|
ITT we discuss and/or commiserate about how where we live will change in the next few years. I'd like to keep the scope to metropolitan area or smaller. I wrote ten years in the title, but feel free to conjecture about any time frame. Do you see your city getting worse? Better? What trends do you think will hold? Get as granular as you like. To start, I currently live in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, USA. Hampton Roads is the generally accepted name for a loose knit number of cities. Traditionally, Hampton Roads includes Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Hampton, and Newport News. As a region, I expect Hampton Roads to do well over the next ten years. There is always an influx of new people from being a big military area. Admittedly, I don't know much about them, but we do have a few ports that as far as I know are doing ok. Norfolk seems to be growing at least a bit, along with Newport News and Hampton. Chesapeake is also expanding. Now the downsides. Traffic has been bad in the area since forever. I only see it getting worse. The housing market is a bit of a mixed bag. There are single family homes to be had, but a lot of the expansion is deeper into Chesapeake, which is getting away from the more popular areas for QoL of Virginia Beach and Norfolk. Virginia Beach seems to have a trend of new apartment complexes and townhomes. Norfolk is a city where your chances of being a crime victim can change block by block. Portsmouth is accessible by tolled tunnels and is a pretty tough area to live in. I'm not sure how that city alone will do in the next ten years. Newport News and Hampton are popping up with new places to do things, but they are isolated on the Peninsula, and are also infamous for crime. So I guess overall the outlook is good, with just an increase of the same problems we've always had. I wonder if that is what everyone else is experiencing where they live.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Baltimore will have an ever-dwindling amount of taxable property as Hopkins and other non-profits continue buying up land within the city, BPD will have had another 6-8 people mysteriously die in their custody, the white L will have elected a Republican to the city council, Fells Point will start flooding with enough regularity that Baltimore will begin doing something about stemming the impact of global warming, Kamenetz will have begun to mend the long-standing rift between Annapolis and the city, Foxtrot will still be flying the same busted rear end ready to fall apart helicopters, the white L starts becoming the white Y as Westport and Morrell Park become the next edge of gentrification, and the Harford/Carroll county people will still be clutching their mcmansions as those suburbs die out because they are poo poo scared of anyone slightly darker than the shade of blinding white snow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
I presently live in South Bend, Indiana. Notre Dame University is just across the river and up a hill. The Studebaker Plant used to be the city's largest employer, and when they went bust 50-some years ago, it really destroyed our local economy. We do have the South Shore Rail line, which runs from South Bend to Chicago (right to Millenium Station). And when fiber was run across the country, it was apparently done along major railroad lines, an' several of those pass through here. We've got the 'combined sewer overflow' thing, with a consent decree signed with the EPA, pledging projects that will likely cost half a billion dollars over the next twenty years. AM General HQ is South Bend, and their major plant ain't to far. The culture is getting /super/ hip. The city's arts are thriving, though the artists are still starving. Lotta travellin' types too, rainbow kids an' whatnot. Young folk are moving downtown, and having a fun time there. There's this guy, Kevin Smith (not the director). He bought Union Station (designed by Burnham & Root!), turned it into a carrier hotel. Now it's a tier-4 data center, right on the railroad tracks, right where a couple major branches of fiber cross. He bought Building 84, one of the two remaining Studebaker buildings, which is just across the tracks from the Union Station Technology Center. Building 84 has 920,000 square feet of space. They've completed lead remediation and asbestos remediation; it'll be opening as a giant server farm, with plans for using the waste heat to warm nearby neighborhoods. In that neighborhood, there's a lot of homeless shelters, a minor league baseball stadium, and I guess there's a Potawatomi casino going in soon. I'd like to see Amtrak and South Shore move their terminals from the west side, over to the main bus terminal over on South Street (a block from Union Station), so people arrive in downtown, rather than way out at the airport. I also think AM General should collaborate with google to design and build a fleet of driverless electric cars - get the Studebaker brand on it - to operate downtown, solving the 'last mile problem' in public transit. I think we'll see a significant move away from cars. The Chase Tower has been purchased by Aloft, and is being redeveloped. That's he tallest building downtown. The JMS building was sold from Friedline to Great Lakes Capital, and they're converting it to residences. The old abandoned Hoffman Hotel has opened as an Artists Loft. The LaSalle Building is being renovated into condos. Matthews LLC has built up a lot of the East Bank Village. Panzica & Perri have a few other apartments going up in the Village, but they don't really help reach the population density targets that Matthews wants to see for that neighborhood. There's issues with gentrification and race, but I think the city's handling it better than most. We've got a *brilliant* mayor, Pete Buttigieg, who I think is likely to be in consideration for SecHUD in the future - the NYT has already profiled him as a potential presidential candidate in the future. .I'd like to see a proposal for a federal project with funding that could address the combined sewer overflow problem up and down the St. Joseph river, in a way that would allow cities to amend the consent degree with a plan that will cost less and be *more* effective than the present plan - but I'm not an expert on that stuff. The Mayor recently completed his '1000 homes in 1000 days' project, which addressed vacant and abandoned properties. It was a pretty brilliant plan, and well executed. I'unno. I'm very optimistic, and see good reason for hope 'round here 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
I think that's pretty cool that we have a positive outlook story already. You make it sound like a nice place to visit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Washington DC will become more expensive. The death toll from preventable Metro accidents will rise, while I will be sentenced to prison for kicking someone down an escalator for standing on the left. Fifty-fifty change of another major trrrrrrrrrst attack, probably at Union Station or on the Metro.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Seattle will become even more a rich person's playground, just like San Francisco. All the actual workers will be pushed to Shoreline to the north or Kent to the south, and the culture of Capital Hill's young, gay community will be annihilated under the weight of techbros and woo-girls. Traffic will continue to get worse, and Bertha will still be half a mile from completing her journey.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Houston will worsen as oil prices never fully recover and never reach anywhere close to $100 a barrel ever again, causing the real estate market to continue to shrink with it. The city will continue desperately looking for validation on a national level, calling itself a "world-class city", despite struggling with basic amenities on an almost comical level versus other cities like public transportation worth half a gently caress and a recycling system that would have been effective circa 1985. City officials will continue telling real estate companies and developers to "go hog wild, its whatever  " as young professionals continue their revolving door of coming to take advantage of lower costs of living, only to realize that, "gently caress, this is still Texas" and then bounce back to the Northeast or Northwest, taking their experience and buying power with them. The crumbling, decaying, concrete sarcophagus of irrelevance called the Astrodome will still be standing because  you can't tear down history or some nonsense.The nightlife scene will still be pretty good though and the microbreweries will still be alright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
My city will be 95% Puerto Rican instead of 40%. Can't wait to move out if this poo poo-hole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Super Aggro Crag posted:My city will be 95% Puerto Rican instead of 40%. Can't wait to move out if this poo poo-hole. Yikes. You sound like a real treat. Where is this poo poo-hole? How have the Puerto Ricans in your town threatened the security of your people and the future of your children?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
crime will increase exponentially in Chicago and everyone will die. everyone
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Detroit might, if another Kilpatrick doesn't come up, have its population drop level out at somewhere a little above 600k. The island-ification of the city will continue apace, with new residential developments increasingly clustered around a few neighborhoods, like Midtown, Corktown, etc., while the rest of the city continues to slide into total abandonment and services are withdrawn from a few areas. The new clusters of development will be whiter and richer than the old neighborhoods being abandoned, and there will be tensions between old Detroiters and the new gentrifiers- the gentrifiers will either be totally oblivious to the social frictions, or deny they're a cause of any problems. Despite those changes, people will still make the same tired jokes about crime and will still visualize Detroit as it was in the '80s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Serious question: would you welcome OCP and their plans for Delta City?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
I live in Central Oregon (west of the Cascades). Things will probably be about the same in 10 years, with maybe some more people due to the college towns growing. At most, you might see a lot more people start commuting to Portland from Salem because housing is insane there. Oh, and maybe they'll finally finish the road going from Philomath to Newport, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
I live in a smallish town in Southern Georgia and I think it'll do ok. Flowers Foods is headquartered here and its local factory is something that can't really be shipped overseas. The local University and Technical College both seem to be expanding. The downtown area has set itself up as a kind of a regional shopping destination with art galleries and hipster coffee bars and antiques and whatnot. Georgia is actually changing really fast demographics wise, so hopefully we'll be majority minority by 2025 and will be able to get out from under lovely republican leadership.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Serious question: would you welcome OCP and their plans for Delta City?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Serious question: would you welcome OCP and their plans for Delta City? Ok, the Broad family doesn't craft weapons of mass incarceration or everything, but "price people out of homes and turn slums/formerly troubled areas into highrise luxury condoworklofts while loving people in public service jobs" is a pretty proven tactic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
I leave near Tampa and it will probably be exactly the same in 10 years. Now, in 30 or 40 years, it will probably be underwater.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Seattle will become even more a rich person's playground, just like San Francisco. All the actual workers will be pushed to Shoreline to the north or Kent to the south, and the culture of Capital Hill's young, gay community will be annihilated under the weight of techbros and woo-girls. Traffic will continue to get worse, and Bertha will still be half a mile from completing her journey. Meanwhile, Bellevue, Kirkland and Redmond will schmeer into a single slime mold wreathed by an ouroboros of bolted-together Audi Q8s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Seattle will become even more a rich person's playground, just like San Francisco. All the actual workers will be pushed to Shoreline to the north or Kent to the south, and the culture of Capital Hill's young, gay community will be annihilated under the weight of techbros and woo-girls. Traffic will continue to get worse, and Bertha will still be half a mile from completing her journey. Also, less teriyaki joints 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
The white and Latino areas of Chicago will continue to gentrify, Asians will start to colonize parts of the South Side, meanwhile the black population will continue to decline and the worst parts of the South/West sides will become the new Detroit. To the extent they aren't already. Population will continue to decline but quality of life will probably go up for non poor residents due to new amenities and the housing market remaining relatively affordable. (There are massive areas of underdeveloped land in desirable areas, and liberal building regulations.) Expect police brutality to keep escalating unless there is massive investment in social programs and extra officers for community policing. Maybe Mayor Michelle Obama can make that happen. Longer term climate change puts Chicago in a very enviable position and it becomes a new boomtown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Longer term climate change puts Chicago in a very enviable position and it becomes a new boomtown. That is interesting to think about. Here is a recent-ish article about Chicago's outlook in regards to climate change. Some other articles I read suggested Buffalo, NY or Montana and the Dakotas as places that could benefit from climate change. But not Colorado. The Atlantic posted:Similarly, in Denver, Colorado, a landlocked city that might seem appealing because of its mile-high protection from rising seawaters, scientists warn that climate change could exacerbate droughts and harm water quality. “Water quality is sensitive both to increased water temperatures and changes in patterns of precipitation,” according to a Colorado Water Conservation Board report. “For example, changes in the timing and hydrograph may affect sediment load and pollution, impacting human health.” Scientists believe heat waves and wildfires in the state will also become more severe and more frequent, according to a Climate Change Vulnerability Study published earlier this year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Vancouver BC In the immediate future the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts, the remnant of a never fully constructed highway system, will be torn down and in its place will be a giant park and all sorts of new condos. The predicted carmaggedon will never appear. The Vision Party which has won the last two elections will continue to easily win elections, and they'll continue on their current trajectory of building separated bike lanes and marginally densifying existing residential areas of East Vancouver where they face less NIMBY resistance. Various "road diet" initiatives begin and the city begins to reclaim space from roads for added space for pedestrians and cyclists. Granville Island and Water St become pedestrian only. Massive areas of the city remain untouched low density single family housing. The Evergreen Skytrain Line to Port Moody/Coquitlam is finally completed and those cities start densifying dramatically with all sorts of dull cookie cutter condos. The Broadway line is also completed and the scale and rate of redevelopment of Broadway is intense. Broadway becomes Vancouver's 2nd downtown with added commercial construction. All of these rapid transit lines are incredible successes but this doesn't change anything politically, and transit remains poorly funded, with Translink being the whipping boy of the Province and further expansion politically difficult. The Province approves expansion to Langley, but mandates that the line be Skytrain technology instead of the light rail favoured by Surrey. It is still not completed 10 years from now. The Township of Langley starts to redevelop Willowbrook Mall with condos all around it similar to what is currently occurring in Brentwood. Squamish becomes a significant suburb with many calling for rapid transit options out to there, but the provincial government is uninterested. Downtown skyscraper construction in Vancouver has become solely ultra luxury buildings marketed entirely to the global elite and to a lesser extent boomers cashing out on their multi million dollar Vancouver bungalows. The housing bubble never bursts but merely eases off and despite the recent introduction of a 15% tax on real estate purchases by foreigners the city continues to be a favoured place to park money and/or retire for foreign (mostly Chinese) capital and persons. As the older generation of Chinese Canadians die off, Chinatown is increasingly taken over by new yuppie businesses. Condo marketers bend over backward to try to find a way to market this area as a part of "Gastown." The overall Canadian economy will be so mediocre that Vancouver along with Toronto will continue to be relatively economically vibrant bright spots that will continue to attract young people and new immigrants. The skyhigh cost of living however will result in most people eventually moving on after a few years. Entrepeneurs and artists in particular are driven out and Vancouver will become even more of a soulless domain of the established super rich. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Denver Denver is going to become San Francisco and the Bay Area as it existed in about 2009 - filled with startups and a burgeoning tech scene amongst a tremendous gain in population. From July 2015 to July 2016 we added 100,000 new people via migration in the united states and immigration, this trend will only expand in the next ten years. I predict the population of Colorado as a whole will increase by 1.25 million people. This will make our housing crisis even worse, though I doubt we would ever approach San Francisco levels of house pricing, housing costs will still be growing and growing in 2026. Areas of the city that are currently being gentrified (RiNo, everything in the highlands outside of LoHi, Five Points, Lincoln Park) will have been completely gentrified by 2026, and neighborhoods that are still now considered to be "bad" will start being gentrified as well (Montbello, Globeville, anything south of Federal and Alameda and anything east of Colorado)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Longer term climate change puts Chicago in a very enviable position and it becomes a new boomtown. It's interesting to compare Chicago to Manhattan on this issue. I don't want to make this thread about climate change, but it's central to NYC's future. It's plausible at this point that the consensus view of climate change (as embodied in the IPCC reports) is overly conservative, and we'll likely see faster than expected sea rise and extreme weather in our lifetime. The implication is that NYC will see Hurricane Sandy-style flooding on an increasingly regular basis, and there's really nothing to prevent a similarly sized storm from hitting NYC over the next 10 years. After enough devastation the insurers or bankers will give up and ultra-expensive Lower Manhattan real-estate will be worth far less, profoundly affecting the city's economy. NYC MIGHT get lucky and the next major storm doesn't happen until after planned infrastructure improvements are completed, but this is completely up to chance. A recent Rolling Stone article had a decent summary of the issue: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/can-new-york-be-saved-in-the-era-of-global-warming-20160705 To summarize, Manhattan is a castle in the sand and no-one knows how long the illusion will last. It is actually difficult to predict what the city will look like in 10-20 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Corny posted:Denver Is Denver already building lots of new condos and apartment buildings? A big part of SF's problem is that they simply never built any new supply on the scale necessary and they continue to not really build anywhere near enough. Last time I was in SF two years ago I only saw one new condo showroom and I found this just shocking considering the scale of employment gains the city had been having.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Jacksonville Our football team will have moved to St. Louis, sea level rise will start to periodically flood beach and riverfront areas, there will be widespread denial about this, and everything else will be basically the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:It's interesting to compare Chicago to Manhattan on this issue. I don't want to make this thread about climate change, but it's central to NYC's future. I also don't want the thread to turn into a discussion solely about climate change, but it is an issue central to a lot of cities futures. For Norfolk VA, currently catching some wind and rain from Hermine, it certainly is. I saw a map of projected areas that will be under water. I don't remember what time frame or other parameters, but it looked like 50% of the city would be swamp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Is Denver already building lots of new condos and apartment buildings? A big part of SF's problem is that they simply never built any new supply on the scale necessary and they continue to not really build anywhere near enough. Last time I was in SF two years ago I only saw one new condo showroom and I found this just shocking considering the scale of employment gains the city had been having. The answer is complicated - yes, there are new condos and apartment buildings being built, there are a large number of developments that have gone up in Denver in the past six months and we only have more on the way. The issue however, is that they are marketed as "Luxury Apartments" and geared towards people looking to buy luxury apartments. There isn't enough affordable housing being built at a fast enough pace in Denver to offset the rise in housing prices caused by these developments being built. Thankfully; unlike SF, Denver and the Metro area has no shortage of land space to build upon, so that constraining factor isn't an issue here. Let me contrast this with Boulder. Boulder is famous for having an ordinance within the city charter that limits the amount of new building within the city to be 1% of population growth in that year, meaning almost no new housing ever gets constructed in Boulder. Not only that, but Boulder also has another ordinance that prevents the cities borders from ever expanding, in order to prevent the open space areas around Boulder from being developed. That second one isn't so unreasonable, Boulder is a very pretty city, but the first ordinance means that Housing prices in Boulder only skyrocket and will continue to only skyrocket. Google is coming to Boulder and bringing about 1000 new tech jobs to the city, and there simply isn't enough housing to house Google workers. Not only that, but Boulder is also a college town, so that means that a good portion of the housing in Boulder goes to students; who need to have easy access to the University and environs. In short, its a perfect storm for ever increasing housing prices within Boulder. I lived up there a couple years ago, and I payed $550 a month for a room in a house that was about a mile from campus. If I were to live in that same house now, I would be paying $800 a month. You could have bought a 3 Bedroom/2 Bath family home for $700,000 at one point (which is already absurd!) at that same point, now it would set you back about $850,000 to $900,000 Corny fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Corny posted:The answer is complicated - yes, there are new condos and apartment buildings being built, there are a large number of developments that have gone up in Denver in the past six months and we only have more on the way. The issue however, is that they are marketed as "Luxury Apartments" and geared towards people looking to buy luxury apartments. There isn't enough affordable housing being built at a fast enough pace in Denver to offset the rise in housing prices caused by these developments being built. Thankfully; unlike SF, Denver and the Metro area has no shortage of land space to build upon, so that constraining factor isn't an issue here. "Luxury apartments" is probably 90% of what gets built in Vancouver as well. There's an argument often made that these luxury apartments shield existing low income housing from competition and helps keep rents low. I'm not entirely sure I buy that argument, but in an environment with good renter protections and regulations, I think maybe this effect could exist. It would exist for a little while anyway. In the long term it's likely that the effect of new developments will incentivise redevelopment/renovation of existing low income apartments enough that everyone gets evicted. Certainly not building anything doesn't help. In that case you get what we see in SF where highly paid tech workers directly compete with working class people for the same super limited amount of apartments. The result is landlord shenanigans where they will make every attempt to evict people in rent controlled apartments and there are multi thousand dollar rents everywhere. That situation in Boulder does not sound sustainable. I'm in favour of keeping urban borders limited to prevent sprawl, but the natural result of this is that you simply must densify and build compact communities. In the long term you can't have both a firm urban boundary and low density single family homes. If Boulder keeps on this path they'll end up like Vancouver where the average detached home costs ~C$1.3 million. Sounds like it's already well on the way to that. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
A lot of current affordable housing was previously considered luxury. This will be true as well in 20 years time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Cincinnati will be exactly the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Corny posted:The answer is complicated - yes, there are new condos and apartment buildings being built, there are a large number of developments that have gone up in Denver in the past six months and we only have more on the way. The issue however, is that they are marketed as "Luxury Apartments" and geared towards people looking to buy luxury apartments. There isn't enough affordable housing being built at a fast enough pace in Denver to offset the rise in housing prices caused by these developments being built. Thankfully; unlike SF, Denver and the Metro area has no shortage of land space to build upon, so that constraining factor isn't an issue here. In theory this stuff will "filter" down in price over time, so this luxury stuff will be affordable in a couple decades. Also creating more apartments in general is going to push down rent, but if supply isn't keeping up with the flow of people into the city it won't help as much. That's the problem we have in Austin. Having to wait on the filtering sucks, but there is just no incentive for private developers to build low cost housing when there are so many people willing to pay more (unless some level of government kicks in some money or provides other incentives, like reduced parking requirements or other zoning changes). quote:Let me contrast this with Boulder. Boulder is famous for having an ordinance within the city charter that limits the amount of new building within the city to be 1% of population growth in that year, meaning almost no new housing ever gets constructed in Boulder. Hahahahahaha this is so dumb oh my god
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
NE Ohio was pretty decimated by the auto industry downturn and the 08-09 recession. But I've been seeing some good progress on improving dilapidated infrastructure. Unfortunately, many around here have a half-rear end attitude and the culture reflects it. I think it's better than my memories of it in the late 1990s, but it's a rather depressing place and culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Hahahahahaha this is so dumb oh my god Yeah, I live in Boulder now and it's absolutely infuriating. Another fun ordinance limits occupancy in ANY house to 3 (occasionally 4, depending on zoning) unrelated persons. Of course, plenty of people live in violation; a recent Slate piece profiles such a house. The residents were forced to disband when a neighbor threatened the landlord after they "came out of the closet" as a group house. The neighbor could have also called city code enforcement--this happens all the time. Significant fractions of the undergrad student, grad student, and service industry populations live under the threat of summary eviction. While I think there are cracks in the status quo, in ten years Boulder will go down the path of the most anti-growth Bay Area municipalities. Occupancy may be modified to at least be based on number of bedrooms, but the web of restrictions will prevent any real relief for housing demand. Already, student housing has been bought out and illegally subdivided by the new owners--$700/mo for a 70 square foot bedroom before the city made them remove the dividers. Now they're paying $700/mo to share a 140 square foot bedroom with someone else. Old guard political groups in town are bringing in speakers from SF talking about how housing doesn't obey supply and demand, so it will get worse before it gets better. Boulder also removed bike lanes due to political pressure last year, as if you needed another reason to hate this place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Deep 13 posted:Yeah, I live in Boulder now and it's absolutely infuriating. Another fun ordinance limits occupancy in ANY house to 3 (occasionally 4, depending on zoning) unrelated persons. Of course, plenty of people live in violation; a recent Slate piece profiles such a house. The residents were forced to disband when a neighbor threatened the landlord after they "came out of the closet" as a group house. The neighbor could have also called city code enforcement--this happens all the time. Significant fractions of the undergrad student, grad student, and service industry populations live under the threat of summary eviction. So are the people doing this crazy poo poo old hippies or professors or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:So are the people doing this crazy poo poo old hippies or professors or what? Hippies who turned to the dark side, yeah. But more fairly, anyone who owns property--60% growth in property values since 2011 buys off a lot of people who'd otherwise profess to care. There's heavy opposition to a proposed youth homeless shelter downtown. Because it's three stories tall. (Actually they just loving hate bums but feel like they can't just go out and say it).
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Berkeley/Bay Area: We're building some luxury condos/apartments which is fine, but not really enough and there's huge problems with lack of student housing combined with crunch of people moving here because it's still cheaper than SF and people just stick around in their same apartment after graduating. I think we'll see a lot of demolishing of single/double story of businesses along University Ave and finishing/beginning to construct some more highrises (it takes like 5 years from start to finish, so maybe not that many) which will be good but even the luxury apartments of today will probably still be higher-end apartments 10 years from now. Maybe another 10 years they may be more market-rate and new luxury places will take their spot, but most of the city will still be single family/duplexes/some triplexes. Also will probably continue to see exploding homelessness. Pretty much same trend for other two big cities (SF, Oakland). Oakland will see a large increase in tech business as people move out of the more soulless south bay and setup shop here with it's close proximity to SF and generally more housing options (but still getting expensive) and culture. This will prolly spill over and effect prices here a bit in Berkeley. I think Fruitvale/south international blvd areas will still be pretty poor in 10 years but maybe getting a little better. African American population there will still continue to heavily decline as it has over the past 10 years, and more poor people who were pushed out of SF to Oakland may be pushed further out to like Pittsburg/Antioch or elsewhere. Meanwhile Oakland (like SF) will continue to see increasing amount of white 20 somethings as they fly away from their parent's suburban cul-de-sac midwest city or whatever and seek out city life and city opportunities, but can't quite afford SF prices. But overall probably won't be much different other than worse traffic, BART will not even be close to expanding and so it'll just be overcrowded as poo poo (the new cars will provide some temporary relief) and we really aren't building any significant public transit systems--so everything will just be same but more overloaded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Los Angeles will continue to gentrify and push all unwanteds into the Inland Empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Depends a lot on the outcome of the US presidential election I suppose. Pretty wide range between 'grow steadily' and 'radioactive crater' after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Flint, MI Population will continue to fall in the city proper, probably settling around 75k, while suburbs will continue to grow and expand. GM's re-expansion in the area will stagnate. The problems associated with the water in the city will continue due to health/mental issues in the children that were exposed to the water but will largely be forgotten about by the rest of the country. Investigations in to the Water Crisis will eventually end with no real consequences being faced by the actual people involved. Poverty will still be an issue as well as de facto segregation and crime. The Cultural Center will grow, gentrification will continue around the Universities and Downtown. Neighborhoods outside the area, especially in the Northend and Eastside, will be consolidated and houses will continue to be demolished. Flint will fall down the "Most Dangerous Cities in America" lists and stop appearing on some due to population size. Effectively Flint will continue to be a smaller Detroit with worse water.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:32
|
|
