A promo film for Redbook magazine that chronicles the new suburban life of young people in the US....an interesting historical snapshot for those of us that were never alive before there were suburbs.  The optimism and newness of it all must have been very exciting.  It really stresses the 'young' adults in the suburbs concept and how they demand new and convenient things and are rabid consumers....unlike the old people in the city I guess. 

 

http://mallsofamerica.blogspot.com/2006/07/retro-video-in-suburbs.html

 

Once you click on the link scroll down to find the video.  It's 20 minutes long.

They were very good at marketing it. What we need  to do is reverse engineer their strategies and dump tons of money into advertising to draw them back here :]

I'm so glad the suburbs were invented; it must have been impossible to buy things and sleep and eat and clean and work and interact with family and neighbors in the dirty old city. And away with those filthy, bothersome sidewalks! Sure glad nothing ever bad could ever possibly happen in the suburbs.

Those 50's propaganda shorts are classics. One would think that marketing the convenience factor of the city would show how much of a bother it is to live in the suburbs.

The suburbs must have been very attractive then.  Great access to the city and the countryside.  The problem comes when the city disintegrates and the countryside is paved over.  It goes to show that suburbs are parasites.

That is interesting. I never considered the emphasis on youth like that.

Also interesting how the subject of safety is almost non existent. A brief allusion to keeping your kids away from the cars on the street was about it.

A lot of emphasis on how young adult life can be daunting but you will be surrounded by other young adults in the same boat & through your community spirit  you can work things out together.

 

  Also, the average age was much lower in 1957 then it is now. There were more children born in 1955 in the United States than in any other year up to the present; there must have been oodles of kids running around, not to mention young parents. In Cincinnati the population of the city limits peaked about 1955, so the city was as full as it ever was. Sure, strip malls and shopping centers were starting to show up, but the 8 lane arterial highways hadn't been thought of yet. It seems that everyone had a positive attitude, unlike all the gloom and doom of today.

 

    The suburbs of the 1950's must have been really nice. Little did they know what was coming.

 

 

Those 50's propaganda shorts are classics. One would think that marketing the convenience factor of the city would show how much of a bother it is to live in the suburbs.

This film really makes me wonder why our our downtown special improvement districts don't do more to market the benefits of urban living.  Sure they are there to give sound bytes to the media, but it seems like a real marketing campaign could do some good.  The ignorance of people always amazes me, so maybe more marketing could really help.  I'm sure it comes down to money, but there has to be some creative way to do it (localized facebook ads, videos on the net, etc.)

I think it would make a big difference too. Maybe Ohio cities should create a multi million dollar budget to market themselves..make the city look glamourous. I think they'd see a good return on the investment. Even if they made it as corny as they did in the 50s it could easily work.

^If you listen to the voice of the video, it seems to have been a business-to-business communication, i.e., reaching out to potential advertisers by distilling Redbook's editorial commitment to this burgeoning demographic: the virgin suburbanite. Put another way, I doubt if my parents ever saw this while they were setting up their young family in the suburbs, nor would it have had any impact.

 

The move to suburbanization was a massive cultural shift, one so huge that a film like this was a reflection of the move to suburbia, not a catalyst. Images of suburbia had saturated American culture at all levels by 1957, through the movies, fledgling TV, books, politics, and yes, urban planning.

 

True or not, it was broadly accepted that people had had enough of cities by 1950. Cheerfully, millions of young people had the means to act on this belief, and hence, the suburbs. Suburbia was a dream finally attainable, and damnit, people attained it like crazy. It was a chance to start over and get it right the first time, hence, the comically idealistic tone of the film.

 

The suburbs are hell on earth: we few enlightened souls accept that conclusion. But I think our challenge today as urbanistas is to help create an inescapable web of proof that helps suburbanites see what is plainly in front of their faces, which considering 50-years of pro-suburban conditioning, is a phenomenal task. We have to construct a larger awareness of the failings of suburbia, and construct a compelling, broadbased argument that the urban centers can deliver solutions.

 

An expensive media campaign funded (directly) by our tax dollars will be fruitless (especially in today's media-jaded America) unless we have that larger "suburbs bad/city good" frame in place.

 

What I, at the end of this rant, ask, is where are the pro-urban images in the media (and) society today, and how do we capitalize on them?

The suburbs must have been very attractive then.  Great access to the city and the countryside.  The problem comes when the city disintegrates and the countryside is paved over.

 

From what I remember the suburbs where fresh and new. Plenty of free parking (which could only be appreicated if one lived in a congested city like Chicago, where parking in the neighborhood shopping districts like Belmont and Central or Six Corners could be tough).

 

Suburbia was an improvement ove city living in a flat or bungalow on a narrow lot.  Houses where not that close together, more privacy, lager lawns and lots, more light.

 

Expressways where a new experience and thrill...going fast, without stoplights and traffic jams and dangerous passing on twolane highways. It took less time and hassle getting somewhere. 

 

That was the impression...the suburbs where "the future".  The architecture back then mirrored that a bit, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure it comes down to money, but there has to be some creative way to do it (localized facebook ads, videos on the net, etc.)

 

The local facebook ads are a great idea!  Might help us retain some of those OSU kids and get them downtown.

It happens in trends. In the 1800s wasn't it more expensive to live in the city because it was more convenient? The only problem is that houses in the city age. They're smaller on average than home in the 'burbs. People don't want to invest the money to fix them up (they'd be losing money) and its expensive to bulldoze and rebuild over them.

Yeah, I agree with what everyone is saying.  I thought the film was interesting because we(urbanists) tend to forget how or why this all started, and to see a film like this puts history back into perspective.  Originally the growth was warranted because cities were too crowded because population was booming, and the suburbs served as the pressure release valve.  Also, don't forget that cities were horribly dirty and polluted.  Find an old picture of Pittsburgh at high noon on a sunny day and it looked like night time.  I also remember a teacher of mine in 4th grade telling about his mother that lived in Slavic Village in Cleveland, and windows had to be washed all of time because of the black soot from the industrial valley coating the entire house.  Also, modern medicine at the time believed that all of that bad air was the reason for most ailments. 

 

Now, people still blame those causes for leaving the city...pollution, crowds.  But now add to that the affect of suburbanization....moving of jobs, shopping choices, deteriorating schools.... that have led to massive outmigration that has occured non-stop since the 50's. 

 

Now that cities have somewhat dealt with the cause...the affect is what keeps people away.  Also add into that an entire huge generation of Americans that have made(and are making) a hell of a lot of money on this way of development and sprawl, and it is no wonder why the government's policy is so skewed in this fashion of development.

 

And while the original suburbs were generally lacking in architecture, they were not that horribly designed.  Walking and public transit were still in fashion so you still saw sidewalks, through streets, walkable public schools/shopping and a denser form of development compared to the  horrible super-suburbs of the 80's and 90's. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And while the original suburbs were generally lacking in architecture, they were not that horribly designed.  Walking and public transit were still in fashion so you still saw sidewalks, through streets, walkable public schools/shopping and a denser form of development compared to the  horrible super-suburbs of the 80's and 90's.

 

No sidewalks in this film's clean, modern subdivision. It's interesting to watch the two ladies with strollers struggling along the side of the road. Cut against another scene of the youngsters hopping into the massive convertable and zooming away unbelted, I couldn't help but envision the cataclysmic moment when that car roared around the corner where the two young moms were pushing strollers in the street. Blammo!

 

Also, seeing those 1950s moms cope with life without sidewalks also gave me a flash memory of modern young mothers I've seen in older neglected innercity neighborhoods, struggling to push their strollers along broken, crumbling sidewalks. Sidewalks probably unrepaired since this film was made.

 

The promise was fabulous, and certainly, the need for the suburbs was widely embraced. But I see a trend to this day unabated: the solution to our quality of life issues lies further out there beyond where we're living now.

 

I work outside of I-270 off of Polaris Parkway. Unmitigated disaster. Run amok development without a moment's worth of planning. Between 4 and 6PM you will sit in your car for 20 minutes to cover half a mile. The growth was so great that ODOT is spending $25 million to add more on and off ramps to I-71 with zero thought or dollars allocated to improve the traffic flow on the surface streets themselves. The older suburbs just inside of I-270 are experiencing similar congestion and over-development. But this is of no concern: people are just moving farther out. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd bet a mouthful of Buckeyes that Lewis Center is the fastest-growing area in Columbus.

 

This is why I admire areas like Seattle that have hard and fast geographic inhibitors for non-stop sprawl. Portland also deserves props for drawing a line in the cornfields and saying "no more development beyond this point." Michigan's Gov. Granholm has fought tooth and nail to force allocation of road funds for fixing older roads first and expanding newer ones last, but it will end up contributing to her political demise. Those suburbanites want to keep moving further and further out, and they'll elect any Republican that'll make it happen.

 

It's going to take a lot to reverse the tide, but I'll say it right here: the person who saves the urban centers will be the one who convinces families that the city is a good place to raise kids. This was the secret to the suburbs' economic success: families spending all their goddam money there. And that, after all,  was the whole gist of the Redbook film.

Of course, families w/children make up less than a quarter of households now.  I don't see them coming back, but fortunately, I don't see them as being as critical as people think.

^That figure seems exceedingly low. Nevertheless, a household with kids returns more to the community than the other three in terms of sheer spending power across a broader range of categories. Also, more households with kids means more money allocated for the public schools, along with all the benefits they bring in terms of community-building and multi-generational investment.

 

It's easy to see that the suburbs that are considered successful in the long-term are the ones with families, and it's impossible to argue with the fact that the fastest-growing ones are catering to families with kids.

 

The hard fact is, there are plenty of kids in our nation's urban centers, and they suffer disproportionately from the failure of the public educational system and all who would prey upon it (charter schools, Republicans).

 

There are myriad social factors that exacerbate this--sub-poverty-line living; over-worked/underinvolved parents; ESL-households, etc.--but a lot of it could be undone by an infusion of higher-income (suburban) families into the urban centers. Just look at the areas that are considered most desirable to live, and it's almost a given that they are ordered in relation to school performance.

 

And maybe this all tracks backward to the need for an Apollo program for our inner-city schools. Is that another thread?

 

I dunno; I've got a wierd perspective on this issue being a family man who chooses the city over the suburbs. But I ascribe to the beliefs of former Bogata, Colombia Mayor Enrique Penalosa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Pe%C3%B1alosa who argued that healthy cities were ones that were safe for children, and vice versa.

 

I've seen gaggles of teenagers slogging along the ditches beside roads in Dublin, OH like refugees looking for a place to be. And I've seen kids playing in the parks where I live, as happy as can be, within eyeshot and earshot of their parents, assured of who they are and where they live.

 

I think families who write off the city and choose the newest sprawl suburb are selling their kids short, but unfortunately, nobody's making the case for them to come to the city.

 

Except me, and a hell of a lot of good that'll do.

 

 

 

 

I agree that communities that are good for kids tend to be healthier, but that's a bit inherent in the definitions- safe, clean, good infrastructure (of which schools are some of the most expensive).  And certainly it doesn't hurt to appeal to that 1/4 demographic, and those who may want to join that demo in the future.

 

I have to disagree though that adding kids to a neighborhood adds more income.  In fact, because children are expensive to raise and tend to not make a lot of money, I would guess that it's the opposite.  Certainly it restricts how much of that money is spent.  The money received for schools and other children's services from state and fed levels doesn't make up for the cost of providing for them either, so kids cost a community at large.

 

None of this is to say we shouldn't have kids in the city.  But I don't think they are key to revitalization.  I think that most likely the city will have to vastly improve first, before parents with options start choosing to raise their children there.

Having children in a household doesn't restrict spending overall; it just restricts the sexy spending, i.e., fewer fancy meals out but a hell of a lot more trips to the market. I only see that improving the business mix. There's no reason a tattoo parlor and a green grocer can't have the same landlord. I've seen it done.

 

The net cost of schools only hurts the community when the schools themselves are bad. I don't see the urbanist movement as it is really giving much mind to the role of schools, and as long as this is the case, they'll always be a drag on the larger development picture. There will always be kids, and short of a wholesale abandonment of the public education system, the schools will never go away.

 

And again, I just hate the reality that modern suburban life shows to young people. Life really is more interesting than these kids ever learn to expect. Or demand.

Lack of kids effects the future though. If someone grows up in a household in the burbs they're most likely going to live in the burbs when they grow up and the old people in the city will die out with no kids to replenish the population.

Lack of kids effects the future though. If someone grows up in a household in the burbs they're most likely going to live in the burbs when they grow up and the old people in the city will die out with no kids to replenish the population.

 

I don't think we're that immobile.  Afterall, everyone had to get out to the suburbs (and Atlanta) in the first place.  They weren't all born there.

The perceived failure of the cities drove a generation out to the suburbs. Until a similar sea change drives them out, that's where they'll stay (excepting twisted SOBs such as yours truly).

 

Should suburban folk experience such a mass enlightenment, we, as advocates of urban living, must make a compelling case for the masses to head back toward us rather than further out into the next ring of freakishly developed farm land.

 

While we ponder that impossibility, here's another Enrique Penalosa link: http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/epenalosa

 

Theres just one problem.... the suburbs are new and the city is old. People are attracted to new. It reminds them that it's a fresh start or progress. The housing stock would have to be updated and a lot of old houses would have to be demolished and replaced. When you buy a house in the suburbs you get something newer that requires less repairs and everything is updated. What can we do about that?

Theres just one problem.... the suburbs are new and the city is old. People are attracted to new. It reminds them that it's a fresh start or progress. The housing stock would have to be updated and a lot of old houses would have to be demolished and replaced. When you buy a house in the suburbs you get something newer that requires less repairs and everything is updated. What can we do about that?

 

^That seems a bit short-sighted and well, naive.  In metropolitan areas with healthy central cities, the "older" housing in-town commands an enormous premium over the vinyl-sided crap in the suburbs. 

 

The problem isn't one of age or marketing or anything else superficial.  It's a problem of subsidizing new suburban construction while neglecting the inner cities.

Mayor Mike Coleman pledged 10,000 new housing units in 10 years for Columbus. That's a start.

 

I agree that people tend to be drawn moth-like to new things. But I think people can become just as caught up in a new idea as well as a newly constructed house.

 

Combine the two aforementioned quantities--new houses and new attitudes--and you've got the combo that got folks so jazzed about the suburbs in the first place.

 

Damnit I'm optimistic.

 

Gross, isn't it?

Theres just one problem.... the suburbs are new and the city is old. People are attracted to new. It reminds them that it's a fresh start or progress. The housing stock would have to be updated and a lot of old houses would have to be demolished and replaced. When you buy a house in the suburbs you get something newer that requires less repairs and everything is updated. What can we do about that?

 

^That seems a bit short-sighted and well, naive.  In metropolitan areas with healthy central cities, the "older" housing in-town commands an enormous premium over the vinyl-sided crap in the suburbs. 

 

The problem isn't one of age or marketing or anything else superficial.  It's a problem of subsidizing new suburban construction while neglecting the inner cities.

 

Yeah until the house has foundation problems, and that's not a cheap fix. Houses in the city are on avg a lot smaller, they don't have the open floor plans that are popular these days. Not to say that suburban houses aren't going to deteriorate the same way (most likely quicker) but there's several things holding city housing stock back. I agree subsidizing suburban construction is a huge reason for sprawl but we would need a much higher subsidization in cities to achieve the same thing. Age isn't a superficial concept at all. Age takes a toll on houses.

I disagree.  You just have to cut out the subsidies to the suburbs--it would actually be cheaper than doing things the way we are now.  Let the free market work.

 

(Aside:  if a house can stand on a particular foundation and not have a problem for over 100 years, how is that inferior to new construction where settlement hasn't completed yet?)

 

I don't think lot size is as much of an issue as people want to make it to be.  Not everyone wants or needs an acre of lawn to maintain.  At least give people the option, instead of mandating one type of construction, which from a legal standpoint, is what suburban zoning regs and neighborhood associations do. 

 

It seems like some of the posters on this thread have bought in, at least in part, to the American Dream fallacy, where "new = good" and "bigger = better".  I can't say I blame them, though.  Ohio hasn't had healthy large cities for decades, so I dare say that most of the people on this board don't have the experience of living in an urban environment where it's normal to want an old house on a small lot.  Certain things are not mutually exclusive--don't make it more difficult than it needs to be. 

^^ Umm...Dan. Have you looked around our metro lately. I would say close to 80 percent of the area prescribes to "new=good" and "bigger=better". And you don't need to go Loudoun County to see it....place like Bethesda and North Arlington are tearing up small homes for new McMansions all over the place.

Theres just one problem.... the suburbs are new and the city is old. People are attracted to new. It reminds them that it's a fresh start or progress. The housing stock would have to be updated and a lot of old houses would have to be demolished and replaced. When you buy a house in the suburbs you get something newer that requires less repairs and everything is updated. What can we do about that?

 

^That seems a bit short-sighted and well, naive.  In metropolitan areas with healthy central cities, the "older" housing in-town commands an enormous premium over the vinyl-sided crap in the suburbs. 

 

The problem isn't one of age or marketing or anything else superficial.  It's a problem of subsidizing new suburban construction while neglecting the inner cities.

 

Yeah until the house has foundation problems, and that's not a cheap fix. Houses in the city are on avg a lot smaller, they don't have the open floor plans that are popular these days. Not to say that suburban houses aren't going to deteriorate the same way (most likely quicker) but there's several things holding city housing stock back. I agree subsidizing suburban construction is a huge reason for sprawl but we would need a much higher subsidization in cities to achieve the same thing. Age isn't a superficial concept at all. Age takes a toll on houses.

 

My current house was built in 1921.  I am willing to bet that very few of the new McMansions being built will not last for 85 years.  Sure, there are things here and there, but I know people who are forking out tons of money on repairs in newer homes as well.

It's worth noting that even in "healthy" central cities like San Fran, Seattle, and Portland that families with children are a rapidly declining market segment.

It's worth noting that even in "healthy" central cities like San Fran, Seattle, and Portland that families with children are a rapidly declining market segment.

 

If this is worth noting, please attach some meaning to it.  Otherwise, you're just stating a fact.

It's worth noting that even in "healthy" central cities like San Fran, Seattle, and Portland that families with children are a rapidly declining market segment.

 

If this is worth noting, please attach some meaning to it.  Otherwise, you're just stating a fact.

 

:roll:

 

I was indeed stating a fact.  One that supports my continuing point on this thread that central cities are not likely to be brought back by families with children.  That hasn't been the case in cities that have experienced significant gentrification, and is unlikely to be the case in Ohio's cities.  I had thought the relevence was obvious, and didn't require further elaboration.

^^Mainly due to spiking real estate values; the urban centers that are considered desireable are pricing out young professionals without kids and artists, too (Manhattan anyone)? I'd say there's a lot that's unhealthy about that.

Dan why do you have a chip on your shoulder? You're so pro-urban you won't even listen to why it's a problem in the first place. Even if new houses are built cheaper and don't last as long, they're still new enough to where they will be less problematic for a while. I know those developments are subsidized and that has a lot to do with their success but I believe we would still be having this problem (to a lesser extent) even without the subsidies. I don't see how the city is suppose to afford subsidizing housing developments when they're already subsidiing corporations like crazy to retain them.

 

No, not every new house is without problems but generally there are a lot less problems with new houses. My parents bought an old house in the city that didn't even have updated phone lines when they bought it. They paid out the ass to get that installed. Cable lines had to be installed, a shower had to be installed, carpet had to be replaced, central air etc. For some strange reason the kitchen was actually updated though. My point is that a lot of people don't like dealing with those problems. If you like living in the city in a small place, that's fine, I do too; but it's just obviously not for everybody.

 

You act like Americans were brainwashed into thinking they have to live in the suburbs. The American dream still had to come from some kind of general consensus. If the city is going to draw in people they need to make the housing competative. That means updating everything and that is costly. Property owners don't like dropping thousands of bucks when they didn't plan on spending money...its rather annoying to them.

 

Then you have the issue with:

Public school system

Crime

White America's preference for homogeneous white communities. I don't care what anyone says, we are a racially divided country.

 

"It's worth noting that even in "healthy" central cities like San Fran, Seattle, and Portland that families with children are a rapidly declining market segment."

 

Exactly...last time I checked these were supposedly highly desirable places to live. The yuppified areas that suburbanites WOULD move to are astronomical. I know someone that lives outside of San Francisco maybe 40 minutes away from the city. Since she bought the house like 6 years ago, the value of their house has skyrocketed as the neighborhood became more established.

 

 

I'm so sick of talking about this.

 

My chip is that the way things are done now is horribly inefficient--both spatially and economically.  Our nation wastes so much money every year just to keep the so-called American Dream alive.  This deprives our society of resources that could otherwise be reallocated in a more responsible manner.  Think about it--why is it that we are far wealthier as a nation than we ever have been, but our public domain gets crappier and more generic over time?  For example, the only difference between a modern high school and a prison (from the exterior anyway) is the barbed wire.

 

You act like Americans were brainwashed into thinking they have to live in the suburbs.

 

That's exactly correct.  There was no meeting of the minds in 1945 to determine which direction post-war America would go.  It was all a big advertising campaign and diversion of resources, and most people still buy into it.  To acknowledge the American Dream for the farce it is would mean recognizing that our own lives, hopes and dreams are all predicated on lies, and I don't know too many people willing to do that.

Theres just one problem.... the suburbs are new and the city is old. People are attracted to new. It reminds them that it's a fresh start or progress.

 

I am thinking that was maybe the case in the immediate postwar era, which seems to be more "modern" or future-oriented than today.

 

In our present era I think people are attracted to the "image" of the old, but a certain kind of "old"...that of small town/rural America.  The reality of suburbia isn't that, but people are buying into the image (or metaphor) of small town America, the Waynesvilles, Delawares and Hudsons.

Regarding construction of new housing, central cities are often leading their suburban counterparts. For many years now, Cleveland has led all other municipalities in Cuyahoga County in terms of new housing units developed. So individuals can enjoy the amenities of urban living and the benefits of new housing stock simultaneously (although having historical housing stock, including century homes, should not be discounted as a community asset).

 

Perhaps I'm being a bit of a Pollyanna, but it seems to me that the tide is changing back toward urban living. It might just be the crowd I run with, but the fellow Gen X'ers I know would not even CONSIDER living in the burbs; most of my friends choose to locate either within the central city or at the very least in the first-tier suburbs. I think that growing up in the suburbs, if anything, has propelled our generation TOWARD urban living; we recognize that the dream life espoused by our grandparents and parents was not born out in suburbia. I grew up in a exurban/rural community, and I can say firsthand that young adults are not inclined to stay around, if they can at all help it. I think that the big box retail, car-oriented, cookie cutter molds are starting to look less and less appealing to the X'ers and Y'ers; I'd look to see the big suburban exodus back to the cities to occur in the next 10 years or so (while current young adults form a fairly small demographic population, a second "boom" generation is just around the corner from reaching adulthood).

Ahh yes, this is played in the movie, "End of Suburbia"  I bought it when it came out and makes for a great addition to any DVD collection.

 

My family is the text book of that time.  My grandparents were born in Brooklyn, first generation American's whose parents arrived from Italy through Ellis Island and my grandparents eventually moved out to suburbia (Long Island) to raise their family.  My mom grew up in this time and she still has many of the stereotypes today.  Baby boomers have probably caused more problems to cities than any other generation.

>For example, the only difference between a modern high school and a prison (from the exterior anyway) is the barbed wire.

 

It's actually /always/ been that way.  In classic settings, buildings with widely disparate uses often look the same.  Most of the buildings on any old streetscape like Over-The-Rhine look roughly the same, in the case of OTR, they were actually mass produced on standardized floor plans with standardized windows and all kinds of other fittings just like mobile homes and most suburban homes are.  It's always been the case that custom designs cost more to design and build than standardized ones.  Virtually all of Manhattan was built on 99X25ft. lots with only a few prominent styles, exactly like a suburban subdivision is today. 

 

The difference is that zoning laws, which separate land uses and and therefore automatically increase overall energy costs, were born in the industrial era, when someone could build a smoke stack right next to your house, but are outdated in a post-industrial environment.  Zoning laws discourage what would popularly be called conflicting land uses and in suburban areas dictate an auto-oriented environment.   

         

 

^And as I have stated on other threads, I don't think there is much of any social benefit to being raised or living in a traditional city versus a suburb versus the countryside.  The old city mouse/country mouse parable was meant to illustrate that to children, and there are no shortage of people raised in the boondocks who came to not only beat city mice at their own game, but to dominate.  The vast majority of prominent politicians and celebrities came from unasuming houses in unasuming towns and streets from all corners of the US.  Rich people spend all this cash to have their kids go to the right school and wear the right clothes and all this, and while it helps them reach a certain level more easily, there will always be people from the most unlikely backgrounds who rise to the top.