The Home Builder's Association has never cared about sustainable development.  Generic single family homes is all they've ever done.

Just had the displeasure of driving around Avon for the last hour in the hammering rain. What an absolute mess of a town this is. 

On 10/5/2021 at 7:53 PM, X said:

The Home Builder's Association has never cared about sustainable development.  Generic single family homes is all they've ever done.

 

They are a business.   They do what there is a demand for.

The name suggests builders, not rehabbers.   A lot of dense neighborhoods come from the latter rather than the former.

They are an association- primarily for the businesses that build suburban cul-de-sac style housing.

Rant on --- Rarely do I go out into surrounding counties, but in recent years I've been doing it more because my son plays soccer for Lakewood and plays against teams out in Medina or Lorain counties. I'm shocked to see development continuing to spread 20, 30, 40 miles out from Public Square. Since the region isn't growing much if at all, this usually pulls people from places like Strongsville and Westlake. And those vacancies tend to get filled by people from Fairview Park, Rocky River, Lakewood, Brook Park and Parma. And those vacancies often get filled by people from Edgewater, Kamms Corners, Bellaire-Puritas, Old Brooklyn, etc. And those get filled by people in Cudell, Westown, Clark-Fulton, etc.

 

But those vacancies don't get filled.

 

Same hopscotch is happening on the East Side. We watch the likes of Balaton and others fleeing the city chasing after their customers who left long ago. I went to Balaton on Shaker Square a few weeks ago and walked around the square with my wife. I was disappointed at how quiet it was. Half of the stores weren't open. Most of the offices were vacant. The trains passing through the square were empty. And west of Shaker Square it's incredible at how desolate it is. I recall riding crowded rapid trains through here back in the 1980s when St. Lukes was still humming and the office and apartment buildings along Shaker were brightly lit and active into the night.

 

Yesterday I drove the Opportunity Corridor through the urban prairies of the east side and traveled down a deserted East 55th into Slavic Village, turning onto Broadway. There were few cars and no people on the sidewalks. The infrequent buses on once-busy routes are largely empty. At least the buildings are still standing even though most are empty and boarded up. The residents and shops had fled to Bedford and Maple Heights long ago, then to Solon and Twinsburg and Macedonia, and now even farther.  

 

Tomorrow, the Bedfords and Maple Heights and Kamms Corners and Old Brooklyns are the next to face vacancy and abandonment problems as long as the development continues to push farther and farther and out, dragging the doughnut hole open ever wider behind it. I used to think that at some point this is going to stop. There's only so far the sprawl can spread. But now my brother lives out in Mantua, after having moved from Maple Heights, then to Reminderville, then farther. And tonight I visited Crocker Park, one of the faux urbanist neighborhoods (my Chicago friend calls it Disney) that exurbanites go to since they won't set foot anywhere near Cleveland anymore. The streets were so crowded block after block that you could barely move.

 

It depresses me to no end to see so much emptiness and vacancy throughout our metro area, when I can still clearly recall how active and populous many of these areas used to be. There are still vibrant areas to enjoy like Ohio City and Tremont and Little Italy. But it seems like for every one of those nice, historic neighborhoods there are, there's several more that are failing and decaying. I hope Justin Bibb and perhaps Chris Ronayne can help turn them around. But the answers to these problems aren't in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, but in the State House down in Columbus. And they act like they are more interested in building duplicate communities on farms and forests than in keeping our existing communities from turning into farms and forests. -- rant off

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Rant on --- Rarely do I go out into surrounding counties, but in recent years I've been doing it more because my son plays soccer for Lakewood and plays against teams out in Medina or Lorain counties. I'm shocked to see development continuing to spread 20, 30, 40 miles out from Public Square. Since the region isn't growing much if at all, this usually pulls people from places like Strongsville and Westlake. And those vacancies tend to get filled by people from Fairview Park, Rocky River, Lakewood, Brook Park and Parma. And those vacancies often get filled by people from Edgewater, Kamms Corners, Bellaire-Puritas, Old Brooklyn, etc. And those get filled by people in Cudell, Westown, Clark-Fulton, etc.

 

But those vacancies don't get filled.

 

Same hopscotch is happening on the East Side. We watch the likes of Balaton and others fleeing the city chasing after their customers who left long ago. I went to Balaton on Shaker Square a few weeks ago and walked around the square with my wife. I was disappointed at how quiet it was. Half of the stores weren't open. Most of the offices were vacant. The trains passing through the square were empty. And west of Shaker Square it's incredible at how desolate it is. I recall riding crowded rapid trains through here back in the 1980s when St. Lukes was still humming and the office and apartment buildings along Shaker were brightly lit and active into the night.

 

Yesterday I drove the Opportunity Corridor through the urban prairies of the east side and traveled down a deserted East 55th into Slavic Village, turning onto Broadway. There were few cars and no people on the sidewalks. The infrequent buses on once-busy routes are largely empty. At least the buildings are still standing even though most are empty and boarded up. The residents and shops had fled to Bedford and Maple Heights long ago, then to Solon and Twinsburg and Macedonia, and now even farther.  

 

Tomorrow, the Bedfords and Maple Heights and Kamms Corners and Old Brooklyns are the next to face vacancy and abandonment problems as long as the development continues to push farther and farther and out, dragging the doughnut hole open ever wider behind it. I used to think that at some point this is going to stop. There's only so far the sprawl can spread. But now my brother lives out in Mantua, after having moved from Maple Heights, then to Reminderville, then farther. And tonight I visited Crocker Park, one of the faux urbanist neighborhoods (my Chicago friend calls it Disney) that exurbanites go to since they won't set foot anywhere near Cleveland anymore. The streets were so crowded block after block that you could barely move.

 

It depresses me to no end to see so much emptiness and vacancy throughout our metro area, when I can still clearly recall how active and populous many of these areas used to be. There are still vibrant areas to enjoy like Ohio City and Tremont and Little Italy. But it seems like for every one of those nice, historic neighborhoods there are, there's several more that are failing and decaying. I hope Justin Bibb and perhaps Chris Ronayne can help turn them around. But the answers to these problems aren't in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, but in the State House down in Columbus. And they act like they are more interested in building duplicate communities on farms and forests than in keeping our existing communities from turning into farms and forests. -- rant off

It is very, very frustrating to see the very things that you bring up here, but they are quite true.  I have been a life-long east side suburban resident.  I recall the Buckeye-Woodhill neighborhood where my grandparents lived.  It was where my parents lived right after they got married, before moving to a far eastern suburb in Cuyahoga County. As a young child, I recall going for walks with my grandmother in her Cleveland neighborhood and her having no concerns.  Only a few years later, I remember her calling my father as she was terrified about all the gunshots going off at night.  Not long afterwards, she came to live with us.  Many years ago, Cleveland had a top-notch school system.  I don't know for how many years that Cleveland Metropolitan School District has been one of the ten worst districts in the state out of over 600 districts.

 

I still live in the eastern suburbs, not in the same suburb that I grew up in, but in a neighboring one.  When we moved in, a large number of the residents were older, empty-nesters or widowed.  Some were original owners living in their houses since the mid/late-fifties.  Most of them have moved on in one way or another.  We see some of the once well taken care of properties are now treated badly.  Complaints to city officials have done nothing.  Once quiet summer nights are now starting to have more instances of guns being fired.  Recently, there was one occasion where it happened in the late afternoon on a busy main street (my neighbor saw it happen).  As for the schools, fortunately we had another option and my children were able to attend much better ones.  It meant driving and carpooling, but it was worth it.  Even the school district that I attended up until recently was one of the best in the state.  Relatives with school-age children now live in my old district and that is were they went to school.  It has declined so much, they decided to send them to a private school.  That top-notch district is now only slightly above the middle of the 607 districts.  Basically an average district.  Crimes that almost never happened are quite common.

 

It comes down to quality of life.  Many parents want their kids to have the best education as possible.  We made the decision to send our kids to another school as they weren't learning anything in our local schools.  We felt that the district was more interested in moving kids on to the next grade to move them up, rather than to hold them to meeting the benchmarks to earn grade promotion.  For us, our family is no longer directly impacted by how the schools perform, but we are still indirectly impacted.  Having a school district that is normally ranked around the bottom 5% in the state does nothing to enhance or maintain home value.  As for safety, we have to wonder where the next gunshots will go off and how close they will be to where we live.  Hopefully, we won't be victimized by property crimes, but even then we are indirectly affected in our insurance rates for all of the other ones that do occur.

 

I would hope that Bibb, Ronayane and all of the other local city/county leaders can do something, but I have my doubts.  I don't know what the solution is to fixing the quality of life issues.  What I do know is for those who have the ability to get away from from the quality of life issues, many will do so.    

 

There is always demand for new housing in the region, but its more a matter of where it can be built easily and cheaply. I've found that there are alot of people who just want a new house, and don't so much care if its in an inner or outer ring suburb, or in the city. They just want it new with the lower maintenance that comes from it. I was recently at a developers conference where they were discussing this. They would be building more in the established communities if it were easier to do so. The zoning codes are one of the main hindrances to that, making it basically impossible to build new homes without going thru lengthy (and expensive) processes to get variances and approvals. One developer was recounting how they bent over backwards to have their infill plan meet with the suburb's codes, got the approvals, only to have city council come out against it and stall it, leading to it being canceled. Why was city council even getting involved in this?? Too many people are too obsessed with their own power and authority and want to have the final say in everything. Another tailored a development to fit the cities master plan, only to have it denied anyways for "not fitting in".

 

Localities need to make it easier for development if they want to see it. Otherwise it's going to continue to go out to the greenfield far out suburbs where the difficulties aren't entrenched. 

10 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

It is very, very frustrating to see the very things that you bring up here, but they are quite true.  I have been a life-long east side suburban resident.  I recall the Buckeye-Woodhill neighborhood where my grandparents lived.  It was where my parents lived right after they got married, before moving to a far eastern suburb in Cuyahoga County. As a young child, I recall going for walks with my grandmother in her Cleveland neighborhood and her having no concerns.  Only a few years later, I remember her calling my father as she was terrified about all the gunshots going off at night.  Not long afterwards, she came to live with us.  Many years ago, Cleveland had a top-notch school system.  I don't know for how many years that Cleveland Metropolitan School District has been one of the ten worst districts in the state out of over 600 districts.

 

I still live in the eastern suburbs, not in the same suburb that I grew up in, but in a neighboring one.  When we moved in, a large number of the residents were older, empty-nesters or widowed.  Some were original owners living in their houses since the mid/late-fifties.  Most of them have moved on in one way or another.  We see some of the once well taken care of properties are now treated badly.  Complaints to city officials have done nothing.  Once quiet summer nights are now starting to have more instances of guns being fired.  Recently, there was one occasion where it happened in the late afternoon on a busy main street (my neighbor saw it happen).  As for the schools, fortunately we had another option and my children were able to attend much better ones.  It meant driving and carpooling, but it was worth it.  Even the school district that I attended up until recently was one of the best in the state.  Relatives with school-age children now live in my old district and that is were they went to school.  It has declined so much, they decided to send them to a private school.  That top-notch district is now only slightly above the middle of the 607 districts.  Basically an average district.  Crimes that almost never happened are quite common.

 

It comes down to quality of life.  Many parents want their kids to have the best education as possible.  We made the decision to send our kids to another school as they weren't learning anything in our local schools.  We felt that the district was more interested in moving kids on to the next grade to move them up, rather than to hold them to meeting the benchmarks to earn grade promotion.  For us, our family is no longer directly impacted by how the schools perform, but we are still indirectly impacted.  Having a school district that is normally ranked around the bottom 5% in the state does nothing to enhance or maintain home value.  As for safety, we have to wonder where the next gunshots will go off and how close they will be to where we live.  Hopefully, we won't be victimized by property crimes, but even then we are indirectly affected in our insurance rates for all of the other ones that do occur.

 

I would hope that Bibb, Ronayane and all of the other local city/county leaders can do something, but I have my doubts.  I don't know what the solution is to fixing the quality of life issues.  What I do know is for those who have the ability to get away from from the quality of life issues, many will do so.    

 

Damn that's a downer. You're right of course, but jeez, I'm going to need to watch something fun on youtube now.

10 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

There is always demand for new housing in the region, but its more a matter of where it can be built easily and cheaply. I've found that there are alot of people who just want a new house, and don't so much care if its in an inner or outer ring suburb, or in the city. They just want it new with the lower maintenance that comes from it. I was recently at a developers conference where they were discussing this. They would be building more in the established communities if it were easier to do so. The zoning codes are one of the main hindrances to that, making it basically impossible to build new homes without going thru lengthy (and expensive) processes to get variances and approvals. One developer was recounting how they bent over backwards to have their infill plan meet with the suburb's codes, got the approvals, only to have city council come out against it and stall it, leading to it being canceled. Why was city council even getting involved in this?? Too many people are too obsessed with their own power and authority and want to have the final say in everything. Another tailored a development to fit the cities master plan, only to have it denied anyways for "not fitting in".

 

Localities need to make it easier for development if they want to see it. Otherwise it's going to continue to go out to the greenfield far out suburbs where the difficulties aren't entrenched. 

The politicians are a part of the problem.  They have a sense of empowerment and self-enrichment.  Many times, it does come down to what can be done for them.  About a nine years ago, the mayor of Mayfield Heights, Greg Constabile, resigned due to improper dealings (and benefits received) associated with land that was eventually used to build new homes in one of the last larger pieces of undeveloped land in the city.  

 

There is also an issue with the properties available in many of these older suburbs.  There is only so much that can be done with older houses on small lots.  Houses with fewer than 2 full bathrooms are not high on the desirability list.  Small rooms, one-car garages and lack of storage are also contributing factors.  If a house has significant problems, it makes things worse.  Cookie-cutter tract homes constructed by the tens of thousands following World War 2 multiply the problem.  Housing styles that were once popular aren't being built today.  In the end, if a single house is demolished, the size of the lot limits what can be done on it.  The only meaningful changes to the housing situation will come if multiple contiguous properties can be acquired and cleared with the combined lots subdivided into fewer new lots is the only reasonable solution.  This is where the hurdles come into play with dealing with the entrenched politicians. 

 

You've only got 5-10 years of low maintenance on a new house. And the first two years are spent on teething problems, personalizing and covering up the poor craftsmanship seen today. So really only like 3-8 years of low maintenance.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

You've only got 5-10 years of low maintenance on a new house. And the first two years are spent on teething problems, personalizing and covering up the poor craftsmanship seen today. So really only like 3-8 years of low maintenance.

Though the cookie-cutter tract houses from the late 1940's to mid/late-1960's has many limitations due to designs, property, etc..., at least they were built significantly better than later construction.  I have been in newer houses and what passes as acceptable is extremely disappointing.  At least the newer houses do have better insulation, desirable features, improved wiring and no lead in the water lines.  No matter how well those late 1940's to mid/late-1960's as compared to newer houses, many need significant work, repairs and upgrades.  If a house is worn out, there is only so much that someone wants to take on to bring it up to modern standards.  If those prove to be too much of a challenge or other aspects cannot be overcome, it will drive potential home buyers to areas where they are more likely to get what they want or get away from what they don't want.  Hence, those things are the cause of sprawl.

There are huge amounts of infill lots available where the older, less desirable homes have already been torn down. There is currently the demand for new homes where those lots are desirable to build on, if only the municipalities would make it easy to do so. For example, South Euclid has worked to streamline the process and make the requirements more transparent. They managed to have (I want to say 17 at last count) new homes built/started on infill lots this year alone. The houses sell quickly, and one even sold for more than $350k. There are ways to get the demand to be funneled into the established areas instead of the greenfields.

59 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

There are huge amounts of infill lots available where the older, less desirable homes have already been torn down. There is currently the demand for new homes where those lots are desirable to build on, if only the municipalities would make it easy to do so. For example, South Euclid has worked to streamline the process and make the requirements more transparent. They managed to have (I want to say 17 at last count) new homes built/started on infill lots this year alone. The houses sell quickly, and one even sold for more than $350k. There are ways to get the demand to be funneled into the established areas instead of the greenfields.

South Euclid within the last decade or so built out that one area near Anderson and Green Roads.  Unfortunately in the case of South Euclid, that city has to deal with having a school district that is in the bottom 10% of the state.  For people who don't have school-age children or have the ability to send them to other schools, the school district's performance is of a lesser importance.

3 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

South Euclid within the last decade or so built out that one area near Anderson and Green Roads.  Unfortunately in the case of South Euclid, that city has to deal with having a school district that is in the bottom 10% of the state.  For people who don't have school-age children or have the ability to send them to other schools, the school district's performance is of a lesser importance.

 

LLC. I think you may be one of the only ones that gets it, but I don't think most people want to hear about quality of life issues here. 

I know a few very successful people that went to Brush. It didn't hinder them at all. Truth is, the metrics we use to measure school districts are not actually all that useful at predicting the success of an individual child. But yes, unfortunately, parents put a lot of stock in them.

10 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

I know a few very successful people that went to Brush. It didn't hinder them at all. Truth is, the metrics we use to measure school districts are not actually all that useful at predicting the success of an individual child. But yes, unfortunately, parents put a lot of stock in them.

Without a doubt, there are very successful people who graduated from Brush.  The same thing is true about Shaw in East Cleveland, Euclid, Cleveland Heights-University Heights and many other school districts.  When a couple is looking for a place to live and potentially raise a family, many will consider the school district depending on their financial position as a significant factor.  They will have no way in knowing how their children will perform or what potential needs they will have.  They will also consider what kind of learning environment exists as well.  

 

What do you suggest using to gauge a child's progress in school?  Should no standards exist?  How about a basic one like graduation rate?  Should children be advanced grade to grade without any regard towards what should have been learned by a certain grade level?  Quite frankly, there are school districts that have watered-down their "standards" to where they are basically meaningless.  We saw it where our children went to school.  Extra credit was handed out like candy at a parade.  There was no real learning environment for kids who wanted to learn.  Tests were open-book and open-note.  Unfortunately, that really didn't help for quite a few as those tests were probably the only times that books were opened.  One of the principals advanced all kids to the next grade--no holding any kids back.  How does that help?  State testing may not be the best solution, but the results of lax standards are exposed when certain basic skills like math, reading, science, etc... haven't been learned by a certain grade level.

 

This sort of thing doesn't go unnoticed by house hunters.  When quality education matters, they will go to where they can find it.  They will have to pay higher for a house and probably go out further than they would have desired.  And so the suburban sprawl spreads.

But is the quality of schools the cause of urban sprawl or the result of it? In Ohio, once a city becomes fully developed it can no longer increase the property tax revenues for its schools through more development. "Thanks" to HB920, school districts in mature communities have to respond to inflation through levy increases. I think that puts an enormous stress on school districts and detracts from the quality of the education. So I would argue that the quality of schools is more the result of urban sprawl than the cause of it.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

But is the quality of schools the cause of urban sprawl or the result of it? In Ohio, once a city becomes fully developed it can no longer increase the property tax revenues for its schools through more development. "Thanks" to HB920, school districts in mature communities have to respond to inflation through levy increases. I think that puts an enormous stress on school districts and detracts from the quality of the education. So I would argue that the quality of schools is more the result of urban sprawl than the cause of it.

Sprawl is a factor of both.  There are still good inner ring school districts such as Lakewood that have held up fairly well.  However, there have been factors such as changing interest in house designs that have work against it.  When one looks at the housing styles constructed from the late 1940's to mid-1970's, there is little demand for new-builds of those styles today.  New bungalows are not often built.  Split levels, bi-levels and multi-levels are essentially no longer being built. 

 

Yes, school districts do suffer the burden of HB920, but there has been a constant call for more money as if it will solve all the problems.  More money, regardless if HB920 was rescinded or if the whole school funding situation was overhauled, will not make a difference it the students and their families show no interest in learning.  We know teachers who have left higher paying jobs to take ones in lower-paying districts because they were exhausted from having classes year after year filled with mostly uninterested kids.  A former neighbor was a teaching aide.  She regularly witnessed tests being taken where the first time a book/chapter was opened was at the time of an open-book test; it was plainly obvious.  If a student doesn't know the material then, there isn't enough time to process it for a test.  Homework isn't assigned or it becomes meaningless.  More money put into the schools will not fix the lack of studying.  One of the reasons why some of these districts need more money is that they have to overpay teachers to come there or have more in the way of support staff.

 

Another factor in sprawl has nothing to do with schools.  It is the decay in the quality of life.  When people have to worry about getting attacked or robbed near their own home, it starts getting them concerned.  If carjackings occur where people shop at their local supermarket or in their neighborhood, it adds to the concern.  If they have windows open at night and regularly hear the "pop pop pop" of gunfire, it makes them nervous.  When they get up in the morning and find out that the "pop pop pop" hit their own or a neighbor's house, they start getting scared.  When fear becomes a normal part of daily life, it has a way in changing how people think.  Some would rather "stick it out" and "not give in" so they don't contribute to the exodus.  There are others who don't want to become a statistic or see one of their major, if not their largest, investment see a significant loss in value.  There is just too much of a segment of society that no longer gives a darn about where they live and show a lack of concern for their fellow neighbors.  This sort of thing has a way of changing how people think and where they want to live.

 

If asked, I wonder what are the reasons these people will give for moving out to Medina County, Lorain County or Mantua,

The above posts about how it's all a game of musical chairs got me thinking. As a resident of Old Brooklyn, the neighborhood has on average been steadily improving for the past decade with plenty of rehabs and remodels. The number of landbank and bank foreclosed zombie houses has dropped to virtually zero. Empty storefronts have been slowly filling in along the old school brick building commercial streets. I see the same going on throughout a most parts of the west side. To check my own anecdotal experience, I looked at the Cuyahoga Landbank page of properties.

 

Here is a list of landbank properties by city ward with some hopefully neighborhood descriptive names thrown in:

 

Quote

ward 1 - lee/miles - 26
ward 2 - corlett - 139
ward 3 - downtown/ohio city - 31
ward 4 - buckeye/mt pleasant - 157
ward 5 - broadway/central - 85
ward 6 - fairfax/UC/kinsman - 128
ward 7 - hough/kirtland - 191
ward 8 - n collinwood - 69
ward 9 - glenville - 269
ward 10 - s collinwood/etc - 219
ward 11 - cudell/west blvd - 11
ward 12 - slavic village/south hills - 93
ward 13 - old brooklyn/stockyards - 8
ward 14 - brooklyn ctr/clark - 40
ward 15 - gordon square/edgewater - 43
ward 16 - jefferson/puritas - 23
ward 17 - kamms/airport - 0
***
east cleveland - 571 (yikes)

 

Attached is a map with most neighboring suburbs included as well. For me it really shows how much the east side has hollowed out, while most of the west side has been mostly intact or filled back in.

 

Based on conversations with other neighborhood locals at bars and restaurants, people are relocating between middle class neighborhoods like Lakewood, Parma, Old Brooklyn, Gordon Square, and Kamm's pretty evenly in any given direction. The house next door to me was just renovated and flipped in the last year, being sold to a family from North Royalton who were tired of a long commute to downtown and high property taxes. The house across the street sold to a condo couple from Shaker who were looking for a house with a yard. The east side still has major problems, but things are getting better and the tide is definitely shifting!

 

I can only speak to Lakewood, but I think affordability is starting to become an issue here. I know of multiple couples who have looked at Lakewood but couldn't find something in their range. They then have the choice of going into CLE or Fairview Park. They end up in Fairview Park because of one reason which is obvious from this discussion...schools. The other reason is interesting though...They don't want to take the time renovating an older poorly maintained CLE home and can't afford to pay a flipper's high cost for  "luxury" homes. Neighborhoods like Cudell, Jefferson, West Blvd have the opportunity to take advantage of this. Just need to bring the homes up to today's standards. Not flashy or high end. Just bring them out of the 50's

^Well that's the thing about Ohio, every town has it's "day" that the houses are kinda stuck in. As far as SFH goes, Cincinnati is like 1880, Columbus is 2003, Appalachia towns are like 1915 and sounds like Cleveland is the '50s. See I like intact '70s and early '80s and Columbus has very little of that and the stuff it does have is in terrible locations (think 5-digit address numbers).

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

^Well that's the thing about Ohio, every town has it's "day" that the houses are kinda stuck in. As far as SFH goes, Cincinnati is like 1880, Columbus is 2003, Appalachia towns are like 1915 and sounds like Cleveland is the '50s. See I like intact '70s and early '80s and Columbus has very little of that and the stuff it does have is in terrible locations (think 5-digit address numbers).

 

You won't find 70s and 80s homes in a good location (by UO/urbanist standards) anywhere. The 70s and 80s had very little good urban development  I'd say Columbus actually has a lot from that era, but not in glamorous areas. Area between UA and Dublin (Worthington Schools), anywhere that's in Columbus but Westerville schools, a little bit in Gahanna schools, etc. Northern Clintonville, the areas between Morse and 161, etc.

Edited November 23, 20213 yr by mu2010

4 hours ago, YO to the CLE said:

I can only speak to Lakewood, but I think affordability is starting to become an issue here. I know of multiple couples who have looked at Lakewood but couldn't find something in their range. They then have the choice of going into CLE or Fairview Park. They end up in Fairview Park because of one reason which is obvious from this discussion...schools. The other reason is interesting though...They don't want to take the time renovating an older poorly maintained CLE home and can't afford to pay a flipper's high cost for  "luxury" homes. Neighborhoods like Cudell, Jefferson, West Blvd have the opportunity to take advantage of this. Just need to bring the homes up to today's standards. Not flashy or high end. Just bring them out of the 50's

 

I am going to be facing this issue next year. I rent in Edgewater now and would like to buy either Lakewood or West Side Cleveland, with an eye on a family in less than 5 years. Originally i wanted to stay near Clifton so i could take the 55 downtown but i can already tell I'll have to expand that a bit. Would love to stay in Cleveland for loyalty's sake but ugh schools. On the other hand Lakewood prices are shooting to the moon. I could probably afford something decent, but do i want to afford it and stretch my budget/ savings, etc? Not sure.

Edited November 23, 20213 yr by mu2010

15 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

 

I am going to be facing this issue next year. I rent in Edgewater now and would like to buy either Lakewood or West Side Cleveland, with an eye on a family in less than 5 years. Would love to stay in Cleveland for loyalty's sake but ugh schools. On the other hand Lakewood prices are shooting to the moon. I could probably afford something pretty alright, but do I want to afford it?

I completely agree and am also in this exact bucket. I’m from brecksville and wife is from Westlake. We plan on moving to shaker even though it’s the east side and further from family. I think it gets overlooked in terms of affordability/housing stock options, location (two rapid lines), amenities (van aken, etc) diversity, and good schools/small town feel. The schools were what sold us but the combination of transit options (I work dt) and housing options (and not some Ryan home developments) also helped. I know plenty of people who brag about Shaker schools still with kids in them now and to be honest outside of sprawl central Solon it’s one of the few truly diverse school districts in the region.  

 

I also completely agree all of these “issues” are a result of sprawl, turf wars, zoning laws, and redlining/segregation. Sadly it seems like a lot of cities like cleveland can’t help but repeat past failures in this regard.

Edited November 23, 20213 yr by Clefan14

14 minutes ago, Clefan14 said:

I completely agree and am also in this exact bucket. I’m from brecksville and wife is from Westlake. We plan on moving to shaker even though it’s the east side and further from family. I think it gets overlooked in terms of affordability/housing stock options, location (two rapid lines), amenities (van aken, etc) diversity, and good schools/small town feel. I know plenty of people who brag about Shaker schools still and to be honest outside of sprawl central Solon it’s one of the few truly diverse school districts in the region.  

 

I also completely agree all of these “issues” are a result of sprawl, turf wars, zoning laws, and redlining/segregation. Sadly it seems like a lot of cities like cleveland can’t help but repeat past failures in this regard.

 

I'm from the east side (Mayfield Hts, where I comfortable and know a lot of people and could be happy, and I'm very fond of the school system even though people are soon going to start talking about it the way they talk about Brush).

 

But i moved West for Edgewater, proximity to downtown, restaurants, etc. My GF is born and raised in Lakewood.

 

Anyways, yeah I'm thinking I'll have to give another look at Cleveland Heights/Shaker Heights. My first reaction the taxes you pay are tough to swallow for me when it's still hard to get downtown and you dont have much walkabilty... in SH anyways. Yay for the rapid tho. And tax rates are still relative to home values.

Edited November 23, 20213 yr by mu2010

Hindsight 20/20, I wish we would have more seriously considered that little corner of Beachwood near Van Aken when we moved back to the area. It’s a 7 minute walk to Van Aken district from houses right on the border.  Beachwood taxes are much more reasonable than Shaker. And now with Garrett Morgan Blvd (aka Opportunity Corridor) the drive to West side attractions is much shorter. 

The Beachwood / Shaker border is pretty close to this address. 

 

2 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

I am going to be facing this issue next year. I rent in Edgewater now and would like to buy either Lakewood or West Side Cleveland, with an eye on a family in less than 5 years. Originally i wanted to stay near Clifton so i could take the 55 downtown but i can already tell I'll have to expand that a bit. Would love to stay in Cleveland for loyalty's sake but ugh schools. On the other hand Lakewood prices are shooting to the moon. I could probably afford something decent, but do i want to afford it and stretch my budget/ savings, etc? Not sure.

I live right on Clifton. The 55 is such an awesome bus line. I take it to work 90% of the time. I do love Edgewater though. In many ways, that is the better part of Clifton. Better road design, more commercial, closer to Edgewater Park, etc. The elementary there is not too bad either. The problem is that there are NEVER any homes for sale there, and if there are, they go very quickly. Lots of long term residents is good, but they limit options for buying. I miss CLE taxes, but I will say that Lakewood gives you what you pay for in services.

 

What I have always found interesting is that we on here complain about the region's obsession with sprawl which is still a problem, but I find that the huge demand for inner ring cities such as Lakewood, Shaker, and many areas of CLE Heights proves that may folks in the area desire that streetcar suburb density and charm. I go back to my original comment. That bodes well for Cleveland because 90% of the city is the same exact built environment as the inner ring cities (albeit less maintained). I personally feel there would be a huge reward if we could just do basic upkeep and modernization. I do think the former mayor's neighborhood initiative is a good start. Focus on areas adjacent to more popular neighborhoods. As Shaker Hts becomes pricier, make Buckeye a good alternative. For those priced out of Lakewood, Cudell can be an option For UC and the Heights, Glenville should be the go-to. Literally all of these neighborhoods look identical to the stable inner ring cities. I know it is easier said than done, but just a little TLC can go a long way in perception as the region's real estate prices increase and folks start looking towards other options.

9 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

I live right on Clifton. The 55 is such an awesome bus line. I take it to work 90% of the time. I do love Edgewater though. In many ways, that is the better part of Clifton. Better road design, more commercial, closer to Edgewater Park, etc. The elementary there is not too bad either. The problem is that there are NEVER any homes for sale there, and if there are, they go very quickly. Lots of long term residents is good, but they limit options for buying. I miss CLE taxes, but I will say that Lakewood gives you what you pay for in services.

 

What I have always found interesting is that we on here complain about the region's obsession with sprawl which is still a problem, but I find that the huge demand for inner ring cities such as Lakewood, Shaker, and many areas of CLE Heights proves that may folks in the area desire that streetcar suburb density and charm. I go back to my original comment. That bodes well for Cleveland because 90% of the city is the same exact built environment as the inner ring cities (albeit less maintained). I personally feel there would be a huge reward if we could just do basic upkeep and modernization. I do think the former mayor's neighborhood initiative is a good start. Focus on areas adjacent to more popular neighborhoods. As Shaker Hts becomes pricier, make Buckeye a good alternative. For those priced out of Lakewood, Cudell can be an option For UC and the Heights, Glenville should be the go-to. Literally all of these neighborhoods look identical to the stable inner ring cities. I know it is easier said than done, but just a little TLC can go a long way in perception as the region's real estate prices increase and folks start looking towards other options.

This is so true. I don't know anyone with a college degree or higher in my friend group that lives further out than an inner ring suburb. The reason I moved to Lakewood is because we kept getting priced out of Cleveland neighborhoods we wanted to be in. Honestly I couldn't even buy the home I have in Lakewood now because of how much the value has increased.

 

My mom's best friend is my realtor and she tells us the comps around us all the time. My house according to those comps has appreciated well over 100k. 

Edited November 24, 20213 yr by KFM44107

22 hours ago, YO to the CLE said:

I can only speak to Lakewood, but I think affordability is starting to become an issue here. I know of multiple couples who have looked at Lakewood but couldn't find something in their range. They then have the choice of going into CLE or Fairview Park. They end up in Fairview Park because of one reason which is obvious from this discussion...schools. The other reason is interesting though...They don't want to take the time renovating an older poorly maintained CLE home and can't afford to pay a flipper's high cost for  "luxury" homes. Neighborhoods like Cudell, Jefferson, West Blvd have the opportunity to take advantage of this. Just need to bring the homes up to today's standards. Not flashy or high end. Just bring them out of the 50's

There's a flip on W95 that was listed at $313k that's pending so we'll see how that goes...

*this is all anecdotal observation, but* Cudell is weirdly resistant to change in part, I think, because it actually has pretty low turnover. A lot of the properties that turned over in the past ended up in absentee landlords' hands, and that's the stock that is slowly making its way back into the market with pretty high premiums attached considering the quality of a lot of those units. It's not a particularly accessible neighborhood IMO. The lack of vacant lots except for a few blocks is also why there is some stagnation, however the new infill by CHN and Northwest Neighborhoods (when it was still the two separate CDCs) is a big positive. Little Kirkwood Ave is a night and day difference from two years ago.

47 minutes ago, jws said:

There's a flip on W95 that was listed at $313k that's pending so we'll see how that goes...

*this is all anecdotal observation, but* Cudell is weirdly resistant to change in part, I think, because it actually has pretty low turnover. A lot of the properties that turned over in the past ended up in absentee landlords' hands, and that's the stock that is slowly making its way back into the market with pretty high premiums attached considering the quality of a lot of those units. It's not a particularly accessible neighborhood IMO. The lack of vacant lots except for a few blocks is also why there is some stagnation, however the new infill by CHN and Northwest Neighborhoods (when it was still the two separate CDCs) is a big positive. Little Kirkwood Ave is a night and day difference from two years ago.

Outside of the commercial districts, Cudell is still pretty put together housing stock wise. I lived at West Tech for a year five years ago. There's still a ton of up/downs. It's going to be far more rehabs than new construction when the time comes. Maybe some bigger buildings on Madison to really transform a pretty industrial area retail area. 

 

This area looks more like Lakewood from a residential stock standpoint than anywhere else in the city I have seen. 

Edited November 24, 20213 yr by KFM44107

17 hours ago, YO to the CLE said:

20 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

I am going to be facing this issue next year. I rent in Edgewater now and would like to buy either Lakewood or West Side Cleveland, with an eye on a family in less than 5 years. Originally i wanted to stay near Clifton so i could take the 55 downtown but i can already tell I'll have to expand that a bit. Would love to stay in Cleveland for loyalty's sake but ugh schools. On the other hand Lakewood prices are shooting to the moon. I could probably afford something decent, but do i want to afford it and stretch my budget/ savings, etc? Not sure.

I live right on Clifton. The 55 is such an awesome bus line. I take it to work 90% of the time. I do love Edgewater though. In many ways, that is the better part of Clifton. Better road design, more commercial, closer to Edgewater Park, etc. The elementary there is not too bad either. The problem is that there are NEVER any homes for sale there, and if there are, they go very quickly.

 

I've actually seen a fair amount of for sale signs on Clifton itself during later summer and fall which has made me more hopeful. There was 2 or 3 right in a one block area near the house with the crazy COVID Halloween decorations (around 104th I believe). Seems like the W. 100s between Baltic and Clifton are where I see the least listings in general.

Edited November 24, 20213 yr by mu2010

17 hours ago, YO to the CLE said:

I live right on Clifton. The 55 is such an awesome bus line. I take it to work 90% of the time. I do love Edgewater though. In many ways, that is the better part of Clifton. Better road design, more commercial, closer to Edgewater Park, etc. The elementary there is not too bad either. The problem is that there are NEVER any homes for sale there, and if there are, they go very quickly. Lots of long term residents is good, but they limit options for buying. I miss CLE taxes, but I will say that Lakewood gives you what you pay for in services.

 

What I have always found interesting is that we on here complain about the region's obsession with sprawl which is still a problem, but I find that the huge demand for inner ring cities such as Lakewood, Shaker, and many areas of CLE Heights proves that may folks in the area desire that streetcar suburb density and charm. I go back to my original comment. That bodes well for Cleveland because 90% of the city is the same exact built environment as the inner ring cities (albeit less maintained). I personally feel there would be a huge reward if we could just do basic upkeep and modernization. I do think the former mayor's neighborhood initiative is a good start. Focus on areas adjacent to more popular neighborhoods. As Shaker Hts becomes pricier, make Buckeye a good alternative. For those priced out of Lakewood, Cudell can be an option For UC and the Heights, Glenville should be the go-to. Literally all of these neighborhoods look identical to the stable inner ring cities. I know it is easier said than done, but just a little TLC can go a long way in perception as the region's real estate prices increase and folks start looking towards other options.

 

Since it's more or less my job on here, I'll point out that while there's a significant minority that desires density, for most people in this area it's something that is endured when necessary and not desired for its own sake.  Especially once they have kids.   What many call "sprawl" has been a cultural perfect storm since the end of WWII.

 

The error many of the powers that be in this region have made is fighting this and disparaging the motives of those seeking breathing space, rather than recognizing and adapting to it.  This has only fueled it further.

 

Just as at some point new sprawl largely takes away from the old sprawl, new dense neighborhoods will attract mostly from older ones, potentially leading to blight in the latter.  The best way to do infill is either block by block around the existing strong areas, or by developing places purists might call "overly suburban".  

Even on Manhattan, the supertalls are definitely a form of vertical sprawl.

18 hours ago, YO to the CLE said:

What I have always found interesting is that we on here complain about the region's obsession with sprawl which is still a problem, but I find that the huge demand for inner ring cities such as Lakewood, Shaker, and many areas of CLE Heights proves that may folks in the area desire that streetcar suburb density and charm. I go back to my original comment. That bodes well for Cleveland because 90% of the city is the same exact built environment as the inner ring cities (albeit less maintained). I personally feel there would be a huge reward if we could just do basic upkeep and modernization. I do think the former mayor's neighborhood initiative is a good start. Focus on areas adjacent to more popular neighborhoods. As Shaker Hts becomes pricier, make Buckeye a good alternative. For those priced out of Lakewood, Cudell can be an option.

 

100% agree. Absolutely. But if you take Detroit Ave it almost seems Cudell had been doing the opposite; almost going out of their way to make the border between Detroit-Shoreway and Lakewood an unfriendly streetscape. Maybe I'm blowing it out of proportion but the Humane Society is a prime example.  

8 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Since it's more or less my job on here, I'll point out that while there's a significant minority that desires density, for most people in this area it's something that is endured when necessary and not desired for its own sake.  Especially once they have kids.   What many call "sprawl" has been a cultural perfect storm since the end of WWII.

 

The error many of the powers that be in this region have made is fighting this and disparaging the motives of those seeking breathing space, rather than recognizing and adapting to it.  This has only fueled it further.

 

Just as at some point new sprawl largely takes away from the old sprawl, new dense neighborhoods will attract mostly from older ones, potentially leading to blight in the latter.  The best way to do infill is either block by block around the existing strong areas, or by developing places purists might call "overly suburban".  

Even on Manhattan, the supertalls are definitely a form of vertical sprawl.

 

I think "vertical sprawl" is something of a contradiction in terms.

 

But I understand the sentiment of the earlier parts of your post.  That said, I tend to think that making family-friendly urban neighborhoods has been more a lack of will than a lack of possibility in the last generation.  Most urbanists, especially the most passionate and active ones, tend to be younger and childless (sight unseen, I'd bet that the weighted average of kids-per-poster-by-post-volume on these forums is well below the 1.7 national average, which is itself a collapse even from just a decade or so ago), so neighborhoods full of 1- and 2-br flats in walkable neighborhoods are all they really need and the concept of someone needing a 5-br place is completely alien (meanwhile I sit here steaming that greater Akron, which used to be Zillow's most affordable neighborhood in the country adjusted for average income, has gone through the roof in the last 2 years and all the 5-br 5000+ sf places in the entire market are off the charts at this point).

 

Urban neighborhoods could offer those things, though.  Older urban neighborhoods in our major cities do offer those things.  If my wife and I moved the family back to Columbus, there's a high likelihood we'd end up in one of the big old places in Victorian Village.  But we don't build new places like Victorian Village anymore, which is part of why the existing one keeps skyrocketing--there's no new supply.  But here's the thing to keep in mind: there would be no such skyrocketing if there weren't actually demand for that static supply.  The boom in such places tells you that people wish there were more neighborhoods like Victorian Village, because there are bidding wars to get into the one that does exist.  So you can't say that people don't want it, and I think you go too far suggesting that more dense family-friendly infill will "hollow out" old neighborhoods like that (unless you mean "hollow out" as "go back to home prices maybe in line with what they were in the Obama administration," which isn't exactly cheap).

 

The market may be saying that it doesn't need 500,000 more units of Victorian Village.  But it could still absorb a solid amount without "hollowing out" that neighborhood.

12 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I think "vertical sprawl" is something of a contradiction in terms.

 

But I understand the sentiment of the earlier parts of your post.  That said, I tend to think that making family-friendly urban neighborhoods has been more a lack of will than a lack of possibility in the last generation.  Most urbanists, especially the most passionate and active ones, tend to be younger and childless (sight unseen, I'd bet that the weighted average of kids-per-poster-by-post-volume on these forums is well below the 1.7 national average, which is itself a collapse even from just a decade or so ago), so neighborhoods full of 1- and 2-br flats in walkable neighborhoods are all they really need and the concept of someone needing a 5-br place is completely alien (meanwhile I sit here steaming that greater Akron, which used to be Zillow's most affordable neighborhood in the country adjusted for average income, has gone through the roof in the last 2 years and all the 5-br 5000+ sf places in the entire market are off the charts at this point).

 

Urban neighborhoods could offer those things, though.  Older urban neighborhoods in our major cities do offer those things.  If my wife and I moved the family back to Columbus, there's a high likelihood we'd end up in one of the big old places in Victorian Village.  But we don't build new places like Victorian Village anymore, which is part of why the existing one keeps skyrocketing--there's no new supply.  But here's the thing to keep in mind: there would be no such skyrocketing if there weren't actually demand for that static supply.  The boom in such places tells you that people wish there were more neighborhoods like Victorian Village, because there are bidding wars to get into the one that does exist.  So you can't say that people don't want it, and I think you go too far suggesting that more dense family-friendly infill will "hollow out" old neighborhoods like that (unless you mean "hollow out" as "go back to home prices maybe in line with what they were in the Obama administration," which isn't exactly cheap).

 

The market may be saying that it doesn't need 500,000 more units of Victorian Village.  But it could still absorb a solid amount without "hollowing out" that neighborhood.

Probably one of the best posts on this website in a long time! You are 100% correct coming from someone in the family building stage. We need a mix of sizes. New single family homes, duplexes, and even small apartments. Limiting ourselves to any one of these in the city is the same attitude that creates single family low-density subdivisions. 

8 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I think "vertical sprawl" is something of a contradiction in terms.

 

But I understand the sentiment of the earlier parts of your post.  That said, I tend to think that making family-friendly urban neighborhoods has been more a lack of will than a lack of possibility in the last generation.  Most urbanists, especially the most passionate and active ones, tend to be younger and childless (sight unseen, I'd bet that the weighted average of kids-per-poster-by-post-volume on these forums is well below the 1.7 national average, which is itself a collapse even from just a decade or so ago), so neighborhoods full of 1- and 2-br flats in walkable neighborhoods are all they really need and the concept of someone needing a 5-br place is completely alien (meanwhile I sit here steaming that greater Akron, which used to be Zillow's most affordable neighborhood in the country adjusted for average income, has gone through the roof in the last 2 years and all the 5-br 5000+ sf places in the entire market are off the charts at this point).

 

Urban neighborhoods could offer those things, though.  Older urban neighborhoods in our major cities do offer those things.  If my wife and I moved the family back to Columbus, there's a high likelihood we'd end up in one of the big old places in Victorian Village.  But we don't build new places like Victorian Village anymore, which is part of why the existing one keeps skyrocketing--there's no new supply.  But here's the thing to keep in mind: there would be no such skyrocketing if there weren't actually demand for that static supply.  The boom in such places tells you that people wish there were more neighborhoods like Victorian Village, because there are bidding wars to get into the one that does exist.  So you can't say that people don't want it, and I think you go too far suggesting that more dense family-friendly infill will "hollow out" old neighborhoods like that (unless you mean "hollow out" as "go back to home prices maybe in line with what they were in the Obama administration," which isn't exactly cheap).

 

The market may be saying that it doesn't need 500,000 more units of Victorian Village.  But it could still absorb a solid amount without "hollowing out" that neighborhood.

 

I wouldn't use the word "hollowing" but more spreading out.   Bigger houses, bigger yards.   As has been said in other contexts, bringing in people with options means that the neighborhood is going to change to suit them.  It seems to me there has been a reluctance to do that.

 

Though bringing it people with kids and options would require either fixing the schools or costing it so that it was competitive even with private schools.  Which ties into your point about young childless urbanites.   It used to be politically incorrect around here to point out that  kids often meant suburbs.

But supertalls absolutely positively *are* vertical sprawl.   When it's all said and done, living in 8,000 square feet 80 floors up isn't all that different from living on a cul de sac in a gated community.   Just more expensive with better views.

41 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

Probably one of the best posts on this website in a long time! You are 100% correct coming from someone in the family building stage. We need a mix of sizes. New single family homes, duplexes, and even small apartments. Limiting ourselves to any one of these in the city is the same attitude that creates single family low-density subdivisions. 

 

Seems like contractors today refuse to dig a hole for anything less than 1600 square feet.

38 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

But supertalls absolutely positively *are* vertical sprawl.   When it's all said and done, living in 8,000 square feet 80 floors up isn't all that different from living on a cul de sac in a gated community.   Just more expensive with better views.

 

I don't think anyone here is interested in those. The limitations of those in most applications is apparent outside of areas where land is very expensive, the most dense places in the world. If you ask me anything over about 35 stories leads to worse urbanism since above that the building tends to be a lot more self-contained i.e. people not leaving the building as often. And if the market isn't insisting on that height it tends to lead to too much grass and surface lots nearby.

49 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

I wouldn't use the word "hollowing" but more spreading out.   Bigger houses, bigger yards.   As has been said in other contexts, bringing in people with options means that the neighborhood is going to change to suit them.  It seems to me there has been a reluctance to do that.

 

Though bringing it people with kids and options would require either fixing the schools or costing it so that it was competitive even with private schools.  Which ties into your point about young childless urbanites.   It used to be politically incorrect around here to point out that  kids often meant suburbs.

But supertalls absolutely positively *are* vertical sprawl.   When it's all said and done, living in 8,000 square feet 80 floors up isn't all that different from living on a cul de sac in a gated community.   Just more expensive with better views.

Yes and no. It isn't sprawl in the sense of spreading out more tax dollars over a larger area,  thus requiring more infrastructure for less tax receipts. A high rise of that density is nowhere comparable to a McMansion  on an acre of land. 

Edited November 24, 20213 yr by KFM44107

To be clear, I don't know of anyone who wants density because of density.  They want density because of the advantages that it provides, including (1) it is cheaper to maintain the infrastructure if more people live in an area, and (2) they want to live closer to where they work and shop and hang out with friends. 

 

An entire development of suburban McMansion-type lots is inefficient because very few homeowners can actually afford the cost to maintain the roadways and utilities that they need to have that kind of spacing that necessitates personal cars and longer runs of water, sewer, electric, etc. 

 

There are ways to build larger 5-bedroom homes in higher density without getting to Manhattan or Hong Kong densities -- Columbus's Victorian Village may be one example.  Those kinds of homes just aren't being built in the US any more.  Even with that density you can still have private outdoor space and live near parks that everyone can enjoy. 

 

But you're right, there are people who think they "need" a McMansion on a giant lot.  One way to meet the needs of those who want a suburban-style McMansion is to scatter them within a city that also includes Lakewood-style 50'-wide lots, with 5-6 story apartment and condo buildings immediately adjacent walkable business districts.  The key is not to build "only" McMansions and to make sure even those McMansions are within walking distance of a local walkable business district (which probably requires a higher density in close proximity to be successful) and public parks.

 

Maybe those infill McMansions between Chester and Hough were more forward-thinking than we thought...

On 11/24/2021 at 5:16 PM, Foraker said:

To be clear, I don't know of anyone who wants density because of density.  They want density because of the advantages that it provides, including (1) it is cheaper to maintain the infrastructure if more people live in an area, and (2) they want to live closer to where they work and shop and hang out with friends. 

 

An entire development of suburban McMansion-type lots is inefficient because very few homeowners can actually afford the cost to maintain the roadways and utilities that they need to have that kind of spacing that necessitates personal cars and longer runs of water, sewer, electric, etc. 

 

There are ways to build larger 5-bedroom homes in higher density without getting to Manhattan or Hong Kong densities -- Columbus's Victorian Village may be one example.  Those kinds of homes just aren't being built in the US any more.  Even with that density you can still have private outdoor space and live near parks that everyone can enjoy. 

 

But you're right, there are people who think they "need" a McMansion on a giant lot.  One way to meet the needs of those who want a suburban-style McMansion is to scatter them within a city that also includes Lakewood-style 50'-wide lots, with 5-6 story apartment and condo buildings immediately adjacent walkable business districts.  The key is not to build "only" McMansions and to make sure even those McMansions are within walking distance of a local walkable business district (which probably requires a higher density in close proximity to be successful) and public parks.

 

Maybe those infill McMansions between Chester and Hough were more forward-thinking than we thought...

This all seems pretty correct. The one point that never gets brought up on this forum though is that there are also a lot of disadvantages that come with density: lack of privacy, little space to oneself (particularly outdoor space), light and noise pollution, and constant interaction with strangers (which some people like, but a lot of people don't). These are a big part of the reason that some people choose the further suburbs. 

 

I think your point about public parks is particularly well placed, because LARGE public parks can promote the positive aspects of density while ameliorating some of its negative consequences. I say large, because small 'urban' parks of the type often favored on this forum don't do this. The point is to decompress and offer the illusion of nature. Preferably you can find a little corner where you can be near enough to alone. That doesn't work if you can see the street from everywhere in the park and everyone on the street can see you. 

18 hours ago, Ethan said:

This all seems pretty correct. The one point that never gets brought up on this forum though is that there are also a lot of disadvantages that come with density: lack of privacy, little space to oneself (particularly outdoor space), light and noise pollution, and constant interaction with strangers (which some people like, but a lot of people don't). These are a big part of the reason that some people choose the further suburbs. 

 

I think your point about public parks is particularly well placed, because LARGE public parks can promote the positive aspects of density while ameliorating some of its negative consequences. I say large, because small 'urban' parks of the type often favored on this forum don't do this. The point is to decompress and offer the illusion of nature. Preferably you can find a little corner where you can be near enough to alone. That doesn't work if you can see the street from everywhere in the park and everyone on the street can see you. 

I don't think there is any denial that some of those "disadvantages" exist in some dense developments.  While those disadvantages you mention are real, they can and should be managed and addressed.  If we had a larger supply of high-quality quality of life denser development there wouldn't be so much opposition, which I think includes a lot of fear of the unknown.  Higher density development needs just as much, if not more, thought put into those needs for privacy and greenspace that single-family development needs. As a society we have chosen to allow lower-quality and lower-density development.  We can and should choose to do better -- which is what a lot of the people on this forum are urging.

 

There are corresponding disadvantages in quality of life in car-centric suburbia too -- isolation, car-driven noise, and the need to have a car to get to a large public park, coffee shop, etc. Additionally, the far-flung car-oriented suburban development pattern that is the biggest driver of sprawl is financially unsustainable over the long term -- 50 to 100 years.  So even if lots of people like that lifestyle, it will eventually fail.  That point has been made in this forum as well.  As a society we also are bad at thinking that far ahead.

 

I have found a lot of new US multi-family housing to be cheaply constructed, so you hear your neighbors far too often (or always).  But multi-family housing can be very well isolated within individual units when built to a high standard.  Same with private indoor spaces -- we don't have to live in studio apartments and shouldn't be limited to the standard cookie-cutter apartments that mass-market developers prefer to build to a lowest-cost standard.

 

Density also doesn't mean you have to constantly interact with strangers.  When I lived in Lakewood I had neighbors across a driveway and unless I had my windows open I wouldn't even have known they were there.  Even in the middle of summer, grilling and hanging out on the back deck I could go weeks without ever having to interact with my neighbors, much less strangers.   I could even take the bus into downtown without speaking to anyone.  Earbuds and smart phones were abundant and people generally keep to themselves.  As with fears of crime, the reality is not nearly as bad.

 

Park space is important, and I agree that people need places to be alone with nature.  Pocket parks alone are insufficient.  A well-manicured yard in a lot of suburban developments, where you can only get to wooded areas by car, also are insufficient substitutes.  But there are public parks in the urban neighborhoods.  Lakewood Park is great.  And the Shaker Lakes park has few places that are out of sight of the road, but a lot of places to sit and enjoy nature that are far-enough removed from the roadway to feel pretty private.  And that is not a huge park.  We probably do need more parks, I don't think too many will disagree (unless it's their property that someone wants turned into a park!)  And we are seeing new parks being built so there is some recognition that this is a need in the city. 

 

Single-family housing is not going to disappear.  The large homes in Shaker have been around for nearly 100 years, more in some cases, and they are not going to disappear.  People will continue to have that option, and there's plenty of supply.  Even "bicycle heaven" -- the Netherlands -- has lots of single-family housing on larger lots, usually outside the city center.

 

What we're lacking in the mix of housing options here is high quality, high-density housing options near mass transit.  And higher density near transit stations is necessary for transit's long-term success.  That higher density doesn't mean Manhattan-like towers, but something more like row houses or four-to-six story apartment/condo buildings within a ten-minute old-lady walk distance from our transit stations.  Think Washington, DC.  Paris.  That kind of density, with walkable business districts around transit stops.  There is plenty of room for single-family housing to continue to exist further out (preferably a bike-ride away rather than requiring a car for every destination).

 

 

I was visiting my folks in Northern Stark County last week, the sprawl there is insane and endless between Akron and Canton

I don't understand the point of extolling the virtues of density on this forum, it's the definition of preaching to the choir. If you want to stop suburban sprawl you need to understand the people driving it. My point was that the first step to that understanding is recognizing that there are real trade offs to urban living. There are, of course, also major tradeoffs to rural living. This forum is filled with people who desire density for density's sake. There are also people who desire precisely the opposite! I've met people who want to live in the Alaskan wilderness by themselves, maybe with a family. Most people lie somewhere in between. The whole idea behind suburbs was originally to be an ideal middle ground, best of both worlds, between the city and countryside. (Personally, I think suburbs get the worst of both worlds, with none of the benefits, but obviously the people seeking them out see things differently.)

 

If you apply the middle ground logic it becomes clearer to see why people flock to the suburbs, but it also provides a blue print as to what can be done about it. As I alluded to earlier, making cities greener is the obvious first step. I think most cities have about an order of magnitude less park space than they should have. While I think rural and suburban areas could use more parks as well, they also aren't as necessary, as most people have some outside space of their own.

 

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

When I lived in Lakewood I had neighbors across a driveway and unless I had my windows open I wouldn't even have known they were there.  Even in the middle of summer, grilling and hanging out on the back deck I could go weeks without ever having to interact with my neighbors, much less strangers.   I could even take the bus into downtown without speaking to anyone.  Earbuds and smart phones were abundant and people generally keep to themselves.

I'm sorry, but this a perfect example of the type of urban hell that makes people run to the suburbs. Suburbanites want to know their neighbors, they enjoy saying hello to them daily, they enjoy knowing everyone on their street. They just also enjoy that they don't have to constantly interact with strangers. I'm sure that happens on some streets in the city too, but I live downtown, and my experience sounds similar to yours in Lakewood. Hell, I rarely see the same person in the elevator twice!

 

This forum would be far more useful if it focused on the Problems with urbanism rather than the benefits of it. Otherwise it's about as useful as a room full of Republicans talking about the benefits of conservatism (or Democrats/liberalism)

 

 

6 hours ago, Ethan said:

The whole idea behind suburbs was originally to be an ideal middle ground, best of both worlds, between the city and countryside. (Personally, I think suburbs get the worst of both worlds, with none of the benefits, but obviously the people seeking them out see things differently.)

 

If you apply the middle ground logic it becomes clearer to see why people flock to the suburbs, but it also provides a blue print as to what can be done about it. 

 

Maybe we will just have to disagree on this, but I don't think that people live in the suburbs because they are indicating a considered preference for it as a middle ground utopia between "city living" and "country living."  I think they do it because society sells owning your own home with a nice lawn, two cars, a mortgage, and no in the neighborhood who is too different, as something we should all reach for.  A lot of people have grown up in that world and have bought into it, without any experience with alternatives.   The history behind the creation of the auto-centric sprawling suburbs is complex, but includes a post-WWII need for a large supply of housing quickly, rapid increase in car ownership, overcrowding within cities, racial tensions, development of interstate highways, changes in employment patterns, etc.  It's not as simple as "I really wish they'd build something in the middle ground between city and rural living!"

 

The suburban-sprawlers are not reading UrbanOhio and we're not going to bring them into our fold on this forum.  I do appreciate that "preaching to the choir" doesn't change that and there is a tendency to do that here, but it happens with groups everywhere so there must be something comforting in doing so! 

 

I'll follow your lead though -- let's try to discuss the problems of urbanism/density, which you have defined as

9 hours ago, Foraker said:

lack of privacy, little space to oneself (particularly outdoor space), light and noise pollution, and constant interaction with strangers

 

Maybe we're not working with the same definition of "urbanism"? -- are you equating "urbanism" as meaning downtown living?  I think that is but one subset, to me urbanism also includes Ohio City/Tremont/Lakewood -- I include the inner-ring suburbs that have a mix of residential and small businesses in close proximity.  I don't think these problems you've listed are necessarily problems of urbanism, as I tried to explain above.  

 

Let's look at each of your identified problems.  "Little space to yourself" is a problem of not having a large enough supply of housing to drive down the price so that people can have that space within a larger building or more living space on a smaller lot.  What do we choose or allow to be built?  Having more space within an urban setting is possible.  You can still live in a dense-enough place and have private space.  I think we've already discussed the need for more green space and more quality green space outside.  I think that is a universal problem not limited to urban living -- the suburbanites are just quicker to jump in the car and drive to a park.  But we do not need low-density parks immediately adjacent red line stations.

 

I've lived in a really small town, too -- and talk about lack of privacy.  Everyone knows everyone and what everyone is up to. 

You said you live downtown and don't even see the same people in the elevator -- can you explain how you have less privacy?  Do you talk to these people you see in the elevator?  Have you make efforts to know everyone on your floor?

 

At least when I was in Lakewood I could take a couple of steps nextdoor and talk to my neighbor any time I wanted to, and we had somewhat regular block parties with lots of neighbors.  But I could also retreat to my house or enjoy my backyard and choose NOT to interact with my neighbors, no different than in the outer suburbs, but the walk next door was shorter (and I could take a short walk to a lot more neighbors and the local bar).  Yet you say this is the

 

7 hours ago, Ethan said:

perfect example of the type of urban hell that makes people run to the suburbs

?

 

My experiences also don't match yours of "suburbanites want to know their neighbors." That was more true for me in Lakewood.  When I lived in an outer suburb of Columbus, I might nod to a neighbor while mowing my lawn but we all got in our cars in our attached garages a hundred yards apart and drove to work/school/store and rarely had any significant interaction.  There were no sidewalks and nothing you could walk to -- although people did "walk" in the street.  The houses were set back far enough that you couldn't sit on the porch and talk to anyone walking by.  "Friendly wave" was the extent of our "interaction" with all but our immediate neighbors.  We usually came home and headed to our private decks and private big-screen TVs.  Maybe I'd make the trek over to one of my immediate neighbors to discuss a problem tree or ask to borrow a tool, but we were far enough apart that we weren't very close.  Certainly we never had block parties or really interacted with anyone other than our immediate neighbors. 

 

I don't currently have any significant light or noise pollution.  In the small town, Lakewood, and suburban Columbus, we had pretty much the same streetlights and never saw the Milky Way.  There may be more lights downtown -- I haven't lived in a city center yet.   What is the cause of the increased light pollution you're referring to?

 

In my experience most environmental noise is very location dependent -- near a factory, airport, highway, busy road.  I don't think that it is that much harder to find a quieter place to live in a city than in a suburb.  You can always have the unfortunate inconsiderate neighbor and crappy construction that doesn't block outside noise well.  That's not limited to urban settings or higher density. 

 

In contrast to Cleveland in the early 1940s, cities are not so crowded today.  But we have under-invested in our cities for decades, so there is plenty of room for improvement, including that almost all of our cities, indeed every "neighborhood," needs better greenspace.  But more green space in the city is not driving the demand for housing in downtown Cleveland or University Circle and won't pull suburbanites from Avon to Hough.  Maybe the draw is the increased interaction of more people, more restaurants, more arts events, less maintenance in a condo than in a detached single-family, and less (or no) driving.

 

We need our cities to be better places and to have better places for people.  It may take generations to convince people that cities can be better places to live, but we have to work to make the cities better.  And that includes better transit, which requires more people living and working within walking distance of transit stops. That doesn't mean that every city resident has to live in a high rise.  Or that there also shouldn't be parks and wooded areas.  Lakewood and Shaker certainly have plenty of large single-family houses with large lawns.  (I'd say suburbanites don't like the taxes in Shaker, the density at Van Aken is not driving people away from Shaker. ) The opportunity for a wider variety of housing types can also make a city attractive. 

 

But successful, high quality urban living does require a certain level of density, particularly in a downtown core and adjacent transit stations.  There's no way around that.  The Rapid in Cleveland suffers from having too many stations with too few jobs and residents within walking distance.  But that doesn't mean that the area around those stations or the entire city has to be highrise condos and zero single-family homes with private yards. 

 

 

People just default to suburbs since that's what's around. 

23 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

 

Maybe we will just have to disagree on this, but I don't think that people live in the suburbs because they are indicating a considered preference for it as a middle ground utopia between "city living" and "country living."  I think they do it because society sells owning your own home with a nice lawn, two cars, a mortgage, and no in the neighborhood who is too different, as something we should all reach for.  A lot of people have grown up in that world and have bought into it, without any experience with alternatives.   The history behind the creation of the auto-centric sprawling suburbs is complex, but includes a post-WWII need for a large supply of housing quickly, rapid increase in car ownership, overcrowding within cities, racial tensions, development of interstate highways, changes in employment patterns, etc.  It's not as simple as "I really wish they'd build something in the middle ground between city and rural living!"

 

The suburban-sprawlers are not reading UrbanOhio and we're not going to bring them into our fold on this forum.  I do appreciate that "preaching to the choir" doesn't change that and there is a tendency to do that here, but it happens with groups everywhere so there must be something comforting in doing so! 

 

I'll follow your lead though -- let's try to discuss the problems of urbanism/density, which you have defined as

 

Maybe we're not working with the same definition of "urbanism"? -- are you equating "urbanism" as meaning downtown living?  I think that is but one subset, to me urbanism also includes Ohio City/Tremont/Lakewood -- I include the inner-ring suburbs that have a mix of residential and small businesses in close proximity.  I don't think these problems you've listed are necessarily problems of urbanism, as I tried to explain above.  

 

Let's look at each of your identified problems.  "Little space to yourself" is a problem of not having a large enough supply of housing to drive down the price so that people can have that space within a larger building or more living space on a smaller lot.  What do we choose or allow to be built?  Having more space within an urban setting is possible.  You can still live in a dense-enough place and have private space.  I think we've already discussed the need for more green space and more quality green space outside.  I think that is a universal problem not limited to urban living -- the suburbanites are just quicker to jump in the car and drive to a park.  But we do not need low-density parks immediately adjacent red line stations.

 

I've lived in a really small town, too -- and talk about lack of privacy.  Everyone knows everyone and what everyone is up to. 

You said you live downtown and don't even see the same people in the elevator -- can you explain how you have less privacy?  Do you talk to these people you see in the elevator?  Have you make efforts to know everyone on your floor?

 

At least when I was in Lakewood I could take a couple of steps nextdoor and talk to my neighbor any time I wanted to, and we had somewhat regular block parties with lots of neighbors.  But I could also retreat to my house or enjoy my backyard and choose NOT to interact with my neighbors, no different than in the outer suburbs, but the walk next door was shorter (and I could take a short walk to a lot more neighbors and the local bar).  Yet you say this is the

 

?

 

My experiences also don't match yours of "suburbanites want to know their neighbors." That was more true for me in Lakewood.  When I lived in an outer suburb of Columbus, I might nod to a neighbor while mowing my lawn but we all got in our cars in our attached garages a hundred yards apart and drove to work/school/store and rarely had any significant interaction.  There were no sidewalks and nothing you could walk to -- although people did "walk" in the street.  The houses were set back far enough that you couldn't sit on the porch and talk to anyone walking by.  "Friendly wave" was the extent of our "interaction" with all but our immediate neighbors.  We usually came home and headed to our private decks and private big-screen TVs.  Maybe I'd make the trek over to one of my immediate neighbors to discuss a problem tree or ask to borrow a tool, but we were far enough apart that we weren't very close.  Certainly we never had block parties or really interacted with anyone other than our immediate neighbors. 

 

I don't currently have any significant light or noise pollution.  In the small town, Lakewood, and suburban Columbus, we had pretty much the same streetlights and never saw the Milky Way.  There may be more lights downtown -- I haven't lived in a city center yet.   What is the cause of the increased light pollution you're referring to?

 

In my experience most environmental noise is very location dependent -- near a factory, airport, highway, busy road.  I don't think that it is that much harder to find a quieter place to live in a city than in a suburb.  You can always have the unfortunate inconsiderate neighbor and crappy construction that doesn't block outside noise well.  That's not limited to urban settings or higher density. 

 

In contrast to Cleveland in the early 1940s, cities are not so crowded today.  But we have under-invested in our cities for decades, so there is plenty of room for improvement, including that almost all of our cities, indeed every "neighborhood," needs better greenspace.  But more green space in the city is not driving the demand for housing in downtown Cleveland or University Circle and won't pull suburbanites from Avon to Hough.  Maybe the draw is the increased interaction of more people, more restaurants, more arts events, less maintenance in a condo than in a detached single-family, and less (or no) driving.

 

We need our cities to be better places and to have better places for people.  It may take generations to convince people that cities can be better places to live, but we have to work to make the cities better.  And that includes better transit, which requires more people living and working within walking distance of transit stops. That doesn't mean that every city resident has to live in a high rise.  Or that there also shouldn't be parks and wooded areas.  Lakewood and Shaker certainly have plenty of large single-family houses with large lawns.  (I'd say suburbanites don't like the taxes in Shaker, the density at Van Aken is not driving people away from Shaker. ) The opportunity for a wider variety of housing types can also make a city attractive. 

 

But successful, high quality urban living does require a certain level of density, particularly in a downtown core and adjacent transit stations.  There's no way around that.  The Rapid in Cleveland suffers from having too many stations with too few jobs and residents within walking distance.  But that doesn't mean that the area around those stations or the entire city has to be highrise condos and zero single-family homes with private yards. 

 

 

Some very fair points. Others we can agree to disagree on. My mind is just defaulting to downtown and downtown like environments just because that's where I live now. But there's plenty of more dense neighborhoods in and around the city that are functionally very similar to suburbs.

 

I agree with all your criticisms of suburbs, I think they're hell, but I don't like assuming that people are stupid, being manipulated, or acting against their best interest. So I try to make their case for them. Personally, I agree with you and have found a much stronger sense of community living in Cleveland than the suburbs. That said, I've met plenty of people who've told me the exact opposite. 

 

As far as light pollution it really is horrendous just about everywhere in the United States, downtowns are definitely the worst (and their effects radiate out quite a bit), but plenty of suburbs are really bad for no justifiable reason as well. It doesn't really get better until you get out into the country side. (and even then, it doesn't compare to an unpolluted sky) Once you get out of downtown the prime culprit is definitely street lights. Though any light that is pointed up (common in architectural and landscape lighting) has an outsized effect on light pollution. In one form or another, Basically all of light pollution comes from people (overly) concerned with safety, or vanity lighting. 

 

As far as noise, I guess compare with rural living instead of suburbs if you like. 

 

I'm not responding to any questions about how I live my life.

 

Your point about how there is a spectrum of urban living is well taken and I agree. My point actually squares well with that. I would just extend your spectrum beyond urban living and take it all the way to cabin in the woods. Some people just want to live on different points of that spectrum, because there are tradeoffs all along that spectrum.

 

Really, what most people want is: to be surrounded by miles of nature (that they own), with plenty of space to entertain friends, who can easily visit whenever, in a location that is near to a supermarket or grocery store, with lots of restaurants, bars, and stores within walking distance, shows, nightlife, backyard pools, low taxes, and several other contradictory things from different points on the housing spectrum all at that same time. 

I've lived in rural areas, small towns, suburbs, medium sized cities, and big cities. The most toxic place I lived was the small town in Ohio where I grew up. I realize that it is not representative of all small towns but it was not pleasant in anyway. Huge drug problem, very judgmental people, hell on earth if you are LGBTQ+, low life expectancy. The town has been on life support for my entire life. But a lot of people there will tell you that they have no desire to live anywhere else. Different strokes for different folks I guess. 

 

On the other hand, I prefer the city. I have plenty of privacy and a small backyard. But I can also walk to the park or a coffee shop. I know and like all the neighbors on my street, and we have block parties in the summer. We have a diverse group of neighbors, racially and economically, and everyone is proud of our block. I also realize that this is not representative of all cities. But I've lived in a few and had similar experiences in all of them. 

 

In the end, I think people should be able to choose wherever they want to live. But the key is that we've been massively subsidizing suburban sprawl for decades and we still are. In tons of different ways. If you want a huge box of a house on an acre of land in West Chester or New Albany or Pepper Pike where you have to drive to everything and not ever interact with a stranger, that's great for you! But I don't want to pay for it.

8 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

People just default to suburbs since that's what's around. 

I think that is part of it (because it is what is most affordable) but I do not think that paints a complete picture or even 1/2 the picture. 

 

I live in the burbs. My wife and I used to live in the city. We loved it. We would walk to restuarants, the gym, all over. It was great. We had amenities at our doorstep. We had a nice balcony with a good view from our apartment.  We loved living in the city at that point in our life.

 

But... then we had kids, and our city apartment was not quite so ideal. There was no yard for them to run around. We had shared walls and neighbors that were not ideal for kids. We were on the 4th floor ouf our building. There was no outdoor yard for them to play in unless we walked a few blocks. It just was not a great fit for raising our kids (I know that there are a lot of people in NYC and Chicago who make it work, but we were not in those areas and had other options). We have friends who make it work in the city, but it just did not match what we wanted for our kids.  We made the sacrifice and moved to the burbs and got a house with a yard. While we still miss the city (somewhat), we adjusted to life in the burbs. It was a lifestyle choice with the kids. Allowing them space to run around outside and have a yard is what we wanted, because we were used to that to your  "Default"  point, and as we grew older, our needs changed somewhat. 

 

One of the interesting things I have been seeing in the burbs though is more of a desire to create neighborhoods and walkable communities. I do not think the burbs are going to go away anytime soon, but they, are evolving into more mini towns and cities outside of the larger city. Even in the burbs, neighborhood districts and walkability are coming in vogue. You see the burbs transforming on their own to meet demand for what today's owners want. Looking at Cincinnati, you have neighborhoods like Montgomery that are developing new walkable districts and developments to foster walkability in the neighborhood. The city of Mason is working on its own to do a zoning change from single family to multi-family/mixed use in their downtown to foster more of a neighborhood district and walkability. People pay premiums to live in these places because it offers the best of both worlds, the space of the burbs but a feeling of a small city area with urban amenities.  You see this in Grandview and I have seen some areas of Cleveland like this too.   I almost think of this as more of an attempt to create modern neighborhoods like Chagrin Falls and move away from the mass development concepts that perpetuated in areas like Mentor in the 70s and 80s. 

 

I think it does not have to be a battle over urban/suburban but what we are going to see is more of a suburban evolution creating mini urban districts or neighborhoods in a suburban settings that will be the trend of the next 20 years. 

The big problem with that analysis is that it assumes "living in the city" means living in a high rise downtown. My neighborhood is a mix of apartments and single family homes. There are tons of kids and they all can walk to school, to parks, to after school programs. And almost everybody has a small yard. 

 

Also, Grandview is a suburb in name only. It's right next to downtown. This is about suburban sprawl, a whole different beast.