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.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,754 posts, read 23,832,257 times
Reputation: 14670
Advertisements
Going into future post-recession years once we crawl out of this slow economic growth period that the US is having what do you feel will be the trends for building, growth, and development in most American metro areas? There have been some reports of real estate and home building rebounding in some areas. Suppose there is another economic boom, will new suburbs keep sprawling out? Will tract home building continue as it did in the 90's/2000's or do you think there will be more urban infill and density trends? Perhaps both?
Discuss particular future growth trends in certain cities and metros and what you think will happen going forward to accommodate growth and infrastructure in this decade and future decades to come. Some discussion points (from an objective standpoint, not a judgemental one) can be....
-Sunbelt urban infill and/or continued sprawl
-Rustbelt urban revival
-Transportation corrdiors (Rail and highway expansion, new road building etc..)
-TOD (Transportation Orientated Development)
and everything in between.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 07-19-2013 at 01:04 PM..
Baby boomers were the primary reason for a lot of development trends prior to the recession. They drove the suburban boom, the city exodus and the move south. I don't expect that generation to ever change their habits, so you will still see suburban growth and sprawl. As long as these people are in charge of transit budgets, you will still also see majority focus on roads and highways over mass transit.
That said, younger generations have, so far, shown a complete aversion to all of this. They want mass transit, walkability, urban amenities and city life. They would rather own phones than cars and don't see suburban home ownership as the American Dream. These are the people currently revitalizing/rebuilding cities, and they likely will into the future.
So what you'll see over time is a gradual shift in priorities away from suburbia/sprawl, even while it continues to exist and be built to some degree.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,754 posts, read 23,832,257 times
Reputation: 14670
For the most part I do agree, and the baby boomers are calling all the political shots for the most part in terms of infrastructure budgets. Though the shifts with Gen X & Y and the millenials are transitioning urban/suburban growth trends partly, arn't quality of schools a huge determining factor for suburban development and growth? With younger generations moving back into the cities would they consider raising kids in the city and therefore the quality of education in the cities perhaps may improve?
For the most part I do agree, and the baby boomers are calling all the political shots for the most part in terms of infrastructure budgets. Though the shifts with Gen X & Y and the millenials are transitioning urban/suburban growth trends partly, arn't quality of schools a huge determining factor for suburban development and growth? With younger generations moving back into the cities would they consider raising kids in the city and therefore the quality of education in the cities perhaps may improve?
The more people living, working and investing in the city will ultimately serve to improve urban schools. They declined for the same reasons suburban schools improved... people left the city and took their tax money and jobs to the suburbs. Property values dropped in the city and rose in the suburbs as a result. That had a huge impact on schools. The fact is that there are also plenty of urban schools, such as charter, private, etc. And even in public schools, there are individual schools that do much better than others.
Baby boomers were the primary reason for a lot of development trends prior to the recession. They drove the suburban boom, the city exodus and the move south. I don't expect that generation to ever change their habits, so you will still see suburban growth and sprawl. As long as these people are in charge of transit budgets, you will still also see majority focus on roads and highways over mass transit.
That said, younger generations have, so far, shown a complete aversion to all of this. They want mass transit, walkability, urban amenities and city life. They would rather own phones than cars and don't see suburban home ownership as the American Dream. These are the people currently revitalizing/rebuilding cities, and they likely will into the future.
So what you'll see over time is a gradual shift in priorities away from suburbia/sprawl, even while it continues to exist and be built to some degree.
A bit of hyperbole, wouldn't you say? Well, probably not. The Millennials are just like us Boomers; think they've got the Holy Grail. I'll say, we were the ones who started the "back to the city" movement in the 70s. Then we had families and just like our parents told us, we decided we wanted decent schools, yards, etc for our kids. Some of us didn't even have kids but decided we wanted those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
The more people living, working and investing in the city will ultimately serve to improve urban schools. They declined for the same reasons suburban schools improved... people left the city and took their tax money and jobs to the suburbs. Property values dropped in the city and rose in the suburbs as a result. That had a huge impact on schools. The fact is that there are also plenty of urban schools, such as charter, private, etc. And even in public schools, there are individual schools that do much better than others.
The school situation is not that simple. Cities still have a bigger tax base than the suburbs, particularly those suburbs that are primarily residential. Business property owners pay of lot of prop tax in the cities. City schools in general have higher per-pupil funding. Charter schools are public schools, and the only good thing about them is they keep the parents of their students involved with the public schools. I think school districts should work towards improving ALL the schools. City schools used to have a better reputation, even in the tenement areas.
A bit of hyperbole, wouldn't you say? Well, probably not. The Millennials are just like us Boomers; think they've got the Holy Grail. I'll say, we were the ones who started the "back to the city" movement in the 70s. Then we had families and just like our parents told us, we decided we wanted decent schools, yards, etc for our kids. Some of us didn't even have kids but decided we wanted those things.
The school situation is not that simple. Cities still have a bigger tax base than the suburbs, particularly those suburbs that are primarily residential. Business property owners pay of lot of prop tax in the cities. City schools in general have higher per-pupil funding. Charter schools are public schools, and the only good thing about them is they keep the parents of their students involved with the public schools. I think school districts should work towards improving ALL the schools. City schools used to have a better reputation, even in the tenement areas.
Making stuff up. Aside fom a few isolated pockets like Haight Asbury. And for every Haight Asbury there were 50 communes on ranches and farms in the sticks. But that's just the hippies, for the vast multitude of Boomers They could not get to the suburbs fast enough. There was never a general Boomer movement to cities. Cities decayed horribly under their disinterest and later neglect. It wasn't until GenX came of age that people rediscovered the charms of the city and led the way for the Millennials who have completely embraced city life and urbanity as the most desired lifestyle there is. Millennials despise sprawl as much as GenX found it spirit crushing and they are far better educated, knowledgable, interested and aware of how critical it is to create, nuture and sustain the urban environkment. They will not be heading to an auto dependent suburb, now or ever.
Making stuff up. Aside fom a few isolated pockets like Haight Asbury. And for every Haight Asbury there were 50 communes on ranches and farms in the sticks. But that's just the hippies, for the vast multitude of Boomers They could not get to the suburbs fast enough. There was never a general Boomer movement to cities. Cities decayed horribly under their disinterest and later neglect. It wasn't until GenX came of age that people rediscovered the charms of the city and led the way for the Millennials who have completely embraced city life and urbanity as the most desired lifestyle there is. Millennials despise sprawl as much as GenX found it spirit crushing and they are far better educated, knowledgable, interested and aware of how critical it is to create, nuture and sustain the urban environkment. They will not be heading to an auto dependent suburb, now or ever.
You don't know what you don't know. When I was young, my Boomer friends and I were all living in "the city". And how you can characterize whole generations, three of them, Boomers, Gen X and Millenials as all thinking alike is beyond me. The only thing these generations have all in common is being born in the same time frame. This issue is as old as time. The City Mouse and the Country Mouse
But the general trend was out of the city in the 60s and 70s. Plenty I know from my parent's generation grew up in the city and moved out. I've met the reverse, too, but it's less common. If you go back a generation before, most everyone in a metro lived in a city.
This is MY generation, baby! These were the "protest songs" of the day. We all swore we were not going to live like that when WE grew up. (I graduated from high school in 1967.)
I don't know many who actually stayed in the city. But we started the movement, or maybe it was even the Beatniks ahead of us who did. "Nothing new under the sun".
But those are pop culture songs, not numbers. Many of them were "counterculture" as in opposing the general culture of the time. There was a massive flight out of cities at the time whatever pop culture said. A generation before, the idea of "staying in the city" as a movement would make no sense, most metro residents lived in the city.
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.
