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.
Manhatten is nice but it seems like everything surrounding it is a dump, besides hoboken. Anyone else feel this way?? Manhatten is always great to walk around in and have a good time but it always feels like it takes so long to get to a nice place outside the city.
The entire tri state area also feels so overpopulated and overpriced to the point it's depressing.
Is it like this everywhere?? Is every city/region like this in the USA?
I mean where can you find nice, normal suburbs outside a city that don't cost a fortune to live in????? Because thats what it's like here in the NYC vicinity. Manhatten is desirable. Nothing around Manhatten is desirable until the nice suburbs which are 20 miles out...and those are RICH suburbs where you won't find a house under $700,000 unless it's a smalllll cottage.
C'mon this is absurd. First off its ManhattAn spelled with an A.
Secondly there are lots of decent/nice areas in the outer boroughs. Look at whats going on in Brooklyn right now. The areas in Brooklyn near lower Manhattan are very popular. Most of Queens is a nice place to live. Staten Island is mostly a nice suburban area. Nassau County for the most part is quite nice. Westchester is nice. Large parts of NJ is nice.
I think that rather asking what areas are good you should be asking what areas are bad, because the good definitely outweighs the bad sections of this area.
Plus you have to understand that this area is somewhat commonplace of American cities. Since the 1950s with white flight from cities there has been an increasing pattern. Generally the downtown area of older American cities is quite nice and lots of wealthy people will reside there (think of the Upper East Side/Upper West Side). Then outside of those areas there will be some very sketchy areas (South Bronx/Brownsville), but also some very wealthy areas (think Bronxville, Riverdale, Forest Hills, Summit, NJ). Further outside of that there will be upper-middle class suburbs, and even farther out will be the exurbs which are cheaper, and not yet really built up.
You'll see this same pattern across the country in the older more built up cities. I can't really think of a more established American city that defies this trend. I think its somewhat different in the Sun belt cities in that they lack a nice downtown area where wealthy people live.
Plus you have to understand that this area is somewhat commonplace of American cities. Since the 1950s with white flight from cities there has been an increasing pattern. Generally the downtown area of older American cities is quite nice and lots of wealthy people will reside there (think of the Upper East Side/Upper West Side). Then outside of those areas there will be some very sketchy areas (South Bronx/Brownsville), but also some very wealthy areas (think Bronxville, Riverdale, Forest Hills, Summit, NJ). Further outside of that there will be upper-middle class suburbs, and even farther out will be the exurbs which are cheaper, and not yet really built up.
That is an interesting trend. How did you find that out?
Plus you have to understand that this area is somewhat commonplace of American cities. Since the 1950s with white flight from cities there has been an increasing pattern. Generally the downtown area of older American cities is quite nice and lots of wealthy people will reside there (think of the Upper East Side/Upper West Side). Then outside of those areas there will be some very sketchy areas (South Bronx/Brownsville), but also some very wealthy areas (think Bronxville, Riverdale, Forest Hills, Summit, NJ). Further outside of that there will be upper-middle class suburbs, and even farther out will be the exurbs which are cheaper, and not yet really built up.
There are established urban geography models that describe this pattern -- the Burgess concentric zone model, Hoyt's sector model etc. Burgess described an "invasion and sucession" process where poorer populations continually force higher income residents further out in the suburbs. This has been the case for most of the last 100 years.
But gentrification runs counter to this trend, which is why it causes controversy.
A trend that began in the 80s and continues today is one where affluent populations choose to remain in cities and not move to the suburbs. It is "invasion and succession" all over again, but this time with higher income groups displacing are lower income people who are increasingly moving to first-ring suburbs. Low income/industrial areas usually exist close to the central business district and are desireable areas for these affluent populations to take over. These groups are quite often composed of young professionals, thus the term "Young Urban Professional" aka "yuppie" was invented.
American cities also tend to have an old-money enclave nestled close to the central business district (such as the UES in NYC or Beacon Hill in Boston) As a result of gentrification, most American cites now have a ring of afflluence surrounding the central business district, with poorer populations closer to the outer edges of the city.
New York is more complex because it has multiple central business districts and a physical geography based on islands, but the same principles are at work.
Yeah that sounds about right. I don't know much of anything about urban geography, but this pattern applies to just about any older American city. The exceptions would be the sunbelt cities which have really only been built up over the past 40-50 years and generally lack a wealthy neighborhood adjoining the central business district.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpstaterInBklyn
There are established urban geography models that describe this pattern -- the Burgess concentric zone model, Hoyt's sector model etc. Burgess described an "invasion and sucession" process where poorer populations continually force higher income residents further out in the suburbs. This has been the case for most of the last 100 years.
But gentrification runs counter to this trend, which is why it causes controversy.
A trend that began in the 80s and continues today is one where affluent populations choose to remain in cities and not move to the suburbs. It is "invasion and succession" all over again, but this time with higher income groups displacing are lower income people who are increasingly moving to first-ring suburbs. Low income/industrial areas usually exist close to the central business district and are desireable areas for these affluent populations to take over. These groups are quite often composed of young professionals, thus the term "Young Urban Professional" aka "yuppie" was invented.
American cities also tend to have an old-money enclave nestled close to the central business district (such as the UES in NYC or Beacon Hill in Boston) As a result of gentrification, most American cites now have a ring of afflluence surrounding the central business district, with poorer populations closer to the outer edges of the city.
New York is more complex because it has multiple central business districts and a physical geography based on islands, but the same principles are at work.
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.
