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.
Gated as in a way that only the rich and educated can enjoy the amenities they offer. I'm reading a Kindle book by Ryan Avent titled "Gated City". His thesis asserts that these big cities are losing populations to people who are moving to the Sunbelt region where housing is cheap and wages are low. The thing that is quit interesting is that the metros that are losing populations have thriving economies while the metros that are gaining have dismal economies.
I think NYC is gaining population according to one of the C-D members posts recently, but NY state is losing population. I think that these cities with the exception of Chicago are elite cities that are gated, because you need to be very rich to live there. Also the economies of those cities that are elite and losing people (but I don't think NYC is losing net people) have strong economies because the rich spend there, but the cheaper areas may have poor economies but having a strong economy doesn't mean your cost of living is low which is needed by middle class and poor families, so that is why many middle class Americans move to cheaper areas in the sunbelt. It is unfortunate because once this professor from Chicago school of Urban studies or something along those lines told mayors that the cities of the future should be enclaves for the rich and cease to be like the cities used to be, which are places of upwards economic mobility for the middle class and poor as they were supposed to. So now many cities embraced such an idea and that is why many of those cities turned into just that.
I think NYC is gaining population according to one of the C-D members posts recently, but NY state is losing population. I think that these cities with the exception of Chicago are elite cities that are gated, because you need to be very rich to live there. Also the economies of those cities that are elite and losing people (but I don't think NYC is losing net people) have strong economies because the rich spend there, but the cheaper areas may have poor economies but having a strong economy doesn't mean your cost of living is low which is needed by middle class and poor families, so that is why many middle class Americans move to cheaper areas in the sunbelt. It is unfortunate because once this professor from Chicago school of Urban studies or something along those lines told mayors that the cities of the future should be enclaves for the rich and cease to be like the cities used to be, which are places of upwards economic mobility for the middle class and poor as they were supposed to. So now many cities embraced such an idea and that is why many of those cities turned into just that.
No I don't think those cities should be that way. The only problem is that the built city of any of those only has so much space and buildings, and if the rich want them they'll pay top dollar to get the apartment that the current (or now former) middle class people own for themselves. Landlords will gladly accept getting $3,800 a month rent for a small studio in Manhattan than the much cheaper one it was during early 90s New York.
One way they could stop this is by declaring many city properties to have a cap on how much the land value can raise per year, capping it at maybe a maximum of 3% per year can help keep the cost of housing rents down. If Manhattan had 50% of all of its residential properties have a land value increase cap of 3% per year I think that would have been good. Therefore you could ensure affordable housing without resorting to government subsidized Section 8 housing which is ineffective. That and also have stricter laws regarding evicting residents, so the rich will have more barriers to entry into the city occupied by poorer natives and if they do not voluntarily sell their apartment to them, the rich cannot have them get kicked out and the land value increase cap helps slow down or prevent gentrification through increasing rent costs.
Another way cities can become "un-Elite" is to raise the amount of supply to drive down the cost of rent so both rich and poor can live in the city together and one does not drive out the other for the same urban space, but to do that in any of the 5 cities or any city is very bad because then you'll end up demolishing old historic buildings to give into demand and the city will no longer be pretty and lose the very thing that people flock to the city for forever. Creating more supply of housing in cities is a very bad way of lowering rental prices for poor people to live there. Plus most new developments in any of those cities are luxury apartments for the super elite rich anyways so it doesn't help. So I propose they develop high density, mixed use, transit oriented development that has train connection to the main city but developed in the suburbs and exurbs, replacing commonly seen stripmalls that take up gobs of space and create a whole new urban community similar to NYC, SF, Chicago or what have you. Smart growth at its finest, and they can take a quick trainride into the main city like NYC or whatever if they wanted to. Those elite cities are in high demand for both rich AND poor, so you can provide more supply without destroying the city itself to do it.
I grew up pretty poor in Boston and yet, I had free access to all the libraries and there were plenty of programs as a disadvantaged teenager that got me access to all the museums or into seminars on a variety of topics at Harvard, MIT, BU or Tufts. When I started working around the age of 16, I could pay $25 for guitar lessons from a Berklee grad. I got to a lot of shows. I connected with a lot of people all up and down the social strata.
Did I get to go to an expensive prep school? No. But I took my English courses at Harvard and my art electives at the Art Institute of Boston starting when I was 15, and didn't have to pay for either due to programs in place at both those universities.
Did I get to live in a nice brownstone or colonial estate? Nah, apartment tower. But it was equidistant from Harvard and Central squares, and I could walk to all of the above amenities with relative ease.
I grew up pretty poor in Boston and yet, I had free access to all the libraries and there were plenty of programs as a disadvantaged teenager that got me access to all the museums or into seminars on a variety of topics at Harvard, MIT, BU or Tufts. When I started working around the age of 16, I could pay $25 for guitar lessons from a Berklee grad. I got to a lot of shows. I connected with a lot of people all up and down the social strata.
Did I get to go to an expensive prep school? No. But I took my English courses at Harvard and my art electives at the Art Institute of Boston starting when I was 15, and didn't have to pay for either due to programs in place at both those universities.
Did I get to live in a nice brownstone or colonial estate? Nah, apartment tower. But it was equidistant from Harvard and Central squares, and I could walk to all of the above amenities with relative ease.
They are costly, no arguing that. In addition, a lot of people want a place with a yard, a garage, and more space, which is difficult for many people to obtain in a place like the NYC or Boston city core.
For me, though, it's a "get what you pay for" deal. That's why I've got basically no desire to move back to a rural area or the 'burbs.
Many reasons why people are leaving big cities, even the elite ones. The cost of living is rising as the rich elites move in, they drive up rents and driving up land value which inadvertently drives up the cost of all goods that stores must sell in order to cover the cost of higher rent for their store. Also, the traditional ideas of suburban lifestyle for families calls out to them and they want it.
DC has been gaining population within the city in the last 10 years.
For the educated.
Working class people have been leaving DC in high numbers in the last 10 years. The population gain is due to opportunities for educated people(elite to some extent).
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.
