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.
I was going by the examples you gave, about half of your suburban Denver examples were mostly white. You didn't show that, as you made no comparison with any urban magnet schools.
Well yes, but so what? I thought you were addressing my post and what I wrote. It's a bit difficult to have a conversation with someone who responses with something unrelated
Spare me. No interested at all, why dig up paragraphs of these boring posts that don't say anything about urban planning? And it doesn't really relate to the conversation I was trying to have.
I showed some stats from Denver School of the Arts in my next post.
I was addressing your post, but I like words. Would it have been better if I'd said "anything other than a plain vanilla suburb", or used some other adjectives? The point is, whenever any of us talk about a suburb that doesn't fit the standard urbanist definition of suburb as, well, whatever it is at that particular moment as this board doesn't want to adopt a standard defintion, it's "an exception". My suburb is an exception. Newton is an exception. It seems any place that has anything positive is an exception.
I have no intention of doing a search for that stuff. The point is, it's been said over and over.
I was addressing your post, but I like words. Would it have been better if I'd said "anything other than a plain vanilla suburb", or used some other adjectives? The point is, whenever any of us talk about a suburb that doesn't fit the standard urbanist definition of suburb as, well, whatever it is at that particular moment as this board doesn't want to adopt a standard defintion, it's "an exception". My suburb is an exception. Newton is an exception. It seems any place that has anything positive is an exception.
You're reading further in that than I intended. No, it wouldn't be better, because my objection was specifically on wealth so anything else would have felt unrelated. Using a very wealthy place isn't the best example, IMO, you didn't address that. Especially for high education standards, as very wealthy places often have high achieving schools. I don't see how Newton violates the "standard urbanist definition". I didn't really remark on whether Newton was good or bad, some people have a strong dislike of the place.
Denver is a much less white metro than Pittsburgh, so of course its suburban schools will have lower white percentages. In addition, most nonwhites in suburban Denver are Latino, and Latino-white segregation is much lower in most metros than black-white segregation. Finally, in most magnet systems, the arts high school tends to be the whitest. In Pittsburgh this may be because it has a performance-based application system, which is nominally more rigorous than the other schools in the magnet system. But it's also true in general white students tend to be less interested in practical college degrees than students of color - the same preferences may express themselves in high school.
EDIT: Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've said Colorado has open enrollment right? So some suburban parents choose to send their kids to the arts magnet, right?
Regardless, the original point remains that in terms of "hurting the neighborhood school" all options are equally bad (Magnets do not hurt the overall school system budget however). Magnet schools (and charters, but I find them problematic for other reasons) will have the demographics which most reflect the City however, whereas suburbs and private schools will not (because you need a good deal of money to enroll in private schools, or to buy a house in a well-regarded suburban district).
You're reading further in that than I intended. No, it wouldn't be better, because my objection was specifically on wealth so anything else would have felt unrelated. Using a very wealthy place isn't the best example, IMO, you didn't address that. Especially for high education standards, as very wealthy places often have high achieving schools. I don't see how Newton violates the "standard urbanist definition". I didn't really remark on whether Newton was good or bad, some people have a strong dislike of the place.
The H*ll I didn't address wealth. I gave an example of a wealthy Pittsburgh area, Fox Chapel. That is where the Heinz family farm is located. Now I have no idea if the Heinz' send their kids to public school. (The Coors kids, I have heard, attend Catholic schools, but the Heinzes are historically Lutheran.) Then I gave an example of a wealthy Denver area, the Cherry Creek SD, where John Elway lives and sent his kids to school.
Although you didn't say if Newton was good or bad, you said it was an exception. I've seen that, on this forum, about Louisville, too. Of course, each community is unique (something the urbanists sometimes lose sight of when they talk about suburbs) but the vast, vast majority of burbs have many of the same elements as "the city". miu said that Newton has an Italian neighborhood, just like Boston. When I say that Louisville has community celebrations, etc, a common response is "that's an exception". Here's what semiurbanite says about the city (vs the burbs): exposure to new things, different people, and much less time spent driving. He doesn't say what "new things", what he means by "different people", and he has no idea how much or how little time anyone anywhere spends driving.
There are other incorporated cities in the same area that did allow explosive growth, and the effects of building thousands of homes in an area serviced by a 2 lane highway were highly negative both to quality of life and property values.
Plenty of examples in that part of the county where development exploded and transportation infrastructure never caught up. Just up the road from Black Diamond there's a city called Maple Valley. It's a complete mess. Development peaked out there around 2006, and here we are 10 years and tens of thousands of homes later and there's still a 2 lane highway serving this sprawling community.
Sounds like you need to expand the highway if there is any commerce between the two areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch
A big part of why this happened is because it's not economically viable to build the amount of infrastructure needed to service these remote areas. If that cost was actually factored in to the development, it wouldn't be cost competitive with other less remote areas.
Says who? ... maybe the city needs to give up territory instead of claiming a particular territory and refusing to provide services throughout the territory - because that's what you are promoting. It's not clear what "infrastructure" the city would have been providing to any of these areas. Does the city provide water, gas, electric? No? Please explain what "infrastructure" the city would have provided. Not everyone relies on "city" infrastructure nor city utilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch
As for entitlement, it's the same from the other side. People want their (relatively) inexpensive homes in far flung locales, then expect 'someone else' to pay for the massive infrastructure investments required to make these homes accessible.
They are taxpayers too and they have a right to live where they want. They owe you nothing. Meanwhile your "city" enjoys taxing the individuals (or their employers) without providing services. What's your complaint?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch
As I mentioned before, the main reason the land out there is cheap is precisely BECAUSE it's inaccessible. If the necessary improvements were made (putting in large, expensive freeways or some kind of mass transit) the local taxes required to pay for this would be prohibitive. It's development that only makes sense if someone else shoulders the massive costs, or everyone in the area agrees to accept poor access.
Cities aren't the only entities that install and maintain roads. I don't buy any of your arguments. The example above of "tens of thousands of homes" suggests some local government has a captive tax base where the government is receiving large dollars in property taxes without providing commensurate services.
The H*ll I didn't address wealth. I gave an example of a wealthy Pittsburgh area, Fox Chapel. That is where the Heinz family farm is located. Now I have no idea if the Heinz' send their kids to public school. (The Coors kids, I have heard, attend Catholic schools, but the Heinzes are historically Lutheran.) Then I gave an example of a wealthy Denver area, the Cherry Creek SD, where John Elway lives and sent his kids to school.
I meant you didn't address wealth in my response. Miu was using Newton as a main example of great suburban schools. It is, but it's a rather privileged place. It came off as rather elitist.
Quote:
Although you didn't say if Newton was good or bad, you said it was an exception. I've seen that, on this forum, about Louisville, too. Of course, each community is unique (something the urbanists sometimes lose sight of when they talk about suburbs) but the vast, vast majority of burbs have many of the same elements as "the city". miu said that Newton has an Italian neighborhood, just like Boston. When I say that Louisville has community celebrations, etc, a common response is "that's an exception". Here's what semiurbanite says about the city (vs the burbs): exposure to new things, different people, and much less time spent driving. He doesn't say what "new things", what he means by "different people", and he has no idea how much or how little time anyone anywhere spends driving.
As I already, I neither said anything nor am disagreeing with anything in most of that paragraph. The other differences aren't wealth differences, which is the only one I was talking about.
It seems to me that those pushing for urbanization and centralization of resources are socialists demanding that everyone put their money and efforts into cities to share what they have with the have-nots. In other words, trying to force those with any wealth at all to live in close quarters with the urban poor.
Sorry, but I refuse to live in crowded apartment buildings and next to people from cultures I have little respect for. As to public schools and kids having exposure to other cultures, no thanks. Why force geeky kids to sit next to kids who are more enamoured of pop culture than the work of talented scientists and doctors? If parents want their well-raised children to stay focused on their academic studies, it's only natural that they wouldn't want their kids to make friends with children who from a background where their parents aren't intellectual and who aren't parenting properly. Why distract the good kids with the company of children from the other side of the tracks who will likely become baby mommies and daddies? Have social mixers, but certainly not in their classrooms.
And this is why the Boston METCO program has never worked very well. It's not enough to bus inner city kids to good suburban public schools, their parents and their home culture have to also place an emphasis on the importance of getting a good academic education.
Denver is a much less white metro than Pittsburgh, so of course its suburban schools will have lower white percentages. In addition, most nonwhites in suburban Denver are Latino, and Latino-white segregation is much lower in most metros than black-white segregation. Finally, in most magnet systems, the arts high school tends to be the whitest. In Pittsburgh this may be because it has a performance-based application system, which is nominally more rigorous than the other schools in the magnet system. But it's also true in general white students tend to be less interested in practical college degrees than students of color - the same preferences may express themselves in high school.
EDIT: Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've said Colorado has open enrollment right? So some suburban parents choose to send their kids to the arts magnet, right?
Regardless, the original point remains that in terms of "hurting the neighborhood school" all options are equally bad (Magnets do not hurt the overall school system budget however). Magnet schools (and charters, but I find them problematic for other reasons) will have the demographics which most reflect the City however, whereas suburbs and private schools will not (because you need a good deal of money to enroll in private schools, or to buy a house in a well-regarded suburban district).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...72197243,d.b2U
**African Americans remain one of the most underrepresented minority
groups in engineering-related fields. African Americans
comprise only 5 percent of all engineering bachelor’s degrees
achieved, with the same percentage of career holders in the engineering
workforce. This stands in contrast to figures showing
that African Americans represent at least 12 percent of the United
States adult population, 14 percent of the youth population, and
13 percent of all undergraduate enrollment.**
Nursing Statistics | Minority Nurse
74.5% of RNs are white; 23% black (an over-representation; it is my observation that nursing has long been popular with black women); 7.5% Hispanic, when about 17% of Americans are hispanic.
Yes, Colorado has state-wide open-enrollment, but few students go far from home for high school.
You do not need "a lot" of money to buy a house in a well-regarded suburban Denver district.
I meant you didn't address wealth in my response. Miu was using Newton as a main example of great suburban schools. It is, but it's a rather privileged place. It came off as rather elitist.
[quot]Although you didn't say if Newton was good or bad, you said it was an exception. I've seen that, on this forum, about Louisville, too. Of course, each community is unique (something the urbanists sometimes lose sight of when they talk about suburbs) but the vast, vast majority of burbs have many of the same elements as "the city". miu said that Newton has an Italian neighborhood, just like Boston. When I say that Louisville has community celebrations, etc, a common response is "that's an exception". Here's what semiurbanite says about the city (vs the burbs): exposure to new things, different people, and much less time spent driving. He doesn't say what "new things", what he means by "different people", and he has no idea how much or how little time anyone anywhere spends driving.
As I already, I neither said anything nor am disagreeing with anything in most of that paragraph. The other differences aren't wealth differences, which is the only one I was talking about.
[/quote]
I thought miu's point was more that there is diversity in the burbs.
It seems to me that those pushing for urbanization and centralization of resources are socialists demanding that everyone put their money and efforts into cities to share what they have with the have-nots. In other words, trying to force those with any wealth at all to live in close quarters with the urban poor.
I thought they were elitist gentrifiers who wanted to push the poor out?
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.
