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.
Denver's metro had 926,000 people in 1960. 51% in 10 years — I wouldn't have expected such a huge increase in one decade. Boston grew 7% that decade, Pittsburgh 8%.
The west has been experiencing great growth the last few decades in places like Los Angeles area, Phoenix, Denver, Las Vegas, etc....Texas too. I know even some people here in Chicago whose family came here during the Great Migration from the south are moving back south (not tons of them, but some).
Most people who are not " into cars" could never afford a truly awesome one.
I can easily afford a Mercedes, BMW, whatever you have it, but I happen to live in downtown Chicago where my lifestyle doesn't need one. I have a lot of what I need within walking distance. If I need to go somewhere else, I hop on a 10-15 minute train ride for $2.25, or I can find one of almost 10,000 cabs in this city at my disposal. In the end, I can save over $3000/year which can easily afford me to go to place abroad that interest me. I'd rather go on exotic vacations than be able to drive to a restaurant 2 miles away when a train gets me there in the same amount of time.
It's a waste of money for me and if you've never lived in a legitimate urban setting like NYC, parts of Chicago, European or Asian cities, then you wouldn't understand.
I have friends who are millionaires and VPs at companies here who don't own cars (sold them due to almost non usage or just never owned one). They can easily afford one and in the end they realize it's not worth it. There are people in my neighborhood who own Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, and Rolls Royce and their main reason for owning them is mainly to be able to be seen in them around town, valet park it, pick up big time models and take them home, etc (i.e. reverse gold digging).
The people who end up owning cars where I live are the ones who are doing reverse commutes to the suburbs to areas where the commuter rail access is bad. Everyone else either doesn't own a car, or barely uses their car.
Last edited by marothisu; 02-01-2013 at 06:18 PM..
From the link that you later deleted, I found some rather interesting details. Scroll down to 1960 Census of Population and Housing under Series PHC(1). Census Tracts each part gives you a detail breakdown of demographics by city, county and census tract (census tract is too much detail unless you have a specific detail). It's organized alphabetically by metro. Back then, the census asked more questions than it does today. It has a category for "of foreign stock" which is either foreign born or having at least one parent foreign born.
I took a look at the NY metro numbers (if you want to hear a different, I'll download those and report, but I'm going pick the one I'm most interested in first). For Nassau County, Long Island (adjacent to New York City), 40% of the white non-Puerto Rican (which was small for that county) population was of foreign stock. Levittown was a bit less, 33% (most common ethnicity Italian). The city itself was much higher, at 63%. Manhattan was even higher, the highest for the metro at 69%. Non-second generation immigrants (almost all from Europe) were a minority. City itself 78% white non-hispanic then.
The income contrast between city and suburb was smaller than today. Nassau County had a median income 54% higher than the city, today it's 86%. The poorest county in the metro (Manhattan) had a median income 1/2 of that of the wealthiest (Nassau) in 1960. I'd have to check other metros, but it seems like for all the mention of "suburbs are getting poorer, cities are gentrifying" I suspect the income gap between cities and suburbs is still much larger today everywhere than back in 1960.
It's a waste of money for me and if you've never lived in a legitimate urban setting like NYC, parts of Chicago, European or Asian cities, then you wouldn't understand.
I know of a couple (my parent's age) who has a taste for nice Audis. For a while when they lived in Manhattan, they didn't own a car at all though both could have afforded it.
I can easily afford a Mercedes, BMW, whatever you have it, but I happen to live in downtown Chicago where my lifestyle doesn't need one. I have a lot of what I need within walking distance. If I need to go somewhere else, I hop on a 10-15 minute train ride for $2.25, or I can find one of almost 10,000 cabs in this city at my disposal. In the end, I can save over $3000/year which can easily afford me to go to place abroad that interest me. I'd rather go on exotic vacations than be able to drive to a restaurant 2 miles away when a train gets me there in the same amount of time.
It's a waste of money for me and if you've never lived in a legitimate urban setting like NYC, parts of Chicago, European or Asian cities, then you wouldn't understand.
I have friends who are millionaires and VPs at companies here who don't own cars (sold them due to almost non usage or just never owned one). They can easily afford one and in the end they realize it's not worth it. There are people in my neighborhood who own Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, and Rolls Royce and their main reason for owning them is mainly to be able to be seen in them around town, valet park it, pick up big time models and take them home, etc (i.e. reverse gold digging).
The people who end up owning cars where I live are the ones who are doing reverse commutes to the suburbs to areas where the commuter rail access is bad. Everyone else either doesn't own a car, or barely uses their car.
We can afford an Audi or a second car, but there's really no need. We'd rather spend our money on other things like travel, eating out, entertainment, etc. Plus you pretty much have to factor in bodywork if you want to maintain a nice-looking car in a dense, heavy traffic city like the last two I have lived in.
I can easily afford a Mercedes, BMW, whatever you have it, but I happen to live in downtown Chicago where my lifestyle doesn't need one. I have a lot of what I need within walking distance. If I need to go somewhere else, I hop on a 10-15 minute train ride for $2.25, or I can find one of almost 10,000 cabs in this city at my disposal. In the end, I can save over $3000/year which can easily afford me to go to place abroad that interest me. I'd rather go on exotic vacations than be able to drive to a restaurant 2 miles away when a train gets me there in the same amount of time.
It's a waste of money for me and if you've never lived in a legitimate urban setting like NYC, parts of Chicago, European or Asian cities, then you wouldn't understand.
I have friends who are millionaires and VPs at companies here who don't own cars (sold them due to almost non usage or just never owned one). They can easily afford one and in the end they realize it's not worth it. There are people in my neighborhood who own Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, and Rolls Royce and their main reason for owning them is mainly to be able to be seen in them around town, valet park it, pick up big time models and take them home, etc (i.e. reverse gold digging).
The people who end up owning cars where I live are the ones who are doing reverse commutes to the suburbs to areas where the commuter rail access is bad. Everyone else either doesn't own a car, or barely uses their car.
You are completely nitpicking something that's not even part of the logical argument here that's not even relevant.
How about this, since you have missed my entire logic apparently and are caught up in "OMG THIS GUY THINKS A BMW IS AN AWESOME CAR." I can easily afford a $60,000 car and I choose not to even own one. Instead of going to San Diego, I choose to vacation in Europe, Asia, South America, etc (and the almost, but not quite, Middle East). All over the world ..all even though if I owned a luxury car, I could still afford these vacations, the fact I don't need a car at all just means it's almost free money to use for exotic vacations and I'm pretty much losing nothing for my opportunity cost here.
Yeah San Diego is a cool place, but I'd rather go to places outside of North America, especially when I've been to most major US cities and almost every state more than once each and opportunity cost wise it's pretty much free to me at this point.
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.
