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 03-04-2015, 07:05 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,934,174 times
Reputation: 2150

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceOut001 View Post
My guess is you haven't been to Rockland County, which is about 30 or so miles outside of NYC where we no longer live. As it became more and more difficult to exist in NYC, crime started spreading to the burbs as expected. Bergen County's (NJ) crime rate began to go up (next to Rockland County) and it was right next to us. Rockland County, with its corrupt town supervisor, also allowed overpopulation with poor to little or no planning. We had to get out. That may have been a coincidental decline because of the town supervisor's rampant corruption but it became a bad place in which to live. There is high-density development (for one particular group of people) because of the lax of regulation enforcement. The towns, not in the supervisor's pocket, fought it and continue but keep losing the battle. So, I saw a very clear decline.

OP: Sorry about Patchoge (I know it's Long Island, I just can't spell it). We very well may go through the same thing where we are now. So many new sprawling apts. are built, so Asheville - particularly South Asheville - may be in the toilet ten years down the road.

One example. One county does not add up to a national "decline." In general, crime rates have been falling across the country, city and suburb alike. Of course there are some specific areas where that does not hold true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2015, 07:07 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,934,174 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampdown69 View Post
It is very important for me to find somewhere with heavy restrictions on multi family dwellings any bigger than an attached (townhome) or a 2 family with an English basement. No duplexes, no garden apartments, certainly no apartment buildings.
I thought you said you believed the market should not be the realm of the state? The government dictating what kind of housing is allowed certainly sounds like the government intruding on the market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,933,106 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Though I could also say Pittsburgh is a special case, as its metro population has declined slightly in the last few decades, leading to home value slump. Harder for old homes to keep their value. Long Island is much more similar to the Bay Area in this respect. Ancedontally, I've rarely met that type, I've seen home advertisements use newness as a selling point, but few if any prioritize a house being new by that much. As for 1950 to 1980 suburbs in decline, in general? That's been repeated on the forum many times, usually with little proof. It always read as a bit of a myth. Not going through the numbers at the moment, but for Pittsburgh, the post-1980 housing stock has to be a relatively small portion of the housing due to stagnant population.




You can see the direct relationship in the North Hills between upper-middle class ($100,000+) household income and new construction. The exceptions are mostly old money areas (Fox Chapel, some boroughs around Sewickley, and a few in thee West End) and Upper Saint Clair, which maintains desirability based upon having the highest-rated school district in Western Pennsylvania. If the maps continued past the county line, you'd see the same pattern. Cranberry in the North, and Peters in the South are full of very new construction, and wealthy by Pittsburgh standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 10:06 AM
 
Location: bend oregon
929 posts, read 844,493 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
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
That's a big step up only haveing it urbanised around the stations. You might as well be living In the county in most suburbs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 11:26 AM
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 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
You can see the direct relationship in the North Hills between upper-middle class ($100,000+) household income and new construction. The exceptions are mostly old money areas (Fox Chapel, some boroughs around Sewickley, and a few in thee West End) and Upper Saint Clair, which maintains desirability based upon having the highest-rated school district in Western Pennsylvania. If the maps continued past the county line, you'd see the same pattern. Cranberry in the North, and Peters in the South are full of very new construction, and wealthy by Pittsburgh standards.
Though, lot size may be driving the difference more than age; though I guess you could also say lot size difference reflects age. Anyway, while the newest housing (which still averages mostly pre-1980) areas are more expensive, that doesn't mean the postwar (1951-1970) areas are declining (at least from the map info); they're still better off than even older areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 12:15 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,956,284 times
Reputation: 1953
The OP is hilarious and I've been wondering how long it would take for people to start making this argument - that "suburban decline was artificially engineered" as opposed to, you know, being market driven. I honestly didn't expect this for another 5-10 years though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm disagreeing with the idea that the suburbs were built to avoid the poor and ills of the city. Sure, that's true in some cases, but in others not at all. So disagreeing with both of you in some ways, but him more than you.
There's been so much written about this and there are so many casual mentions in the historical record that saying it isn't so is . . . well, a little crazy.

Quote:
That's assuming the metro area population increases and regulation isn't so onerous as to make new construction impractical. The other part of a comment — older homes are a deprecating asset, I guess is true in the sense newer homes in the same neighborhood are usually more expensive than older ones. But it's plausible for the old home to keep its value with inflation or even increase. Add in maintenance costs in maybe not. But for it be natural that older suburbs will decrease in value? That doesn't really make sense, especially as the location isn't the same. All things being equal, a suburb in central Suffolk County will be cheaper than one in western Nassau. Of course, plenty of variation from neighborhood demographic, but housing stock age is a minor factor. This doesn't need huge employment centralization, same pattern is found in both the Bay Area and Los Angeles. A 50s ranch home in the San Francisco peninsula or Silicon Valley will likely be more expensive than a larger new home somewhere in the hills of East Bay. Perhaps the other commonality besides employment locations is the home values in both places are high enough that maintenance costs are small relative to house value.

I think this paragraph above confuses a lot of different economic issues that are certainly factors - but the cause/effect is wrong.

It's not 'natural' for older suburbs to lose value but it has been common in most US cities to have decades of virtually unlimited home building on the suburban fringe. That is what puts downward pressure on the value of older houses in older suburbs. Well paying jobs also being in the suburbs doesn't help the value of older, inner ring housing. Older houses require costly maintenance and are obsolete in many ways - from functional issues like room size and amount of closet space to more technological issues like wiring, plumbing, insulation, and how many amps the electrical panel can handle. In a region with slow job and housing growth we'd still see those houses struggle to hold their value. Job access trumps a lot.

Housing is more expensive in Nassau or Union when compared to Suffolk or Morris because the core of the region (Manhattan, JC, etc) is home to hundreds of thousands of jobs that pay well and people are willing to pay more for a shorter commute. Since most of these communities have been built out for decades, supply is limited, vacancy rates are low, which then creates further upward pressure on value.

East Bay housing - in say Fremont or Hayward - is cheaper than Menlo Park or Palo Alto because it's a much longer commute. The peninsula is full of jobs and you can see this clearly in the morning on the bridges - that traffic going to the peninsula is much heavier than traffic coming back to the East Bay. The jobs base of the East Bay is more or less in a triangle between Emeryville, downtown Oakland and downtown Berkeley but even then it's a good deal smaller than SF or the Peninsula. Where you have East Bay housing with good connections to the downtown SF jobs base (and where there aren't serious gaps in physical and social infrastructure) you find housing prices that are slightly cheaper than on the Peninsula but nowhere near the dichotomy you'd find between Palo Alto and Fremont. So, for instance, if you live near BART in Berkeley or Rockridge you're really not saving a lot of money and that's because it's a relatively short/easy/cheap commute into SF. There are other places in Oakland and San Leandro that you would think would be in a similar position but because the schools suck and people still get shot on the reg. they're not commanding those prices.

The same thing can be seen in LA. Look at a map of jobs density and look at a map of housing costs
http://reconnectingamerica.org/laequ...%20Density.pdf

There's a whole lot of overlap there.

Last edited by drive carephilly; 03-04-2015 at 12:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 12:44 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,956,284 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
You can see the direct relationship in the North Hills between upper-middle class ($100,000+) household income and new construction. The exceptions are mostly old money areas (Fox Chapel, some boroughs around Sewickley, and a few in thee West End) and Upper Saint Clair, which maintains desirability based upon having the highest-rated school district in Western Pennsylvania. If the maps continued past the county line, you'd see the same pattern. Cranberry in the North, and Peters in the South are full of very new construction, and wealthy by Pittsburgh standards.
I'd add that the stabilizing factor in those suburbs that were built in the 50s and 60s is most likely from a lack of mobility. What keeps suburban neighborhoods stable is a continuous renewal of households with similar or greater incomes. What happens in 20 years when the 21% of Ross Township that is over 65 is no longer with us? Are the kids who grew up there really that keen on staying and raising their own families there?

These places don't have anything to offer. It's not like they have attractive, historic housing that is close to the downtown jobs core, they're not near a suburban jobs cluster, and they're not new enough to offer all the mod cons that people want when they're shopping for a new house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,933,106 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
I'd add that the stabilizing factor in those suburbs that were built in the 50s and 60s is most likely from a lack of mobility. What keeps suburban neighborhoods stable is a continuous renewal of households with similar or greater incomes. What happens in 20 years when the 21% of Ross Township that is over 65 is no longer with us? Are the kids who grew up there really that keen on staying and raising their own families there?
Ross is in modest decline, but it's more the suburbs to the east and south which are declining. Being in the corridor between Downtown and the emerging edge city of Cranberry helps. Also, if you're going to drive, the North Hills offer the shortest commutes into the City. Ross and Shaler are going more downscale though, since the newer residents tend to be working-class whites from nearby portions of Pittsburgh, who were either gentrified out of "core" neighborhoods or left behind declining outer-ring city neighborhoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
These places don't have anything to offer. It's not like they have attractive, historic housing that is close to the downtown jobs core, they're not near a suburban jobs cluster, and they're not new enough to offer all the mod cons that people want when they're shopping for a new house.
Agreed. I had a coworker who lived in Baldwin (she just retired) and it's the epitome of a first-ring suburb with few redeeming qualities to newcomers. Older, small housing. Mediocre schools. They lost their bus route in service cuts, and the drive into Downtown isn't great, despite being close. Her neighborhood is stable mainly because a large proportion of people have lived there for generations now, and pass down houses in the family. It's certainly not unsafe or trending towards a ghetto like a few other suburbs in the area. But it doesn't have anything but decline ahead of it in the foreseeable future - not unless the fortunes of the region as a whole increase dramatically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 01:26 PM
 
Location: N.C. for now... Atlanta future
1,243 posts, read 1,038,034 times
Reputation: 1285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampdown69 View Post
Listen, I am from THE city (NY). It's a cool place to live if you're into that.

Some subset of the population likes cool architecture, and walking around/taking the bus, they like lights and bustle and crowds.

However, lots of people like me also like what you call "wasteful sprawl". I could live in the city if I wanted too, I held onto the apartment my parents had and its rent controlled, I choose not too. I like driving, I don't want people lingering at the corner waiting for the bus. I like getting in my car and parking at a strip mall to shop. I like gated communities with yards and newer homes that were built for size not some notion of architectural merit. I love walking around the indoor mall and then taking my recently bought items and putting them in the trunk and driving home. I don't wanna look out my window and see pedestrians besides some dude walking his dog and maybe a jogger.

Most people that I know who lived in the city feel similarly. We want space! We want low density! We want communities called something - "pointe" or "woods" or "pines" that require passing through a guard gate. We don't want our children (future or existing) to be able to hop on the bus and go somewhere without our knowledge like we did. We want our kids to only be accessible to places that we can drive them too, and know that they can't leave school during 4th period and hop on the bus to go somewhere and buy a dime and smoke a fattie. Diversity and vibrancy are priority number 999 for us types. And by diversity I'm not talking about color, I have no issues with a middle class black neighbor, I don't wanna live around poor people of any color or people who just got here and can't hold a coherent sentence in my language..absolutely not. I avoid "economic" and "linguistic" diversity. You can be purple if you want but have a similar economic status (or appear too) and speak English.

It seems the kind of people who value urban living are the kind that grew up in Dubuque, and that's fine..walk to your indie coffee shop. But the kind of people screaming "the suburbs are declining" are engineering it. When people say something enough it becomes true. The only reason the Bronx is so ghetto (yet in the best location relative to Manhattan) is because people said for years that the Bronx is a horrible dangerous place.

When urban planner types who value urbanism talk constantly about the anticipated suburban/exurban decline it discourages investment and that is what leads to decline. 10 years ago the area adjacent to me here in Long Island was quite nice and middle class, however media referred to it as if it was becoming New Jack City, thus what happened is people don't buy homes there, prices decline, someone buys up half a block and rents them section 8 or allows immigrant tenants to live 12 to a home, this causes real problems and people leave while they can and sell to section 8 land lords. That little town is patchogue New York..

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..
Thank you for this very HONEST viewpoint! The people of suburbia deserve to have their views and desires aired just as well as the urban people. We need to dig down to the bones of what people really think and feel. People just need to get out their true feelings and then we can go from there. Again, thank you for your thoughts and honesty. Gives one more to think on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 02:00 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 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post

I think this paragraph above confuses a lot of different economic issues that are certainly factors - but the cause/effect is wrong.
How is the cause and effect wrong? I didn't say anything much different from what you said, just in less words.
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