NYC: Death of a Once Great City - Page 2 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Citytalk and Urban Issues

Citytalk and Urban Issues » Guess the City


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 30th, 2018, 03:13 PM   #21
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,246
Likes (Received): 11379

You can still get internal dynamics that are different to international ones, like people flocking into the most attractive city (or cities) of a country at an unsustainable rate, despite the total population of the country shrinking. There are also regional transborder dynamics, like Western European cities receiving a lot of immigration from Eastern Europe despite the EU population overall shrinking as well. In fact, the biggest losers in the process are provincial towns and rural localities.

As for building new cities lol, all that's needed is much simpler to do, like rent control, social housing quotas, binding of minimum wage to living wage etc.
__________________
The Death of a Once Great City
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 30th, 2018, 07:07 PM   #22
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,226
Likes (Received): 4664

Quote:
Originally Posted by snot View Post
How would the kind of redneck anti public anti governement anti public transport anti tax kind of politics favorising the ultra rich be benificial for New York???
A city in need of more fundings for it's public transport, governement investments in infrastructure en better housing with governement planning. A city with a large population who barely can afford the maffiosi American private healthcare.
Don't pay much attention to him he is a troll.
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2018, 09:27 PM   #23
wakka12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,756
Likes (Received): 3789

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperknickers View Post
There's only one solution to the decline of modern cities and that is, build new cities. It's crazy that at this, perhaps the greatest expansion in human population for thousands of years, we are seeing one of the smallest rates of new city foundations. When the Roman empire was booming they founded cities left right and centre, so did the Persians, so did the Chinese Dynasties, so did the Aztecs. And yet Western Civilisation in the 21st century seems to be forever tied to the same 200 year old, if not 2000 year old, cities. Why?
I agree, Id much prefer to live somewhere that had a large collection of medium sized cities rather than a few massive cities everyone is rammed into and has to live in some sprawling montonous dormitory surburb tens of kilometers away from any centre wheres any life or culture

If we had new cities there could be so much more experimentation into new forms of social organisation, city planning and architecture

In my own city nearly 45% of the entire country's population is crammed into the capital while smaller cities and rural areas are sucked dry of young bodied and skilled men and women and are stagnating and dying, 75% of the city is completely soulless unsustainable and badly serviced urban sprawl identical to anywhere else in the western world, slow bus systems and just 3 train lines lines attempt to serve the transport needs of nearly 1.2 million people among the traffic grid locked streets, all crippled by the narrow, winding georgian and medieval street network which simply cannot support the infrastructure for this size population, not that Im in any way encouraging or condoning road widening or destruction of the old city, but it simply should never have gotten this big, and its only sprawling more and more, not to mention the severe shortage of new housing being built and inevitable skyrocketing rents among the highest in the world,and yet the idea of creating a new city to counterbalance the capitals magnetic pull is not even on the cards

Last edited by wakka12; August 31st, 2018 at 09:40 PM.
wakka12 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 1st, 2018, 03:31 PM   #24
Phoenyxar
Registered User
 
Phoenyxar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Aarschot
Posts: 1,314
Likes (Received): 534

Quote:
Originally Posted by the spliff fairy View Post
Lagos, Kinshasa and Dar Es Salaam may grow to >60 million becoming the world's largest singular cities.
They'll still grow, no doubt, but they'll never reach 60 million, let alone 30. If the economic mega-hub that was/is Shanghai didn't do this, then no city on earth will. These cities will just grow and then stagnate at some point, suffering from the same problems as other cities of their size, and then surrounding towns will start ballooning. It happened and happens everywhere. The Shanghai-Nanjing axis had multiple towns/villages becoming giant cities. Another good example would be Cairo, with its giant suburbs.

This is already true for Lagos which is the largest of your 3 examples, Ibadan and Abeokuta already are local alternatives for the giant that is Lagos. Perhaps you're viewing this from a "metropolitan/megalopolitan area"-perspective, but those are not cities in my opinion.
Phoenyxar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2018, 10:37 PM   #25
Copperknickers
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 364
Likes (Received): 196

Quote:
Originally Posted by snot View Post


Western populations are stagnating and you want new cities.
While many US cities boomed last 50 years and are still suburban wastelands that can be developped in real cities.
Western populations may be stagnating in the long term, but in the short term they're experiencing an influx of migrants and crippling housing and infrastructure crises. It costs more to dig up and rebuild Victorian infrastructure in a city like London than it does to just build new infrastructure from scratch, so why not do it? The biggest problem in the US, UK and other post-industrial economies is that whole regions have seen their economies torn up, which means people flock to a few small regions with thriving economies.

But in the digital age, there's no longer any good reason for people to head to one specific region. Young people move away from Ohio and Derbyshire and other rusting post-industrial areas not because there's any inherent natural resource possessed by London or NYC, but because of the cachet these cities possess as 'cool', 'modern' metropolises in stark contrast to their aging delapidated hometowns. There's absolutely zero reason not to build a city in Derbyshire or Ohio that is modern and cool: stick in some generous infrastructure funding and business tax breaks, a big airport and some well-built housing and good public spaces, and people will flock there. We tried that in the 1960s in Europe, with places such as Milton Keynes - that didn't go as well as it could have because:

1. It was too car-centric.
2. It was too utopian in its planning, seeking to immediately conjure a geometrically perfect new city out of thin air rather than letting it grow organically into its own shape, meaning it has a reputation as being a bit soulless and ugly.
3. It was marketed too much at middle aged professionals and didn't seek to get a diverse array of people. This has improved in recent years though with high rates of immigration and the city is now demographically similar to other areas of Southern England.

Generally speaking Milton Keynes was a success, it's not a bad place to live by any stretch, just boring. Its biggest problem is its car-centric layout meaning it's not a good place for children but otherwise we definitely need more such places to take the strain off of big cities like London which are becoming less and less liveable.
__________________

wakka12 liked this post

Last edited by Copperknickers; September 4th, 2018 at 10:44 PM.
Copperknickers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2018, 08:39 PM   #26
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 12,553

I am not a fan of those new town projects in the middle of nowhere. It is not too clever in my opinion to start from scratch when you can instead take some struggling midsized cities and update their central districts while expanding their surrounding neighbourhoods or building entirely new districts, well connected with existing parts. The latter offers all the advantages you mention yet, on top of that gives the big advantage that there is already a lot of existing infrastructure so there is no gaping lack of for years or decades. For example why construct all sorts of infrastructure like national road and rail connections to some newtown in the middle of nowhere when you can buildt upon the existing connections to some existing midsized city, where you are fine with existing connections or need merely some modest expansions/updates.

The other crucial aspect is that those new towns or new districts are not planned all at once and then constructed but built in an evolutionary process, with frameworks, that enable later adaptations and include step wise realisation. Also there should be reserve spaces left with temporary developments which can be later on developed in whatever way is neede in 10, 20 or 30 years down the road. Not falling into the trap of car centric planning goes without saying.

The centre of Milton Keyenes looks soul suckin drab and outright anti-pedestrian, simply because how spread out everything is, with buildings lost in endless street space. No one enjoys strolling such streets.
__________________
Europa nicht den Leyen überlassen.

alexandru.mircea, jediwarrior67 liked this post
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2018, 03:05 PM   #27
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,500
Likes (Received): 10132

Another anti-gentrification article. Getting boring already. Would anyone actually prefer 70s and 80s New York to the one from 2018? Crime, grime, deprivation, stagnation? Thanks, but no thanks, if you want that you're welcome to visit Brownsville. New York and other cities have never been better. Sure we have the same brands everywhere, but hey if you're unhappy with that chain of Starbucks opening down the road, here's an idea - walk a little bit more and buy at an independent!
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 11:42 AM   #28
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,246
Likes (Received): 11379

^ why are you pitting them against each other like they are mutually incompatible? It is perfectly feasible to do regeneration without letting it turn into gentrification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperknickers View Post
Generally speaking Milton Keynes was a success, it's not a bad place to live by any stretch, just boring. Its biggest problem is its car-centric layout meaning it's not a good place for children but otherwise we definitely need more such places to take the strain off of big cities like London which are becoming less and less liveable.
Milton Keynes sounds in many ways, but not bad for children - quite the contrary. I wouldn't live there as a personal choice, but I'd do it for my son.
__________________
The Death of a Once Great City

jediwarrior67, tonttula liked this post
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 11:53 AM   #29
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,246
Likes (Received): 11379

Another great city that is going through the same sort of death, and fast: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/...-rents/570157/

Remarkable!
__________________
The Death of a Once Great City

Slartibartfas liked this post
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 12:09 PM   #30
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,500
Likes (Received): 10132

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru.mircea View Post
^ why are you pitting them against each other like they are mutually incompatible? It is perfectly feasible to do regeneration without letting it turn into gentrification.

If you give a new lick of paint to a few buildings, what changes? Nothing. They’ll be vandalised again. You need to bring in new people too.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 12:22 PM   #31
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 12,553

You do. But if that means throwing out all of the former inhabitants and bringing in people which aren't even living there most of the time, you bascially create a nice looking ghost town filled with a few short term visitors gazing at the ghost town, a glorified Disney Land without entrance fee. This is happening in quite a few cities around the world, especially those which are on the laissez faire end of the ideological spectrum.
__________________
Europa nicht den Leyen überlassen.

Last edited by Slartibartfas; September 15th, 2018 at 02:13 PM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 12:22 PM   #32
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,246
Likes (Received): 11379

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
If you give a new lick of paint to a few buildings, what changes? Nothing. They’ll be vandalised again. You need to bring in new people too.

which doesn't contradict anything I said
__________________
The Death of a Once Great City
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 12:58 PM   #33
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,500
Likes (Received): 10132

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
You do. But if that means throwing out all of the former inhabitants and bring in people which aren't even living there most of the time, you bascially create a nice looking ghost town filled with a few short term visitors gazing at the ghost town, a glorified Disney Land without entrance fee. This is happening in quite a few cities around the world, especially those which are on the laissez faire end of the ideological spectrum.
Ghost town? I wouldn't call Shoreditch ghost town. It is probably on of the liveliest areas in London. Or perhaps you would prefer how it was 20 years ago? Endless abandoned warehouses, dodgy pubs, thugs, crime and grime? You know which area has the most vacant properties? Kensington and Chelsea and that was never poor.

I think there's too much dishonesty and beating about the bush which prevents us from solving problems. It is this fear to offend and appear non-PC that's to blame. For instance take my area. It is your usual London suburb somewhere in the North East. My street is totally unremarkable, there's thousands like it here. However about 2 years ago the local council dumped a couple of problem families in the area and their thuggish offspring immediately set about re-doing the area. You'll find them hanging on street corners drinking, smoking weed, vandalising stuff, pissing, smashing bottles on the street surface, making comments at passers-by etc. We called the police numerous times - they can't do anything. So, would my area be better off without these people? Yes it would. Now imagine a problem area where there's hundreds of thugs like that. It is this criminal element that brings down areas and it is this criminal element that needs removing. A developer is looking to maximise his profit. It is number 1 rule of business. Can you really blame him? Besides it is a win-win situation because you get a safe, clean area where you can hang out with your friends. Is it really so bad?

In many places, including London, the problem is that the housing market is totally broken. For example when people are talking of 'social-cleansing' it bothers me not in the slightest. I'd rather have a fancy cocktail bar than some dodgy pub from which you're unlikely to return, if you have the stupidity to enter. The reason is this - I and thousands of other Londoners have zero chance to live in those areas anyway. On the one hand you have council tenants (it is them who are being moved out) who pay way below the market price and on the other you have the professionals who pay way above. There's no middle ground whatsoever. So if a guy who pays next to nothing for his Zone 2 flat is moved to Zone 4 or 6 where he will continue paying next to nothing is of no interest to me. What I want is mixed income developments where all working people can afford to live. Now I don't ask for a cheap flat in an exclusive development, no. But a more central area would be great, but alas, it is quite impossible to find anything of the sort. Still I will continue to visit places like Shoreditch, Vauxhall, Brixton and Hackney because they have great things there.

-

Take this place. Right beside King's Cross and St Pancras stations. For a very long time it was a disused area full of crumbling warehouses, rough sleepers and junkies. Now, it has been transformed into a fantastic area with incredible public spaces, restaurants and bars. Of course you can forget about living there, but it is, infinitely, infinitely better than how it used to be. That's a move forward. A positive one too. However we can make it better by putting a mixed income development next to that fancy tower and if a council tenant gets moved out to somewhere farther away in the process then so be it.

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showt...05188&page=174
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

wakka12 liked this post

Last edited by El_Greco; September 15th, 2018 at 01:19 PM.
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 02:33 PM   #34
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 12,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
Ghost town? I wouldn't call Shoreditch ghost town. It is probably on of the liveliest areas in London. Or perhaps you would prefer how it was 20 years ago? Endless abandoned warehouses, dodgy pubs, thugs, crime and grime? You know which area has the most vacant properties? Kensington and Chelsea and that was never poor.
I can't comment on these neighbourhoods as I really don't know much about them.

Gentrification can come in various forms of course. The one I was talking about is the form of gentrification which makes it even hard for upper middle class to afford homes, rented or purchased. Instead international investors or the filthy rich individuals are buying much of the appartment space while rarely actually using them. That leads to the death of urban live in those affected areas. If however, you have a more local gentrification of people with more attachment to the area, actually living in the apparments most of the time, things are quite different.

In a way what you describe seems to confirm what I am saying. Formerly poor neighbourhoods are now the places for upper middle class to be as more traditional wealthy places are increasingly turned into luxury ghosttowns. If the upscaling continues in places like Shoreditch, they might become at some point like those luxury ghost towns i was talking about. Of course, that gentrification can not go on forever, at some point there will not be enough investors left to drive it anymore, at which point one can expect another real estate bubble to burst.


You think by concentrating all underdogs into one ghetto the city as a whole will ultimately benefit? Well, good look with your South American approach. Maybe you fancy the idea of living in gated communities, and other secured places, with only moving inside of a safe car in between. Then your idea might fly, otherwise not really as you probably know that there aren't walls between those ghettos and the wealthy districts. Unless of course, you'd like to have those back as well.

That said, I don't suggest that low income groups should get luxury apartments in the very centre almost for free. The way to go are mixed income developments, with a strong intervention of the public hand to make sure, laissez faire capatilism doesn't undermine that. I think Vienna is doing a decent job, not a perfect one but way better than eg Munich and most certainly London.


Quote:
Take this place. Right beside King's Cross and St Pancras stations. For a very long time it was a disused area full of crumbling warehouses, rough sleepers and junkies. Now, it has been transformed into a fantastic area with incredible public spaces, restaurants and bars. Of course you can forget about living there, but it is, infinitely, infinitely better than how it used to be. That's a move forward. A positive one too. However we can make it better by putting a mixed income development next to that fancy tower and if a council tenant gets moved out to somewhere farther away in the process then so be it.

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showt...05188&page=174
Whats above ground level? Offices? Luxury aparmtents for foreign investors? My problem is not so much with the upper 1% living somehwere, I am having a problem with large real estates being constructed for standing around half empty (while still making a profit due to some abstract investement logics, or gambling on real estae bubbles). Empty blocks using up the best connected places is a waste of horrendously expensive infrastructure supporting those places. If those buildings are actually used by people than it is maybe a luxury district but a functional one. That is fine with me, as long as there are urban districts elsewhere with a more mixed income variety.
__________________
Europa nicht den Leyen überlassen.

jediwarrior67 liked this post
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 08:48 PM   #35
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,500
Likes (Received): 10132

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
In a way what you describe seems to confirm what I am saying. Formerly poor neighbourhoods are now the places for upper middle class to be as more traditional wealthy places are increasingly turned into luxury ghosttowns.
You haven't answered my question of whether or not you prefer these gentrifying areas as they used to be - half derelict and crime ridden? That's very important thing.

As for 'ghosttowns'...Sorry, but that is exaggeration. There are a few individual developments that are half empty but this does not apply to the entire areas. Not in America and certainly not in Europe. Shoreditch and similar areas have plenty of life in them. I think the spoiled millennials are just upset that they can't afford to buy a house in Alamo Square the moment he gets his degree in gender studies.

Quote:
You think by concentrating all underdogs into one ghetto the city as a whole will ultimately benefit?
Depends what you mean by underdogs. If you mean criminal elements and non-contributing members of society, then yeah they should be moved somewhere where there's least pressure on housing. If, however, underdogs merely mean poor, then no. As long as they work and contribute they have just as much right to live in the centre/inner city as the hedge fund managers. Criminal elements and non-contributing members of society do not!

Quote:
idea of living in gated communities
Having a concierge and security isn't a bad thing.

Quote:
The way to go are mixed income developments
That is what I said as well. Mixed income development is the way forward and it is happening, although at a very slow pace. However, it is important to remember, than when people talk about 'social cleansing' it is non-contributing members of society that are being moved out. They have zero right to complain. It is simply not fair that they can live in central areas while doing nothing, but a working Londoner cannot.

Quote:
Whats above ground level?
Literally everything. Schools, offices, fancy flats, mixed developments, college, restaurants, bars and parks. 10 years ago this was a notorious blackspot full of junkies, prostitutes and homeless.

Quote:
I am having a problem with large real estates being constructed for standing around half empty
But that is largely a myth. No development stands empty. Most are lived in or rented out. What stands empty are the grand Georgian and Victorian mansions in Kensington and Chelsea. This myth has been started by the lazy SJW loonies in America who dream of Communism and a time when everyone, no matter how poor, will be able to live in penthouses and buy Louis Vuittons and Chanels. There's even a thread with exact quotes on DLM. I bet the St Petersburg troll factory had a hand in this too. The simple fact is housing is under strain everywhere, because land is finite and expensive. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of all housing is empty. An empty house or a flat is nothing, it makes no money, it loses it. Most that are bought by investors are bought with an intention of renting them out.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

Last edited by El_Greco; September 15th, 2018 at 08:55 PM.
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2018, 09:53 PM   #36
Hudson11
Excelsior!
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 14,901
Likes (Received): 36235

Is there some sort of misconception going around that NYC isn't building affordable housing? Maybe stop and take a moment to look around rather than staring up at the millionaire condo towers. Do you really think that space would be viable for low income housing? No. Affordable/low income housing is being built in droves in the outer boroughs, especially the Bronx. Granted, we're not building enough- and our old stock of housing is in dire need of replacement, but it's not as though lower earners have nowhere to live anymore and will eventually be expunged entirely.
NYC, boring? feh. The author seems more jaded than bored.

Last edited by Hudson11; September 15th, 2018 at 10:07 PM.
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2018, 11:25 AM   #37
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 12,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
You haven't answered my question of whether or not you prefer these gentrifying areas as they used to be - half derelict and crime ridden? That's very important thing.
I don't know those areas, but if they were more or less some central ghettos for the poor than my answer is no.

I think we are talking past each other. I have no problem with the artsy, interesting phase of gentrification even though, I do think that one should mitigate the harshest side effects. The problem is that gentrification rarely stops at this stage.

The interesting phase is usually being further upgraded to neighbourhoods for the rich where those who do interesting stuff are also outpriced. Usually those neighbourhoods loose most of their appeal afterwards, even if they might be even cleaner and nicer to look at. If gentrification continues even further even the rich are priced out and instead investors or filthy rich come in. At that point the residential live will start to slowly collapse as the actual use of apartments will sharply decline even though prices for them skyrocket.

Most certainly gentrification does not continue forever, it is limited by demand. There is only so much demand for speculative investors and super rich. The nicest cities are those which are still for whatever reason not on the radar of the superrich, ie where gentrification halts at a level where urban structures are very upscale but still somewhat intact.


That is the one aspect, the other aspect is mixing of income. If you concentrate all misery into some dense quarter you are multiplying the negative potential for the entire cities. As I said before, those miserable quarters don't have walls. You can build walls around your middle income/ upper income homes though and live in modern castles. Apparently you don't find that idea too appaling.

Quote:
As for 'ghosttowns'...Sorry, but that is exaggeration. There are a few individual developments that are half empty but this does not apply to the entire areas.
I don't know concrete numbers but I heard that things are pretty bad in Vancouver. What is the actual de facto usage of residential areas in the most affected parts there?

Quote:
Depends what you mean by underdogs. If you mean criminal elements and non-contributing members of society
Low qualified people of whatever kind which of course are most affected by unemployement and most likely to turn towards criminality. Concentrating them into ghettos has been shown time and time again to make things worse. The "non-contributing" share of society isn't a fixed number, unlike what you imply. You can potentially decrease it by incrasing social upwards mobility especially for that group of society. Putting them into such ghettos is the best way to minimize that. If you grow up in such an area your chances of getting out of the hole are minimal. They are much better if those concentrated ghettos of misery don't exist. Social upwards mobility in cities with such ghettos is pretty miserable and crime across the entire city is usually much higher. I mean, I thought the right is also against "no-go zones"? Or do those on the right side of the spectrum believe those "no-go zones" (ie ghetto of the poor) go away if you simply find a "solution" to all muslims and immigrants?

Quote:
Having a concierge and security isn't a bad thing.
Well, if you prefer having to relly on them for actually staying safe and alive instead of merely serving ones own paranoia, you truly like to live in a city very different from the one I want to live in.
f renting them out.[/QUOTE]
__________________
Europa nicht den Leyen überlassen.

Last edited by Slartibartfas; September 16th, 2018 at 11:31 AM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2018, 10:24 PM   #38
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,500
Likes (Received): 10132

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
I don't know those areas, but if they were more or less some central ghettos for the poor than my answer is no.
All ghettos are like that. Therefore the question is simple - we either leave them as they are - derelict and crime ridden or we turn them into somewhere people actually want to visit and live. Inevitably the past demographic will be removed. But in my book that is a price worth paying. Isn't it?

Quote:
I do think that one should mitigate the harshest side effects.
So you prefer that junkie or a criminal or a thug living there?

Quote:
Low qualified people of whatever kind which of course are most affected by unemployement and most likely to turn towards criminality.
There's no poverty in the West. Period. If you can afford a smartphone you're not poor. I've seen poverty in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but people there, for some reason do not feel inclined to turn to criminality! Funny isn't it? And that's the crux of the matter - criminality is a choice on the part of the individual, not something that has been forced on him. I really have no clue why liberals constantly try and perpetuate this myth. Criminals take it and run with it. For instance whenever a teen thug gets busted by police, the story is always the same :

- why did you join the gang, son?
- oh coz of racism/foreigners stealing jerbs, innit, blud!

In other words he worked very hard to find legal employment but racism/foreigners meant he had only one choice - to turn to criminality. And liberals indulge them by perpetuating this myth. It is bullshit, though. Selling drugs or robbing Chinese tourists is simply easier and pays better than stacking shelves in Tesco. Such criminal elements must be removed as far away from cities as possible. This might even do them good -

a. they are removed from opportunities for crime
b. they lose their criminal networks, thus might change their ways

The other elements that should be moved are the non-contributing members of society, such as long term unemployed. As somebody who does not contribute anything he/she has no right to demand where to live. They should be placed where there's least pressure on housing. If they are unhappy with this then there's plenty of government skills programmes which can help them into the labour market. I don't see anything controversial about any of it.

Quote:
The "non-contributing" share of society isn't a fixed number
I know it is not, but what I am saying is that these should not be housed in the prime locations. They should be moved to somewhere where there's least pressure on housing, ie- some town somewhere else.

Quote:
You can potentially decrease it by incrasing social upwards mobility especially for that group of society.
Well there's plenty of government skills programmes that can help them. They should make use of them Too often, though, they prefer to collect the dole and do nothing.

Quote:
Putting them into such ghettos is the best way to minimize that. If you grow up in such an area your chances of getting out of the hole are minimal. They are much better if those concentrated ghettos of misery don't exist.
Did you read the part where I said that criminal elements and long term unemployed should be moved and not the working poor.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

wakka12 liked this post
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2018, 09:08 AM   #39
gandhi.rushabh1992
amdavad meri jaan
 
gandhi.rushabh1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Delhi ~ Ahmedabad
Posts: 12,661
Likes (Received): 11249

I had to remind myself that I dont live in NYC to lift my mood up after reading that article.

The street shops will keep on shutting down as long as the online retail industry keeps growing. As a society we want a vibrant city with lively streets lined with shops, but when it comes to the individual, they choose to buy from the net. There is a definite disconnect in between which is causing this very visible damage to the urban fabric of the cities.
__________________
Ahmedabad EYE - SSC Ahmedabad on FB

Golden Age liked this post

Last edited by gandhi.rushabh1992; September 20th, 2018 at 09:41 AM.
gandhi.rushabh1992 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2018, 01:35 AM   #40
luci203
Registered User
 
luci203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,183
Likes (Received): 1374

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
Well, that was a thoroughly depressing read ...

"Instead, our leaders seem hopelessly invested in importing a race of supermen for the supercity, living high above the clouds. Jetting about the world so swiftly and silently, they are barely visible. A city of glass houses where no one’s ever home. A city of tourists. An empty city."

https://harpers.org/archive/2018/07/...entrification/
Typical first world worries... when you don't have real problems.

From the start, New York is much more than Manhattan, actually the majority live outside Manhattan.

Second, the glass houses in the sky where no one’s ever home, really occupy just a rather small part of Manhattan.

Of course, poor funding of roads, public transport, education, health are real problems.

Bunch of russian oligarhs, chinese new rich, arab investors and local wealthy people that buy empty apartments in their ivory towers are really first world problems.

Just like those soviet nostalgics, some people just miss the ''good old days''

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/photographers-gallery/

full of life if you ask me...


66-252 by nick dewolf photo archive, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

14th Street Meat Packing 1976 by Eugene Gannon, on Flickr[/QUOTE]

Meatpacking District and Soho, before damn hipsters made it all dull and boring.
__________________
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says W T F...

wakka12, Zaz965, El_Greco, goodybear liked this post
luci203 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us