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.
True, but even in a city like Paris, French whites are trying to avoid the banielues (sp?) and when they can't be in the central city, are going suburban, or is that exurban? Yes, the Euroslums are located on the periphery rather than the core of their cities, but the desire to escape the bad areas exists nonetheless.
My point was the OP's claims about a real "urban experience" being about blight and poverty are simply untrue. The experience of the U.S. between roughly 1960 and 2000 regarding urban areas was an aberration, both globally and in terms of U.S. history. The U.S. seems to be converging more on the historic/international norm now, where both cities and suburbs have a mixture of well-kept wealthy areas and blighted, poor ones.
With the exception of San Francisco, and perhaps eventually DC, I simply don't think that poor people will ever be totally expunged from the urban cores in the U.S. Even in an expensive city like NYC, the land area is simply too vast, and there are tons of public housing projects still standing even in desirable areas like Chelsea. And there's plenty of first-ring suburbs which are actively gentrifying nationwide, such as Hoboken, Cambridge, and even parts of Oakland, provided they have decent transit access and a modicum of walkable amenities.
Currently, IIRC, a bare majority of poor people live in suburban areas. But the poverty rate in urban areas still remains a bit over twice that of suburban areas overall. We have a long way to go before we reach urban/suburban parity, if ever.
THIS. And if / when these young hipsters have children, it will be back to the burbs for them. Nothing wrong with these "New Urbanist" enclaves--in fact they are quite fun--but they simply are not suited for child raising.
False. To keep using the example of Brooklyn, there are thousands of children being raised in gentrified hip neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Google search Park Slope and its "stroller mafia." These are affluent people who could easily afford the suburbs, but don't want to live there. Maybe many of them will eventually move back to the suburbs, but not all.
Just because you or even the majority of people would prefer raising their kids outside of an urban area does not mean that they are objectively "not suited for child raising." I know many people raising kids where I live in Washington, DC, and they have no plans on decamping to the suburbs.
My point was the OP's claims about a real "urban experience" being about blight and poverty are simply untrue. The experience of the U.S. between roughly 1960 and 2000 regarding urban areas was an aberration, both globally and in terms of U.S. history. The U.S. seems to be converging more on the historic/international norm now, where both cities and suburbs have a mixture of well-kept wealthy areas and blighted, poor ones.
For the United States, they sadly *are* true. Five decades is a long aberration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
With the exception of San Francisco, and perhaps eventually DC, I simply don't think that poor people will ever be totally expunged from the urban cores in the U.S. Even in an expensive city like NYC, the land area is simply too vast, and there are tons of public housing projects still standing even in desirable areas like Chelsea. And there's plenty of first-ring suburbs which are actively gentrifying nationwide, such as Hoboken, Cambridge, and even parts of Oakland, provided they have decent transit access and a modicum of walkable amenities.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Currently, IIRC, a bare majority of poor people live in suburban areas. But the poverty rate in urban areas still remains a bit over twice that of suburban areas overall. We have a long way to go before we reach urban/suburban parity, if ever.
To some extent,we have to define poverty. Low income alone is not necessarily that, if the low income earners are still upwardly mobile or have a large family support network. For the hopelessly depressed innner cities (e.g., Detroit) we have neither.
False. To keep using the example of Brooklyn, there are thousands of children being raised in gentrified hip neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Google search Park Slope and its "stroller mafia." These are affluent people who could easily afford the suburbs, but don't want to live there. Maybe many of them will eventually move back to the suburbs, but not all.
Just because you or even the majority of people would prefer raising their kids outside of an urban area does not mean that they are objectively "not suited for child raising." I know many people raising kids where I live in Washington, DC, and they have no plans on decamping to the suburbs.
There may be exceptions to the rule, and good for them. Where I live--California--that is simply not the case. Nor is it the case for many American cities:
The article does note the Brooklyn exception to the rule, but notes that most American cities "are evolving into playgrounds for the rich, traps for the poor, and way stations for the ambitious young en route eventually to less congested places. The middle-class family has been pushed to the margins, breaking dramatically with urban history."
There may be exceptions to the rule, and good for them. Where I live--California--that is simply not the case.
It's the exceptions that disprove your blanket statement that cities "aren't suited" to raising kids.
No urban area in California is suitable for raising kids? San Francisco and Los Angeles have affluent families raising kids in the city proper even though they could have fled to the suburbs.. They send their kids to private school. Obviously the vast majority of people can't afford to do that, but for those who can afford it, why is that an "unsuitable" lifestyle?
There may be exceptions to the rule, and good for them. Where I live--California--that is simply not the case. Nor is it the case for many American cities:
The article does note the Brooklyn exception to the rule.
Your very link you provide disproves the theory that cities aren't suitable for children.
" For example, in a recent survey for the Manhattan Institute by Zogby Analytics, 58 percent of people with children under 17 said that they would consider leaving New York City for better opportunities elsewhere"
That means 42% of people in NYC with children said they wouldn't leave the city. In a city as large as NYC, that's millions of people. Yes, they are a minority, but so what? The lifestyle that is "suitable" for a family is an individual choice. You don't decide what is right for your family based on the will of the (in this case quite slim) majority.
It's the exceptions that disprove your blanket statement that cities "aren't suited" to raising kids.
No urban area in California is suitable for raising kids? San Francisco and Los Angeles have affluent families raising kids in the city proper even though they could have fled to the suburbs.. They send their kids to private school. Obviously the vast majority of people can't afford to do that, but for those who can afford it, why is that an "unsuitable" lifestyle?
Census after census, decade after decade, the numbers of people under 18 have declined in those cities and schools have closed, even when population of the city rose.
And you are making the articles point. Some cities may indeed become fun--if you can afford them. Most cannot.
Your very link you provide disproves the theory that cities aren't suitable for children.
" For example, in a recent survey for the Manhattan Institute by Zogby Analytics, 58 percent of people with children under 17 said that they would consider leaving New York City for better opportunities elsewhere"
That means 42% of people in NYC with children said they wouldn't leave the city. In a city as large as NYC, that's millions of people. Yes, they are a minority, but so what? The lifestyle that is "suitable" for a family is an individual choice. You don't decide what is right for your family based on the will of the (in this case quite slim) majority.
Census after census, decade after decade, the numbers of people under 18 have declined in those cities and schools have closed, even when population of the city rose.
And you are making the articles point. Some cities may indeed become fun--if you can afford them. Most cannot.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Yes the population of children in those cities has declined. Yes, many cannot afford a good lifestyle there. But it does not follow from those premises that therefore those areas are "not suited" for raising kids, because there is still the minority of people who CAN afford a good lifestyle there for their kids.
Not suited for many people? Yes. Not suited objectively? No.
If 58% of people don't want to eat at a certain restaurant, but 42% like eating there, does that mean that restaurant is "not suitable" for dining?
The majority does not determine quality because it is an individual decision. What might be a bad restaurant for you is a great meal for me. Same with where to raise our kids.
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.
