Posted on 03/01/2016 10:15:16 AM PST by ek_hornbeck
In 1974, corporate behemoth GE moved its headquarters from Manhattan to the suburban Fairfield, Connecticut. Last week, it announced that it was leaving Fairfield for Boston's waterfront district. And as GE goes, it has people wondering whether the suburbs are going to lose their economic lifeblood.
Mad Men reminded us that mid-century advertising executives worked in the heart of Manhattan, but slowly began their retreat to the burbs as crime exploded in New York City. The corporate offices followed them and their growing families in the 1970s and 1980s.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Well you’re astute enough to realize the issue.
I’d be putting up the “for sale” sign before relative values decline.
While I was never a Deadhead, the older I get, the more appreciation I acquire.
Thanks for the link.
Ha!!
Whatever......
“Boston is propped up by Harvard, MIT——”
Really?
The City of Cambridge must be devastated.
.
Who will pay the taxes?
Leitchfield ain’t New Haven
It’s whichever parts have too many minorities like anywhere else
78% white
10% black
The poster I replied to (was it u?) said the whole state was a ghetto
Which is preposterous
Outsiders see remarks like that and they think Infowars
I’m not wishing for it to happen.
I am watching it happen.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
That is until the SHTF.
Which is what explains it more than anything. The new "talent" doesn't need big living spaces anymore because they're staying single and delaying (or denying) childbirth.
Those costs are all higher because indirectly more energy is being consumed such as more union government employees, which have a negative return on cost. Rents are influenced by demand however if rents go sufficiently higher then more steel and concrete is ordered, and government and other employees hired, to build more capacity, so pollution goes up. Cost is a wonderful proxy for total energy consumption/pollution because it cuts through all the political baloney. While there are exceptions, in general if something costs more, more energy is being consumed somewhere. The ultimate reason gold and diamonds cost so much is because a tremendous amount of energy consumption and pollution output is required to obtain them. The same is true for high rise buildings in a big city.
Utterly ridiculous claim. Blanket statements like this are usually unsupportable.
Most suburbs remain the wealthiest and best educated in their respective states and metro areas. Getting older?? Not as old as many decrepit cities and no place is UNIVERSALLY “old” because all human built environments are of varied age. Suburbs can renew and grow just as well as any other city or town. Suburbs weren’t (and aren’t today) built uniformly poorly. Levittown, NY is today a stable prosperous community where most of the original houses still stand and today’s rich suburbs are filled with even better materials. Low ceilings?? Most suburbs today have 9 FT ceilings as minimum and if you meant standards, today’s rich suburbs have some of the highest catering to rich populations. The “close together” comment makes little sense too as cities are famous for having large lots and being too spread out. Cities are where you find homes too close together. Today’s suburbs aren’t built like Levittown. I’ve never seen any (aside from older communities) where all the homes were alike. I see many different floor plans and differing exterior materials and styles within the same community at times. Even Levittown now has unrecognizable homes compared to when they were first built due to being added onto and changed around inside and out.
This whole article seems to suggest the FALSE claim that fortunes have reversed in the U.S. It’s FALSE to claim that suburbs are in decline. The fastest growing counties in most metro areas are suburban counties. Suburban towns are showing the highest growth rates, not cities. Most U.S. cities are growing again and are undergoing renewal thankfully but the suburbs are again growing fast too. The only declining suburbs are the ones that happened to have lower property values for various reasons and have undergone massive demographic changes as poor urban former slum dwellers swept in and brought their crime and gangs with them.
.
On a high level, the residential real estate market is driven largely by folks trying to get away from the violence and criminality of ghetto people.
They are strongly motivated to create safety for their families.
That’s not rayciss - it’s common sense.
Ghetto people are a great motivator, and they unwittingly drive certain areas of the economy. Home theater / entertainment electronics, for instance: As people increasingly perceive movie theaters as less safe (maybe true) and less civil (definitely true), they stay home for their entertainment options.
I’m very southern but I lived in Manhattan in the 80s and am descended from Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island and one of my old business partners lived in Washington depot next to Leon Hess estate
You could do worse than rural Connecticut
Where on the peninsula do you reside?
I lived in Foster City and San Mateo, and the beater house I rented later sold for a million bucks!
I’m in Pacifica.
That’s nonsense. Most suburbs are absolutely fine and going strong. Take a look at a real estate magazine!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.