Jump to content
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Guest KJP

Suburban Sprawl News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure I really agree with the sentiment of the complaint.  If there were more pockets of red surrounded by blue or vice versa, does that mean the areas are less "segregated"?  No, it just identifies enclaves of the rather rich or rather poor.  Or, if there were a wall of the blue and several census blocks bordering it with red -- that's not an indicator of "yippee, integration". I'd ask why isn't the presence of the red blocks turning those deep blue blocks into cyan blue blocks?  If anything I find the idea that those areas don't border each other very much to be expected.

 

Note that I'm not disputing the existence of socioeconomic segregation in the region. I'm disputing the use of the data in the chart as evidence or even an illustration of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The annual public cost a city bears for each suburban home is more than double that of each urban home, concludes @sustpro. #CityMakingMath

 

CyDgK2YVEAA3UuC.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true why are taxes typically much higher in urban areas?

 

This isn't a loaded question. I'm genuinely curious because all we here is about old infrastructure that needs to be replaced, higher cost per pupil for education, more police/fire to combat higher crime rates. I didn't read the article (if there was one), but it doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm just looking at it through the lens of an aging city with middling economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true why are taxes typically much higher in urban areas?

 

I would say that there are a number of reasons...

 

(1) Urban areas tend to pay for regional services (such as airports, stadiums, etc.) that suburban areas do not (yet still enjoy, hence why I call these people "Collar County Leeches").

(2) Some of these costs may be transferred to homeowners in other ways, such as homeowners association fees.

(3) Some of these services may be scaled back or outright eliminated in suburban areas, such as public transportation.

(4) A built environment which excludes poverty means the cost per person of these services is divided among people with larger average incomes, thus the tax rate can be lower while the total amount of taxes collected still is relatively high.

 

For Cleveland, #4 is probably one of the biggest factors (although all four do apply).  There is so much poverty that the cost of services per person must disproportionately burden those who have a good income in order to be able to cover everyone's cost.  If Strongsville or Solon had Cleveland-level poverty, their tax rates would be astronomical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A confounding factor here is that urban populations generally demand more services, so even if the cost per service is lower, the aggregate cost might be higher. Transit, schools and waste collection are obvious examples of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true why are taxes typically much higher in urban areas?

 

This isn't a loaded question. I'm genuinely curious because all we here is about old infrastructure that needs to be replaced, higher cost per pupil for education, more police/fire to combat higher crime rates. I didn't read the article (if there was one), but it doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm just looking at it through the lens of an aging city with middling economy.

 

There's less infrastructure per person. In a dense urban neighborhood you might have 100 people living along the same length of street where you would have like two families in the burbs. That can be extrapolated to water/sewer lines, electric lines, police service, fire service, etc. It takes a lot more money to cover a low-density, spread out area.

 

And concerning the old infrastructure: The infrastructure in the burbs will be old one day too. Indeed, we're starting to see this be an issue in many older burbs. And there' MUCH more of it to deal with. Plus, the big infrastructure costs in the city often are there to serve the burbs. In Cincinnati it's the bridges and viaducts that are the huge expenses we're all worried about right now. Well if everyone lived in the basin (which I realize is not desirable) we wouldn't need viaducts and bridges. They mostly serve to get folks from the burbs to the city.

 

EDIT: I would add highways to that too. Expanding I-75 through the heart of the city isn't to serve city residents. It's to get people from Butler County downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the state and federal level taxes from cities are redistributed to the suburbs, and from metro areas to rural.  On a more local level, the depopulation and demolition of cities has led to existing taxpayers (and utilities rate payers) having to cover the cost of serving vacant and dilapidated properties with pipes and pavement.  With flat utility rates, a city dweller is subsidizing the suburbanite directly because there's virtually no difference in base service/hookup fees even though the city dweller may have only 25' of pipe/wires in front of their house and the suburbanite can easily have several hundred.  This is combined with the required upgrading of treatment facilities, larger mains, and disruption of city streets to throw those services farther out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A confounding factor here is that urban populations generally demand more services, so even if the cost per service is lower, the aggregate cost might be higher. Transit, schools and waste collection are obvious examples of this.

 

This is also true, although many people ignore the fact that they pay for these things privately in the suburbs.  Owning multiple vehicles is a huge cost (although not a tax) that is necessary if public transportation is not available.  Waste collection is often paid for privately in suburban areas rather than through taxes.  Many exurbs don't have sewers, so you must pay for a septic tank.  Etc.  These all give the appearance of lower costs because the taxes are lower, but in reality they are more than made up for by the increased private expenses one must incur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People wonder why cities are loath to annex parts of the metro that have 5-acre plots with only one 2-3 bedroom house on them. Duh, those properties would be total leeches! Columbus did it decades ago and its costs are very high per square mile than other cities in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factor is that states and federal governments often provide the majority of the funding for new infrastructure projects but usually leave the local municipalities responsible for the maintenance and eventual replacement. So all of these shiny new suburbs are benefiting from new interchanges, new stroads, and sometimes new water and sewer lines that they didn't pay for locally. Meanwhile older cities are now facing huge bills to replace old crumbing sewer systems, replace obsolete highway interchanges, etc. Most suburbs don't even bother maintaining their infrastructure, they just decline over time. So a new "nice" suburb gets built somewhere else and all the rich people move there, while the older suburbs slowly transition from upper/middle class to the new cheap place to live.

 

Cities also pay for things like social services, public transportation, museums and zoos. So in many cases, the suburbs benefit from those things but don't pay into them, leaving the cities with the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France's plan to reverse sprawl in 200 small cities https://t.co/hnZDmkFfgL

 

Wouldn't it be great if the "Infrastructure President" came up with something like this?

 

Americans are never going to give up "sprawl" on a large scale basis. 

 

You might be able to come up with a politically palatable way to quit subsidizing it and that might reduce the scale.  Especially as the population ages.  You guys should probably focus on that.

 

But it's compatable with our national character to a degree that any attempt to "reverse" it on a significant scale would result in a massive political backlash.

 

Especially with a President who is a follower not a leader.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trump isnt a follower any more than your typically adhd kid is who can focus on something for a micro moment. he’s just erratic. of course that was part of his appeal. he probably wont have much effect on this topic. our extensive and cheap land is far and away the culprit. its easy to underestimate how big and empty the country is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France's plan to reverse sprawl in 200 small cities https://t.co/hnZDmkFfgL

 

Wouldn't it be great if the "Infrastructure President" came up with something like this?

 

Americans are never going to give up "sprawl" on a large scale basis. 

 

You might be able to come up with a politically palatable way to quit subsidizing it and that might reduce the scale.  Especially as the population ages.  You guys should probably focus on that.

 

But it's compatable with our national character to a degree that any attempt to "reverse" it on a significant scale would result in a massive political backlash.

 

Especially with a President who is a follower not a leader.

 

They will if they can't afford it. The lower the density, the higher the per unit cost of public services and transportation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France's plan to reverse sprawl in 200 small cities https://t.co/hnZDmkFfgL

 

Wouldn't it be great if the "Infrastructure President" came up with something like this?

 

Americans are never going to give up "sprawl" on a large scale basis. 

 

You might be able to come up with a politically palatable way to quit subsidizing it and that might reduce the scale.  Especially as the population ages.  You guys should probably focus on that.

 

But it's compatable with our national character to a degree that any attempt to "reverse" it on a significant scale would result in a massive political backlash.

 

Especially with a President who is a follower not a leader.

 

They will if they can't afford it. The lower the density, the higher the per unit cost of public services and transportation.

 

Good luck trying to convince those people way out in the exurbs that they are actually a drag on state and local finances, rather than those "welfare leeches" in the city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Townships with thousands of acres of low-density sprawl will start running into money problems when the development stops. In the Philadelphia area townships that have always been primarily suburban sprawl bedroom communities have in the past several years tried to attract more mixed-use and commercial development to shore up their finances and many have faced push back from NIMBYs who don't want to see any kind of density.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redirected from another thread.....

 

What is happening in reality with rural young people moving to Ohio's largest cities and what the rural, ideologically driven legislature wants to happen are two different things. I think we're all familiar how Ohio's rural and exurban lawmakers view Ohio's cities with disdain for some pretty awful reasons. They would rather have their children stay in the rural areas of Ohio. They're not. A simple drive through small-town Ohio will reveal the blood-letting that's happened there.

 

Something similar happened during World War II.  My grandfather was part of it.

 

That was a big part of how suburbs happened.

 

There was a housing shortage in cities and populations spread outward with the assistance of government programs like the GI Bill and highway construction. It was an opportunity for the likes of GM and Shell oil to fulfill their visions of the future of American cities they had espoused before WWII to sell more of their products, facilitated through massive government subsidies that externalized the cost of suburbanization to make it seem artificially cheap. The government subsidization of suburbia was institutionalized and remains commonplace today, protected by the corporate welfare state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Suburban cocoons make cocoon citizens, who define the common good as that which benefits those inside their particular cocoon."

—William Fulton @BillFultonVta

 

Dd0uz_RVQAAG4U4.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio GOPers sure do hate Ohio cities and home rule. Or maybe they think that hurting them further will turn Ohio cities from Democratic to Republican?? This is exactly what the Michigan legislature did and it screwed Detroit badly. The suburbs should start their own water supply operation.

 

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson warns that Statehouse proposal on water rates would hurt region's poorest residents

Updated 2:36 PM; Posted 2:30 PM

By Robert Higgs, cleveland.com bhiggsCleveland[/member].com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Mayor Frank Jackson warns in a letter to statehouse leaders that legislation targeting water rates charged to suburban customers could punish the Cleveland area's poorest residents with higher bills.

 

Jackson, who oversees the nation's ninth largest water system, also warned that House Bill 602 would promote urban sprawl by lowering the water bills in distant suburbs.

 

"The increases that would result from the passage of H.B. 602 would disproportionately impact may of our most economically vulnerable residents --- many of whom are concentrated within the municipal boundaries of the city of Cleveland and many of our inner ring suburbs," Jackson wrote to House Speaker Ryan Smith and Senate President Larry Obhof.

 

MORE:

https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2018/06/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_61.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How sprawl makes walkable places less affordable

Every American city has a suburban albatross around its neck.

https://medium.com/@NewUrbanism/how-sprawl-makes-walkable-places-less-affordable-4bfeaebb94d

 

Another sprawl article.....

 

“Research has been piling up establishing a link between the spread of #sprawl & the rise of obesity in our country"

https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2013/10/28/commutings-hidden-cost/?referer=http://t.co/xdzmfeahOl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cleveland.com/hillcrest/index.ssf/2018/07/richmond_heights_62.html#incart_river_index

 

Very interesting news.  An out-of-state developer is talking about sinking close to $70M into mixed use development at Richmond Town Square, a newly dead mall about 2 miles north of Beachwood Place and Legacy Village.  (Quick background:  RTS lost its three department store anchors in Macy's, Sears, and JC Penney's in 2015, winter 2017, and spring 2017, respectively.  A 20-screen movie theater and Plant Fitness remain as junior anchors along with a struggling food court and some local stores).

 

The proposal here is to demolish the Sears building on the northwest portion of the property and replace it with a 4-story class A apartment building, a 4-story hotel (!), and a 2-story, 10K sf retail building.  The developer already purchased the empty Macy's building last year for $2M is investing an additional $8M to convert it into a Cube Smart self-storage facility (ugh).

 

All in all, a pretty ambitious plan, and its mixed-use potential would be great for the city of Richmond Heights.  The hotel seems like a long shot, as the mall lacks freeway access and there are no particular entities nearby that attract tourists.  The Cuyahoga County airport is a mile north and a straight shot away, so maybe that's what they're hoping for.  The airport is currently undergoing a runway expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In study of 66 global cities by @NYUMarron @landpolicy, #Cleveland stands out. Its footprint expanded significantly over past 25 yrs while density fell 41%. Surprise to no one but crazy to see comparisons...described here as having lax land use controls.

 

25 Years of Urban Growth and Density Change in 66 Global Cities

https://www.vividmaps.com/2018/08/25-years-urban-growth-density-change-66-global-cities.html

 

233rwakr1ie11.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are they saying that Lorain and Elyria [edit- and Painesville] weren't urbanized 25 years ago, or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty cool graphic representations of the cities' physical growth, but average density wasn't the best metric to use. Completely conceals changes in the distribution of population within "urbanized" areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't really understand their system- by which I mean it's clearly a mess if you dig into it with any actual knowledge of a particular place.  Sure the basic idea that Cleveland has had no-growth sprawl over the last 25 years is true, but I wouldn't put any faith in the numbers they are presenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COMMENTARY: Looking to the future of transportation

IDEAS-VOICES By Mark Donaghy

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Monday, September 24, 2018

 

A recent column on this page discussed traffic congestion and how it happens. In my opinion, traffic congestion in our nation’s urban areas is a classic byproduct of sprawl and our reluctance to regionally manage growth as it relates to the use of land.

 

Dayton is a prime example of this phenomenon, as over the past 40 to 60 years we have consumed enormous amounts of land in nearly all directions while the population has remained essentially flat. We all want the freedom to live where we want, with all the supporting infrastructure necessary for our convenience — including more space on the roadways.

 

We have created a society where most kids can’t walk to school because there is no direct path from subdivisions of cul-de-sacs to the school campus, so we invest in school busing operations that compete with family cars in the daily congestion around our K-12 campuses. Today we have growing infrastructure needs from utilities and public safety investments to freeways and those additional capacity lanes that typically are quickly filled (Austin Boulevard and Ohio 741, for example) as a result of induced demand. And of course, we want our taxes to be low!

 

MORE:

https://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/opinion/commentary-looking-the-future-transportation/ZH0hSghLw8UFQNeenwpyOK/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redirected from another thread....

 

 

Rural people moving to big cities was a big part of how suburbia happened.

 

You mean southern rural black people moving to northern cities and whites, many of them racists, moving to suburbs? Before the Great Depression and the New Deal, rural white folks came to the big cities because private enterprise wasn't building in rural areas transportation, electric utilities and other modern amenities that gave city residents a higher quality of life than rural folk. It wasn't until the New Deal and its massive government intervention in the free market brought the comforts of city life to many rural areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 9:02 PM, KJP said:

Redirected from another thread....

 

 

 

You mean southern rural black people moving to northern cities and whites, many of them racists, moving to suburbs? Before the Great Depression and the New Deal, rural white folks came to the big cities because private enterprise wasn't building in rural areas transportation, electric utilities and other modern amenities that gave city residents a higher quality of life than rural folk. It wasn't until the New Deal and its massive government intervention in the free market brought the comforts of city life to many rural areas.

 

I'm referring specifically to rural people who moved to cities to work in war related industries during World War II.   Many times it was just the younger men, while women and older men stayed home and raised the kids.   After the war ended, the younger men decided they wanted to keep those jobs and moved their families to the cities.   But they didn't wish to move into dense neighborhoods.   Suburbs provided, or began as, a hybrid of urban and rural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I'm referring specifically to rural people who moved to cities to work in war related industries during World War II.   Many times it was just the younger men, while women and older men stayed home and raised the kids.   After the war ended, the younger men decided they wanted to keep those jobs and moved their families to the cities.   But they didn't wish to move into dense neighborhoods.   Suburbs provided, or began as, a hybrid of urban and rural.

 

They couldn't move to the cities if they wanted to. Read about the postwar housing shortages and how the government provided financial assistance to help people buy or build new homes. That's what created the suburbs and that financial assistance became institutionalized, creating new communities after older ones wore out since we prefer to spend tax dollars on replacing communities rather than rebuilding them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×