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 04-01-2015, 06:36 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
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.
If you want a walkable neighborhood, go to a city or a main-street style suburb. There's plenty; we don't need to change the other suburbs to that type.

As for professional jobs, that's a very recent phenomenon, and only in some areas. It's mostly due to the resurgence of cities rather than a change in the suburbs. In the 1980s and early 1990s, office parks in the suburbs were filled while city office space went for a song. Note that Silicon Valley is mostly a whole bunch of suburbs speckled with office parks, the only real city being San Jose at the south end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:09 PM
 
884 posts, read 1,263,171 times
Reputation: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
If you want a walkable neighborhood, go to a city or a main-street style suburb. There's plenty; we don't need to change the other suburbs to that type.

As for professional jobs, that's a very recent phenomenon, and only in some areas. It's mostly due to the resurgence of cities rather than a change in the suburbs. In the 1980s and early 1990s, office parks in the suburbs were filled while city office space went for a song. Note that Silicon Valley is mostly a whole bunch of suburbs speckled with office parks, the only real city being San Jose at the south end.
Also, aren't many pre-war suburbs more walkable and urban than many regions of cities proper? For example, suburbs such as South Orange or Montclair in NJ have more of a walkable design and greater density on their main streets than many areas of the city of Newark, particularly in neighborhoods like Weequahic, the West Side, and much of North Newark. Same could be said for Main Line towns vs. the Northeast in Philly, or some Long Island and Westchester County towns vs. parts of Queens and most of Staten Island in NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:40 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJhighlands87 View Post
Also, aren't many pre-war suburbs more walkable and urban than many regions of cities proper? For example, suburbs such as South Orange or Montclair in NJ have more of a walkable design and greater density on their main streets than many areas of the city of Newark, particularly in neighborhoods like Weequahic, the West Side, and much of North Newark. Same could be said for Main Line towns vs. the Northeast in Philly, or some Long Island and Westchester County towns vs. parts of Queens and most of Staten Island in NYC.
Sure. Many cities as a whole are too big to be walkable; every neighborhood in Manhattan is walkable, but Manhattan as a whole is not; it's not practical to walk to SoHo from Harlem to go to a restaurant there. Same goes for suburbs too; South Orange has a walkable downtown, but many parts of South Orange aren't really practically walkable to that downtown (partly distance and partly topography). Montclair's a little more walkable because it has multiple commercial areas, but there too you can find places which aren't walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
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.
Yes. We all agree that Shaker Heights was a streetcar suburb that was built out in subsequent decades. Thing is, so was Garfield Heights. Ferguson was not, although there's probably dozens of examples of post-war boom burbs that haven't declined. There's plenty of examples of streetcar suburbs that have declined like Garfield Heights and others that haven't like Shaker Heights. What's the clear distinction between streetcar suburbs and post-war boom burbs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
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.



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.
There's nothing terrible about ranch houses. A lot of the South Bay and Peninsula aren't high-end. They're basically just a different style of ticky-tackies you'll find in Sunset/Richmond in San Francisco or Daly City. Row houses work better there since the lot sizes are only about 3,000 square feet and often less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 06:38 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
I thought Ranches look more bland than most tract homes. Look tiny with only one floor, and a bit of a waste not to have a second floor. But some people like one-floor homes. I like Cape Cods, which aren't really any more high-end. Probably 50s:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+...98e5bff14c3086
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 07:27 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I thought Ranches look more bland than most tract homes. Look tiny with only one floor, and a bit of a waste not to have a second floor. But some people like one-floor homes.
NJ and Westchester have a lot of a style called "expanded ranch" or "raised ranch", which is basically a two-story ranch; the bottom level is typically partly below-grade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 07:30 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
NJ and Westchester have a lot of a style called "expanded ranch" or "raised ranch", which is basically a two-story ranch; the bottom level is typically partly below-grade.
Long Island has some of those. These are similar though the bottom level is competely above grade

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8367...Jx8obWJktw!2e0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 07:57 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Long Island has some of those. These are similar though the bottom level is competely above grade

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8367...Jx8obWJktw!2e0
They look pretty odd completely above-grade like that. Here's a part-below-grade NJ example. https://goo.gl/maps/YeKbv
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 09:01 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Forgot that NJ has hills unlike Long Island. Terrain looks a bit Hudson Valley-ish. This new home must have great skyline views:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7807...Ig!2e0!5m1!1e4
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