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 would not accuse Bluefly of trolling. I would suggest that he doesn't understand that a thread about 20-somethings moving to DC in large numbers can logically lead to a debate as to whether - as he suggests - those 20-somethings have fundamentally different "values" from their predecessors or - as BajanYankee and I believe - do not and that there's little persuasive evidence to support a contrary assertion.
I recognize that he dislikes our argument because it's perhaps a bit of a downer. What unabashed DC supporter wants to be told that, at the end of the day, a generation isn't the first to have the scales fall from their eyes; that a city's evolution has lots of ups and downs; and/or that others might find NY or other cities to be more livable and interesting urban environments than a city that increasingly is the preserve of a certain type of young professional and empty-nesters? I think that was at the heart of Coldbliss's original post, and that it's actually the fact that Bluefly might not have the last word on the subject that vexes him so.
No matter how fast or slowly the suburbs have grown during any other period of the past 60 years, seeing the city rise in population and investment with the suburbs is unprecedented during that time. Attribute whatever explanation you need to that fact to make it seem like business-as-usual.
No matter how fast or slowly the suburbs have grown during any other period of the past 60 years, seeing the city rise in population and investment with the suburbs is unprecedented during that time. Attribute whatever explanation you need to that fact to make it seem like business-as-usual.
One can certainly have an uptick in the city's population without ascribing it prematurely to a fundmental change in "values." The contrary argument has been made many times and repeatedly shown upon closer examination to be hyperbole.
One can certainly have an uptick in the city's population without ascribing it prematurely to a fundmental change in "values." The contrary argument has been made many times and repeatedly shown upon closer examination to be hyperbole.
Nah. When people left cities that was a shift in values too. Last word!
Even urbanophiles conclude that, when "celebratory urban legends" are replaced with "careful analysis," there has been no recent, broad-based shift in values in favor of central cities, nor is it likely that there will be any time soon.
Even urbanophiles conclude that, when "celebratory urban legends" are replaced with "careful analysis," there has been no recent, broad-based shift in values in favor of central cities, nor is it likely that there will be any time soon.
Good Lord. I'm not sure you realize how flimsy these arguments are. I'd love to let all this go, but it's impossible to just let them stand and leave the assumption that you might, somehow, convince yourself they're valid. So, let's gather once more for school. Class is back in session:
1. You really need to focus on the 20-34, educated / professional demographic. I've asked multiple times, yet every assertion you make is based on an overall population assessment, which is irrelevant to this topic and, frankly, the only ground you've found to stand on.
2. Your own article proves me correct:
Quote:
Although the percentage of people living in cities is certain to grow, much of this growth will be in smaller cities, suburbs and towns.
I never claimed everybody was moving back into cities. Quite the opposite, actually. I accurately claimed many areas are retrofitting or developing like cities. Your article also defines Singapore as a "smaller city", so let's make sure we have adequate perspective of what is a "big city" in this author's mind (though, for all the talk of analysis, I saw none presented).
3. Your article also proves my point by reiterating what I've said all along here - that cities emptied out and suburbanized between 1960 and 2000:
Quote:
Between 1960 and 2000, the share of the largest cities declined from nearly 30 percent to closer to 25 percent. Since the nineteenth century, notes Angel, urban population densities have declined, as people have sought out less dense, more appealing, and usually less costly locations on the periphery.
Let me, once again, remind you that we are discussing the shift in census between 2000-2010 (conveniently left out of your article because recent trends refute everything you article asserts).
4. Your article focuses on China and India, developing countries with a whole different set of issues around basic water and sanitation in which density does, in fact, breed disease like it did in the West a century ago. Perhaps the new book "Triumph of the City" would be of interest to you.
5. In reference to an earlier bastardization of my stance, you tried to differentiate DC from NYC, again trying to hone in on DC's uniqueness and use that as justification for why people would not want to live here. DC, NYC and so many other cities big, suburban, and small are experiencing the same urban rebirth, regardless of local culture and issues. This is not about DC and I'm certainly not advocating that it's an altogether positive experience for all involved, least of which those of us having to pay ever increasing rents and mortgages.
I'm glad you enjoy suburban life and that it works for you, but PLEASE - I beg of you to have mercy on me and stop. You don't need the last word. I know your position, so please just let it go. Let there be a truce.
OK - Truce. I drove through the Columbia Heights/Logan Circle area this morning. It reminded me a bit of a somewhat rougher version of Columbus Avenue in NY the early 80s (a good time for Wall Street investment bankers in their 20s). Lots of yuppies, new condos, many dogs, a few strollers(!), and virtually no children with parents older than three, except for one Black child and one Hispanic child I saw near the Columbia Heights metro station, and 14th Street, respectively.
If you know what this area was like in the 90s, you can't help but be struck by the obvious redevelopment and influx of money. It is reasonably clear that, at least in a situation where crime rates have declined to somewhat tolerable levels, transit-oriented development in central-city locations can prove quite appealing to a younger demographic.
Time will tell how strong an allegiance these people have either to urban living or DC specifically. It felt very transient to me, with few visible institutions and many retail establishments of the type that literally come and go with a city's economic fortunes. For those who wish to make the case that there has been a major change of values among newer DC residents, I continue to believe the hard work lies ahead.
OK - Truce. I drove through the Columbia Heights/Logan Circle area this morning. It reminded me a bit of a somewhat rougher version of Columbus Avenue in NY the early 80s (a good time for Wall Street investment bankers in their 20s). Lots of yuppies, new condos, many dogs, a few strollers(!), and virtually no children with parents older than three, except for one Black child and one Hispanic child I saw near the Columbia Heights metro station, and 14th Street, respectively.
If you know what this area was like in the 90s, you can't help but be struck by the obvious redevelopment and influx of money. It is reasonably clear that, at least in a situation where crime rates have declined to somewhat tolerable levels, transit-oriented development in central-city locations can prove quite appealing to a younger demographic.
Time will tell how strong an allegiance these people have either to urban living or DC specifically. It felt very transient to me, with few visible institutions and many retail establishments of the type that literally come and go with a city's economic fortunes. For those who wish to make the case that there has been a major change of values among newer DC residents, I continue to believe the hard work lies ahead.
I get more of a Brooklyn feel out of Columbia Heights / Logan, but I'm sure Manhattan was that way in the 80s. I try to explain to people what Columbia Heights used to be like in the 90s-early 00s and they don't believe me based on what happened ever since the Metro opened. Those two hoods aren't very family friendly yet, though spend some time near the CH fountain and you'll get your fill of mostly Hispanic kids. I see a lot more white / middle class black kids in more established hoods to the west like Mt Pleasant, Adams Morgan, Dupont, West End and into Arlington and Alexandria, with a particular new concentration of families in places like Brookland, Petworth, and Takoma.
I was so proud of us for avoiding a Yac Attack for that long. I'm done.
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.
I'm done.
