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.
Okay I tried your links. But I think they reaffirm something I was on about earlier. Suburbs often have better schools, and due to lower crime, may offer a preferable experience to the inner city, where schools are worse if they're not in upper class neighborhoods.
But only if the suburbs are cheaper to live in. And you also have to factor in commutes back into the city, if the jobs aren't out there. Granted the areas we're talking about are going to have predominantly Black suburbs so that isn't the issue. The problem I have is for suburbia for an individual that would rely on public transportation. Does this person use Uber to fill in the gaps. What if they work odd hours?
And suburbs lack the historical context and the architecture of the inner city. So if you're buying the home may be of an inferior build. But if you're renting that may not be as much of an issue.
It just comes across as a lesser of two evils situation. Not like anyone is enthusiastic about the suburbs. I mean everything is utilitarian to some end but the suburbs just seem dry and homogeneous to me, even if try are all Black. And what about inner rung suburbs that are just Section 8 dumps for people from the projects that got pushed out of the market?
It's obvious this forum caters to single/childless people.
Just to try and bring it back full circle, this digression about the suburbs occurred because you stated that the city of Atlanta isn't prepared to handle all of the transplants to the region and Black people can't afford the city. Keep in mind that we're talking abut a metropolitan area that has grown by over or nearly a million people per decade since 1980. Aside from NYC (and even that could be debatable), no city in the country is prepared to absorb that many people over the course of a few decades. It's just not possible which is why there are suburbs, which (as you yourself had to concede after becoming informed about the suburbanization trend in Black America) often have better schools and lower crime than the city proper.
It's obvious this forum caters to single/childless people.
Just to try and bring it back full circle, this digression about the suburbs occurred because you stated that the city of Atlanta isn't prepared to handle all of the transplants to the region and Black people can't afford the city. Keep in mind that we're talking abut a metropolitan area that has grown by over or nearly a million people per decade since 1980. Aside from NYC (and even that could be debatable), no city in the country is prepared to absorb that many people over the course of a few decades. It's just not possible which is why there are suburbs, which (as you yourself had to concede after becoming informed about the suburbanization trend in Black America) often have better schools and lower crime than the city proper.
Yeah I'm not single but I am childless. Haven't been single in over 20 years. Not sure how I feel about you calling that out since I don't like to use profanity on the forum but then I have to remind myself what people's agenda is on this forum. But it is under the belt, thanks for nothing. Congratulations.
But since you want to take it there again, I think that the suburbs are great for people with children as the schools are better out there. Instead of insulting our intelligence, such as why there are suburbs in the first place, maybe take into consideration that there are other viewpoints than the ones you hold. And yes you can find references to support that reasoning; I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just have differences of opinion on why things are that way. Pretty sure you understand about the redlining and how farmland was taken away from private owners to create those suburbs and how the loans were provided to people that did not look like me. So, now that the same individuals want to live back in the inner city neighborhoods they abandoned to get away from me, I am suppose to enthusiastically go out there to try to live where they do not want to be at any more because I cannot afford it anymore, or other sociopolitical reasons which is why we have this segregation to begin with.
It is just not possible? You do realize that most of these cities had up to 3 to 4 times their current population within the city at the height of manufacturing, and that working class people lived within the city limits and Blacks that migrated up to these communities lived in tenements before public housing was built, within the city, and that the cities were overcrowded then? A piece of work; I've had my disagreements with you in the past and what not, but I was not expecting this. Wow. I guess you being married, or having kids, makes your opinions and research on the subject superior to that of everyone else that visits the City vs. City forum. Really interesting, but I see how it is just never thought anyone would play their cards that way on City-Data.
Yeah I'm not single but I am childless. Haven't been single in over 20 years. Not sure how I feel about you calling that out since I don't like to use profanity on the forum but then I have to remind myself what people's agenda is on this forum. But it is under the belt, thanks for nothing. Congratulations.
Dude...I don't know you personally so stop playing the victim. I merely said that your wholesale disparaging of the suburbs reflects your priorities and they don't seem to involve school-age children and that's true of many comments on this forum in general. Geesh dude, you are really a handful...
Quote:
But since you want to take it there again, I think that the suburbs are great for people with children as the schools are better out there. Instead of insulting our intelligence, such as why there are suburbs in the first place, maybe take into consideration that there are other viewpoints than the ones you hold. And yes you can find references to support that reasoning; I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just have differences of opinion on why things are that way. Pretty sure you understand about the redlining and how farmland was taken away from private owners to create those suburbs and how the loans were provided to people that did not look like me. So, now that the same individuals want to live back in the inner city neighborhoods they abandoned to get away from me, I am suppose to enthusiastically go out there to try to live where they do not want to be at any more because I cannot afford it anymore, or other sociopolitical reasons which is why we have this segregation to begin with.
You don't need to school me on the history of lending practices, redlining, blockbusting, etc. But our mass migration to the suburbs today represents a CHOICE, one that we did not have historically. And in the South, many of those suburbs used to be small towns with sizable Black populations from the start that eventually got absorbed by expanding metropolitan areas; all of them are not White flight suburbs.
Quote:
It is just not possible? You do realize that most of these cities had up to 3 to 4 times their current population within the city at the height of manufacturing, and that working class people lived within the city limits and Blacks that migrated up to these communities lived in tenements before public housing was built, within the city, and that the cities were overcrowded then?
That's only true of Northern cities, not Southern cities like Atlanta. Atlanta is about as populous as it has ever been and you honestly think that the city alone could absorb the 3 million+ people that have migrated to the metro area since 1980????? Even if it could, that would drive up prices to an astronomical rate and that would drive people into the suburbs by itself. So no, it would simply not be possible for the city of Atlanta to have absorbed every single transplant that has moved to the metro area since 1980. Even if you were just talking about Black transplants, it would still be highly unfeasible.
Even in Northern cities, you wouldn't see every single transplant moving into the city proper. As you yourself noted, back in the day when many of those cities were at peak population, they were overcrowded and Black folks lived in substandard housing ("tenements" is just a nice way of saying "slums") which were public health nightmares. We do waaaaayyy too much romanticizing of that time period as though it were the golden age of cities. Maybe for some who were well off, but for Black folks, HELL no. We were corralled into those neighborhoods with little to no options for other neighborhoods in which to live. Say what you will about the "bland suburbs" today but as I stated earlier, it represents a choice that we did not historically have and for many, it came with a better quality of life. This is why the trends are what they are and the anecdotes you keep throwing out do not negate that. We could sit here all day and trade anecdotes but I'm all about factual data.
Quote:
A piece of work; I've had my disagreements with you in the past and what not, but I was not expecting this. Wow. I guess you being married, or having kids, makes your opinions and research on the subject superior to that of everyone else that visits the City vs. City forum. Really interesting, but I see how it is just never thought anyone would play their cards that way on City-Data.
What in God's name are you rambling about now? I'm not married and I don't have kids but I realize that suburbia is often attractive to those who do. I am simply capable to seeing beyond my own circumstances and recognizing the trends, supported by data, that shape residential development patterns in this country and have done so for a good three-quarters of a century now.
Dude...I don't know you personally so stop playing the victim. I merely said that your wholesale disparaging of the suburbs reflects your priorities and they don't seem to involve school-age children and that's true of many comments on this forum in general. Geesh dude, you are really a handful...
You don't need to school me on the history of lending practices, redlining, blockbusting, etc. But our mass migration to the suburbs today represents a CHOICE, one that we did not have historically. And in the South, many of those suburbs used to be small towns with sizable Black populations from the start that eventually got absorbed by expanding metropolitan areas; all of them are not White flight suburbs.
That's only true of Northern cities, not Southern cities like Atlanta. Atlanta is about as populous as it has ever been and you honestly think that the city alone could absorb the 3 million+ people that have migrated to the metro area since 1980????? Even if it could, that would drive up prices to an astronomical rate and that would drive people into the suburbs by itself. So no, it would simply not be possible for the city of Atlanta to have absorbed every single transplant that has moved to the metro area since 1980. Even if you were just talking about Black transplants, it would still be highly unfeasible.
Even in Northern cities, you wouldn't see every single transplant moving into the city proper. As you yourself noted, back in the day when many of those cities were at peak population, they were overcrowded and Black folks lived in substandard housing ("tenements" is just a nice way of saying "slums") which were public health nightmares. We do waaaaayyy too much romanticizing of that time period as though it were the golden age of cities. Maybe for some who were well off, but for Black folks, HELL no. We were corralled into those neighborhoods with little to no options for other neighborhoods in which to live. Say what you will about the "bland suburbs" today but as I stated earlier, it represents a choice that we did not historically have and for many, it came with a better quality of life. This is why the trends are what they are and the anecdotes you keep throwing out do not negate that. We could sit here all day and trade anecdotes but I'm all about factual data.
What in God's name are you rambling about now? I'm not married and I don't have kids but I realize that suburbia is often attractive to those who do. I am simply capable to seeing beyond my own circumstances and recognizing the trends, supported by data, that shape residential development patterns in this country and have done so for a good three-quarters of a century now.
Is this something you're on about academically or your personal experiences because it really appears to be the former. The time that we were living in tenements in cities like Chicago was the golden age of Northern cities. It wasn't that great for our grandparents, or great grandparents or whomever else it was that had to make that trek from the South, and it sucked for Black people then, but that does not mean that it was not a great time of prosperity for those cities involved. All I'm suggesting is that we now have the reverse situation where we are moving down South and finding ourselves in sub standard living situations again, and we can either afford to pay money to stay in good living situations within the city, or we can find an affordable suburb. It is the exact same thing. And I would never take that as to suggest that this is not a golden age for Southern cities. And that is not to suggest that there are not good situations in suburbia. But there is also a lot of poverty in suburbs as well. It is not a question of suburbia, but which suburb. I seriously doubt that you would suggest that anyone move to Ferguson Missouri or Compton California. But by your logic, a person should move there if conditions are right and completely neglect the history of the area and how inhospitable the place was to Blacks back in the day.
So Atlanta is a special case, as we have continued to assert since the beginning of this thread and I posited that there is a different situation sociopolitical and otherwise, in Atlanta, as to why the need to move to suburbia is different than it is up North. Either the discussion is about Atlanta's situation or it is not. But then tell me that the phenomenon is all over the country, which is true, but not at all for the reasons that it is in Atlanta.
I don't even know what the argument is about anymore. I agreed with you that Blacks move to suburbia. All that I am saying, again, is that there are circumstances where Blacks really want to move to the suburbs and circumstances where Blacks would prefer to be in a good neighborhood within a city, but cannot afford to take advantage of the amenities of those neighborhoods and find that their money goes further in the suburbs. I honestly do not see the conflict of interest there. I don't care if 9 out of 10 people that do it do it for the reasons you're supporting that does not mean that the 1 out of 10 that does not, or feels some type of way about it, should not have their positions heard because of the 90% of people that do. Not even sure why you feel that someone would dispute that it is an obvious fact and there should not be any reason to support it with data when we all know someone who has done that exact same thing.
My sister has lived both in the city of Atlanta for several years when she graduated from college in the early eighties, to other cities, then back to the suburbs of Atlanta where she prefers to live at because she has a child and it was a better situation for her personally than living in the city proper. The public school there was cheaper than a private school she would have to consider were she to live in the city proper and the quality was just as good, if not better out there. So I already knew, personally, what you're talking about I never disputed that. I am just saying that there are reasons, deep reasons that you may disagree with or do not care for, why someone would not want to make that choice. No one ever said that you were wrong. But just because you are right, does not mean that someone else is wrong because their reasons for being right may be in conflict with the reason you believe that you are right. It is not a Black and White issue. No pun intended. You can appreciate the fact of what other Black people are doing and their reasons for doing it without agreeing with it, or desiring to make that choice for yourself.
I just don't get the acrimony suburban apologists have with someone that prefers city living on C-D.
Is this something you're on about academically or your personal experiences because it really appears to be the former. The time that we were living in tenements in cities like Chicago was the golden age of Northern cities. It wasn't that great for our grandparents, or great grandparents or whomever else it was that had to make that trek from the South, and it sucked for Black people then, but that does not mean that it was not a great time of prosperity for those cities involved. All I'm suggesting is that we now have the reverse situation where we are moving down South and finding ourselves in sub standard living situations again, and we can either afford to pay money to stay in good living situations within the city, or we can find an affordable suburb. It is the exact same thing. And I would never take that as to suggest that this is not a golden age for Southern cities. And that is not to suggest that there are not good situations in suburbia. But there is also a lot of poverty in suburbs as well. It is not a question of suburbia, but which suburb. I seriously doubt that you would suggest that anyone move to Ferguson Missouri or Compton California. But by your logic, a person should move there if conditions are right and completely neglect the history of the area and how inhospitable the place was to Blacks back in the day.
My personal experiences have nothing to do with it. Again, we got off on this tangent because you stated that the city of Atlanta isn't prepared to handle all of the transplants to the region and Black people can't afford the city. We live in a metropolitan age where the city/suburb distinction means a lot less now than it did 25 or 50 years ago, especially in an age of increased mobility. In almost all metro areas, there are suburbs that can give you a genuine urban living experience and there are parts of the city proper than can give you a genuine suburban living experience.
Quote:
So Atlanta is a special case, as we have continued to assert since the beginning of this thread and I posited that there is a different situation sociopolitical and otherwise, in Atlanta, as to why the need to move to suburbia is different than it is up North. Either the discussion is about Atlanta's situation or it is not. But then tell me that the phenomenon is all over the country, which is true, but not at all for the reasons that it is in Atlanta.
No. Atlanta. Is. Not. A. Special. Case. That is precisely what I have been arguing AGAINST and have posted article after article after article proving as much, and even went so far as to post excerpts from articles in my posts since it was apparent you weren't reading them. For many, the reasons they would move to suburban Atlanta is fundamentally no different than those who would choose to move to suburban Detroit or DC or LA or NYC. Almost always, it revolves around cost of housing, schools, and crime. That's not to say that there aren't suburbs with bad schools and crime because we know there are, but we're talking about IN GENERAL.
Quote:
I don't even know what the argument is about anymore. I agreed with you that Blacks move to suburbia. All that I am saying, again, is that there are circumstances where Blacks really want to move to the suburbs and circumstances where Blacks would prefer to be in a good neighborhood within a city, but cannot afford to take advantage of the amenities of those neighborhoods and find that their money goes further in the suburbs. I honestly do not see the conflict of interest there. I don't care if 9 out of 10 people that do it do it for the reasons you're supporting that does not mean that the 1 out of 10 that does not, or feels some type of way about it, should not have their positions heard because of the 90% of people that do. Not even sure why you feel that someone would dispute that it is an obvious fact and there should not be any reason to support it with data when we all know someone who has done that exact same thing.
What are you talking about, "have their positions heard"? This isn't a city or county council meeting. For the third time, this entire digression came about because you implied that something was "wrong" with Atlanta because most of the transplants that move there head to the suburbs when statistically, in most high-growth metros, the majority of people are moving to the suburbs. This is what you are having trouble wrapping your head around and I don't get what's so hard about that.
Quote:
My sister has lived both in the city of Atlanta for several years when she graduated from college in the early eighties, to other cities, then back to the suburbs of Atlanta where she prefers to live at because she has a child and it was a better situation for her personally than living in the city proper. The public school there was cheaper than a private school she would have to consider were she to live in the city proper and the quality was just as good, if not better out there. So I already knew, personally, what you're talking about I never disputed that. I am just saying that there are reasons, deep reasons that you may disagree with or do not care for, why someone would not want to make that choice. No one ever said that you were wrong. But just because you are right, does not mean that someone else is wrong because their reasons for being right may be in conflict with the reason you believe that you are right. It is not a Black and White issue. No pun intended. You can appreciate the fact of what other Black people are doing and their reasons for doing it without agreeing with it, or desiring to make that choice for yourself.
I just don't get the acrimony suburban apologists have with someone that prefers city living on C-D.
I'm not a "suburban apologist" and I have no issues with city living; you have a fundamental misunderstand of my argument. I am not arguing that suburban living is better than city living, I am not talking about "right" and "wrong" or "black" and "white." Once again, this digression occurred because of your statement concerning most of the growth in metro Atlanta occurring in the suburbs. I don't know of any metro area where all of the vast majority of growth is happening in the primary city. Not one. But somehow, you imply that Atlanta is a special case because most transplants head to the suburbs instead of the city proper and that's just asinine.
I honestly don't know how else to explain it to you...I honestly, really, truly do not.
My personal experiences have nothing to do with it. Again, we got off on this tangent because you stated that the city of Atlanta isn't prepared to handle all of the transplants to the region and Black people can't afford the city. We live in a metropolitan age where the city/suburb distinction means a lot less now than it did 25 or 50 years ago, especially in an age of increased mobility. In almost all metro areas, there are suburbs that can give you a genuine urban living experience and there are parts of the city proper than can give you a genuine suburban living experience.
No. Atlanta. Is. Not. A. Special. Case. That is precisely what I have been arguing AGAINST and have posted article after article after article proving as much, and even went so far as to post excerpts from articles in my posts since it was apparent you weren't reading them. For many, the reasons they would move to suburban Atlanta is fundamentally no different than those who would choose to move to suburban Detroit or DC or LA or NYC. Almost always, it revolves around cost of housing, schools, and crime. That's not to say that there aren't suburbs with bad schools and crime because we know there are, but we're talking about IN GENERAL.
What are you talking about, "have their positions heard"? This isn't a city or county council meeting. For the third time, this entire digression came about because you implied that something was "wrong" with Atlanta because most of the transplants that move there head to the suburbs when statistically, in most high-growth metros, the majority of people are moving to the suburbs. This is what you are having trouble wrapping your head around and I don't get what's so hard about that.
I'm not a "suburban apologist" and I have no issues with city living; you have a fundamental misunderstand of my argument. I am not arguing that suburban living is better than city living, I am not talking about "right" and "wrong" or "black" and "white." Once again, this digression occurred because of your statement concerning most of the growth in metro Atlanta occurring in the suburbs. I don't know of any metro area where all of the vast majority of growth is happening in the primary city. Not one. But somehow, you imply that Atlanta is a special case because most transplants head to the suburbs instead of the city proper and that's just asinine.
I honestly don't know how else to explain it to you...I honestly, really, truly do not.
You have an interesting way of interjecting other things into the argument and saying that I said it. Like why would I say that the majority of the growth should occur within the city proper when the city does not have as much land as the suburbs and may not have the transportation infrastructure to support the growth. I only stated that the city can hold a lot more than people think that it could, because the average city is not as vertical now as it used to be. Urban renewal that occurred during the seventies has a lot to do with that. Not that you do not already know this but I don't know where you're getting that from. I take that from seeing what happened to Cleveland and Detroit, which are both around a third of their population at their peak in the fifties.
There is nothing wrong with Atlanta. I really think we got off on the wrong way because of how we're interpreting what the other person is saying. There are Black people that cannot afford the city, and there are Black people that can. Atlanta does have a lot of transients that move down there ignorant and blind and do not know what they are in for as well as those that do their homework. That does not speak ill of Atlanta or its suburbs. If your disagreement with me is because you think that I think that there is something wrong with Atlanta that is not the case at all. Maybe I came across like I feel that Atlanta should be in a better position to handle the influx, but that is no judgement or anything that is simply how I am perceiving the situation.
Atlanta does have a better rail system than we have here in Virginia, among other things. But also keep in mind that a lot of my criticism has been echoed on the Atlanta forum from the locals there, and from my experiences down there, as well as conversation with people that live there. No city is perfect. To be honest if we had millions of people moving into Hampton Roads a few of them would end up living really close to Richmond because this area simply does not have the infrastructure and would have to scramble and build things overnight.
You have an interesting way of interjecting other things into the argument and saying that I said it. Like why would I say that the majority of the growth should occur within the city proper when the city does not have as much land as the suburbs and may not have the transportation infrastructure to support the growth. I only stated that the city can hold a lot more than people think that it could, because the average city is not as vertical now as it used to be. Urban renewal that occurred during the seventies has a lot to do with that. Not that you do not already know this but I don't know where you're getting that from. I take that from seeing what happened to Cleveland and Detroit, which are both around a third of their population at their peak in the fifties.
There is nothing wrong with Atlanta. I really think we got off on the wrong way because of how we're interpreting what the other person is saying. There are Black people that cannot afford the city, and there are Black people that can. Atlanta does have a lot of transients that move down there ignorant and blind and do not know what they are in for as well as those that do their homework. That does not speak ill of Atlanta or its suburbs. If your disagreement with me is because you think that I think that there is something wrong with Atlanta that is not the case at all. Maybe I came across like I feel that Atlanta should be in a better position to handle the influx, but that is no judgement or anything that is simply how I am perceiving the situation.
Atlanta does have a better rail system than we have here in Virginia, among other things. But also keep in mind that a lot of my criticism has been echoed on the Atlanta forum from the locals there, and from my experiences down there, as well as conversation with people that live there. No city is perfect. To be honest if we had millions of people moving into Hampton Roads a few of them would end up living really close to Richmond because this area simply does not have the infrastructure and would have to scramble and build things overnight.
You stated that Atlanta proper couldn't handle the influx of all the transplants and that's why they choose the suburbs. Again, practically no city could absorb the 3 million+ residents metro Atlanta has gained since 1980 and even so, your argument is still wrong because the city of Atlanta by far has the best infrastructure in the region. No other place in the metro has all three primary interstates, I-285, GA-400, most MARTA stops, the streetcar line, several bike lanes, or the Beltline running through it. As a matter of fact, if you're in the city, you don't need to hop on the interstates to get around because the local roads do just fine. As a municipality, the extensiveness of the infrastructure is pretty good actually. The infrastructure needs to be bulked up in the suburbs first and foremost so that would actually go against your initial argument since most people are heading to the suburbs.
You stated that Atlanta proper couldn't handle the influx of all the transplants and that's why they choose the suburbs. Again, practically no city could absorb the 3 million+ residents metro Atlanta has gained since 1980 and even so, your argument is still wrong because the city of Atlanta by far has the best infrastructure in the region. No other place in the metro has all three primary interstates, I-285, GA-400, most MARTA stops, the streetcar line, several bike lanes, or the Beltline running through it. As a matter of fact, if you're in the city, you don't need to hop on the interstates to get around because the local roads do just fine. As a municipality, the extensiveness of the infrastructure is pretty good actually. The infrastructure needs to be bulked up in the suburbs first and foremost so that would actually go against your initial argument since most people are heading to the suburbs.
That does not make any sense. How would a transient even know something like that, assuming that it was true. I don't think it is true but still. I don't think anyone moves to a city worrying that there is no place for them to live when they get there.
To be fair people flooded into Harlem and Chicago 100 years ago and they made It work. It shouldn't be an issue now. All Atlanta would need to do is build vertically and the infrastructure would be there. But they don't have to do that because their suburbs are absorbing the weight. Which is actually a good thing because it disperses the population out and gives people breathing room. Atlanta never had that population before so it would be interesting. But I see no reason you can't double the population in the core. It simply isn't necessary to do that right now.
New York City took in 6 million in 60 years from 1880 to 1940. So it has been done before. 3 million in 40 years is very similar. I would give Atlanta the benefit of the doubt on this one.
That does not make any sense. How would a transient even know something like that, assuming that it was true. I don't think it is true but still. I don't think anyone moves to a city worrying that there is no place for them to live when they get there.
To be fair people flooded into Harlem and Chicago 100 years ago and they made It work. It shouldn't be an issue now. All Atlanta would need to do is build vertically and the infrastructure would be there. But they don't have to do that because their suburbs are absorbing the weight. Which is actually a good thing because it disperses the population out and gives people breathing room. Atlanta never had that population before so it would be interesting. But I see no reason you can't double the population in the core. It simply isn't necessary to do that right now.
New York City took in 6 million in 60 years from 1880 to 1940. So it has been done before. 3 million in 40 years is very similar. I would give Atlanta the benefit of the doubt on this one.
My head hurts and I need a dub. I officially give up...you got it bro.
My head hurts and I need a dub. I officially give up...you got it bro.
Enjoy your dub. I'll see you around.
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.
