Also rural and small-town neighbors are way too often TERRIBLE. They don't think they just own their property -- they think they own for miles around. They constantly start feuds, file lawsuits, steal stuff, make tons of noise, kill animals. I've had so many friends try to "save money" by living in those areas only to be forced to move to somewhere more expensive to have peace. Or just sell and wash their hands of it.

On 11/22/2021 at 11:21 PM, LifeLongClevelander said:

Sprawl is a factor of both.  There are still good inner ring school districts such as Lakewood that have held up fairly well………

 

 

Correct its both.  Especially in a stagnant population, sprawl will contribute most initially to quality of life issues in inner ring communities etc. but there is clearly a point where they feed off each other, and a tipping point where areas with decling quality of life is going to cause more/contribute more to sprawl.  

Anybody with an Urban planning degree understands this.

I remember making fun of my sister and her husband for moving out to where there was little crime and schools were “good”, but after some years have past and getting older, i have adjusted my UO blinders, and realize i don't think i would want to raise kids where she used to live either.

When i moved back from DC almost 10 years ago now, i never thought i would want live live anywhere farther out than Shaker, and thought I was in the perfect community, but i have to admit the nightly sound of gunshots and frequent high speed chases is wearing on me a bit (granted most of it is coming from Cleveland, which has been leaderless for as long as FJ has been mayor), but i am starting to think about where I may end up next. 

Many of my neighbors are either from outside the Cleveland area (like a next door neighbor that moved to Shaker from Texas, choosing Shaker simply for its storied reputation, but then only lasting a year before putting his house on the market due to quality of life issues (in Shaker, the appearance doesn't match some of the issues we see), only to have another out of towner that took a job in University Circle), or moved here from Cleveland Hts etc. which started seeing some of the issues sooner.  Wonder where they will go next? 

Edited November 29, 20213 yr by willyboy

1 hour ago, willyboy said:

 

Correct its both.  Especially in a stagnant population, sprawl will contribute most initially to quality of life issues in inner ring communities etc. but there is clearly a point where they feed off each other, and a tipping point where areas with decling quality of life is going to cause more/contribute more to sprawl.  

Anybody with an Urban planning degree understands this.

I remember making fun of my sister and her husband for moving out to where there was little crime and schools were “good”, but after some years have past and getting older, i have adjusted my UO blinders, and realize i don't think i would want to raise kids where she used to live either.

When i moved back from DC almost 10 years ago now, i never thought i would want live live anywhere farther out than Shaker, and thought I was in the perfect community, but i have to admit the nightly sound of gunshots and frequent high speed chases is wearing on me a bit (granted most of it is coming from Cleveland, which has been leaderless for as long as FJ has been mayor), but i am starting to think about where I may end up next. 

Many of my neighbors are either from outside the Cleveland area (like a next door neighbor that moved to Shaker from Texas, choosing Shaker simply for its storied reputation, but then only lasting a year before putting his house on the market due to quality of life issues (in Shaker, the appearance doesn't match some of the issues we see), only to have another out of towner that took a job in University Circle), or moved here from Cleveland Hts etc. which started seeing some of the issues sooner.  Wonder where they will go next? 

You cite many of the reasons why we feel that moving out is rapidly increasing in importance.  I would prefer not to have to move, but the overall declining situation is a driving factor.  Over the last five years or so, there has been a significant negative turn.  City leaders have done nothing to correct long-standing problems or stop others from being minor to more significant (unless they happen to live next to it).  The final straw came when gunshot issues were becoming more numerous.  We are not alone in our thinking.  Some of our neighbors have expressed serious concerns about the problems that are becoming more numerous.  A few have stated they are looking to move out (the ones who are open about it) and there are others that due to their situation personal situations can't, but would have done so if they could. I would miss some of my wonderful neighbors terribly, but their decisions aren't predicated on anybody else staying around.   We don't want to wait too long where our choices are taken away or it causes suffer a significant financial loss.

 

Negative and contributing to sprawl? Most certainly.  Would we be part of the contributing to the problem? Yes on that point,too.  As stated, there are suburbs that have survived on a good storied reputation, but things change with reality.  When the problems of crime and violence increase in frequency and severity, it makes one to start taking notice.  If there isn't a good reputation to fall back on or a negative one already is in place, it makes trying to move all the worse.  We don't want to become part of the negative statistics.

16 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

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

 

Many people still default to the suburbs because "moving out" = "moving up" to them. Or they can't imagine how having kids in the city is safe or responsible, even though kids are more likely to get hurt/killed in the car crash than they are from urban violence. Kids are pretty much imprisoned by their auto-centric land use in the suburbs and freed by pedestrianism and safe biking routes in the city.

 

But, back to schools.... I live in Lakewood but my son goes to school in Cleveland. I bought my Lakewood condo 25 years, long before the price of real estate shot up here. And my son was going to the Lakewood public schools until 2020 when we grew unhappy with them. My son is scary good at math (top 97% in the country) but was kept in his regular class when math was studied. So he tested into Menlo Park Academy in Cleveland which has school buses from Shaker Hts, Westlake, Strongsville and other districts bringing in kids. In fact, Lorain Avenue has become a very crowded street in the morning with kids being dropped off at E Prep Willard, Menlo Park, Urban Community and, the grandaddy of all, St. Ignatius which causes traffic on I-90 to back up from the West 41st/44th exits.

 

It's interesting that this seems to be a West Side phenomenon, but I wonder if it also happens at the School of the Arts in UC? The point is, it's not an accurate blanket statement to say that schools in Cleveland are bad. If that's why someone is staying away, then they either aren't doing the research or they aren't being truthful as to their real motivations.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

My son is scary good at math (top 97% in the country)

He clearly got those skills from his mom😉

On 11/28/2021 at 2:55 PM, metrocity said:

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

 

I'm less familiar with that than I am with between Cleveland and Akron, but it's definitely consistent suburbia between those two as well, with a band in Northern Summit and parts of southern Cuyahoga that doesn't entirely identify with either city.

12 hours ago, roman totale XVII said:

He clearly got those skills from his mom😉

 

Probably, since he's not my birth son. BTW, I aced calculus in college. Thanks for playing! 🙃

I think schools will be less of a factor if people of means are going to move back to the City and inner ring suburbs.  Unfortunately I think Covid has slowed that.  Families want more house, more yard, more space...  because they are all home more, working from home, home schooling, etc.  

16 minutes ago, gottaplan said:

I think schools will be less of a factor if people of means are going to move back to the City and inner ring suburbs.  Unfortunately I think Covid has slowed that.  Families want more house, more yard, more space...  because they are all home more, working from home, home schooling, etc.  

 

Except, after an initial surge in out-migration, there has been massive reversal over the past year. NYC rents are way up after dropping during the pandemic. Migration data shows people are heading back to central cities.

When city amenities become unavailable due to restrictions yes you are going to see a slowdown in migration to them. As restrictions ease its only natural that interest in cities returns.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Except, after an initial surge in out-migration, there has been massive reversal over the past year. NYC rents are way up after dropping during the pandemic. Migration data shows people are heading back to central cities.

That's good but NYC is not the rest of the country.  This article talks about a "sharp upswing in the number of home starts with 4 bedrooms"....  this is directly in relation to work from home trend that people expect to last.  https://www.realtytrac.com/blog/are-real-estate-prices-cooling/

It's because they are going to focus on building the most expensive houses when materials costs are elevated as they are, labor is tight and demand for all housing is high.

2 hours ago, gottaplan said:

That's good but NYC is not the rest of the country.  This article talks about a "sharp upswing in the number of home starts with 4 bedrooms"....  this is directly in relation to work from home trend that people expect to last.  https://www.realtytrac.com/blog/are-real-estate-prices-cooling/

 

I just brought up NYC as an example because it was the most egregious. A lot of cities in the Midwest, including the 3 C's never saw the uptick in out-migration that NYC, SF, etc. did in the first place. Migration trends were fairly stable throughout the pandemic. The population growth you saw in central Cbus, for example, did not slow down, and has only increased.

 

EDIT: Also, notice what you did there. The article itself it says nothing about where homes are being built, it says nothing about migration, it just says that there is an upswing in homes with more bedrooms. They could be in cities, suburbs, rural areas, anywhere. We don't know.

It also uses the unsure language that this "may" have something to do with work from home policies, but makes it clear that it is unknown. It even mentions that some companies are very much against the idea of permanent work from home. In short, the article doesn't want you to draw too strong of conclusions based on limited data. But in your post you say "this is directly in relation to work from home trend that people expect to last." This happens all the time, and I'm guilty of it too. So not a shot at you. Just an observation that, if we want to believe something, then any little piece of data can be latched onto to "prove" that conclusion.

Edited November 30, 20213 yr by DEPACincy

22 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I just brought up NYC as an example because it was the most egregious. A lot of cities in the Midwest, including the 3 C's never saw the uptick in out-migration that NYC, SF, etc. did in the first place. Migration trends were fairly stable throughout the pandemic. The population growth you saw in central Cbus, for example, did not slow down, and has only increased.

 

EDIT: Also, notice what you did there. The article itself it says nothing about where homes are being built, it says nothing about migration, it just says that there is an upswing in homes with more bedrooms. They could be in cities, suburbs, rural areas, anywhere. We don't know.

It also uses the unsure language that this "may" have something to do with work from home policies, but makes it clear that it is unknown. It even mentions that some companies are very much against the idea of permanent work from home. In short, the article doesn't want you to draw too strong of conclusions based on limited data. But in your post you say "this is directly in relation to work from home trend that people expect to last." This happens all the time, and I'm guilty of it too. So not a shot at you. Just an observation that, if we want to believe something, then any little piece of data can be latched onto to "prove" that conclusion.

I agree with all that.  The article is very unspecific.  But to that point, what's happening in NYC is not what's happening in the Sunbelt or upper midwest or whatever.  I think work from home trends are here to stay and it will absolutely have impact on people's choices of where to live.  Commute matters less, home space, local amenities matter more.  Having a 4th bedroom which can become office and your favorite coffee place a short walk away or maybe a great park for running nearby are optimal for home locations.  Some of that steers more toward the urban lifestyle, some does not.

I think it's interesting that all this WFH worship assumes people are already married with kids. If the minute people graduate college they get parked at a computer in their own homes for 40 years there aren't going to be very many marriages or kids.

4 hours ago, gottaplan said:

 Families want more house, more yard, more space...  because they are all home more, working from home, home schooling, etc.  

 

Be careful speaking on behalf of all families.

 

Edited November 30, 20213 yr by Clefan98

13 minutes ago, gottaplan said:

I agree with all that.  The article is very unspecific.  But to that point, what's happening in NYC is not what's happening in the Sunbelt or upper midwest or whatever.  I think work from home trends are here to stay and it will absolutely have impact on people's choices of where to live.  Commute matters less, home space, local amenities matter more.  Having a 4th bedroom which can become office and your favorite coffee place a short walk away or maybe a great park for running nearby are optimal for home locations.  Some of that steers more toward the urban lifestyle, some does not.

 

Exactly. There has not been an urban exodus and, to the extent there was even a temporary one, it was mostly in NYC and SF. 

 

Work from home might be here to stay but I highly doubt a substantial number of companies will go full work from home. More likely, there'll be more flexibility but you will need to be in an office at least some of the time. 

 

But also I'd push back on the idea that having more bedrooms is not compatible with urban living. Most of the city is not downtown high rises. I've lived in downtown high rises in tiny 400 square foot apartments. But now I live in a 4 bedroom historic home in the city that is walking distance to bars, restaurants, breweries, the library, parks, an elementary school, a community center, and all kinds of other stuff. And I can be downtown by public transit in 15 minutes. You can have all the amenities of city living, plus a lot of space, in many of our urban neighborhoods.

Most cities have multiple, sizeable neighborhoods full of 4-bedroom+ houses. Just in Columbus we have Victorian Village, Milo-Grogan, Old Town East, The Circles, pretty much the whole NES, Summit/4th (I may be forgetting a few).

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

I think it's interesting that all this WFH worship assumes people are already married with kids. If the minute people graduate college they get parked at a computer in their own homes for 40 years there aren't going to be very many marriages or kids.

 

Only one out of four households have school-age children. And I would think that WFH is going to cause people to want to move into cities because if you're working at home in the suburbs, when will you ever have an opportunity to socially encounter people in your daily life? I would think that people would get very lonely working at home in the suburbs.

53 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Exactly. There has not been an urban exodus and, to the extent there was even a temporary one, it was mostly in NYC and SF. 

 

Work from home might be here to stay but I highly doubt a substantial number of companies will go full work from home. More likely, there'll be more flexibility but you will need to be in an office at least some of the time. 

 

But also I'd push back on the idea that having more bedrooms is not compatible with urban living. Most of the city is not downtown high rises. I've lived in downtown high rises in tiny 400 square foot apartments. But now I live in a 4 bedroom historic home in the city that is walking distance to bars, restaurants, breweries, the library, parks, an elementary school, a community center, and all kinds of other stuff. And I can be downtown by public transit in 15 minutes. You can have all the amenities of city living, plus a lot of space, in many of our urban neighborhoods.

Exactly! I think this is what gives Ohio cities a slight advantage, especially in the weird world we live in today. We have a medium density built environment all over the state. A lot of times we lament not having a ton of rowhouses (except maybe Cincy) compared to other older cities, but I think in many ways this makes our cities unique. You can live in an urban setting and STILL have a bit of yard and privacy. Now if only those in charge of attracting talent to our cities can find a way to market that...

I just googled "US Cities that lost population during covid" and this article came up....  https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-largest-cities-saw-the-sharpest-population-losses-during-the-pandemic-new-census-data-shows/

 

It shows the largest US Cities, those with population over 1 million, experienced negative growth or population loss, while smaller cities, between 1 million and 250k, saw significantly slowed growth or nearly flat - less than 0.5%

 

NYC, LA, Boston, San Fran and San Jose all saw population losses.  NYC has been losing population since 2016 according to the article.

 

"This is consistent with broader trends associated with the mid-decade rise in the economy, which accelerated movement out of large metropolitan areas and into smaller places, as well as increased movement to the suburbs among “stuck in place” millennials and other city residents."

 

"In a good number of these cities, the trajectory of slow growth or decline began well before the start of the pandemic. Yet several stuck out with sharp negative growth in 2019-20, including Boston, San Francisco, St. Paul, Minn., New Orleans, and Newark, N.J., as well as those with sharp growth slowdowns such as Columbus, Ohio, Kansas City, Mo., and Raleigh and Greensboro, N.C."

 

THE SUBURBAN GROWTH ADVANTAGE CONTINUES

The most recent year’s city growth declines gave further impetus to the suburban growth advantage that took root midway in the 2010s decade. Earlier in that decade, a unique phenomenon emerged: a growth advantage for cities over their surrounding suburbs. At the time, much attention was given to the “return to the city” movement for young adults and seniors, along with the attraction of immigrants to urban centers.

However, this advantage was short lived, with much of it attributable to the impact of the 2007-09 Great Recession and down housing market, which “stranded” many young adult millennials in urban centers. As the 2010s wore on and the job and housing markets picked up, city-to-suburban shifts reemerged.

On 11/28/2021 at 3:30 PM, Ethan said:

 The whole idea behind suburbs was originally to be an ideal middle ground, best of both worlds, between the city and countryside.

 

 

I don't think it was thought out that way, but it's precisely how it evolved.   The returning servicemen were sick of ships and barracks.   The rural men who came to the cities to work in industry weren't interested in going back to the rural areas, but were also not enthusiastic about packing their families into tight neighborhoods.

There were legitimate reasons for suburbanization after WWII. Cities were polluted, you often didn't have running water, and we had the ability to build new communities from scratch with automobiles. It made sense at the time. Unfortunately we never stopped, so cities were left largely to rot for 50-60 years as almost all money went to suburbanize our country.

8 hours ago, gottaplan said:

I just googled "US Cities that lost population during covid" and this article came up....  https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-largest-cities-saw-the-sharpest-population-losses-during-the-pandemic-new-census-data-shows/

 

It shows the largest US Cities, those with population over 1 million, experienced negative growth or population loss, while smaller cities, between 1 million and 250k, saw significantly slowed growth or nearly flat - less than 0.5%

 

NYC, LA, Boston, San Fran and San Jose all saw population losses.  NYC has been losing population since 2016 according to the article.

 

"This is consistent with broader trends associated with the mid-decade rise in the economy, which accelerated movement out of large metropolitan areas and into smaller places, as well as increased movement to the suburbs among “stuck in place” millennials and other city residents."

 

"In a good number of these cities, the trajectory of slow growth or decline began well before the start of the pandemic. Yet several stuck out with sharp negative growth in 2019-20, including Boston, San Francisco, St. Paul, Minn., New Orleans, and Newark, N.J., as well as those with sharp growth slowdowns such as Columbus, Ohio, Kansas City, Mo., and Raleigh and Greensboro, N.C."

 

THE SUBURBAN GROWTH ADVANTAGE CONTINUES

The most recent year’s city growth declines gave further impetus to the suburban growth advantage that took root midway in the 2010s decade. Earlier in that decade, a unique phenomenon emerged: a growth advantage for cities over their surrounding suburbs. At the time, much attention was given to the “return to the city” movement for young adults and seniors, along with the attraction of immigrants to urban centers.

However, this advantage was short lived, with much of it attributable to the impact of the 2007-09 Great Recession and down housing market, which “stranded” many young adult millennials in urban centers. As the 2010s wore on and the job and housing markets picked up, city-to-suburban shifts reemerged.

 

Notice the date on that article. June. In August we got decennial Census data and more in-depth migration data that turned that narrative on its head. The Census estimates were way off over the past few years. Not only did those cities not actually lose population, but they grew over the second half of the decade. The only cities that actually saw out-migration during the pandemic were the largest ones, but it was temporary. We are now seeing a reversion of that. The idea that took hold over the past few years that central city population growth had slowed or reversed turned out to be based on faulty data. Or more accurately, people and the media placing too much faith in the annual population estimates, which were never meant to replace the official decennial census count.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/new-york-city-population-growth.html

 

Based on how little SFH got built in that period as compared to multifamily it would have been difficult for suburbs to get that much of a leg up on urban. 

2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

There were legitimate reasons for suburbanization after WWII. Cities were polluted, you often didn't have running water, and we had the ability to build new communities from scratch with automobiles. It made sense at the time. Unfortunately we never stopped, so cities were left largely to rot for 50-60 years as almost all money went to suburbanize our country.

 

Don't forget the GI Bill, Federal Housing Administration and other government programs that facilitated sprawl after WWII. The government-financed suburbanization became institutionalized long after the post-war housing shortage ended.

11 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Don't forget the GI Bill, Federal Housing Administration and other government programs that facilitated sprawl after WWII. The government-financed suburbanization became institutionalized long after the post-war housing shortage ended.

 

Government financed home ownership.  The recipients had options where to go.   A big number chose suburbia.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Government financed home ownership.  The recipients had options where to go.   A big number chose suburbia.

These were young men with little savings thanks to growing up in the depression then joining the services.   I would also assume that post-depression there was not a lot of new inventory built in cities, rending the existing homes expensive.  A cookie-cutter bungalow in a new mid ring suburb was probably the ONLY option for most.  

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Government financed home ownership.  The recipients had options where to go.   A big number chose suburbia.

They did not really have options.  The rules of government backed loans prohibited loans in neighborhoods with too many minorities and minorities were completely prohibited from receiving these loans. Often, homes in the bungalow belt would be the only ones to meet the requirement of the loans.  This was due to a concerted social engineering campaign to spread out populations.  

The post-war metamorphosis of American cities is fascinating for us all. The biggest thing that stands out for me after all of the reading I have done on the subject is the complexity of how we got from there (1900ish) to here (1980ish). Maybe it doesn't characterize it best, but I call it a conspiracy of circumstances. Just start listing the influences and you realize how long the list would turn out. I wonder if anyone has done something exhaustive? 

 

Access to transportation (rail then auto)

Sanitary improvements

Post-war industrialization of everything

Segregation

Government "help"

etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Government financed home ownership.  The recipients had options where to go.   A big number chose suburbia.

 

Fundamental misunderstanding of history. As noted, most urban neighborhoods were not eligible. Plus, the federal government made massive investments in highway infrastructure that destroyed urban neighborhoods and opened tons of new land up for development in surrounding rural areas.

Pretty sure you couldn't get an FHA backed loan on a unit in a multifamily building either- single family homes only.  Landlords could get loans on multifamily rentals, but that doesn't help a young family that wants home ownership but not a single family home.

2 hours ago, Rabbit Hash said:

The post-war metamorphosis of American cities is fascinating for us all. The biggest thing that stands out for me after all of the reading I have done on the subject is the complexity of how we got from there (1900ish) to here (1980ish). Maybe it doesn't characterize it best, but I call it a conspiracy of circumstances. Just start listing the influences and you realize how long the list would turn out. I wonder if anyone has done something exhaustive? 

 

Access to transportation (rail then auto)

Sanitary improvements

Post-war industrialization of everything

Segregation

Government "help"

etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I did a list of factors that caused "sprawl" to be a cultural perfect storm, postwar.    It's on this thread somewhere but I will see if I can find it."

Yep:
 

In any case, if there ever was a “perfect storm” in American culture, it’s the emergence of suburbia,  Some of the things going on included:

-The declining need for manpower in agriculture and the emerging need in urban industry.

-The departure of many urban men for the military during World War II, as industry was booming to supply them.  Rural men flocked to the cities, usually without their families, to work in factories.  (One was my paternal grandfather).

-The frustrations of those rural men heading home for visits on the roads of the era.

-The fact that many immigrants from Europe came from rural backgrounds themselves (among them, my maternal grandfather).

-The unsuitability of draft animal drawn transport in dense cities as it was realized that horse exhaust was unhealthier than motor exhaust.  

-The mechanization of the American armed forces (a conscious decision that probably did more than anything else to win the war) and the accompanying familiarity with driving, riding, and fixing vehicles.

-The exposure to the German “autobahn” system, built by a command economy to tighten its control of a fractious nation.

-The threat of atomic attack.

-The hours that factory workers put in during the war, with little to spend the money on.

-The fact that after the war, the GIs came home and the formerly rural war workers showed no great inclination to go back home.

-The fact that the former were sick of close quarters in barracks and ships, and had no desire to replace it  with parents’ or in-laws’ basements.

-The fact that the rural war workers missed certain aspects of rural life, but certainly not all of them.  They wanted to stay in the urban areas, and wanted their families back with them…but not in tenements.

-Innovations in construction developed for and during the war, and their applicability to roads and houses.

 

-The number of returned veterans involved in construction activities during the war.

-America’s continuing role as the manufactory for a war ravaged world, keeping the demand for labor high.  

-The unionization of the American work force keeping wages high and hours low.

There were other factors, but all of these meant that the only way to stop the growth of suburbia would have been with massive government intervention to prevent it.  There was nothing like the consensus that would have been needed to make that happen.  If anything, the consensus was in the opposite direction and the foes of suburban development would have been de-elected rather expeditiously.

If the US government had given loans to minorities, not redlined, and treated every different housing type equally, we still would have had a move toward suburbanization, but it wouldn't have been as drastic as we saw. The government made it all but impossible to invest in urban development. It wasn't just peoples' priorities and free will. Excuse me, but that's how I took your post. It took a massive government intervention to cause so much suburban development. Obviously we still would have had a decent amount of suburubanization, but the government forced everyone's hand.

On 12/2/2021 at 12:25 PM, ryanlammi said:

If the US government had given loans to minorities, not redlined, and treated every different housing type equally, we still would have had a move toward suburbanization, but it wouldn't have been as drastic as we saw. The government made it all but impossible to invest in urban development. It wasn't just peoples' priorities and free will. Excuse me, but that's how I took your post. It took a massive government intervention to cause so much suburban development. Obviously we still would have had a decent amount of suburubanization, but the government forced everyone's hand.

 

They were reflecting the will of the taxpayers, and it was the solution to a lot of postwar problems including employment.   Residential density was something people endured for the war effort.   Veterans and rural war workers in particular had no interest in doing so once the war was won.

4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

They were reflecting the will of the taxpayers, and it was the solution to a lot of postwar problems including employment.   Residential density was something people endured for the war effort.   Veterans and rural war workers in particular had no interest in doing so once the war was won.

It was the rise of automobile ownership that was the biggest contributing factor to the growth of suburbia.  My grandparents never drove a car.  Their neighborhood offered almost everything they needed.  They lived close to where they worked, shopped and went to church.  If something wasn't close enough, they took the streetcars, later the trackless trolleys and buses to get to where they needed to go.  Transit options met their needs in routes and frequencies. 

 

When my parents moved to the suburbs, they did so as they were not forced to either be close to where their work, church or shopping was located.  Having a car allowed them to move out to the suburbs.  They wanted their own house with a yard and not a duplex on tiny lot.  The suburbs accommodated what they wanted with an ample selection of new, single family houses.  When my mother worked, bus service was good enough so she could rely on it to get to work.  If they wanted to visit parents, siblings, other family members or friends, all they needed to do was get in the car and go. 

2 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

It was the rise of automobile ownership that was the biggest contributing factor to the growth of suburbia.  My grandparents never drove a car.  Their neighborhood offered almost everything they needed.  They lived close to where they worked, shopped and went to church.  If something wasn't close enough, they took the streetcars, later the trackless trolleys and buses to get to where they needed to go.  Transit options met their needs in routes and frequencies. 

 

When my parents moved to the suburbs, they did so as they were not forced to either be close to where their work, church or shopping was located.  Having a car allowed them to move out to the suburbs.  They wanted their own house with a yard and not a duplex on tiny lot.  The suburbs accommodated what they wanted with an ample selection of new, single family houses.  When my mother worked, bus service was good enough so she could rely on it to get to work.  If they wanted to visit parents, siblings, other family members or friends, all they needed to do was get in the car and go. 

That's true, but you apparently don't think that the government massively subsidizing the cost of suburbia was a factor? If a home had been more expensive in the suburbs, highways hadn't been built through urban areas to make their drives easier, and financing a home in the city was as easy as financing a greenfield home, your parents may have decided to stay near your grandparents. It may have been a different calculation for them. 

 

The government helped create this demand for suburbia by making it so cheap and accessible (to white families).

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

That's true, but you apparently don't think that the government massively subsidizing the cost of suburbia was a factor? If a home had been more expensive in the suburbs, highways hadn't been built through urban areas to make their drives easier, and financing a home in the city was as easy as financing a greenfield home, your parents may have decided to stay near your grandparents. It may have been a different calculation for them. 

 

The government helped create this demand for suburbia by making it so cheap and accessible (to white families).

Back then, the freeways did not exist, not even on paper.  In some of the outlying suburbs, even in Lake County, subdivisions were already planned.  If it were not for the Great Depression and World War 2, some may have started construction earlier.  I have a map dating to the later 1950s where there were streets planned where I-271 is located at Mayfield Road.  When they were building Costco, they found remnants of curbs and sidewalks that had not been disrupted by the interstate. 

 

As for my parents, they had ZERO desire to live in any duplex, regardless of proximity.  The people who bought homes in their area in the same time frame also did so without the freeways being drawn up.  They came later.  Back then, it had nothing to do with subsidization.  It was all due to young couples purchasing starter homes where they could have families of their own.  In the area where my grandparents lived and in many other neighborhoods in Cleveland, there simply was not enough available housing to meet demands.  Not everything has to do with color.

 

Between 1950 and 1960, Cleveland's population dropped by about 38,750 residents.  During the same time span, Cuyahoga County's population increased by about 338,400 residents.  It is not unreasonable to think that during that decade, much of the loss came from children moving out of their parents' houses in Cleveland, yet the parents mostly stayed in their houses and maybe even becoming empty-nesters.  Cleveland did not have the ability to handle that sort of population growth of 300,000 people needing houses.  During that decade, Lake County grew by about 73,000 residents, mostly in the western portion of the county. Aside from the Shoreway (between W. 91st and Bratenahl) and Willow Freeway (ending at Granger Road), there wasn't yet the presence of the "massively government subsidized" freeways in the area.  The only areas that could absorb the increase of about 375,000 in total population was in the undeveloped suburbs of Cuyahoga and Lake Counties.  

Edited December 8, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

And that's the problem when cities are subject to so many boom and bust cycles. All it takes is for something to happen to 1-2 key employers and the whole city hits a bust.

 

Keep in mind Europe and Canada don't have these subsidies and that's why they didn't sprawl. Over 80% of Canadians live in cities: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-canada/

 

Canada is one of the largest countries in the world regarding land area, second behind Russia. However, Canada´s inhabitants - like the majority of people around the world - prefer to live in cities where there are more possibilities to work and play. The country is part of North America, the most urbanized continent in the world. In 2014, almost 82 percent of Canada was urbanized, i.e. more than 80 percent of the Canadian population lived in cities.

Interesting video with examples of non-sprawling suburbs in Europe.

 

 

Imagine if the van Sweringens had built more density along the green and blue lines!

 

On 12/7/2021 at 11:27 AM, E Rocc said:

 

They were reflecting the will of the taxpayers, and it was the solution to a lot of postwar problems including employment.

 

Liberals: The federal government refused to give loans to minorities, purposely created segregated neighborhoods, and destroyed cities with racist policies designed to subjugate Black people and keep them away from white people. 

 

Conservatives: That's okay. It was the will of the taxpayers.

18 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

As for my parents, they had ZERO desire to live in any duplex, regardless of proximity.  The people who bought homes in their area in the same time frame also did so without the freeways being drawn up.  They came later. 

 

The first sections of what would become I-90 were built in the 1930s. Without it, the east side suburbs would not have developed.

18 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Back then, it had nothing to do with subsidization.  It was all due to young couples purchasing starter homes where they could have families of their own. 

 

It had everything to do with subsidization. Without government subsidized loans and roadways they would not have been able to get to the jobs downtown. As much as they might have wanted a starter home out east, it would've been impossible.

 

18 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

  In the area where my grandparents lived and in many other neighborhoods in Cleveland, there simply was not enough available housing to meet demands.  Not everything has to do with color.

 

When the government took on a campaign to open up new land for cheap, mass produced housing available to whites only, it has everything to do with color. How can you even argue otherwise?

 

19 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Between 1950 and 1960, Cleveland's population dropped by about 38,750 residents.  During the same time span, Cuyahoga County's population increased by about 338,400 residents. 

 

Yes. And this is directly tied to building highways and widening roads through urban areas that destroyed tons of housing to open up new land for suburban development.

@DEPACincy States: The first sections of what would become I-90 were built in the 1930s. Without it, the east side suburbs would not have developed.

 

The section of the Shoreway that extended from Gordon Park through Bratenahl and ending with Lakeshore Blvd near E. 140th Street was completed around 1952.  By 1952, almost about 90% of Euclid had been developed.  The interstate through Euclid wasn't completed until the early to mid-1960's.  By then, Euclid was nearly completely built out and had been for years.  That development had been completed long before the freeway ended up on the map.  I have an even older map dating to about 1940 with the Shoreway ending at Gordon Park and even then probably about 70-75% of Euclid was developed or planned to be developed.  Nearly all of Lyndhurst, South Euclid and Mayfield Heights was built out by 1960.  I-271 wasn't constructed until the early 1960's.  The map I cited from 1959-1960 doesn't even have a proposed or under construction freeway on it (like later maps published by the same company years later did--on those maps, some freeways were built and others weren't).  That 1959-1960 map had more residential streets laid out (with some work started) on both sides of Mayfield Road at I-271.  That in itself shows housing development was happening without future freeways being planned, in fact I-271 caused some of it to not occur.  How can all of these suburbs be the result of freeways that didn't even exist?  Definitely, development was happening without freeways.  The curbs and sidewalks that were "discovered" in later retail construction weren't leftovers from an old movie set. 

 

@DEPACincy States: When the government took on a campaign to open up new land for cheap, mass produced housing available to whites only, it has everything to do with color. How can you even argue otherwise?

 

Tell us, in reality how do farmers selling their land to developers have anything to do with the "government took on a campaign to open up new land".  After the 1800's, this wasn't land in the government's control "to open up".  It was due to farmers wishing to sell their land to developers to make money.  That land wasn't opened up as it wasn't the government's to control.  You make it sound like some sort of Oklahoma land grab in the 1800's. 

 

By the mid/late 1940's into 1960, the area's population was still growing.  Most of the land in Cleveland had been long since developed.  It largely consisted of higher density housing, much in the form of 2-family duplexes, 3-family triplexes or small apartment buildings.  Short of leveling of sections of the city to build even higher density housing, where in Cleveland are 375,000 more people going to live?  Please try to rationally explain where the space was going to be created for people to live with an increase in population of 375,000 people and not evade the answer by deflection.

 

Finally, by using my stating that have nothing to do with linking convoluted statements, you totally ignore reality.  There was simply no place for my parents to even consider raising a family in half of a duplex.  That was the case with quite a lot of people  Since you are such expert, try providing an answer instead of tossing out an irrelevant comment.  Living in a duplex has nothing to do with I-90.

Edited December 8, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

16 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yes. And this is directly tied to building highways and widening roads through urban areas that destroyed tons of housing to open up new land for suburban development.

 

Is this a case of some government/private sector plot, or tax dollars being used according to the preferences of the people who paid them?   

14 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

 

 

Tell us, in reality how do farmers selling their land to developers have anything to do with the "government took on a campaign to open up new land".  After the 1800's, this wasn't land in the government's control "to open up".  It was due to farmers wishing to sell their land to developers to make money.  That land wasn't opened up as it wasn't the government's to control.  You make it sound like some sort of Oklahoma land grab in the 1800's. 

 

 

 

People who have lived or worked in the southwest burbs may know of a town called Columbia Station.  It's quite rural, adjacent to 80s/90s boom suburb Strongsville.  

The average net worth there is quite high.   Because many of the Strongsville farmers who sold their land moved there. 

On 12/7/2021 at 8:49 PM, GCrites80s said:

And that's the problem when cities are subject to so many boom and bust cycles. All it takes is for something to happen to 1-2 key employers and the whole city hits a bust.

 

Keep in mind Europe and Canada don't have these subsidies and that's why they didn't sprawl. Over 80% of Canadians live in cities: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-canada/

 

Canada is one of the largest countries in the world regarding land area, second behind Russia. However, Canada´s inhabitants - like the majority of people around the world - prefer to live in cities where there are more possibilities to work and play. The country is part of North America, the most urbanized continent in the world. In 2014, almost 82 percent of Canada was urbanized, i.e. more than 80 percent of the Canadian population lived in cities.

 

Here's an example of how statistics can be selectively used to put forth an agenda.

USA population:  330 million.

 

Canada population:  38 milllion.

Most of Canada is sparsely settled because it's cold.

 

We've discussed why the US would be different from Europe.   One likely reason: selective migration.   The people who sought elbow room would preferentially come here.   It's also why the coasts are more urbanized than the interior.

26 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 The people who sought elbow room would preferentially come here.   It's also why the coasts are more urbanized than the interior.

People came to the interior in search of jobs, not more room. Read a history book instead of Facebook comments. 

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

People who have lived or worked in the southwest burbs may know of a town called Columbia Station.  It's quite rural, adjacent to 80s/90s boom suburb Strongsville.  

The average net worth there is quite high.   Because many of the Strongsville farmers who sold their land moved there. 

When that land was sold by the farmers of Strongsville, it wasn't due the government "releasing" more land as some sort of campaign to open it to benefit a certain group of people.  The farmers owned the land, realized they could benefit quite nicely if they sold it and they did.  The only "color" that was involved was the color of GREEN (the color of money).

44 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

People came to the interior in search of jobs, not more room. Read a history book instead of Facebook comments. 

 

You want to use that Twitter/baizuo "debate" style we can both play that, but it's not common around here and IMO that's a good thing.

People came to the interior in search of land.   Cities sprung up to serve them.

Population of Maple Heights by census:

 

Historical population

CensusPop.%±

1920  1,732—

1930 5,950 243.5%

1940 6,728 13.1%

1950 15,586 131.7%

1960 31,667 103.2%

1970 34,093 7.7%

1980 29,465 −13.6%

1990 27,089 −8.1%

2000 26,156 −3.4%

2010 23,138 −11.5%

2020 23,701 2.4%

 

I-77 connected to downtown in 1966, I-271 was built in 1964 and neither was all that close.   480 came later.

The freeways followed the people.

Edited December 9, 20213 yr by E Rocc