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.
Where I live annexing smaller unincorporated communities was how cities grew and maintained tax base as people moved further and further out. But in time many of these smaller communities actually incorporated to avoid it. But now many of these have incorporated and are among the best choice especially has boomers retire to live. A example is one article just written about wealth in Texas. In 1979 I drove thru Fredericksburg Tx. and it was a clean small town but most of main street was boarded up and average income wasn't high. It now has the highest number of millionaires percentage wise of any city in Texas. Main street is booming again also. As boomers retire I notice more and more of this and younger people in certain professions moving to service them such as medical. The advent of helicopter air service has also changed many things over the last decades or two.
The gist is that the movement back to suburbia/exurbia is actually being led by highly successful professionals that have grown tired of the urban rat race and seek wide-open vistas. The internet has torn down walls of isolation in that anything and everything can be delivered. Between 2013 and 2014, core urban communities lost 363,000 people overall, as migration increased to suburban and exurban counties
Yeah, it's called NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and DC. The options exist already. If you cannot afford to live there then it isn't a preference it is an unattainable pipe dream and you can't afford walkable, people don't like being told no so instead of accepting that and saving up to move to Frisco they impose their will in our suburbs.
What about all the other cities that possess similar neighborhoods at an affordable price? Minneapolis/St. Paul? Milwaukee? St. Louis? Cincinnati? Louisville? Pittsburgh? Kansas City? Cleveland? Columbus? Indianapolis? Detroit? Oklahoma City? Birmingham? Atlanta? Charlotte? Albuquerque? Countless others? We need to get past this notion that you can either live in Manhattan or exurbia. There are so many in betweens that get completely buried under all the hyperbolic comparisons that take place on this forum.
The gist is that the movement back to suburbia/exurbia is actually being led by highly successful professionals that have grown tired of the urban rat race and seek wide-open vistas. The internet has torn down walls of isolation in that anything and everything can be delivered. Between 2013 and 2014, core urban communities lost 363,000 people overall, as migration increased to suburban and exurban counties
That's not really the gist I'm getting, it sounds more like professionals leaving suburbs and outlying urban neighbourhoods for small towns and rural communities.
Also I don't know how they're defining core urban communities but it sounds like they're referring to outmigration rather than net population loss. Birth rates exceed death rates in most (all?) cities and urban core communities that are doing well often have little room to grow. And in some less desirable cities you are seeing population loss of outer urban neighbourhoods causing net population loss (downtowns are growing everywhere afaik) in those cities. Overall though, I'm pretty sure the core cities are still growing on average.
I understand your desires and share many of them (i.e., while I can appreciate the city for what it is and what it offers, I do very much desire myself to live in low density and to not have to deal with all of society's dregs and undesirables, with the noise and crowds, and I absolutely love peace, quiet and tranquility . . . as well as safety). Yet I also understand, on a purely practical and logistical level, that the Long Island lifestyle that you describe cannot be sustained for your homogeneous element IF the lower-income, lower-socioeconomic-class folks aren't there as well to do all the lower-end, lower-paying work that is needed to maintain YOUR and MY desired way-of-life. That is, people are needed to work in retail stores, malls, and shopping centers; service stations; car washes; as cleanup and custodial crews, hospital orderlies, daycare and nursing home care workers, restaurant and supermarket workers, low-end office workers (e.g, file clerks, receptionists), gardeners and landscapers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum (you can fill in all the other blanks for the great great multitude of other capacities that they are needed for to fill).
Think about it: You know that YOU yourself will not fill those work capacities such as those referenced above, and no one out there bought their homes, paid their high property and other taxes, and sent their suburban children to the best public or private schools and colleges/universities et al to then have them simply become retail clerks, cashiers, waiters and waitresses, dishwashers, daycare center workers, service station attendants, and so on and so on living out in Long Island. Well then, just WHO exactly is going to fill all those many capacities? Do you expect such workers to all commute back and forth to and from Long Island each day from the inner city to work out in wholly- or nearly-wholly car-dependent areas and then for rather low wages? Why don't they just instead all fill those same capacities in the CITY itself where they live instead of being expected to commute way out to Long Island each day?
So if that lower-end population is needed to fill all those work capacities as stated above (and many more NOT stated above) and have it be viable for them to do so, then suitable housing accommodations and communities need to be made for them to occupy and spread throughout the suburbs where they need to be situated in order to viably fill all these capacities . . . and their children (if any) need to go to school out there as well. Regardless of whether we don't desire this outcome, it is necessary for these needs of Long Island to be addressed and filled.
And THAT, in the nutshell, is why all those lower-end populations are allowed by the "powers-that-be" to be out amongst you and all around you. If folks like yourself and those that think like yourself don't want them there, then what is the solution otherwise? Quit your own lucrative careers/jobs or give up your own lucrative self-employment and work as a supermarket checkout clerk yourself or be a nursing home orderly cleaning bedpans yourself or work as a custodian in a public school or a mall yourself . . . and then you won't have to have the lower-end populations live out there to fill those capacities. That is the stark reality. And because it is not always the case that every single one of those lower-end populations always want to work, this is likely why the "powers-that-be" let all the illegals and quasi-illegals be amongst you as well . . . because these illegals and quasi-illegals most often don't resist work and rather actively seek work and will do anything or nearly anything to work (and then often at lower pay than the all-American lower-end populations). You understand how it operates now? This is the actual logic underlying the "engineering" that you perceive and speak of.
The only other solution I can think of (i.e., to not having the lower-end populations to relocate to your suburbs from the city or for the illegals to be out there) is if robots and/or androids (especially those designed with a more advanced level of artificial intelligence) are invented to fill all those lower-end job capacities that the lower-end human populations that you don't want to be out there would otherwise fill . . . or other ways are expanded or newly invented to "automate" previous capacities filled by all the lower-end populations. Until that day comes (if ever), what other solution is there? The fact is that the "powers-that-be" have engineered it this way (as you phrased it) because they know or realize that, without that lower-end population to serve as the backbone or foundational labor force of Long Island, the Long Island that you and they (and myself) as well want cannot viably exist. If everybody out there just works their higher-end careers and livelihoods and there is hardly anybody living out there to do all the lower-end work that needs to be done (because folks like yourself don't want that element out there at all), then the Long Island suburban way-of-life cannot be sustained. That is the stark reality of it.
Add this all as an addenda to my posting # 105 immediately above this posting:
I just noticed that, in my posting # 105 above, I only addressed the need for the lower-end populations to be residing out in Long Island for the above-stated reasons. But I didn’t also address, as well, the need for the higher-paying and higher-skilled white collar and blue collar populationsas well to be drawn to reside and work out in Long Island also (to fill all the capacities that they are needed to fill). And they are to be expected to be pretty much the younger-generation populations. Realize (if you don’t already) that not everyone can be endowed to be those who can take on the very expensive single-family-homes and pay high property taxes and other taxes and fees, have multiple cars, and incur all the other expenses of living the higher-end lifestyle that you allude to. They can’t all be paid the very highest salaries or expect to make the highest livelihoods even if self-employed. And they either personally want or else simply realize that it is best for them, even if they own a car, to live in public transit-accessible, denser walkable communities and hence will often opt for apartment, condo or co-op-type living arrangements over single-family home ownership (at least at the price levels that Long Island typically entails for such home ownership). And they want various amenities like they get in the denser cities and towns to make it worth it and viable for them to live out in Long Island at-large.
Now you may say “Well, I don’t want all that density and all that it brings out here at all or hardly at all”. But the stark reality is that you NEED them (along with the lower-end populations as well) to be out there as the working populations and backbone of life out there in order for Long Island and places like Long Island to survive . . . . preserving the kind of life that you and I both want (i.e., suburban expanse, peace and quiet, a non-big city setting, et al). We simply cannot avoid the need for them to be out here with us as well. This reality virtually dictates varying degrees of denser development being needed which enable said populations to be spread throughout or nearly throughout Long Island. THAT is the stark reality of it. Like it or not. I don’t necessarily like it through-and-through but I live firmly grounded in reality and recognize reality for what it is.
Not every suburban area is declining, likewise not every urban area is improving. A few are exceptional outliers, DC improved faster than any city, and it's gentrification was rapid.
With the decline of the suburbs, there is two things going on to know in detail.
1. Younger professional class people are moving into a handful of elite cities. Boston, DC, NYC, SF, Seattle, etc. They are staying there and buying houses. This is a sorting which is continuing to happen.
2. Some boomers are also buying condos in these same cities, effectively trading down from their larger houses, this is bringing up urban prices..
3. The exurban areas are growing, but this is NOT fueled by the professional class, but by everybody else.
4. SOME, and I stress some, postwar inner ring suburbs are going downhill. Northern St. Louis County is one example, but there are also places like PG county in the DC area. These were traditionally working class and lower middle class suburbs to begin with. These suburbs were built between 1945-1955. These are often adjacent to cities disfavored quarter, so they are easy to spot.
5. The original streetcar suburbs near cities are doing well though. They have a better mix of homes, and generally better schools. The homes are MUCH better built as well. But these primarily in Northeastern cities such as DC, Philly, NYC, and Boston.
6. There is a very good chance the neighborhoods built during the housing boom of the 2000s may eventually meet the same fate as the postwar suburbs. Too many houses were built, and they cut corners on construction.
What to look for:
"Modern Era" Housing - 1960-1990. These are generally well built and big enough for most families, usually close to better schools.
"Streetcar Suburbs" - Closer to cities, usually in the "favored corner" of a city
TOD suburbs - Walkable communities usually by a train station.
Exurbs present a risk, there is a perception of them being better, but that is not always the case. They are just as vulnerable to decline as anything else, especially if they have poor design.
How to spot a declining suburb:
1. Census Poverty rates are increasing significantly.
2. Lack of commercial development, history of failure.
3. Ill balanced city finances, no mix of land uses within the suburb, just residential and minimal commercial, no office.
4. High office vacancy rates
The suburbs are not being engineered to decline, it is more that some suburbs are declining based on poor planning. Some cities are doing much better now based on good planning. The decline of the suburb is not universal though.
There is a lot of low density suburbs, which seem to be a very popular with many people. I expect this status quo to continue.
As for the inner suburbs becoming walkable neighborhoods-this may be a niche thing. But why shouldn't there be an option for people who want walkability?
Many inner ring suburbs are walkable, but they are not from the Post WWII era. They were either streetcar suburbs, or more modern TOD suburbs (Arlington, VA).
Not every inner ring suburb is suffering, it was the working and lower middle class ones which declined, and they were usually adjacent to the disfavored corner of many cities. Parts of PG county and northern St. Louis are the best examples, but there are many, such as parts of Chicago's southern suburbs (Calumet City). If you understand the disfavored quarter concept it is easy to track which suburbs will decline.
In my opinion we haven't handled population growth well and the growth of sprawl is the evidence. I grew up in L.A. and remember a time when the middle class could afford houses in areas like Westwood, Santa Monica, and Studio City. L.A. was "fifty suburbs in search of a city", but the great thing was that they weren't really suburbs at all, but actually belonged to the city proper. You could have a house and yard but still be a half hour away from the beaches and downtown. You didn't have to move 30 miles away like families have to do today. The important point to understand is that the burden of extreme commuting, in many cases, means that suburban living today usually cannot be compared with what it was in the postwar era. This is one reason some people are giving city life another look.
Not every suburban area is declining, likewise not every urban area is improving. A few are exceptional outliers, DC improved faster than any city, and it's gentrification was rapid.
With the decline of the suburbs, there is two things going on to know in detail.
1. Younger professional class people are moving into a handful of elite cities. Boston, DC, NYC, SF, Seattle, etc. They are staying there and buying houses. This is a sorting which is continuing to happen.
2. Some boomers are also buying condos in these same cities, effectively trading down from their larger houses, this is bringing up urban prices..
3. The exurban areas are growing, but this is NOT fueled by the professional class, but by everybody else.
4. SOME, and I stress some, postwar inner ring suburbs are going downhill. Northern St. Louis County is one example, but there are also places like PG county in the DC area. These were traditionally working class and lower middle class suburbs to begin with. These suburbs were built between 1945-1955. These are often adjacent to cities disfavored quarter, so they are easy to spot.
5. The original streetcar suburbs near cities are doing well though. They have a better mix of homes, and generally better schools. The homes are MUCH better built as well. But these primarily in Northeastern cities such as DC, Philly, NYC, and Boston.
6. There is a very good chance the neighborhoods built during the housing boom of the 2000s may eventually meet the same fate as the postwar suburbs. Too many houses were built, and they cut corners on construction.
What to look for:
"Modern Era" Housing - 1960-1990. These are generally well built and big enough for most families, usually close to better schools.
"Streetcar Suburbs" - Closer to cities, usually in the "favored corner" of a city
TOD suburbs - Walkable communities usually by a train station.
Exurbs present a risk, there is a perception of them being better, but that is not always the case. They are just as vulnerable to decline as anything else, especially if they have poor design.
How to spot a declining suburb:
1. Census Poverty rates are increasing significantly.
2. Lack of commercial development, history of failure.
3. Ill balanced city finances, no mix of land uses within the suburb, just residential and minimal commercial, no office.
4. High office vacancy rates
The suburbs are not being engineered to decline, it is more that some suburbs are declining based on poor planning. Some cities are doing much better now based on good planning. The decline of the suburb is not universal though.
I totally agree, especially with the bolded parts. I'm most familiar with the suburbs around Buffalo, NY as I've lived in the city or within 100 miles for most of my life but the patterns that you've cited are very prevalent throughout the Northeast and Great Lakes.
Furthermore, I will add that large suburban towns may very well have first ring/second ring/ and sometimes even third ring suburbs in them, depending upon how quickly they developed and why. Many suburban towns around Buffalo started developing well before WW II because some industries located there, namely the steel plants, the chemical factories, and the aircraft industry. Because the Buffalo area was an early casualty of "the rust belt" industrial meltdown, the growth of its second and third ring suburbs has been much slower than in other parts of the country, so there's mix of suburban types and house prices within some suburban towns -- and a mix of students in the school districts that serve them as well.
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.
