HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 2:44 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,405
It's ridiculous to compare the performance of Asian immigrants with that of African Americans, for obvious reasons.

Instead of the highly motivated and self-selected subset of Indians that make up the immigrant population, imagine that you took a general cross section of Indian society, untouchables and all, then confined them to inner city ghettos with exclusionary housing policies, with little or no investment in education or basic services and infrastructure. For generations. Would that population outperform their white counterparts?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 5:25 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
U.S. citizens of Asian descent are required to make $100k? What happens to those who don't?

We keep hearing from NPR and others about "systematic racism" but plenty of non-whites are not only doing well in the United States, they're wildly out-earning the perpetrators of all of that supposed systemic racism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

The anti-landlord and anti-single-family home sentiment that is trying to go mainstream insinuates that any and all rental properties and single-family homes are owned by whites. Increasingly, this is not the case. What's more, anyone anywhere in the world can buy into a U.S. REIT or ETF. Accredited investors anywhere in the world can buy into a hedge fund that is doing something with U.S. residential real estate.
You weren't talking about U.S. citizens. You drew a comparison between immigrants from Asia and African Americans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 5:38 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
It's ridiculous to compare the performance of Asian immigrants with that of African Americans, for obvious reasons.

Instead of the highly motivated and self-selected subset of Indians that make up the immigrant population, imagine that you took a general cross section of Indian society, untouchables and all, then confined them to inner city ghettos with exclusionary housing policies, with little or no investment in education or basic services and infrastructure. For generations. Would that population outperform their white counterparts?
To add to this, African immigrants perform similarly to Asian immigrants, but African immigrants are grouped with native African Americans on census data so this often gets obscured.

It is extremely disingenuous to compare the performance of African Americans, a group that was legally oppressed for 90% of the time they have been on this continent, to a group that came here voluntarily and has had full rights for 100% of the time they have been here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 7:02 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,856
Is there ever an end to the race baiting well?


Probably not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 7:06 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
To add to this, African immigrants perform similarly to Asian immigrants, but African immigrants are grouped with native African Americans on census data so this often gets obscured.
To follow up on this:

Quote:
It Isn't Just Asian Immigrants Who Thrive in the U.S.
Skilled foreign workers do well no matter where they're from.

...

Perhaps most surprising is that, by many measures, the most-educated immigrant group in the U.S. isn't East Asians. It’s Africans.

According to Census data, more than 43 percent of African immigrants hold a bachelor’s degree or higher -- slightly more than immigrants from East Asia. Nigerian immigrants are especially educated, with almost two-thirds holding college degrees -- a significantly higher percentage even than Chinese or South Korean immigrants. African immigrants are also very likely to hold advanced degrees, many of which are earned at U.S. universities. By many measures, African immigrants are as far ahead of American whites in the educational achievement as whites are ahead of African-Americans.

That education translates into higher household income. Nigerian-Americans, for instance, have a median household income well above the American average, and above the average of many white and Asian groups, such as those of Dutch or Korean descent.

...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...el-in-the-u-s-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 7:23 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,405
You would think that the oh-so-smart people on this forum would understand a basic statistical concept like selection bias...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 9:21 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
It is extremely disingenuous to compare the performance of African Americans, a group that was legally oppressed for 90% of the time they have been on this continent, to a group that came here voluntarily and has had full rights for 100% of the time they have been here.
After viewing a documentary or two on San Francisco, the Gold Rush and/or the transcontinental railroad, your view on that might change.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 9:51 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,849
It isn’t just the best and the brightest coming to the US.

A lot of people sponsor their not-so-talented family members.

The last 30 years has been full of that sort of stuff. Many of my cousins/uncles who came to the US struggled, working factory jobs. Families stuck together, helped each other out.

The idea that all Asian immigrants are Software engineers or trained doctors misses the story by a mile.
__________________
Loving the sound of turbos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2021, 9:55 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
After viewing a documentary or two on San Francisco, the Gold Rush and/or the transcontinental railroad, your view on that might change.
I was talking about the highly educated immigrant groups that migrated to the U.S. post repeal of the Chinese Exclusionary Act.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 3:31 AM
Gantz Gantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Right, but I'm not just talking about cheap apartments for bus-riding poors. Many suburbs have banned any new housing except for 4,000 sq. ft.+ two-floor homes on large lots, as if every single household is a thirty/forty-something high earning professional couple with a bunch of kids.

But young people generally don't want or can't afford that kind of housing. And older people generally need a different typology. And obviously many prefer a more walkable, mixed use environment. It isn't just about housing low income families, it's about housing diversity, for different income ranges, and different age/lifestyle ranges.
This is complete bull. If there was such high demand to build multifamily housing in suburbs with no public transportation, real estate developers would be fighting hard and suing the suburbs already, like what they do in high demand areas such as NYC or SF that have abysmal exclusionary zoning. Heck, even in cities, most affordable multifamily housing is simply unprofitable to build unless they have government subsidies attached. Most suburb local governments do not have budgets to fund those activities even if they wanted to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 1:17 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 22,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
This is complete bull. If there was such high demand to build multifamily housing in suburbs with no public transportation, real estate developers would be fighting hard and suing the suburbs already, like what they do in high demand areas such as NYC or SF that have abysmal exclusionary zoning.
Except they are doing this, all over. They're suing every desirable town, coast-to-coast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Heck, even in cities, most affordable multifamily housing is simply unprofitable to build unless they have government subsidies attached.
100% nonsense. SFHs are barely profitable, and multifamily housing has much higher profit margins. This is why developers fight for multifamily.

And developers don't build affordable housing units because they can't make money on market rate units, LOL. They build affordable housing units because they're required to by the municipalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Most suburb local governments do not have budgets to fund those activities even if they wanted to.
Because they're mostly SFHs. That's the point. They're dying, and the SFH homeowners are generally killing them.

There are sprawly towns all over the nation (outside the Sunbelt) where every school district is wondering where all the kids went, and mass-closing schools. It's because family size shrunk, the suburb is built out, and young people of child-bearing age don't want to live there.

The school district I attended in Metro Detroit, has some of the highest performing schools in the state, is very high income, scenic and safe, yet they've closed half the schools in the last 20 years, and student population keeps dropping. Meanwhile home values haven't budged in 30 years. Inflation-adjusted, home values have plummeted. And the town would never approve a home that wasn't a large SFH on generous acreage, which non boomers generally don't want.

There will likely be a point, mid-century or so, where we have exurban mcmansion abandonment. When a home was bought for 500k in 1990 and barely sells for 500k in 2020, it's a looming catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 2:44 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,849
^ There goes Crawford again, smugly telling the world how it is without a clue or evidence.

The death of SFH suburbia in places like a Detroit and Cleveland has zilch to do with your wet dream (that will NEVER be fulfilled) that younger generations are eschewing SFH ownership for hip apartments in cities en masse, and more to do with the fact that the rustbelt/snow belt is generally less desirable with the exception of college towns and vibrant urban centers.

Tell the “death of single family home suburbia” tale to any other audience but this extremely narrow group of like-minded thinkers in SSP and you’ll get laughed out of the room. All over this country where there is a demand by people for housing, SFH’s are being built all over the place. And they are being snatched up.
__________________
Loving the sound of turbos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 4:08 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 30,025
McMansions are the exception not the norm in most exurban areas.

Signed, someone who lives in an exurban area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 4:18 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 22,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
The death of SFH suburbia in places like a Detroit and Cleveland has zilch to do with your wet dream (that will NEVER be fulfilled) that younger generations are eschewing SFH ownership for hip apartments in cities en masse, and more to do with the fact that the rustbelt/snow belt is generally less desirable with the exception of college towns and vibrant urban centers.
Nope. Exact same thing is happening in NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, and other metros. Not my "wet dream"; it's reality.

Young people, generally speaking, don't want McMansions on multi-acre lots. I know this is painful for the Boomer owners. And no, it doesn't mean that younger people all want to live in 50-floor highrises or something, but they generally don't want what upper class boomers strived for and are now trying to sell. They don't want big homes, big yards, and high maintenance properties, and they don't want to live in isolated single-use areas.

If you own a big house in a woodsy, affluent, exurban area of, say, Connecticut, or the North Shore of Chicago, places with great schools, great services and no crime, your home values haven't budged in a generation. Your kids and grandkids are living in cities or close-in, older suburbs. Bed Stuy, on a per square foot basis, now costs much more than rich CT towns like Weston or Wilton.

Booming suburbs are urban, close-in, walkable, mixed-use and convenient to transit. Places like Montclair, NJ or Larchmont, NY. Lagging suburbs have none of this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 4:22 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 22,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
McMansions are the exception not the norm in most exurban areas.

Signed, someone who lives in an exurban area.
Not in the Northeast or Midwest. Again, it's been illegal to build anything that isn't big and on a big lot, in most of these communities.

You cannot build multifamily in these communities. You cannot build a small home, or on a small lot. Multi-acre minimum lot sizes are the norm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 4:56 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ There goes Crawford again, smugly telling the world how it is without a clue or evidence.
...
I don't agree that everyone is rushing to buy a SFH or the idea that the suburb is going to disappear. That's ridiculous. I think there's some obvious trends going on, that everyone here is familiar with, but like to deny because of politics or feelings.

1. Even before remote work and COVID, urban cities have become more and more specialized while business moves to suburban areas and greenfield development remains easier.

2. The US as a whole is getting older and having less kids. That goes double for demographic groups that are more educated and higher earning, well up to a point. So there will be more singles and more childless couples. This is also causing established cities, even in sunbelt metros, to lose population or stagnate at least in a statistical way.

3. The US as a whole is more unequal. One class is having a hard time earning and saving enough to buy a home. The other class has lots of money to buy a home(or two) at inflated values to safeguard and build wealth in an era where interest rates seem to be low and will be low for what seems like forever.

So naturally:

-Urban cores and superstar cities are only going to get more and more hideously expensive because people with money will put it into real estate. The higher land values yield more urban building typologies like high rises or block sized mixed use construction. This ultimately leads to vibrant cores full of glassy towers and streets lined with yoga studious and juice bars, while at the same time the actual population of the city crashes and the bottom falls out of un-gentrified neighborhoods.

-Working and middle class people will continue to leave urban cores to cheaper suburbs they can afford while leaving superstar metro areas completely, sometimes migrating out of state. However this doesn't necessary mean the destinations they head too are necessarily better off in raw economic numbers, people may move from a prosperous place they can't afford or find work in, to a much poorer less productive and less safe or educated place that they can afford and get a job in.

- The growth in singles and people on the older end of the demographic pyramid means that a greater proportion of the population as a whole may seek apartments or condos over single family homes, regardless of whether they live in suburbs or cities. This is going to counter the effect of people leaving high density cities for low density ones.

- The peculiar cultural ideas about cities versus suburbs aren't relevant to Millenials or Gen Z. A huge yard or a cul-de-sac isn't necessarily better. Transit is not "socialism", etc.

The end result is a future where big cities simultaneously decline precipitously but thrive more than ever, and more and more people move to suburbs than may not look like the suburbs you are used to. There will be a lot more apartment complexes, maybe apartments in various town center developments, more duplexes and attached housing, etc. And they are moving to states like Texas and Arizona in such large groups they are going to change the culture and politics of those places and they won't match your pre-conceived notions of them any longer.

The casualties I think is going to include the relevancy and usefulness of hub-and-spoke commuter rail systems, office-heavy downtowns where they roll up the sidewalks at 5 will crater while downtowns that are more mixed use with institutions like government buildings and hospitals will do better. Superstar cities whose stars fade, like Chicago, are going to need to fix their fiscal and public safety issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 5:05 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 30,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Not in the Northeast or Midwest. Again, it's been illegal to build anything that isn't big and on a big lot, in most of these communities.

You cannot build multifamily in these communities. You cannot build a small home, or on a small lot. Multi-acre minimum lot sizes are the norm.


I'm from the northeast. They are pretty rare up there too. Yes, you get the odd masterplannend community where the deed restrictions call for some massive house on some acreage but the vast majority of these far flung communities are just your typical sprawlburb with modest houses on modest lots. You might see more of this near NYC because of the wealth and the population but they're an outlier in every possible way. I lived in metro Boston and of course Upstate NY and rarely saw these communities apart for some rich family buying up a piece of property and building their own house.


As for the demise of suburbs, that's a bit exaggerated though I agree the huge McMansion phase is probably nearing an end but suburbs can't be beaten as far as bang for the buck in terms of housing costs and quality of schools for the vast majority of the middle class.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 5:51 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,849
I never said McMansions

You guys keep dwelling on that term and straw-manning my point

Americans, including younger generations, are still moving to and living in SFH’s in the suburbs en masse.

We’ve been fake-debating this nonsense for the past 20 years. No matter how wishful your thinking is, your wish isn’t coming true. Get over it and accept reality, folks.
__________________
Loving the sound of turbos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 6:48 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,676
With fewer people caring about keeping non-white students out of their school districts, it's hard to see what keeps suburbs in the Northeast and Midwest competitive. Those two regions have a unique shared history in that suburbs thrived as a means to skirt federal desegregation mandates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2021, 6:56 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,849
^ Suburbs appeal to people of all races, and that’s been the case for a very long time
__________________
Loving the sound of turbos
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:18 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.