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 03-28-2015, 01:25 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
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
I don't know Nassau County super well but I don't think it was without a period of decline (and probably isn't entirely past it either). Long Beach in particular seems like it fell on hard times for awhile. But much of the value there is being driven by proximity/LIRR access to the city. People can and will modify older, crappy houses because the market is there to do that. You can drop $80k on renovations and be confident that you're going to recoup your investment when you sell in 10 years. You can't do that in Cleveland on a house that you bought for $30k.
Nassau County hasn't surpassed its peak population in 1970. But that's more due to smaller household size and little space for new greenfield housing than true decline, though there were economic issues in the 70s. Hard to call a county with a median household income of $97k/year a "declined inner suburb". Sure, the high values are partially driven by proximity to the city. But for those that work locally, people have to live somewhere. As Long Beach, it's an older denser city (16,500 per square mile) that underwent some postwar decline and then came back. Being on the beach helped keep its value, and its become a bit hip for those that want an urban environment but need or want to be on Long Island. Hempstead is a similar size/density/age, but it declined harder and became so poor it's hard for it come back. And no beach. Hempstead was the pre-war downtown of Nassau, but malls and decentralization killed off it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2015, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The OP's article wasn't intended to be a statement about suburbs across the country, though it probably have some relevance to other midwestern or rust belt suburbs. Comparing outside the region does show that it's not just the age; plenty homes in other areas are fine shape and in demand. For whatever reason, staying in the same neighborhood and renonvating those homes isn't a popular demand — people are less interested in staying in the same community and for whatever reason the location doesn't have much value. Both Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights, mentioned as having decline, issues are often used as examples as nicer, older walkable suburbs with a downtown. Appears to be better than the worst examples given (Euclid) but still hasn't been enough. This part is telling:

One can easily purcahse a home for less than $75k and this is bringing in the same type of owner (slum lord) which is destroying other cities. Combine with local leadership which has driven taxes to the highest in the state at 4% of market value, and you have a major problem. Credit to the city for being much stricter than other cities for code violations but when there is no money or will to fix a property there is not much the city can do. Cleveland Heights is in an even worse predicament than Shaker Heights with crime skyrocketing too.

Some of these suburbs had rather low home values to begin with. Once a poorer class of people that move in and cause quality of life issues to the point where crime increases (and schools probably too), home values decline further, and a downward spiral begins. I'll add Long Island has a few similar examples, but the higher home values limits how much this can happen, and there's little bias towards older vs newer suburbs: location matters.
It's also just anti-landlord which is stupid. The problem is it's somewhere that people don't want to live. It's not the slum lords of the type of house. It's a real problem that neighborhoods across the country DO face. You see it in parts of Los Angeles, West Oakland certainly, San Leandro or Hayward are still partially going through it. Fremont has and is pretty much entirely past it. When an area is in decline, people look at the house and go why dump money into a depreciating asset. They yards are unkempt, the houses are neglected. Where they're rentals the landlord can't rent them for much and can't get a return on investments to update the property. Where they're owner occupied the owners don't maintain the properties or the yards.

When my aunt and uncle moved back to the Bay Area from Seattle, they were renting a house in San Leandro on the "wrong" side of 580. It was actually pretty decent neighborhood then which was ten years ago. Now, however, most of the houses have had pretty significant work done on them. Not much in the way of big expansions as there's not really any room to do that, zoning discourages it, and it's just generally not the "thing" to do out here. They've just had things like new porches, new driveways, landscaping, roofs. When they lived there mostly the houses were in decent repair but not many people were doing purely cosmetic upgrades or keeping them in tiptop condition. A few homes were still fairly dilapidated although they were even then in the minority.

Some of the neighborhoods in Elk Grove when through a phase during the downturn. Lots of homes went into foreclosure and they don't have strong HOAs which were holding the banks feet to the fire. That's one thing they've become very aggressive about. They'll slap a lien on a house nowadays faster than you can sneeze to pay to bring in the water trucks and keep the lawn mowed. It's not an issue anymore, but it was in 2008 through about 2011. Again, most of those newer homes are pretty much maintenance free. As long as you pressure wash them every couple years and keep the lawns watered enough that they don't completely die during the long, dry summers there's really not much else that needs to be done. With the drought lawns that are more brown than green are the norm anyway. But you do have to water here (or just get rid of the lawn entirely). It didn't matter that they were the new houses. It just went through a period where people didn't want to live there. It was short. Draw out that period for 50 years or more like is the case in much of the rust belt and you get what you get.

Same thing with the '50s-'70s neighborhoods in North Highlands which is a scrappy suburb of Sacramento. A lot of the houses look pretty run down. Over in South Land Park they look better. None of them are going to be featured in Better Homes and Gardens but they're reasonably well maintained and kempt. If you keep going south down into Meadowview (one of the worst parts of Sacramento) you can find brand-new housing divisions that look like complete crap. Garbage piled up on the streets from the last tenant getting evicted, weeds completely have taken over the yards. Oil stains all over the driveways and streets because everyone drives junkers that mark their territory. Inoperable cars all over the place. The houses themselves don't look rundown as they're too new to. Give it 20 years and unless something changes in that neighborhood, however. I'd rather live in the part of Meadowview that was built in the '70s. It's still a bad neighborhood and crappy. I can deal with chain link fences and bars on the windows. At least the people there give a crap about where they live. They're established neighborhoods that are just kind of junky. The newer parts are way more depressing.

Last edited by Malloric; 03-28-2015 at 02:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2015, 04:04 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjasse View Post
I read the article, and it seemed very Cleveland specific.

Although it's true that NYC and SF don't have much in common with the rest of the country, or with each other, I'd argue the same is true with places like Cleveland and Chicago. There certainly isn't another Chicago anywhere in the country. Cleveland is kind of a mix of Chicago and Pittsburgh. However, there aren't really any Clevelands in the south, or west, or even in the rest of the midwest west of Ohio.
How about Cleveland and Baltimore?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2015, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,917,166 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjasse View Post
Cleveland is kind of a mix of Chicago and Pittsburgh.
I'm not sure what you mean by this comment, so I'd like you to elaborate. I can see this culturally, but in terms of development patterns, Pittsburgh is actually more similar to Chicago, in that there's one side of the city (East and North respectively) that money never really left, which has become the focal point of the city's comeback.

Pittsburgh probably has more "declining suburbs" than many metros. However, most of these are not true suburbs at all, but independent satellite cities and boroughs which were set up in the late 19th/early 20th century for industry. Examples of troubled smaller cities in this grouping are McKeesport, Clairton, Duquense, Homestead, Braddock, and Rankin. These are just the ones with the worst blight/decline however. Virtually all of the old mill towns/streetcar suburbs outside of city limits are at least slowly declining, with the exception of around 5-6 areas. People who want to live in a walkable urban neighborhood tend to preferentially locate in the city after all.

There are really only two "classic" suburbs (e.g., mostly post WW2) which are in serious decline - Penn Hills and West Mifflin. Both of them have been affected both by being supplanted by more recent suburban growth, along with (now slower) white flight due to becoming places that many African Americans seeking to escape some of the worst portions of Pittsburgh and the Mon Valley are settling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 02:12 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,913 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Funny coming from the OP, because most of the inner ring suburbs of Philly are doing fine. Bala Cynwyd, Media, Gladwyne.. these are some of the wealthiest areas around. The NJ suburbs (not counting the city of Camden) are quite wealthy too.
no - most of the inner ring suburbs of Philly are not doing well. Not at all. The Main Line is doing well but all along the river from Claymont and Wilmington, Chichester, Darby, East Lansdowne, Bristol, Bensalem, Morrisville, etc - all of those places have seen better days and have their worst days ahead.

It's a similar story along the NJ side of the river except that in South Jersey the blight and foreclosures are creeping eastward along the White Horse and Black Horse Pikes in exactly the kinds of 50s/60s suburbs that the article talks about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 02:49 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,913 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Sure you do.
Sure I do what?

Quote:
For a million bucks you can get a newer, bigger home built in the late '90s or 2000s in Hayward or Fremont or south San Jose or Daly City or South San Francisco. It'll be much more house than the scrappy little cracker boxes on postage stamp lots you'd get in the Peninsula or most of the South Bay. Thing is, the little scrappy cracker boxes also located are where people want to live. I'm not saying they're amazing houses. They're not. Good luck finding ANYTHING in Palo Alto for anywhere near a million.
Everything is more expensive and more "in demand" here because of scarcity. But all of these places you're pointing out as cheaper than average for the Bay Area are cheaper because there's something wrong with them.

Commutes from south SJ and Fremont are not appealing to a big chunk of the market because the job centers are elsewhere. The schools in Hayward are awful. South SF has the jet noise and mediocre schools. Daly City has crappy weather and questionable schools.

Palo Alto is close to a lot of jobs, has great schools, good weather, and a varied housing stock. I don't think anyone is saying that there's one factor that goes into housing value but there are certainly a lot of commonalities when it comes to below average value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 06:28 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
no - most of the inner ring suburbs of Philly are not doing well. Not at all. The Main Line is doing well but all along the river from Claymont and Wilmington, Chichester, Darby, East Lansdowne, Bristol, Bensalem, Morrisville, etc - all of those places have seen better days and have their worst days ahead.
Wilmington isn't a suburb at all, let alone an inner-ring suburb. Nor is Chichester an inner-ring suburb of Philadelphia. Bensalem may not be Main Line but it's not exactly impoverished either. Darby isn't so hot, granted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 02:14 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,913 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Wilmington isn't a suburb at all, let alone an inner-ring suburb. Nor is Chichester an inner-ring suburb of Philadelphia. Bensalem may not be Main Line but it's not exactly impoverished either. Darby isn't so hot, granted.
I don't know if you read the article in the OP or not but there's a pretty clear distinction made between streetcar suburbs from 1880s-1920s that were built out over several decades and suburbs of the 1950s and 1960s that were built out in a matter of a few years.

It doesn't seem like you know the Delaware Valley very well.

While "Wilmington" is a specific municipality in Delaware, "Wilmington" in local parlance refers to most of northern New Castle County (everything inside the 12 mile circle that isn't Newark or New Castle) because it has a Wilmington mailing address so . . . people call it Wilmington.

Anyway, Chichester isn't one town but rather a group of towns and they're very much older suburbs. Parkside, Upland, Eddystone - that entire MacDade Blvd corridor - are not only first and second ring suburbs but they've also seen much better days. BTW, a "ring" doesn't mean "concentric circles around a central city". It's referring to an era.

The entire corridor on both sides of the river (with perhaps 4 exceptions) from Wilmington and Paulsboro up to Fieldsboro and Morrisville are the oldest and roughest suburbs in the region. The only areas outside of there that deserve honorable mention are the towns just west of Southwest Philly and the towns along the Black Horse Pike in Camden County.

Bensalem is certainly not main line but I never claimed it was impoverished - just that it's in decline and judging by how frequently it's the butt of jokes in Philly everyone knows it (and neighboring Bristol) is in decline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 05:13 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
I don't know if you read the article in the OP or not but there's a pretty clear distinction made between streetcar suburbs from 1880s-1920s that were built out over several decades and suburbs of the 1950s and 1960s that were built out in a matter of a few years.
Care to clarify the distinction it makes? It seemed to indicated that Garfield Heights, a streetcar suburb built over several decades beginning in 1920 was decaying as well. Maybe I missed something. It doesn't seem to talk about Garfield Heights much though. Probably because it doesn't fit the story its trying to fabricate about white flight (Garfield Heights is mostly white) or when the houses were built.

Last edited by Malloric; 03-31-2015 at 05:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 05:42 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
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
While "Wilmington" is a specific municipality in Delaware, "Wilmington" in local parlance refers to most of northern New Castle County (everything inside the 12 mile circle that isn't Newark or New Castle) because it has a Wilmington mailing address so . . . people call it Wilmington.
For anyone not knowing the local parlance, that's a very confusing usage. Extra explanation would have been helpful.
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