It’s conventional wisdom that families move to the suburbs to get cheaper housing.
But a new study looks at the combined weight of both housing and transportation for low- to moderate-income families in 28 metropolitan areas and finds that combined costs of the two expenses are surprisingly constant. In other words, your housing costs may go down, but your transportation costs go up. Or vice versa.
Here’s a link that will get you to the report, "A Heavy Load," as well as some fact sheets.
The report, released Oct. 11, is from the Center for Housing Policy, the research affiliate of the National Housing Conference, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that studies housing policy, specifically affordable housing. Among the sponsors of this report: The Bank of America Foundation, and the National Association of Realtors.
In a nutshell, the study found that working families in the cities studied spend about 57 percent of their incomes on housing and transportation, with roughly 28 percent for housing and 29 percent for transportation. The share of income devoted to one or the other varies, but the combined costs tend to stay about the same – 55 to 60 percent.
Why does this matter? A lot of folks, including policymakers, have the rather simplistic view that an affordable house in the suburbs is the single best solution to help family income. This study shows the picture is a lot more complex.
And it also shows that if you’re planning to buy (or even rent) a new place, prudent financial planning means you should look at the big picture, not just housing costs alone.
From the report:
The study also points to the importance of infill development that expands the supply of affordable housing in inner city and older suburban neighborhoods that have good access to traditional job centers; the development of more affordable housing near transportation hubs and suburban employment centers; providing good quality and reliable transit for suburb to suburb commuting, as well as for helping families in the outer suburbs get into the central city; and policies to encourage car sharing and to reduce the costs of car ownership for families who cannot easily get to work via public transit.
Posts
68 comments:
You lose credibility after your first sentence.
People want land. They want a place to call their own. They want peace and quiet. They want to grow things in a garden. They want to play catch in the street and not worry that a car is going to fly by at 40 mph. They want to know their neighbors instead of walking with their heads looking at their feet on a crowded city street. They want to plant their own trees. They want to watch their kids ride safely on scooters down the street or sidewalk as they sip some sweet tea on the front porch. They want to have block parties. They want to be able to walk to the pool -- on grass. They want neighborhood schools (oops, never mind).
City living is great -- for some people.
Suburban living is great -- for some people.
The Observer loses a lot of readers b/c people like you try to tell us what's good for us. You're biased against anyone who doesn't share your views.
Shame on you.
People don't live in the suburbs because housing costs are less. They'd live there even if it cost more than living in the city.
when you and the other like-minded folks at the Observer figure that out, maybe you'll sell a few more papers.
It would be better if you gave the breakdown on the 55% for the families living in the 'burbs.
In the name of heaven PLEASE cease the jihad on the English language! "Working families" means all families in which one or more person are employed, it does not describe an income group. It is also, of course, grossly inaccurate when it is used as you (and this study) do.
"Affordable housing" is a relative term, not limited to people of low income. What is affordable housing to Hugh McColl ( a member of a working family) is not affordable housing to me.
The study relates not to working families, but to low middle income families -those earning between 20k and 50k. It does not discuss affordable housing, but low cost housing.
The inappropriate use of those terms is the result of specifc intent to make things appear to be what they are not. The imnplication of identifying that specific income group as "working families" is that those earning more don't actually earn their living. That concept may be dear to the hearts of those fond of income redistribution for social good (commonly, of course known as socialists) but it is thinly disguised advocacy of class warfare.
I have lived half my life in the Burbs. Half in downtown cities. Currently I live uptown. For me it's great. I absolutely love it and it gets better every month when they announce new developments. I beg to differ on the statement that you know your neighbors in the burbs. I know a ton more of my neighbors since I've moved uptown. I never got that warm fuzzy feeling from any of my neighbors when I was a cul-de-sacer. Now when we have a cookout half of the building shows up. That's a lot of friends.
But to each his own. Land doesn't mean anything to me. I like conveniences of walking everywhere and hardly ever getting in my car anymore. Time...I've got plenty of it since I never sit in traffic. But that's just me....and approaching 20,000 others who are calling uptown home. Statistics say over 100,000 in the next 20 years uptown.
But I am glad people like the burbs. Imagine if everyone decided it was fun to live uptown. It would be impossible to get into any restaurants.
Bottom line. Enjoy what's best for you. Do the math like Mary said. If it's not a matter of "land" then most likely you will end up in the city.
Hey Mary,
I bet you cannot wait until about another ten years go by. Then we will be saturated with forward thinking Blue staters. Ahhhhh, I cannot wait either. The Reds will hate it so much they will finally pack up all their anger filled families and more to Alabama.
The day is coming. I can feel it. I know you can too. Just look at how Charlotte has changed in the past ten years. Ahhhhh, common sense is just around the corner. Don't fret. It's almost here.
Thanks for all the common sense you put out there for the majority of us. We appreciate it.
Have a Happy Halloween. We are still allowed to celebrate that in this state aren't we ?
Seems to make sense to me. Like the people who move to South Carolina and have to pay much higher car insurance rates. Or the people in Union County who pay higher homeowners insurance because of the lack of public safety infrastructure.
And this doesn't even take into account sitting on Independence or I-77
Here's a thought. If you don't live within the city limits then you are not paying city taxes. I pay a slight extra premium tax to live uptown. I pay extra on my personal property tax as well (Mecklenburg and Charlotte tax). If you live way out in the burbs or even in another county please do not complain to us "city folks" about how we misuse the tax dollar.
Just enjoy where you live and leave it at that. My hunch is that you despise the commute and use any excuse to bitch and moan about everything.
I don't know of anyone who would say living in the burbs is less expensive. That's just factually incorrect.
Maybe 20 or 30 years ago people thought that way, but today that's an old wive's tale.
Eighty percent of Americans live in the suburbs or rural areas. It's what people prefer.
They do want lots of land, big houses, safe neighborhoods and good schools, all of which are lacking in most urban neighborhoods.
To the 20 percent of Americans who like living in the city - live it up! I enjoy uptown, but like most Americans I simply don't want to live there.
People want a lot of things. All of those things can be had in an urban environment in high density villages surrounded by open space and rural enclaves.
It's telling, but most of the above posts do not address the points of the study. The critiques are philosophical and ridiculous (socialism!!!). Another recent work sheds additional light on our petroleum addiction:
http://www.livespergallon.org/
I wonder if the study looked at moving to suburbs in another city or township with lower taxes or just suburbs that are within city limits? Not to mention I don't know of anyone that spends that much time and money on transpertation. I know that I don't. This looks to me like a biased study that fufills the Smart Growth agenda in Charlotte
Lets face it people. This country is divided on everything. If urbanites love the city then great. If Suburbanites love the Suburbs then great. We know the two will never get along so why try mixing them up ? They are two totally different breeds. They will never get along and that's fine. If you look at the population in other countries I think you will see the total opossite of America. 80% in the cities and 20% in the burbs. But like I said. WHO CARES ?
Would you really want someone living next to you that you couldn't stand ? Government is located in the city so I am afraid that the suburbanites will have to get used to the cities getting more of the attention. That's how its always been. Always will be.
People should also not beat up on Mary so much. It's her job to report on all that is urban. She does a great job. Belittling her all the time is childish.
Interesting study. I recommend downloading the pdf and reading it.
It states that households that spend more of their income on housing (50% or greater ) pay significantly less % of total income on transportation ( 7.5%).
It also appears that the preferred mode of transportation is the auto...across the economic spectrum...even though all the cities studied have rail transit.
Is this study supposed to bolster the idea of light rail and the high density development alongside it?
I would agree that people have varying desires of housing; some by choice, others by income.
In its breakdown of housing to transportation burdens, the study also alludes to the benefits of owning your home rather than renting.
It would be great to only commute a couple miles if your job was located close enough. But not all companies can be located in an urban setting nor should they be.
As to the livespergallon site, we are not going to get rid of oil until an alternative fuel can be mass produced for a cost so significantly less than oil/gasoline. And then, the oil producing companies will be in that business anyway.
Not trying to be cynical, but the reality is that if ehtanol or "whatever" fuel was available at $1.00 a gallon, gasoline would go to .75¢ and therefore remove most of the competition.
Last anon,
I was with you on your points until the last sentence.
"People should also not beat up on Mary so much. It's her job to report on all that is urban. She does a great job. Belittling her all the time is childish."
Most of the time, I would not call it reporting. It's opinion - parading as fact. Childish is believing everything you read and not questioning it.
The english language is powerful and Mary is very skilled at using it to manipulate her point.
Here's an example...
"A lot of folks, including policymakers, have the rather simplistic view that an affordable house in the suburbs is the single best solution to help family income." - The bolded words make this her opinion.
Another factor not covered in the study ( at least that I haven't found ) is the choice people with families make to live near good schools.
Location, location, location...is not just for affordability but also for good schools.
People's job locations might move but they will stay near a better school...or move closer to a better school before moving closer to a job.
That is if you can afford to move.
If you don't have children its not an issue...but for most with kids, the school will be first.
and resale value...
Hmmm, last time I checked a blog was for personal opinion; a published newspaper article....
Granted, the line is very wide and blurred, especially when the blog is sponsored/promoted by a newspaper. That's why, for all the important questions, I always turn to my Magic 8 Ball for answers. Now, THERE'S "fair and balanced!"
;-)
I like BIG sexy buildings !
What I think is missed in most of these comments relates to what was said earlier about the words working families. The study did not look at housing and transportation costs generally, but rather at those for **family** units making $50,000 or less. That generally is unlikely to describe persons living in quarter million dollar or more uptown condo's. That's why they were focused on affordable housing.
If you actually look at the study -particularly the portraits of the neighborhoods they're talking about, and if you are familiar with the cities they discuss, you can pretty easily determine that in Charlotte, the sorts of places they're talking about are NOT the new developments downtown, nor the gentrifying old one such as Dilworth or Plaza-Midwood, nor the older and never really run down areas such as Eastover or Meyers Park. Rather they would be the neighborhoods such as Belmont, Cherry, or Chantilly. In other words, the places where most of you would not not consider setting foot.
This study in fact has almost nothing to do with what is being discussed here. The people they're discussing are not, I would guess, concerning themseles with "lifestyle" so much as they are survival. The typical situation they're talking about involves families in which 80.1% of gross income goes to food, transportation, housing, and medical expense. That is hardly the Charlotte uptown condo buyer and the odds are pretty good that it's not the buyer in the new suburbs either. Indeed given the income levels they discussed and the fact that they are not individual incomes, but the gross for an entire familiy, the odds are pretty good that their version of suburban in Charlotte would simply be Hidden Valley, West Charlotte or the Wilkinson Blvd area.
I like 'em BIG and WIDE !
DAMN those skyscrapers are sexy.
Schools uptown are horrible. I have two children of school age. I cannot risk their future by living in "urban" charlotte.
For families, that is a huge issue. If you cannot afford private school, then you are stuck with CMS. So that largely affects your choice of home location.
Anywhere close to downtown is not an option. Everyone wants to be in South Charlotte where there is low crime and better quality schools.
Transportation issues are way down the list in terms of priorities for families with children.
Anonymous said...
and approaching 20,000 others who are calling uptown home. Statistics say over 100,000 in the next 20 years uptown.
Uptown is approaching roughly 12,000, not 20,000! Also, there is no way that uptown Charlotte will have over 100,000 people living there in 20 years. Have you ever visited downtown Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, Portland, Boston, or Philadelphia? Cities that actually have 20,000 or more people living downtown. Obviously not because you would have realized that they all have something Charlotte doesn’t. They have the amenities that attract people downtown and convince some to stay. They have shopping, cultural institutions, parks, access to water, and other aspects that make a downtown worth living in. Yes Charlotte is getting the NASCAR Hall of Fame, but who cares. Also, all the cities mentioned above have just as much if not more construction taking place in their downtown areas as Charlotte does.
Newsom as usual fails to understand what matters.
Say I have a wife and three kids.
So what if I personally have to commute to work. They wife and kids live out in the suburbs where it is safer, has better schools, more trees and grass, etc. etc.
I will gladly endure up to a 90 minute commute each way so that they may live a better life.
People in Chicago, New York, etc. will endure far greater commuting pain than we could even dream of in Charlotte. Newsom you have a long way to go before commuting becomes an incentive for families to leave the 'burbs.
Not to mention that as much as new urbanists try to convince people othewise, the urban model is a dinosaur.
10 years from now there will be no commute because technology will make most service and professional jobs something you can do from virtual offices anywhere.
The 'morning drive' is just folklore and something will still do out of habit.
Face it, most people with families want space and grass and fences and decent neighborhoods.
Not hood rats and city buses and crime and stench.
Even if it were MORE expensive, people would pay to live in the burbs because the quality of life is better.
And I got one more news flash...some people actually LIKE driving their cars.
Listen backward boy. PAY ATTENTION.
I live uptown and when I said fastly approaching 20,000 that's what I meant. APPROACHING. Once all of the currently hi-rises are completed. That is AVE, Trade MArk, 210 Trade, Vue, 200 S. Tryon, Citadin, Twelve, Wachovia condo tower next to their office, The Hilton tower and numerous other mid-rise projects that are going up or breaking ground as I type this in and around 1st, 3rd and soon to be in 2nd ward.
As far as I must never spend time in cities that have more than 20,000 living in them. Give me a break. I am from NY. I've traveled and spent considerable time in Boston, Philly, Pitts, Miami, D.C. , Atlanta, Memphis, Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Fran , San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Chicago and the soon to be APPROACHING Charlotte.
I know Charlotte has great potential to grow tremendously. The Hicks just need to stay out. Notice how the bars and restaurants do their worst business when Dolly Parton or wrestling crap comes to the arena. That's because it draws Hicks. Hicks are cheap and afraid of the city. They come in, see their show and leave. They don't spend any time exploring or enjoying what the city has to offer. They are now proposing Brevard St. as a retail district. More restaurants open every month.
But I am wasting my energy. People like you will never see the other side. You don't want to because you are so filled with anger towards anyone that is not like you. I guarantee you are a bible thumping hillbilly. Most likely from Mint Hill. I am rather pleased on one hand that your type hates it and stays out. It's embarrassing when I am entertaining guests and I see a group of your kind walking down the sidewalk. Visitors are left with the impression that Charlotte is filled with Hee Haw types.
Here's another little detail Mary forgot to include.
Charlotte was not even part of the study of the 28 cities, so we conveniently have no way to know how Charlotte compares to the other cities in the study. (I like how she included BAC as one of the sponsors. That was a good trick to make people assume Charlotte would be included.)
On thing we do know is that Charlotte has one of the absolute lowest costs of living of cities like itself for both housing and transportation. My guess is that Charlotteans would spend a lower percentage of their income on transportation and housing because of these numbers - though not definitely. See this info from the Charlotte Chamber website.
http://www.charlottechamber.com/content.cfm?
category_level_id=135
&content_id=366
For Souther Cities - ten listed
Charlotte is 4th lowest in housing AND transportation costs
Overall Nationally for for all Categories for Cities of 400,000 to 1,000,000 population - Charlotte fares even better.
First Quarter 2006
Rank City All Item Indes
1 El Paso, TX 90.7
2 Charlotte , NC 91.1
3 Fort Worth , TX 91.1
4 Oklahoma City, OK 91.3
5 Memphis , TN 92.7
6 Indianapolis , IN 93.3
7 Austin , TX 94.1
8 Kansas City , MO-KS95.1
9 Atlanta , GA 97.5
10 Cleveland , OH 98.0
11 Jacksonville , FL 99.0
12 Milwaukee, WI 100.0
13 Tucson , AZ 100.3
14 Denver , C O 100.4
15 Columbus , OH 102.1
16 Albuquerque , NM 103.0
17 Detroit, MI 104.1
18 Las Vegas , NV 106.1
19 Hampton Roads, VA 106.2
20 Seattle, WA 116.3
21 Portland , OR 116.7
22 Baltimore , MD 120.0
23 Sacramento, CA 120.1
24 Fresno , CA 121.5
25 Boston , MA 133.6
26 Washington , DC 142.1
27 San Jose , CA 156.0
28 San Francisco, CA 170.6
The "affordable" housing inside the dense inner city areas is "affordable" only because others are paying part of the cost to make it "affordable". The calculation of the study should show a comparison of total costs of close-in living, including those subsidies, rather than pretending that such additional costs are "free".
Danimal,
You're right. If we didn't have kids, my wife and I would probably still live uptown. We like it very much...but we've made a choice to be where we are for now.
Side note: what would happen to the universe if you and GOPwolf found out you were actually friends outside the blog world?
( just a little Friday humor )
One of the reasons we bought inside 485 was to avoid the long commute that I had in NJ (about 80 minutes each way). I just couldn't mentally handle that every morning if I lived out in Union county. After eight years of doing it I was spent.
I think the article has a fair point that there are other factors involved living further outside the city. In my mind, not a big issue for Charlotte -- for now. In ten, twenty years, the city will be much more dense and the traffic will be worse. Then I think you'll see the effects of growth on people living too far away.
The article stated that the income group in this study, families who earn 50k or less spend 28% on housing and 30% on transportation. That seems high, but if you consider making a monthly payment on a new car, add in the insurance costs, and gas, I can see how the above ratios can occur.
Yet despite their high transportation costs, 85% of them are choosing to ride their car to work instead of using mass transportation.
If the study family wanted more disposable income, they would live in a suburban location near where one spouse works and ride the bus to work. They would buy a lower cost car that has good fuel economy.
Unfortunatly, the majority make emotional decisions on lifestyle instead of doing their homework and making the best decision to keep their costs down.
Reading some of the blogs on this topic really displays how people allow their emotions to rule their lives. It is demeaning to see how some of the bloggers treat others and smugly believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
I don't think people choose suburban living because it is cheaper - as Mary pointed out the increased transportation costs make it a wash. I think it is a quality of life, "what you get for the money" issue. You can pay half a mill for a small ranch in Cotswold, with no walking trails, community pool or protection from "the others" - or you can have a McMansion with all the amenities for that same amount. I actually prefer having less of a house for the convenience of living close-in, but everyone has to make the choice that is best for them. My only resentment is when developers and new homeowners mooch off the taxpayers and don't bear the full cost of these far-out developments, preferring instead to stick it to the existing homeowners/taxpayers.
Great comment Frank about the bizarre mean streak displayed by so many bloggers. I think it is reflection of how frighteningly polarized our society seems to be now. I see it everywhere - at church, at my kids schools, on TV, in politics and community (or lack thereof). I think online, people have anonymity and so are perhaps more strident than they would be in person, but I agree - in their attempt to demean their perceived enemies they also demean themselves and the idea of respectful discourse as well.
What in the world do uptown high rises have to do with affordable housing? That term, when used in Charlotte means homes available for purchase in the $110,000 range and under.
Those of you who are touting uptown living are discussing somehting that this study was not.
Every notice that the "suburban Right" as I love to call them are the ones who always start the name calling ? Alway voicing their so called superioriy and the foolishness of anyone who could see fit to live in an urban setting. You know "those people", "those types", "hood rats", etc., etc. It's only then that the urban people stand up for themselves. Now all of a sudden the Suburbans are the poor victims.
pUUUUlease people. Cry us all a river. Then raft it all the way back to Mint Hill.
Does anyone else see the humor in the last anon complaining about insults and name calling while actually insulting and name calling?
I like living on a cul-de-sac and having an SUV. I also like driving by myself with a Starbucks latte. Deal with it. I don't plan on riding your silly trains and I plan on voting to repeal the light rail sales tax ASAP.
Rick said...
You don't get it do you Rick ? You start the fight, we follow.
As I said, you are the victim. So I guess I should grant you certain rights.
Get it Rick ? GET IT ????
As far as a repeal goes for your insane dwelling on the light rail ......dream on people. The majority of us are smart enough to see the need for it just over the horizon. By all means please do enjoy your SUV Starbucks break as you sit in traffic. Ever been stuck in traffic at rush hour in a bigger city ? Well you will soon find out how gruelling it is. You better get 3 or 4 latte's for the long ride home you will have in a few years.
Enjoy people. EnJooooooooY.
Here are some data on average consumer spending in the south broken down by income.
http://www.bls.gov/cex/2004/CrossTabs/regbyinc/xregns.PDF
Of course, the "costs" do not include time lost sitting in traffic and its value. Nor does it consider the externalities of fossil fuels, pollution, etc.
Now, back to the name calling...
Most recent anon:
Are you the same anon that doesn't like Rick's most recent post?
If so, please use a name that we can refer to rather than anonymous...there are too many anonymous' to keep track of.
Secondly, the stats you refer to at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, page 18 of the Consumer Expenditure Survey 2004, by region,
also indicates people in the South who were surveyed spent $7,233 on vehicles purchases, gasoline and other vehicles expenses compared to only $280 on public transportation.
Notice also that they spent nearly 2/3 the same on eating out as they did eating at home.
Most appear to own rather than rent.
So, what was your point about fossil fuel and pollution?
That rail is going to flip those numbers?
I don't know anyone personally nor anyone on this blog who likes sitting in traffic. Where do you dream that up?
Please gives us your cost analysis on the "externalities" of fossil fuel, pollution, etc.
And use a different name...please.
www.kingdomcoming.com
I guarantee that in 10 years the commute will be from Union County to Mint Hill, Gaston to Fort Mill, and even Spartanburg to South Chrlotte.
Newsom and company are delusional if they think that even with the MASSIVE taxpayer subsidies making uptown appear 'vibrant', most new development is happening outside.
The new condos in uptown are a drop in the bucket, and they will never change the fact that there are oceans of cheap land within driving distance.
This is the usual pattern. First families figure out the benefits of the 'burbs. Then the businesses do.
It takes a business longer than a family for obvious reasons (lease terms, construction etc), but rest assured, maybe Wachovia will stick around for the long haul (no doubt because they have McCrory and co. on a string) but MANY employers will move out due to expense of real estate.
The bottom line is the bottom line.
Look at St. Louis, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. who are all 10-20 years ahead of Charlotte in their lifecycle.
Major employers are out in the burbs, with suburb to suburbs commuting.
Unless the socialists decide they need to pass some 'restictions' to keep us in our place. After all, they know what's best for us.
Fed up,
You kill me. Chicago is just crumbling at their very core due to mass exodus of corporations. Get real Buddy. They are building more hi-rise office towers every day in Chicago. NY as well.
We will never be Chicago or NY. We may be Atlanta or even surpass Atlanta one day. Atlanta has hi-rises going up all over the place. Charlotte will follow that trend as well. The mid size cities all over this country are going through the same urban renewal as Charlotte. They are realizing the "burbs" was a mistake and are going back to their roots. Facts are plain facts. Shoot off about polls and statistics all you want. Travel around and check it out. I do. It's the same everywhere. Once dead inner cities now flourishing. Been to Denver , Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Dallas or Miami lately ?
To quote Mary, "Why does this matter? A lot of folks, including policymakers, have the rather simplistic view that an affordable house in the suburbs is the single best solution to help family income. This study shows the picture is a lot more complex."
Indeed. As higher density development, along with more condos, occurs downtown the higher the property value goes. This will either force more subsidies for "affordable housing" on more bond referendums ( like the one coming up ) or force people to find housing in less expensive areas...such as ring suburbs and further out. Thats pretty simple...and also true. If you can no longer afford the place you live in you either move to where you can afford it or ask for government subsidy.
Its happening in Dallas.
To quote Mary again: "And it also shows that if you’re planning to buy (or even rent) a new place, prudent financial planning means you should look at the big picture, not just housing costs alone."
You don't have to buy or rent new. You can find reasonable older homes that are in good condition if you take the time to look. But the last part really shows what isn't in the study and that is why people choose to live where they live...which has already been explained in a number of other posts.
To previous anon:
I haven't brought up Chicago anywhere. That is someone else.
The reason hi rises may be going up in former dead downtowns may be due to zoning ordinances and land availability in the suburbs.
If you have a dead downtown land and empty parking lots are cheap.
Yup, urbania is crumbling and the only reason they build downtown is because the land is cheap. Okay, sure, the land is cheap in downtown Chicago or even Charlotte for that matter..??...and Santa is coming in a few month as well.......but only if you are a good boy or girl.
Cheap land in downtown. Riiiight. I've looked into it. If it was I would be buying it up.
Anon...since you can't come up with a better name:
I never said land was cheap in Charlotte or Chicago.
I said if you have a dead downtown then land would be available and cheap.
Chicago has never been dead.
Charlotte has had several empty parking lots over the years where Cityfest concerts took place.
They are not cheap anymore.
Nice try but you really have to do better.
Also, the suburbs are not crumbling...except in your dream world.
Are you the same anonymous who has used the terms:
"backward boy," "hicks," "bible thumping hillbilly," and "hee haw?"
Sounds like you're the one who needs to control some anger.
Urbania=Urban. Not Suburbia.
How's that for better ?
Pay attention to others and stop trying to type so fast and get YOUR opinion out. If you took time to actually read instead of breezing over everything and conforming it to fit your agenda maybe you would learn something.
where is Urbania crumbling?
By the way, anonymous, I haven't breezed over anything but you.
I've read the study Mary linked...as well as the BLS perhaps you linked.
Or didn't you catch that in my posts?
Good bye Fed up. Love to stay and chat but I finished up work early. Enjoy your commute. I'll be home in 5 minutes. Ahhhhh the joys of city life. Maybe I'll stop in and grab a nice cold beer on the walk ?
Lots of great music tonight. So hard to choose. But what to do with the rain. I may get all wet and melt. Maybe I can find cover under a great big SUV.
That's alright. You haven't made sense here anyway. Have a great weekend, anonymous.
I'm working a full day to help pay for your subsidies...
Don't let the SUV land too hard on you...who else will champion the self-indulgent city crowd?
from all of us in the flyover suburbs...may you be blessed with twins with colic.
fedup, I am the anon who posted the BLS numbers and I have not posted since. I don't know who the other anon is.
The data indicate that the transportation burden in terms of out-of-pocket cash, are not so great in the south. Other indirect costs, or externalities are not captured in the price of the automobile (see the link to livespergallon.org). Similarly, sitting in traffic is not free. You could be using that time more productively than commuting. Thus, it has an economic value beyond the hassle factor. For instance, an extra hour per week might translate into roughly $1000 for someone who values their time at $20/hour. The BLS numbers were not intended to argue either for or against light rail.
You just got to love Wi-Fi. Well Fed Up I am not at all shocked that you call me self indulgent. I know, I know it's just terrible that I actually live my life for ME. So silly of ME. But I guess that's what happens when you are not controlled by the strings of religion. Fed Up, are you a marionette ? I bet you are.
Hold on...my espresso is up.
Okay,
As far as twins with colic go. Keep dreaming. My daughter is 18 and I got snipped long, long ago. That of course so I could cultivate a life filled of self indulgences. Boy you fit the mold to a T.
My wife will just be tickled reading your posts.
ciao
to: bls anon,
Glad you got the id separated.
That BLS study was pretty interesting. It looks like similar results from the study Mary linked.
I checked out the livespergallon.org and it would be interesting to cross reference the two.
It would be great to earn that $ sitting in traffic if you can be doing your job.
Perhaps in the near future, people will do more telecommuting. That would certainly eliminate commutes for some.
Putting a price on the hassle though is tough. How would you do that for a missed appointment due to traffic? Or a child's missed birthday? I don't know but I agree that there are more factors to consider than just the drive time and gas. The health costs would be very difficult measure accurately.
Sorry if I accused you of using the BLS study to support rail.
I think you understand the point I made in that even with the cost of gas and the availability of rail/buses in those cities...people chose cars. The reasoning isn't part of that study either.
Strings of religion?
Espresso anon, sorry, you lose that bet. Who's fitting the mold now?
You are self-indulgent. You want us all to think like you and if we don't, we're somehow hicks.
But if you want to live your life that way...have at it. You're entitled.
Fed Up,
I do not want you to all think like me. Someone has to flip the burgers for me.
The last time I checked "self-indulgent" did not mean that you want everyone to think as you do. As far as me thinking you are a Hick you must have me confussed with the other Anon.
When I see words like "self endulgent" used I would tend to think Fundamental Right Wing Christian right off the bat. Someone who looks at self-indulgence as wrong has some serious issues about the validity of one enjoying oneself. You seem riddled with guilt and anger towards Urbanites. Hence...the whole religious thoery. I on the other hand simply get amusment out of playing this game wih you. I do not think of you as a Hick. In fact.......I don't think of you at all.
Your obsession with the Christian Right has nothing to do with me since I don't subscribe to their way of thinking.
I don't have a problem with Urbanites...only ones like yourself. If we didn't have kids, my wife and I would most likely still live downtown.
Thank you...please don't think of me...enjoy your games.
Anonymous said...
Listen backward boy. PAY ATTENTION.
LOL! You've already resorted to name calling.
I didn’t miss anything you wrote. As a matter of fact, I totally grasp the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. You're obviously one of those Charlotte boosters, which was made obvious by the 100,000 number you quoted from the Observer.
I live uptown and when I said fastly approaching 20,000 that's what I meant. APPROACHING.
I live uptown too, big deal. I do research for the real estate and demographics industries and believe me when I say Charlotte is approaching 15,000 and even that number is a bit high.
Once all of the currently hi-rises are completed. That is AVE, Trade MArk, 210 Trade, Vue, 200 S. Tryon, Citadin, Twelve, Wachovia condo tower next to their office, The Hilton tower and numerous other mid-rise projects that are going up or breaking ground as I type this in and around 1st, 3rd and soon to be in 2nd ward.
Oh please. The housing market is changing fast. A lot of people who were and are buying these units are from out of state. They are either moving here and have yet to sell their home in whatever city it was that they came from or they are purchasing the units in hopes of flipping them for a quick buck. They think they can sell their unit shortly after purchasing, but they will find out soon enough that Charlotte is just like every other city in the country and will end up losing money and sitting on their unit for quite some time.
Also, I’ve started to hear rumors that one of Charlotte’s banks is in merger talks with a bank out West and there is a strong possibility that their headquarters could go too. In other words, don't place your money on the Wachovia tower.
As far as I must never spend time in cities that have more than 20,000 living in them. Give me a break. I am from NY. I've traveled and spent considerable time in Boston, Philly, Pitts, Miami, D.C. , Atlanta, Memphis, Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Fran , San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Chicago and the soon to be APPROACHING Charlotte.
Good for you. You should have agreed with me then that Charlotte has a long way to go before it can be considered in the same league as some of those cities.
I know Charlotte has great potential to grow tremendously.
I agree, but it has to be done properly.
The Hicks just need to stay out. Notice how the bars and restaurants do their worst business when Dolly Parton or wrestling crap comes to the arena. That's because it draws Hicks. Hicks are cheap and afraid of the city. They come in, see their show and leave. They don't spend any time exploring or enjoying what the city has to offer.
LOL. There are “hicks” everywhere. Get used to it. BTW, what makes you think you're better than some hick? After all, you're calling people names on the Internet. That seems like a white trash kinda thing to do. Don't ya think?
People like you will never see the other side.
The other side of what? Your sense of reality? Your little boxed-in world? I’m a realist and I know that it is unrealistic for uptown Charlotte to gain over 89,000 in 20 years for the simple fact that the majority of people living here and who are currently moving here don’t want to live uptown. Think about it. Compare the growth of uptown Charlotte to the rest of Mecklenburg County. If the growth rates stay the same, which is highly unlikely, and uptown were to gain the 89,000 plus in 20 years, then this means Mecklenburg County would gain over 2,000,000!! This is very unlikely. Also, Charlotte is still sprawling worse than most metropolitan areas in the country. Its overall density is declining!!
You don't want to because you are so filled with anger towards anyone that is not like you.
Filled with anger? I'm one of the most laid back individuals you would ever meet. I’m just not some Charlotte booster. Of course I’m not like you or anyone else. Why the hell would I want to be like everyone else?
Well, being you and I live uptown, maybe I should try to be more like you. I can see your “worldly” because you are from NY (probably Buffalo). Maybe the two of us can visit the NASCAR Hall of Fame together or walk to the Bobcats arena to see a game or a concert. We’ll have such a great time as we walk by all the hicks and laugh at them. No thank you pal!
I guarantee you are a bible thumping hillbilly.
I’m an Agnostic thank you very much.
Most likely from Mint Hill.
Nope. I’m a transplant as well.
I am rather pleased on one hand that your type hates it and stays out. It's embarrassing when I am entertaining guests and I see a group of your kind walking down the sidewalk. Visitors are left with the impression that Charlotte is filled with Hee Haw types.
Well, it's obvious you don’t know me or my "group." Also, I must say that I find it just as embarrassing to have big-city wannabes living here. Again, you're just one of the Charlotte boosters who likes to think this city is something that it isn’t. Don’t let the numbers and the Observer fool you. This metropolitan area is a sprawling mess.
You guys are all losing it. It's just a blog.
Gosh, I'm a hick from Mint Hill and even I know that exchanges such as those are mindless and childish. My God, what is the world coming to when my betters act that way? I tremble to think. . .
One thing that seems to be more or less assumed in these threads is that it's the people moving in from other parts of the country who are clamoring to live uptown.
Just thinking about the people I work and socialize with, which includes a pretty good sampling of Northeasterners and urban mid-westerners, I don't see it. Most, including those who have lived and worked in major cities with "real" urban amenities, are quite happy in their suburban surroundings. If you bear in mind where Levittown was founded and who moved there, this shouldn't be shocking. For that matter, the newcomer to the region who has probably had the biggest impact on Charlotte politics is not an uptownie, but uber-suburbanite Larry Gavreau.
I've contended on these threads before, and still do, that the biggest predictor of whether one is a partisan for the urbs or the burbs is whether there are children living in the household. Of course, there will be exceptions on both sides. But much of the revival of cities is tied to lower marriage and birth rates among educated professionals. (Whether this presents another issue that society should be concnerned about is waaaaay beyond the scope of this blog. But what fun!)
AS always, the mere mention of housing has again ignited this mindless battle in which each side proclaims superiority of its lifestyle, morals, cultural sophistication, and intelligence, notwithstanding that Mary's blog entry basically had nothing to do with suburban 1/2 acre homes or uptown condos. I always find this little battle amusing, since it so transparently consists of anonymous people simply trying to impress each other.
Good lord, people, how naive are you. Who gives a rat's posterior what choice some else makes in their housing? And who, prey tell, is impressed by blogger claims of income, lifestyle or anything else, and allows it to lend credence to that blogger's argument?
And yet you hash out who has made the bette rchoice base don who has the better life, the better income is more inteligent etc., etc. the only theing that become incredibly clear is the utter LACK of intellence in all but a very few of these posts.
Still, it is amusing. . .
Of course new high rises are going up all the time in Charlotte, Chicago, New York, etc.
Nobody ever said they were not.
But as a percentage of what is going up in the outlying areas, it is a drop in the bucket.
I Chicago, Sears used to be headquartered in downtown. Now they are in Hoffman Estates, about 45 miles out of Chicago in what was once farmland.
My only point was the Charlotte will absolutely follwo this model (an so has Atlanta).
The major employers will be 30 miles from uptown in 10-20 years.
Some like uptown, but the vast majority of people consider working or shopping uptown to just be a huge inconvenience, with its terrible roads and lack of parking.
As long as McCrory and co think mass transit and ignore the roads and parking situation, uptown will never be a viable place for retail.
Anyone who thinks there will be 100,000 people LIVING uptown in the next 100 years is delusional.
Did anyone see that Charlotte made the TOP 10 this morning?
We're #8!!!!
Eighth most dangerous big city in the nation!!!
Oh, and the trains only get support from 53% of the region's population according to the Observer. That's pretty sad considering that many of those people live outside Mecklenburg county and don't even have to pay for it - of course they would think its a good idea. Also, Mecklenburge voters had less support for it. Can anyone say repeal?
Remember who to vote for a week from tomorrow to correct these mistakes.
Vote Puckett, Ramirez, and McGarry.
Rick. Have you lost it?
Rick is a crybaby.
This is too funny...
About a dozen posts back, someone rambled forever refuting an adversary who was obviously a dumb---.
Then, he implied the dumb--- might be from Buffalo.
Yikes!!!!
People from Buffalo wouldn't claim to be from New York. They're from Buffalo, which is about 400 miles from NYC (for comparison, Raleigh is about 500 miles from NYC).
A person from Buffalo is likely the consummate suburbanite, since that city died long ago.
Amherst, NY, (one of the ultimate suburbs in upstate NY and about 20 mins outside of Buffalo) has more than 100k people but if there's a violent crime there, it's shocking.
It's been one of the safest cities in America for years now.
What makes Buffalo a cool place is everything that's within 30 minutes of downtown, not downtown itself.
It's pretty much the same in Charlotte.
Anyone who thinks there will be 100,000 people LIVING uptown in the next 100 years is delusional.
First off it was 100,000 in 20 years (not 100 years)
I just visited Portland, OR where they are experiencing a huge demand for downtown living. I spoke with several realators and looked at several condos. Their downtown residential numbers have tripled in the past 2 years alone. So don't be so sure Charlotte wont go from its now 15,000 and grow to 45,000 or 50,000 in 3 to 5 years.
wo years out....just do the math.
Post a Comment