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.
but do you consider it worth while to pay attention to what might be driving or influencing our preferences and trends, and how our preferences and trends might play out in ways that may or may not be so good for us individually and as a people? could there be some value in prompting a different kind of awareness in the bigger picture and how it might relate to our individual circumstances?
Affluence is probably the biggest part of what drives our preferences. The initial rise of the suburbs coincided with the large increases in income and education levels after World War II. With such affluence, you are exposed more choices (whether it's a house, car, clothes, etc.). Prior to World War II, the choices for most people were to either live in the city because of a certain type of job and that was all that they could afford or live in a rural area with sustainable agriculture. They didn't live in those places because they necessarily wanted to; instead, they lived there because they HAD to. The abundance of new choices because of a rising middle class and upper middle class is one of the seismic changes that occurred between the first half of the 20th century vs. the second half.
Do I think that we should try to impress upon people the greater impact of their choices on society as a whole? We can try, but I honestly don't have much faith in those type of top-down initiatives ever working. Policies that go against the grain of people's natural tendancies almost always fail.
Therefore, the issue shouldn't be why people want to move out to the suburbs. Instead, the question that every city that wants to regenerate needs to ask itself is what incentives can they provide for people to live there beyond some amorphous social cause. Are there jobs? Are there quality public schools? Are the streets safe? Are there abundant shopping, entertainment and cultural options? The difference between strong cities and weak cities is that the strong cities provide clear market-based reasons and incentives for people to live there as opposed to just trying to play the socially conscious card. Strong cities such as New York and Chicago didn't just pop up by happenstance - it took a lot of forsight and leadership to leverage their strengths to build up their urban cores. As a result, other cities need to look within themselves to get people to move there as opposed to placing blame on the suburbs.
Affluence is probably the biggest part of what drives our preferences. The initial rise of the suburbs coincided with the large increases in income and education levels after World War II. With such affluence, you are exposed more choices (whether it's a house, car, clothes, etc.). Prior to World War II, the choices for most people were to either live in the city because of a certain type of job and that was all that they could afford or live in a rural area with sustainable agriculture. They didn't live in those places because they necessarily wanted to; instead, they lived there because they HAD to. The abundance of new choices because of a rising middle class and upper middle class is one of the seismic changes that occurred between the first half of the 20th century vs. the second half.
Do I think that we should try to impress upon people the greater impact of their choices on society as a whole? We can try, but I honestly don't have much faith in those type of top-down initiatives ever working. Policies that go against the grain of people's natural tendancies almost always fail.
Therefore, the issue shouldn't be why people want to move out to the suburbs. Instead, the question that every city that wants to regenerate needs to ask itself is what incentives can they provide for people to live there beyond some amorphous social cause. Are there jobs? Are there quality public schools? Are the streets safe? Are there abundant shopping, entertainment and cultural options? The difference between strong cities and weak cities is that the strong cities provide clear market-based reasons and incentives for people to live there as opposed to just trying to play the socially conscious card. Strong cities such as New York and Chicago didn't just pop up by happenstance - it took a lot of forsight and leadership to leverage their strengths to build up their urban cores. As a result, other cities need to look within themselves to get people to move there as opposed to placing blame on the suburbs.
interesting to me that you say affluence leads to people seaking more choices, yet, seems *relatively* affluent suburbs often contain a predictable pattern of many of the same looking houses, same franchises, even rather similarly thinking and appearing people etc. versus a regularly morphing cross section that can often be found in cities' proper. what are your thoughts on that? and as for market based incentives, what if these result in ramifications for people that those same people might have been unaware of if it weren't for some other's that were looking into them outside of the mainstream of the markets? can you think of examples of when people might have been happy that market forces weren't the only things that were shaping those people's perceptions? i guess, overall, are you convinced that strictly leaving things to market forces are so good, maybe especially when they can be so manipulative, predatory, etc while people often don't have the time or tendency to even look out for some of their own good (their nutrition, their health, their environment, e.g.)?
i, for one, wouldn't call suburbs wrong as a rule or a "cause" so much as a result of some things that seem worth looking at. i do think that suburbs can have some positive and maybe some more negative effects of their own, though (as described in previous posts).
i do agree that some planning and strong and effective leadership can result in better communitees like NY, Chicago, etc. (though maybe some weaker leadership has lead to some of those same cities "other sides").
Last edited by hello-world; 05-29-2007 at 03:57 PM..
interesting to me that you say affluence leads to people seaking more choices, yet, seems *relatively* affluent suburbs often contain a predictable pattern of many of the same looking houses, same franchises, even rather similarly thinking and appearing people etc. versus a regularly morphing cross section that can often be found in cities' proper. what are your thoughts on that? and as for market based incentives, what if these result in ramifications for people that those same people might have been unaware of if it weren't for some other's that were looking into them outside of the mainstream of the markets? can you think of examples of when people might have been happy that market forces weren't the only things that were shaping those people's perceptions? i guess, overall, are you convinced that strictly leaving things to market forces are so good, maybe especially when they can be so manipulative, predatory, etc while people often don't have the time or tendency to even look out for some of their own good (their nutrition, their health, their environment, e.g.)?
i, for one, wouldn't call suburbs wrong as a rule or a "cause" so much as a result of some things that seem worth looking at. i do think that suburbs can have some positive and maybe some more negative effects of their own, though (as described in previous posts).
i do agree that some planning and strong and effective leadership can result in better communitees like NY, Chicago, etc. (though maybe some weaker leadership has lead to some of those same cities "other sides").
The "same-looking" houses in relatively affluent suburbs are choices since they reflect what a lot of people seem to want: space with 3 or 4 bedromms and a 2 or 3 car garage at a reasonable price. One could argue that the lofts and condos that are being built in a lot of cities look all the same, as well (same colored hardwood floors and appliances with 2 bedrooms and a deck). There might be differentiation between the exteriors of those buildings, but the layouts of the interiors of those condos are very much copycats of each other since those are the amenities that a lot of people are demanding. Unless you have the wealth to hire your own architect and build from scratch, the choice for most people that I'm speaking of is the more basic comparison between a newer single-family home in the suburbs versus a unit in a multi-family building in the city (or even an older single-family home).
Market forces alone don't create perfect solutions - as with anything that involves lots of different individual moves, there are going to be positive developments and others where you wonder what those people were thinking. All I'm saying is that the market forces are a reflection of people's choices. I don't quite buy the notion that people are somehow manipulated into buying certain types of homes. You'll always find exceptions, but for the most part, people are pretty well-attuned to all of the factors in choosing a place to live, particularly those who purchase homes instead of renting them. The average person that's putting down a significant amount of savings on a house is probably going to heavily scrutinize that purchase. Certainly, misguided perceptions can be formed as to what is a "good" or "bad" neighborhood or school district, yet the aggregate is usually pretty accurate in their assessments from a realistic standpoint.
I'm all for solid urban (or suburban) planning and I think a lot of people demand it - the biggest issues in the fast-growing suburbs are usually related to managing growth and not letting it get out of hand. At the end of the day, though, people generally like the notion of owning land and for good reason since there isn't any more of it being made.
The "same-looking" houses in relatively affluent suburbs are choices since they reflect what a lot of people seem to want: space with 3 or 4 bedromms and a 2 or 3 car garage at a reasonable price. One could argue that the lofts and condos that are being built in a lot of cities look all the same, as well (same colored hardwood floors and appliances with 2 bedrooms and a deck). There might be differentiation between the exteriors of those buildings, but the layouts of the interiors of those condos are very much copycats of each other since those are the amenities that a lot of people are demanding. Unless you have the wealth to hire your own architect and build from scratch, the choice for most people that I'm speaking of is the more basic comparison between a newer single-family home in the suburbs versus a unit in a multi-family building in the city (or even an older single-family home).
Market forces alone don't create perfect solutions - as with anything that involves lots of different individual moves, there are going to be positive developments and others where you wonder what those people were thinking. All I'm saying is that the market forces are a reflection of people's choices. I don't quite buy the notion that people are somehow manipulated into buying certain types of homes. You'll always find exceptions, but for the most part, people are pretty well-attuned to all of the factors in choosing a place to live, particularly those who purchase homes instead of renting them. The average person that's putting down a significant amount of savings on a house is probably going to heavily scrutinize that purchase. Certainly, misguided perceptions can be formed as to what is a "good" or "bad" neighborhood or school district, yet the aggregate is usually pretty accurate in their assessments from a realistic standpoint.
I'm all for solid urban (or suburban) planning and I think a lot of people demand it - the biggest issues in the fast-growing suburbs are usually related to managing growth and not letting it get out of hand. At the end of the day, though, people generally like the notion of owning land and for good reason since there isn't any more of it being made.
I think our country is nice b/c it does give you the option. The traditional "Northern" cities do allow you the opportunity for urban living...living in the urban core...etc...but the Sunbelt cities do a fantastic job at suburban planning...ie DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix. THere as you have all discussed are pro's and benefits of both. Personally I do prefer the sunbelt cities. Now both DFW, Houston, and Atlanta are adding the urban core option to their cities relatively rapidly (DFW is adding 26 currently, with another 25 more highrises planned), but are still at least a decade or two away from being on par with the Northern cities: CHicago, Philly, Boston, DC, NYC, SF.
I think our country is nice b/c it does give you the option. The traditional "Northern" cities do allow you the opportunity for urban living...living in the urban core...etc...but the Sunbelt cities do a fantastic job at suburban planning...ie DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix. THere as you have all discussed are pro's and benefits of both. Personally I do prefer the sunbelt cities. Now both DFW, Houston, and Atlanta are adding the urban core option to their cities relatively rapidly (DFW is adding 26 currently, with another 25 more highrises planned), but are still at least a decade or two away from being on par with the Northern cities: CHicago, Philly, Boston, DC, NYC, SF.
Well what does "on par" mean? Because I feel that our Sunbelt cities are pretty fine the way they are. Not everybody wants a Philadelphia, or a Boston, or a San Francisco.
I do agree with you. I like our Sunbelt cities...everything is new...infrastructure and freeways well planned out, etc.
But my comments were more objective rather than personal...there seems to be a big movement for the larger sunbelt cities such as Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas to add to their urban core...in the way of high density housing developments...or aka high rises. Having said that, I think our suburbs are much better planned than our northern counterparts...but I think with lots of people from the north moving down here...the sunbelt cities are trying to accomodate the rising demand for urban living....now dont get me wrong, I love my suburban life...it's nice...but there is a movement to offer both in the sunbelt as well...though it's still decades off...I do believe Houston and Dallas are still freeway/lots of commuting cities still with our convenient strip malls at every corner.
I can't convince you that Montage Mountain has been a benefit to Scranton, mainly because it's not in Scranton.
Wow! Excellent observation! The mountain is in Moosic, which is just a stone's throw from the downtown area that it is currently fleecing of its vitality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
The theater was not constructed solely for the benefit of Scrantonians.
Agreed. It was solely constructed for their detriment, as the downtown theater is now struggling to remain afloat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
I have friends in northern Carbon County, some forty miles away, that see movies at Cinemark, because of its size and accessibility.
That's not saying much. Have you been to Northern Carbon County lately? It's quite rural and Cinemark might just be the closest theater to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
From what I understand, there was an existing ski area and nearby ampitheater on Montage, and therefore to truly make the area an entertainment/recreation hub Cinemark and Johnny Rockets were constructed.
Was all the rest necessary? The half-vacant shiny glass office buildings? The hundreds of McMansions and vinyl-sided townhomes? The "lifestyle center?" The upcoming Lowe's Home Improvement? The upcoming Target? The accompanied massive traffic congestion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Cinemark is a huge theater, and its location off of 81 allows people from all over NEPA to access the theater and restaurant complex quickly.
The same could be said for Downtown Scranton's theater, which is just a mile or so off of I-81. Various restaurants, pubs, and night clubs are also within walking distance of the Marquee Cinemas as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
It would be foolish to think that residents in Scranton would EVER approve of a theater/restaurant complex the size of Cinemark in Downtown Scranton.
Why? It wouldn't have to be built with a sprawling footprint; an urban locale permits UPWARD construction. The existing Marquee Cinemas downtown is a decent size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Additionally, many areas of Scranton aren't nearly as accessible for NEPA residents.
Explain. How can a downtown just one mile off I-81 not be as accessible as a suburb just three miles away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Lastly, imagine people coming into Scranton from surrounding rural areas wanting to catch a late-night movie, and having to worry about coming out of theater in Scranton to a deserted street.
"The sky is falling. The sky is falling." Oh please! I'm a suburbanite myself and my friends and I have no reservations about walking around Downtown Wilkes-Barre at night after a film at their downtown theater, even though Wilkes-Barre has a higher crime rate than Scranton. When was the last time you heard about someone getting mugged in either downtown?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
You would definitely not see as many people at a Cinemark in Scranton that you see at Cinemark in Moosic.
Is it the fault of the city that the locals are suburban lemmings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
You have to have a car in order to get from town-to-town in NEPA, so an automobile-oriented theater complex makes perfect sense.
Will it make perfect sense when fuel prices hit $4/gallon? Won't it become more attractive to utilize mass transit options into the city instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Believe it or not, people do not want to walk everywhere.
Agreed. It's a bloody shame that Americans are so lazy these days. Heaven forbid they can't take their SUV three blocks to the nearest grocery store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
A growing number of Americans are extremely large and out-of-shape, and would rather drive from one point to the next.
Scranton is faltering because suburbanites are fat buffoons that worship chain stores. Yep. Sounds about right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
A theater in Scranton would demand the construction of ugly parking deck, or complicated on the street parking, and subsequent walking, which could prove to be frustrating and tiring.
This is different from the "Shoppes @ Montage" how...? You have to park your car and walk all around there as well, and when Cinemark is packed on the weekends, you often have to walk what seems like 1/4 mile through paved paradise to the entrance. Also, what's wrong with the possibility of an undergound parking garage? In any event, the city is currently constructing a new garage in anticipation of the redevelopment of the nearby Connell Building, Southern Union Building, and Scranton Medical School.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
The view from the Cinemark complex is stunning, much nicer than ANY potential site in Scranton.
A view of the massive Empire Landfill in Taylor is "stunning." That's a good one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
I'm definitely agree that a downtown theater would be beneficial for Scranton, but the theater has very little to do with the city, and more to accessibilty and proximity.
There's already a theater in downtown Scranton that is being killed off by Cinemark's uncontrollable popularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
I know it must be frustrating to see Scranton in decay and ruins, but I think becoming angry at county commissioners for locating amenities in profitable locations is not the right place to direct your anger.
Well then where should I be directing my frustrations? Aren't the commissioners the ones responsible for setting the county on the right path for a brighter future? How is encouraging urban sprawl at the expense of the struggling county seat an example of positive leadership?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Maybe if Penn State, or some other school, located a campus in DT Scranton that could spur development (Phoenix has been trying to create a decent downtown by construction an Arizona State campus downtown).
What about the University of Scranton? What about Lackawanna College? What about the upcoming Scranton Medical School? The downtown isn't as devoid of educated youths as some may think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Scranton is old news.
Then why have single-family property values in the city risen by 1/3 between 2003 and 2006? Why did Scranton/Wilkes-Barre dominate the poll when I asked people on the PA forum "Where in PA Are You Planning to Move To?" Why is Lackawanna County's population growing again? Why did Scranton just land its first Wall Street West firm in its downtown? Why is the enrollment at Scranton's public schools increasing? Why does Scranton now host the annual Fiesta en Scranton, La Festa Italiana, Scranton Jazz Festival, Electric City Film Festival, and upcoming Gay Pride Festival? Why was Scranton chosen as the setting for "The Office?" Why did Paul and Mira Sorvino choose Scranton for their new film office?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
The city is akin to a race horse who breaks all of its legs.
I'm sure "Miami" is much better with its gang warfare, illegal immigration, humidity, and rednecks, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
The horse can not be restored to its previous condition.
Disagreed. Visit Scranton in 2020 and be blown away!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Sprawl is profitable; you can build larger developments in suburban areas than in cities.
Making money trumps doing the right thing? What a great lesson we're teaching our children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
The commissioners aren't concerned with Scranton, and the people who frequent Cinemark aren't either.
Well then why should I even bother to try to save it then?
The "same-looking" houses in relatively affluent suburbs are choices since they reflect what a lot of people seem to want: space with 3 or 4 bedromms and a 2 or 3 car garage at a reasonable price. One could argue that the lofts and condos that are being built in a lot of cities look all the same, as well (same colored hardwood floors and appliances with 2 bedrooms and a deck). There might be differentiation between the exteriors of those buildings, but the layouts of the interiors of those condos are very much copycats of each other since those are the amenities that a lot of people are demanding. Unless you have the wealth to hire your own architect and build from scratch, the choice for most people that I'm speaking of is the more basic comparison between a newer single-family home in the suburbs versus a unit in a multi-family building in the city (or even an older single-family home).
Market forces alone don't create perfect solutions - as with anything that involves lots of different individual moves, there are going to be positive developments and others where you wonder what those people were thinking. All I'm saying is that the market forces are a reflection of people's choices. I don't quite buy the notion that people are somehow manipulated into buying certain types of homes. You'll always find exceptions, but for the most part, people are pretty well-attuned to all of the factors in choosing a place to live, particularly those who purchase homes instead of renting them. The average person that's putting down a significant amount of savings on a house is probably going to heavily scrutinize that purchase. Certainly, misguided perceptions can be formed as to what is a "good" or "bad" neighborhood or school district, yet the aggregate is usually pretty accurate in their assessments from a realistic standpoint.
I'm all for solid urban (or suburban) planning and I think a lot of people demand it - the biggest issues in the fast-growing suburbs are usually related to managing growth and not letting it get out of hand. At the end of the day, though, people generally like the notion of owning land and for good reason since there isn't any more of it being made.
i agree there is some reflection of people's seemingly innate and natural wants in some of this. at the same time, i'm not necessarily talking about people being directly manipulated into buying certain homes, per se. i'm talking about something more subtle and maybe more deep rooted. i'm talking about some of the things that shape our national or contemporary consciousness(es?), for example. from emphases on the individual's consumptive habits to shaping of those habits by marketing (and market) "forces" or "trendiness" or hollywood - maybe not so seperable from one another - in subtle and not so subtle ways that can be commercially, economically, politically, and yes, inherently driven (again not so seperable in some ways, though seemingly worth a look as the power of these things while "feeling good" for example may not feel so good in the longer run, e.g.). a more concrete example might concern rumblings you may hear about GM and petroleum allies stearing public transit in America's past (and perhaps present) for the profit of GM and those allies. of course, modes of transportation not only have huge implications for some people's and organizations' profit, but for how we the people can go about living our lives. and it's no secret that advertisers (via TV etc) go to significant lengths to shape our thinking for their profit. not by "go buy houses that look like this over there" (though there has in fact been some of that as you might recall from old clips from the 50s and 60s), but by stearing our wants which can ultimately result in some bigger scale trends such as the big box stores, the SUV phenom, and ... the mcmansion. not necessarily direct, maybe quite subtle or just a little subtle, but with huge payoffs ... and costs. in some cases these things may be unintentional - simply fairly typical cultural morphology that can result in some good, and some very not so good things that can undo a culture - and in others, maybe quite intentional. another way to look at it might be: do you think "big oil" minds if we're addicted to it's products - it's gasoline, it's plastics, it's asphalt, etc.? do you think policy is shaped at all by that "not minding"? do you think that, if our main mode of transport was the train and not the automobile, the layout of our communities and the tendencies of our habits might be different? do you think people are "well attuned" to how their individual consumption, when "aggregated" over the masses of millions of people like themselves, may play out in terms of environmental fallout, geopolitics, or war? or, for that matter, to some of the influences of their peers, of commercial interests, etc.? in my own view, it seems that these things quite certainly have some influence, maybe huge influence: but even without them, the "attuned" you allude to seems at least somewhat dubious to me - i'd agree that many people are "well attuned" to their own more immediate "needs" aka "wants" or "desires", but not that they're necessarily "attuned" to how their "needs" or "desires" could, in aggregate sum, turn around to bite them (and some others).
Last edited by hello-world; 05-29-2007 at 08:13 PM..
"The horse can not be restored to its previous condition."
There's plenty of "urban renewal" out there - pick your example. There are also some examples of brownfields that are now greenfields in a RCRA/CERCLA/Superfund sense.
Last edited by hello-world; 05-29-2007 at 08:07 PM..
I still disagree that people are so naive or gullible that they let advertising overlly influence them when it comes to a decision of how to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a home. Advertising doesn't work if the product doesn't work. Remember the Edsel? A flop. I don't know if any of you are old enough to remember 'granny dresses', but they were introduced as the 'hip' new thing for teenagers in the 60s. Flopped. Teenage girls (including me at the time) preferred miniskirts. As my own teenage daughter said, some people think teenagers will wear anything they are told is cool. Just recently, pants with an attached apron were marketed to teenagers as 'cool' - flopped.
It's the same with housing choices. Advertising does work on some level. Remember harvest gold and avacado green appliances? If you don't, ask your parents! Ditto burnt orange carpets. And some people are the epitome of 'the emporer has no clothes' fairy tale - they believe nonsense because someone convinces them of it. However, most of us know how to think. If we don't like something, we're not going to buy it.
I think the automobile freed people to go to the suburbs, or wherever they wanted to. Interestingly, prior to personal auto use, public transportation, including interurban buses, was more plentiful. At one time, buses linked farm communities with the cities. People abandoned public transportation to use their personal transportation on their own schedules. So it wasn't that public transportation didn't exist, it was that people found driving preferable, and the transit companies went out of business. I also agree with Frank the Tank about the architecture in the cities and the suburbs. In fact, I think I posted such opinions on this thread. I know I did on the Denver forum.
There have always been 'city mice' and 'country mice'. I think suburbanites are a blend of the two. Some of us like having some of the amenities of the country, like land to plant a garden. Some of us like to live close to the city but not in it.
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.
The mountain is in Moosic, which is just a stone's throw from the downtown area that it is currently fleecing of its vitality. 
You have to park your car and walk all around there as well, and when Cinemark is packed on the weekends, you often have to walk what seems like 1/4 mile through paved paradise to the entrance. Also, what's wrong with the possibility of an undergound parking garage? In any event, the city is currently constructing a new garage in anticipation of the redevelopment of the nearby Connell Building, Southern Union Building, and Scranton Medical School. 
