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.
Being against gentrification is being for poverty. One might as well say that they don't want the national standard of living to continue to increase. Being against it is both short sighted and unreasonable. Even people on the edge of gentrification zones fare much better than people who aren't 'threatened' by gentrification because they live in rural Birmingham for instance.
For example, look at 1980 Brooklyn and 2018 Brooklyn. People are continuously 'threatened' by gentrification in Brooklyn today, but are (increasingly) vastly better off in every measurable community health measurement (statistically speaking). Reducing poverty has a geographical component. Whether some people have to move as a result or not, statistically speaking that geographical poverty reduction is gentrification. And the masses of minority people, who now live in very nice areas and have very nice jobs, and thus who have benefited in Brooklyn due to the the increased regional wealth would have to largely agree.
This is not quite a logical argument. Gentrification displaces people that would otherwise be able to afford to live in the neighborhood had it not gentrified. That's not an improvement, it is a displacement. It also creates a deeper contrast of inequality between those moving in and those being pushed out due to higher costs of living. Gentrification is usually kicked off by outsiders who live far outside the gentrified communities. Communities in poverty rarely are the ones jumpstarting gentrification.
An ideal solution would be to lower inequality by providing jobs and opportunity allowing those currently in the community to help improve it themselves. Thereby maintaining the culture of the community as it improves. But this rarely happens as inequality is pretty much entrenched in this society.
Literally, your first post says that the suburban sprawl is dying out. It's not. I agree with everything else you're saying except for that. And I usually agree with you for the most part on these forums, but I don't get what you're basing this off.There are still plenty of new neighborhoods being built in the suburbs with the typically suburban style of neighborhoods. Yes, some have a modern feel while others have more of a colonial feel, but still new developments, still new schools and new trails, etc. And the suburban style isn't dying out. There are plenty of colonial style homes being built up all throughout the area
From your OP: "But suburban sprawl is finished and won't be returning. Suburbs all over the country are getting urban face-lifts to make them more walkable, convenient, dense and efficient to copy the model of cities."
With that being said, what facts are you basing this off? Because there's nothing that suggests anything you're saying is factual. i can Google search new homes in the areas you mentioned and find plenty of suburban style areas being built up...not the new Metro-style/urban condos/homes, but actual townhouse and apartments.
Honestly I get what you're trying to say, but it's a combination of the new urban style places being built combined with the modern suburbia places being built. One or the other isn't "unsustainable" or anything at all. But a suburb isn't at risk from decline because it's far from public transportation...if anything, those areas will gain value and benefit from a downtown area like Tysons and not the other way around. The DMV suburbs aren't cheap and this area will continue to get more expensive as places like downtown Tysons get built up . The poor aren't going to be moving to the burbs because they won't be able to afford it either.
I stated in this tread that rich areas have a different economy. I also said there will still be rich suburban areas in the future.
Suburban sprawl as a "trend" is over. Suburban sprawl development is currently in decline and will eventually stop all together. Except for exclusive rich areas.
In the OP I said suburban sprawl is not environmentally and economically sustainable. Which is true.
I stated in this tread that rich areas have a different economy. I also said there will still be rich suburban areas in the future.
Suburban sprawl as a "trend" is over. Suburban sprawl development is currently in decline and will eventually stop all together. Except for exclusive rich areas.
In the OP I said suburban sprawl is not environmentally and economically sustainable. Which is true.
It isn't really an "either/or" as to whether the suburban sprawl "trend" is over. The suburban counties of Washington, DC are all still growing. Old farmland west of Leesburg on Route 50 is still being cleared for new McMansion housing developments. Woodbridge, Gainesville and Haymarket are ever more choked with traffic and new development. Howard County Frederick County and Charles County in Maryland are growing as are outer suburban areas like Fauquier County, Clarke County, Stafford County and Spotsylvania County in Virginia. More people are commuting from areas like the panhandle of West Virginia and even Pennsylvania if they have jobs in the suburbs of Montgomery County or Fairfax County.
What IS happening is that cities are seen as a viable option in ways they weren't even 15-20 years ago. More affluent 20 and 30 something millennials are STAYING years longer in the city, often after marriage and even after their kids are born, instead dashing to the suburbs or out of the area completely at the first opportunity. Some are even enrolling their children in the local DC public schools, many of which are rapidly being renovated, thereby stabilizing enrollment numbers and raising test scores.
What is ALSO happening is that suburbs are maturing and planners are seeking out further urbanization. Older interior suburban areas like Arlington County and City of Alexandria along with Oxon Hill (National Harbor), College Park/Hyattsville, downtown Silver Spring and Bethesda have come back to life over the last generation and become an extension of the urban fabric of DC. Meanwhile, middle suburban areas like Reston, Tysons, Falls Church, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Largo, Springfield and Fairfax have started to redevelop and reinvent themselves into denser, more commercially mature job centers and more transit-friendly, walkable, multi-use nodes of urbanity. Even slightly more distant suburbs like Herndon, Chantilly, Lorton, Germantown and Urbana have completely transitioned out of their rural roots and into new becoming viable communities ready for denser and more distinct development in the near future.
The point is that growth is virtually EVERYWHERE in the DC area, it's just in different stages and therefore takes different forms. What seems to be slowly changing is the idea that sprawling development can continue forever unabated with no consequences and that we as a region only need to silo ourselves into considering our own immediate communities without regard to their larger impacts. The wide arterial roads and interstates stuffed with low-density, single-use subdivisions as far as the eye can see are not the only ideal people strive for now, even if they aren't going away completely.
Gentrification in DC is the hot story but it isn't the only one.
Are most people planning for the future based on this?
I believe gentrification in DC (and all other cities) will never stop. I think the future will look a lot like what is happening now with Amazon. Cities in competition with each other to attract the best residents and thrive as much as they can economically and socially.
These are the reasons I believe gentrification will never reverse:
Suburban sprawl is economically and environmentally unsustainable
Our economy is based on constant growth (explains #1)
Urban living is more efficient and less wasteful than any other lifestyle
It lowers crime and makes crime more difficult
If it stops, we have no other way to drive our economy
It concentrates talent and resources
Its where ALL jobs and "safe living" will be for the most part
Not to say cities that can't compete won't experience decline and population loss in the future. But suburban sprawl is finished and won't be returning. Suburbs all over the country are getting urban face-lifts to make them more walkable, convenient, dense and efficient to copy the model of cities.
I agree. It was a strange anomaly that all the U.S. cities deteriorated for a generation or so...and mostly because of 'new housing' that money followed. But yeah, I think we'll see a complete switch....as suburbs deteriorate and age and become undesirable...and new ones keep getting pushed out there hours and hours of commute time away....the money will all come back in.
I agree. It was a strange anomaly that all the U.S. cities deteriorated for a generation or so...and mostly because of 'new housing' that money followed. But yeah, I think we'll see a complete switch....as suburbs deteriorate and age and become undesirable...and new ones keep getting pushed out there hours and hours of commute time away....the money will all come back in.
None of this is happening, though. The suburbs are still there to stay and new ones are being built all across areas that are within 15-20 miles of DC, not hours out. Mikey's post sums it up the best.
The 110,000 people now employed around Tysons (Corner) would beg to differ on that statement.
Tyson's Corner is urban. Read the thread please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnymarkjiz
None of this is happening, though. The suburbs are still there to stay and new ones are being built all across areas that are within 15-20 miles of DC, not hours out. Mikey's post sums it up the best.
Read the thread for where urban vs. suburban style DEVELOPMENT is discussed.
Again.. talking about the style of development.. NOT arbitrary borders of "city vs. suburb".
Read the thread for where urban vs. suburban style DEVELOPMENT is discussed.
Again.. talking about the style of development.. NOT arbitrary borders of "city vs. suburb".
The style of development of the suburbs isn't going away though, that's the point me and mikey and others have been trying to make in this entire thread. You just have more places like The Wharf in DC to One Loudoun that are developing up, which is true, but the suburban style isn't diminishing. I still see no evidence of this anywhere in this region.
Both are growing, but one isn't dying while the other is rising. Both "city style vs suburb style" complement each other, but the suburb style of development isn't dying or unsustainable.
Both are growing, but one isn't dying while the other is rising. Both "city style vs suburb style" complement each other, but the suburb style of development isn't dying or unsustainable.
Its totally unsustainable and its definitely dying.
What is your definition of "suburb style development"?
"Prince George’s, Montgomery, Frederick, Calvert and Charles counties added just 12,800 jobs in 2017, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the Stephen S. Fuller Institute at George Mason University. That is far fewer than the preliminary estimate of 22,400, and it comes as Northern Virginia saw its numbers grow over preliminary estimates."
This article kinda proves my point, though. What I bolded from your article even claims that NOVA is growing. Most of NOVA is still anchored by suburban style places (i.e. Clifton, Lake Ridge, Chantilly, etc ) with a growing trend in edge cities (i.e. Tysons, Reston). And honestly, who cares about Maryland, LOL (ok ok that's a joke, btw I'm a VA guy so I have to hate Maryland for no real reason). But even so, suburban Maryland is putting up these "urban-lite edge cities" too like Silver Spring and Bethesda, yet this article you posted suggest people are moving away from them.
Even so, this still doesn't indicate that the suburban style is "unsustainable" at all nor dying out. It's the opposite, both will grow, one isn't dying out to support another, but as mentioned earlier, both styles complement each other. The fact is that people are following where the jobs are going to. NOVA is transforming into the Silicon Valley of the east. The more that happens, the more people will gravitate towards that area, which attracts developers and urban planners....hence the edge city growth.
The only thing I can really say to support your claim is the traditional shopping mall and traditional shopping centers (here's looking at Landmark Mall) that are dying out to make room for things like trendy Town Centers like in Reston, but that's the only real thing that's been "dying". But besides that, growth will continue for both styles of development, with an enhanced emphasis on the urban sprawl reaching the suburbs.
You're stuck on your original claim about it dying out and unsustainable, but that's not been shown or proven, even in articles, from anyone except for you. And while I get where you're coming from, but like mikeyo321 said, it's not an "either/or" thing. Besides that, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
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.
This article kinda proves my point, though. What I bolded from your article even claims that NOVA is growing. Most of NOVA is still anchored by suburban style places (i.e. Clifton, Lake Ridge, Chantilly, etc ) with a growing trend in edge cities (i.e. Tysons, Reston). And honestly, who cares about Maryland, LOL (ok ok that's a joke, btw I'm a VA guy so I have to hate Maryland for no real reason
). But even so, suburban Maryland is putting up these "urban-lite edge cities" too like Silver Spring and Bethesda, yet this article you posted suggest people are moving away from them. 
