Jump to content
Guest KJP

Suburban Sprawl News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

And Canadians aren't as militaristic when it comes to individual property rights, so things like urban growth boundaries and regionalization were more acceptable in Canada than here. But that shouldn't be considered a general statement. Some cities were more successful with UGBs than others. Hamilton and Windsor were not. London and Toronto tended to be more successful with them. Kitchener-Waterloo was mixed. Look at a satellite map of a Canadian metro area, and at how development occurs on one side of a principal street but not on the other. That's a UGB at work. Or, in London, the regional government is prohibiting further office developments in the suburbs and requiring them to be only in downtown London. Could you imagine an Ohio county or the State of Ohio doing something like that and not get sued?

Edited by KJP
  • Like 1

"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 10:48 PM, GCrites80s said:

If sprawl was really that "natural" then Canada would look just like the U.S.

 

Lower population and a different mindset.   Canadians asked nicely for their independence.   We took ours.   Mindsets are inherited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 3:52 PM, KJP said:

And Canadians aren't as militaristic when it comes to individual property rights, so things like urban growth boundaries and regionalization were more acceptable in Canada than here. But that shouldn't be considered a general statement. Some cities were more successful with UGBs than others. Hamilton and Windsor were not. London and Toronto tended to be more successful with them. Kitchener-Waterloo was mixed. Look at a satellite map of a Canadian metro area, and at how development occurs on one side of a principal street but not on the other. That's a UGB at work. Or, in London, the regional government is prohibiting further office developments in the suburbs and requiring them to be only in downtown London. Could you imagine an Ohio county or the State of Ohio doing something like that and not get sued?

 

Sued?   The state would never in a million years do it, nor would they let a county.

 

The suburbs are split between the major parties and that gives them clout beyond their numbers in Columbus.

 

You're 200% correct about the national character,  though you could easily have left out the word "property".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 9:50 PM, KJP said:

 

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.

 

 For the most part, they didn't want to.   They wanted what they considered the best of both words, which for my grandpa was the current site of Fun N' Stuff in Macedonia.  

 

The World War II veterans had had their fill of "density" as well.

 

Eventually it became a cultural trend, and a perfect storm of sorts.

Share this post


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

 

 For the most part, they didn't want to.   They wanted what they considered the best of both words, which for my grandpa was the current site of Fun N' Stuff in Macedonia.  

 

The World War II veterans had had their fill of "density" as well.

 

Eventually it became a cultural trend, and a perfect storm of sorts.

 

Of course, because they weren't paying full price for living in the suburbs.  I'd pick the Cadillac too if I didn't have to pay full price for it. While the suburbs got state and federal funds for new roads and market-rate housing, the mother cities and their transit systems, roads/bridges, and housing programs had to fend for themselves. Oh, and the Great Migration was just starting. Conservatives say "let the free market determine things" except when it benefits them. The free market did build cities once upon a time. It did it before the New Deal, and it built them with walkable density, electricity and public transportation.

Edited by KJP
  • Like 2

"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


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

 

Lower population and a different mindset.   Canadians asked nicely for their independence.   We took ours.   Mindsets are inherited.

 

People all over the world are the same. It is government and religion that make them different. 

Share this post


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

The World War II veterans had had their fill of "density" as well.

 

A lot of that in Cleveland and similar places was due to the fact that industrial cities were disgusting to live in. We can have density today in a much cleaner and more sanitary way, which is why cities are coming back, starting with the coasts 20 years ago and now finally creeping into our corner of the world.

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

A lot of that in Cleveland and similar places was due to the fact that industrial cities were disgusting to live in. We can have density today in a much cleaner and more sanitary way, which is why cities are coming back, starting with the coasts 20 years ago and now finally creeping into our corner of the world.

My parents are both still around (at ages 90 and 85) and they remember Cbus as crowded and dirty in the mid to late 40's. Part of that is nearly 20 years of deferred maintenance from the depression (lack of money) and the war (lack of materials and manpower).  There was a housing shortage, and it was cheapest and easiest to build new housing in new areas-even before the interstate highway system a lot of Levittown type and other suburban developments were built. People back than generally could not wait to get away from public transportation and get private cars and move away from the central city even before racial desegregation became an issue for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone was trying to run away from public transportation. In the 1990s, in preparation for running a series on Old Cleveland, the local PBS station did a survey of the things that older Clevelanders missed the most about the Cleveland of their youth. One of the four things they missed the most was the streetcars. Cleveland also built the first new rail transit in the USA in the postwar years.

 

Edited by KJP
  • Like 1

"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

 

People all over the world are the same. It is government and religion that make them different. 

 

Not in the least, in fact it it's more likely that it's their differences that drive the differences in those.

 

Geography and migration are more likely to cause differences.   Migration indeed may cause positive feedback on differences.

 

Does it make sense that people uncomfortable with a certain condition are likely to move somewhere it is less prevalent, or not a concern at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

A lot of that in Cleveland and similar places was due to the fact that industrial cities were disgusting to live in. We can have density today in a much cleaner and more sanitary way, which is why cities are coming back, starting with the coasts 20 years ago and now finally creeping into our corner of the world.

 

True to a point, but the World War II veterans were also tired of life in barracks and on ships. They also had construction skills, and needed jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KJP said:

Not everyone was trying to run away from public transportation. In the 1990s, in preparation for running a series on Old Cleveland, the local PBS station did a survey of the things that older Clevelanders missed the most about the Cleveland of their youth. One of the four things they missed the most was the streetcars. Cleveland also built the first new rail transit in the USA in the postwar years.

 

 

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of the study was to measure the resurgence of cities vs their suburbs, which has been much discussed over the last decade or so, so it compares 1970 to 2010 data.  OK.

Share this post


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

 

 

They may have taken too long of a time period in order to prove a point.   I'd guess that difference was most distinct between 1970 and 1985 or so, then  almost as strong into the mid 90s.   It continues over the last 25 years or so, but not as strongly.   Policies which were anti-urban in effect (though not always intent) implemented during the late 60s and  70s exacerbated the "perfect storm" that was postwar residential sprawl.

 

Culture and education are the root of the differences moving forwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very interested to know which census tracts lost population due to abandonment vs due to smaller household sizes. I'm not too familiar with the west side, but the east suburbs have been losing population for awhile, but they are for the most part not being abandoned. There just has been no real addition of housing units until recently. Its the same houses with now just the parents living in them. The only way to actively combat population decline while household sizes shrinks is to add more and more density. The long game would be waiting for the parents to leave those houses, and them to open up on the market for a new family to move in, which would take decades.

Share this post


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

I would be very interested to know which census tracts lost population due to abandonment vs due to smaller household sizes. I'm not too familiar with the west side, but the east suburbs have been losing population for awhile, but they are for the most part not being abandoned. There just has been no real addition of housing units until recently. Its the same houses with now just the parents living in them. The only way to actively combat population decline while household sizes shrinks is to add more and more density. The long game would be waiting for the parents to leave those houses, and them to open up on the market for a new family to move in, which would take decades.

 

There is more to it than just that.  My brother and parent both own homes near to one another.  My middle nephew graduated in '18 and moved back home. Most of my cousins' kids live at home as well.  Nobody wants to sell, that is a real fact. Some people just don't want to move and unmarried generations are moving "home".  It makes counting more difficult

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...