Jump to content
Guest KJP

Suburban Sprawl News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It makes total logical sense. We wanted to buy in Downtown/OTR but couldn't afford the amount of space we wanted so we ended up in Northside. I've talked to people in Northside bars who bought in College Hill because they couldn't afford Northside. And so on and so forth. Every single millennial I know who has bought in the suburbs did so out of necessity, not because they wanted to be there.

  

 We also fully intend to have children and raise them in Northside.

It's a similar story up in Cleveland. I ended up in Lakewood because we were priced out of our top neighborhoods and at the time West Park didn't have a lot on the market. We plan to move back in in the next five years and raise kids in the city. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

It's a similar story up in Cleveland. I ended up in Lakewood because we were priced out of our top neighborhoods and at the time West Park didn't have a lot on the market. We plan to move back in in the next five years and raise kids in the city. 

 

In all fairness, Lakewood is not exactly suburban.  It's more dense than many Cleveland neighborhoods--and also a great place to raise children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cleburger said:

 

In all fairness, Lakewood is not exactly suburban.  It's more dense than many Cleveland neighborhoods--and also a great place to raise children.  

Don't disagree, hence why we ended up in Lakewood. I don't think we would have regrets if we end up getting "stuck" in Lakewood. Definitely not moving any further west though. 

 

I do feel a certain responsibility to move into the city for what it's worth. On top of that both my wife and I will soon be working in Cleveland.

 

Alot of people discount the fact that there are alot of people out there who plan to send their kids to Catholic School no matter what city they lived in. It certainly isn't a small percentage. Therefore where you move isn't always based on school district. The question is is it enough? 

 

Lastly, alot of millennials just aren't having kids, period. Are you gonna really move to the suburbs if you're childless? Maybe, but I doubt it because I bet a big part of that choice for most people was so they could continue to have fun themselves; as well as the cost of raising a kid. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me as another example. I live in downtown Cleveland and Ohio City for almost 5 years before I was priced out a little over a year ago. I never would have left the city if I could have found a place I could afford that didn't need alot of work done (renting was no longer an option). I ended up buying in Shaker Hts right along the Blue Line so I can still have quick and easy access to downtown without needing to worry about driving and parking. I don't particularly want to live in the suburbs, but where I bought in Shaker is a decent compromise with walkability and convenient access to transit. Kids, and thus schools, are of no concern to me. I plan on heading back closer to the core when I'm able to. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 2:21 PM, E Rocc said:

 

Truth.   It would be better to say they were getting away from a dependence on public transportation.

 

Maple Heights was one of the first of the sprawlburbs.  Yet before the RTA takeover, the typical MH resident likely had better access to public transportation than most Clevelanders.   The point was it was not an essential.   

I disagree.  Cleveland residents had good bus and train access to CTA buses and Trains. I believe the independent transportation companies had a small area to cover so transportation coverage for that area was better.  I feel that RTA ruined the Shaker Rapid and eastside bus service. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

Count me as another example. I live in downtown Cleveland and Ohio City for almost 5 years before I was priced out a little over a year ago. I never would have left the city if I could have found a place I could afford that didn't need alot of work done (renting was no longer an option). I ended up buying in Shaker Hts right along the Blue Line so I can still have quick and easy access to downtown without needing to worry about driving and parking. I don't particularly want to live in the suburbs, but where I bought in Shaker is a decent compromise with walkability and convenient access to transit. Kids, and thus schools, are of no concern to me. I plan on heading back closer to the core when I'm able to. 

 

To be fair, we're talking about an urbanist group here.  

 

About a decade ago we were seeing and hearing the same things.   I had a lot of contacts among what could be called "early millenials" from work and through Holly, and thanks mostly to Facebook have kept up with a number of them.   

 

Quite a few lived in the city or the denser burbs while single or childless.   I would estimate 90% moved out to the "sprawl" once they had kids, and this includes the single moms.   

This was a politically undefined group, I'd say the people on this forum are going to fall within that 10%, and it may be 20-25% by now.

 

But dense surroundings are still not generally seen as an ideal place to raise kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

I disagree.  Cleveland residents had good bus and train access to CTA buses and Trains. I believe the independent transportation companies had a small area to cover so transportation coverage for that area was better.  I feel that RTA ruined the Shaker Rapid and eastside bus service. 

 

It could be that it was equal or better than most.   Local bus ran about every half hour during the day, stopping within a couple blocks of 90% of the houses in Maple.   Connected to downtown via Turney and Broadway, proceeded to Southgate, Randall Mall (both doing well at the time) and eventually the Shaker Rapid.

The RTA was a very downtowncentric, rush hour oriented entity.   Ironically with respect to the latter, it lost a lot of commuters when Cleveland decided to put high school kids going crosstown on it.   (I rode the Red Line a lot at the time,  this is not speculation).

The merger was the worst thing to happen to public transportation at the time.   It eliminated competition and replaced transportation priorities with political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

Quite a few lived in the city or the denser burbs while single or childless.   I would estimate 90% moved out to the "sprawl" once they had kids, and this includes the single moms.   

 

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

But dense surroundings are still not generally seen as an ideal place to raise kids.

 

Were they able to find decent public schools in the city?  Was the best job they could find in the suburbs?  Could they afford a house in the city with the extra bedroom (or more)?  It's been pointed out over and over that people can only choose from the options that are available to them.  Schools are a huge factor for any family with kids, and very few people are willing to risk their kid's education by pioneering in a bad district.  They're making rational choices based on the situation they're faced with, but it doesn't mean that's their preferred choice. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

It could be that it was equal or better than most.   Local bus ran about every half hour during the day, stopping within a couple blocks of 90% of the houses in Maple.   Connected to downtown via Turney and Broadway, proceeded to Southgate, Randall Mall (both doing well at the time) and eventually the Shaker Rapid.

The RTA was a very downtowncentric, rush hour oriented entity.   Ironically with respect to the latter, it lost a lot of commuters when Cleveland decided to put high school kids going crosstown on it.   (I rode the Red Line a lot at the time,  this is not speculation).

The merger was the worst thing to happen to public transportation at the time.   It eliminated competition and replaced transportation priorities with political.

That is what I am trying to convey.  RTA was definitely downtown centric and had a 7am to 7pm operating cycle.    Elimination of express trains also had a big impact.  Busing kids was bad in hindsight, but wasn't unique to Cleveland.

 

We also need to remember in the mid 70s Cleveland and it's neighborhood were very different.  There were services, but they were not so fragmented.  The flee to the 'burbs was still in it's infancy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 12:03 PM, E Rocc said:

 

If this is indeed the case (since it's Angie, I suspect the supporting data was very carefully cherry picked to support a pre-reached conclusion), it's self correcting.

But I suspect it's not the case, and the reason is shown.   Children.

 

MIllenials are having them later.   (Yes, I know I'm one to talk LOL).

 

What cities would need to do would be quite politically unpopular with current residents.   They vote, potential residents do not.

 

Someone was listening to you.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

 

The Future of the City is Childless

 

[...]

 

For those young and middle-aged Americans who are having sex and having children, the smaller cities and suburbs might simply be a better place to live. Perhaps parents are clustering in suburbs today for the same reason that companies cluster in rich cities: Doing so is more efficient for them. Suburbs have more “schools, parks, stroller-friendly areas, restaurants with high chairs, babysitters, [and] large parking spaces for SUV’s,” wrote Conor Sen, an investor and columnist for Bloomberg. It’s akin to a division of labor: America’s rich cities specialize in the young, rich, and childless; America’s suburbs specialize in parents. The childless city may be inescapable.

 

=========================

On 7/11/2019 at 8:02 PM, PoshSteve said:

Count me as another example. I live in downtown Cleveland and Ohio City for almost 5 years before I was priced out a little over a year ago. I never would have left the city if I could have found a place I could afford that didn't need alot of work done (renting was no longer an option). I ended up buying in Shaker Hts right along the Blue Line so I can still have quick and easy access to downtown without needing to worry about driving and parking. I don't particularly want to live in the suburbs, but where I bought in Shaker is a decent compromise with walkability and convenient access to transit. Kids, and thus schools, are of no concern to me. I plan on heading back closer to the core when I'm able to. 

 

On 7/12/2019 at 2:21 PM, jjakucyk said:

Were they able to find decent public schools in the city?  Was the best job they could find in the suburbs?  Could they afford a house in the city with the extra bedroom (or more)?  It's been pointed out over and over that people can only choose from the options that are available to them.  Schools are a huge factor for any family with kids, and very few people are willing to risk their kid's education by pioneering in a bad district.  They're making rational choices based on the situation they're faced with, but it doesn't mean that's their preferred choice. 

 

I would have lived in downtown Canton when I worked there as a childless young single from 2007-2009, but there wasn't even an option, regardless of budget.  It was simply desolate.  I did live in downtown Akron from 2009-2013.  I'd still live there today if I hadn't gotten married and planned on starting a family.  A lot of my nonprofit work has been devoted to development of urban cores and urban neighborhoods.  But I wasn't able to make it work for my own family given the options available and my inability to freeze myself in time until development could actually occur.

 

We moved to West Akron in 2013 and we may move again for the school system when our oldest hits school age in the fall of 2020.  And it's definitely because of the kids--and because my wife's culture frequently involves extended stays by empty-nester grandparents (in-laws) to help with early childhood.  We have a third kid about to be born and may well go for a fourth.

 

Needless to say, if I'm looking for 5+ bedrooms, potentially including an in-law suite on top of that, in a good school district so I don't have to pay private school tuition for four kids, the current urban market doesn't actually have anything for me, almost regardless of my budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were in Columbus, I would definitely look at Vickyville.  There was even a time when I thought I'd be back in Columbus by now.  Miss that place.  But life happened and I've put down roots in the Northeast now.  C'est la Vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texafornia dreaming

America’s future will be written in the two mega-states

 

In the cable-news version of America, the president sits in the White House issuing commands that transform the nation. Life is not like that. In the real version of America many of the biggest political choices are made not in Washington but by the states—and by two of them in particular.

 

Texas and California are the biggest, brashest, most important states in the union, each equally convinced that it is the future (see our Special report in this issue). For the past few decades they have been heading in opposite directions, creating an experiment that reveals whether America works better as a low-tax, low-regulation place in which government makes little provision for its citizens (Texas), or as a high-tax, highly regulated one in which it is the government’s role to tackle problems, such as climate change, that might ordinarily be considered the job of the federal government (California). 

 

Given the long-running political dysfunction in Washington, the results will determine what sort of country America becomes almost as much as the victor of the next presidential election will. 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/texafornia-dreaming

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How a 30-Minute Commute Has Shaped Centuries of Cities

by Jason Kottke   Sep 05, 2019

 

Twenty-five years ago, physicist Cesare Marchetti argued that people, on average, tend to keep their commutes to about an hour a day, round-trip. For Citylab, Jonathan English looks at how this inclination has interacted with advances in transportation to affect how cities grow and evolve. For instance, walking and travel by horse kept cities to an effective diameter of a few miles, allowing their density to grow over many centuries.

 

https://kottke.org/19/09/how-a-30-minute-commute-has-shaped-centuries-of-cities

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which has manifested itself in state politics as well....

 

 

Edited by KJP

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJP said:

Which has manifested itself in state politics as well....

 

 

 

Replied on T to Jason's tweet.

 

The suburbs, particularly the NE Ohio suburbs, are the deciding region in statewide elections.   The Republicans are disinclined to challenge them, the Democrats can't afford to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So of course sprawl is popular when the costs of developing and living there are reduced by subsidies from the established neighborhoods....

 

 

Love this....

 

MW-HW947_strong_20191213160601_NS.jpg?uu

 

Edited by KJP
  • Like 2

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More needless highway, brought to you by the asphalt lobby. 

 

Some In Rural Florida Want Officials To Change Direction On Toll Roads

February 21, 20205:00 AM ET

 

Florida is planning a major expansion of its highways with a series of toll roads that would open new parts of the state to development.

 

Exactly where the roads will go hasn't been announced yet, but opposition to the highways is growing in rural areas such as Jefferson County in North Florida. Mike Willis' family has lived there since before Florida became a state. He likes to refer to it as "the other Florida."

 

"Most people think of Florida as palm trees, white sandy beaches," he says. "We have rolling clay hills and beautiful pine forests."

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/807032774/some-in-rural-florida-want-officials-to-change-direction-on-toll-roads

Share this post


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

^They lost me when they featured Randall O’Tool. Boo! A modern Al Porter. 

 

Yeah I don't know the guy, but he sure doesn't sound very objective. I think he was merely there to represent a fairly academic (unreasonable) contrarian viewpoint. 

Share this post


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

^They lost me when they featured Randall O’Tool. Boo! A modern Al Porter. 

 

40 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Yeah I don't know the guy, but he sure doesn't sound very objective. I think he was merely there to represent a fairly academic (unreasonable) contrarian viewpoint. 


Take a read through the thread “the anti-rail hitman is still out there” in the Rail portion of the Transportation forum. Randall O’Tool is often featured on that thread. “We can’t solve 21st century problems with 19th century technology” is his commentary on rail. Apparently he doesn’t know when cars were invented, since that’s his suggested alternative. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 


Take a read through the thread “the anti-rail hitman is still out there” in the Rail portion of the Transportation forum. Randall O’Tool is often featured on that thread. “We can’t solve 21st century problems with 19th century technology” is his commentary on rail. Apparently he doesn’t know when cars were invented, since that’s his suggested alternative. 

Ohhhh, that guy lol. His credibility is hovering around zero. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, surfohio said:

 

Yeah I don't know the guy, but he sure doesn't sound very objective. I think he was merely there to represent a fairly academic (unreasonable) contrarian viewpoint. 

 

It's not even academic -- he's from the CATO Institute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

 

It's not even academic -- he's from the CATO Institute.

 

Well who else is gonna pay him for his sweeeet ranch house in the exurbs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason Magazine is probably the top pop-libertarian publication and Randal O'Toole is one of the top pop-libertarian "minds" in relation to urban development and transportation. So it would almost be surprising if he didn't make an appearance in that video, It's a big shift that the market urbanism thing is gaining traction in libertarian circles (such as Reason's readers/viewers), because O'Toole's views were completely dominant a decade ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Toole has been a part of my life for over 20 years, dating back to when I read an anti-Portland MAX light rail hit piece in 1998.  Penned by his truly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 3

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 3

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article is a year old and ever-more important as we approach the next election: where you live is an indicator of how you will vote....

 

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...