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.
I've lived in the Chicago suburbs for 30 years throughout my entire IT career and every position I've held has been in the suburbs. Not once did I have to commute to a job in the city. I would bet that in a large metropolitan area like Chicago, that half the professional jobs are located in the suburbs. Moving to the city would put many people further from their jobs.
I wouldn't say that for the average professional, moving to the city would take you further from your job. While 50% of so of the professional jobs are in the city, I'd guess less than 20% of the white collar professionals live in the city. Hence Metra, which delivers over 310,000 passengers between the city/suburbs every day.
I think it's going to be very interesting though! Right now you're just starting to see the inner suburbs of Chicago really start to fade into deep trouble. Not all of them of course, but once it starts in one, it just keeps spreading. The housing stock is getting to be over 50 years old, and a lot of it is cookie-cutter small cheaply made wood frame houses from the 1950's. They were new, clean and nice when built, but there just isn't a ton of demand to overhaul these places today. The city had more multi-unit housing built of quality construction (at least exterior), more stone and wood, more detail to finishes. As the inner suburbs start to get depressed, people will do one of two things. They'll either take a leap and move to the central city for easier public transit, a city neighborhood, more culture, events, or they'll stay in their current situation and move out to the newer houses in the exurbs. I'm sure many more will move out further into the suburbs than the city, but still, they're not moving to other inner suburbs.
I think we're going to see a healthy strong central city, a "dead zone", and then an ever expanding belt of healthy suburbs. I just hope it doesn't further divide the city-suburb mentality since they're getting further away.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,486,476 times
Reputation: 12187
The inner ring suburbs built in many cities in the 1950s-60s are already declining big time. Most of those areas lack any of the character associated with Victorian era neighborhoods and have very plain and outdated housing.
I'd predict that areas nearest and furtherest from Downtowns will thrive while those middle areas built in the 50s/60s/70s will decline
Along most main arteries here in Louisville this is ALREADY the case.
I think those who say all the suburbs will shrivel up and die are massively overstating their case. It seems that the ones most at risk are the newest suburbs, those marketed toward lower-middle income buyers. These burbs are typically located in less desirably locations (far from job centers) and lack the amenities found in wealthier, more established burbs (rail transit, historic centers, etc).
Exactly. I just read a story in the Philadephia Inquirer about a middle class family "Keeping up with the Joneses" An insurance adjuster commuted 90 miles a day so he and his family could afford their new 4 BR mcmansion. Now the money he saved by living so far out is being completely obliterated by putting gas in his car to get him back and forth to work.
It will all get straightened out. People are just going to have to learn to live within their means. Like that insurance adjuster who should have saved some money and bought the 25 year old cape cod down the street from his company instead of the new mcmansion an hour+ away.
Well, I think the assumptions of this article are somewhat faulty. Americans didn't begin their lemming-like move to the suburbs because they wanted their half-acre of heaven. They moved because of two important factors: The exponential increase in crime and the federal government's bizarro school busing scheme.
Let's tackle these one at a time. Lyndon Johnson (who was five times the buffoon that Bush is, no mean feat) and his War on Poverty and a host of other programs created the virtual equivalent of combat zones in the inner city by concentrating all the poor people into public housing. Essentially, this led to gigantic, lawless areas in the inner cities. The result? Crime skyrocketed by the late 60s, and working class suburbs began to empty out.
Then, of course, there was court ordered school busing to achieve racial balance. To be sure, the goal was laudable. But what it boiled down to was forcing kids to get on buses and ride and hour to another school that was almost always substandard, and usually dangerous to boot. No sane parent would have stood for that, so they started hammering the For Sale signs in their yards and began moving to the burbs. It's interesting to note that, several years ago, middle class blacks started doing exactly the same thing.
So the emptying out of the inner cities had little to do with some dream of suburbia. It was a direct consequence of Federal policy.
CPG, you made some excellent points. I am the son of parents who were part of the white flight to the suburbs in the early '70s. We witnessed for ourselves how a quiet and peaceful south side Chicago neighborhood was turning ugly with crime. Old ladies being beat up for a bag of groceries.
The school busing debacle was another one. I spent 11 of my 12 years in parochial school, so it wasn't a concern. My parents would have moved quicker if my brother and I had to participate in school busing. My parents would never permit my brother and I to be pawns in a social experiment. The rest of our neighborhood felt the same way. Your kids are too important for that. Let the judge who ordered the school busing have his kids participate in the program - fat chance of that.
I've lived in the Chicago suburbs for 30 years throughout my entire IT career and every position I've held has been in the suburbs. Not once did I have to commute to a job in the city.
The passage quoted calls attention to the fact that the old model of commuter suburbs which are mainly bedroom communities for residents who commute to a metro area's principal city may be defunct, and is at least diminished. Metro areas are now complex webs, where people commute in various directions throughout central cities and suburbs alike, with many amenities, jobs, services, commercial centers, and entertainment venues scattered throughout the suburbs.
The same way that those who have returned to urban neighborhoods have fairly short commutes across the city, many suburban residents make relatively quick trips to their jobs in the suburbs. Many suburbanites rarely set foot inside the principal cities of their metro areas. Yes, there are those who commute long distances to the city, but they no longer represent the predominate suburban experience. Many suburbanites now find that each suburban section of a metro area has become a full-service extended neighborhood, where the distances one travels for everyday needs are not at all prohibitive.
Well, I think the assumptions of this article are somewhat faulty. Americans didn't begin their lemming-like move to the suburbs because they wanted their half-acre of heaven. They moved because of two important factors: The exponential increase in crime and the federal government's bizarro school busing scheme.
Let's tackle these one at a time. Lyndon Johnson (who was five times the buffoon that Bush is, no mean feat) and his War on Poverty and a host of other programs created the virtual equivalent of combat zones in the inner city by concentrating all the poor people into public housing. Essentially, this led to gigantic, lawless areas in the inner cities. The result? Crime skyrocketed by the late 60s, and working class suburbs began to empty out.
Then, of course, there was court ordered school busing to achieve racial balance. To be sure, the goal was laudable. But what it boiled down to was forcing kids to get on buses and ride and hour to another school that was almost always substandard, and usually dangerous to boot. No sane parent would have stood for that, so they started hammering the For Sale signs in their yards and began moving to the burbs. It's interesting to note that, several years ago, middle class blacks started doing exactly the same thing.
So the emptying out of the inner cities had little to do with some dream of suburbia. It was a direct consequence of Federal policy.
Some of what you say is true, but three other important federal policies started the ball rolling before the rise of crime and school busing: 1) the GI Bill which authorized federal guaranteed mortgages to veterans who bought new houses in the burbs, 2) federal urban "renewal" policies which sent lots of people packing as entire neighborhoods were razed, dispersing their their residents elsewhare in the city and creating waves of restettlement of other city dwellers, 3) the interstate highway act, which originally was designed to move auto traffic *between* metro areas, but soon morphed into a suburban freeway building program, allowing faster commutes from distant suburbs, fostering more development farther out.
I've lived in the Chicago suburbs for 30 years throughout my entire IT career and every position I've held has been in the suburbs. Not once did I have to commute to a job in the city.
The passage quoted calls attention to the fact that the old model of commuter suburbs which are mainly bedroom communities for residents who commute to a metro area's principal city may be defunct, and is at least diminished. Metro areas are now complex webs, where people commute in various directions throughout central cities and suburbs alike, with many amenities, jobs, services, commercial centers, and entertainment venues scattered throughout the suburbs.
The same way that those who have returned to urban neighborhoods have fairly short commutes across the city, many suburban residents make relatively quick trips to their jobs in the suburbs. Many suburbanites rarely set foot inside the principal cities of their metro areas. Yes, there are those who commute long distances to the city, but they no longer represent the predominate suburban experience. Many suburbanites now find that each suburban section of a metro area has become a full-service extended neighborhood, where the distances one travels for everyday needs are not at all prohibitive.
Ogre, you make some additional good points. Being in the exurbs of Chicago, I never need to go into Chicago for anything. With the extensive shopping available in the southwest suburbs, especially Orland and Tinley Park, there is absolutely no need to ever enter the city. I am completely self-sufficient out here. It's been that way for a long long time.
Yes, I agree with you about a web model for commutes and jobs. Nearly everyone where I work lives and works in the suburbs. Years ago, you lived in the suburbs and commuted into the city core for jobs. While that's true for many people, suburb to suburb commuting is more typical. With this model, I just don't see how the suburbs are going to diminish anytime soon.
Its true that many suburban areas are essentially self-sufficient. Especially in large metros like Chicago or New York, the suburbs are often places with lives of their own. Many even contain large towns that function as sort of mini-cities, with small walkable downtowns and office complexes.
That said, the average suburbanite still commutes a longer distance. He or she still needs to travel further for daily needs. And, though many people work in suburbs today, there is still a substantial number that commutes into city centers. It works both ways.
What I would love to see is an increase in inter-suburban public transit. Clearly, a certain density would be required, but zoning ordinances should encourage this. That's not to say the suburbs should become an extension of the city - it would defeat the purpose - but, in all seriousness, we can build slightly smaller homes on slightly less land. We used to do it, before the automobile age. Furthermore, suburban public transit can be built around the assumption that people will drive to the train station rather than walk. Stations can be fairly spread out and equipped with park-and-ride facilities. The areas around these stations develop in a somewhat denser manner. Transfers between these trains, commuter rail and inner city systems should be seamless to allow for a fully integrated system. One electronic "smart" card can pay for rides on all systems, deducting fares depending on the system. Train stations serviced by both commuter rail inner-city systems can be built on the outskirts of cities to facilitate transfers without forcing all commuters to go downtown. This will help commuters who work in the city but not in the downtown area, allow for quick rides downtown for local residents, and allow for easy access to non-downtown urban neighborhoods for suburbanites. The "spokes" (as opposed to downtown "hubs") should also be equipped with park-and-rides, which are located on major arterial roads and signed from expressways. This will serve to intercept traffic before it reaches the urban core. Congestion pricing should be practiced downtown, and the transit authority should be allowed to place tolls on some bridges and/or highways in order to facilitate transit funding.
All right...I want to go further...this is my sort of urban transit utopia, but I'd guess I've gotten off topic enough. Sorry for the rant, heh. And its not the end of suburbia. nor should it be. Suburbia just needs to change.
I hope the sprawl is slowing down. With gas prices getting as high as they are, we already see more and more people beginning to move back into cities.
I hope the sprawl is slowing down. With gas prices getting as high as they are, we already see more and more people beginning to move back into cities.
Sprawl is slowing down but I doubt the usa's middle class/upper middle class will be running back to the big cities anytime soon. Too much crime,horrendously bad schools, poor services etc etc. Suburbanites want no part of the pitfalls of the city. They like to see their taxes put to good use such as superior schools,safe communities, nice parks etc. They have no interest in their tax dollars going to support social services (welfare,drug clinics,homeless shelters),horrid schools, bloated city government, outmanned police departments.
The suburbanites who are moving back into the cities are usually wealthy empty nesters or metrosexuals moving into very specific confined areas. I've been seeing more and more upscale urban style living sprouting up in the suburbs around Philadephia in lieu of sprawling mcmansions.
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.
