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.
RE:
a) Many people never worked downtown in the first place. In the Pittsburgh area, few mills were in the city proper, and none downtown. People moved out to first ring suburbs (someplace had to be first after all) to get away from the pollution of the mills, as well as to have bigger yards, and newer houses. Do keep in mind that every building was new at one time. In Omaha, my husband's hometown, the packing houses were on the south side of the city.
I'm aware of that. But Bedroom Communities are typically defined as those places where people live who community into the city for work. "The City" in this case could mean downtown, or an industrial district. The point is, they did not choose their neighborhood for its proximity to their workplace. They chose it because car ownership gave them the freedom to commute from anywhere in the metro. That's the concept I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
RE:
b) "quite possibly never venture into the urban core" is quite the assumption! Even back in the pre-pleistocene years of the 1950s, my family, which I would say was a fairly typical family of its day, went to Pittsburgh to sporting events and to visit the relatives that lived there. Some went there for shopping.
"Quite possibly" just means that there are SOME who don't. Can you deny this? Here, the point is that it's not necessary. Sure, lots of people go into the city for entertainment, specialty shopping, events, etc. But in a Semi-autonomous Suburb, it's not theoretically necessary, and therefore there will always be some who either avoid the city like the plague, or just simply choose not to go. And it doesn't really help your case to be constantly contradicting my arguments with anecdotal evidence. The behavior of you and your family doesn't go very far to prove anyone's point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
RE:
" But modern suburbanites often find that fact easy to forget, perhaps because their mass exodus left behind a smoking urban hole in the ground, and so many of employment centers followed them to the fringe." is certainly hyperbole and actually, incorrect. Who can forget that one lives in metro Denver, even living 25 miles away as I do? (Boulder County is its own MSA b/c more than 50% of workers work in-county.) The TV stations are almost all in Denver. (There is a PBS station in Broomfield.) The major-league football and basketball teams, the two oldest pro sports teams, are the DENVER Broncos and the DENVER Nuggets. The Colorado Rockies, Avalanche and Rapids are newer baseball, hockey and soccer teams that apparently wanted a more "inclusive" name. It seems to be a trend in the major leagues these days. DENVER International Airport. Those are just a few examples. I was just in Denver yesterday, and I didn't see any "smoking hole in the ground". Perhaps you can identify some of these.
In my opinion, we might as well not waste our breath, or bandwidth, trying to predict the future. We'd be just as likely to be correct (maybe more) if we consulted a Ouija board or a soothsayer. Sometimes "things happen" that no one would have ever predicted, and/or were predicted incorrectly. For example, in the early 1970s, over-population was a huge issue. We were going to run out of food to feed people. No one predicted the population drops in Europe and Japan, nor the "green revolution" that has increased crop yields. We've been supposedly running out of oil and water (here in the west) for decades. I'm not a "head in the sand" person, but I do not believe the sky is falling.
I didn't say that suburbanites forget which metro they live in. I said they find it easy to forget that they are still reliant upon the city core as the economic engine of their region. But the kind of development hubris exhibited by many suburban powerhouses (my parents' home town of Overland Park, KS is a stellar example) is often counterproductive to the economic health of the urban core, and thus, the entire region. It is in cases like this, which exist all over the country, where suburbs tend to forget how important it is that the urban core retain its economic vitality, and instead, compete directly and aggressively with it. It's like a boxer punching himself in the face, then the fist declaring victory over the face.
And as for the future predicting, you and I can debate whether it's a waste of our own time to try it. But nevertheless, everyone who makes an investment in ANYTHING, including a house, is attempting to predict the future. Many millions of people have made their predictions, namely that large suburban houses on the fringe will retain their value for many decades. They think they will, I think they won't. Nothing is certain, but unless you're a renter who owns no stocks, bonds or other investments, don't pretend that you're not trying to predict the future.
My point is, taking the idea that a relative few young hipsters so strongly prefer urban living to mean that a large part of an entire generation will turn up their noses at suburban life as their families and incomes grow as has been the tendency (for all races as financial means increase, btw) for 3 generations is silly.
I think this argument has fallen victim to reductio ad absurdum. Somehow people have concluded that the trend can be summed up as "hipsters like lofts" but that's only a tiny fraction of it. They don't have to "prefer urban living". All they have to do is reject the most recent round (20 years worth) of oversized fringe housing in order to spur a major crisis. And all that's required for them to reject it is a) they prefer, for any number of reasons, the 3-bedroom house with a modest yard in an inner-ring suburb, or b) they can't afford it. Is that so far fetched?
I'm aware of that. But Bedroom Communities are typically defined as those places where people live who community into the city for work. "The City" in this case could mean downtown, or an industrial district. The point is, they did not choose their neighborhood for its proximity to their workplace. They chose it because car ownership gave them the freedom to commute from anywhere in the metro. That's the concept I'm talking about.
"Quite possibly" just means that there are SOME who don't. Can you deny this? Here, the point is that it's not necessary. Sure, lots of people go into the city for entertainment, specialty shopping, events, etc. But in a Semi-autonomous Suburb, it's not theoretically necessary, and therefore there will always be some who either avoid the city like the plague, or just simply choose not to go. And it doesn't really help your case to be constantly contradicting my arguments with anecdotal evidence. The behavior of you and your family doesn't go very far to prove anyone's point.
I didn't say that suburbanites forget which metro they live in. I said they find it easy to forget that they are still reliant upon the city core as the economic engine of their region. But the kind of development hubris exhibited by many suburban powerhouses (my parents' home town of Overland Park, KS is a stellar example) is often counterproductive to the economic health of the urban core, and thus, the entire region. It is in cases like this, which exist all over the country, where suburbs tend to forget how important it is that the urban core retain its economic vitality, and instead, compete directly and aggressively with it. It's like a boxer punching himself in the face, then the fist declaring victory over the face.
And as for the future predicting, you and I can debate whether it's a waste of our own time to try it. But nevertheless, everyone who makes an investment in ANYTHING, including a house, is attempting to predict the future. Many millions of people have made their predictions, namely that large suburban houses on the fringe will retain their value for many decades. They think they will, I think they won't. Nothing is certain, but unless you're a renter who owns no stocks, bonds or other investments, don't pretend that you're not trying to predict the future.
OK, I had a couple paragraphs typed out until I saw this: "And it doesn't really help your case to be constantly contradicting my arguments with anecdotal evidence. The behavior of you and your family doesn't go very far to prove anyone's point." That's hilarious (as well as a few other words) coming from you with your example about YOUR parents. Your utter rudeness is really getting on my nerves, and I'd like to know where the h*ll our mod is.
My Gran will be 92 in February. She lives alone, still drives to church, doctor's appointments and the grocery store. She usually asks me to drive when I visit, but she will make it a point to drive at least one leg of the trip, I think to show me she's still capable.
She's been involved in two accidents in the last five years, neither was her fault. She is still a capable driver, thank god. She is the very model of what living to ripe old age can be, as long as you have your marbles, your health and a sweet pension. I thank my lucky stars every day she is still self sufficient.
I didn't say that suburbanites forget which metro they live in. I said they find it easy to forget that they are still reliant upon the city core as the economic engine of their region. But the kind of development hubris exhibited by many suburban powerhouses (my parents' home town of Overland Park, KS is a stellar example) is often counterproductive to the economic health of the urban core, and thus, the entire region. It is in cases like this, which exist all over the country, where suburbs tend to forget how important it is that the urban core retain its economic vitality, and instead, compete directly and aggressively with it. It's like a boxer punching himself in the face, then the fist declaring victory over the face.
.
Meh. I don't see how Overland Park, Prairie Village where I live, or any other suburb of Kansas City is RELIANT upon Kansas City, Missouri as the economic engine. In fact, not too many years ago downtown Kansas City, Missouri was basically a ghost town and the suburbs of Johnson County were thriving. It wasn't Johnson County's fault that no one wanted to live or work in downtown KC, or that businesses didn't want to be located there. Johnson County is STILL thriving, and it's not because of Kansas City, Missouri. Downtown KC is coming back now to some extent, but I don't see why any suburb has to pay homage to downtown Kansas City.
It's not the suburbs' job to prop up the city core. If the city core can't stand on its own two feet, then too bad.
OK, I had a couple paragraphs typed out until I saw this: "And it doesn't really help your case to be constantly contradicting my arguments with anecdotal evidence. The behavior of you and your family doesn't go very far to prove anyone's point." That's hilarious (as well as a few other words) coming from you with your example about YOUR parents. Your utter rudeness is really getting on my nerves, and I'd like to know where the h*ll our mod is.
I wasn't using my parents to contradict anyone, or prove my point, I was using them as an example of how this issue affects me personally. If that's also what you were doing, then you have my apologies.
Ah. Perhaps. But we'll be still able to choose the correct homonyms.
Suburbanization has been around since the Revolution. Any "trend" that holds up for 230-some years is probably a sure thing.
Perhaps some of what you're saying hinges on the sturdiness of the housing built from 1980 on.
Whether or not they were fleeing because of race or for some other reason, folks of my parents' generation did indeed leave the city for the suburbs in the 1950s and 60s. Gram and Gramps and all the great aunts and uncles stayed in Pittsburgh, but every single one of their progeny left for larger yards in the surrounding suburbs.
Uh oh Ive been busted by the grammer police. I bet I misspelled something too lol.
... It's that big houses 30 miles or more from downtown are just not viable for a lot of people ...
I think this is really funny. I have lived in small towns, suburbs or rurally for nearly all of my life - and I have never lived anywhere that was 30 miles from a grocery, hardware store, and pharmacy.
I'm not saying such places don't exist - especially in, say, rural Montana - but the idea that the majority of baby boomers are living 30 miles from "important stuff" is pretty laughable.
Seriously, what is "downtown" that is so vital to my well-being?
Nevertheless, the problem of transportation as one ages is real, even if the grocery store is only THREE miles away (or the arts festival, or whatever it is that gets your knickers in a knot).
However, there is hope on the horizon. In 20 years time, hopefully self-driving cars will be the norm. Better yet, fleets of the things could provide public transport. They could be built very cheaply indeed if they don't have to haul around a ton of steel because you're afraid of the local town rummy ramming into you with his drunkmobile. So you just call the number and the next available 2 seater pops up at your door at the appointed time to take you errand-running.
Heck, I wish we had that now! Walter Cronkite PROMISED! It's late as it is!
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.
