- This topic has 201 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 12 months ago by briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM #19130September 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM #729023anParticipant
Being a Gen Y and having Gen Y friends, I would have to disagree with you BG. We’re no different than other generations. While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.
September 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM #729024The-ShovelerParticipanthmm, I think it will get old once one is past 30.
But it kind of fits a democratic profile I think.
Not all understand, but in generally Democrats kind of view Suburbs as huge mistake.
Everyone should rent a downtown condo and ride a bike to work type of thing.
Maybe why Housing generally does better under republicans but then again I am generalizing here.September 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM #729025briansd1GuestThere is increasing urbanization and globalization of commerce, education and jobs. The most highly educated professionals will want to live in or near glamour cities, as Robert Shiller puts it.
Within glamour cities there are first, second and third tiers.
The first tier cities will enjoy higher growth and regional wealth.
The cities around the world that are best able to provide infrastructure and housing, and keep up with growth will enjoy the fruits of economic wealth and growth.
Unfortunately, I think that the NIMBYism in San Diego will prevent us from being a great first tier city.
People think that internet makes everything local. It does not.
If you go to social networking sites, you’ll see that all the “desirable” people live in big cities so that’s where young and smart people want to be.September 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM #729027briansd1Guest[quote=AN] While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.[/quote]
The thing is that America doesn’t have city life. Except for New York, and a few other places, it’s a blur of city and suburban life.
I mean, is living in Mission Valley really living in the city? Not in my opinion.
In the rest of the world, the demarcation between city and suburb is much greater.
September 14, 2011 at 1:45 PM #729030bearishgurlParticipant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]hmm, I think it will get old once one is past 30.
But it is kind of fits a democratic profile I think.
Not all understand, but in generally Democrats kind of view Suburbs as huge mistake.
Everyone should rent a downtown condo and ride a bike to work type of thing.
Maybe why Housing generally does better under republicans but then again I am generalizing here.[/quote]Nor-LA, for the record, I am a Democrat-turned-independent. And I DO/DID favor close-in suburbs in SD, that is: (Dtn) SD to int’l border, SD to El Cajon, SD to UCSD, SD to MM, SD to San Carlos, etc … but when is enough enough? Even former small (uninc) “coastal hamlets” in NCC have now morphed into coastal/inland megalopolises.
I believe that if the sprawl to every lizard-inhabited corner of SD County had not taken place, new incoming residents would have just taken up the existing available housing (or not relocated to SD if they didn’t like the housing choices). In addition, I feel our local governments would have been better off today due to having to provide much LESS services for a smaller population, even though collecting less taxes. If we had had slow or no-growth initiatives in place in the past, the quality of life would have been far better for every existing resident in SD. Now, nearly all of SD County’s cities are experiencing layoffs caused by rampant hiring during the artificially propped-up “Millenium Boom.” These municipal layoffs that are occurring now come at a time when the county population is 3X what it was 30 years ago and the need for public services are far greater.
The voters in the State of Washington (as well as their Legislature) apparently were far less shortsighted than we/ours turned out to be in this regard and valued their quality of life more than we did.
Back to reality … even though situated within the county of SD (a VERY large county), I don’t consider places such as Alpine, Ramona and (SD) North County as being parts of SD. I consider them to be self-contained areas in their own right. That’s why it’s never made sense to me that people choose to live in them while attempting to commute to SD’s urban core every day to work.
September 14, 2011 at 1:56 PM #729033UCGalParticipantI don’t know if it’s a generational thing. I think there is a cultural thing.
Specifically, Americans, post WWII, wanted the house, car, suburban lifestyle. Other countries didn’t make that same change. My husbands relatives in Italy are all professional, upper middle class types… and all have large apartments or what we might call town houses (party walls with the adjacent neighbors.) The single family home is just not common in that culture.
These folks have kids, grandkids, etc… They never felt the need to get a single family home in the suburbs. It wasn’t part of their culture. It wasn’t that they couldn’t afford it – like I said, they’re all highly educated, upper middle class folks.
In most other countries (except perhaps Canada) – apartment/condo living is perfectly acceptable. Even for people with kids.
September 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM #729036bearishgurlParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.[/quote]
The thing is that America doesn’t have city life. Except for New York, and a few other places, it’s a blur of city and suburban life.
I mean, is living in Mission Valley really living in the city? Not in my opinion.
In the rest of the world, the demarcation between city and suburb is much greater.[/quote]
Agreed, brian. MM, where AN resides is an example of city/suburban life. For many years, MM AND SR were the “last bastions” in the northern part of the City with MM built up as tracts on small urban lots. For that reason, MM life is a combination of city and suburban existence.
Mission Valley is a dense multifamily/com’l area built-up on a “Type A” floodplain with tons of shored-up landfill using “glass breakwater” and other techniques which we all “hope” doesn’t fail in the event of a BIG FLOOD of the SD River :={
MV is NOT really “urban” at all in the true sense of the word, is not very walkable, has no real “culture” and very little “character,” lol.
SD DOES have a “city life” but it is confined to dtn, Gaslamp, East Village, Hillcrest, Balboa Park and nearby surrounds.
September 14, 2011 at 2:24 PM #729039briansd1Guest[quote=UCGal]
In most other countries (except perhaps Canada) – apartment/condo living is perfectly acceptable. Even for people with kids.[/quote]
That’s what I’ve noticed also. It’s cultural.
That’s why I say that globalization will affect how we perceive things. The internet and travel also will allow us to absorb other ways of doing things.
After WWII we went suburban, so it’s either we do exurban now, or we do more of a city/suburb hybrid with more density with public transport as an option. I believe the latter is the way forward.
Regarding upzoning lots in the city, that will happen with the babyboomers go to nursing homes. After all, the economic life of those wood tract house is only about 50 years. There comes a time to tear-down and rebuild.
September 14, 2011 at 2:46 PM #729040briansd1Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
SD DOES have a “city life” but it is confined to dtn, Gaslamp, East Village, Hillcrest, Balboa Park and nearby surrounds.[/quote]Compared to world-class cities, San Diego is almost all suburbs, IMO. But by American standards, that’s a city, I suppose.
Downtown is a conventioneer/tourist trap.
Hillcrest is just University Ave with suburban bungalows around. It’s just an older version of Santee, and suburban cities such as Frisco, TX with a business district surrounded by houses.
September 14, 2011 at 2:50 PM #729041joecParticipantI’d have to agree with AN, having LIVED in the city (SF), it’s great if you have the time/money/disposal income to go out all the time and stuff, but once the kids come, I think the majority will move for more space and quiet in the suburbs.
I don’t have to post it, but there are tons upon tons of articles about SF not having any families at all. Also, when you have kids, do you really even WANT to go out and party? You’re usually too old for that and have so little time. All IMO of course. I hate cities with their pollution, noise, vandals, partiers every thursday night coming home friday morning at 2am, etc…
Glad to live in the suburbs.
Also, I think women tend to like living in the city more than men. Men like garages, cars, don’t care about being seen as much (after marriage and kids of course) so the “city” offers very little…IMO again. I’m sure you can find 1 “guy” who likes the city, but most would rather spend the money on other things IMO. Cities tend to also be more expensive to live.
Gotta admit dining is a lot better, but take a baby to any fine dining place and it’s a nightmare in stressful dining. Take out baby!
September 14, 2011 at 3:17 PM #729044zkParticipant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2] in generally Democrats kind of view Suburbs as huge mistake.
Everyone should rent a downtown condo and ride a bike to work type of thing.
[/quote]I don’t have a problem with generalizations when they’re correct. That one, however, is ludicrous. I’m not a democrat, but I know lots of them. I’m pretty sure no more than a tiny percentage of them hold that view.
September 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM #729046pencilneckParticipantA large percentage of tiny Democrats hold that view.
September 14, 2011 at 3:34 PM #729045The-ShovelerParticipantI know a lot of democrats with that view but maybe I run with a small sample.
Well San Jose is more a collection of suburbs and the Tech Companies in the L.A. area are located in some far flung suburbs like Simi Valley and West-Lake and now days Arcadia and Valencia.
Very few are down town L.A. close
The bad part is very hard to work in these areas without a car.
Also the funny part is the rich in China try to live like us.
I think TG had it right, one day in the future we will look back and figure out we were right.September 14, 2011 at 3:47 PM #729048anParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.[/quote]
The thing is that America doesn’t have city life. Except for New York, and a few other places, it’s a blur of city and suburban life.
I mean, is living in Mission Valley really living in the city? Not in my opinion.
In the rest of the world, the demarcation between city and suburb is much greater.[/quote]
IMHO, no MV is not city. Neither is Hillcrest, Point Loma, etc. City is downtown with high rises only. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.