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.
In another thread pertaining to NYC, someone stated:
Quote:
If people really want to know how grimy New York can be, before visiting, they should watch documentaries. Not the crap they show on PBS, but the real deal. The kind that were shot back in the seventies and eighties that show the underbelly of the city. Apartment buildings with holes in the floor. Young tween boys hustling themselves in Times Square. That New York may not exist, but it does explore the possibilities of what could again.
I remember growing up in a little suburb and it seemed like no one had anything positive to say about cities. They were always associated with violence and drugs even if they were exaggerations. Prior to cities declining, they were places that people couldn't wait to get out of because they wanted their own space. Now city living has kind of become a trendy selling point where it's cool to live above a coffee shop and amenities catered to certain generational groups.
Let's say for a moment that the trend slows down, something else becomes trendy, or due to some unexpected event, city living becomes unattractive and money flows out. Would it still be an attractive option?
By default you suggest it would be unnatractive based on your last sentence - so how could it be attractive?
Simple answer is the city to me without the vibrancy and access to amenities is not attractive - assuming implosion of all said cities and you are left with unattractive settings that exist already and to me are not attractive for me to live in personally
chicken/egg a bit but it is a difficult question. I was young in the 80s and Philly was the pits though there still was some allure to a city I suppose - I was living in the burbs at this time
Let's say for a moment that the trend slows down, something else becomes trendy, or due to some unexpected event, city living becomes unattractive and money flows out. Would it still be an attractive option?
Not understanding your premise. "Something else" always becomes trendy, and if something becomes unattractive, how can it still be attractive? Given that one person's trend is another's trash, so to speak.
By default you suggest it would be unnatractive based on your last sentence - so how could it be attractive?
Simple answer is the city to me without the vibrancy and access to amenities is not attractive - assuming implosion of all said cities and you are left with unattractive settings that exist already and to me are not attractive for me to live in personally
chicken/egg a bit but it is a difficult question. I was young in the 80s and Philly was the pits though there still was some allure to a city I suppose - I was living in the burbs at this time
Suburbs are less attractive to gen Y, that doesn't make suburbs unattractive overall to everyone else, but that doesn't make suburbs trendy either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Not understanding your premise. "Something else" always becomes trendy, and if something becomes unattractive, how can it still be attractive? Given that one person's trend is another's trash, so to speak.
I think you have to choose to not understand the premise. City living wasn't popular 20-30 years ago. It is now. Would you still choose to live in one if for some reason they reverted to the way they were back then? Would you be okay with living in a NYC where Time Square was populated by liquor stores and hookers?
If you looked through these, would you find them appealing?
City living just appeals to some people the way suburban living does, but suburban living isn't in fashion the way it was following WWII with promises of less density, yards, easy access to grocery stores, friendly neighbors, and easy commutes to work in the city. Some people prefer to live in multi-family units,be surrounded by grit, develop street sense to navigate around their neighborhood, and always prefered city living prior to the "live, work, play" trend of urban living.
If cities experience another wave of "white flight," that means cheap rents and no yuppies complaining about the semi-legal music venue down the street! Such places are hotbeds of creativity--and became the starting points for gentrification when people started opening businesses to serve the dirt-poor musicians and artists in dangerous, run-down inner city neighborhoods (who still spent a lot of money on clothes and records.) Staying around and starting a performance art venue is a way to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
I moved to a "city" neighborhood 20 years ago, it was already fashionable to do so but maybe to less of an extent than today, and still live in the same neighborhood. It was a bit scruffier then, but there were things I liked about it that have since been lost.
I don't expect "white flight" to happen anytime soon, though, unless automobile transportation suddenly gets a lot cheaper or the government starts adding new subsidies for suburban development.
Well I didn't got to NYC or Times Square pre-makeover. But it didn't have much appeal to me at all. NYC did on the whole. Sort of. I always liked the idea of a loft and being a lady who lunches. But I wrote NYC off completely because I don't have a trust fund.
When I finally made it (to NYC), I liked it. I liked the vibrancy, and that the streets were packed with people walking around all times of day. I like the idea of it being at the bleeding edge. But it isn't my city. Nice place to visit but not the place I want to be.
I have wanted (always) to live in a city. It doesn't have to be the biggest city. But having a walkable neighborhood, interesting architecture, and public transit are all important to me. This can happen in a variety of locations and metro areas. I wouldn't live in the "worst" neighborhood, I'd pick one that was on top or pretty far along on the "gentrifications/redevelopment" scale. And not completely up and coming, unless I was sure that timeline was pretty short. (i.e. 3 years.)
If you're asking: would I live in a city that hasn't seen much--if any--revitalization/gentrification, then I'd answer yes. In fact, because most rust belt cities--and Youngstown in particular--seem to be 20-30 years behind the curve, I can say that I did.
There are so many scenarios and variables that make the question difficult to answer. However, assuming I was living in a neighborhood with a strong sense of community (with an association to protect the neighborhood, a somewhat healthy social atmosphere, etc.), I would stay; I make this assumption because it's a requirement for me in the first place.
During the decline of US cities, there were many neighborhoods that still had a strong sense of community. While portions of the city collapsed, there were working class neighborhoods that stuck together and made the best of things. Barring terrible crime or other major issues, I would absolutely stay.
I think you have to choose to not understand the premise. City living wasn't popular 20-30 years ago. It is now. Would you still choose to live in one if for some reason they reverted to the way they were back then? Would you be okay with living in a NYC where Time Square was populated by liquor stores and hookers?
Your question is still way too broad. People choose to live where they lived based on more than just trends (thank heaven). "City living" is more than Times Square c. 1970. It is not a black and white question; there are hundreds of shades of grey because there are many differing types of city neighborhoods.
I grew up in Boston, NYC, and London in the 70's and 80's. I then spent the late 80's early 90's moving between a number of cities (DC, SF, and Chicago) before settling in Chicago in 1992. So I'd say yeah, I'd stay, because I did when it was at it's "worst" and didn't mind it at all.
It does seem like you believe that US cities were like something out of "The Warriors" in the 70's, and they most definitely weren't. I remember the 4th of July on the Esplanade in Boston during the Bicentennial, going to the Bronx Zoo about once a week, the Silver Jubilee in London...basically just loads of great memories. Everything was a bit sketchier and dirtier, but I never walked around in fear. I've only been mugged twice (last time was 1991) and the only thing that really ever gave me pause was being a block away from an IRA bomb going off in the 80's. A lot of what is different in US today is also different across the country - more chains, people being less provincial, higher education and literacy rates, etc. It would take a hell of a lot more than just flight to bring cities back to what they were like in the 70's (and as I said, it wasn't that bad).
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.
