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.
For sure. The issue with NYCHA housing I believe is that you have to apply and there's a wait. Can be long I think. As for NYC it sure 'prices' out people and I can understand that. It's a free market outside of rent regulation.
But as I alluded before it is not an ideal settling place for the 'serfs' who travel across the East and Hudson River moats. There is a criticism that the NYC is now a 'ghetto for the rich'. If the average family wants a better quality of life for the money they make they have to go farther and farther away from the city. And this of course can include 'upstate'. I don't know if urban demographers are looking at all this but it needs to be paid attention to because this affects not only NYC but surrounding counties and other parts of the state in terms of how citizens conduct their lives and how they can achieve a better quality of life.
You can't really go that far if you work in Manhattan itself. Going too far away means increased commute times and with it greater probability of being late for work. Plus commutes become more expensive the further out you go. There's increased gas or commuter train costs, plus if one is driving tolls.
Most people feeling priced out of NYC would leave the metro area altogether.
I would just focus on the areas that are easier to develop as self sustaining economies. The one place that comes to mind is Long Island. Also Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse could benefit from more border trade with Canada and capitalize on their access to the St. Lawrence River. Maybe with Toronto they can be developed into one big metropolitan area. Given their geographical advantages, I see no reason why those upstate cities should decline in any way.
The rest I would just keep them as they are. I like Hudson and Rhinebeck.
I would just focus on the areas that are easier to develop as self sustaining economies. The one place that comes to mind is Long Island. Also Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse could benefit from more border trade with Canada and capitalize on their access to the St. Lawrence River. Maybe with Toronto they can be developed into one big metropolitan area. Given their geographical advantages, I see no reason why those upstate cities should decline in any way.
The rest I would just keep them as they are. I like Hudson and Rhinebeck.
It really depends on how things are shipped to Canada. A lot of things are flown over. Canada has one huge border with the US, so upstate NY has no advantages over any other border state in terms of trade with Canada. Meaning there's no reason to develop them, and there's no danger of them becoming one big metropolitan area with Canada.
I also think the weather is a factor. Lets face it, the Great Lakes aren't exactly dream destinations for most people.
The other factors is that the Great Lakes region/rust belt was at its heyday in the 1950s, when Europe was still damaged from WW2, Japan was still not recovered from being bombed by the US, and when most other countries were underdeveloped. At its peak, upstate New York was overindustrialized. Once Europe and Japan were back into play, the Rust Belt went into decline in the 70s and 80s. The 1990s saw the rise of new industrial giants, such as China, India, Brazil, etc.
In short, upstate NY will remain as it is, with no major new development. That's not a bad idea thing, though. You need mostly rural space in every country to sustain the large major cities with FOOD, wood products (forests are needed for paper, wood for construction/timber, among other products). Forests and other areas covered in vegetation are needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
The country and the world has enough urbanization.
The industrial era is long over, and that's the era that made large scale urbanization possible. The government no longer spends that much money on developing new infrastructure projects.
Any area not developed now just isn't going to be developed. Its a very different world now.
It really depends on how things are shipped to Canada. A lot of things are flown over. Canada has one huge border with the US, so upstate NY has no advantages over any other border state in terms of trade with Canada. Meaning there's no reason to develop them, and there's no danger of them becoming one big metropolitan area with Canada.
Trade between Canada and the US, by state, 2005 - largest ten states by value:
Michigan $73 019 000 000
California $34 576 000 000 New York $33 391 000 000
Illinois $33 007 000 000
Ohio $30 877 000 000
Texas $24 846 000 000
Pennsylvania $18 779 000 000
Washington $18 626 000 000
Indiana $15 493 000 000
Tennessee $14 201 000 000
Number of Truck crossings (loaded & empty) between Canada and the US, by state, 2005:
Michigan 2 674 597 New York 1 994 093 Washington 661 499
Maine 492 542
North Dakota 357 904
Vermont 288 486
Montana 152 397
Minnesota 88 031
Idaho 51 157
Alaska 8 345
Number of Rail Container (loaded & empty) crossings between Canada and US, by state, 2005:
Michigan 730 100
North Dakota 304 989 New York 295 236
Minnesota 251 118
Washington 142 134
Idaho 88 821
Vermont 53 851
Maine 44 909
Montana 29 399
Alaska 109
No advantages for New York? It has clear advantages.
Of Canada's fifty largest metropolitan areas, 25 are within 300 miles of New York. 18 million Canadians, 52 percent of the population, within five hours of border towns by truck or rail. NY's ports of entry are the closest US border crossing for all but a million or so, and then three of the United States' 75 largest markets are in New York, within 100 miles of the border, a fourth within 180 miles. 5.5 million New Yorkers a couple hours away, to say nothing of New York City. No other state in the US is so well-positioned, except perhaps Michigan which acts as a funnel for all of the Central US west of Cleveland and the Appalachians for traffic into southern Ontario and Quebec.
The US may have 3 000+ miles of border with Canada, but it is not all created equally. North Dakota shares a long border with Canada, but neither have much population centers to speak of near each others' borders. North Dakota's trade lies in cross-continental rail freight and resource extraction, and is not a point to stop despite its natural nexis for cross-continental traffic. Its cities do not stand to gain much from truck traffic spending the night in ND towns or stopping at restaurants - in Williston a hotel cannot be found easily anyway. A similar comparison from North Dakota's towns along Highway 2 (not much infrastructure/hotels/restaurants/civilization north of there) in an arc fanning 300 miles from either corner of the state finds Winnipeg and Regina with about 975 000 people in their metro areas, and a half dozen tiny metros for an entire market of 1.2 million Canadians. Minnesota and Montana are in worse position for trade, though their borders with Canada are longer. Washington has something with the Cascade corridor but has limitations with its distance from Canada's population center.
No, New York is clearly best positioned to gain from its nearness to the Canadian market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
I also think the weather is a factor. Lets face it, the Great Lakes aren't exactly dream destinations for most people.
Neither is the Arizona desert, and yet Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon are two of the most recognized and more visited natural wonders in America. Not experiencing exponential growth is a good thing for the Northeast at the moment. While the Sunbelt is undergoing this rapid growth, they're building large swaths of generic new townhouses - meanwhile the older small city/suburb model of Northeast pre-war/early-postwar housing stands rather preserved and stands out in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
The other factors is that the Great Lakes region/rust belt was at its heyday in the 1950s, when Europe was still damaged from WW2, Japan was still not recovered from being bombed by the US, and when most other countries were underdeveloped. At its peak, upstate New York was overindustrialized. Once Europe and Japan were back into play, the Rust Belt went into decline in the 70s and 80s. The 1990s saw the rise of new industrial giants, such as China, India, Brazil, etc.
I don't know how you can say its heyday was in the 1950s, all census data points to slowing growth in Buffalo, Rochester, Utica, Syracuse, Binghamton, Albany, Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh all petering out after the 1920s, slowing or stopping after the 1930 census. Only Detroit seems to fare slightly better a little longer among the 'Rust Belt'. This was long before the decline of Japanese and European cities after WWII, to say nothing of a growth spurt you would expect following European stagnation and devastation following the Great War.
Also, what is "overindustrialized"? Are you suggesting they grew bigger than they could support? Because in terms of water and local resource, capital, and labor, the smaller cities of the Rust Belt are nothing in size or output of the giant factories in South and East Asia today, and could easily have developed as dense as the north shore of Lake Ontario or New Jersey for comparison.
I think the Northeast and Midwest experienced decline mostly due to an increase in migration westward, coupled with immigration quotas ending a large percentage of growth. While we think of the gold rushes and silver mines attracting a number of settlers out west in the 1800s and the air conditioning revolution that made the South a viable option for many, by the 1910s Texas, Florida and California were each gaining a million new residents per decade. Growth in cities stalled in favor of cheap land. A century later, these cities have yet to experience another growth cycle, though sustained single digit growth seems close at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
In short, upstate NY will remain as it is, with no major new development. That's not a bad idea thing, though. You need mostly rural space in every country to sustain the large major cities with FOOD, wood products (forests are needed for paper, wood for construction/timber, among other products). Forests and other areas covered in vegetation are needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
I disagree. You do not need mostly rural space, though it isn't a bad thing. We have decreased paper and pulp-product production in Western countries such as the US and Canada for multiple years now (though in China, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia and developing countries, paper production is rising). We're using less paper, not more, as businesses keep more docs online. And while the rural farmers are appreciated for their commitment to food production, don't underestimate urban agricultural production. It's small but growing, especially among fruit and vegetables being grown in vacant lots, rooftops, gardens, backyards and such. In Asia, urban farming is the rule, not the exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
The country and the world has enough urbanization.
The world is expected to become more and more urban in the coming decades
Trade between Canada and the US, by state, 2005 - largest ten states by value:
Michigan $73 019 000 000
California $34 576 000 000 New York $33 391 000 000
Illinois $33 007 000 000
Ohio $30 877 000 000
Texas $24 846 000 000
Pennsylvania $18 779 000 000
Washington $18 626 000 000
Indiana $15 493 000 000
Tennessee $14 201 000 000
No advantages for New York? It has clear advantages.
Of Canada's fifty largest metropolitan areas, 25 are within 300 miles of New York. 18 million Canadians, 52 percent of the population, within five hours of border towns by truck or rail. NY's ports of entry are the closest US border crossing for all but a million or so, and then three of the United States' 75 largest markets are in New York, within 100 miles of the border, a fourth within 180 miles. 5.5 million New Yorkers a couple hours away, to say nothing of New York City. No other state in the US is so well-positioned, except perhaps Michigan which acts as a funnel for all of the Central US west of Cleveland and the Appalachians for traffic into southern Ontario and Quebec.
No, New York is clearly best positioned to gain from its nearness to the Canadian market.
Neither is the Arizona desert, and yet Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon are two of the most recognized and more visited natural wonders in America. Not experiencing exponential growth is a good thing for the Northeast at the moment. While the Sunbelt is undergoing this rapid growth, they're building large swaths of generic new townhouses - meanwhile the older small city/suburb model of Northeast pre-war/early-postwar housing stands rather preserved and stands out in comparison.
I don't know how you can say its heyday was in the 1950s, all census data points to slowing growth in Buffalo, Rochester, Utica, Syracuse, Binghamton, Albany, Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh all petering out after the 1920s, slowing or stopping after the 1930 census. Only Detroit seems to fare slightly better a little longer among the 'Rust Belt'. This was long before the decline of Japanese and European cities after WWII, to say nothing of a growth spurt you would expect following European stagnation and devastation following the Great War.
Also, what is "overindustrialized"? Are you suggesting they grew bigger than they could support? Because in terms of water and local resource, capital, and labor, the smaller cities of the Rust Belt are nothing in size or output of the giant factories in South and East Asia today, and could easily have developed as dense as the north shore of Lake Ontario or New Jersey for comparison.
I disagree. You do not need mostly rural space, though it isn't a bad thing. We have decreased paper and pulp-product production in Western countries such as the US and Canada for multiple years now (though in China, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia and developing countries, paper production is rising). We're using less paper, not more, as businesses keep more docs online. And while the rural farmers are appreciated for their commitment to food production, don't underestimate urban agricultural production. It's small but growing, especially among fruit and vegetables being grown in vacant lots, rooftops, gardens, backyards and such. In Asia, urban farming is the rule, not the exception.
The world is expected to become more and more urban in the coming decades
Yes, the upstate cities grew up big bigger than they could support long term.
As for urban farming, its a cute idea. Only there's no way it can support a city!!!
Take NYC, for example. I did not know we could grow cows up top of apartment buildings, much less pigs, chicken, and the feed used to produce them, for that matter . I did not know we could grow tropical plants like oranges and bananas large scale in NYC.
Newflash, you can't. The land in NYC is mostly used for other purposes, and you will not see large scale farming in it or in any other big city soon, because that real estate is used for other businesses or people live there . Its why farming is done in rural areas, where you have lots of land.
As for timber, to have enough wood to produce paper (which we use a lot of, including toilet paper) not to mention the wood we use in construction, you need vast acreage to grow trees.
This urbanized society we live in, with its excess of people produces global warming, which has its consequences. For starters we live in an area of increased hurricane activity. What happens not if ,but when, a Katrina strength hurricane hits NYC? NYC has no actual evacuation plan, and its really just a bunch of people on a series of islands. You'd have massive devastation and a lot of life. Hurricane Sandy, a weak storm, did enough damage.
Most land worldwide is rural, and will remain rural. The bulk of people concentrated in extremely dense places are POOR. Cities were really a way for landholders to get rid of the masses of poor people in rural areas and seize their land, and dump them in terrible conditions in big cities. Which btw, still persist.
Yes, the upstate cities grew up big bigger than they could support long term.
As for urban farming, its a cute idea. Only there's no way it can support a city!!!
Take NYC, for example. I did not know we could grow cows up top of apartment buildings, much less pigs, chicken, and the feed used to produce them, for that matter . I did not know we could grow tropical plants like oranges and bananas large scale in NYC.
Newflash, you can't. The land in NYC is mostly used for other purposes, and you will not see large scale farming in it or in any other big city soon, because that real estate is used for other businesses or people live there . Its why farming is done in rural areas, where you have lots of land.
As for timber, to have enough wood to produce paper (which we use a lot of, including toilet paper) not to mention the wood we use in construction, you need vast acreage to grow trees.
This urbanized society we live in, with its excess of people produces global warming, which has its consequences. For starters we live in an area of increased hurricane activity. What happens not if ,but when, a Katrina strength hurricane hits NYC? NYC has no actual evacuation plan, and its really just a bunch of people on a series of islands. You'd have massive devastation and a lot of life. Hurricane Sandy, a weak storm, did enough damage.
Most land worldwide is rural, and will remain rural. The bulk of people concentrated in extremely dense places are POOR. Cities were really a way for landholders to get rid of the masses of poor people in rural areas and seize their land, and dump them in terrible conditions in big cities. Which btw, still persist.
You gave some admittedly extreme examples regarding urban agriculture, dismissing it as a cute notion, but a large number of people do garden and the trend in cities and suburban or low density residential areas is increasing, and it's more prevalent outside of America than I think you credit it. I didn't think it necessary to rule out large industrial farms and livestock requiring endless acres of pasturage - thought this was understood. Little-f farming - smaller scale done by a greater number of residents. A large amount of food can be cultivated in a very small amount of space.
We use our space poorly however. I use NYC as an example because it's most studied and the sources most readily available. 27 percent of all land in NYC is considered recreational or open/park space - these include beaches, playgrounds, ball fields and the large parks, and nearly 3 million trees. 27 percent of the city is low-density housing (two or less units per building), while 12 percent is medium-high density (three+ units). Commercial use is 4 percent of all land use and industrial 3.7 percent. Public institutions/museums take up less than 7 percent and JFK/Laguardia take up another 7 percent. 6 percent is vacant. Land Use Facts - New York City Department of City Planning
We would do well to take advantage of the large swaths of multi-family apartment building rooftops that are coated simply with asphalt or reflective silver/white paint - the asphalt heats roofs up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, while the silver or white paint do nothing to cool buildings but don't absorb nearly so much heat or get much hotter than the surrounding air temperature. And why not use them for gardens - the weight is minimal, the cooling effect large, and there are numerous rooftop bars, lounges, pools and such already. It's unused real estate, a local need exists, and the community benefits are large. There's no incentive to landlords of existing buildings - which is why it doesn't take place.. but that's not indicative that it couldn't. NYC ºCool Roofs - About NYC ºCool Roofs
Suppose the city had some sort of desire to, I don't know, maybe reduce delivery truck traffic heading into the city's limited entry points, and had some motive to increase resident income a percent or two - it could financially promote community garden co-ops and tax incentives for restaurants to purchase locally grown produce, eggs and some poultry. Obviously this isn't going to be developed now or next year, and there are questions of oversight and maintenance, structural integrity of some roofs not designed for more than a foot of snowpack - just saying the potential is there, it needs to be championed by someone not wearing birkenstocks, with some support from the restaurant and real estate industries involved.
Regarding timber and paper products, we all love toilet paper. Continental Europeans with bidets a little less so, but, excluding them for our purposes, yes, we need forests for paper products. But we recycle just 15 percent of our waste in NYC (San Francisco recycles 77 percent, Seattle and Toronto nearly half), the national average is closer to 34 percent - and many smaller communities do single-stream recycling resulting in poorer recycled product (less life-cycles for recycled paper product as the fibers degrade). In other words, we can do much better than we are right now and utilize less new timber With apologies for the delay, Bloomberg unveils new recycling policies | Capital New York
I'd think the 1.2 million people in the Bronx would have some issue with NYC being "just a bunch of people on a series of islands". Most of the city did not flood during Sandy, and while a category 5 hurricane directly hitting New York would be damaging, Sandy's damage was extensive and powerful because the storm was slow-moving and so much larger than most other hurricanes seen in the Atlantic - nearly 1100 miles wide in diameter (Katrina was under 400 for comparison and Irene under 500 - similar to many large hurricanes) - additionally it had an extremely low pressure and merged with a large front, pushing it sharply westward (very unusual) toward the Jersey coast and NY strait - creating a large storm surge at high tide with nowhere for the water to go for an extended amount of time, flooding the shore and parts of lower Manhattan, Red Hook, Coney Island and the Rockaways. Irene and Isabell also hit New York, with much less damage. We should prepare for strong hurricanes accordingly but Sandy is the exception rather than the rule. Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Hurricane Sandy's huge size: freak of nature or climate change? | Weather Underground
You gave some admittedly extreme examples regarding urban agriculture, dismissing it as a cute notion, but a large number of people do garden and the trend in cities and suburban or low density residential areas is increasing, and it's more prevalent outside of America than I think you credit it. I didn't think it necessary to rule out large industrial farms and livestock requiring endless acres of pasturage - thought this was understood. Little-f farming - smaller scale done by a greater number of residents. A large amount of food can be cultivated in a very small amount of space.
We would do well to take advantage of the large swaths of multi-family apartment building rooftops that are coated simply with asphalt or reflective silver/white paint - the asphalt heats roofs up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, while the silver or white paint do nothing to cool buildings but don't absorb nearly so much heat or get much hotter than the surrounding air temperature. And why not use them for gardens - the weight is minimal, the cooling effect large, and there are numerous rooftop bars, lounges, pools and such already. It's unused real estate, a local need exists, and the community benefits are large. There's no incentive to landlords of existing buildings - which is why it doesn't take place.. but that's not indicative that it couldn't. NYC ºCool Roofs - About NYC ºCool Roofs
Regarding timber and paper products, we all love toilet paper. Continental Europeans with bidets a little less so, but, excluding them for our purposes, yes, we need forests for paper products. But we recycle just 15 percent of our waste in NYC (San Francisco recycles 77 percent, Seattle and Toronto nearly half), the national average is closer to 34 percent - and many smaller communities do single-stream recycling resulting in poorer recycled product (less life-cycles for recycled paper product as the fibers degrade). In other words, we can do much better than we are right now and utilize less new timber With apologies for the delay, Bloomberg unveils new recycling policies | Capital New York
Gardening is nowhere near enough to produce the amount of food people consume. You need massive acres to produce grain like wheat, oats, rice, corn, and barley that are staples of people's diet. And I'm sorry, rooftop planting doesn't cut it alone.
For various practical reasons, including waste disposal purposes, no one is going to have cattle or pigs on a roof top.
I really hope you didn't suggest that NYC turn its parks and beaches into farms. The public will never accept it. People use those areas for recreational space, sports, and exercise in a city where the space for those things is very limited.
Much of the food we eat in a modern society comes from all over the world. Go to a supermarket in NYC, you'll see yams, casava, mangoes, bananas, papayas, oranges, and other tropical crops. These can't even be cultivated in New York's climate. So they are imported from farms in warmer places.
Of the things you can grow in NYC on rooftops, things like spinach,peppers and tomatoes and egg plants (among other small plants producing vegetables and fruits), this is something that can only be done seasonally. A lot of these foods will always be imported from California farms where they can be grown year round.
I'm not opposed to urban farming. Its a cute idea. Only it will never support NYC foodwise. The city and any other city will always be dependent on rural farms for food.
Sandy shut down the city's entire train network for a few days. The damage done to the city's subway system cost billions, and repair work is still being done. The areas near the cost that got hammered hard by the hurricane still have reconstruction going on (The Rockaways, Coney Island, etc). The city had two hurricanes in an one year period (Irene and Sandy) If these storms are becoming more frequent due to global warming, then the city has some major issues to deal with. Including how to evacuate all these people if a Katrina strength storm hits.
Sandy shut down the city's entire train network for a few days. The damage done to the city's subway system cost billions, and repair work is still being done. The areas near the cost that got hammered hard by the hurricane still have reconstruction going on (The Rockaways, Coney Island, etc). The city had two hurricanes in an one year period (Irene and Sandy) If these storms are becoming more frequent due to global warming, then the city has some major issues to deal with. Including how to evacuate all these people if a Katrina strength storm hits.
We watched on tv how the subway system was flooded with water just pouring in the tunnel entrance's. What amazed us is that the system has no flood gates to be closed in case a situation like this occures. We have tunnels throughout the Hampton Roads area and everyone has flood gates that are closed in severe weather, and yes they are tested anually to ensure they work.
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.
