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, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Bronx
16,221 posts, read 18,687,887 times
Reputation: 8163

Advertisements

I think suburbs as a whole needs to become sustainable in order for it to compete against cities. Suburbs need to develop walkable neighborhoods and be eco friendly. Big problem for the suburbs is that it lacks plenty of professional jobs, this force plenty of suburban college educated types to move to big cities to find work. Up here in NY suburbs like Long Island are in big trouble. Some are even demanding job parks to be built because the commute to NYC is not easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2015, 10:21 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
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.
You missed it in the original article and then you missed it again when I quoted it on page 1 of this thread -

One question that keeps coming up is how other inner ring suburbs, which also had big increases in single-family home construction in the 40s and 50s, have stayed more economically stable. Cities like Evanston, Illinois, and Gross Pointe, Michigan, or Lakewood and Shaker Heights, outside Cleveland, are also close to the central city but are not seeing the falloff like Euclid and Ferguson and Maple Heights. The key words are “balance” and “quality.”

Take Lakewood, Ohio, just west of Cleveland along Lake Erie. Lakewood was pretty much built out by 1929, with three decades of steady growth, instead of all of it coming in a short period of time. In Shaker Heights, 90 percent of the city’s housing was built out over 40 years (1920-1959), with almost identical numbers in neighboring Cleveland Heights. And much of the housing in these more wealthy suburbs was built before New York’s Levittown inspired a boom in factory homes that could be cranked out quickly to meet the demand not been addressed during the Depression and WWII.


I think the explanation on Garfield Heights was sufficient -
“Here in the Cleveland area,” he continues, “you can look at Euclid and Garfield Heights and see the houses are not old enough to be completely decrepit and vacant yet, but most of them are not owner-occupied anymore — they are rentals that are getting crappier and crappier over time because they are aging and it is not economically viable to rehab them. But you can see where 20 years from now, unless these cities find a way to build new housing, half of their housing might be abandoned.

“It’s never happened like this before in this country,” he says.


And while I don't agree with white flight narrative being used in the article . . . it's not an article about white flight. It's an article about housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2015, 10:30 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
For anyone not knowing the local parlance, that's a very confusing usage. Extra explanation would have been helpful.
"Wilmington" wasn't really central to my argument so there's no reason I would take the time to differentiate that I mean "the northern suburbs of Wilmington" when it's already clear in the thread that we're discussing inner-ring suburbs.

Anyway, it's not that confusing and quite common throughout the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:01 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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Exactly. The fact that almost half of Garfield Hts. housing stock was built in that increasingly undesirable era, (small houses that don't have the character of the pre-1930s housing, or the additional space of newer houses) and there aren't other contributing factors like prime location, affluence, etc. indicates that it has a rocky road ahead.
What are the other choices, though? In an area that hasn't seen much economic or population growth, I'd be surprised if there was much new housing built. For comparison, Long Island. Nassau County:

21% pre-1940
49%: 1940-1960
6.7% post-1990

Suffolk County:

10% pre-1940
24% 1940-1960
16.6% post-1990

Both houses I grew up in were built in the late 50s, first around 1400 square feet, second maybe 2500 square feet. Both had had extensions. Most friend's houses I visited were 50s or 60s houses, never knew they were from a "bad" era until this forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,926,143 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
Seriously? Much of what was built in the mid-20th, especially for the middle class, was just plain "blah". We rented such a house. It was a box, essentially. Living room, kitchen, two bedrooms with a bathroom between them. Built on a slab with the water pipes embedded in the slab, in Illinois no less. If you turned the heat down too far, say when you were away for a trip at Christmas, the pipes might freeze and break the slab. No dining room, metal cabinets, and not many of them. By the 60s, houses started getting a little larger.
I can sort of see the point here. Mid-20th century homes still frequently had hardwood floors, although they were usually covered by carpeting. Walls were also typically plaster, which is harder to fix than drywall, but holds up better if you have issues like water intrusion.

The slab heating is terrible though. My grandmother's house in Levittown, PA had this. It ultimately began failing, but only in parts, and wasn't fixable without tearing up the house. They installed electric baseboard heat which helped, but there were weird "hot spots" in the kitchen which you could almost burn your feet on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mapmd View Post
White Flight will ALWAYS occur. It didn't stop in the 70's or 80's or whenever, it has and is continuing.
It still occurs, but it has slowed down rapidly from the peak era in the 1960s and 1970s. It used to be that a handful (or even one) black family was enough to set off a panic and change the racial composition of a neighborhood in 10-20 years. Nowadays it's true that if a formerly overwhelmingly white area gets to say 10% black it tends to be considered less desirable, and the black percentage creeps up steadily over the decades. But the process works at least two to three times slower than it did then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,657,858 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
What are the other choices, though? In an area that hasn't seen much economic or population growth, I'd be surprised if there was much new housing built. For comparison, Long Island. Nassau County:

21% pre-1940
49%: 1940-1960
6.7% post-1990

Suffolk County:

10% pre-1940
24% 1940-1960
16.6% post-1990
While there are probably few post-1990 houses in these communities, there is still plenty of new housing being built in the MSA. That's the biggest problem with sprawl, IMO.

Quote:
Both houses I grew up in were built in the late 50s, first around 1400 square
feet, second maybe 2500 square feet. Both had had extensions. Most friend's
houses I visited were 50s or 60s houses, never knew they were from a "bad" era
until this forum.
They are only "bad" in that they--generally--don't have the built-in character of older houses, or the space and modern amenities of newer houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 10:32 AM
 
3,946 posts, read 4,041,942 times
Reputation: 4413
Quote:
It still occurs, but it has slowed down rapidly from the peak era in the 1960s and 1970s.
I actually disagree with this. "White flight" has simply changed from "white people fleeing black" to "rich people fleeing poor". There are tons of enclaves around the US that are mostly high income, and the number of traditionally poor minorities in those enclaves is small and getting smaller.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:47 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
I actually disagree with this. "White flight" has simply changed from "white people fleeing black" to "rich people fleeing poor". There are tons of enclaves around the US that are mostly high income, and the number of traditionally poor minorities in those enclaves is small and getting smaller.
It's always been about rich people. The exodus of wealth from the city goes back to 17th Century Paris, 18th Century London, early 19th Century NYC and Philly and only accelerated globally with the advent of the railroad and industrialization.

The return of wealth to the city only happened after the economies of those cities shifted away from heavy industry and towards FIRE and eds/meds.

Pittsburgh is an extreme example but really, if you had the money back then to live 20 miles away from this mess I'm sure you would - and again, it wasn't necessarily this extreme, but a lot of bigger US cities were a mess in this regard
Hell with the lid taken off: The pictures of bygone Pittsburgh and its residents choking under clouds of thick smog | Daily Mail Online

I think what the article in the OP points out is that people who can afford to always look for something better when it comes to housing - be it location or in the house itself or both. If you're better off than your parents were when they were buying the Cape Cod you grew up in you're probably not going to be buying a Cape Cod in an older suburb.

There's a good thread on the topic here:
Is white flight still a problem in the present?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 02:22 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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
I think what the article in the OP points out is that people who can afford to always look for something better when it comes to housing - be it location or in the house itself or both. If you're better off than your parents were when they were buying the Cape Cod you grew up in you're probably not going to be buying a Cape Cod in an older suburb.
When my parents moved out of our Cap Cod (when I was a little kid) I was sad to move away. I said when I was an adult, one day I'd move to back and buy and live in the same Cape Cod. Yes, they moved to a house exactly the same age. In seriousness, if I lived in the same area for some reason, I'd consider to owning a similar house in that neighborhood. Even if I could afford more, unless I was doing really well. Not that interested in spending more for a larger house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 02:30 PM
 
3,946 posts, read 4,041,942 times
Reputation: 4413
Quote:
The return of wealth to the city only happened after the economies of those cities shifted away from heavy industry and towards FIRE and eds/meds.
Yeah, but that happened 150 years ago, and if that model had been carried out in full, there would be no major cities, just suburbs. So it's not a be-all end-all answer.

In the past they didn't have to be concerned about it. They could just tell keep blacks from moving into their cities by law. That changed in 1964, and now they keep the poors out via housing prices and tax.

Quote:
If you're better off than your parents were when they were buying the Cape Cod you grew up in you're probably not going to be buying a Cape Cod in an older suburb
Not so sure about that, California ranches are pretty terrible houses, but people are paying millions for them in SF suburbs and down the CA coast. I'm saying the house quality is mostly irrelevant, proximity to jobs and money is the driving factor, and that inner-ring suburbs that become enclaves for the wealthy will be fine. Some age and history is probably a plus. If the houses are ugly, the new wealthy owners will knock them down and build modern boxes.
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