|
|
|
|
|
|
by moocow01
5131 days ago
|
|
|
I think there is a valid argument somewhere here but a lot of the points are based on things that can not be taken as fact. For example, the point about people moving to urban cores is a story that has been reiterated by just about every city mayor but when looking at statistics its not entirely clear that that is what is actually occurring... in fact it seems it may be the opposite http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0406jkwc.html |
|
|
The real change that has taken place in cities has not been 'more people in the [designated 100 years ago] city area'. It would be pretty much impossible for most of New York city's 'growth' to happen in the city area (at least, without removing planning regulations entirely). Demand is going up massively though. The inner-city 'slums' of the 20thC are very definitely not coming back and have been replaced by areas of affluence, which are pretty unaffordable to live in for most of the population.
The suburbs are changing too. People are using 'local centres' more, and paying more to be close to a nice one. So even the suburbs are less 'suburban' than they used to be.