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.
Well at the moment I'm just 2 years out of college and don't live in the city, so I've still got a way to go. I do like those old houses though, and I think if I moved back to Syracuse I'd either buy one of those or build a new house in a city neighborhood as an example to others that new construction can be done in old neighborhoods.
I was definitely over-simplifying the issue. :P Tongue-in-cheek, again. (I try to avoid sweeping generalisations when I can. lol)
But- I will never understand why people settle when there are better homes to be had, often for a lesser price. It takes a lot of searching and patience but such homes are out there. I try to give people the benefit of doubt, thinking that they'll buy the home that best fits their family and lifestyle, rather than playing into the advertising of a developer and whatever pressure they feel from their peers to buy in a development - but I suppose that's asking too much. It really does baffle me that people will buy a 4bd, 2.5 bath in Minoa or Cicero for $250K when there's a 5bd, 2.5 bath grand Tudor in Bradford with extensive Old World type landscaping and stunning architectural detail - completely renovated - for $225K. I don't understand it but also realize that my personal preference isn't shared by all.
Maybe families want a large backyard, good schools and a home you can design yourself?
Bare with me. I know my writing skills aren't very good, I can only use the talents that God gave me. Unfortunately, writing in a flowery, convincing way isn't one of them. (Which is probably one reason why all my ideas and common sense logic to help Syracuse have never made an impact.)
I thought all my other posts about sprawl would make most members of this forum connect the dotes and realize why it’s plain silly talk to just say: “Hey, guys why don’t we stop sprawl in the Syracuse area.”
I guess not!
Why was all this sprawl talk.... silly talk?
1. Even in the unlikely event you stopped construction of all suburban growth around Syracuse, people wouldn’t magically starting living in city neighborhoods. I believe, given the choice, most people would move rather move away from CNY than move into a city neighborhood.
2. There are only two ways that cities with ghettos, crime, drugs and poverty on the level of Syracuse are revitalized. A) Billions of dollars in Government money B) Fast population growth in the region.
Anyone now understand why it’s useless to focus on sprawl?
I thought someone would be smart enough to actually put forth a real specific plan to combat sprawl, but after two whole threads dedicated to sprawl….still all I was hearing was the same old : “stop sprawl to help the city neighborhoods”. That reminds me of when people who opposed Destiny USA would say “use the money for Destiny USA to build up downtown”. LOL come on people, I thought Syracusans were smarter than that!
OK, I’ll put forward a specific plan I studied in college to control sprawl. Portland, OR’s urban growth boundary. Portland drew a line around it and created a law that stated sprawl could not go beyond the line. It works to make suburbs more dense and protects farmland (which was the goal), but if your goal is to force people to move in the city neighborhoods, it will do little to help.
Why? Portland’s sprawl never stopped growing, the urban growth boundary only controlled the growth’s location and density. If a line was drawn around Syracuse, since growth is so slow in CNY, the sprawl would likely never even reach the urban growth boundary in our lifetime. And if it did, it would cause more problems that it would solve. What problems? High housing costs and stopping the growth in tax bases in some towns.
OK, now, how about another specific plan to stop sprawl? Onondaga County outlawing all new sprawl. This plan will not work either. Why? The sprawl would just leap frog into neighboring counties like Oswego and Madison counties. This creates more problems than it solves too.
There are many problems with stopping sprawl that no one ever addresses:
1) the Syracuse area loses it’s advantage of attracting newcomers through our great school district like Fayetteville-Manlius. If you stop sprawl, only a limited number of people can move into the FM school district. Meaning homes prices in that district would skyrocket.
2) Syracuse would lose it’s advantage of attracting newcomers through our low home prices. Like I said above, stopping sprawl in the best school districts in CNY would create very high home prices in those districts.
This is exactly why it’s silly talk to focus on sprawl and not on the only true solution to helping the city of Syracuse revitalize: fast population growth through job growth.
If the Syracuse area had high job growth for a number of years, more young people would stay after college. This would create a demand for new houses units in the city. Thus revitalizing city neighborhoods.
I think you're missing the point of the conversation. Growth isn't a bad thing; its a bad thing when it happens in a situation where its just the same population moving around rather than happening in tandem with population growth. And your portland example highlights the fact that attempts at restricting sprawl work. The main reason people move there is its vibrancy, which is a direct offshoot of its increased density compared to other cities of the same size. I also have a problem with sprawl from an urbanist point of view. Its just bad urbanism. Portland's outer areas are much more diverse in terms of their use-mix. They also are better planned than Syracuse's ad-hoc, unchecked growth areas where shopping centers and housing are just stuck in wherever they fit. What those growth boundaries do is force developers to build things other than the cheapest and easiest option, which is mcmansions on old farmland.
Syracuse isn't even that crime or drug ridden. Ever been to North Philly? It makes the south side look just peachy . Syracuse does need growth to recover. I just don't think improved suburbs will do anything to help it grow. As a young, highly educated, extremely mobile professional those sorts of things just don't attract me to a city. Nightlife, an art scene, great restaurants, and a walkable, car-light lifestyle are attractive to me, and encouraging suburbs and denigrating the city just undermines that lifestyle and discourages people like me from seeing Syracuse as an option.
I've said before that suburbs will always be there. But restricting them does encourage the development of other housing options. Encouraging them won't do anything but tear up a beautiful countryside and add lots of TGI Fridays and Wal-Marts.
Last edited by justflow1983; 03-18-2009 at 10:09 AM..
Reason: spelling
I recently moved to Pompey, It is nice, I love the school district I was curious about the subdivision thing I thought it would be nice to have a few but not like what Levitt did, maybe a few with like 15 homes each. What do you guys think of well water?
What's Levitt? I've been out of the area for a few years, so I don't know any of the new builds going up. I don't really see a problem with well water. Using a water main reduces aquifer depletion because the water is coming from a lake or reservoir (usually both), so from a sustainability end of things a well is marginally worse. In terms of quality shouldn't be much different if its properly treated and depending on the source. I'm assuming you're also on septic? I think thats more problematic because its basically left untreated in the ground and requires a lot of maintenance, whereas if you're on a sewage system there's less hassle and the waste is cleaned and treated before most of the water re-enters the water cycle. My 2cents as a green-focused architect.
I think you're missing the point of the conversation. Growth isn't a bad thing; its a bad thing when it happens in a situation where its just the same population moving around rather than happening in tandem with population growth. And your portland example highlights the fact that attempts at restricting sprawl work. The main reason people move there is its vibrancy, which is a direct offshoot of its increased density compared to other cities of the same size. I also have a problem with sprawl from an urbanist point of view. Its just bad urbanism. Portland's outer areas are much more diverse in terms of their use-mix. They also are better planned than Syracuse's ad-hoc, unchecked growth areas where shopping centers and housing are just stuck in wherever they fit. What those growth boundaries do is force developers to build things other than the cheapest and easiest option, which is mcmansions on old farmland.
Syracuse isn't even that crime or drug ridden. Ever been to North Philly? It makes the south side look just peachy . Syracuse does need growth to recover. I just don't think improved suburbs will do anything to help it grow. As a young, highly educated, extremely mobile professional those sorts of things just don't attract me to a city. Nightlife, an art scene, great restaurants, and a walkable, car-light lifestyle are attractive to me, and encouraging suburbs and denigrating the city just undermines that lifestyle and discourages people like me from seeing Syracuse as an option.
I've said before that suburbs will always be there. But restricting them does encourage the development of other housing options. Encouraging them won't do anything but tear up a beautiful countryside and add lots of TGI Fridays and Wal-Marts.
What did I say that you didn't understand?
All you are doing is repeating the same old stop sprawl mantra.
Portland's urban growth boundary worked to save farmland. It didn't stop sprawl, it only made it denser. If that's your goal, then maybe it's something we should look at. If your goal is to help the City of Syracuse, then the urban growth boundary will NOT do ANYTHING to help the city redevelop.
Yes, density is one of my goals. And I feel that density helps a city forge an identity, which is something that would help Syracuse. As I mentioned, the increased density of Portland directly helped the city become the magnet that it is. They are considered reasons for being against sprawl, I don't agree with you, and I was making my points. You're point is that we need to look like Rochester or North Jersey. I've even left positive posts towards some of the suburbs on other threads. My arguments for the reduction of sprawl is to mitigate the negative effects it has on a city's urban framework.
By the way, don't insult my intelligence. I'm ivy-league educated, with honors, and have won international design competitions. I'm good at what I do, and I think the way I do for very specific reasons. I've lived in 5 countries, and have seen how many cities work. I have been trying to make a counterpoint to yours, and obviously in your world there are no other valid viewpoints. If you want to make the point that a growth boundary won't help the city, my counterargument is that building more suburbs without an equivalent population growth won't help it either.
Yes, density is one of my goals. And I feel that density helps a city forge an identity, which is something that would help Syracuse. As I mentioned, the increased density of Portland directly helped the city become the magnet that it is. They are considered reasons for being against sprawl, I don't agree with you, and I was making my points. You're point is that we need to look like Rochester or North Jersey. I've even left positive posts towards some of the suburbs on other threads. My arguments for the reduction of sprawl is to mitigate the negative effects it has on a city's urban framework.
By the way, don't insult my intelligence. I'm ivy-league educated, with honors, and have won international design competitions. I'm good at what I do, and I think the way I do for very specific reasons. I've lived in 5 countries, and have seen how many cities work. I have been trying to make a counterpoint to yours, and obviously in your world there are no other valid viewpoints. If you want to make the point that a growth boundary won't help the city, my counterargument is that building more suburbs without an equivalent population growth won't help it either.
LOL, why don't you actually think about what I'm saying for once. I was taught the same thing you were in college, but then I looked at the real world and why everything is the way it is. There is a reason why sprawl exists. There are better ways to sprawl, but that's not what you are talking about. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.
I'm all for better sprawl. More bike paths, more sidewalks, cluster development, new urbanism etc. But that's not what you keep saying. All you are saying is that any development outside the city has to be stopped to help the city of Syracuse redevelop. I say it is NOT that simple.
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.
Maybe families want a large backyard, good schools and a home you can design yourself?
)
. Syracuse does need growth to recover. I just don't think improved suburbs will do anything to help it grow. As a young, highly educated, extremely mobile professional those sorts of things just don't attract me to a city. Nightlife, an art scene, great restaurants, and a walkable, car-light lifestyle are attractive to me, and encouraging suburbs and denigrating the city just undermines that lifestyle and discourages people like me from seeing Syracuse as an option.
