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.
Except worldwide urban living has been expanding. That includes public transportation and being close to amenities. And close to work. People visit and spend money in NYC. Not the suburbs. They will become even poorer.
Which NYC suburbs will become poorer? That doesn't even make sense.
Do you mean the suburbs which are populated almost exclusively by American blacks; e.g.., Mount Vernon, Roosevelt, Irving, etc.?
If you think Bronxville, Scarsdale, Summit, Mt. Kisco or Muttontown are going to get poorer then you're delusional. The demographics of these suburbs are close to 100% caucasian with a few monied asians sprinkled in for good measure. These towns have the best school districts in the world and that's not going to change.
I think you must be engaged in some psychological exercise; perhaps reaction formation? Were you raised in a suburb you hated or do you not have or plan or plan on having children? That would explain your delusion.
Let look at current urbanization. A few decades ago, New York City was the most densities city on earth. Today NYC is not in the top 10 and are continuously bested by other cites. Same could be said for London a century ago. Most of the worlds developing countries are moving to cities that are near coastal waterways. Also developing countries with large cities are not sustainable, often low quality of life, poverty and poor sanitation. Developed countries have their cities surrounded by suburbs depending the suburban ring one might be more affluent than the other. As for the Bronx and gentrification? Of course Bronx will gentrify, I knew about this since the late 90s. Bronx is near job centers of Midtown Manhattan which is beneficial, as well as the Bronx receiving spill over from Harlem. Big problem for NYC is that its too big to full gentrify the city. Gentrification has limits and only the inner city neighborhood can gentrify and not far away neighborhoods. If NYC was small like DC, Boston or San Francisco, we would all be singing a different tune. Back to the Bronx. Only half of the South Bronx will receive some sort of revitalization and gentrification. Areas South of 167 on River avenue going down to Bruckner, and from Bruckner going up to 149th and from 149th up to Brook avenue ending at 167 and Melrose. Rest of the south Bronx will still have poverty. Rest of the the Bronx does not need gentrification due to being middle class and far removed from the city center along with having a suburban character that does not mesh well with new urbanism.
Wait until some dead ender muslim group explodes the first nuke in a city center. If you survive, you'll get to watch the entire middle east turned to glass.
Or, as Bill Gates fears most, a sudden pandemic like the Spanish Flu kills off a couple hundred million sophisticated urbanites and their Agenda 21 nonsense. Suddenly, that cosmopolitan lifestyle won't seem so attractive anymore.
Apropos of, I was in Rio banging 4 girls at a time during that (in)famous conference. I was 21 and having way more fun that those useless "urban planners". The only thing I was planning was where to get more zinc and early under the counter sildenafil which was available at the time from some Brazilian chemists.
you people like to throw the term "gentrify" around like a noun, verb, adverb and adjective all in one.
Do you even know what you mean by gentrify? Do you mean white people resettling city centers where they always lived until liberals decided that they way to assimilate rural blacks, various central americans and carribean islanders into white culture was to mass import them right into normal middle class neighborhoods?
Because that didn't work out so well. Why do liberals relentlessly try to socially engineer everyone? Whats up with that??
Why can liberals just leave people alone and let them be. It's utterly impossible for a modern liberal to leave people alone.
The very ironic part is that liberals suck at social engineering. The Great Society couldn't be more ironically named. Pure comedy. Tragic, but, comedy nonetheless. It's very literally the worst failure of thought and action in human history. Pol Pot would be embarrassed at what a piker he was compared to Johnson and friends.
These days I am seeing an absurd amount of gentry folk moving into my Queens neighborhood. Seems like every other weekend there is a moving van parked on the block relocating people from North Brooklyn or the Lower East Side. My property value has close to doubled in the last 3 years. This all in tree-lined suburban Queens.
With Queens being suburban, you can also think of it having the most development opportunities vs the other boros. It still has higher density than most US cities.
I used the term "gentry" class in a reply to one of your comments a few weeks ago and since then, it seems like you parrot it every one of your comments... lol. Please, please don't be offended.
i looked back and you never used the term prior to then. I'm a bit of a stalker like that. Sorry.
Your use of the word is a malapropism. I think you think you know what the word means but based on your usage, you don't.
What's happening is you're dancing with words in an effort to remain politically correct. You don't want to identify people by race but your point(s) would be better made if you just tried to stick with plain language.
"…I am seeing an absurd amount of gentry folk moving into my Queens neighborhood". That makes less than zero sense. By definition, the gentry class can't suddenly move into a new area or they're no longer gentry.
by definition, gentry are multi generation land owners of estates. Unless they're moving their castle or chateau into Queens (let me guess, you live in sunnyside or maybe astoria. if not, then maspeth or ridge wood - those pollacks like gentrifying!!!), they can't move and be "gentry".
I'm just trying to help you out, my brother :-)
I'm technically a gentry class New Yorker, as my family has lived here and continually owned real property from before this was even a nation. So, now you've officially met a gentry class person. Isn't that cool? Nice to meet you too.
Last edited by Citizenrich; 06-02-2015 at 03:39 AM..
Which NYC suburbs will become poorer? That doesn't even make sense.
A lot of Long Island, especially Nassau county closer to NYC, is already much poorer/crime ridden than in the past. A lot of them are losing population too. The Scarsdales you mentioned literally comprise 0.1% of NYC suburbs. Meanwhile, crime rate in Hempstead is double the US national average, and is increasing.
Not even. High paid career devoted people are a part of pushing urbanism. They hate suburbs. Suburbs worked better when there were no women in high paid positions. Now with with both mom and dad working long hours, they prefer being close to work and amenitirs.
With that said of course suburbs will not die out. They are increasingly for lower middle class people. No one things suburbs will die off.
If you look at the people on this forum who like suburbs, affirdability is a key factor.
Not all high paid careers are in the inner cities. Many large corporations have HQ out in the burbs were they can have large sprawling campuses. It may be that NYC metro is like that. I do not believe this true for other cities though.
And lower middle class families are likely to have two working parents, not the family with one high paid career parent. The other spouse may as well stay home and enjoy the money.
And those concerns about the darling children arr for lower middle class people who can't really afford the city but must hide behind one million excuses.
Plenty of children born in suburbs do not have the best careers or futures. The suburbs are not and have never been a better place to raise children.
They are quiter and that is about it.
All these lilly white children from upper middle to upper class families you see walking around Manhattan outside the Upper East Side is a brand new phenomenon. So we cant use them as a litmus test just yet.
Before the gentrification, there were plenty of lower middle class kids in Manhattan, more so than upper middle to upper class children. Those kids were in the burbs first or the outer boros away from the city center. As the lower middle class kids grew up and moved up the class ladder, they too moved further and further away from the city center to either the outer boros or the burbs to raise families.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. ENY is yuppified and its poor residents move to Rockaway? The Bronx is totally gentrified and its poor residents move to Newburgh and Bronxville? That seems a little ridiculous. Of course it's hard to predict how things will go, but gentrification has a "carrying capacity"; there's only so many upper middle class young professionals who want to live in NYC and that number is less than 8.5 million. There is so much of the city left that isn't substantially gentrified (everything outside of Brownstone Brooklyn and Manhattan S of 125th-96th) and I don't see any neighborhoods outside of that totally flipping to white or upper middle class/yuppie, except maybe Harlem and parts of Bed-Stuy. In the Bronx, as in ENY and elsewhere, there will probably a small gentrifying influx, but nothing like the total transformations of Williamsburg, Park Slope, or whatnot.
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.
