A lesson from Fisco?

[Linda_D]

I found this interesting article about the oh-so-successful city of San Francisco which raises questions about the viability of the urbanist dream of revitalizing cities, particularly Buffalo.

The quote below is most pertinent to Buffalo, I think. I've bolded the key stats, which no matter how you slice 'em, explains why the urbanist idea is doomed.

The primacy of suburbia, in California or elsewhere, should really not be very debatable. Roughly 51 percent of Americans, according to one recent survey, prefer to live in the suburbs, while only 13 percent opt for life in a dense urban place. A third would opt for an even more low-density existence in the countryside. The preference for suburban-style living continues to be particularly strong among younger families.
Market trends parallel these opinions. Despite widespread media exposure about a supposed return to the city, the most recent demographic data suggest that the tide continues to go out toward suburbia. The most recent census data tell us that suburbs account for two-thirds of the total population in large metropolitan areas. Nor is the trend going away: Roughly 85 percent of all post-2000 growth has taken place in the suburbs.
Attempts to halt suburbanization, such as those in Portland, have had at best mixed results. Although widely held up as an exemplar of smart growth, Portland's tight suburban growth limits have tended to drive residents farther out and have done little to reduce the area's traffic congestion. However much planners -- whether in the United States, Britain or Australia -- want people to live in denser space, a large percentage of people continue to seek out single-family houses, and leave areas when these are no longer affordable.

Here's a link to the much longer article about some interesting trends in the Bay Area: Bay Area Blues

[crlachepinochet]

Quickly, and without reading, I would say that a potential bias with this survey is that people already have preconceived notions about what "urban" and "suburban" are. I think it would be very difficult to actually measure someone's density preference in a very short survey. Also, what is urban density? What is suburban density? I doubt people know or can visualize the census's definition of urbanized area.

Consider that now a majority of people in the US live in "suburbia", depending on how you define it. Is it surprising that young families prefer the perceived safety of the suburbs in which most of them were raised? They have young children, for crying out loud!

While I'm not trying to completely cast doubt on the message, shady statistics bothers me. I think most of the "planner-types" (at least on here) realize that the high-density lifestyle isn't for everyone. That being said, the market for that kind of living should be satisfied.

[Pauldo]

Amherst is now the city!

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by Pauldo
Amherst is now the city!

LOL. Actually, I think that what's going on in Amherst now -- a good, old fashioned political donnybrook -- is making all Amherst residents (Amherstians? Amhersters?) take a good, hard look at their town and the direction that its leaders are taking it. I think that's good because it not only gets the residents thinking and more involved in governing themselves, but it also reminds the politicians to whom they owe their real allegiance.

[300miles]

Originally posted by Pauldo
Amherst is now the city!

Amherst is "a" city... not even close to being "the" city.