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 was reading an interesting post on a housing bubble blog, and the authors were discussing how the bubble - for the most part - passed over Central and Western New York, and that if Rochesterians et al. were complaining to Albany about lack of growth that they should check the Southeast to see the results of "growth" (strip malls, congestion, and reckless housing growth; toss in a lack of civility).
Do you think there is a potential for the three gray giants of Upstate to "be invaded" just because there are so many people looking for an affordable escape; to go to a place - built before the cheap automobile - that was never ruined, only abandoned?
And not invaded by equity locusts only, but people looking to live in sane communities.
I think there is a potential for the suburbs to be ruined more than anything. The populations were much larger many years ago in these cities, so the infastructure is there to support more people. There isnt much room for strip malls and new housing growth. You'd see the older housing get re-developed and more unique business rather than strip malls open up. The suburbs would be ruined. They already are starting to get ruined in these places with lots of boring strip malls and cheaply built mcmansions being built all over the place. If a large amount of people came in, this would worsen.
I think the cities themselves would be in good shape and thats the only thing that really matters. Who cares about the suburbs?
I personally doubt it. The main reason is the climate. I am moving to Syracuse in the early summer. Everyone is telling me I'm crazy. The snow, the lack of jobs if I lose this job, the grey skies, etc. When I almost moved to Virginia, everyone thought it was a good idea, and they were also considering a move south.
Everyone I know here in NJ is looking to get out. Its impossible for the average person starting out to afford a tiny, old starter home at $400k. That $400k can get you a McMansion in Syracuse or Rochester. I'm sure you've read the posts about prices here, but it's true: NJ is for the upper crust and the poor. Every middle class person I know is moving to Florida, or the Carolinas. Maybe 5% are moving north.
The newness of the south is attracting people. The homes are fresh-looking, with trees, sunlight and artificial lakes that look real. For most people here that I talk to, that is their American Dream. The McMansions here are $1 million +. The McMansions there are $300k. Syracuse is old school. The brick buildings, the small town squares, even the strip malls are old. I prefer it there, but I think most people like the suburban sprawl of the south. Until that changes, or if this climate change is permanent, I don't think you'll see droves of people moving to NY state.
A lot would need to happen for Syracuse suburbs to grow that much. I just don't see it happening. Rochester and Buffalo suburbs are much closer to what's happening in Austin and Charlotte than Syracuse. For example, the Syracuse suburbs are only 250,000. Rochester's suburbs are 500,000. So unless you believe Rochester's suburbs are too big, the Syracuse suburbs could grow at least 250,000 to get to where Rochester's suburbs are today. Personally, that's what I'd like to happen as I like larger cities and metros. If you want to live in a small town, I'd suggest Southern Tier cities which will probably always stay small. IMO Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo were built to be metros of around 2 million or more. The infrastructure is there to support that number of people...the highways, the water supply etc.
This discussion is a matter of opinion and perspective. If I thought Syracuse would be "ruined" by having more people move here, I won't even be on this forum. And if I did come on this forum I would just tell everyone all the negative rants you hear from many other people like the snow, the taxes etc.
So no, I don't believe more people moving to Central or Western NY will ruin these places, it will only make them more vibrant and exciting places to live. To worry about too much growth in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse is backwards. Rather, these cities to should worry about the lack of growth. The Pittsburgh area has been losing people for decades. Now, due to the lack of young families, there are more deaths than births in the Pittsburgh Metropolitan area. This is where Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse metropolitan areas are headed if nothing changes. It could take decades to reverse the "more deaths than births" trend even if the area started to attract more residents.
Unless global warming starts to drastically warm Upstate NY, I don't foresee a huge migration of people heading there. As more and more people grow up in the south and west, there are even more and more people who don't like cold weather and snow. Even if Upstate New York does become a popular place to move in the future, the snow will keep out the riff-raff and shallow people.
I think the weather argument is overhyped. Look at the twin cities in MN. That area has grown greatly over the years and has a similar climate as upsate NY. Boston also has crappy weather and lots of people move to Western Mass. The weather might keep a few people out, but I don't think it would greatly effect a large population shift.
I don't think it's a problem either. Those who have lived in NE type weather are the only ones likely to move upstate. There was a tremendous loss of population, up to 30% in some areas, as the economy began to transition from manufacturing. That's on top of the losses since the advent of AC. As a result taxes grew to accomodate the greater spending on govt as a proportion of the economy. And about 20% of the state is dedicated to mountainous land (Adirondack Park) which is regulated as to development: housing or economic. Nice place to visit though.
Things are just in the beginning stage of change. There are more creatives types moving in and the lack of jobs has produced more entrepreneurs. Downtowns are seeing a resurgence for living and entertainment. People here are very independent and pushing for tax reform. Our past governor started an innovation program that joined our many colleges (a much bigger concentration than in the south or elsewhere) with budding new businesses as well as large established firms.
There is a strong sense of community here. Lots of natural beauty and loaded with history. People don't move every couple of years as in some places so we don't get the extreme ups and downs. There are some cases of a town here and there being invaded by millionaires from elsewhere but town boards there are beyond strict in policy. Better for newcomers to check out the many towns and cities, big and small who also have lots to offer. I can't see an influx as being detrimental, or large. Perception is everything and most think of New York as NYC anyway. Personally, I think we're much more like Canadians. It's a lot easier to mow down sawgrass as in the south to overbuild than it is to knock down several acres of hardwoods. For the most part, we're off the radar.
I think the weather argument is overhyped. Look at the twin cities in MN. That area has grown greatly over the years and has a similar climate as upsate NY. Boston also has crappy weather and lots of people move to Western Mass. The weather might keep a few people out, but I don't think it would greatly effect a large population shift.
True, but I looked up the statistics. Syracuse gets 115 inches of snow a year, Minneapolis gets 43. Also, Syracuse has only 163 sunny days a year, Minneapolis has over 200 sunny days. Thats quite a different climate. Boston has the ocean, and coastal areas will always be populated. I don't mind snow or clouds, but I know many people do.
The state of New York also forces people out. There is much corruption in NY, and the people suffer through high taxes. Business climate is very unfriendly. No business = no jobs = no people.
I was reading an interesting post on a housing bubble blog, and the authors were discussing how the bubble - for the most part - passed over Central and Western New York, and that if Rochesterians et al. were complaining to Albany about lack of growth that they should check the Southeast to see the results of "growth" (strip malls, congestion, and reckless housing growth; toss in a lack of civility).
Do you think there is a potential for the three gray giants of Upstate to "be invaded" just because there are so many people looking for an affordable escape; to go to a place - built before the cheap automobile - that was never ruined, only abandoned?
And not invaded by equity locusts only, but people looking to live in sane communities.
Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo (in that order) are projected to have the 3 highest home value growth rates in the Northeast for 2007. Most likely because the bubble that existed in the coastal cities has "popped"....but the three upstate cites are also numbers 2, 5, and 14 respectively nationaly for projected value increase.
Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo (in that order) are projected to have the 3 highest home value growth rates in the Northeast for 2007.
Yeah, I would agree with those predictions if I didn't know a person in each of these cities trying to sell a home. All 4 are nervous. I think those numbers were part of the "denial" stuff we've been seeing from all a lot of realtor publications (or MSM supported by NAR). Anyway, these responses are fantastic and I don't want to drift into bubble-talk (a warning to myself ).
Lax, I have an interesting weather comment: I think the cold weather mostly only matters for people older in age. This does not portend well for the region since the youngsters (read: winter-proofed until 40) have already split.
I feel a bit odd. I agree with everything written thus far (even if contradictory).
Muggy, I agree that older people have to worry more about the weather. When you get older, it gets harder to shovel the driveway or walk outside in snow. Personally, I'd think that more old people moving away would be better. Less medicaid benefits the tax payers have to deal with.
I don't agree that all the youngsters have split. I have spent time in Buffalo, Rochester and Albany and there was no shortage of young people. I had no problems meeting people my age when I was in those cities. Sure, some have left but I don't think its as bad as some articles make it out to be.
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.
agree somewhat
).
