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.
Do you ever actually comment on the threads you start or do you just like to watch the fireworks?
This is yet another "suburbs are dying" article from proponents of hamster-style housing and living.
People can "cluster" by driving to a common workplace or "virtual clustering" by participating in teleconferences. They don't have to live and work in the same place nor in high density housing.
Yeah, this article is nonsense. It claims there's some crisis because suburbs between the city and the exurbs aren't growing. Well, they're not growing because they're full at current densities. The outer suburbs have room to grow, and the cities are still recovering from the population crash of the late 20th century.
America's "suburb problem" can be boiled down to three different issues.
One factor is that although central cities have improved, with the exception of generally falling crime rates, social indicators in the U.S. haven't gotten better across the board. Therefore if there are less places for poor people to live in central cities (either due to gentrification, continued decline and abandonment of some urban neighborhoods, or a combination of those two factors) poor people will suburbanize - and have suburbanized. Given the problems related to poverty - such as under-performing schools and relatively higher crime rates - are not intrinsic to urban areas, but related to low income communities, this means the suburbs where lower-income people move will "get worse."
A second related issue is a lot of the housing styles in first-ring suburbs are not particularly desirable to the modern homebuyer. Some people are of course really into high-design mid-century modern homes, but these make up a fraction of the total market of homes built from say 1945 to 1970. During this era the average home was very small (smaller even than early 20th century homes in many cases) and only had one bathroom. Due to the decline in the "starter home" concept (young adults move right from apartments into a "family sized home" these sort of neighborhoods really only maintain strong appeal in places where the real estate market is tight and there is some other reason (like the reputation of the local school district) to inflate property values.
The third issue is mostly related to municipal finances and zoning. For a long period of time, suburbs had a fiscal advantage over core cities. Because they typically didn't have a long history, they had lower legacy costs - less retirees collecting benefits and aging buildings which needed maintenance. In addition, as long as there was still new greenfields to be built out, suburbs could rely upon the increase in revenue from new development to keep tax increases down. As suburbs get built out and become older, even the toniest of them are basically facing the same fiscal realities that cities face - in order to pay for services, you need to increase taxes on homeowners. In many cases they have less fiscal flexibility, because they often lack a strong commercial base and cannot gain much money through alternate fiscal sources like hotel occupancy taxes.
The bottom line though isn't that the suburbs are in trouble, only that in some metros a fraction of suburbs are declining. On the whole, it's just that cities and suburbs are getting closer to parity in desirability.
This article is a huge collection of "How to Lie with Statistics" examples. Florida, a faculty member of the prestigious Carnegie-Mellon, knows better. That's why he published this screed in City Lab rather than in an academic publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to...ith_Statistics
2. "Between 2000 and 2013, the number of people living below the poverty line in American cities increased by 29 percent. During that same period, the ranks of the suburban poor grew by 66 percent. Seventeen million suburbanites lived below the poverty line in 2013, compared to 13.5 million urbanites."
First of all, where does Florida get these numbers? I can't find a number for the percent of people living in the suburbs vs percent in cities. The Census Bureau classifies everything as either "urban" or "rural" with suburban as a subset of urban. Now one could manually figure the percents in each city, and Florida probably has the grad students to do that. I don't, so I'll give some figures for cities I know. Pittsburgh has about 1 city dweller for every 7 suburbanites. Denver has about 1 for every 4 1/2. So with many times the population of the cities, only 3 1/2 million more suburbanites are poor than city dwellers? Big whoop.
3. "Furthermore, the violent crime rate—which has been declining across the United States—fell three times faster in America’s primary cities than it did in their suburbs between 1990 and 2008. Murders actually rose by 16.9 percent in the suburbs between 2001 and 2010, while falling by 16.7 percent in cities." Another of the same ilk as #2.
This article is a huge collection of "How to Lie with Statistics" examples. Florida, a faculty member of the prestigious Carnegie-Mellon, knows better. That's why he published this screed in City Lab rather than in an academic publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to...ith_Statistics
2. "Between 2000 and 2013, the number of people living below the poverty line in American cities increased by 29 percent. During that same period, the ranks of the suburban poor grew by 66 percent. Seventeen million suburbanites lived below the poverty line in 2013, compared to 13.5 million urbanites."
First of all, where does Florida get these numbers? I can't find a number for the percent of people living in the suburbs vs percent in cities. The Census Bureau classifies everything as either "urban" or "rural" with suburban as a subset of urban. Now one could manually figure the percents in each city, and Florida probably has the grad students to do that. I don't, so I'll give some figures for cities I know. Pittsburgh has about 1 city dweller for every 7 suburbanites. Denver has about 1 for every 4 1/2. So with many times the population of the cities, only 3 1/2 million more suburbanites are poor than city dwellers? Big whoop.
He's comparing growth in poverty not which has more poverty. I don't know what his definition for urban and suburban is, either.
Quote:
3. "Furthermore, the violent crime rate—which has been declining across the United States—fell three times faster in America’s primary cities than it did in their suburbs between 1990 and 2008. Murders actually rose by 16.9 percent in the suburbs between 2001 and 2010, while falling by 16.7 percent in cities." Another of the same ilk as #2.
Of course, there are no references.
Again, it's adapted from his book, which hopefully is referenced. "Pop sites" rarely reference, unfortunately.
He's comparing growth in poverty not which has more poverty. I don't know what his definition for urban and suburban is, either.
Again, it's adapted from his book, which hopefully is referenced. "Pop sites" rarely reference, unfortunately.
Thanks for the definition of "near poverty". Too bad Florida doesn't say how much poverty and near-poverty there is in the city.
I know he's comparing poverty growth rate, just as you do. However, the average person probably won't pick that up, and then say "66% of suburbanites are in poverty", and start a huge argument on CD or some other forum. That's part of "how to lie". Also, going back and forth between percents and raw numbers helps with the confusion.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-04-2017 at 07:16 PM..
3. "Furthermore, the violent crime rate—which has been declining across the United States—fell three times faster in America’s primary cities than it did in their suburbs between 1990 and 2008. Murders actually rose by 16.9 percent in the suburbs between 2001 and 2010, while falling by 16.7 percent in cities." Another of the same ilk as #2.
I noticed this one, too. Talking about rates of rates is really sloppy and is almost always misleading. it's a bit like when people talk about tax cuts "for the rich". This is a popular article meant to influence opinion, not a scholarly one meant to inform.
I know he's comparing poverty growth rate, just as you do. However, the average person probably won't pick that up, and then say "66% of suburbanites are in poverty", and start a huge argument on CD or some other forum. That's part of "how to lie". Also, going back and forth between percents and raw numbers helps with the confusion.
We both could figure it out, I thought it was clear. Someone who isn't reading carefully might not, but that the reader's fault not the writer's fault (was even thinking how those would react it? I certainly wouldn't if I were writing something similar). I have noticed some non-regular misinterpreting similar pieces on CD, some people don't get rates well. Try to just ignore them;.
Quote:
I noticed this one, too. Talking about rates of rates is really sloppy and is almost always misleading. it's a bit like when people talk about tax cuts "for the rich". This is a popular article meant to influence opinion, not a scholarly one meant to inform.
I don't get the misleading from either of you. A rate of rate might be the point of interest. No, I'm not saying I do or don't care for the piece.
We both could figure it out, I thought it was clear. Someone who isn't reading carefully might not, but that the reader's fault not the writer's fault (was even thinking how those would react it? I certainly wouldn't if I were writing something similar). I have noticed some non-regular misinterpreting similar pieces on CD, some people don't get rates well. Try to just ignore them;.
I don't get the misleading from either of you. A rate of rate might be the point of interest. No, I'm not saying I do or don't care for the piece.
It's meant to be misleading. Surely you've been in enough of these type of "discussions" on message boards to know that. The way he wrote it, it looks like the suburbs are imploding.
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.
