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.
Someone once mentioned to me that the Syracuse metro area has the same population as it did 20 years ago but now takes up twice as much space. There's something seriously wrong with that. I agree too about the driving end of things, I grew up in Syracuse but one of the things keeping me from moving back is that where I live now I can get to 90% of my destinations on foot or public transit.
Just not true. I've studied it. They are lying to you.....
Only two US metros over 500,000 had less suburban growth than Syracuse in the last 20 years....Scranton and Youngstown.
But on a side note, I just think it's too bad that so many people think progress and improvements have to mean new buildings and more sprawl. I would like to see more people work with improving whats already in existance. I'm not saying new is bad, but if people only focus on the new things then they miss some wonderful opportunities to make Syracuse truly unique.
The reason why Syracuse sprawls is very simple. There is a demand for it!
The government can't fix up every old building in the city and make people live there. It sounds like that's what you guys are saying should happen.
Ever think of this. Maybe some people just like raising their family in a place that has good schools, new modern larger houses, homes with big yards, a two car garage, and all in a safe neighborhood.
I'm sure there are a ton of people out there who love living in small old homes, with no backyard, no garage for your car, in a noisy neighborhood that has drug dealing on the corner and lots of break ins, and all with bad schools.
Hey, I'm all for city living in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in reality. And people deal with reality the best way they can. And if that means families want to move to a suburb, then what's the big deal?
Last edited by bellafinzi; 03-24-2009 at 08:18 PM..
I'm sure there are a ton of people out there who love living in small old homes, with no backyard, no garage for your car, in a noisy neighborhood that has drug dealing on the corner and lots of break ins, and all with bad schools.
Bella, there is no need to get snide. People can disagree without that, I hope. I moved from L.I. to this area to escape development of the type you seem to espouse. There can be a happy medium I suspect, but the idea that anyone should be able to develop anywhere without any thought to the repercussions to the environment and transportation systems can no longer be sustained. A modified European model can work if Americans give it a chance.
Disclaimer: I purchased a fairly large old house, in the country, with the intention of opening a B&B, but I can honestly say that had I investigated the city before my purchase, I would have bought there instead.
Bella, there is no need to get snide. People can disagree without that, I hope. I moved from L.I. to this area to escape development of the type you seem to espouse. There can be a happy medium I suspect, but the idea that anyone should be able to develop anywhere without any thought to the repercussions to the environment and transportation systems can no longer be sustained. A modified European model can work if Americans give it a chance.
It already exists. It's called zoning laws.
Every Syracuse suburban town has residential, agricultural, office, commercial, and industrial zones.
Maybe Syracuse could do a modified European model if Syracuse had a 1) strong fast growing economy 2) little inner city violence 3) a cultural sophisticated population
European cities are the way they are because they actually had job growth in the last 40 years, never had to deal with inner city poverty/crime on the scale of American cities in recent years.
Someone once mentioned to me that the Syracuse metro area has the same population as it did 20 years ago but now takes up twice as much space. There's something seriously wrong with that. I agree too about the driving end of things, I grew up in Syracuse but one of the things keeping me from moving back is that where I live now I can get to 90% of my destinations on foot or public transit.
Just not true. I've studied it. They are lying to you.....
Only two US metros over 500,000 had less suburban growth than Syracuse in the last 20 years....Scranton and Youngstown.
20 years is the wrong term (try 50) but the idea is correct.
Onondaga County population is relatively unchanged, 1950-present. Syracuse population has declined by about 50,000 people over the same period; it occupies less than half of the county.
Every Syracuse suburban town has residential, agricultural, office, commercial, and industrial zones.
Syracuse has Zoning laws, but not strong urban design guidelines or growth (area-wise) restrictions, which is what I was getting at in my explanation of the European model. I work in urban design, and have written development plans for towns in 3 countries; those sorts of plans don't really exist or aren't enforced in the US.
I also want to make a few points that I think get missed in these discussions.
1) urbanism is more than building so close that people can't have a yard and a garage. its much more about keeping a coherent fabric around whatever building format people choose than it is about density.
2) living in a city doesn't mean living in some renovated loft or some ghetto dump. My city-centre townhouse in Dublin is about 1500 sq. ft., has a back yard, and doesn't have a garage because theres no where you can drive to anyway, its faster to walk here than drive because of traffic. When you have an affluent population in the city, the crime rate goes down and the schools get better. There are lots of young kids in my neighborhood and last I checked the closest I've ever gotten to a panhandler are the people who sit next to ATMs with a cup. I did get mugged once in Brooklyn, such is life. I actually had someone stop a mugger in Morocco from coming near me, so good and bad are everywhere.
Bellafinzi, we aren't saying that anybody should be forced to do anything. We are speculating that it is possible to make city living nice again so that people would want to live there. If we're even having the conversation, then it means that at least some people see that as an option.
In terms of the inner city poverty, that's one of the dirty secrets of European urbanism. In countries like France and Italy, there are satellite cities that they relegate the poor and violent to, and aren't even connected to the city. If you think of Paris as a star shape, the city centre is the middle and is beautiful, and at each point is either a dumpy "banlieu" or a fancy suburb. Its keeps the city clean for american tourists and french movie stars
20 years is the wrong term (try 50) but the idea is correct.
Onondaga County population is relatively unchanged, 1950-present. Syracuse population has declined by about 50,000 people over the same period; it occupies less than half of the county.
Wrong. Try again.
Onondaga County didn't peak in 1950. It peaked in 1970.
The idea is not correct for any time after 1990. Look at the street maps from the the late 1980s, they basically look the same as the street maps from 2005. Most of the Syracuse's suburbs were built from the 1940s to 1990. From 1990 on, the Syracuse suburbs grew very little compared to most other metropolitan areas in the US.
Rochester's suburbs grew three times faster after 1970. Yet, Rochester's metro population is only twice Syracuse's metro population.
The reason I believe what I believe and why I am the way I am is because I studied this topic for years. This was my topic in urban geography. I know it and understand it. I've studied it not only for Syracuse but for other US cities as well. I've already addressed every argument for and against sprawl, that's why I roll my eyes when I see people making the same statements I heard 10 years ago....
bellafinzi, regardless of whether or not you heard the arguments 10 years ago, they're still unresolved. I've also studied this stuff, and I work in the field. I don't really understand the "because Rochester is worse then its okay" line of thinking, but maybe its time to think beyond upstate on this stuff. I know the sprawl problems are even worse nationwide, and I also appreciate that the scale of new development in Syracuse is pretty small. That doesn't negate the fact that future development patterns should still be well considered, and we ought to do our best to make sure that it helps Syracuse in more than just putting money in some builder's pocket.
If you were able to live in a big, new, exactly like those developments-with-the-stupid-names house but it was in Eastwood, would you? Thats the idea behind smartgrowth, you just keep using the same land rather than use it for 20 years and then throw it away or let it become the ghetto. Think of it like recycling a can. Ideally, housing patterns would change in more than just location, but in my mind even the reuse of older neighborhoods is a good step in the right direction.
The excuse that "other places are worse" or "this is how we do it so we'll always do it this way" are unhelpful to a discussion with regards to how we can improve things. The united states cities went from urbanized to suburbanized in a very short time frame, theres no reason that a shift in the other direction is impossible or even unlikely. I for one don't see Syracuse ever drawing young, educated professionals to the city without focusing on developing social and infrastructural assets instead of just houses with two jacuzzis.
An interesting book on this sort of topic is "Deep Economy" by Bill McKibben. Its a little bit hippied out, but it really puts things into perspective.
The idea is not correct for any time after 1990. Look at the street maps from the the late 1980s, they basically look the same as the street maps from 2005. Most of the Syracuse's suburbs were built from the 1940s to 1990. From 1990 on, the Syracuse suburbs grew very little compared to most other metropolitan areas in the US.
Rochester's suburbs grew three times faster after 1970. Yet, Rochester's metro population is only twice Syracuse's metro population.
The reason I believe what I believe and why I am the way I am is because I studied this topic for years. This was my topic in urban geography. I know it and understand it. I've studied it not only for Syracuse but for other US cities as well. I've already addressed every argument for and against sprawl, that's why I roll my eyes when I see people making the same statements I heard 10 years ago....
Look at your own table, in the %change column.
Less than 2% change, in either direction, year over year, for 1950-present. (2007 ACS estimate, per Census.gov, is 455,126 for Onondaga County).
Most of Syracuse's suburban _core_ was built up till the 80s. That I'll agree with. But look at the number of developments sprouting up along various portions of 31 in Clay/Cicero, look at the new development in Southwood (Jamesville), the various stuff in DeWitt off Peck Hill, Nottingham Rd and Jamesville Rd.
The major routes and major developments haven't changed much, largely because a lot of it isn't in a position to. You can point to your own town of Clay's growth over the last two or three decades.
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.
