Areas from the "urban revival" era that didn't make it or declined?

[Crawford]

Most northern cities were probably in relative decline by the onset of the Great Depression. There was already significant suburbanization of wealth and corporate might prior to WW2, while almost all nonsubsidized city proper development stopped around 1930. 1929 was probably the apex of urban America.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Most northern cities were probably in relative decline by the onset of the Great Depression. There was already significant suburbanization of wealth and corporate might prior to WW2, while almost all nonsubsidized city proper development stopped around 1930.

not true at all for chicago. shit-tons of bungalows and 3-flats and 4+1's and residential highrises were still being built within city limits throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.

today, 36% of the city of chicago's total housing units were built between 1940 and 1980.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not true at all for chicago. shit-tons of bungalows and 3-flats and 4+1's and residential highrises were still being built within city limits throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

I meant until the postwar era. There was a massive urban construction slowdown from like 1930-1950.

[Steely Dan]

^ the '30s definitely saw a massive slowdown in urban construction, what with the great depression and all. and then you had the war, but by the mid-40s, with all those returning vets, home construction within the city of chicago picked-up IMMEDIATELY. chicago saw the construction of 110,000 new housing units between 1940 and 1949.

both of my parents grew up in bog standard chicago brick georgians built in the 40s in outskirt city neighborhoods, the children of vets who came home from the war and immediately got to work on home buying and family-making.

[jtown,man]

Man...why can't all the people moving to Austin and Nashville head to St Louis? That city is BEGGING for some action.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Man...why can't all the people moving to Austin and Nashville head to St Louis? That city is BEGGING for some action.

my sister in law did exactly that, and my wife lived in metro nashville through high school so it sort of counts, lol.

nashville is starting to outstrip its own appeal in the sense of the livability factors that are supposed to make living in smaller cities appealing. not sure if that is translating into "overflow" this direction quite yet.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Man...why can't all the people moving to Austin and Nashville head to St Louis? That city is BEGGING for some action.

Well, because:

Tennessee on its way to becoming a bona fide no-income-tax state in 2021

and Texas already is.

Whereas

Missouri’s . . . given its residents a complicated 10-bracket tax system that leaves the majority of state residents paying the state’s highest personal income tax rate.

https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/fi...i-state-taxes/

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Well, because:

Tennessee on its way to becoming a bona fide no-income-tax state in 2021

and Texas already is.

Whereas


https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/fi...i-state-taxes/

nonetheless, missouri doesnt really have that high of a tax burden, theres still a decent trickle of retirees to southwest missouri. "rural" tennessee and georgia is becoming too crowded for a certain kind of libertarian type. nashville housing prices and traffic are ridiculous.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Well, because:

Tennessee on its way to becoming a bona fide no-income-tax state in 2021

and Texas already is.

Whereas


https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/fi...i-state-taxes/

Yeah, I mean having no income tax helps a lot. Tennessee also not having extremely high property taxes help too. But like what's already been mentioned, its not like Missouri is NYS...it's not an extremely high taxed state.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

nashville housing prices and traffic are ridiculous.

To a San Franciscan, "ridiculous" is relative.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

To a San Franciscan, "ridiculous" is relative.

Yeah, but nothing about SF is "normal" to the vast majority of Americans.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

+1 to the comment about festival marketplaces and downtown malls. I think one of the key lessons of the last 30 years is that retail is inherently fickle.

Baltimore Inner Harbor, Jacksonville Landing, Norfolk Waterside, Providence Place mall, Granville Island... none what they were circa the 1990s. Some, like Columbus City Center mall, are flat out gone.

Rivercenter Mall in downtown San Antonio is perhaps the best (worst?) example of this.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Rivercenter Mall in downtown San Antonio is perhaps the best (worst?) example of this.

I parked at that place last month, i'm sure i got some kind of second hand meth poisoning from the youth passed out all around.

Some other cities that built them, Fort Lauderdale built the Las Olas Riverfront shopping complex in 1998 and it already closed and has been replaced by apartment towers. Jacksonville built "Jacksonville Landing". Miami built Bayside in 1987 and it still gets reasonably crowded with tourists, especially Cruise goers.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

To a San Franciscan, "ridiculous" is relative.

I sat in worse traffic in Nashville last year and spent a month in the Bay area in the fall. California drivers are fairly chill in heavy traffic and know how to keep slowly moving whereas in Tennessee flip out, run shoulders, panic brake a lot and traffic just seems harder to deal with. On the flip side, you can find reasonably priced housing in metro Nashville but are completely hosed in the Bay area unless you sleep in your truck a couple days a week and live in Sac like my boss in the Bay area...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

its entirely possible for a city to be in economic decline while also growing in population.

The opposite is certainly true. Remember about 2005, when all the east coast cities were clearly healthy and booming, but still losing population? It was because poor households with more people living in them were being replaced by wealthier households with fewer people.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The opposite is certainly true. Remember about 2005, when all the east coast cities were clearly healthy and booming, but still losing population? It was because poor households with more people living in them were being replaced by wealthier households with fewer people.

yeah, and this happens at a micro scale in almost every gentrifying urban neighborhood in the u.s. excepting warehouse districts/cbds and places like midtown detroit or something with tons of physical gaps.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yeah, and this happens at a micro scale in almost every gentrifying urban neighborhood in the u.s. excepting warehouse districts/cbds and places like midtown detroit or something with tons of physical gaps.

Yeah, basically the "first phase" of gentrification causes a population decline as household size declines and chopped-up houses are restored. Then once real estate values recover enough filling in vacant lots becomes profitable, and the population starts to rise.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yeah, and this happens at a micro scale in almost every gentrifying urban neighborhood in the u.s. excepting warehouse districts/cbds and places like midtown detroit or something with tons of physical gaps.

I've wondered if St. Louis has reached that phase yet. I think it's kind of a mix between gentrification and continued black flight causing population loss in the city. Probably another 10-20 years until population stabilization.

[BigDipper 80]

Dayton was home to the "Santa Clara Arts District", which probably lasted for around ten years before completely collapsing. There's virtually nothing left of the gentrification attempt of the early 90s, while many of Dayton's other historic districts renovated around the same time continue to thrive.

https://daytonvistas.com/the-santa-c...-preservation/

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by goat314

I've wondered if St. Louis has reached that phase yet. I think it's kind of a mix between gentrification and continued black flight causing population loss in the city. Probably another 10-20 years until population stabilization.

i havent looked at the numbers in a while but im almost certain it has. essentially 100% intact neighborhoods with rampant 2-flat to 1 conversions, etc.