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 liked it because it has footage of my apartment building!
There aren't enough financial incentives to live in dense urban environments. Significant gas tax increases and property tax incentives to live in higher density would slowly reverse sprawl, but I see zero political support for either. People can talk all they want of utopia and having everyone desire the perfect city environment, but the majority of the people make decisions for economic reasons.
I liked it because it has footage of my apartment building!
There aren't enough financial incentives to live in dense urban environments. Significant gas tax increases and property tax incentives to live in higher density would slowly reverse sprawl, but I see zero political support for either. People can talk all they want of utopia and having everyone desire the perfect city environment, but the majority of the people make decisions for economic reasons.
It is not all base on economics. I am ex New Yorker and I can tell you that people who live in the heart of NYC live there because they like it, regardless of the extreme cost.
NYC is growing and attracting new people and all those residents of about 9 million can live much cheaper some place else. I have lived and worked in NYC and it is not cheaper and many times it was not the most pleasant. Even when you take out the need to own a car, Manhattan, is extremely expensive. It has the similar appeal of San Francisco. I have lived in a large European City with the same allure. It is just something about living in these dense cities that cannot be defined as the French would say Je ne sais quoi.
I live in the suburbs of Denver but only 6 miles from Union Station. I do have the advantages of the suburbs but I do have some amenities of the dense city with a walkable neighborhood, good public transit and soon a rail station down the block. Yet, I am thinking about moving to Denver because it has that which cannot be defined but is attracting me. Perhaps it is to be near people who have differences of thought; perhaps it is the closeness and noise of the city.
Whatever it is, you will never understand because a City does not invite you. Even if the cost of living in a city is less, you and many others will still choice to live where you do because that is what you desire; that is what is inviting to you. So, it is not all about economics, it is about individual comfort and wants.
It is not all base on economics. I am ex New Yorker and I can tell you that people who live in the heart of NYC live there because they like it, regardless of the extreme cost.
NYC is growing and attracting new people and all those residents of about 9 million can much live cheaper some place else. I have lived and worked in NYC and it is not cheaper and many times it was not the most pleasant. Even when you take out the need to own a car, Manhattan, is extremely expensive. It has the similar appeal of San Francisco. I have lived in a large European City with the same allure. It is just something about living in these dense cities that cannot be defined as the French would say Je ne sais quoi.
I live in the suburbs of Denver but only 6 miles from Union Station. I do have the advantages of the suburbs but I do have some amenities of the dense city with a walkable neighborhood, good public transit and soon a rail station down the block. Yet, I am thinking about moving to Denver because it has that which cannot be defined but is attracting me. Perhaps it is to be near people who have differences of thought; perhaps it is the closeness and noise of the city.
Whatever it is, you will never understand because a City does not invite you. Even if the cost of living in a city is less, you will still choice to live where you do because that is what you desire; that is what is inviting to you. So, it is not all about economics, it is about your own comfort and wants.
Livecontent
That all sounds nice and might have some truth to it, but people from all walks of life more often than not move or stay inn NYC because of the money there. They might have moved there some years ago for the city life, but more often than not what keeps people there are either good paying jobs or family ties. It isn't all about economics, but when you are talking about millions of individual decisions economics is by far the most powerful decider. Things like weather, recreation, city amenities, etc. attract people and can keep them for some time, but eventually economics wins and that is why suburbs remain so alluring.
but eventually economics wins and that is why suburbs remain so alluring.
That is why i am there now, bigger and better house for the money.
But one of the messages of the movie was that eventually, in the future, the suburbs wont be economically viable. Too much money to heat and cool a larger home, too much money to drive a car, too much time spent in the car, increased pollution, poor quality of life, not enough money to maintain roads and bridges for cars as our highway systems are too sprawling because of the suburbs, etc...
As I've said before, if I hit the powerball jackpot we're moving to NYC to live in Manhattan, IMO civilization at it's best.
Meanwhile, the burbs are here to stay, with ever more people able to work from home, watch movies over the web, with more jobs nearby, and basic amenities (food, medical, etc) in most neighborhoods, all affordably so.
Still, there's a lot to like about the dense urban core and/or very nearby areas where one can walk to the core or take a bicycle, bus, taxi or train to the core. I could live in LoDo without a problem, so long as the highrise was well done and fairly soundproofed.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
In Europe, the more well off, live in the central more appealing part of the cities and the poorer live in more distant areas.
There is some indication, much more slowly, that this type of culture change is happening in the more desired cities of the US. I am not talking about cities like Detroit or Buffalo. Even in Denver, we are seeing the emergence of poorer outlying regions that the central part of Denver. Thornton, Aurora, Westminster, Lakewood, Arvada, Wheat Ridge, Centennial all have areas that are indicative of this trend, as an example. Even within the city of Denver, the less desired neighborhood, trending poorer, are Montbello and Green Mountain Ranch, even though these neighborhoods of Denver have newer homes than upward moving older neighborhoods of the inner core.
Yes, we still have much poorer and much less desired areas in Denver than most suburbs but as the core grows out and becomes more in demand, some of those neighborhoods redevelop, gentrify, are desired and become richer. North Denver and more specific Highland is good example.
Why? because city living, which excite and challenge the senses, provides the culture of creative people, ideas and places that attract more creative people, who have the ideas, and create the places and venues that we define some of the best of civilization.
Livecontent
Last edited by livecontent; 02-22-2012 at 11:40 AM..
There are suburbs and then there are exurbs that people still refer to as "suburbs." Stapleton, Wheat Ridge, and Arvada are still within 10 miles of the city center, so they are the classic suburbs. These aren't going away. Regardless of the trend of gas prices, mass transit will still be available to these areas, even as Denver becomes more dense (even if not light rail, at least buses). If anything, like in Washington, DC or Boston or New York, these areas will grow in value since people like to be close to the city and still have their suburbs. Denver in this area is getting to be pretty much built out after Stapleton, so there only way to live in these areas will be to demolish and rezone (for density) or just pay more money.
Littleton, Aurora, Thornton, etc. are exurbs. These are the areas that I would be skeptical about their longer term property value. Electric cars like the Nissan Leaf will allow a round-trip commute of maybe 60 miles, but that's pushing it with traffic. And unfortunately the science of batteries will prevent any longer range, so it's either fuel cells (unlikely) or gas, gas, gas ($,$$,$$$).
Having come from the bigger urban areas back east, I can attest that people in, for example, Lexington, MA, consider themselves "city people" living in Boston. It's suburban, but they are of the more cosmopolitan type that Livecontent is referring to.
There are suburbs and then there are exurbs that people still refer to as "suburbs." Stapleton, Wheat Ridge, and Arvada are still within 10 miles of the city center, so they are the classic suburbs. These aren't going away. Regardless of the trend of gas prices, mass transit will still be available to these areas, even as Denver becomes more dense (even if not light rail, at least buses). If anything, like in Washington, DC or Boston or New York, these areas will grow in value since people like to be close to the city and still have their suburbs. Denver in this area is getting to be pretty much built out after Stapleton, so there only way to live in these areas will be to demolish and rezone (for density) or just pay more money.
Littleton, Aurora, Thornton, etc. are exurbs. These are the areas that I would be skeptical about their longer term property value. Electric cars like the Nissan Leaf will allow a round-trip commute of maybe 60 miles, but that's pushing it with traffic. And unfortunately the science of batteries will prevent any longer range, so it's either fuel cells (unlikely) or gas, gas, gas ($,$$,$$$).
Having come from the bigger urban areas back east, I can attest that people in, for example, Lexington, MA, consider themselves "city people" living in Boston. It's suburban, but they are of the more cosmopolitan type that Livecontent is referring to.
What exactly is Aurora an exurb of? It's the 3rd most populous city in Colorado and is home to over 300k people(big for any city anywhere), and is home to a significant number of medical and aerospace jobs.
There are suburbs and then there are exurbs that people still refer to as "suburbs." Stapleton, Wheat Ridge, and Arvada are still within 10 miles of the city center, so they are the classic suburbs. These aren't going away. Regardless of the trend of gas prices, mass transit will still be available to these areas, even as Denver becomes more dense (even if not light rail, at least buses). If anything, like in Washington, DC or Boston or New York, these areas will grow in value since people like to be close to the city and still have their suburbs. Denver in this area is getting to be pretty much built out after Stapleton, so there only way to live in these areas will be to demolish and rezone (for density) or just pay more money.
Littleton, Aurora, Thornton, etc. are exurbs. These are the areas that I would be skeptical about their longer term property value. Electric cars like the Nissan Leaf will allow a round-trip commute of maybe 60 miles, but that's pushing it with traffic. And unfortunately the science of batteries will prevent any longer range, so it's either fuel cells (unlikely) or gas, gas, gas ($,$$,$$$).
Having come from the bigger urban areas back east, I can attest that people in, for example, Lexington, MA, consider themselves "city people" living in Boston. It's suburban, but they are of the more cosmopolitan type that Livecontent is referring to.
Very good and interesting points. I would say that Littleton, the authentic old real dense small city, is now a classic suburbs in your definition. Not originally because it started as a separate small town but the dense metro area grew into it. The addresses of Littleton that go farther out in unincorporated Jeffco are the exurbs.
Aurora can be consider both because it is so big and expansive. The areas much closer to Denver would be suburbs but the areas southwest of Cherry Creek Reservoir would be exurbs. It could say the same about many of the other suburbs that have room to grown, like Arvada, which has much different characteristics from the denser older areas than the much newer and growing areas West of Indiana.
However, we should actually view the City Aurora as a main City, by itself, which has its own suburbs. Aurora is much different than many other municipalities around Denver as it is a powerhouse of its own industry and commerce and relies less on the being just a bedroom community for Denver. It is even more so today because of the growing industry from being nearer to DIA, the relocation of the Medical Campus and many more industries that have chosen to be in Aurora.
Keep in mind, it is referred to by the Feds as the Denver/Aurora Metroplex. It has been expressed by some that in the future, Aurora will surpass Denver Population. I think that was more realistic a few decades ago when Denver was losing people but today Denver is growing and can easily support a larger population. Denser it may become, but it will be still be very livable.
Livecontent
Last edited by livecontent; 02-22-2012 at 07:00 PM..
There are suburbs and then there are exurbs that people still refer to as "suburbs." Stapleton, Wheat Ridge, and Arvada are still within 10 miles of the city center, so they are the classic suburbs. These aren't going away. Regardless of the trend of gas prices, mass transit will still be available to these areas, even as Denver becomes more dense (even if not light rail, at least buses). If anything, like in Washington, DC or Boston or New York, these areas will grow in value since people like to be close to the city and still have their suburbs. Denver in this area is getting to be pretty much built out after Stapleton, so there only way to live in these areas will be to demolish and rezone (for density) or just pay more money.
Littleton, Aurora, Thornton, etc. are exurbs. These are the areas that I would be skeptical about their longer term property value. Electric cars like the Nissan Leaf will allow a round-trip commute of maybe 60 miles, but that's pushing it with traffic. And unfortunately the science of batteries will prevent any longer range, so it's either fuel cells (unlikely) or gas, gas, gas ($,$$,$$$).
Having come from the bigger urban areas back east, I can attest that people in, for example, Lexington, MA, consider themselves "city people" living in Boston. It's suburban, but they are of the more cosmopolitan type that Livecontent is referring to.
Stapleton is in the city of Denver. Littleton and Aurora have common borders with Denver, they are hardly "exurbs", a term which has no explicit definition anyway. Thornton's southern border is roughly 2 miles from the Denver city limits, again, hardly an "exurb".
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.
