Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 04-24-2015, 03:50 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: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,194,339 times
Reputation: 15174

Advertisements

There's no point in addressing anything directly to the OP; he's not a member anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2016, 04:50 PM
 
2,621 posts, read 3,389,878 times
Reputation: 3197
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
There's no point in addressing anything directly to the OP; he's not a member anymore.

My suspicion about the OP who started this thread not being present in this thread anymore and even not being a C-D member anymore (although I could be wrong, of course . . . for I am not a soothsayer or psychic or mind-reader) is that he read my two postings addressed directly to him (i.e., posting #'s 105 and 106) and what I said in both postings talked sense into him.

That is, those two referenced postings of mine may have opened his eyes as to why the vast territory which is Long Island, NY (for instance) needs to have both the lower-end populations living there proximate-enough to the higher-end populations (such as he represents) and also needs to have more denser-developed walkable transit-accessible urban-like settings out on Long Island as well that he doesn't want to see (i.e., because the higher-end but still not too too "well-to-do" younger generations are needed to live out in Long Island as well in order to fill the higher-end job capacities that are needed to be filled and the fact is that this referenced population wants to live in more denser-developed walkable transit-accessible urban- or semi-urban-like settings and they cannot quite afford the higher costs of detached single-family home ownership and all its incurred higher costs that go along with it but rather are more leaning to rental apartments and maybe some would take on living in a condo or co-op instead of a rental apartment).


IN SUMMARY: I'm entertaining the seemingly-reasonable possibility that, if the OP who started this thread happened to read BOTH my postings (posting #'s 105 and 106), doing so may have greatly reduced (if not nearly destroyed) his case for having the "powers-that-be" implement the social engineering and decision-making that would have the effect of limiting any element of the lower-socioeconomic populations from living on Long Island (whether said population be full citizens or illegal immigrants) and then to also have the "powers-that-be" implement the social engineering and decision-making that would limit the more-higher-socioeconomic populations who are the milineals, hipsters, et al who desire to live in more denser-developed walkable transit-accessible urban-like settings by not constructing such settings and locales on Long Island to cater to that population. For if those who make up that population are to consider living on Long Island (and hence to prospectively serve as Long Island's higher-end workforce), this referenced population insists on such more denser and urbanized-like settings to reside in. (Though, admittedly, that same population may just as prospectively choose to live on Long Island but then commute into New York City for their livelihoods rather than serving as Long Island's in-place workforce.)

Last edited by UsAll; 11-18-2016 at 05:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,244,119 times
Reputation: 35920
^^To be "not a member" means you've been banned. You can never voluntarily leave CD. You can not post any more, but you'll still be a "member".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 05:13 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: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,194,339 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
^^To be "not a member" means you've been banned. You can never voluntarily leave CD. You can not post any more, but you'll still be a "member".
Moderator cut: CityData: you can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 05:23 PM
 
2,621 posts, read 3,389,878 times
Reputation: 3197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
^^To be "not a member" means you've been banned. You can never voluntarily leave CD. You can not post any more, but you'll still be a "member".

Ah, that clarifies things for me. So, based on what you said, it may be that the OP of this thread was "banned" before he could respond any further to ANYONE in the thread after his own last posting.

I'm curious what he would have posted if he did manage to respond to my own two postings which were addressed directly to him (posting #'s 105 & 106). I wonder if they would have made any impact on his thinking or promoted more understanding of the issue on his part (on the presumption on my part that the points I brought up to him were intellectually sound and meritorious in the first place . . . which others may agree or disagree with).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2016, 12:59 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,321,109 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
You have many preconceived notions about cities and unrealistic expectations for the suburbs.

Urban centers are gentrifying and becoming expensive. Why? Because no city wants the expense of housing all of the poor and paying for the enormous police presence needed to keep the order. You see it as some sort of pre-ordained order that the poor must live in the city so that the middle and upper class can live in the suburbs. The automobile that you love so much has caused so much congestion, that many people are moving back into the city to take advantage of shorter commute times and public transit.

The decline of the suburban things that you want so badly has many causes. First of all, it costs too much money to heat and cool a large mall. As a result, indoor malls are dying. Only 1 or 2 have been built in recent years in the entire U.S. Combine that with the loss of sales due to the internet, suburbs have a large problem on their hands.

Secondly, if you don't think that suburban kids from gated communities don't smoke fatties, then you need a reality check. Many graduate to much stronger things like cocaine and even heroin. Drugs are not an inner city problem.

Additionally, you should realize that suburban growth does not pay for itself. The day of reckoning has come for many of them as the infrastructure starts to fail and more miles of sewer lines, water lines, etc will be replace by fewer people because of the lack of density.

Finally, understand that people of all incomes are moving to the suburbs, because commuting from the city to take a low paying job cleaning offices or schlepping fast food is not viable. Their children WILL go to school with yours, and, yes, many will qualify for Section 8 housing.

The only thing saying that poor people must live in the city is the fact that for several decades, the middle class chose to live in the suburbs. Poor people don't have much choice in housing, the non-poor get to choose first and the poor are left with whatever crumbs are left. If the middle class wants to move into cities, the poor will just have to move.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2016, 02:48 AM
 
Location: BC Canada
987 posts, read 1,305,031 times
Reputation: 1445
The suburbs are declining and they are not at the same time. How's that for confusing? It all depends on what you call "the suburbs".

The newer further out suburbs are still growing at quite a healthy clip but the suburbs of the 60/70/80 are seeing a dramatic decline in both population and wealth. It's called demographics. People choose to live there because they wanted a suburban lifestyle and a house and lot big enough for their growing family. If they were white and in the US then wanting of getting away from black urban poor also played a role. Now, those kids have long since grown up and left so the thousands of houses in a larger suburb that had 5 or 6 people per house now may only have 1 or 2.

These 1 or 2 people represent not only much smaller a population but also a much smaller buying demographic. There are fewer people and the people are much older so they are far less interested in non-essential and gadget items. This is why so many malls of the 70/80s have closed..........far fewer shoppers and less extravagant ones. It's not like people woke up all of a sudden and decided they hated the malls. The malls were built to follow their shoppers and now that that the shoppers are gone so are the malls in these areas. The only stores that seem to survive in these 40 year old malls are grocery stores and pharmacies...........essential stores but not the discretionary ones that the teenagers kept alive for so long.

Now many younger people are shunning the suburbs altogether and heading downtown but many will head back to the suburbs when they marry and have kids due to poor urban schools and urban violence. Some may move back to the declining post-war suburbs but most will head further out to the exurbs so they can have their 5 bedroom, 4 bathroom, 4,000 sq ft, triple car garage, granite countertop, and stainless steel everything "starter" home for themselves and their only kid. Kind of funny that as family sizes have shrunk, house sizes have grown in tandem.

When these areas inevitably age and the kids move out, the big box stores of this millennium will become the newest version of the plazas of the post-war suburbs and malls of the 70/80s.........they too will die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 08:15 PM
 
12,999 posts, read 18,808,945 times
Reputation: 9236
One cannot talk about the decline of the suburbs without mentioning the abandonment of office campuses, "Edge Cities," that were all the rage 25 years back. Companies have in many cases moved back to Center City and there are no new tenants for the old space. Satellite offices, local firms, sure. But not national HQ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 09:46 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 2,152,902 times
Reputation: 1886
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
One cannot talk about the decline of the suburbs without mentioning the abandonment of office campuses, "Edge Cities," that were all the rage 25 years back. Companies have in many cases moved back to Center City and there are no new tenants for the old space. Satellite offices, local firms, sure. But not national HQ.
To play devil's advocate, suburban "edge cities" are far from dead. They're not expanding like they were in their heyday, and they're slowly losing popularity, but they're still going strong-especially in stagnant metros. Some examples that are still doing well are Maryland Heights [St. Louis], Troy [Detroit], Bloomington [Twin Cities], Sandy Springs [Atlanta], Park Meadows [Denver], and Bellevue [Seattle].

That being said, companies are increasingly locating in downtown locations. Recent examples off the top of my head are the Johnson Controls spinoff Adient moving to downtown Detroit, or McDonalds moving to downtown Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,244,119 times
Reputation: 35920
Park Meadows is a shopping mall in Lone Tree, Colorado. There is no town or even residential area named Park Meadows.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top