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.
If you are referring to Hurricane Gustav, 2008, then you are wrong. They went there because of ratings, people feared New Orleans would flood again and the mayor made sure the city evacuated. As did the Governor. It struck Baton Rouge very hard, I remember it. It's not a small town.
I could care less about proving something to you. If you can't tell that from reading my other posts.
that P.S. wasn't meant specifically for you, that was just in general to anybody who responded to the post.
Well, nei, I was going to comment, but I've had two hard, and I do mean hard days at work, and when I got home, I was way to exhausted to do anything more than look at them. I liked them, all of them. I love rural areas, and I have exactly no desire,unlike one of the commenters, to explore thrift shops and the like. I can entertain myself quite well after 5 PM, with or w/o a beer bar. My niece is raisinga child in the city and I haven't turned her in for child abuse yet!
Thanks!
But was she raising them in an apartment or a single-family home?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa
Which city is in those photos?
I assume you mean the "real city" in the last 3 photos not the rural communities shown in a few other photos. The city is New York City. The first photo is of what's technically the Lower East Side but now feels like it's part of Chinatown. Looking towards Downtown. Other two photos are of Brooklyn Heights, on the opposite side of the East River.
The small town full brick buildings is Shelburne Falls, which has about 2500 people. It has normal services, and with the help of tourism a decent number of restaurants. Dunno how much goes there after 5 pm. There is a trolley museum. It's technically not a legal place, the half on one side of the river is part of one town, the other side another town.
The Washington State photos require a 50 mile ferry ride to access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
I liked your photos! Are any of them trick photos, and really in a city?
These are within the Youngstown city limits:
Glad you liked them. Yours are nice, too but the area looks flat. Well photo #2 is technically within the city limits of Holyoke, an old industrial city of 40,000 (60,000 at its peak). Some great architecture, especially Victorian mill buildings. Also some spectacular industrial decay. But everything in Massachusetts is within the limits of a town or a city; some smaller cities often will have rural land. Look at the boundaries of Holyoke:
But was she raising them in an apartment or a single-family home?
My niece (by marriage) is raising one; currently living in a duplex. When she was married to my nephew they lived in a variety of habitats including a suburban apt, an apt. in the city and a different duplex in the city. I've never reported her.
Given the condition that Europe is in, I do not count myself in the Europhile camp. London's population decreased by nearly 2 million in the years following WWII, Inner London's populaton declined by 40% in the decades following WWII and had been dropping before that too. Nor is Inner London alone in its decline of rust belt proportions. Copenhagen saw a similar 40% decline in population from the 1950-1990, Glasglow nearly 50%. Paris has declined by ~800,000 while the metro area has more than doubled to 12 million. Berlin's population has stabilized at ~800,000 fewer residents, but another 1 million are from immigration. Madrid declines from 1970-1990 and the decline halted in 1990 only because of international immigration.
Once again, rose-colored glasses. Detroit is not representative of cities in America. And saying "It's not comparable" to the many American cities that are perfectly intact is disingenuous. In the last three decades, Athens has lost more than a quarter of its population. It's not an intact city.
Given the condition Europe is in? If you're alluding to what I think you're alluding to then please keep your politics out of this. And I definitely don't have rose colored glasses or whatever that is. I was born in Europe and lived there for a while before moving here. There's a stark contrast between the European American cities. I also made a typo that I didn't catch until was rereading my post, but I also meant to include Asia since that also includes a region where there's a significant number of cities in first world or nearing first world countries that could be compared to American cities to highlight the differences in how public policy helps shapes cities.
Cities don't have to end up like Detroit on one extreme to illustrate what I mean or like NYC in America. American cities are more centered around simply being economically efficient instead of having an environment of livability. Cities became places where people simply go to work and leave. Not live. Policy following WWII made it much easier for the average (white) American to buy a house away from the city through loan standards set by the FHA and people were encouraged to do this because they were given tax incentives. The person left renting is left wondering when he'll be able to purchase a home that is cheap. And they're cheap away from the city. In European and Asian cities, there's a lot more neutrality when it comes buying or renting. Fixed rate set over a set number of years are much less common and it's uncommon for lower and middle class people who want to live in the city to be able to through multi-year leases to stabilize rent prices and allow worker wages to increase and not get eaten up by rent. It's a form of rent control which can be bad since landlords will less of an incentive to do maintenance for their tenants, but it's circumvented by giving tenants some autonomy in their leases. Meaning they can make some modifications to the place they're renting out(like a home) and are also expected to deal with upkeep. Of course there are other things that helped lead cities emptying out like racism(white flight), auto-centricity, transportation infrastructure, energy policies, the decline in the city tax base, and the war on drugs that made people leave. The high rate of violent crime, "bad" schools, and high income disparity with very little middle income residents exist in the city for a reason. It's not a coincidence that compared to cities in other areas of the world people spread out around a city here while in other places, people live relatively close to one.
I assume you mean the "real city" in the last 3 photos not the rural communities shown in a few other photos. The city is New York City. The first photo is of what's technically the Lower East Side but now feels like it's part of Chinatown. Looking towards Downtown. Other two photos are of Brooklyn Heights, on the opposite side of the East River.
The small town full brick buildings is Shelburne Falls, which has about 2500 people. It has normal services, and with the help of tourism a decent number of restaurants. Dunno how much goes there after 5 pm. There is a trolley museum. It's technically not a legal place, the half on one side of the river is part of one town, the other side another town.
The Washington State photos require a 50 mile ferry ride to access.
I think if the Op researches the movemnt since WWII ;the Op will see its only thsoe incity centers. People have long ago voted with their feet in massive numbers.
Given the condition Europe is in? If you're alluding to what I think you're alluding to then please keep your politics out of this. And I definitely don't have rose colored glasses or whatever that is. I was born in Europe and lived there for a while before moving here. There's a stark contrast between the European American cities. I also made a typo that I didn't catch until was rereading my post, but I also meant to include Asia since that also includes a region where there's a significant number of cities in first world or nearing first world countries that could be compared to American cities to highlight the differences in how public policy helps shapes cities.
Cities don't have to end up like Detroit on one extreme to illustrate what I mean or like NYC in America. American cities are more centered around simply being economically efficient instead of having an environment of livability. Cities became places where people simply go to work and leave. Not live. Policy following WWII made it much easier for the average (white) American to buy a house away from the city through loan standards set by the FHA and people were encouraged to do this because they were given tax incentives. The person left renting is left wondering when he'll be able to purchase a home that is cheap. And they're cheap away from the city. In European and Asian cities, there's a lot more neutrality when it comes buying or renting. Fixed rate set over a set number of years are much less common and it's uncommon for lower and middle class people who want to live in the city to be able to through multi-year leases to stabilize rent prices and allow worker wages to increase and not get eaten up by rent. It's a form of rent control which can be bad since landlords will less of an incentive to do maintenance for their tenants, but it's circumvented by giving tenants some autonomy in their leases. Meaning they can make some modifications to the place they're renting out(like a home) and are also expected to deal with upkeep. Of course there are other things that helped lead cities emptying out like racism(white flight), auto-centricity, transportation infrastructure, energy policies, the decline in the city tax base, and the war on drugs that made people leave. The high rate of violent crime, "bad" schools, and high income disparity with very little middle income residents exist in the city for a reason. It's not a coincidence that compared to cities in other areas of the world people spread out around a city here while in other places, people live relatively close to one.
I didn't realize it was "political" to state the fact that the PIGS are not doing so well economically... You're the one who brought up public policy, and you think Europe's public policies have nothing to do with the fiscal situation it is in now?
Yes, public policy in American cities has often been to promote business and "amusement park" attractions for visitors to enjoy entertainment at the expense of making them good places to live. Sacramento is an example of that. Given the high crime rate and the fact that Sacramento has a far less than average number of law enforcement officers, one would think that might be a place to start. Instead they actually cut the number over the years as it's more important to spend tax dollars on building bars, pizza shops, trendy hotels, and so on. Likewise, spending on education has been cut for over a decade. The mayor's latest obsession is to take money from the parks, after school and youth programs, and the arts and use it to help fund a downtown arena.
Infrastructure spending? Not so much of that. It reminds me of an interview I read regarding the EIB's refusal to loan money to the Greek government because they had no trust in the government to use it for actual infrastructure and figured they'd just build another museum. Very similar with American cities. Of course, we're populist, so instead of building museums Sacramento builds bars and pizzerias. There are tons of contemporary bad public policy that are way more relevant today than a decision to build freeways which were funded by a tax on gasoline. And even then, it was the cities who implemented the public policy of bulldozing neighborhoods because they were only interested in downtown businesses. That's pretty much universally regarded as bad public policy today. Freeways and highways really aren't. You have a vocal minority of people who hate them but love their far more costly transit. Why? Because freeways and highways promote a growth contrary to their interest. They allow cars to move much more quickly which allows for less density and the preferred alternative to mass transit.
There is plenty of cities have cheap housing these days for the renters still wondering. You can buy a house in Detroit for next to nothing. It's just that most people don't want to live in Detroit, including black people. The black middle-class has been fleeing Detroit for years, but I'm sure it's just because they're racists too just like the white people. The fact is the confused renters don't want cheap housing. Every city I know of has cheap housing, it's just not in the desirable parts of the city. And since city governments often refuse to provide adequate basic services that people want, people run for the expensive housing in the suburbs or the few sections of the city they do provide basic services to. It's not even a city/suburb thing. Look at Anaheim. Anaheim Hills is part of Anaheim, it's just the city isn't really interested in addressing the needs of the flatlands. They basically do whatever Disney wants (makes some sense, it is 50% of their tax base) and cater to the needs of affluent Anaheim Hills residents. The middle- and working-class are leaving Anaheim because of Anaheim's public policy of intentional neglect. Like the EIB, the middle- and working-class have gotten tired of funding bad public policy and gone elsewhere. They can't afford to live in Anaheim Hills and don't want cheap housing. That's why they ended up in Anaheim instead of South Central where the housing is cheaper and why they are leaving now.
I didn't realize it was "political" to state the fact that the PIGS are not doing so well economically... You're the one who brought up public policy, and you think Europe's public policies have nothing to do with the fiscal situation it is in now?
When you start off a sentence with "look at how europes doing" or some variation of it when, I can't help but wonder if you're trying to make a partisan statement as most people who say it do. The EU is a union that consists of a multitude of countries each with their own policies, but they are for the most part based around social democratic ideas. If that's the case then the PIIGS(not PIGS) should all be in the same similiar situation, but they aren't because the reasons for the PIIGS situation is more nuanced and more complex than what you're making it out to be. Now this is going off topic and I'm not going to address it any more.
Quote:
Yes, public policy in American cities has often been to promote business and "amusement park" attractions for visitors to enjoy entertainment at the expense of making them good places to live.
I agree
Quote:
Infrastructure spending? Not so much of that. It reminds me of an interview I read regarding the EIB's refusal to loan money to the Greek government because they had no trust in the government to use it for actual infrastructure and figured they'd just build another museum. Very similar with American cities. Of course, we're populist, so instead of building museums Sacramento builds bars and pizzerias. There are tons of contemporary bad public policy that are way more relevant today than a decision to build freeways which were funded by a tax on gasoline. And even then, it was the cities who implemented the public policy of bulldozing neighborhoods because they were only interested in downtown businesses. That's pretty much universally regarded as bad public policy today. Freeways and highways really aren't. You have a vocal minority of people who hate them but love their far more costly transit. Why? Because freeways and highways promote a growth contrary to their interest. They allow cars to move much more quickly which allows for less density and the preferred alternative to mass transit.
For the record, I'm not anti-highway. Highwways have their place and purpose with helping people, goods, and services move. I am against how poor city planning in regards to highways have helped empty out some cities and in some cases have been used to segregate neighborhoods by building one through a neighborhood to lower property values.
Quote:
There is plenty of cities have cheap housing these days for the renters still wondering. You can buy a house in Detroit for next to nothing. It's just that most people don't want to live in Detroit, including black people. The black middle-class has been fleeing Detroit for years, but I'm sure it's just because they're racists too just like the white people. The fact is the confused renters don't want cheap housing. Every city I know of has cheap housing, it's just not in the desirable parts of the city. And since city governments often refuse to provide adequate basic services that people want, people run for the expensive housing in the suburbs or the few sections of the city they do provide basic services to.
Of course. DC is a prime example of this. People want to live in the western half of the city and won't move to the south eastern part of the city where the rent is cheaper because of crime. No one wants to live in a crime infested area if they can help it. Poverty is related to crime and violent crime in cities is usually related to drugs. Renters are going to want cheap rent, but they also take into consideration other factors settling.
Bolded: Are you marginalizing how much racism has played in how cities have developed before and after WWII? The existence of statutory race laws not more than 50 years ago and the countries history should clue people in. But there's also the de facto segregation of neighborhoods and schools that still exist today, the redlining of districts, white flight,etc... are very much related to those services you talk about not existing or being limited. Those issues get marginalized because people think everything is okay and then wonder why certain neighborhoods or cities are the way they are.
Large suburban homes
Good schools
Good parks
Malls to get clothes
Big box centers to get general stuff
Downtown for shopping, dining, and entertainment
Churches
Getting ice cream
Getting frozen yogurt
Hiking trails
Golf courses
I didn't realize it was "political" to state the fact that the PIGS are not doing so well economically... You're the one who brought up public policy, and you think Europe's public policies have nothing to do with the fiscal situation it is in now?
I dont think any public policies relevant to this forum have anything much to do with the econ situation in europe, unless you can find policies common to Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, that are in contrast to those found in Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark. What they all had in common was participation in a common currency area with countries with very different economic structures, which distorted trade and investment flows. And in several countries a housing and banking crisis.
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.
