion" many of these young professionals now live in newer construction in core city neighborhoods. At the same time, the perceived value of many "historic" units (albeit often with remodeled interiors) in the urban core has risen. And decades of use has caused the "garden apartment" complexes to wear with time. Thus in many metros they have become enclaves of poverty and/or immigrants within suburbia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,427 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's only true if walkable amenities are in short supply and something that a significant minority are willing to pay extra for. If the proportion of safe, walkable neighborhood is rather high they may command little price premium. I suspect the amount of compromises a Spanish family would make is limited, there's plenty of walkable neighborhoods to choose from.
You should make it clear here you're referring to a family in Spain. It took me a second to remember that.

Anyway, I agree, which is why I intimated as such in my postscript. Still, we have to deal with the infrastructure of the U.S. as it stands, and not imagine it totally rebuilt from the ground up. I cannot think of a single U.S. metro where supply comes close to meeting demand. I mean NYC is clearly the most walkable city in the U.S., with a huge overall supply of units. That doesn't result in low prices, however, because there is also the highest demand overall of anywhere in the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
15,735 posts, read 26,776,109 times
Reputation: 20373
Plenty of new constuction happening in California and Arizona and most of this is in new subburbs. My wife and I live in a home that was built in 1962. It has almost 1,700 square feet of space. I found out that if I want to add onto it the city wants $10,000 in fees before I can start adding on. Now I can update the look of the home, change the inside of the home, as long as we don't make a change to the footprint or change the interior walls around then I can do it without any fees. Well, you still have to pay a permit process but the way I see it I am not changing anything but upgrading what we have inside the house. Since I know how to build and since we don't plan on selling I don't have a problem with not paying a permit fee. LOL

I just see adding on as a waste in an older neighborhood where few are adding on. My wife and I have talked about it and she has told me that if we were ever to do it she would prefer to buy another home instead of remodeling our home. We actually have a neighborhood in mind that we would love to move to. Most of the homes were built in the last 10 years. We found homes with a lay out that we love. To make the changes needed to make our home similar would cost us that $10,000 fee and maybe another $300,000 in construction cost. In the end we would have a home that we spent over $600,000 on that sits in a neighborhood of homes that are in the $450,000 range. We figure that we could keep our home and rent it out, buy the home we want in the newer neighborhood and not have to live in a home that we are adding on to.

What I am saying is that where we live I would say that subburbs are growing and many new homes are populating these areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 01:18 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,718,331 times
Reputation: 9029
Quote:
Originally Posted by drum bro View Post
you could urbanize the suburbs with light rail, that might cost too much or people wont want it.
That will only urbanize the areas just around the light rail stations.

And a lot of times that won't even happen...

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9883.../data=!3m1!1e3

Its just a huge parking lot surrounding the station
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 03:51 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,834,426 times
Reputation: 9769
This thread was probably dragged from under a bridge, but there's a nugget of truth in the nonsense. There are regional planning agencies trying to kill the suburbs (e.g. Plan Maryland, or generally anywhere with an Urban Growth Boundary). There are the Federal requirements making it impossibly expensive to rebuild roads because they all need an extra 24 feet of right of way to handle the bike lanes and the sidewalks. And yes, there are the low-income housing requirements intended to make sure every suburb has a bad side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2015, 04:25 PM
 
312 posts, read 359,833 times
Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'd largely disagree. In many cases, the purpose of suburbs was new housing and various market and non-market forces favored lower density housing. In the western US, where most neighborhoods are rather new, there's often the city vs suburb regarding poverty is minor; in Canada often non-existent.



If we're discussing Long Island, there's no depreciation of most older suburbs. And why would newer suburbs being built be a given? As for displaced poor of NYC moving into Long Island, I don't think that's true except in a few limited cases. The illegal immigrant types the OP is complaining about on Long Island mostly moved directly to Long Island not via the city.

Long Island has always been a destination for New Yorkers, however it was working class and upper class New Yorkers.

Even the crap areas like East NY Brooklyn or South Jamaica Queens are way over priced and over taxes if you don't live in the projects. Long Island is over priced too, but less so.

Hempstead, Valley Stream and Westbury were destinations for people like Union workers, not rich but not hood, rough but not classless.

Now they are the dumping grounds for NYC ghetto rejects.

Go to those areas now, the people living there all came from NYC, but for a different reason. Not for a sfh or schools but because it was less expensive. Same with Yonkers and Mt Vernon in Westchester, they used to be people looking for a better environment than the city now they are looking for a cheaper environment. These aren't families looking for bigger homes to buy, they're families looking for a place where their voucher goes further.

15 years ago there were two "bad" areas on Long Island. Roosevelt in Nassau and Brentwood in Suffolk. Now a good 40% of the towns are bad.
Not a race thing.

I live in the Mastic/Mastic Beach/Shirley area. We have always had blacks in Mastic but they were lower middle class. They worked. The newcomers do not.
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