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 03-31-2015, 05:47 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
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.
Garfield Heights isn't that white; it's 59%, low for the region. 24% of housing is pre-1940, 48% of the housing stock is built 1940-1960.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2015, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Columbus,Ohio
1,014 posts, read 3,119,280 times
Reputation: 483
I was raised in Upper Moreland Township which consists of Willow Grove and parts of Hatboro just 30 minutes north of Philly . The neighborhoods surrounding downtown WG are older but the middle and outer neighborhoods of that town and most of
the Hatboro neighborhoods in the UM part are post war or newer. Sadly alot of the issues from Philly are creeping into UM. Graffiti is starting to show up along York Rd and there had been a couple of police chases along that main thoroughfare.
My childhood nabe Moreland Manor in Hatboro which are mainly 3 bedroom brick and shingle Cape Cods built in around 1952/53 was one of the safest areas when I was growing up in the late 50s ,all through the 60s and the early 70s. You could leave your doors unlocked at night and even sleep out side in a tent in your backyard on a hot summer night and nobody would bother you. Police and ambulance sirens were heard extremely rarely and everyone kept their properties immaculate. Sadly MM while still pretty much a quiet safe desirable neighborhood is starting to see some inner city issues creep in. A couple weeks ago it had suffered it first murder. An older man rented a room to a young ne'er do well in his home. The two got into an argument and the younger guy who was on drugs stabbed the older man to death. My sister who lives in MM had told me the house in back of her was a rental with 15 to 20 illegals living there ( this was 2006 so I don't know if they are are still there).One of the police chases on York Rd. happened right outside of MM and the scumball eluding the cops entered into the neighborhood and careened at high speed through the streets with the cops still in full pursuit . That was a recent incident.
A house two doors from her almost burnt to the ground because of neglect and the family pet perished.The people went out and left a candle burning. Thank God there were no children to my knowledge. A house on the street where I was raised has been in foreclosure for the last several years and is sitting in deplorable blight since then. Last but not least I was surfing my old neighborhood on streetview and it showed an ambulance with its red lights on one of streets. When I was growing up the need for an ambulance was almost unheard of and police cars with sirens were not heard at all. It goes to show that decline could hit the best of post war burbs and that is a distressing trend.

Last edited by otters21; 03-31-2015 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 09:58 AM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,804,722 times
Reputation: 11136
This whole presumption about inner ring development is totally location specific. As others have chimed in, this dynamic doesn't play itself out the same everywhere.
In Raleigh, much of post war (late 40s-60s) development that typifies these first rings now sits squarely within the actual city limits and only 3-5 miles from the very center of the city. Due to proximity and lot sizes that the era typically provided in single family homes, It's mostly highly desirable with renovation, tear-town and expansion activity occurring in the neighborhoods themselves coupled with renovation/densification and urbanization of associated shopping and services areas that anchor them. These areas also hold more value per s.f. due to the lot sizes and maturity of the landscape that isn't offered in new middle income housing further from the city center and in the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Garfield Heights isn't that white; it's 59%, low for the region. 24% of housing is pre-1940, 48% of the housing stock is built 1940-1960.
Yeah, mostly white. Apparently most of Garfield Heights didn't get the memo that when blacks move in, you're supposed to move out. Maybe it's because they're poor whites, and poor people are stupid. Yup, it's a streetcar suburb that was built up over several decades.

What's Shaker Heights look like for pre-WW2 and 1940 to 1960? Probably kind of similar, no. It's also a streetcar suburb that was expanded in subsequent decades.
Similar racial mix as well. Mostly white. Less white than Garfield Heights in fact and more black in fact. It's very well-educated and generally affluent. So maybe those whites are slightly smarter than the poor whites which is why it's less white as more slightly smart people get that when a black person moves in, you have to move farther out.

And yes, I'm being facetious with the a black moved in, gotta run farther out. It's crap. Very few people today care.

And it's not like there seems to be much price difference in Garfield Heights. The newer areas generally outside the 480 don't seem to be less expensive than the Streetcar suburb parts.
Shaker Heights does, but then most of the older sections of Shaker Heights were McMansions with fewer more modest, but still pretty upscale, areas. The post WW2 stuff is more concentrated in the more modest areas. If you look south of Chagrin Blvd it's a mix of pre and post war construction with maybe a bit more post war. Prices within that subdevelopment are similar. They're much cheaper than other parts of Shaker Heights but then they're not McMansion homes either. There's no 4,000 square foot homes built on half an acre like you see around Shaker Blvd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Columbus,Ohio
1,014 posts, read 3,119,280 times
Reputation: 483
I have been living on the north side of Columbus Ohio in the North Linden neighborhood since the end of 2006 when I brought my first home. Except for a few streets near Cleveland Ave. where the housing stock is older 1910s , 20s ,30s etc most of the homes are post war built from 1945 to about 1960. My house was built in 1948. The racial demographics had been diverse since the late 1970s in my neighborhood and now currently it is about 60-65 percent white , 30-35 percent black and under 5 percent other including Hispanic. It has been that way since I moved there back in '06. Even though NL in is the city limits it had the look and the feel of a inner ring post war suburb. Yes there is some crime and inner city issues in my neighborhood but I don't see any white families putting their houses up for sale , grabbing their suitcases out of the their closets ,packing and fleeing to the exurbs just because a black family moves in next door. This is not the 1960s or 1970s anymore. Instead of fleeing both white and black homeowners put up privacy fences and have gotten dogs to deter crime and police cruise up and down the streets regularly. What I gathered is that Garfield Heights seems very similar to my neighborhood.

Last edited by otters21; 03-31-2015 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,926,143 times
Reputation: 10539
The people making points about what happens in California and other places there is high desirability sort of prove the overall point - all things considered, housing stock from the early to mid 20th century is less desirable than both new construction and a lot of housing from the "Victorian" era and earlier - in part due to smaller size, but probably due to changes in taste as well.

In areas with low housing supply and high demand, all this means is that all things considered early/mid century homes will sell for less than older or newer homes in the same area. But demand is high enough that someone will want the house - someone who might be a bit less wealthy than their neighbors, but still solidly middle class. On the other hand, in areas where there is a surplus supply of homes the least desirable will fall considerably down the income track over time. Perhaps they will go over to renting, because no one would want to commit to owning them. In extreme cases, they may sit vacant for a time.

I realized one way that first-ring suburbs may have been hurt by the return of cities which hasn't been considered - the decline of the suburban "starter home." It was the norm, even 30 years ago, for a young couple to buy a small home in the suburbs when they were single. They would work on fixing up the home, build up equity, likely see their family expand, and ultimately move to a larger home that they settled down in.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, it is true that young people today, living in cities, do tend to move to the suburbs when they have kids, or when their kids reach school age. This would mean there would still be high demand for what is considered "family size" houses in the suburbs. But as this population group may have spent 10+ years living in the city, they either skipped out on home ownership entirely, or bought their "starter home" in an urban area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 01:47 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Yeah, mostly white. Apparently most of Garfield Heights didn't get the memo that when blacks move in, you're supposed to move out. Maybe it's because they're poor whites, and poor people are stupid. Yup, it's a streetcar suburb that was built up over several decades.
Most, no. Appears to be a trend. Went from 80.8% white in 2000 to 60.2% white in 2000. Too soon to tell if the trend continuing and eventually be mostly non-white. Checking a map, the areas to the east of Broadway / State Route 14 is almost entirely black. Are whites leaving (or not moving in) because blacks are moving in? There's not enough information from a map to answer that question, so I'm not bothering to answer. Yes, the numbers I posted in the post quoted showed that it was built up over several decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 01:53 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
The people making points about what happens in California and other places there is high desirability sort of prove the overall point - all things considered, housing stock from the early to mid 20th century is less desirable than both new construction and a lot of housing from the "Victorian" era and earlier - in part due to smaller size, but probably due to changes in taste as well.

In areas with low housing supply and high demand, all this means is that all things considered early/mid century homes will sell for less than older or newer homes in the same area. But demand is high enough that someone will want the house - someone who might be a bit less wealthy than their neighbors, but still solidly middle class.
In the same area. But we're discussing different areas: inner vs outer suburbs. Location often trumps housing quality and size in impacting price. In the Long Island examples I gave, there's a price difference of old vs new within neighborhoods. But there's pattern that further out areas with somewhat newer housing stock are more valuable. For inner-ring suburbs to decline at the expense of outer suburbs, it means the location advantage is minor or nonexistent, and there's little preference for existing communities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,926,143 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
In the same area. But we're discussing different areas: inner vs outer suburbs. Location often trumps housing quality and size in impacting price. In the Long Island examples I gave, there's a price difference of old vs new within neighborhoods. But there's pattern that further out areas with somewhat newer housing stock are more valuable. For inner-ring suburbs to decline at the expense of outer suburbs, it means the location advantage is minor or nonexistent, and there's little preference for existing communities.
Come to think of it, in the Pittsburgh area you can buy new (or relatively new anyway) construction which is only a 30-45 minute commute from Downtown. This means that the first ring suburbs, which only have a 15-minute commute, can't really compete except for very price-conscious shoppers - meaning they're slowly going downscale as time passes.

I guess the broader question boils down to this: Do neighborhoods decline in desirability due to presumed deficiencies in the housing stock, or because of changes to the neighborhood demographics? I'd argue that it's more the former than the latter. An influx of new, generally poorer people can grease the skids of those seeking to get out (as happened during the peak white flight era from 1960 to 1980) but the downward path in many of these neighborhoods was already foreordained due to the character of the housing stock being perceived as not meeting modern needs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Most, no. Appears to be a trend. Went from 80.8% white in 2000 to 60.2% white in 2000. Too soon to tell if the trend continuing and eventually be mostly non-white. Checking a map, the areas to the east of Broadway / State Route 14 is almost entirely black. Are whites leaving (or not moving in) because blacks are moving in? There's not enough information from a map to answer that question, so I'm not bothering to answer. Yes, the numbers I posted in the post quoted showed that it was built up over several decades.
Agreed. We're saying the same thing.

Apparently, however, there's some clear distinction between streetcar suburbs that were built out over several decades (like Euclid and Garfield Heights and Shaker Heights?) and post-war burbs like Ferguson. Meanwhile, the article talks about getting a big bulldozer and flattening Euclid and Garfield Heights because they're just on inevitable downward spiral. I just don't see this clear distinction that drive carephilly is talking about. Seems like some of the post-war burbs are doing pretty well. I'm not real familiar with the region. North Olmsted looks like it mostly grew in the '40s to '70s, similar to Ferguson. One went one direction, the other went the other. And I certainly don't see any cause for getting a big bulldozer and taking care of Shaker Heights either. I just don't see any distinction at all between post-war (but not new) suburbs and streetcar suburbs as far as one group needs a bulldozer to wipe it out and one doesn't.

Regarding race:
Garfield Heights, OH Population - Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map, Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts - CensusViewer
Shaker Heights, OH Population - Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map, Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts - CensusViewer



Looks like it's not blacks they're running away from. Since Shaker Heights had a larger percentage of black people in 2000. Maybe it's something else?
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