On Aug 1, 2:56 pm, ***@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2:35 pm, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think about that, too from a historical persepctive, but for the
> > first time we have denuded our cities of wealth and left the very poor
> > behind. Esp cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, and upstate NY.
> > Also cities like St Louis and Baltimore.
>
> When people of means leave a city for the suburbs, one must
> investigage the various reasons people do that. Are they seeking
> something better or fleeing something bad?
>
> In many cases they were/are fleeing something bad--lousy schools,
> lousy neighbors, high crime, tough unions. When bad conditions exist,
> people will flee, even at great personal sacrifice. They're willing
> to spend much more time commuting and pay dearly for a house to get
> away from the crime, especially if they have kids going to troubled
> schools. They will do this whether or not there is a convenient
> Interstate available. Critics blame Robert Moses for this but it was
> not his doing.
>
Look, I said, highways were NOT the only reason people left, but they
certainly did not help the situation. There were many, many factors
that occured in the 60's that encouraged the flight from cities.
In 1958 I started kindergarten in the Cleveland Public Schools, they
were good then. I was there until the beginning of 2nd grade, so iow,
they taught me the basics and they did well. In the 2nd grade they
were offering French classes.
When we moved to the suburbs that year, the schools were NOT offering
French for 2nd graders.
> In some cases people want more than their small city row house
> surrounded by concrete. When Levittowns opened people thought it was
> wonderful compared to what they had. Now, a Levittown town house is
> seen as too small and people want more. Note that back in the 1930s
> kids did not only have to share a room, they often shared a bed and
> the first step up was enough room to give each kid his own bed. Then
> it became each kid with his own room. Now the rooms are big enough
> for a media center play area, not just a bed and dresser. What was
> seen as a luxiourous house in 1947 in 2007 is seen virtually public
> charity housing.
>
> Philadelphia had 2.1 million people on about half the land area it
> uses today for 1.4 million people. Look at the massive change in
> density.
>
> The 1950s and 1960s were a mixed time for cities (and conditions
> varied in each city and neighborhoods within). Some parts of the city
> became lousy, some parts of city govt became corrupt or incompetent.
>
> In some cities there was land on the outskirts and postwar
> development--with bigger houses and new, nice schools--came about.
> Philadelphia had much empty land, indeed, they are still finding
> parcels and building new houses in the northeast and northwest. NYC
> had outer sections in Brooklyn (Canarsie, Marine Park) and Queens.
Please don't forget one thing. In the 60's esp you had a lot of
upward mobility. And in 67 and in 68 you had the big riots.
That was the death knell for the cities I mentioned Those that could
do it, left.
You got me one one thing, where is NORTHWEST Philly??? I know
northeast pretty well. Unless you mean Chestnut Hill or something
like that.
You know it is funny the sections you mention above. Success breeds
success and those are fairly wealthy, fairly successful sections, at
least Canarsie and Marine Park. Queens generally no, but sections
like Middle Village and Glendale, and of course Bayside and
Douglaston, and Little Neck were always fairly wealthy.
Flushing has always been nice, and the influx of Asians has made it
even wealthier.
But the one common problem is the schools. Urban schools are
horrible, and due to the loss of the tax base, there is not enough
money to sustain them.
Plus in cities like Newark the corruption is horrible. The state
tried to take them over, but that was another disaster.
One thing I just thought of, and you may be able to speak to this
better then I.
Let's say it is 1962. Now I can afford a new house and get financing
for lets say $30,000.
Now I could spend that $30,000 on a big old house in Philly, or buy a
new house, just built on a large lot in one of the suburbs. You know
what almost everyone would do.
One of the problems is that there was almost no new housing
construction in cities in those days. If you wanted to stay in a city
in those days, you had to buy an existing house, and given the ability
to buy a new house, why would you?
Interesting discussion, Randy