(01-27-2014 11:04 PM)panama Wrote:  The suburbs in most of the US are identical

Some suburbs are new, some are hundreds of years old; some vibrant, some are economically depressed; some are compact and walkable, while others are sprawling; some are employment centers, some quiet bedroom communities; some are filled with wealthy elites, while some home to first generation immigrants. If you think they are all identical, it's because you either don't know what a suburb is or you are making a massive generalization based on a single type of suburb.

(01-28-2014 07:41 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  I clearly agree with my GSU friend, panama.

The truth is, it seems to be a generational thing. Milennials, like myself, are driving less and moving back into the cities for what we see as a more walkable lifestyle.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/0...llennials/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-...00326.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2898093/

The truth is that trend is probably overblown, young people have always moved to city. It's once they start families that they leave the city for the suburbs, it's been that way for 150 years since the first streetcar lines made such things possible.

(01-28-2014 08:16 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 07:41 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  I clearly agree with my GSU friend, panama.

The truth is, it seems to be a generational thing. Milennials, like myself, are driving less and moving back into the cities for what we see as a more walkable lifestyle.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/0...llennials/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-...00326.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2898093/

The truth is that trend is probably overblown, young people have always moved to city. It's once they start families that they leave the city for the suburbs, it's been that way for 150 years since the first streetcar lines made such things possible.

The trend isnt overblown here. We have the worst traffic in the nation and people more and more are wanting to live in walkable traditional neighborhoods. There are literally cranes from Downtown to Buckhead (uptown) here. So its really funny to hear that Atlanta is ish even as developers break ground on the next and the next and the next condo development. And by the way, I have seen that trend in most cities I have been to although some smaller cities (Macon, Ga comes to mind) have been less successful drawing people to their downtown/intown area to live.

(01-28-2014 08:27 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:16 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 07:41 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  I clearly agree with my GSU friend, panama.

The truth is, it seems to be a generational thing. Milennials, like myself, are driving less and moving back into the cities for what we see as a more walkable lifestyle.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/0...llennials/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-...00326.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2898093/

The truth is that trend is probably overblown, young people have always moved to city. It's once they start families that they leave the city for the suburbs, it's been that way for 150 years since the first streetcar lines made such things possible.

The trend isnt overblown here. We have the worst traffic in the nation and people more and more are wanting to live in walkable traditional neighborhoods. There are literally cranes from Downtown to Buckhead (uptown) here. So its really funny to hear that Atlanta is ish even as developers break ground on the next and the next and the next condo development. And by the way, I have seen that trend in most cities I have been to although some smaller cities (Macon, Ga comes to mind) have been less successful drawing people to their downtown/intown area to live.

Same thing seems to be happening in Cincy. Our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are coming back, big time:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2014/01/photos...ing-years/

I guess time will tell though...

(01-28-2014 08:44 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:27 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:16 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 07:41 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  I clearly agree with my GSU friend, panama.

The truth is, it seems to be a generational thing. Milennials, like myself, are driving less and moving back into the cities for what we see as a more walkable lifestyle.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/0...llennials/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-...00326.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2898093/

The truth is that trend is probably overblown, young people have always moved to city. It's once they start families that they leave the city for the suburbs, it's been that way for 150 years since the first streetcar lines made such things possible.

The trend isnt overblown here. We have the worst traffic in the nation and people more and more are wanting to live in walkable traditional neighborhoods. There are literally cranes from Downtown to Buckhead (uptown) here. So its really funny to hear that Atlanta is ish even as developers break ground on the next and the next and the next condo development. And by the way, I have seen that trend in most cities I have been to although some smaller cities (Macon, Ga comes to mind) have been less successful drawing people to their downtown/intown area to live.

Same thing seems to be happening in Cincy. Our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are coming back, big time:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2014/01/photos...ing-years/

I guess time will tell though...

That is why I said "probably overblown", regardless of what city boosters say I think the trend is just that, a trend, and time will tell. Sure in Atlanta, Buckhead (an old suburb) is growing, but so are the outer/newer suburbs. I'd love to see a vibrant Cincinnati. I consider it my "ancestral" hometown, everyone from my earliest American ancestors up to my grandparents were born there, Dad went to Xavier, and I love the Reds and Skyline Chili. But Mt Adams, Corryville, Clifton, and the other inner neighborhoods were once suburbs, and as time passes on, cultural and the other interesting things about living grow in a place.

My main point was that suburbs aren't identical and that the natural order of urban development is for suburbs to grow and change. Brooklyn was once a suburb, so was Hollywood. Ancient Rome had suburbs, one of them was on Vatican Hill.

Lebanon, OH and Dunwoody, GA are not identical.

(01-28-2014 09:41 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:44 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:27 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:16 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 07:41 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  I clearly agree with my GSU friend, panama.

The truth is, it seems to be a generational thing. Milennials, like myself, are driving less and moving back into the cities for what we see as a more walkable lifestyle.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/0...llennials/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-...00326.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2898093/

The truth is that trend is probably overblown, young people have always moved to city. It's once they start families that they leave the city for the suburbs, it's been that way for 150 years since the first streetcar lines made such things possible.

The trend isnt overblown here. We have the worst traffic in the nation and people more and more are wanting to live in walkable traditional neighborhoods. There are literally cranes from Downtown to Buckhead (uptown) here. So its really funny to hear that Atlanta is ish even as developers break ground on the next and the next and the next condo development. And by the way, I have seen that trend in most cities I have been to although some smaller cities (Macon, Ga comes to mind) have been less successful drawing people to their downtown/intown area to live.

Same thing seems to be happening in Cincy. Our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are coming back, big time:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2014/01/photos...ing-years/

I guess time will tell though...

That is why I said "probably overblown", regardless of what city boosters say I think the trend is just that, a trend, and time will tell. Sure in Atlanta, Buckhead (an old suburb) is growing, but so are the outer/newer suburbs. I'd love to see a vibrant Cincinnati. I consider it my "ancestral" hometown, everyone from my earliest American ancestors up to my grandparents were born there, Dad went to Xavier, and I love the Reds and Skyline Chili. But Mt Adams, Corryville, Clifton, and the other inner neighborhoods were once suburbs, and as time passes on, cultural and the other interesting things about living grow in a place.

My main point was that suburbs aren't identical and that the natural order of urban development is for suburbs to grow and change. Brooklyn was once a suburb, so was Hollywood. Ancient Rome had suburbs, one of them was on Vatican Hill.

Lebanon, OH and Dunwoody, GA are not identical.

In Atlanta the "trend" has been going on for 15 - 20 years. As for suburbs not being identical...lol. You could be dropped in North Dallas, North Atlanta or 1 hour north of NYC in a strip mall surrounded by cul de sacs and likely not know where you are.

(01-28-2014 01:16 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:41 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:44 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:27 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:16 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  The truth is that trend is probably overblown, young people have always moved to city. It's once they start families that they leave the city for the suburbs, it's been that way for 150 years since the first streetcar lines made such things possible.

The trend isnt overblown here. We have the worst traffic in the nation and people more and more are wanting to live in walkable traditional neighborhoods. There are literally cranes from Downtown to Buckhead (uptown) here. So its really funny to hear that Atlanta is ish even as developers break ground on the next and the next and the next condo development. And by the way, I have seen that trend in most cities I have been to although some smaller cities (Macon, Ga comes to mind) have been less successful drawing people to their downtown/intown area to live.

Same thing seems to be happening in Cincy. Our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are coming back, big time:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2014/01/photos...ing-years/

I guess time will tell though...

That is why I said "probably overblown", regardless of what city boosters say I think the trend is just that, a trend, and time will tell. Sure in Atlanta, Buckhead (an old suburb) is growing, but so are the outer/newer suburbs. I'd love to see a vibrant Cincinnati. I consider it my "ancestral" hometown, everyone from my earliest American ancestors up to my grandparents were born there, Dad went to Xavier, and I love the Reds and Skyline Chili. But Mt Adams, Corryville, Clifton, and the other inner neighborhoods were once suburbs, and as time passes on, cultural and the other interesting things about living grow in a place.

My main point was that suburbs aren't identical and that the natural order of urban development is for suburbs to grow and change. Brooklyn was once a suburb, so was Hollywood. Ancient Rome had suburbs, one of them was on Vatican Hill.

Lebanon, OH and Dunwoody, GA are not identical.

In Atlanta the "trend" has been going on for 15 - 20 years. As for suburbs not being identical...lol. You could be dropped in North Dallas, North Atlanta or 1 hour north of NYC in a strip mall surrounded by cul de sacs and likely not know where you are.

Its not a suburb vs city thing though, thats what I'm saying. I'm sure if you were dropped at a street corner in the mist of an urban condo boom, you wouldn't be able to tell where you were either because they would all look the same as well. Buckhead doesn't look that different the Orange Line corridor in Arlington, VA, or Dilworth in Charlotte or any other new TOD area. Likewise, an old ethnic neighborhood in Boston doesn't look that different from a similar old ethnic neighborhood in Philadelphia.

I'm not saying one is better than the other only that your criticism is based on the age and subsequent densification in which a place is developed, not that it was or is a city or a suburb.

And the trend has been going on longer than 15-20 years, it's been going on forever all over the world. Its all part of a cycle. Like I said it happened in Ancient Rome. A city grows, people move in, some outward, more people move into old areas and density increases, some people move outward again and the cycle repeats. Some areas hit economic stagnation or depopulation which changes the speed but not the overall direction.