Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Investing in Real Estate - Creative Opportunities -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (1889)	8/11/2013 12:59:48 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2722

Part of the problem, American cities, unlike European ones, had their major development occur during the industrial age.........meaning lots of smoke and noise from factories. Cities were unpleasant places to live In some ways yes but the big cities were low cost and a magnet for those who seeked opportunity. I still maintain the migration out began when the interstate highway was being built and nice new tract subs like Levittown started sprouting up for young growing families needing more space after the war. Seemed you had great transportation networks in place within the city limits of the sprawling cities like LA the first half of last century. Street cars which worked wonders in transporting workers around town were in essence abandoned by the end of the 1950's. True for the middle class but the upper middle class and upper classes had started migrating en masse to the suburbs as early as the 1920s. Places like Kenilworth outside of Chicago and the Hamptons on the Island were growing as early as the 1910s. Instead of freeways, people commuted by train into the city. Like you say, it was the interstate system that allowed the much larger middle class to escape the city. However, the consensus that cities are bad places seems to be changing. It will be interesting to see if the current reverse migration continues.