During the very early Clinton administration, something like this was proposed.   A number of big city mayors gave birth to porcupines.   Breech presentation.    They figured it would accelerate industrial sprawl and push the jobs away from their residents that need them.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-unveils-new-office-environmental-justice

It's called conspicuous consumption, my Slovakian friend. From the early 1950s-70s, America stood alone in the world as the only industrial power significantly undamaged by World War 2. Our middle class was able to live a life of ever-increasing excess. The public and private policies that supported this lifestyle became institutionalized and still exist today even though we can no longer afford it.

 

 

Houses with yards are cheaper than living in the city now.

15 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Houses with yards are cheaper than living in the city now.

Not in every city...

It really depends on how much of the city's SFH is well-maintained. If it is all nice then it will be expensive. But in Ohio cities there's a lot of parts of towns with SFH that have seen a lack of investment or disinvestment.

80 percent? Is that number from somewhere? If so, that's a compelling stat.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

80 percent? Is that number from somewhere? If so, that's a compelling stat.

 

 

 

 

This largest reason I am such a huge urbanist.

 

I had always felt so stranded and alone growing up.

 

I went to college, a dense walkable community, and it evaporated.

 

Meeting up and making plans were incredibly easy.

 

The largest contributor of depression and loneliness in the United States is car dependent isolating housing.

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

80 percent? Is that number from somewhere? If so, that's a compelling stat.

 

 

 

It's by choice, for the most part.   It's become easier to be an "introvert" over the past 20-30 years and China syndrome made it a *lot* more socially acceptable.  People are discovering that's their preference.   Social media and other modern forms of communication make it easier to maintain casual connections on one's own terms.   

 

Extroverts will complain because they need other extroverts to be around and accesible.   Introverts don't so they won't.

Edited September 16, 20222 yr by E Rocc

17 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

It's by choice, for the most part.   It's become easier to be an "introvert" over the past 20-30 years and China syndrome made it a *lot* more socially acceptable.  People are discovering that's their preference.   Social media and other modern forms of communication make it easier to maintain casual connections on one's own terms.   

 

Extroverts will complain because they need other extroverts to be around and accesible.   Introverts don't so they won't.

 

 

I have a theory on this. One that everyone will disagree with.

 

 

There's no such thing as introversion. Just social anxiety.

 

 

In the tribal days of humanity there were equal and balancing forces.

 

 

Social Anxiety, which kept a person in check for the health of the tribe, and the sense of belonging, to ensure the individual would remain in the tribe and and more likely to survive.

 

 

These two forces were equal and opposite but provided balance.

 

 

Modern society has removed the threat of death from the sense of belonging. Meaning that social anxiety can have full reign over a persons actions. 

 

 

Study after study after study routinely come to the same conclusion: those with full and rich social lives are the happiest people. 

 

 

Introverts are not introverts. They need people just as much as extroverts. They simply have succumbed to social anxiety.

 

 

Single family exclusionary zoning has forced our society to fully indulge in our social anxiety. 

 

 

It's not a choice but a compulsion that we've let take over us. Just in the same way as obesity. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 20222 yr by TotalTransit

18 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

It's by choice, for the most part.   It's become easier to be an "introvert" over the past 20-30 years and China syndrome made it a *lot* more socially acceptable.  People are discovering that's their preference.   Social media and other modern forms of communication make it easier to maintain casual connections on one's own terms.   

 

Extroverts will complain because they need other extroverts to be around and accesible.   Introverts don't so they won't.

I feel like you keep saying “China syndrome.” It’s weird man.

27 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

It's by choice, for the most part.   It's become easier to be an "introvert" over the past 20-30 years and China syndrome made it a *lot* more socially acceptable.  People are discovering that's their preference.   Social media and other modern forms of communication make it easier to maintain casual connections on one's own terms.   

 

Extroverts will complain because they need other extroverts to be around and accesible.   Introverts don't so they won't.

 

Idk. All of my friends would say otherwise. We all thought entering the child raising stage, we would follow your theory a bit more, but honestly, having kids has shown us that we need dense walkable neighborhoods even more to avoid going absolutely insane

People choose the introversion because they're scared of some urban boogieman they've been taught to be afraid of by racist parents, cranky old uncle, bleeds-it-leads news, etc. It's really quite sad and unjustified.

 

When I spend too much time in my car fighting for space with other drivers or indoors researching and writing, I get depressed. Then I go for a walk in my diverse, densely developed Lakewood neighborhood and feel a lot better about the world. I'm seriously considering getting rid of my car at the end of its lease next summer.

19 minutes ago, JB said:

I feel like you keep saying “China syndrome.” It’s weird man.

 

I got in the habit on Facebook and Twitter.   It kept their "anti-misinformation" popups from triggering.  It's useful to remember where it came from.

10 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

 

Idk. All of my friends would say otherwise. We all thought entering the child raising stage, we would follow your theory a bit more, but honestly, having kids has shown us that we need dense walkable neighborhoods even more to avoid going absolutely insane

 

The younger people I still hear from (from my bar days and Holly's friends) with kids are maybe 25% your way, 75% "give me space".   My group isn't really self selecting, whether or not yours is isn't something I can tell you.   My daughter lives in Sagamore Hills, between school, horses, church, and her social media skills she is doing fine.   A friend who has a son her age just moved from Sagamore to Valley City.

5 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

I got in the habit on Facebook and Twitter.   It kept their "anti-misinformation" popups from triggering.  It's useful to remember where it came from.

 

Official mod note, don't call it "China Syndrome" on Urban Ohio. We've had so many discussions about this in the last 2.5 years. We don't need to rehash the racist use of phrase or similar ones.

There seems to be a lot of ignorance on introversion in this thread. If anyone is interested in decreasing their ignorance, Quiet, by Susan Cain is an informative and approachable book that I personally enjoyed.

 

Failing that, please just realise that introversion is not a choice nor is it an unhealthy compulsion. People are different, and that's okay. 

Ever notice that introverts outnumber extroverts by an enormous margin?

 

 

Even the Myers Brigg test marks me as an introvert. 

Edited September 16, 20222 yr by TotalTransit

45 minutes ago, Ethan said:

There seems to be a lot of ignorance on introversion in this thread. If anyone is interested in decreasing their ignorance, Quiet, by Susan Cain is an informative and approachable book that I personally enjoyed.

 

Failing that, please just realise that introversion is not a choice nor is it an unhealthy compulsion. People are different, and that's okay. 

 

Extroverts are a lot like people who crave density, which makes sense because the overlap is extensive.   They need more people to be like them.  Many need to feel they are "right" and others are wrong.  Introverts are by definition less concerned with what others do.

 

Introverts, particularly those on the autism spectrum, were on the cutting edge of the technological revolution going back to WWII if not earlier.   Once it began to implement daily live more and more, they were the ones making it happen and of course they did so in a way to suit themselves.

It's become a spectrum.    Technology and social media have allowed people to fine tune their degree of interaction. 

In an attempt to be somewhat on topic, being an introvert doesn't necessarily mean you want to be off by yourself in some rural cornfield. People can feel completely, comfortably "alone" and introspective on the subway in Brooklyn or walking along a downtown city street. 

I don't think being an introvert makes you want to live in a suburb development with sprawl and car as the only mode of transit for every single task. I could probably be considered an introvert, I'm as shy as it gets. But I still like atleast being around people, people watching, and walking 

I could see introverts actually preferring denser cities where they can disappear amongst the mass of people. Conversely, some extrovert types may like the low density suburbs where they can play main character in a small pool. 

 

Yeah at community meetings. Every small town has people everyone knows.

I think the lack of community and positive human interaction in American suburbs contributes to unhappiness and, ultimately, political extremism. If I need to get out of a bad mood, I go for a walk in my walkable Lakewood neighborhood, say hi to people and realize that the world is OK. Every time I go for a walk, I ALWAYS feel better afterwards, even if it's cold and yucky outside. And people who live in "great" or "broken" communities is a factor in their happiness or lack thereof....

 

A new kind of inequality is on the rise: Happiness’ haves and have nots

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-kind-inequality-rise-happiness-haves-have-nots-jon-clifton/

 

More hellish Cleveland sprawl.

 

Industrial real estate developer pays $4 million for Seville farm

 

"Tiny Seville, Ohio — with a population of 2,596, according to the 2020 U.S. Census — is on the verge of becoming home to a big industrial park occupying 79 acres with a potential development cost of $64 million. Through NEO Commerce LLC, Flint Development of Prairie Village, Kansas, paid $4 million for the Stone Farm, 350 Center St., complete with three barns and two silos, on Oct. 3, according to Medina County property records...."

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/industrial-real-estate-developer-pays-4-million-seville-farm

26 minutes ago, jcw92 said:

More hellish Cleveland sprawl.

 

Industrial real estate developer pays $4 million for Seville farm

 

"Tiny Seville, Ohio — with a population of 2,596, according to the 2020 U.S. Census — is on the verge of becoming home to a big industrial park occupying 79 acres with a potential development cost of $64 million. Through NEO Commerce LLC, Flint Development of Prairie Village, Kansas, paid $4 million for the Stone Farm, 350 Center St., complete with three barns and two silos, on Oct. 3, according to Medina County property records...."

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/industrial-real-estate-developer-pays-4-million-seville-farm

 

Have to protect those rural Ohio aesthetics tho right? 

8 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

Have to protect those rural Ohio aesthetics tho right? 

 

Is that a jab at my Columbus upbringing? That we're just a bunch of cow-town hicks?  Urban sprawl is bad for everyone and there is plenty of land within Cleveland to build a new 79-acre industrial park.

54 minutes ago, jcw92 said:

 

Is that a jab at my Columbus upbringing? That we're just a bunch of cow-town hicks?  Urban sprawl is bad for everyone and there is plenty of land within Cleveland to build a new 79-acre industrial park.

 

No, no! Not a jab at you at all, it's a jab at the state officials push limiting solar fields to "preserve rural aesthetics". 

 

I agree, with you, this seemingly could have and should have been placed closer to Cleveland or Akron and we should actually preserve rural places for a multitude of reasons. 

 

Sorry, for the miscommunication! 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.clevescene.com/news/ohio-may-soon-kill-a-solar-project-due-to-concerns-over-rural-aesthetic-39852457%3fmedia=AMP%2bHTML

 

On 10/15/2022 at 12:12 PM, jcw92 said:

 

Is that a jab at my Columbus upbringing? That we're just a bunch of cow-town hicks?  Urban sprawl is bad for everyone and there is plenty of land within Cleveland to build a new 79-acre industrial park.

 

Leaving aside whether or not sprawl is inherently bad, especially for "everyone", finding 79 contiguous acres that don't have any potential CERCLA liabilities might be a challenge.

 

Many factors have led to residential sprawl after WWII.   Industrial sprawl is pretty much caused by CERCLA.

The Buckeye Steel site (71 acres) is being redeveloped as we speak.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Leaving aside whether or not sprawl is inherently bad, especially for "everyone", finding 79 contiguous acres that don't have any potential CERCLA liabilities might be a challenge.

 

Many factors have led to residential sprawl after WWII.   Industrial sprawl is pretty much caused by CERCLA.

A huge factor in residential sprawl came about as there really wasn't more available land for significant residential growth within Cleveland.  Between 1940 and 1960, Cleveland's population was basically unchanged (878,336 to 876,030, peaking at 914,808 in 1950).  In the county, the population grew by over 430,000 (1,217,250 to 1,647,895).  There simply was not enough land available to accommodate over 400,000 people.  Over the same period of time, Lake County's population grew by about 100,000.  Cleveland may have seen more population growth if the dominant form of housing continued to be built (duplexes and non-apartment multi-family structures), but that type of housing had fallen out of favor in the post-war years. 

3 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

A huge factor in residential sprawl came about as there really wasn't more available land for significant residential growth within Cleveland.  Between 1940 and 1960, Cleveland's population was basically unchanged (878,336 to 876,030, peaking at 914,808 in 1950).  In the county, the population grew by over 430,000 (1,217,250 to 1,647,895).  There simply was not enough land available to accommodate over 400,000 people.  Over the same period of time, Lake County's population grew by about 100,000.  Cleveland may have seen more population growth if the dominant form of housing continued to be built (duplexes and non-apartment multi-family structures), but that type of housing had fallen out of favor in the post-war years. 

Ya. This is totally true. Unlike 90s sprawl, which was definitely more a choice than a necessity. 

48 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

52 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Cleveland may have seen more population growth if the dominant form of housing continued to be built (duplexes and non-apartment multi-family structures), but that type of housing had fallen out of favor in the post-war years. 

Ya. This is totally true. Unlike 90s sprawl, which was definitely more a choice than a necessity. 

Agreed that there were many factors that led to sprawl.  After the population growth and before sprawl, we had a lot of overcrowding in outdated housing by the 1940s.  That overcrowding was a starting point for "I gotta get out of here and get some more space and privacy!" that the post-war boom and improved auto-centric infrastructure enabled.  The ability to live further away and still be able to drive to work was suddenly affordable and practical in a way that wasn't true for most people in the 1920s.

 

Quality multi-family housing can provide density with high quality of life, and is quite evident in dense but livable European cities from London to Stockholm to Paris, etc.   Now that the US is not the super-dominant wealthiest-country-on-earth that we were in the 1950s and 1960s, we can look back and see how the over-indulgence in sprawling suburbs was excessive, particularly from the 1970s through today. 

 

Were any new cities created in Cuyahoga County since 1970?  Here is a snapshot of where cities were "growing" in the postwar period.

Quote

1944     Woodmere Village incorporated.

1950     Cleveland population--914,808 (highest ever, 7th largest city in nation).
Cuyahoga County population--1,389,532.
Village of Bay (Bay Village) incorporated as a city.
Mayfield Heights incorporated as a city.

1951     Bedford Heights incorporated as a village.
Fairview Park achieves city status.
Lyndhurst achieves city status.
Oakwood Village incorporated.
Walton Hills Village incorporated.

1957     Westlake achieves city status.
1959     Parma Heights incorporated as a city.

1960     Cleveland population--876,050 (8th largest city in nation).
Cuyahoga County population--1,647,895.
Brecksville achieves city status.
Broadview Heights achieves city status.
Independence achieves city status.
North Olmsted achieves city status.
Richmond Heights achieves city status.
Strongsville achieves city status.
Warrensville Heights achieves city status.
1961     Bedford Heights achieves city status.
Brook Park achieves city status.
Middleburg Heights incorporated as city.
North Royalton achieves city status.
Olmsted Falls achieves city status.
Seven Hills achieves city status.
Solon achieves city status.

1957     Highland Heights becomes a city.

1970     Pepper Pike achieves city status.

Excerpted from:  https://case.edu/ech/timeline#1900

(Personally, there are not many places I would want to live that achieved city status after 1951.)

 

While there is still a strong presumption for single-family home ownership, that is no longer a universal goal.  The return of housing to the city center is one sign of that change.

11 hours ago, Foraker said:

Agreed that there were many factors that led to sprawl.  After the population growth and before sprawl, we had a lot of overcrowding in outdated housing by the 1940s.  That overcrowding was a starting point for "I gotta get out of here and get some more space and privacy!" that the post-war boom and improved auto-centric infrastructure enabled.  The ability to live further away and still be able to drive to work was suddenly affordable and practical in a way that wasn't true for most people in the 1920s.

 

 

That 40s overcrowding was exacerbated by the returning veterans.   The vets had also had their fill of close quarters on ships and in barracks.

 

They also had a lot of experience operating (and in some cases fixing) motor vehicles and many had construction experience.

 

More cars, more houses and more roads kept more people employed, as the war workers showed no great desire to return to the rural areas.

 

There were many other causes as well, way upthread I put together a long list of them.  In the late 40s and early 50s it was pretty much a cultural perfect storm.   

Edited October 25, 20222 yr by E Rocc

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

That 40s overcrowding was exacerbated by the returning veterans.   The vets had also had their fill of close quarters on ships and in barracks.

 

They also had a lot of experience operating (and in some cases fixing) motor vehicles and many had construction experience.

 

More cars, more houses and more roads kept more people employed, as the war workers showed no great desire to return to the rural areas.

 

There were many other causes as well, way upthread I put together a long list of them.  In the late 40s and early 50s it was pretty much a cultural perfect storm.   

I'm not disputing any of that.  But going forward we should recognize that additional sprawl is a fiscally bad idea and we should be looking for policies to prevent it.

On 9/19/2022 at 12:21 PM, KJP said:

I think the lack of community and positive human interaction in American suburbs contributes to unhappiness and, ultimately, political extremism. If I need to get out of a bad mood, I go for a walk in my walkable Lakewood neighborhood, say hi to people and realize that the world is OK.

 

The existence of "community" has nothing at all to do with the physical layout of a place.  A community exists because of well-established formal and informal institutions that encompass multiple generations in multiple ways.  Strangers waving to strangers is like a blip compared to what I just described.  

 

A guy from rural Indiana told me that during the warm months when he was a kid in the 1960s, each Sunday a different family had the entire church over to their respective farm for an all-day get-together.  So several dozen families took turns hosting the entire - ahem - community once per year or once every other year.  So 100+ people spent the day together 15-20 times per year.  This way everyone met regularly and everyone got to see where and how each other lived.  What was their farm like?  What equipment did they own?  Who were their brothers?  Sisters?  Aunts?  Uncles?  You got to know...everybody.  

 

Nobody does this in cities, at least not typical secular "urbanists".  Even if they do have a loose dinner party rotation, few people have kids, and seemingly nobody has more than two.  You're never going to meet their extended family or see the house they grew up in because they're transplants and their siblings moved to Texas and California.  You don't typically see how people actually work, since they have mysterious office/computer-based jobs.  There aren't inherently interesting things to see at people's condos and urban townhomes like animals, not-working farm equipment, structures that need to be repaired, etc.  Maybe they have a record collection or some antique furniture or some art, but that's about it.    

 

We're lacking in "community" because people watch way too much TV and make so much money that they don't need each others' help.  They're not active in church or raising each others' kids because they don't go to church and don't have kids, or at least not the armies of kids that I remember roaming the neighborhood when I was young.  

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 20222 yr by Lazarus

24 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

The existence of "community" has nothing at all to do with the physical layout of a place.  A community exists because of formal and informal institutions that encompass multiple generations, not strangers waving to strangers.

I disagree.  Having a local bar or coffee shop or diner where you randomly bump into friends, acquaintances, and neighbors is as good as a church in helping to create a community.  Some places in the Cleveland area are known for their annual neighborhood block parties.  Neighbors can and do know each other if the effort is made.

 

And while there are certainly benefits to really knowing everything about everyone in your community, there are downsides as well.  The town busybodies not only know you but they can be vocally critical of your choices, which discourages diversity; and it can be suffocating for young people trying to figure out their place in the world -- lots of young people say they can't wait to leave their small-town communities where everyone not only knows everyone else but they get in each other's business and never want to try anything new. 

 

28 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

You don't typically see how people actually work, since they have mysterious office/computer-based jobs.  There aren't inherently interesting things to see at people's condos and urban townhomes like animals, not-working farm equipment, structures that need to be repaired, etc.  Maybe they have a record collection.     

 

We're lacking in "community" because people watch way too much TV and make so much money that they don't need each others' help.  They're not active in church and raising each others' kids because they don't go to church and don't have kids, or at least not the armies of kids that I remember roaming the neighborhood when I was young. 

Air conditioning, auto-centered suburbs, single-family homes on large lots in non-walkable neighborhoods, the lack of front porches, televisions, and the internet all contribute to social isolation.  And modern jobs -- the "mysterious office/computer-based jobs" -- make it really hard for young people to know what they want to do in the modern work world because they're not exposed to what those people are actually doing in their offices, on their computers. 

 

Maybe there is a happy medium, the infamous "goldilocks density," between small-town rural life and auto-centric suburbia, where that physical structure of the place actually encourages community -- walkable places where you can randomly run into friends and acquaintances and feel like you can participate in the community. 

 

The new Van Aken district in Shaker Heights is a great place.  It's true, the neighbors do not all gather together and get to know each other's grandkids and what kind of laptop they own, but they're much more engaged because of physical environment and the community spaces nearby.

29 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I disagree.  Having a local bar or coffee shop or diner where you randomly bump into friends, acquaintances, and neighbors is as good as a church in helping to create a community.  Some places in the Cleveland area are known for their annual neighborhood block parties.  Neighbors can and do know each other if the effort is made.

 

And while there are certainly benefits to really knowing everything about everyone in your community, there are downsides as well.  The town busybodies not only know you but they can be vocally critical of your choices, which discourages diversity; and it can be suffocating for young people trying to figure out their place in the world -- lots of young people say they can't wait to leave their small-town communities where everyone not only knows everyone else but they get in each other's business and never want to try anything new. 

 

I go to urban bars and I go to an urban neighborhood church; I wouldn't put the two on the same footing in terms of helping create a community.  Maybe I'm hanging out at the wrong bars or just got very lucky at my church.

 

As for the busybodies dynamic: Are you suggesting that there are more busybodies, or more busybodies per capita, in the suburbs than in the cities?  In your first paragraph, you play up one benefit of city living as "neighbors can and do know each other if the effort is made;" in your second, you talk about a downside of that as a suburban phenomenon.  At least if I'm following you correctly.  In my experience living in Akron, I have one busybody neighbor that provides a touchstone of solidarity for the rest of the street--the rest of us all commiserate over which of our personal decisions or what aspect of our properties That Neighbor felt the need to weigh in on most recently.

7 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

The existence of "community" has nothing at all to do with the physical layout of a place.  A community exists because of well-established formal and informal institutions that encompass multiple generations in multiple ways.  Strangers waving to strangers is like a blip compared to what I just described.  

 

A guy from rural Indiana told me that during the warm months when he was a kid in the 1960s, each Sunday a different family had the entire church over to their respective farm for an all-day get-together.  So several dozen families took turns hosting the entire - ahem - community once per year or once every other year.  So 100+ people spent the day together 15-20 times per year.  This way everyone met regularly and everyone got to see where and how each other lived.  What was their farm like?  What equipment did they own?  Who were their brothers?  Sisters?  Aunts?  Uncles?  You got to know...everybody.  

 

 

 

Church isn't as good for this now since so many people attend megachurch which is more like seeing a movie than going to a 50-200 member church from back then where everybody got to know each other.

 

At our farm we had the phenomenon you describe with the Grange. But that slowly died off in the late '90s-2000s.

20 hours ago, Gramarye said:

As for the busybodies dynamic: Are you suggesting that there are more busybodies, or more busybodies per capita, in the suburbs than in the cities?  In your first paragraph, you play up one benefit of city living as "neighbors can and do know each other if the effort is made;" in your second, you talk about a downside of that as a suburban phenomenon.  At least if I'm following you correctly.  In my experience living in Akron, I have one busybody neighbor that provides a touchstone of solidarity for the rest of the street--the rest of us all commiserate over which of our personal decisions or what aspect of our properties That Neighbor felt the need to weigh in on most recently.

It's not the quantity of busybodies, but when I lived in a small town (around 2000) there was nowhere to go to get away from the busybodies.  Everyone knows everyone and everyone knows what everyone else is doing.  And had an opinion about how you washed your car or how the pattern in your lawn was wrong. 

 

And I'm not saying that having to make an effort to know your neighbors is a benefit of city living, I'm just saying you don't have to live in a rural small town to know people really well and have a community, which is what Lazarus seemed to be saying.

 

I still say that physical layout of a place can really make a difference in developing that sense of community -- because in the suburbs you have to get in your car to go anywhere other than your neighbor's house, you are less likely to make that drive to meet someone you don't know.  That is somewhat true in small towns too -- because the town is small you often have to drive to a nearby town to get groceries, gas, get a variety of restaurants, etc. So the physical layout of the small town probably doesn't contribute as much to the community as the social groups -- church and school activities.

 

In a walkable urban community, where you can walk to the library, grocery, church, local bar, and park, and randomly run into people you know or have seen many times before in those places, you're more likely to have casual acquaintances and to strike up a conversation with a stranger and make a new friend, maybe discuss community issues like water bills and trash collection and how the mayor is doing.  That physical layout that makes the area walkable thus contributes to people getting to know each other.

 

I suspect that in the suburbs today those "community" conversations are happening online rather than in the local coffee shop.  Nextdoor, twitter, facebook, etc. -- those bastions of civility and friendly discourse. 

21 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

I go to urban bars and I go to an urban neighborhood church; I wouldn't put the two on the same footing in terms of helping create a community.  Maybe I'm hanging out at the wrong bars or just got very lucky at my church.

 

Could be both. I go to a few specific bars regularly, and often run into people I know - people I met at those very bars. There is a community at these places. It often doesn't exist at "the next big thing" that fills up on weekends with people from the suburbs/every other city neighborhood, but the place that neighborhood folks frequent often. Some people I've almost only talked to at a few individual bars, but I know them fairly well. Like most third places, I have a couple of really good friends that I've met at places like these, but most of them are folks I talk to when we're both there, but I don't have their numbers and we don't hang out outside of chance encounters.

What's interesting about the debate on community in urban vs. suburban vs. rural areas is political bias. It's long been understand the the more density, the more urban an area is, the more progressive it ends to be, while the opposite tends to be true the further out you go. One interpretation to this related to community is that while people may not be hanging out at block or church parties all the time in urban areas, they see each other and are exposed to each other far more often in arguably more profound ways. Urban communities are more open, more accepting, more tolerant, while rural ones are far more insular.  While it's not a 1950s idealized definition of what makes a community, I'd personally vastly prefer the urban version of one. 

 

Sprawl is a race to the bottom 

 

 

Similar to how Americans react when they go to Europe and marvel at their walkable cities, then come home and say we can't do it here.

 

 

Maybe part of it.  In general, Europeans don't "go away" to college in the same way we do.  Most colleges are more like a CSU, built into the city with mostly commuter students.  Obviously, that isn't all students or all colleges, and a few big college towns do exist.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

Similar to how Americans react when they go to Europe and marvel at their walkable cities, then come home and say we can't do it here.

 

 

No, because for those fortunate enough to go away to college in an idyllic college town, it is the time in their life where they have the freedom they desire with limited responsibility and they are contained in a sterile environment (their college town). It is like going away to camp for many

4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

No, because for those fortunate enough to go away to college in an idyllic college town, it is the time in their life where they have the freedom they desire with limited responsibility and they are contained in a sterile environment (their college town). It is like going away to camp for many

 

It's likely not just one thing and what you point to is not mutually exclusive from the original post's suggestions. The original poster did say "in part" anyway.