Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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)
 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:26 AM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,329,498 times
Reputation: 10644

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by smool View Post
Just saying, it IS official.
No, it isn't official. Those charts you post are simply rubbish. They show NYC adding 166,000 people in a decade, when the city is adding that every two years. So the numbers are complete, utter, nonsense. The city alone is averaging about 500-600k new residents per decade, and the metro area is three times the size (though the metro area is growing much slower than the city proper).

And the numbers are completely wrong for Toronto too. Toronto has been absolutely booming and is growing even faster than NYC or London in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smool View Post
Saying that London is in decline??? Seriously? It's booming, adding more people faster than even the Victorian era.
No one claimed London is in decline. It's doing very well. But the fact is that it isn't at peak population. And its relative economic performance has nothing to do with things like density or transit or town squares. London is an immigrant haven, an English-speaking city, has favorable laws and taxation for nonresidents, and is the closest major city to a host of corrupt dictatorships.

The wealthy you see in London are not moving there because they value English squares or like to ride the Tube or something. They are racing sports cars up Edgeware Rd. every summer. I have seen it myself. Wealthy Middle Easterners are speeding around in Ferraris and other performance vehicles, or you see Russians and Saudis driving giant Hummers through the streets of London. You will see the crazy cars lined up at the Dorchester, or outside of Harrods, or really in all the rich West End neighborhoods. Places like Chelsea are packed with this crowd.

And to claim that it's adding more people faster than even the Victorian area is ridiculous nonsense. During the Victorian era, London's population was doubling in population with regularity. In the current era London isn't even at the same population as 100 years ago.

In order to match the relative growth of the Victorian era, London would have to be the population of Tokyo, and would have to sprawl all the way to Leeds. Essentially the entirety of England would have to vacate and move to London, or London would have to import 20-30 million people over the next few years, and add 10 million housing units at a minimum. In reality London is building around 20,000 housing units a year, which is pretty average for a world city, and not more than that of NYC, Paris or Tokyo, to take some examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,112 posts, read 29,574,917 times
Reputation: 8819
NOLA - I think you have overlooked the links provided.

https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayo...at-record-high

They are official figures - estimates only, but they are based on sound methodology used to accurately predict current and future population and population growth, so why you ignore them is strange. The 13% growth rate for London is certainly higher than the 2% figure for New York (both figures correspond to a decade, roughly from the millennium to the year 2010) - but obviously New York's boundaries are drawn differently to London so it might not be a fair comparison.

The amount of housing being built in the UK right now is very low - the lowest it's been for decades. There isn't enough housing being built right now to handle the amount of people moving here, and it results in house prices rising, particularly in the SE, where house prices reached their highest on record recently, after overtaking their 2008 peak. The government has been routinely criticised for its poor housing policy, particularly social housing. So I don't think it's a good indicator for anything.

And, of course, most immigrants arriving in London are not super wealthy, or wealthy at all. Most will be standard workers or people who do menial work like sweeping floors and serving burgers. They arrive here for job opportunities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:36 AM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,381,339 times
Reputation: 9059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorge Bueno View Post
"And there is an increasing number of Americans who don't have a car (because they choose not to have it). Times are a'changing."

This is true, but the change is so slow and seems like a token gesture in many sprawling US cities, just something to brag about it like a little tram line. To my knowledge you can only truly live car free without any real problems in portions of Toronto, Chicago, New York City. Those are the only cities I know of that it is very common not to have a car and their is zero stigma for the rich to well off to ride public transpo (subway, bus etc..). I think Montreal, Boston, San Francisco, DC and Philly offer this on a smaller scale. Quite frankly, even small European cities of little history or note typically offer superior mass transpo, walk-ability, and quality of life than most "top" US cities.

It is interesting that when some West European cities were bombed out during WWII they didn't rebuild them as car sprawling cities, but dense walkable cities with excellent public transport. Where there is a will there is a way I suppose, perhaps North America can save/rebuild some it's formerly dense cities (Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit) which all have large wealthy sprawling suburbs, and bring the best North American cities for transpo like Chicago, NYC, San Francisco, and Toronto up to European standards.

"The fact that many people refuse to accept that a 100% car dependent suburban life is inferior is frustrating."

I always find that odd as well.
1. I think this may come from a lack of exposure and education about the rest of the world and better ways of life. Also to be fair it doesn't help that North Americans get little vacation time, flying to Europe/East Asia/S. America can be expensive when you have student loans/mortgage/kids etc..
2. I suppose it may truly be a preference for some people, I actually know a few that being exposed to both urban life and suburban life chose car life. I know people that love driving, maybe it is the privacy, the supposed freedom it offers, and the cheap big private houses are appealing to many. Many grew up being shuttled around by car so maybe they just like it. Its their natural state as odd as it seems, how else can anyone explain the popularity of huge car metros in the US?
Part of the reason it's so slow in the US is because these days, there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape. For example; 80% of the current BART system in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the underwater tube, was built in just 8 years. Today, it takes about that long to get an extension approved and another 8 or so years to build it. Thing is, they have to do it in metros previously planned to accommodate cars and BART lines generally parallel freeways. One such line reaches way out into the suburbs in two directions and is over 40 miles long.

Even very car-centric San Diego is making strides toward improving public transportation. They now have several "Rapid Bus" lines that are twice as fast as previous bus lines that covered those same distances. One of them is about 25 miles long and spends most of it's time on the freeway, getting off at a few key stops. Two of those freeway exits were specially designed to accommodate these buses with a bus only lane with the bus stop at the top and the bus just has to cross the street and get right back on the freeway. It took years to get even this approved.

The coastal metros are moving in this direction but the middles ones not as much but they have less of a need to.

Last edited by Gentoo; 04-19-2015 at 11:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:43 AM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,381,339 times
Reputation: 9059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorge Bueno View Post
"American suburbs are still booming and they stick to the same model they have been using, spread out single family homes... because that is what people like here. they don't want to live in a "European like city" which is why people aren't building them on a big scale (as in as much as what they are doing in the suburbs)"

I agree that it may be true that most North Americans prefer suburbs. But out of 3000 million people, I think many don't desire a care lifestyle. Perhaps there really isn't enough demand or maybe it is just a lack of government interest to promote different infrastructure. I think many residents of Chicago or New York City or San Francisco would prefer to live in a European city than another car city in the US, I could be wrong and this a generalization as many former residents of these cities to often move to cheaper less hectic warm weather cities after presumably making some money. If the big dense US cities weren't so expensive, maybe more people would probably want to live a more walkable lifestyle, like Western Europeans do. There are few options in North America really, especially for walkable smaller and medium sized cities with good public transpo.
Within the San Francisco Bay Area, the less car dependent culture only really exist in the San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley "core" of the region which also includes 3 or four smaller cities. Outside of this area, it becomes car-centric sprawl very quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:53 AM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,381,339 times
Reputation: 9059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
I think the point the OP is making is why have we created sprawling suburbs rather than develop smaller towns and village-type living. Developers keep spreading further and further out from urban centers, rather than creating satellite type towns with 'gathering' places and easy access to public transportation. I've seen some developers attempt to create that and actually make downtown centers. The problem is that these places that do not develop organically, fail. They appear to have plastic fake downtowns with expensive stores and restaurants that go out of business due to lack of business. Then a giant mall springs up down the street and everyone migrates to that. At least that appears to be the model in Florida.
Sounds about right. In San Diego, you have to go to a mall for just about everything. Of course one expects to for clothes shopping. However there are very few stand alone stores. There's a mall in the middle of downtown for that. Almost all of our movies theaters are in malls. My music store (for musicians) is in a mall. Even some popular restaurants are in malls. There are two large malls a half mile apart and between them are two large strip malls and one mall has yet another strip mall across the street. However, this same area also has no detached single family homes but expensive apartments and condos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:55 AM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,329,498 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
Within the San Francisco Bay Area, the less car dependent culture only really exist in the San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley "core" of the region which also includes 3 or four smaller cities. Outside of this area, it becomes car-centric sprawl very quickly.
Exactly. The Bay Area, as a whole, is not a good example of a dense, transit oriented region. SF proper is fairly dense (but not particularly dense for global standards) and has decent (but not particularly good) transit, but most of the Bay Area is as sprawly as anywhere else in the U.S. and the dynamic Silicon Valley corridor is extremely sprawl and has poor transit.

This is a region of 8 million people where only 10% live in SF. The city proper just isn't that big. And even in SF city proper, something like 75% of households own cars, and there is only one BART train line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:59 AM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,381,339 times
Reputation: 9059
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
London's an extremely cosmopolitan, vibrant city. Booming to a far greater extent than Atlanta. It's vibrancy is directly linked to its pedestrianism and public transport provision which dominates the entire city, not just the center. The best American cities tend to be the ones cited with these attributes (Boston, New York etc), and cities with the worst rep tend to be the car-oriented highway cities (Atlanta, Houston etc).

If you like to drive and live in a city that oriented towards car ownership (criss-crossed by highways, strip malls, poor PT provision, lesser vibrancy etc) that's great for you, but that's trumped by cities oriented towards pedestrianism (public transport, vibrant streets, street shopping etc). In Atlanta, if I run out of milk and bread, I have to drive to the nearest strip mall to stock-up. In London, if I run out of milk and bread, I walk a minute to the nearest streetside corner store to stock-up.

The UK isn't dominated by cars either. A significant number of households in UK cities are car-free, such as Manchester (44.5%), Liverpool (46.1%) and Newcastle (41.7%).
To me if I didn't need a car why have one? I could use all the money spent on registration, insurance and high gas prices on other things I like. These are just the basics of owning a car. In California it's even more expensive because you can't register a car until it passes a smog check.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,112 posts, read 29,574,917 times
Reputation: 8819
^^

It depends. I know people in London who primarily use public transit in the city, but often prefer to use their car out of the city, when getting from, say, London to Brighton, or somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,386 posts, read 1,558,205 times
Reputation: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here View Post
Culturally? Nothing - public transport isn't really 'culture'. It's just nice to have the convenience of public transport. People in European cities drive - most own a car - but the option not to drive exists, because public transport is so widely available, even in suburban areas. Many American cities are the same too. In places like Atlanta, public transport is considerably more limited and not as extensive, so driving is often necessary to get from A to B. These cities could easily expand their public transit. Is there a downside to doing so? Might reduce traffic.
Cost. Europe is set up for passenger rail where as in the United States it's the exact opposite with rail set up for moving freight. You could create a vast commuter rail system utilizing existing rail lines all across Atlanta but considering Atlanta is the major rail hub in the south it would most likely create a cluster **** situation on a smaller scale than what Chicago currently experiences. One alternative would be for Atlanta to buy a lot rail road tracks from Norfolk Southern and CSX to use for a vast intercity passenger rail system. The problem with that is those tracks are used frequently and NS and CSX would be very very unlikely willing to sell them. The other alternative is to create lots of new rail road tracks specifically for intercity passenger rail which would actually be the best option overall. The problem with that is your looking at a project that would run into the billions easily. Also at the end of the day MARTA is not a horrible system in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
I've never been on a bus or train when someone threw up. Does that happen a lot where you live?
I've had it happen twice when I use to take a bus from Syracuse NY to Harrisburg PA when I was in the army. Each time it happen the bus stank. The other time was when I was deployed to Iraq and we were on a C130 and someone hurled while flying from Kuwait to BIAP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
Somehow I doubt that. St Louis and New Orleans are two of the most crime-ridden cities in the Western world, let alone the US. Would people really prefer live there over New York? I think most people would prefer to live in New York if cost of living was no factor.
Problem is cost of living is a factor and honestly depending on where you live in those cities crime isn't going to be a major issue. From an outside perspective NYC might seem like everyone in the US wants to live there but in the US it's actually the exact opposite. Personally I would much rather live in St. Louis or New Orleans over NYC and it's not do to the weather because I can't stand hot weather.

Last edited by cwa1984; 04-19-2015 at 11:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 11:50 AM
 
1,889 posts, read 1,323,948 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Personally I would much rather live in St. Louis or New Orleans over NYC and it's not do to the weather because I can't stand hot weather.
So why would you rather choose St Louis or Nola over NYC? I'm presuming COL isn't the only factor.
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 > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top