Poverty Moves to the Suburbs

[mousquet]

I don't know whether the US would completely be on that stage yet, but over here, it's always been that way.

Poor people, move to your ghettoish suburb, then shake it if you're loud enough!

Being loud here means working hard. I guess it's the old Republican meritocracy. I see no problem about it, cause I trust in people's minds and intelligence, were they poor.
There are tremendous resources in our suburbs, even the poor ones.

Sometimes, the rich feel guilty, though. I'm almost sorry for them. I saw some of them in their luxury wooden offices on avenue de l'Opéra, in the Paris CBD. Heck, they feel so bad, like almost forced to be overly nice.
But then I say - hey, dude, I'm okay, huh. You don't have to show mercy on me. I don't care about the millions of euros you make every year. It's no big deal to me.
Besides, I'm still younger than you are... Now, who's to be pity?

That's about it.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Docere

Mass gentrification is occurring in outer suburbs and exurbs?

Meaning the rapid development of housing and commercial establishment that caters to middle/upper-middle class residents in place of former farm/woodlands (and while displacing longtime owners of said land) in areas that were still rural before the 1990s.

Some examples would be:

*Forsyth County, GA
*Loudoun County, VA
*Hays County, TX
*Williamson County, TN
*Fort Bend County, TX
*Douglas County, CO

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dubu

If people from 1818 saw what 2018 was like they would shit there pants. The same wooden houses . . . .

Yup. It's tragic.


https://sfbay.ca/2013/11/21/sfmta-ba...-square-buses/

[dubu]

That city doesn't make up for how much sprawl California has though

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dubu

That city doesn't make up for how much sprawl California has though

Calif. sprawls -- It's 2018 and there are 40 million people in Calif.

Sprawl is worse where there is enough water to support sprawl -- the eastern half of the U.S. has a sprawling development pattern when taken as a whole. It's small town after small town, connected by U.S. highways and state roads to larger regional centers and then even larger metropolitan cities.


NASA

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dubu

That city doesn't make up for how much sprawl California has though

Very few cities try as hard to combat sprawl and have as much success at it as the Bay Area. Here is a map of Marin County, one of the counties immediately adjacent to the city of San Francisco:


https://www.greenbelt.org/uncategori...rotection-map/

It shows that only just under 15% of the county is legally developable. The rest is either public land or land that is forever locked away by deed restriction from development. Other Bay Area counties have been less successful though all are trying to protect what open space they have left and limit sprawl.

One of the great things about San Francisco and Bay Area IMHO is how easy and fast it is to get out of the city and into extremely rural areas.

[dubu]

Dam no wonder Oregon is growing a lot, the next state down has a ton of people.

There's a lot of people on this planet. Lots of poor people, there's some rich countries. I guess the US is rich. It doesn't seem like it

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Sprawl is worse where there is enough water to support sprawl

Where do you come up with this kind of delusion?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by The North One

Where do you come up with this kind of delusion?

From data.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Docere

I'm pretty sure outer suburbs and exurbs had more "cache" in the 1990s than they do today.

true, that's when that insane 'edge cities' book came out...

trying to make gwinnet county georgia into something exciting.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

From data.

There no data that suggests Eastern US cities are more sprawled than Western ones. Pheonix exists in case you forgot.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Yup. It's tragic.


https://sfbay.ca/2013/11/21/sfmta-ba...-square-buses/

You know what's tragic? That shot of the Painted Ladies with the skyline in the background reminds me of that terrible show from my childhood, Full House. The theme song even starts playing in my head.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by The North One

There no data that suggests Eastern US cities are more sprawled than Western ones. Pheonix exists in case you forgot.

Metro Phoenix is more dense than many of the Eastern metros.

E) Notice I said the Eastern U.S., [not Eastern cities] as a whole is more sprawling in nature than the west. In the West most of the population resides in metropolitan areas due to access to water, restraints and rights.

You can look at a nighttime satellite picture to confirm.

[dubu]

I can't find my city.
We are trying to have the least lights as possible
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-applications

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Metro Phoenix is more dense than many of the Eastern metros.

E) Notice I said the Eastern U.S., [not Eastern cities] as a whole is more sprawling in nature than the west. In the West most of the population resides in metropolitan areas due to access to water, restraints and rights.

You can look at a nighttime satellite picture to confirm.

Maybe more dense than Atlanta or Charlotte but that's an extremely low, destitute standard.

How is this at all relevant? A satellite view of the eastern US proves little about urban sprawl and water hasn't prevented the likes of Pheonix, LA, San Diego from sprawling like hell. No shit the eastern US is more developed (it's by far the older more habitable dominate side of the country) what you're seeing is multiple more cities, this has nothing to do with how sprawly they are. The vast majority of the west is uninhabitable, this is like comparing a satellite view of Europe and Australia and calling Europe more sprawling because there's no deep dark outback.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

You know what's tragic? That shot of the Painted Ladies with the skyline in the background reminds me of that terrible show from my childhood, Full House. The theme song even starts playing in my head.

How does THIS make you feel?

This is one 'Full House'! The Tanner family home hits the market
by Melissa Allison / Jun.06.2016 / 9:52 AM ET / Source: Zillow

The red door is gone, but it’s the “Full House” house all right — the home where three girls were raised by their father, family and friends in the popular sitcom that started in the late ’80s . . . .

The show’s opening credits still feature the red door, but the actual house used for the exterior has had a paint job and is on the market for $4.15 million.

Built in 1883, it’s a Victorian-era Italianate with 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths, plus an office and a large eat-in kitchen with an island and high-end appliances . . . .

Fireplaces abound, including in the spacious living room, which boasts a wall of floor-to-ceiling bookcases.

A separate library space off the sitting room is lined with bookcases, and one wall of the master suite also features a bay window, a fireplace and built-ins.

French doors on the lower level lead to an English-style garden with manicured hedges, plants in pots and an outdoor dining table.

https://www.today.com/home/one-full-...-inside-t95971

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

This idea gets repeated often, but I'm not sure I quite buy it. Cities' social and economic compositions have varied widely through time, and different patterns of settlement have held sway in different places. I'm not even sure we can compare what constitutes desirability when we consider the widely divergent economic structures that have prevailed—i.e., what might be desirable under feudalism is very different from what is desirable in an industrial society with a growing middle class (and, in the mean time, what is desirable for different classes—like the waning aristocracy and waxing bourgeoisie—might be quite divergent*). Cities were, after all, plagued by disease, mob violence and pollution (e.g., raw sewage or smog).

As specific examples of what I'm talking about, consider the movement of the French court to Versailles under Louis XIV, the movement of Prussia's most powerful to Potsdam under Frederick the Great, or even the establishment of the English court at then-peripheral Westminster several centuries earlier. Or, consider the proliferation of Imperial Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire, which attracted the merchant class, to where the aristocracy chose to live (e.g., what was desirable for the merchant class of Cologne was very different from what was desirable to its Archbishop-Elector and his retinue).

And that's not even getting into desirability as it existed in societies organized around serfdom or slavery (e.g., the desirability of the rural plantation house over the city in the antebellum South). Desirability as we currently understand it requires, to a degree, the democratization of economic power.

In centuries past prior to Pasteur, while the true microbial cause of infectious diseases was not known, it was observed that epidemics were most common in crowded cities even among the wealthy. Hence, during times of the plague and other epidemics, people that could do so often moved out of the city into the country. Isaac Newton left Cambridge where he was studying and moved to a rural area. While there he made important discoveries. Additionally, the elites and royalty loved the recreational opportunities like hunting that abounded outside the cities. Hence Versailles, the Loire Valley chateaus, etc.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by The North One

Maybe more dense than Atlanta or Charlotte but that's an extremely low, destitute standard.

How is this at all relevant? A satellite view of the eastern US proves little about urban sprawl and water hasn't prevented the likes of Pheonix, LA, San Diego from sprawling like hell. No shit the eastern US is more developed (it's by far the older more habitable dominate side of the country) what you're seeing is multiple more cities, this has nothing to do with how sprawly they are. The vast majority of the west is uninhabitable, this is like comparing a satellite view of Europe and Australia and calling Europe more sprawling because there's no deep dark outback.

Actually, the greater metro L.A. area is in the top 3 for overall population density of any U.S. metro area (rivaling NYC & SF metro). Metro density (people/sq. mile or km.) = total population/total metro land area. Manhattan proper has the greatest urban density, but some inner areas of L.A. (e.g. Koreatown, Westlake) have densities in excess of 50,000 per sq. mile, as does San Francisco. Many inner "suburbs" in L.A. are also very dense, with high rents forcing sharing of apartments. Urban San Diego, especially south of I-8, is also very dense in many areas. High rents spur density, as many are forced to share housing and take in roommates.

[The North One]

I'm well aware of how dense LA is, that's not mutually exclusive with how insanely sprawled it is. Bay Area is sprawled like crazy too.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by The North One

I'm well aware of how dense LA is, that's not mutually exclusive with how insanely sprawled it is. Bay Area is sprawled like crazy too.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I've noticed a lot of people use "sprawl" to mean the literal opposite - they describe dense subdivisions which make relatively good use of developable land as sprawl, where for some reason they don't see a say a suburb of Boston with one-acre lots as being sprawly.

The truth is the inverse. Sprawl can be measured largely by the number of units of housing per square mile/acre. Much of California has a relatively poor level of urbanity/walkability, but as suburbs go, only South Florida is built more densely/in a less sprawly fashion.