A Lack of Retail Downtown .....

[nei]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The suburbs are arguably better than the city when it comes to authentic ethnic cuisine, given (as is the case in most metros) more immigrants live in the suburbs than the city these days. For example, the only place to get Burmese food in the region now is in the suburbs.

Is that really true? Maybe my perception is skewed by New York City, but I though in general cities still have more immigrants than their suburbs except maybe the west (where there's little difference) and some rust belt cities. Maybe Boston, if the inner suburbs are counted separately given the city limits don't hold much of the older areas of the metro.

I do think it's true that if you're looking for upscale, trendy non-chain restaurants, you're not going to find them in the suburbs, except maybe in a handful of really upscale areas.

ah, that isn't the case for Long Island, though of course NYC has more.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by nei

Is that really true? Maybe my perception is skewed by New York City, but I though in general cities still have more immigrants than their suburbs except maybe the west (where there's little difference) and some rust belt cities. Maybe Boston, if the inner suburbs are counted separately given the city limits don't hold much of the older areas of the metro.

I've read several articles about this over the last few years. Here is one.

Locally, there are not many immigrants in Pittsburgh proper. There are tons of international students (particularly Asians) around universities in Oakland, Squirrel Hill, and Shadyside, but it's unclear how many of them stay in the U.S. after graduation. There's also small refugee communities, like the Somalis and the Bhutanese. But most of the immigrant families are in the suburbs - particularly the Indian community, which is strong enough in the South Hills that some local theaters now play Bollywood movies.

Originally Posted by nei

ah, that isn't the case for Long Island, though of course NYC has more.

It's much harder for suburban Long Islanders to head into the city for dinner than it is for Pittsburgh suburbanites to head into the city.

[goillini8]

Isn't lack of downtown retail a problem in most cities (there are exceptions) due to the fact that the concept of "downtown" has changed so drastically over the years. Sure, urban downtowns still exist - there's still visible concentrations of tall buildings and transit hubs - but the forces that brought people downtown in numbers needed to sustain a lot of retail have diminished to a large degree. Fewer businesses need to have big operations concentrated downtown, and even the ones that do need to have a lot of people in the same place, there are other places to do so, such as suburban office parks. Obviously, the development of the suburbs and the explosion of suburban malls, big box retail, strip malls, etc make it so people don't have to go downtown to shop. Maybe even more so, the internet and online shopping make it so people don't have to go anywhere at all to shop. Then, there's gentrification of urban neighborhoods away from downtown. Since people aren't going downtown to buy staples like appliances and clothes, when they do shop in the city, they're probably going to more eclectic stores which are often in neighborhoods away from downtown. Increased mobility (cars, better road systems, public transit) means that people don't have to live downtown (obviously some still choose to) and fewer residents means fewer customers for downtown businesses.

I see it in all but the biggest cities generally - downtowns just aren't like they were in their heyday. Some cities have turned them around, some have stopped the bleeding, while still others are still in decline. It's a tough question to solve.