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.
I think darkeconomist is using "city" to mean place, as most non-rural suburbs are incorporated as "cities" in California. Similar to Louisville being a city. Darkeconomist lives in a "big city"; San Jose that hasn't been particularly good at appealing to young people looking for "urban living" though obviously many young people do move there.
I generally use "urban" / "suburban" to be refer to something close to density. For "city" I'm probably not completely consistent; generally the principal city of the metro but metros can have multiple cities. Out here, city is limited to a few larger/older/denser places, most suburbs aren't incorporated as cities [in Massachusetts, the distinction has to do with type of government rather than local independence]. Yep, darkeconomist asked if my parent's property tax bill was at the city level even though I said they live in a low-density suburb:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Fair response. Does it break it down to the various levels of government--city, county, state, federal? Also, does it break out how much is debt service?
But that is the age when city living is most attractive to adults. Once they marry/have families (one or the other or both), they tend to move to the burbs.
There are some cities that don't attract many people in their 20's. Those are the ones darkeconomist is probably talking about that will lose out. And on the flip side, a city that doesn't attract older people will also lose out. It's true for any demographic.
I generally use "urban" / "suburban" to be refer to something close to density. For "city" I'm probably not completely consistent; generally the principal city of the metro but metros can have multiple cities. Out here, city is limited to a few larger/older/denser places, most suburbs aren't incorporated as cities [in Massachusetts, the distinction has to do with type of government rather than local independence]. Yep, darkeconomist asked if my parent's property tax bill was at the city level even though I said they live in a low-density suburb:
The OP appeared to be using the classic definition of "suburbs", e.g. residential areas outside the cities, in his first post.
There are some cities that don't attract many people in their 20's. Those are the ones darkeconomist is probably talking about that will lose out. And on the flip side, a city that doesn't attract older people will also lose out. It's true for any demographic.
Since I'm not using "city" to differentiate between urban and sub-urban in this thread--I should have clarified that at the outset and I apologize for that confusion--you're correct in understanding my meaning. A city that is missing a demographic receives none of the benefits of that demographic; one that is heavily weighted with a demographic carries a disproportionate amount of the burden of that demographic. Optimally, a city--in fairness, probably a large one, though not necessarily so--caters to most or all of the lifecycle, thus shielding itself from excessive risk.
By way of example, let's say a city is heavily weighted with an older demographic, and then that demographic ages in to retirement in that city. Well, now the city has to cater to that demographic, for better or worse. That could be a boon of retirement and medical services, or the burden of those same medical services, as well as changing transportation needs. And that city, so long as it hasn't exploded in density by some means, now has fewer young-er workers. This could reduce costs--fewer schools--or increase them--paratransit, increased busing for students now more dispersed. This could reduce income--retirees largely depended on SSDI income, fewer younger taxpayers--or increase income--wealthy retirees winding down their nest eggs. Regardless, risk to the city increases.
Since I'm not using "city" to differentiate between urban and sub-urban in this thread--I should have clarified that at the outset and I apologize for that confusion--you're correct in understanding my meaning. A city that is missing a demographic receives none of the benefits of that demographic; one that is heavily weighted with a demographic carries a disproportionate amount of the burden of that demographic. Optimally, a city--in fairness, probably a large one, though not necessarily so--caters to most or all of the lifecycle, thus shielding itself from excessive risk.
Well perhaps that is yet another issue about HOAs. Look at the Del Webb developments. They are located outside city limits so the city doesn't really have any responsibility for residents. The residents tend to get property tax advantages because of their age and the prohibition against children in the subdivision. There are no schools that need to be funded. The HOA is a private corporation, not a governmental entity. The HOA doesn't have any obligation to residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
By way of example, let's say a city is heavily weighted with an older demographic, and then that demographic ages in to retirement in that city. Well, now the city has to cater to that demographic, for better or worse.
Where is the belief that the city has an obligation to "cater" at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
That could be a boon of retirement and medical services, or the burden of those same medical services, as well as changing transportation needs. And that city, so long as it hasn't exploded in density by some means, now has fewer young-er workers. This could reduce costs--fewer schools--or increase them--paratransit, increased busing for students now more dispersed. This could reduce income--retirees largely depended on SSDI income, fewer younger taxpayers--or increase income--wealthy retirees winding down their nest eggs. Regardless, risk to the city increases.
What obligation does a city have to provide these services?
Since I'm not using "city" to differentiate between urban and sub-urban in this thread--I should have clarified that at the outset and I apologize for that confusion--you're correct in understanding my meaning. A city that is missing a demographic receives none of the benefits of that demographic; one that is heavily weighted with a demographic carries a disproportionate amount of the burden of that demographic. Optimally, a city--in fairness, probably a large one, though not necessarily so--caters to most or all of the lifecycle, thus shielding itself from excessive risk.
By way of example, let's say a city is heavily weighted with an older demographic, and then that demographic ages in to retirement in that city. Well, now the city has to cater to that demographic, for better or worse. That could be a boon of retirement and medical services, or the burden of those same medical services, as well as changing transportation needs. And that city, so long as it hasn't exploded in density by some means, now has fewer young-er workers. This could reduce costs--fewer schools--or increase them--paratransit, increased busing for students now more dispersed. This could reduce income--retirees largely depended on SSDI income, fewer younger taxpayers--or increase income--wealthy retirees winding down their nest eggs. Regardless, risk to the city increases.
When oh when are we ever going to have a consistent definition for "city", let alone suburb? The OP has nothing to do with this stuff.
Quote Details: Lewis Carroll: "When I use a... - The Quotations Page " "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." "
When oh when are we ever going to have a consistent definition for "city", let alone suburb? The OP has nothing to do with this stuff.
Obviously never. Words do have multiple definitions. I suppose "municipality" would have been clear than "city", though I don't think it was that unclear. Darkeconomist was replying to something chirack wrote rather than the OP directly.
Quote:
The OP appeared to be using the classic definition of "suburbs", e.g. residential areas outside the cities, in his first post.
I'm not sure, a lot seemed to be more connected to density and/or newness [seemed to refer to areas of newer detached home tract housing]. But the OP is mostly a list of cliches, so it's hard to distinguish.
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.
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.
