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.
Of course, but that requires a little finagling of the statistics. More people live in the burbs than live in the cities, by a wide margin.
Poverty and Growth: Retro-Urbanists Cling to the Myth of Suburban Decline - The Daily Beast "both the 2010 Census and other more recent analyses demonstrate that America is becoming steadily more suburban: 44 million Americans live in America’s 51 major metropolitan areas, while nearly 122 million Americans live in their suburbs. In other words, nearly three quarters of metropolitan Americans live in suburbs, not core cities.
The main reason there are now more poor people in the suburbs is that there are now many more people in the suburbs, which have represented almost all of America’s net population growth in recent years. Despite trite talk about “suburban ghettos,” suburbs have a poverty rate roughly half that of urban centers (20.9 percent in core compared to 11.4 percent in the suburbs as of 2010)."
You are missing the point (and seemingly choosing not to read any of the articles to gain context)
Given the suburban development pattern - auto-centric, single-use developments, spread out, etc -- the poor and disadvantaged have a more difficult time functioning in this environment. It is a real issue, and will continue.
If you aren't aware that homes generally are built cheaper today than they were 100 years ago, you've obviously have never done any rehabilitation of homes...or just paid attention. This isn't really debatable. Again...I'm talking in generalities here. The old saying, "they just don't build them like the use to" has real merit.
Also, look at how well a 30- 40 year old strip mall ages compared to a series of buildings fronting almost any main street in the US. That should also tell you something.
Regardless, this was only a minor point I chose to comment on. As the other poster suggests, this item doesn't explain away the trend of suburban poverty that is occurring and the fact that the way suburbs are generally built/laid out, means some tough times for the poor and disadvantaged in the coming decades. There are new articles being posted each day on the Strong Town's website so I'd suggest you take in a few and see how complex this issue really is.
The strip mall comparison it PERFECT!
I think that building standards remained decent through the early post war period. From custom built brick and glass Eichler homes to Levittown (I am most familiar with the one in LI, NY) construction remained solid. Levittown is a planned community of modest homes built for returning GIs after WWII. They are amazingly solid.
In the late 60s and notoriously, the 70s and 80s, construction continued to slide.
My 2003 Faux Victorian, while beautiful and faithful in it's reproduction of architectural details, was a 4300 square ft. "Money Pit" in Stony Brook, LI, NY. The interior was charmless.
In comparison, my circa 1924 craftsman, in a small older city in Ohio.
IMHO no one needs 4300 square ft - unless you are 1. Running a group home 2. Have 12 children. or 3. Are running a bed and breakfast.
You are missing the point (and seemingly choosing not to read any of the articles to gain context)
Given the suburban development pattern - auto-centric, single-use developments, spread out, etc -- the poor and disadvantaged have a more difficult time functioning in this environment. It is a real issue, and will continue.
Your first link is full of anti-suburban, even anti-American hyperbole. No need to read farther than "That is, we wish it didn’t happen in the kind of way that we lament the death of millions of Native Americans from disease in the early days of European colonization: We wish it hadn’t happened, but it did, and since, I didn’t create smallpox, please pass the pumpkin pie.
As we see the Growth Ponzi Scheme ", and I didn't (read farther). I don't read sensationalistic, hyperbole. Sorry.
Second link, first sentence: "There is arguably no place where half a century of suburban growth has more resembled a giant Ponzi scheme than in Florida." Done.
It took a while in the third link to get to the agenda. "It fails the working class entirely and that’s by design. The poor are intentionally filtered out. If you can’t afford a nice house and at least one car you’re just not wanted unless you commute in for the day to cut the grass and mop the floors."
I did decide to finish it anyway, since I was so close, and it did not address anything in the bold.
Fourth link, first sentence: "Suburban poverty is a growing problem in the United States, one that is often hidden in plain sight. The immense cost of suburban infrastructure (built upon the Growth Ponzi Scheme), high transportation expenses and a disconnection from resources have combined to put millions of suburban residents into poverty." All done!
The "return to the cities" is overplayed and overhyped. Moreover it's irrelevant given the growth of the "suburbs".
Why does anyone believe housing/apartments were built to last decades in cities vs. those away from a city center? Sounds a bit arrogant and inaccurate. Housing quality varies greatly based upon date of construction regardless of where it is located. The so-called "quality" of homes in cities is one of the reasons people leave cities - they want nicer homes.
I agree with you. The so-called death of the suburbs is not real. Early indications are that the Millenials, the generation that so many are pointing to and saying they are different, are following the same footsteps to the suburbs as their parents and grandparents did. The only difference is that they are doing it a little later than previous generations and that is likely because of the economic downturn that began in 2008. They are also generally saddled with more student-loan debt than other generations as well but they still have the desire to own their own home that is large enough to accommodate their families.
I am only an occasional lurker on this forum but I have notice a definite theme to posts here that seem to favor urban living over suburban. Not sure why or if that is real but when I see that I do have to laugh. JMHO, Jay
I think that building standards remained decent through the early post war period. From custom built brick and glass Eichler homes to Levittown (I am most familiar with the one in LI, NY) construction remained solid. Levittown is a planned community of modest homes built for returning GIs after WWII. They are amazingly solid.
In the late 60s and notoriously, the 70s and 80s, construction continued to slide.
My 2003 Faux Victorian, while beautiful and faithful in it's reproduction of architectural details, was a 4300 square ft. "Money Pit" in Stony Brook, LI, NY. The interior was charmless.
In comparison, my circa 1924 craftsman, in a small older city in Ohio.
IMHO no one needs 4300 square ft - unless you are 1. Running a group home 2. Have 12 children. or 3. Are running a bed and breakfast.
My DH snookered me into that one. NEVER AGAIN!
I laughed when you compared your current 1924 craftsman to a 2003 faux Victorian and you calling the Victorian a "Money Pit". My parents owned a "Well built" 1923 colonial revival in an affluent first-tier suburb of a northeastern city and it was the true essence of a money pit. While it had beautiful chestnut woodwork, solid oak floors, thick plaster walls and many of the things people normally associate with a well-built home. It was a complete lie. Those thing look nice and are generally no longer available on today's working-man homes but the place had so many issues that my father, a meticulous and hard-working man, was constantly toiling with keeping up.
The basement was poured concrete but there was no modern drainage system around the perimeter of it so water was a constant issue. Even an expensive drainage tile replacement never really solved the issue. The plumbing had copper pipes but they were placed through important support beams so the house sagged in places until they could be found and repaired. The windows were typical double-hung at the time and required storm windows over them to provide any form of energy efficiency. The insulation in the walls of the house was virtually non-existent and required a complete and expensive procedure to upgrade and replace. The electrical system was the old knob and tube wiring which was a fire just waiting to happen. The exterior was clad in beautiful cedar shingles that required constant painting. My childhood memories were of each summer my father up on ladders and scaffolding stripping old paint and repainting one side of the house. He started on one side each year and by the time he got all four sides and the garage done, the first side he did required repainting so the process went on again for years and years. It was almost laughable the time, energy and money he spent on that home. Finally after a couple of decades of work he gave up and had the place sided in aluminum, again another very expensive proposition. The house did not have central air conditioning so each year we spent hours and broke our backs installing and later removing heavy and expensive air conditioners. This was a chore I hated but became an expert at since I did it not only for my parents but my grandparents, aunt, and close family friend. I could go on but I think you all get the picture.
Today I live in a 1980's suburban tract colonial that is well built for what it is but it certainly does not require the time, effort and money my parents home did. It does not have the plaster walls, chestnut woodwork or charming features that my parent's home had but it also has energy efficient insulated walls and windows, central air conditioning, aluminum siding, a dry well draining basement and a host of other features that made my life easier to live and allowed me to spend time with my kids rather than up on a ladder all the time trying to keep an albatross of a house looking decent.
Now which home would you say is the better built and which is the money pit? Jay
You are missing the point (and seemingly choosing not to read any of the articles to gain context)
Given the suburban development pattern - auto-centric, single-use developments, spread out, etc -- the poor and disadvantaged have a more difficult time functioning in this environment. It is a real issue, and will continue.
Not where I live. The northeast suburb I live in, and those around me, are railroad-centric, and not "generically" laid out since most of them are based on towns incorporated in the late 1600's, and certainly not single-use developments.
There really is a spectrum of suburbs, just like all cities aren't the same.
Not where I live. The northeast suburb I live in, and those around me, are railroad-centric, and not "generically" laid out since most of them are based on towns incorporated in the late 1600's, and certainly not single-use developments.
There really is a spectrum of suburbs, just like all cities aren't the same.
If you live where I think you live, few if any are places would find poverty, many of them are extremely wealthy places. And generally not particularly useful local (as opposed to rail to NYC) transit, though varies by town.
Not where I live. The northeast suburb I live in, and those around me, are railroad-centric, and not "generically" laid out since most of them are based on towns incorporated in the late 1600's, and certainly not single-use developments.
There really is a spectrum of suburbs, just like all cities aren't the same.
There really ought to be a message that is somehow pinned to the top of every page in this subforum clearly expressing the caveat that when people are talking about "suburbia" or "the suburbs" here they're by and large talking about the general pattern of suburban development as it occurred during the mid-20th century and continued until the present day and not literally every place outside a city limit. It should be obvious to begin with but virtually every thread here still seems to require someone to explicitly make this distinction.
I haven't read any of the OPs links, but this doesn't sound at all like a "the suburbs are dying" thread. So, I don't know why people are arguing that they are not. To me, it sounds like the OP was trying to discuss the fate of the poor, and trying to prevent history from repeating itself. Except that, generally speaking, when the poor were left in the cities, the configuration of the infrastructure/amenities in the city was more favorable to them, and the configuration of infrastructure/amenities in the stereotypical suburb requires the additional expense of a car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
I laughed when you compared your current 1924 craftsman to a 2003 faux Victorian and you calling the Victorian a "Money Pit". My parents owned a "Well built" 1923 colonial revival in an affluent first-tier suburb of a northeastern city and it was the true essence of a money pit. While it had beautiful chestnut woodwork, solid oak floors, thick plaster walls and many of the things people normally associate with a well-built home. It was a complete lie. Those thing look nice and are generally no longer available on today's working-man homes but the place had so many issues that my father, a meticulous and hard-working man, was constantly toiling with keeping up.
The basement was poured concrete but there was no modern drainage system around the perimeter of it so water was a constant issue. Even an expensive drainage tile replacement never really solved the issue. The plumbing had copper pipes but they were placed through important support beams so the house sagged in places until they could be found and repaired. The windows were typical double-hung at the time and required storm windows over them to provide any form of energy efficiency. The insulation in the walls of the house was virtually non-existent and required a complete and expensive procedure to upgrade and replace. The electrical system was the old knob and tube wiring which was a fire just waiting to happen. The exterior was clad in beautiful cedar shingles that required constant painting. My childhood memories were of each summer my father up on ladders and scaffolding stripping old paint and repainting one side of the house. He started on one side each year and by the time he got all four sides and the garage done, the first side he did required repainting so the process went on again for years and years. It was almost laughable the time, energy and money he spent on that home. Finally after a couple of decades of work he gave up and had the place sided in aluminum, again another very expensive proposition. The house did not have central air conditioning so each year we spent hours and broke our backs installing and later removing heavy and expensive air conditioners. This was a chore I hated but became an expert at since I did it not only for my parents but my grandparents, aunt, and close family friend. I could go on but I think you all get the picture.
Today I live in a 1980's suburban tract colonial that is well built for what it is but it certainly does not require the time, effort and money my parents home did. It does not have the plaster walls, chestnut woodwork or charming features that my parent's home had but it also has energy efficient insulated walls and windows, central air conditioning, aluminum siding, a dry well draining basement and a host of other features that made my life easier to live and allowed me to spend time with my kids rather than up on a ladder all the time trying to keep an albatross of a house looking decent.
Now which home would you say is the better built and which is the money pit? Jay
I really wanted to discuss the rest of this quoted post point by point, but it's off-topic. So, I'll just say that what one considers better varies, based on that person's priorities. You could ask: "which is the better car, a new Toyota Corolla, or a Duesenberg?" and you'd get a large group of people claiming each is better, for different reasons.
There really ought to be a message that is somehow pinned to the top of every page in this subforum clearly expressing the caveat that when people are talking about "suburbia" or "the suburbs" here they're by and large talking about the general pattern of suburban development as it occurred during the mid-20th century and continued until the present day and not literally every place outside a city limit. It should be obvious to begin with but virtually every thread here still seems to require someone to explicitly make this distinction.
That is an excellent point.
There are edges of central cities that are built with a suburban development patterns while there are suburbs (especially older ones) that have large areas that are more traditional in nature.
This isn't about central cities vs suburban cities because they can both have traditional development patterns and/or suburban development patterns. Instead, it is about a pattern of development that by its nature, requires a person or family to own and drive a car to be productive in society. This is a heavy burden on some, and impossibility for others.
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.
