Why is Joel Kotkin Extolling the Virtues of Suburbia?

[vid]

Originally Posted by Onn

countries that have centralized their people in urban environments have suffered consequences because of it. ... Kotkin seems to think suburbs will be more compact and tightly connected

Hmmmm.....

[ChicagoChicago]

Suburbs are economically superior...WTF does that mean exactly?

[Onn]

Originally Posted by vid

Hmmmm.....

He says that developed countries which have highly urban populations have suffered massive declines in birthrates. I agree with him that the statistic is probably true, but for more than just that reason. I think he's trying to highlight the expense aspect here though. He also claims ("claims") that crime rates in suburbs are 1/3 lower than in cities....if that means anything to anyone here.

[Onn]

Okay, he thinks cities will grow too but they won't in the form of high-rise buildings. He seems to be very fond of Los Angeles...as to the future of major cities in the US. All the tight sprawl is cheaper than building high-rises, which really aren't necessary here because we have so much land. He believes the only reason high-rises are really relevant today is prestige, with advancements in transportation and communication. Businesses don't need to be located in major cities to be successful anymore when they're connected throught the internet to the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

On the other hand, he thinks there will be a rise in the number of luxury cities, of which right now is pretty much New York. In these (Seattle, Portland, Austin..) high-rise development will continue at a modest pace, but the cities will not grow dramatically and will be composed primarily of the elites of society by 2050. The second tier cities will be Houston, Phoenix, and LA. He does make a good point that a rather short amount of time has transformed cities like Houston over the last 60 years, and that we could be looking at the next major city right now but just don't know it. Although whatever that is it will likely have a more suburban feel and less an emphasis on dense high-rise districts.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

Okay, he thinks cities will grow too but they won't in the form of high-rise buildings. He seems to be very fond of Los Angeles...as to the future of major cities in the US. All the tight sprawl is cheaper than building high-rises, which really aren't necessary here because we have so much land. He believes the only reason high-rises are really relevant today is prestige, with advancements in transportation and communication. Businesses don't need to be located in major cities to be successful anymore when they're connected throught the internet to the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

On the other hand, he thinks there will be a rise in the number of luxury cities, of which right now is pretty much New York. In these (Seattle, Portland, Austin..) high-rise development will continue at a modest pace, but the cities will not grow dramatically and will be composed primarily of the elites of society by 2050. The second tier cities will be Houston, Phoenix, and LA. He does make a good point that a rather short amount of time has transformed cities like Houston over the last 60 years, and that we could be looking at the next major city right now but just don't know it. Although whatever that is it will likely have a more suburban feel and less an emphasis on dense high-rise districts.

I think alot of his arguments are rather simplistic in nature and tend to be filled with generalizations. I wouldnt call NYC and "elite city", perhaps Manhattan but not the other boroughs which are filled with working class immigrants and middle class families. The same can be said of Chicago, sure their is gentrification and young professionals being drawn in but I can never see a situation where the entire 227 square miles within Chicago city limits all being filled with rich yuppy neighborhoods. San Francisco city might come close to a definition of an elite city but most major urban cities are too complex in their socio-economic makeup for Kotkin's analysis, he seems to be reinforcing the stereotypes many ignorant suburbanities and young professional transplants have of urban cities like Chicago.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I think alot of his arguments are rather simplistic in nature and tend to be filled with generalizations. I wouldnt call NYC and "elite city", perhaps Manhattan but not the other boroughs which are filled with working class immigrants and middle class families. The same can be said of Chicago, sure their is gentrification and young professionals being drawn in but I can never see a situation where the entire 227 square miles within Chicago city limits all being filled with rich yuppy neighborhoods. San Francisco city might come close to a definition of an elite city but most major urban cities are too complex in their socio-economic makeup for Kotkin's analysis, he seems to be reinforcing the stereotypes many ignorant suburbanities and young professional transplants have of urban cities like Chicago.

He talks a lot about the expense factor in connection to the middle class. In cities like New York (and yes the surrounding areas) he says it's a lot harder for the middle class to carve out an area for themselves, because the standard of living is just getting too expensive. He cites a statistic that says the wealth gap between rich and poor in New York City has widened the most any major city in the country. New York is becoming a city where the poor serve the rich to make a living. He expects more of those cities in the future. These “elite” cities will have somewhat specialized economies as well. Chicago I think he regards as an elite city or one in the making, he hasn't mentioned it much yet.

It's true that the wealth gap in America as a whole is growing, possibly staying that way for an extended period of time. I can see where he’s coming from with that assessment. I think it’s going to be cities in general though that will become more expensive, not ones here and there.

Also, he thinks the rust belt cities (particularly Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, New Orleans) will continue to struggle, largely due to a shift in economic priority and immigration to southern mega cities.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

He talks a lot about the expense factor in connection to the middle class. In cities like New York (and yes the surrounding areas) he says it's a lot harder for the middle class to carve out an area for themselves, because the standard of living is just getting too expensive. He cites a statistic that says the wealth gap between rich and poor in New York City has widened the most any major city in the country. New York is becoming a city where the poor serve the rich to make a living. He expects more of those cities in the future. These “elite” cities will have somewhat specialized economies as well. Chicago I think he regards as an elite city or one in the making, he hasn't mentioned it much yet.

It's true that the wealth gap in America as a whole is growing, possibly staying that way for an extended period of time. I can see where he’s coming from with that assessment. I think it’s going to be cities in general though that will become more expensive, not ones here and there.

Also, he thinks the rust belt cities (particularly Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, New Orleans) will continue to struggle, largely due to a shift in economic priority and immigration to southern mega cities.

A shrinking middle class is something happening in the nation as a whole though and not really a city vs. suburbs issue. The middle class should also be shrinking in the suburbs unless Kotkin is saying the middle class is actually growing in the sunbelt and not just from migration from elsewhere.

To me many suburbs are quite elite, or to be more exact sprawling exurbs are "middle class elite" as in people who are not rich enough to live in the Hamptons or someplace prestigious in its own right but buy large McMansions they can barely afford so they look better than people they know (keeping up with the Jonses). People who move to the suburbs very rarely buy cheaper houses, they buy a house just as expensive as what they would buy in the city its just that its bigger and often newer. I mean on that level his argument makes some sense in that the middle class can have more "stuff" in the suburbs but to imply that its impossible for the middle class to live a normal life in the city like Chicago is absurd, simply absurd.

[Chicago103]

One common cliche people have about people moving to the suburbs is schools, its all about the schools, the schools, the horrible public schools in the city!

This argument doesnt hold water for Chicago, the notion that people fled to the suburbs because of the failing public schools in the city. In 1950 in Chicago a very large percentage of children did not even attend public schools, many of them went to Catholic schools that were separate from the public school system. Many of these middle class white ethnic groups that sent their kids to the Catholic schools were also the same groups of people to flee the city for the suburbs. My parents were not wealthy at all and yet they never went to a public school, they are strictly a product of the Catholic parochial school system. So they did not leave the city because of the schools, they left because of all the government programs that encouraged new suburban housing, the fact that it was the new popular thing to do and there were also some racial fears involved.

So a large percentage of the middle class in Chicago was not dependent on the public school system in the first place and yet they still went to the suburbs. Why then is coming back to the city seen as a hinderence due to the current state of the public schools in the city? I know that alot of people are not Catholic but nowadays the religious requirements are pretty lax and the schools have much higher test scores than the public schools. Also it is a myth when people say that private schools in the city cost $20K a year, most Catholic schools in the city cost much much less than that and many if not most students recieve some kind of financial aid, most students in private schools in the city are actually middle class. Actually alot of suburban Catholics send their kids to suburban Catholic schools so they certainly cant use public schools in the city as a reason why they wont move to the city.

You pay huge property taxes in the suburbs if you live in one of the better school districts much higher than the property taxes in the city. With the money you save on taxes your kids could go to a private school in the city. Even public schools are not 100% bad, there are alot of magnet schools that compete with the best of suburban schools and a number of neighborhood schools on the outer parts of the city are doing just fine, but thats another debate all together. My point is even if you toss out the public schools completly there are plenty of options available for middle class children and schooling.

I think its just human nature and especially in this polarized political climate for everything to be black and white with no shades of grey. CITY BAD!!! SUBURBS GOOD!!! and then beat your chest like a mad gorilla and whoever disagrees with you is just a pinko commie who wants to eat your white picket fenced in all american suburban children. The reality is far more complex than the pundits make it to be. Sure the public schools in the city are a major problem that needs to be adressed but even in a city like Chicago there are still plenty of living options for the middle class, my neighborhood and many others within city limits are a living example of this.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Hey guess what? Most of the rest of the US ain't blessed with the same type of educational access one might find in inner-city Chicago. Do you honestly think most poverty-stricken families could afford private schools, even with substantial financial aid? The middle class is dead, and even those that fall into that socioeconomic category can barely afford anything beyond basic necessities anymore.

What dream world are you living in?

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Hey guess what? Most of the rest of the US ain't blessed with the same type of educational access one might find in inner-city Chicago. Do you honestly think most poverty-stricken families could afford private schools, even with substantial financial aid?

What dream world are you living in?

I thought we were talking about the middle class and not poverty stricken families?

Most poverty stricken families couldnt afford to live in suburbs with good schools anyways, those in poverty in this country are kind of screwed over no matter what. A poor family probably must send their kids to a bad school no matter what unless they happen to live in a trailer park that happens to just be within the boundaries of a good public school district. To think those in poverty could possibly live a typical suburban life is a dream world, I have been close to poverty myself a year or two ago and thats one of the reasons I laugh at notions that an auto-centric suburban lifestyle is affordable.

I was talking about the middle class which is also what Kotkin is talking about. To me its a dream world to believe that middle class families fled the city because of the public schools.

[mhays]

They might be misled, but it's not debatable that many people move to the suburbs that reason.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by mhays

They might be misled, but it's not debatable that many people move to the suburbs that reason.

Today alot of people are misled when they move to the suburbs from the city allegedly because "of the schools" but my point is this is not the reason people started moving to the suburbs in the 1950's. People did not start moving to the suburbs because the schools were bad and many that suburbanized were white ethnic Catholics that never sent their kids to public schools in the first place.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by mhays

They might be misled, but it's not debatable that many people move to the suburbs that reason.

Logic has no place here. Apparently reality doesn't, either.

I'm not at all arguing in favor of suburban culture, but lets not deny one of the primary motivating factors for moving to/staying in the suburbs was access to better public education. That perception, rightly or wrongly, didn't just pop out of thin air one day. There's less likelihood of suburban public schools being better than inner city schools nowadays due to the fact that a) the middle class is dying and b) because of that, the tax base for suburban public schools isn't what it used to be. For a great example of this, look to the sunbelt metropolises, particularly Phoenix.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Logic has no place here. Apparently reality doesn't, either.

To me the notion it is impossible for the middle class to live in a city is ilogical and not reality. Unless everything I have observed my entire life is an illusion and the neighborhood I live in right now is a figment of my imagination I stand by what I say.

[Buckeye Native 001]

How many times do people have to tell you that your perception is not everyone else's reality? Did you even bother to read the rest of my post?

Few places in this country are fortunate to have the established urban environment of a place like Chicago, and that is not changing anytime soon.

Get out of Chicago and see how bad off the rest of this country is before throwing around your opinion of how things ought to be.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

How many times do people have to tell you that your perception is not everyone else's reality? Did you even bother to read the rest of my post?

Few places in this country are fortunate to have the established urban environment of a place like Chicago, and that is not changing anytime soon.

Get out of Chicago and see how bad off the rest of this country is before throwing around your opinion of how things ought to be.

You added the second part of your post later. In the 1950's people didnt move to the suburbs because of the schools, in 1985 that was a common stated reason, today it is a common reason people give but thats not what started mass suburbanization.

I use Chicago as an example because alot of people in Chicagoland use these exact same reasons and frankly I know their perceptions of reality are off in many cases. Chicago is far from the worst off city so I understand that my examples dont make sense everywhere but I do believe that in many cities things are not as bad as many people percieve it to be. I think I am right in pointing out that Kotkin's analysis is rather simplistic and filled with generalizations.

[JBoston]

Originally Posted by Onn

He talks a lot about the expense factor in connection to the middle class. In cities like New York (and yes the surrounding areas) he says it's a lot harder for the middle class to carve out an area for themselves, because the standard of living is just getting too expensive. He cites a statistic that says the wealth gap between rich and poor in New York City has widened the most any major city in the country. New York is becoming a city where the poor serve the rich to make a living. He expects more of those cities in the future. These “elite” cities will have somewhat specialized economies as well. Chicago I think he regards as an elite city or one in the making, he hasn't mentioned it much yet.

It's true that the wealth gap in America as a whole is growing, possibly staying that way for an extended period of time. I can see where he’s coming from with that assessment. I think it’s going to be cities in general though that will become more expensive, not ones here and there.

Also, he thinks the rust belt cities (particularly Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, New Orleans) will continue to struggle, largely due to a shift in economic priority and immigration to southern mega cities.

You obviously have never lived or spent a long period of time in NYC. Go to Bay Ridge or Benshonhurst Brooklyn or Riverdale in the Bronx. Not to mention pretty much all of Queens and Staten Island. These are all thriving middle class areas. Even neighborhoods with bad reputations like Bedstuy and Harlem have a strong middle class base.

[M II A II R II K]

Civic Choices: The Quality vs. Quantity Dilemma


07/19/2010

By Aaron M. Renn

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...antity-dilemma

Advocates on opposite sides of urban debates often spend a great deal of time talking past each other. That's because there's a certain Mars-Venus split in how they see the world. In effect, there are two very different and competing visions of what an American city should be in the 21st century, the “high quality” model and the “high quantity” model One side has focused on growing vertically, the other horizontally. One group wants to be Neimans or a trendy boutique and ignores the mass market. The other focuses more on the middle class, like a Costco and Target. It should come as no surprise that there's seldom agreement between the two.

America's “High Quality” cities are the traditional large tier-one metro areas, but also include smaller cities like Seattle and Portland. They stress high wage activities such as finance, high tech, and luxury consumption. In this model, traditional growth in areas like population, jobs, or the size of the urban footprint are less important and even seen as a negative.

Understandably so. It's difficult to see, for example, how another million people living in the Bay Area would improve the fortunes of companies like Google or Facebook, or another million Angelenos helping Hollywood. Indeed many residents would oppose such growth due to increased traffic, infrastructure spending, and other of the challenges associated with it. In effect, the anti-growth agenda that dominates the culture of many of these places is not based simply on environmental concern, but the economic interests of their dominant regional elites. These places have already achieved the size to support their urban amenities.

Another reason not to press the growth button: on measures of urban quality such as economic output and income, most are clearly doing very well. Most of these places generate GDP per capita far above the US metro average of $41,737. With the exception of Chicago, they are also growing at a pace that beats the US average. These cities also boast incomes – although often a cost of living – generally well above average, though have been mixed in performance on that metric over the last decade.

But if these areas are doing well, for those who can afford to live them at least, they tend to do poorly on quantity measures. Many of them have anemic population growth, albeit from a large base. And virtually all of them actually destroyed jobs in the last decade. The ravenous maw of Washington, DC of course, being the great exception.

Boston
Chicago
Los Angeles
Miami
New York
Portland
San Francisco
San Jose
Seattle
Washington

[Onn]

Originally Posted by JBoston

You obviously have never lived or spent a long period of time in NYC. Go to Bay Ridge or Benshonhurst Brooklyn or Riverdale in the Bronx. Not to mention pretty much all of Queens and Staten Island. These are all thriving middle class areas. Even neighborhoods with bad reputations like Bedstuy and Harlem have a strong middle class base.

I didn't write the book, he did. That what he says, buy and read it if you want. He highlights Queens as an increasingly expensive area compared to similar places in other major cities around the country.

[vid]

Don't buy it, just borrow it from the Library.