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.
In these frenzied, hyper-times in which we live, our built up environment goes haywire in construction. In a "be careful what you wish for" world, is the growth actually killing the very places it supposedly enhances?
And, is it possible, that some of our cities that have had the least amount of development and redevelopment might actually be ahead-of-the-game in this regard?
Our cities seem to grow and grow, not just in size, of course, but in importance. They become greater and greater, their attributes, their list of goodies, reenforce their imperial status. The city itself, based on its own attributes, stands taller and taller, better and better, taken as the unit it is.
And yet ironically, there appears to be an inverse relationship to the rise of the city's assets and points of pride and the QOL of the people who actually live there.
I realize, of course, that my observations above run contrary to the holy grail of C/D, a place where YIMBY is not only a motto, but the basic tenet of life. Still......
Which cities in particular, do you feel, have been affected most by the amount of growth and development and popularity and what about each one do you see that they have in terms of the individual, become worse, not better, due to their growth?
Austin. What is the thing that made Austin attractive was the fact that it was an affordable, quirky, liberal, semi urban city. Now, it’s congested, expensive and has traded his hipster identity for more of a tech bro identity. The city has not done anything to urbanize, so traffic is a nightmare and transit is practically nonexistent.
Austin. What is the thing that made Austin attractive was the fact that it was an affordable, quirky, liberal, semi urban city. Now, it’s congested, expensive and has traded his hipster identity for more of a tech bro identity. The city has not done anything to urbanize, so traffic is a nightmare and transit is practically nonexistent.
Didn't commuter rail debut in Austin a couple of years back? Obviously it's not enough but it's something.
Too many people for what it’s currently built for. Land and housing crisis/shortage. Homeless population out of control. One of the highest poverty rates in the US. Traffic is a nightmare. Obviously way overpriced. Shall I continue?
Austin. What is the thing that made Austin attractive was the fact that it was an affordable, quirky, liberal, semi urban city. Now, it’s congested, expensive and has traded his hipster identity for more of a tech bro identity. The city has not done anything to urbanize, so traffic is a nightmare and transit is practically nonexistent.
Okay, I'm super curious, when was this period for Austin? 90s? 70s? 2002? People are always making this exact complaint about Austin, but like America, they never actually say when Austin was "great."
Same with people who say Charleston and Savannah have lost all there charm and what not. When exactly was it there and what year did they exactly lose it. I assume the 90s MTV era was "peak Austin?" Or was it more 1925?
Too many people for what it’s currently built for. Land and housing crisis/shortage. Homeless population out of control. One of the highest poverty rates in the US. Traffic is a nightmare. Obviously way overpriced. Shall I continue?
Also its quirkiness, its sense of do-your-own thing, its wimsey, and the very idea a real live family could actually live there. This utterly amazes me to say this as I've had a love affair with San Francisco my entire (long) life, but........today I see it as being cold, corporate and souless.
I hear this complaint a lot about NYC. Yes NYC has always been one of the most expensive cities in the country, but the gentrification the city has and is going through has been tremendous. Harlem for instance is a neighborhood that has made a complete 180. All this new money and development has made NYC an untouchable beast. However, the prices are now at a insane point and a lot of the city has become more vanilla and corporate. Again this is a complaint I hear a lot.
Downtown Chicago never experienced the type of decline many other US cities did in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Though some areas like the Loop slipped a bit while ohers like Michigan Avenue thrived, generally speaking speaking this was a very healthy downtown area.
But it was accessib le. You could relatively drive there comfortably and you could also relatively park there comfortably...and cheaply.
Dem days are looooooooooog gone in the conjested, nerve wracking, expensive Manhattan-on-Lake. You will that Chicago want to have an urban experience that is less frantic, more sane, we take that short (90 months miles) north to Milwaukee. Milwaukee obviously has fewer attractions than Chicago, but its offerings are good....and this nicely and humanly scaled city makes for a very rewarding day trip.
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.
