Next time someone tells you about how everyone is returning to the cities, point them to these maps based on the 2010 census. Available for the forty largest urban areas in the United States, they show, almost without exception, the central cities losing population and the suburbs gaining.
According to the mapmakers, “deep blue indicates that the population doubled (or more), pure red means that everyone left, grey denotes no change, and the intermediate tones represent the spectrum of increases and decreases in-between.” The white beyond the urban periphery indicates very low densities.
PE homeopathic treatment is safe and there are no preventive steps for sexual disorders, but it is not price of sildenafil true. Make sure you come out of the rut and try generic tadalafil cipla thought about this different sexual positions. The truth is no one wants to live their life under the shadow of a viagra australia problem that can easily solve your problem without any hazardous step. It is known to revitalize and rejuvenate and can buy cialis australia relieve fatigue and can enhance physical performance. Stephen Von Worley, who made these maps, points out that many central cities have a few trendy neighborhoods that have seen rapid growth. The Antiplanner wonders how many of these neighborhoods were subsidized with tax-increment financing. Cynicism aside, the Antiplanner has no objection to an urban renaissance if people want to move back to cities. I only object to planners who want to subsidize that renaissance or force it to take place through urban-growth boundaries.
Such planners often distort census results to make their point. For example, the Brookings Institution reports that Suburbs Lose in 2010 Census. Deep into the article it turns out suburbs did not lose population, they only grew slower than they had been growing–and then only in some years of the decade.
As the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Wendell Cox, shows, in terms of actual numbers (rather than the percentages show on the maps), 2009 data indicate that the suburbs of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas grew by 2.6 million people since 2000, while the central cities lost 4.5 million. The net loss of 1.9 million people indicates a migration to smaller urban areas, which is akin to moving to the suburbs since smaller areas tend to be lower in density.
Early results from the 2010 census affirm this conclusion: suburbs are still growing faster–usually much faster–than central cities.
Andrew, it is useful to spam the comments with sidetracking.
@50: as I wrote, I tossed in an aside to contextualize the command of facts.
If you were able to back your claims, you’d have done so by now.
You haven’t. Focusing on ‘ocean’ (my throwaway magnet) is part of the tactic. That is how it works. You are welcome for that lifeline. Works far too often. Despite the fact everyone has a scroll wheel.
DS
Sandy Teal:
There are no exact definitions of an isthmus, peninsula, cove, bay, sound, river, creek, estuary, archipelago, and a thousand other terms, and especially where they begin or end.
What a bunch of rubbish. People’s common sense is perfectly clear as to what most of these terms are, which is why they are used to refer to similar land and waterforms around the world in a consistent manner.
I went back and looked at how I used the word “ocean.†I was comparing and contrasting Seattle with cities like SF, NYC, Boston, Phoenix, Portland, and Houston. In that context, and on a blog comment, bordering the “ocean†is a pretty good use of the term. I guess I could have used the term “salt waterâ€, but salinity had nothing to do with the point. “Coastal†would have made some sense in context, but that makes the Seattle situation even more complicated.
Seattle is neither a coastal city in any normal understanding of the word, nor does it border the Ocean. No normal person would ever understand the geographic situation of the city thusly. To be a coastal city, a city needs to actually lie on the edge of a Sea or Ocean. Seattle is “near” the coast, as are Rome, Newark, Houston, London, and many other places, but it is not coastal in the way New York, or Copenhagen or Capetown are.
Likewise, I used the word “peninsula†to describe Seattle to show similarity to SF, although as someone pointed out, it is more of an isthmus.
Its not “more of” an isthmus. It is an isthmus. A isthmus is a narrow neck of land connected to larger bodies of land on both ends and surrounded by water on its other two sides. A peninsula is a narrow neck of land which just into a contiguous body of water and is thus surrounded by water on three sides. This is no more confusing than comparing a triangle to a square.
But is SF a peninsula with the Golden Gate Bridge?
Of course it is. The Golden Gate Bridge has nothing to do with the natural geographic landform of the SF Peninsula and in no way affects it.
To me, it depends on the context.
Not to any one who understands that words have definite meanings and uses in common speach.
I guess you people like to argue to the extreme on this website, so I will play along.
So according to the non-contextual definers, there are only four continents, there is only one ocean, and California is an isthmus between the San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe.
There are no coastal cities in the entire world, because they all border only bays, sounds, and harbors and other named bodies of water. Italy and Greece are thousands of miles from the Ocean.
The Atlantic Ocean has huge holes in it, such as the Saragossa Sea, the The Grand Banks, and the Gulf Stream.
I thought planning students were anal. But now I realize they have more sense than pretend planning students.
Sandy, please provide evidence for the following claims you made (and continue to avoid providing evidence for) – hand-flapping and changing the subject is not evidence:
Thank you sooooo much for not changing the subject and providing the evidence to back your evidenceless claims!!!!!
DS
Dan, it is getting hard to take you seriously.
You have provided no rationale why SF and NYC should be the model for planning education, while I have provided more than enough prima facie evidence that it should not.
You have already conceded that Seattle is largely suburban like every other western city (comment #8 on June 10, 2011).
Hand flapping. And mendacity about “conceding”.
No need to make sh– up – just admit that you made it up, or scuttle away like others do when called on their BS.
DS
Perhaps, Dan, you could tell us why you think SF and NYC ought to be the model for planning education.
The hand-flapping and tap-dancing is always the same.
DS
Don’t bother asking Dan for an intelligent response. In his own words, he isn’t serious:
On June 13th, 2011, Dan said:
Andrew, it is useful to spam the comments with sidetracking.
Sandy,
Since you’re new here, I’d like to give you a valuable piece of advice:
Don’t feed the trolls.
Still smarting over making the false assertion, MJ, and someone noticing? Noticing false assertions isn’t trolling, despite your fervent wish for it to be so. Your (seemingly) purposeful misuse of troll doesn’t work for you, sadly. And you can’t help poor Sandy tap-dance out of their little pickle, either. People can read and scroll up, you know.
DS