Ninja is not necessarily wrong though
people still want to own but they are seeking to do so in the cities with townhouses or condos or suburbs that are immediately outside of cities that provide immediate access.
basically...
people here are ignoring da fact that da reason that hipsters ARE moving BACK to da cities is because A. they can no longer afford da type of
car centric
lifestyle that living in da burbs demands you to have...B these knew groups of people which are millennials prefer everything to be at walking distance
and want to be in a urbanized enviroment....there's TONS of articles about this phenomenon as we speak..
Ever since the surge in crime that began in the 1960s, cosmopolitan Americans have been on a quest for urbanity, looking for a metropolitan culture that had been lost to social breakdown. They sought safety in the suburbs or in urban enclaves, but they were forced to give up the civic spaces, parks, boulevards and bustling street life that had made cities so stimulating in the past. Alan Ehrenhalt’s 1995 book, “The Lost City: Discovering the Forgotten Virtues of Community in the Chicago of the 1950s,” subtly evaluated all that had been forsaken.
Enlarge This Image
[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com...812Siegel/0812Siegel-articleInline.jpg[/img]
[h6]Illustration by Adam Simpson[/h6]
[h4] [/h4]
THE GREAT INVERSION AND THE FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN CITY
By Alan Ehrenhalt
Illustrated. 276 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $26.95.
Ehrenhalt’s new book, “The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City,” moves in the opposite direction. It is a progress report of sorts on the reclamation of public space and the “rearrangement of living patterns” that are now taking place. Cities organized around manufacturing may have gone through difficult decades, he says, but while they lost middle-class industrial jobs, they are now becoming centers of postindustrial upscale living. “The late 20th century,” he writes, “was the age of poor inner cities and wealthy suburbs; the 21st century is emerging as an age of affluent inner neighborhoods and immigrants settling on the outside.”
The title of his book refers to both the growth of downtown living in once forbidding neighborhoods and, contrary to expectations, the movement of immigrants into the suburbs. Cities like Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, he argues, are “gradually coming to resemble” European cities like Vienna or Paris in the 19th century, when the well-to-do lived in the center city and the working classes lived in the suburban rings around the downtown.
And according to Ehrenhalt, today it’s not even necessary to move downtown to achieve a sense of urbanity. He’s right, although he doesn’t cite the specifics. New shopping areas like the Glen in suburban Chicago have been built to suggest the feel of an old city center. Similarly, older suburban downtowns in Highland Park, Ill.; Downingtown, Pa.; and Westfield, N.J., have built on their architecture to create thriving districts with chic restaurants, cafes and boutiques. “Much of suburbia,” he argues, “will seek to reinvent itself in a newly urbanized mode.”
Ehrenhalt is most persuasive when describing the texture and feel of gentrifying neighborhoods. “The young and hip” are drawn to Brooklyn’s grim Bushwick, with its decaying manufacturing sites and dilapidated housing, by low rents and people of similar tastes. “Art fairs in Bushwick . . . look for all the world like celebrations designed to shock conservative sensibilities, except that there is scarcely anyone with such sensibilities around to be shocked. These are in reality projects through which a small coterie of local artists seek to display their sheer edginess to one another.”
Admittedly, it’s not all success stories. As Ehrenhalt reports, despite more than a billion dollars in subsidies, Phoenix, with its large overhang of new but empty condos, has largely failed to build a vibrant city center. If downtown Phoenix has a future, he argues, it’s because Arizona State University is expanding in what was supposed to become a commercial and residential hub.
Charlotte, N.C., has attracted dozens of restaurants to its downtown but, despite considerable effort, virtually no retail establishments. Perhaps that’s because, as Ehrenhalt says, “Charlotte, for all the local excitement it generated about upscale in-town living, still has no more than 12,000 residents downtown.”
Ehrenhalt has a hard time explaining what the successes of the new urbanism add up to, though he refers to the writings of Joel Kotkin, whom he describes as “perhaps the most prominent of the downtown debunkers.” Kotkin has claimed, on the basis of census data, that the downtown revival Ehrenhalt applauds is merely a niche phenomenon. It is confined, Kotkin says, largely to singles, childless couples, wealthy empty nesters and recently graduated students transitioning to a delayed adulthood.
This argument shadows Ehrenhalt throughout his book. With Kotkin seemingly in mind, he repeatedly qualifies his conclusions.
“It is true,” Ehrenhalt acknowledges, “that the return to the urban center has up to now been modest in absolute numbers.” In recent years, he goes on, “more people still moved to the suburbs than moved downtown.” But “more,” he insists, doesn’t capture what is happening. It may be true that over the last decade, 91 percent of metro area population growth has been in the suburbs, but Ehrenhalt is making a qualitative case, not a quantitative one. “The importance of the movement” into downtowns, he asserts, “rests on the character of the new population group rather than on its size.” But with that statement, he gets to the heart of what has actually been going on.
The new urban high-end living depicted in “The Great Inversion” represents part of a larger social sorting and class stratification that has accompanied the relative decline of the American middle class. Ehrenhalt writes of “Gazillionaires Row” in Sheffield, a revived Chicago neighborhood not far from the Loop that’s thriving. But this new wealth isn’t producing new private-sector middle-class jobs. The largest employer in Chicago is the federal government, followed by the public school system. Other major employers are the City of Chicago itself, the Chicago Transit Authority, the Cook County government and the Chicago Park District.Meanwhile, new private-sector jobs are coming mainly from servicing the expanding urban class and the wealthy. In Philadelphia, Ehrenhalt rightly describes the vitality of Center City, but notes that just a few blocks away in neighborhoods like Kensington the squalor and violence are overwhelming.
Even the successful cities have become top and bottom affairs. For all its new glitter, Chicago, bedeviled by the cost of public-sector pensions, is flirting with bankruptcy. It has lost 150,000 jobs over the last two decades. In order to meet current payrolls, it has been forced to lease its Skyway toll road for 99 years and its parking meters for the next 75. The upshot, notes Aaron Renn, who has written extensively on Chicago, is that the city’s meld of high taxes and low-quality services has pushed the region’s black and white middle-class families into the exurbs, where they bear the burden of high gasoline costs but avoid paying for Chicago’s huge public sector.
Philadelphia is in an even more perilous condition. As with Chicago, the downtown is well policed, but crime is rampant immediately adjacent to the core. Burdened by a wage tax levied on every job, it has a very low jobs-to-residents ratio, and the largest number of abandoned homes per 1,000 residential units in the country. Philadelphia hasn’t sold its parking meters yet, but it has tried to force bloggers to pay a licensing fee. Like Chicago, it is in economic thrall to an alliance of machine politicians and public-sector unions that show no signs of releasing their expensive grip.
Ehrenhalt writes that while the great recession has temporarily frozen people in place, thus stalling the return to the cities, the long-term trends — like the rise of childless individuals living alone — bode well for the future of the new downtowns. Maybe. The quest for urbanity will no doubt continue among those who can afford to pay for private policing and private schools. But so far, for all the upbeat articles on the clustering of “the creative class” and the very wealthy in the new downtowns of Chicago and Philadelphia, millions in the private-sector middle class continue to head for the exits.
No one is debating that. It's the basic reason for gentrification
The point that I was trying to make (and it seemed others were trying to make) is that these gentrifying hipsters don't give a damn about the "Dominican culture" in the Heights, they simply want to live in Manhattan at the cheapest possible price...
This.
Earlier in the thread dude said the "culture" is being lost.
Because the new people that move in dont want that culture. They bring in their own.
WRONG...they're coming to da city because they're LOOKING for culture thats always been scares in da suburbs. city life gives that they can't have segregated
in a house miles away from a city.
[h1]Suburban Ghetto: Poverty Rates Soar in Suburbia[/h1]
By
Brad Tuttle @bradrtuttleSept. 26, 2011
Add a Comment
Angel Jiménez de Luis / Getty Images
[h3]Related[/h3]
Follow
@TIMEBusiness
For well over half a century, the American dream has typically centered on life in the suburbs. A move to the idyllic suburbs—picket fences, sidewalks, cul-de-sacs, the whole deal—has traditionally signified success, a move up the economic ladder. Lately, however, the ‘burbs host millions more residents living below the poverty level than do America’s “poor” inner cities, and poverty rates in suburbia are rising faster than any other residential setting.
According to the
Brookings Institution’s recent analysis of Census data,
poverty rates rose all over the U.S. during the recession era: From 2007 to 2010, poverty rates increased in 79 of the 100 largest metro areas, and median household income decreased in 82 of the 100 largest metro areas.
But one type of area in particular—the prototypical American suburb—has gotten poorer quicker, and that’s been the trend even before the financial collapse of 2007. The Brookings report states:
A combination of factors including overall population growth, job decentralization, aging of housing, immigration, region-wide economic decline, and policies to promote mobility of low-income households led increasing shares of the poor to inhabit suburbs over the decade. From 2000 to 2010, the number of poor individuals in major-metro suburbs grew 53 percent, compared to 23 percent in cities.
Overall, urban residents are still far more likely to be poor than their counterparts in suburbia: The poverty rate in U.S. cities in 2010 stood at 20.9% in cities, compared to 11.4% in the suburbs.
(
MORE: More Young Adults Are Poor, Live With Their Parents)
But the suburbs are catching up in the race to the bottom, and there are currently more suburban residents than city dwellers living below the poverty level. Per
CNN Money’s story about the Brookings Institution’s analysis, there were 15.4 million suburbanites living in poverty in 2010, compared to 12.7 million living below the poverty level in cities. Whereas poverty levels rose 11.5% from 2009 to 2010 in the suburbs, they inched up 5% in cities.
From 2000 to 2010, the poor populations skyrocketed in the outskirts of many cities: The Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, and Milwaukee areas are among the 16 spots around the country where the number of suburban residents below the poverty level more than doubled during the decade. During the recent years of economic strife (2007 to 2010), the U.S. suburbs added 3.4 million poor, compared to 2 million more poor people in cities.
(
MORE: The Sad, Sorry State of the Middle Class)
Brad Tuttle is a reporter at TIME.
Find him on Twitter at @bradrtuttle. You can also continue the discussion on TIME
’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.
Read more:
http://business.time.com/2011/09/26/suburban-ghetto-poverty-rates-soar-in-suburbia/#ixzz2drB6BuWJ
TONS and TONS and TONS of articles...
Home>
ABC Univision>
News and Features
[h1]Poverty Isn't Just in City Ghettos; It's Hit the Land of Picket Fences, Too[/h1]
Aug. 13, 2013
By
EMILY DERUY @emily_deruy
Emily DeRuy
More from Emily »
Politics Reporter
Follow @emily_deruy
Abandoned houses at the Desert Mesa subdivision are pictured in North Las Vegas on November 13, 2011. The housing project by North Las Vegas Housing Authority stared in 2004 but the entire subdivision, which includes about a dozen finished houses that were never lived in, has since fallen into foreclosure and is now owned by the FDIC.
Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
Poverty is often associated with inner city ghettos, fenced-off projects, or neighborhoods ridden with vice and crime. But the fastest growing poor population actually resides in the land of minivans, picket fences, and big box stores: suburbia.
According to a recent Brookings Institution analysis, major metropolitan suburbs became home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in the country in the 2000s. Poverty levels increased in nearly every congressional district in the nation, hitting Republican and Democratic districts alike.
So why is poverty moving beyond major city limits?
The authors of that analysis lay out several triggers in a recent book,
Confronting Suburban Poverty in America:
Decentralization of Poverty - Some of it has to do with the fact that in the 1970s, 80s, and even 90s, there was a concerted effort to decentralize poverty. Poor families received housing vouchers to move out of city projects and into suburbs. The idea was to move people away from crime and into better schools and housing, but it didn't always work out that way.
Job loss - The most obvious reason is job loss. Manufacturing jobs that kept suburbs around Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and other cities vibrant have disappeared. They've been replaced by low-wage jobs in industries like retail that have been hard hit by the recent economic decline. Workers have lost jobs, which translates to lost income.
Suburban demographics are changing - Suburbs have never been entirely middle-class, but the share of people who hold low-wage jobs is increasing. Industries like construction, retail and hospitality have expanded in suburbs and drawn families to fill those positions that otherwise might have lived in cities. When the economy tanked, workers lost those jobs and families that had been getting by fell into poverty. Immigrants, too, increasingly choose to move to suburbs, the authors found, which has contributed to the swelling suburban poor population.
Aging Population - The nation's suburbs were new and shiny following World War II and the novelty and promise proved irresistible to millions of families. But many of the nation's first suburbs, especially those in the Midwest and Northeast, have aged and fallen into disrepair. So have the people who first populated those suburbs. The manufacturing and industrial jobs that drew workers 50 or 60 years ago have disappeared but an aging and struggling population remains. Houses and schools are older and young families looking to move to suburbs have picked newer towns. That's left aging towns with struggling commercial districts and little to no population growth.
Housing - The housing market crash wrought havoc on suburbs across the country, hitting areas around Las Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta and Charlotte especially hard. As an article in
The Economist noted, "During the sub-prime bubble, many people with bad credit scores got mortgages and moved to the suburbs. A shift towards housing vouchers and away from massive urban projects encouraged people in subsidized housing to make the same move."
In addition, people perceive poverty as urban or rural, not as suburban. Lawmakers quite simply aren't focused on the issue. So policies haven't caught up to reality.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/poverty-growing-suburbs/story?id=19947415
What's the point of this stupid video? The American Dream isn't dying per se, but the traditional dream isn't being sought out anymore. The subprime mortgage scandal and ensuing foreclosures did enough damage to that vision. Buying a home is a huge commitment that many aren't willing to make anymore. Families are among those gentrifying. It was once thought that when you had your family, you're out to the home with the picket white fence. Not really true anymore. People are moving back to the cities. The suburbs are going to become the new ghettos and hoods in due time when the people who were displaced by gentrification end up there. Its not a coincidence that the housing crisis and the dramatic rise in gentrification in NYC started around the same time.
The video was posted because dude believes that
The new american dream is to move into the city. Maybe for the yuppies, but the idea of owning a house and raising a family in a good neighborhood is still as strong as it once was. Only issue is its become harder to achieve or maintain. Dream is still there and strong.
WRONG.
[h1]Millennials: Why did you choose D.C.?[/h1]
By Lavanya Ramanathan, Published: September 3 at 1:07 pm
E-mail the writer
If you live in the District, you’re familiar with the perks: being walking distance from work; excellent
coffee shops; all the yoga,
happy hours, farmers markets and
rustic Italian food you could ever want.
The transformation is evident on 14th Street NW. (Photo by Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)
Not all of this was here five years ago. Development is being driven in part by a recent population boom in the District,
growth that is bringing more 20- and 30-somethings to the city than to most other places in the nation. In the past two years alone
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...013/09/03/millennials-why-did-you-choose-d-c/
@ the thought of the burbs becoming the new ghetto, ya must be out your minds, do you know how many small WEALTHY towns are north of the Bronx borderline?....I'm talking OLD MONEY.....these places have been unaffordable way before Brooklyn became what it is today, the people that can no longer afford Brooklyn, NYC...damb sure wont be able to afford say Scarsdale and these communities damb sure wont allow for gentricatjon of the city to overflow low income families into their prestige streets, ya must be out of your mind..
your out da loop...
[h2]Millennials and Baby Boomers Migrating to Cities: What It Means for the City of the Future[/h2]
Mic this!
12
12
Millennials and Baby Boomers Migrating to Cities: What It Means for the City of the Future
Much has been made about the rise of the Millennial generation and the changes that are coming to meet their various attributes and needs. Though the differences between Millennials and Baby Boomers are well noted, especially in the area of
work habits, outside the realm of work these two groups have many seemingly disparate traits that combine to create a surprising demographic change. Both groups are moving, en masse, to cities. And the large migration of these two largest generations is driving other changes to which both governments and businesses need to pay attention.
Millennials are values driven, meaning that they will support causes and businesses that hold meaning for them. Many of these businesses provide some sort of social good, whether it be
TOMS shoes or the local
organic farmer’s market. Connectivity is something else that Millennials value. They like to
share. PolicyMic, along with the usual suspects like Facebook and Instagram, are great examples of this need to reach out and connect with others. These connections create experience, another craving for Millennials and, contrary to popular opinion, these connections are not limited to the online variety. What better place to share and connect than in a densely packed city?
Boomers are driven by practicality, especially as their bodies age, making it harder for them to get around, and their incomes shrink, making it harder for them to get the stuff that they want. The other salient fact about the Boomer generation is that as their children (the Millennials) leave home there is little reason for them to hang on to their large, expensive, suburban homes. The aging of the Boomer population has also placed an increased premium on acquiring health and wellness products and services.
The end results of the bracketed population shift to urban cores are many.
Sustainable communities that are walkable, energy efficient, and integrated in regards to many of their services are springing up in urban areas and close-in suburbs.
Green is increasingly the color of development going forward. Along with affordable, sustainable housing, mass transit is receiving renewed attention in many places. Urban farming and local food movements are increasing in popularity and profitability as the eco-conscious Millennials and the health-conscious Boomers increasingly
demand to know what is in their food and where it comes from.
The consequences of the shift for business and government are evident. Large retailers will face an increasingly tough market atmosphere as Millennials go elsewhere to seek value and experience and Boomers move away from the suburban Big Boxes and into city cores. Cities will be forced to adopt more flexible land use policies as increasing numbers of residents demand convenient access to the products and services that they require. Smaller living space means less storage. Consequently, corporations that offer
products as services (think ZipCar) or some other intangible value will gain increasing market share as ownership falls out of vogue and Millennials gain more say over what is bought and sold. The same holds for public infrastructure as large backyards give way to need for public parks for green space access and cars are sold in favor of utilization of mass transit.
At 150 million combined representatives, Millennials and Boomers together account for nearly half of the American population and the combination of their needs and wants is set to drive many markets for the foreseeable future. Those needs can be met only through smart policy on the part of both business and government so that the services required by both groups can be adequately met. Businesses and governments alike would do well to plan smartly to engage the requirements of these two unique generations.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...ties-what-it-means-for-the-city-of-the-future
da new young professional doesn't want to travel far from his home, have a long commute, and be isolated in da burbs, thats why they're all coming to da city,
and da surbs are experiencing skyrocketing poverty...da poor will be da suburbs, rich will be in da cities...look at atlanta for example, all da urban sprawl is because
most of da working class people live in da suburubs (metro atlanta) and da more well to do cats live within da city limits downtown.
I mean the poor people of NYC will be pushed to Jersey
Or possibly the poorer parts of upstate
Albany
Buffalo
Newburgh(absolute dump)
Utica
wrong, people who can no longer afford to live in NYC are going down south, filling those suburbs up, while richer people are abandoning da burbs and headed to da city.
so who's gonna be da working class thats actually gonna do service work?
this is why NYC has these rent control laws in place,
if there's no one to walk in da city, da city will die because they no longer will be able to attract people to work in lower paying jobs.
da city works because of da mixed income dynamic. hollowing out da middle and lower class would make NYC uninhabitable.
Quote:Originally Posted by
Rell826
NY native here, born and raised in both queens & manhattan. NYC is the most expensive city in the USA (google it, its a fact). The american dream is a dream a lot of americans no longer achieve. The gap between the haves and have nots, the upper class and lower class grow while the middle class become one of the other 2 groups.
NYC will soon be a city for the rich. Rents and mortgages are getting higher. Demand > supply in regards to land in nyc.
The majority of people moving in to manhattan and now brooklyn, are people from out of state, and a fair amount are from over seas.
The city won't be able to sustain itself when the middle class is priced out. We're the ones that keep the city afloat. In addition to seeing if crime spikes under the next mayoral administration, the middle class having a place in NYC will be part of their legacy.
bingo.
bottomline is da suburbs are going to be da new ghettos as more and more city centric millenials keeping trying to soak up city life and displacing da middle and lower class.
NYC rent laws are da strongest of da nation because da city govenment understand that what makes New York da place da be is da massive immigrant workforce
that runs everything behind da scenes..you price these people out, you kill da city.
chinatown and washintgon heights have resist gentrification because people OWN da businesses around there and we're having TONS of babies, more then non immigrant
white gentfiyers...can't beat those numbers.
. Glad things are different
