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.
New York has grown because immigrants have been coming in faster than natives have been leaving. I suspect the same is true of LA and similar cities. There is no organic growth. Around here, where there are only small cities, their population is old, poor, or both. And they look it.
GM is a fine company. It's management is as capable as any. It and Ford and Chysler get blamed for Detroit's, Flint's and Dearborn's demises, but it is really the UAW that is responsible. It imposed impossible disadvantages on these companies that made them unable to ward off the Japanese challenge.
Buick is one of the most popular cars in China, where GM is a top competitor and makes a lot of money. And the auto industry is thriving throughout much of the US. But only in those parts no infested with the UAW.
The same may be said of the USW which bankrupted US Steel, Bethlehem and others. Non-union Nucor is doing just fine, as are its workers and the cities where it's located.
In short you're blaming the unions? I guess you believe factory workers should accept sub-standard pay and no benefits in such hazardous occupations. You have no idea what the Chinese low level workers. had to put up with so the country could build it's economy. Only recently have things improved.
New York has grown because immigrants have been coming in faster than natives have been leaving. I suspect the same is true of LA and similar cities. There is no organic growth. Around here, where there are only small cities, their population is old, poor, or both. And they look it.
GM is a fine company. It's management is as capable as any. It and Ford and Chysler get blamed for Detroit's, Flint's and Dearborn's demises, but it is really the UAW that is responsible. It imposed impossible disadvantages on these companies that made them unable to ward off the Japanese challenge.
Buick is one of the most popular cars in China, where GM is a top competitor and makes a lot of money. And the auto industry is thriving throughout much of the US. But only in those parts no infested with the UAW.
The same may be said of the USW which bankrupted US Steel, Bethlehem and others. Non-union Nucor is doing just fine, as are its workers and the cities where it's located.
The UAW has a lot of culpability, but so does GM. For years, American cars were, real or perceived, less reliable than import models. GM continued to build fuel inefficient vehicles, even as gas prices went up. Motorists went to more economical foreign models.
There are specific University courses designed around Urban economics and Urban planning. There are several econometric models that show the benefits in productivity (Wages & output) with an effectively functioning urban economy.
In theory, bulldozing the low income areas, and replacing them with new, top notch retail and residential neighborhoods makes sense. I don't think many upper middleclass citizens would care at all. "Look muffin, they finally got rid of that dreadful housing project, and evicted all of those ugly poor people. That new condo building looks much better, and they start at just $500,000.00 each, it's so affordable".
In the real world, the Democratic politicians, SJWs, and government would fight such a project tooth and nail. They will argue that cheap housing is needed to keep the city diverse, that gentrification hurts minorities. In the end, the old, beat up, run down parts of town will stay that way. My wife is a native New Yorker. On the street she grew up on, there was an old apartment building. It was constructed in the 60's, and the entire building was made up of renters on government assistance. She said the hallways smelled of urine, the elevator never worked, and the police raided it at least twice a week. It was awful. The building finally got condemned, and the new owner wanted to tear it down and replace it with a brand new building, with the bottom floor retail, the next 3 floors business, and the rest residential condos. The developer was sued because they were removing much needed low income housing. My wife said that for 6 years the building just sat there empty, until a homeless person set in on fire using a burn barrel to stay warm. That was just one building. You honestly think that these politicians would allow entire neighborhoods to be bulldozed.
Mushrooming metropolitan areas are like gigantic bloodsucking leeches requiring global supply networks to work as a high precision clock to move ever increasing quantities of materials and goods over longer distances. Mushrooming metropolitan areas turn countryside into sterile agricultural deserts (it is already human and cultural desert) and waste dumps. The big question is how long would it take for Economics 101 to cause global suicide?
In theory, bulldozing the low income areas, and replacing them with new, top notch retail and residential neighborhoods makes sense. I don't think many upper middleclass citizens would care at all. "Look muffin, they finally got rid of that dreadful housing project, and evicted all of those ugly poor people. That new condo building looks much better, and they start at just $500,000.00 each, it's so affordable".
In the real world, the Democratic politicians, SJWs, and government would fight such a project tooth and nail. They will argue that cheap housing is needed to keep the city diverse, that gentrification hurts minorities. In the end, the old, beat up, run down parts of town will stay that way. My wife is a native New Yorker. On the street she grew up on, there was an old apartment building. It was constructed in the 60's, and the entire building was made up of renters on government assistance. She said the hallways smelled of urine, the elevator never worked, and the police raided it at least twice a week. It was awful. The building finally got condemned, and the new owner wanted to tear it down and replace it with a brand new building, with the bottom floor retail, the next 3 floors business, and the rest residential condos. The developer was sued because they were removing much needed low income housing. My wife said that for 6 years the building just sat there empty, until a homeless person set in on fire using a burn barrel to stay warm. That was just one building. You honestly think that these politicians would allow entire neighborhoods to be bulldozed.
Really? I'm not sure why you are putting a political spin on this when the most high profile cases of gentrification are happening in democrat run cities.
The problem I have with gentrification is that it is sort of like polishing a turd. You get the poor out of an area, tear down the dilapidated buildings and build new higher scale townhomes and condos. The poor folks who were just kicked out just go to another part of the city because the underlying issues haven't been addressed.
Well there is Detroit. 135 square miles that once housed about 2 million people and employed considerably more, now only about 700,000. Lots of areas will need to be shed and demolished if they ever manage to consolidate the populated areas.
Well there is Detroit. 135 square miles that once housed about 2 million people and employed considerably more, now only about 700,000. Lots of areas will need to be shed and demolished if they ever manage to consolidate the populated areas.
Just look at St. Louis, not as bad as Detroit, but a ton of vacant land. You drive a mile or two from the Arch and there are city blocks with just a single home on it. It's sort of bizarre, like you're out in the country instead of the inner city. I guess one good thing is, there's a lot of land to play on if you're a kid!
Really? I'm not sure why you are putting a political spin on this when the most high profile cases of gentrification are happening in democrat run cities.
The problem I have with gentrification is that it is sort of like polishing a turd. You get the poor out of an area, tear down the dilapidated buildings and build new higher scale townhomes and condos. The poor folks who were just kicked out just go to another part of the city because the underlying issues haven't been addressed.
Affordable Housing is also as important as Gentrification of the cities. Not everyone will qualify or should be forced to go for mortgage. Not everyone is primed to be a Home owner. Developers should look at Affordable Housing as a Business opportunity. If it means tiny apartments in High Rise modified from old abandoned warehouses, let it be.
Why is it important in this country that poor has to be pushed out before we move in ???
Affordable Housing is also as important as Gentrification of the cities.
Now you get to define what is "affordable".
Not just what it might be to the mythical lower income household of four...
but to the entirety of the city; the other people they live among and the City itself.
All those municipal services (schools, libraries, parks, transit, fire, police, etc) cost bucks.
After a lot of back & forth you'll come to a point where you realize that the real problem
with "affordable" is less about what an $X sells for than how much the person can earn.
That they can't earn enough... or in too many instances WON'T earn at all.
Quote:
Not everyone is primed to be a Home owner.
Whether you're a buyer or a renter the municipal costs per citizen are the same... right?
In an equitable market their housing costs should be a fair portion of their net income.
Quote:
Why is it important in this country that poor has to be pushed out before we move in ???
Broadly... it's because 'the poor" can't afford to pay their own way
and in most cities they are tying up good locations near what remaining jobs there are.
The only questions as I see it are in the "how" of it all.
HOW do we juggle the population to sift for those who could earn enough, who have some actually
useful and needed skill, and somehow compile them into one of those lower income households
that can afford to pay market rents without assistance and buy their groceries without assistance...
and most critically -- to pay some taxes too.
And then how do we juggle the others...those without any useful needed skills? That's a tougher sell.
We have a responsibility toward them. But that doesn't extend into a suicide pact. Does it?
Last edited by MrRational; 05-06-2017 at 05:47 AM..
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.