13 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Or removing coercive behavior from the government thus allowing the markets to function.

 

I would call it persuasive, not coercive, but that said I honestly don't see how that could be made to happen.   People prefer comfort over efficiency and have the means to secure that preference.

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

People prefer comfort over efficiency and have the means to secure that preference.

If this were factual then downtown Cleveland wouldn’t contain the fastest growing census tract in NEO over the last two decades. 
 

People with means aren’t leaving the city, they’re moving into it. 

Edited November 22, 20231 yr by Clefan98

11 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

If this were factual then downtown Cleveland wouldn’t contain the fastest growing census tract in NEO over the last two decades. 
 

People with means aren’t leaving the city, they’re moving to it. 

 

Percentage growth can be deceiving.    Downtown population has grown 22% in the last decade.   It's still no bigger than a medium sized suburb.

 

Meanwhile the city proper loses population at a rate of about 1% a year.

24 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

Meanwhile the city proper loses population at a rate of about 1% a year.

So do suburbs such as Westlake, Mentor and Brecksville - what’s your point? 
 

Cleveland is a big city. Some areas (SE & NE) sides are still bleeding population. 
 

At the same time Downtown, UC and the entire near westside are being filled with some of the wealthiest residents in Ohio. These Cleveland neighborhoods also contain the fastest growing census tracts in NEO. 
 

 

Edited November 22, 20231 yr by Clefan98

42 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

Downtown population has grown 22% in the last decade.   It's still no bigger than a medium sized suburb.

I’m seeing 32% population growth, source: https://fox8.com/news/can-downtown-cleveland-become-something-closer-to-a-24-hour-city-center/amp/

 

I think the 22% figure represents # of units. 

 

If downtown were a suburb it’d be the 13th most populous municipality in Cuyahoga county. That’s pretty damn impressive. 
 

Looking at the 2030 census, downtown will most definitely surpass the following communities:

 

- South Euclid

- Rocky River

- Maple Hts

Edited November 22, 20231 yr by Clefan98

Not to mention that Downtown is about 2 square miles, so a fraction the size of most of our suburbs.  The concentration of new development over area is much higher than in any Cleveland suburb.

33 minutes ago, X said:

Not to mention that Downtown is about 2 square miles, so a fraction the size of most of our suburbs.  The concentration of new development over area is much higher than in any Cleveland suburb.

 

This is why I think Cleveland is better positioned for growth over the long term. Cuyahoga County suburbs are mostly developed and resist density. They can't really get bigger, especially as our populaton ages and we have less kids in households. Cleveland has more amenities and more capacity to build new housing, especially denser housing. But I don't see sprawl to Medina, Lorain, etc. stopping. That's why we need to increase our regional population with more newbies, and I think if Cleveland can continue to build and improve on progress of the last 20 years (especially safety and schools), it's going to be a very compelling option for new residents.

3 hours ago, X said:

Not to mention that Downtown is about 2 square miles, so a fraction the size of most of our suburbs.  The concentration of new development over area is much higher than in any Cleveland suburb.

 

By definition a downtown is denser, if for no other reason than it can build taller.

2 hours ago, coneflower said:

 

This is why I think Cleveland is better positioned for growth over the long term. Cuyahoga County suburbs are mostly developed and resist density. They can't really get bigger, especially as our populaton ages and we have less kids in households. Cleveland has more amenities and more capacity to build new housing, especially denser housing. But I don't see sprawl to Medina, Lorain, etc. stopping. That's why we need to increase our regional population with more newbies, and I think if Cleveland can continue to build and improve on progress of the last 20 years (especially safety and schools), it's going to be a very compelling option for new residents.

 

Pretty much by definition those two items are *the* challenges for any city.   If you can make them non-problems, after the event is recorded for the potential canonization you will draw people from the sprawl, not just from other places.    

 

But not all of them, not even a majority.  It isn't towns that resist density, it's the people who live there.   Americans, especially non coastal Americans, value elbow room more than most and are willing to do quite a bit to secure it.    Which is why I've been saying for a long time that a city that embraces the sprawl will likely thrive.

3 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

I’m seeing 32% population growth, source: https://fox8.com/news/can-downtown-cleveland-become-something-closer-to-a-24-hour-city-center/amp/

 

I think the 22% figure represents # of units. 

 

If downtown were a suburb it’d be the 13th most populous municipality in Cuyahoga county. That’s pretty damn impressive. 
 

Looking at the 2030 census, downtown will most definitely surpass the following communities:

 

- South Euclid

- Rocky River

- Maple Hts

 

Apparently there's some question about the numbers, or at least there was two years ago:

https://www.clevescene.com/news/umm-whats-going-on-with-these-wildly-inconsistent-downtown-cleveland-population-numbers-37231540

50 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Pretty much by definition those two items are *the* challenges for any city.   If you can make them non-problems, after the event is recorded for the potential canonization you will draw people from the sprawl, not just from other places.    

 

But not all of them, not even a majority.  It isn't towns that resist density, it's the people who live there.   Americans, especially non coastal Americans, value elbow room more than most and are willing to do quite a bit to secure it.    Which is why I've been saying for a long time that a city that embraces the sprawl will likely thrive.

 

Nope or land wouldn't be worth so little in those areas. We were just over this two weeks ago. Low interest = low value every time. Free markets at work.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Apparently there's some question about the numbers, or at least there was two years ago:

https://www.clevescene.com/news/umm-whats-going-on-with-these-wildly-inconsistent-downtown-cleveland-population-numbers-37231540

 

There is a debate about which census tracts should be included in the downtown numbers. However, there is no debate that the census tracts located inside and nearest to downtown are growing faster than anywhere else in region. 

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

By definition a downtown is denser, if for no other reason than it can build taller.

 

Not my point.  I even avoided the word "density" to avoid having people think that I was talking about built form density.  I was talking about new development (measured in dollars or new units or square footage or what-have-you) per square mile being higher than in the suburbs.

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/menards-buys-granger-township-medina-store-site-13-million

Menards buys 300 acres in Medina County for $13M. Residents tried to prevent it but the Ohio Supreme Court said they had no standing. 
 

Exurban/rural sprawl to me is an issue where a motley coalition of townships, rural residents, city urbanists and land conservation/environmentalists could team up. There is no way to stop sprawl, especially when companies like Menards l pay top dollar for land, but a strategy could be put in place to try and control it a bit more. I’m not sure if governments would go for it though because it would likely mean less tax revenue. 

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/menards-buys-granger-township-medina-store-site-13-million

Menards buys 300 acres in Medina County for $13M. Residents tried to prevent it but the Ohio Supreme Court said they had no standing. 
 

Exurban/rural sprawl to me is an issue where a motley coalition of townships, rural residents, city urbanists and land conservation/environmentalists could team up. There is no way to stop sprawl, especially when companies like Menards l pay top dollar for land, but a strategy could be put in place to try and control it a bit more. I’m not sure if governments would go for it though because it would likely mean less tax revenue. 

 

I grew up up the road and my parents still live in Granger. My understanding this was a Medina County economic development push over the objections of the township... 

On 11/23/2023 at 8:07 AM, coneflower said:

I’m not sure if governments would go for it though because it would likely mean less tax revenue. 

 

That's one of the fallacies of sprawl development. Yes it brings in new tax revenues but it incurs new city services including safety forces, road maintenance and sewers. The net fiscal impact of these developments is positive in the short term but negative over the long term when the infrastructure maintenance bills kick in. Communities keep developing until they're built out. When that happens, their tax burdens go up and push people to the next greenfield farther out where the taxes are still low. With sprawl, communities enjoy their peak prosperity for only 50-75 years before it moves on to the next outer ring.

Sharp towns like mine (Groveport) refuse to annex any SFH on more 1/4 or so acre unless the home value is really high. I don't think there is any SFH over 500K in Groveport currently though.

On 11/22/2023 at 7:41 AM, X said:

Not to mention that Downtown is about 2 square miles, so a fraction the size of most of our suburbs.  The concentration of new development over area is much higher than in any Cleveland suburb.

 

It's a similar story in Columbus. Downtown there grew by 4,731 2010-2020 in about 3.53 square miles. That's a growth rate of 1,340.2 people per square mile. Compare that rate to the surrounding suburbs.

Hilliard: +614.5

Sunbury: 460.7

Reynoldsburg: +454.3

Delaware: +323.7

Grove City: +319.1

Dublin: +302.6

Canal Winchester: +251.4

Westerville: +241

Gahanna: +196.7

New Albany: +185

So Downtown grew at a rate more than 2x faster the fastest-growing suburb. Downtown also added more overall people than like half of these entire suburbs. The only thing really stopping even higher growth is the lack of urban housing and city leadership that doesn't push for it nearly enough. 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 20231 yr by jonoh81

On 11/22/2023 at 11:14 AM, E Rocc said:

 

By definition a downtown is denser, if for no other reason than it can build taller.

 

It's not be definition, it's by design. People in the suburbs tend to reject density at every turn, but there is nothing that inherently restricts density otherwise. 

On 11/23/2023 at 7:07 AM, coneflower said:

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/menards-buys-granger-township-medina-store-site-13-million

Menards buys 300 acres in Medina County for $13M. Residents tried to prevent it but the Ohio Supreme Court said they had no standing. 
 

Exurban/rural sprawl to me is an issue where a motley coalition of townships, rural residents, city urbanists and land conservation/environmentalists could team up. There is no way to stop sprawl, especially when companies like Menards l pay top dollar for land, but a strategy could be put in place to try and control it a bit more. I’m not sure if governments would go for it though because it would likely mean less tax revenue. 

 

Why would Menards even need 300 acres? 

^Menards does not need 300 acres just for a Menards. They frequently buy up additional land and speculate.

2 hours ago, ink said:

^Menards does not need 300 acres just for a Menards. They frequently buy up additional land and speculate.

 

I figured, but that just means they themselves promote sprawl beyond their own stores.

16 hours ago, KJP said:

 

That's one of the fallacies of sprawl development. Yes it brings in new tax revenues but it incurs new city services including safety forces, road maintenance and sewers. The net fiscal impact of these developments is positive in the short term but negative over the long term when the infrastructure maintenance bills kick in. Communities keep developing until they're built out. When that happens, their tax burdens go up and push people to the next greenfield farther out where the taxes are still low. With sprawl, communities enjoy their peak prosperity for only 50-75 years before it moves on to the next outer ring.

15 hours ago, GCrites said:

Sharp towns like mine (Groveport) refuse to annex any SFH on more 1/4 or so acre unless the home value is really high. I don't think there is any SFH over 500K in Groveport currently though.

But are they really that sharp -- what will the value of those developments be in 50 years when the infrastructure maintenance bill comes due? 

And will car-dependent, large lot SFH developments be rehabbed into "next gen" homes for the wealthy or will that style of living have fallen out of favor by then? 

 

If I were betting 50 years into the future, the safer bet would seem to be mixed-use developments over single-use developments.  But few in 2017 would even have predicted the massive transition to work-from-home that we have today so it is hard to say.  Maybe fusion will be feasible, everyone will drive electric cars, and we'll have roadways that remain smooth for 50 years, all of which would enable the SFH development to remain popular.

As you may or may not be aware, home prices in Canada are far higher per sq. ft. than in the U.S.  I was in St. Catherine recently before heading over to Toronto and noticed some of the crazy prices.  Check this out:

https://www.zillow.com/st-catharines-on/houses/?searchQueryState={"pagination"%3A{}%2C"isMapVisible"%3Atrue%2C"mapBounds"%3A{"west"%3A-79.47264931103516%2C"east"%3A-79.07096168896484%2C"south"%3A43.075680852231265%2C"north"%3A43.27397737355196}%2C"regionSelection"%3A[{"regionId"%3A792698%2C"regionType"%3A6}]%2C"filterState"%3A{"sort"%3A{"value"%3A"globalrelevanceex"}%2C"mp"%3A{"min"%3A0%2C"max"%3A752}%2C"tow"%3A{"value"%3Afalse}%2C"con"%3A{"value"%3Afalse}%2C"land"%3A{"value"%3Afalse}%2C"ah"%3A{"value"%3Atrue}%2C"apa"%3A{"value"%3Afalse}%2C"manu"%3A{"value"%3Afalse}%2C"apco"%3A{"value"%3Afalse}%2C"mf"%3A{"value"%3Afalse}}%2C"isListVisible"%3Atrue%2C"mapZoom"%3A12}

 

To combat that, Ontario is pushing hard on new construction and awarding cities for exceeding targets in new home construction. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-housing-progress-ford-chow-1.7122194

 

What they're building a lot of is dense, residential-only neighborhoods on former farm fields on the outskirts of town, like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1172906,-79.2280739,3a,75y,130.06h,83.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szKELgrG5rmtI6Uceog-Mzw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DzKELgrG5rmtI6Uceog-Mzw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D85.63422%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

 

I felt like I saw this kind of development or new construction constantly on the drive from Buffalo to Toronto.  And the people I talked to said that retirees and remote workers are fleeing the high cost in Toronto to these new developments and that traffic is now insane everywhere. 

 

Duh.  Because they're building tons of residential-only neighborhoods where there is nothing to walk to.  So everyone has to get in their car to get to any store/restaurant/business/doctor/etc.  It really shows that "density" alone is not sufficient for building great places.  We need to build places where people want to be, and build density around them. 

I'm not surprised Canada's per square foot costs are higher than the US. We have all these areas that had housing built all over the place then the good jobs disappeared. So there's a lot of discount real estate around with the caveat that the only jobs available are as a roofer or working in the ER.

Plus most of Canada lives within 200 miles of the US so development is squeezed  along the border. Canada may cover a huge swath of the earth but its people don't.

the most awful type of suburbianization are these isolated, compartmentalized developments built right next to each other —

 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4oKNXOOXXy/?igsh=N3hyMzFta2NuaDNh

Old article but new to me

 

"If urban population densities had remained unchanged since 1970, more than 48,000 square miles (roughly the size of North Carolina) would have been saved from conversion to urban and instead could have remained in cultivation or as natural vegetation."

https://today.tamu.edu/2020/03/24/texas-am-study-worldwide-urban-expansion-causing-problems/

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Old article but new to me

 

"If urban population densities had remained unchanged since 1970, more than 48,000 square miles (roughly the size of North Carolina) would have been saved from conversion to urban and instead could have remained in cultivation or as natural vegetation."

https://today.tamu.edu/2020/03/24/texas-am-study-worldwide-urban-expansion-causing-problems/

 

It’s why I’ve been getting into native gardening. I’m unfortunately part of the problem (live in Mentor and HATE it, but my wife wants to be near family due to kids). I’ve been slowing converting my .75 acre lot of grass back to native trees, shrubs and plants.

At least you're by the Headlands.

10 minutes ago, TBideon said:

At least you're by the Headlands.

We also have the Mentor Marsh with brand new trials throughout which is nice.

Interesting article that I came across. Got me thinking about the contrast of this dynamic in the cities I've lived in.

 

City-Suburb Relationships – Where The Midwest Is Worst

 

 

On 7/17/2024 at 11:09 AM, JB said:

It’s why I’ve been getting into native gardening. I’m unfortunately part of the problem (live in Mentor and HATE it, but my wife wants to be near family due to kids). I’ve been slowing converting my .75 acre lot of grass back to native trees, shrubs and plants.

 

We're opposites, I live in the city but work in Mentor and don't consider sprawl to be a problem.  

 

I'm somewhat surprised the latter allows that.

11 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

Interesting article that I came across. Got me thinking about the contrast of this dynamic in the cities I've lived in.

 

City-Suburb Relationships – Where The Midwest Is Worst

 

 

 

I read the whole post.  I didn't come across particularly convinced, honestly.  In the first part of the post, I think there was not much serious thought put into defining what constitutes a "bad" or "good" relationship between city and suburb, and it went mostly off of self-reported polls, and this isn't the kind of thing that I would necessarily think is best measured by self-reported sentiment.  It's not a psychology exam.  In the second part, I can see that there was some attempt to tie the initial thesis into later development patterns, but it was weak or crude enough that the whole last third or so felt like a tangent.  Is the argument that having dense, walkable communities outside of core cities is a result of having good city-suburb relations, and therefore where that result is absent, we should assume those relations are bad?  Or is the argument that having dense, walkable communities outside of core cities is a cause of good city-suburb relations, and because the Midwest lacks those (and I'm not certain that we're so much worse than other metros, but take it as given arguendo), we can assume that city-suburb relations are bad?

 

I think the author is too invested in his Grand Narrative (what he calls his "'Big Theory' of urban development"), and tries to fit some square pegs into that round hole.

13 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

Interesting article that I came across. Got me thinking about the contrast of this dynamic in the cities I've lived in.

 

City-Suburb Relationships – Where The Midwest Is Worst

I guess it has some value as a"makes you think" post, but I disagree with his idea that city-suburb relations are worst in the midwest.  That's far too much generalization and he doesn't present great data to support it.  Sure, cities and suburbs developed in different ways in different parts of the country, but what is the basis for defining relations between the city and suburbs good or bad?  Whether the suburbs have a walkable core?  Moving on...

It didn't mention Cincinnati which has strong city vs. suburb deathmatch culture. Unlike Columbus which doesn't have city vs. suburb deathmatch culture but does have city+suburbs vs. low-denisty surrounding counties deathmatch culture.

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

I read the whole post.  I didn't come across particularly convinced, honestly.  In the first part of the post, I think there was not much serious thought put into defining what constitutes a "bad" or "good" relationship between city and suburb, and it went mostly off of self-reported polls, and this isn't the kind of thing that I would necessarily think is best measured by self-reported sentiment.  It's not a psychology exam.  In the second part, I can see that there was some attempt to tie the initial thesis into later development patterns, but it was weak or crude enough that the whole last third or so felt like a tangent.  Is the argument that having dense, walkable communities outside of core cities is a result of having good city-suburb relations, and therefore where that result is absent, we should assume those relations are bad?  Or is the argument that having dense, walkable communities outside of core cities is a cause of good city-suburb relations, and because the Midwest lacks those (and I'm not certain that we're so much worse than other metros, but take it as given arguendo), we can assume that city-suburb relations are bad?

 

I think the author is too invested in his Grand Narrative (what he calls his "'Big Theory' of urban development"), and tries to fit some square pegs into that round hole.

 

Self reported polls are useless in general, but particularly so when one side has active passion and the other side is stubborn yet not as overtly passionate.   

 

Density advocates need more people to embrace their lifestyle, or advocate that it be imposed.   The reason is simple:  density requires people.  

 

Sprawl does not.   Plus, it’s the prevailing model.  As long as it’s not seriously challenged, its advocates will remain low key on the surface.

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

We're opposites, I live in the city but work in Mentor and don't consider sprawl to be a problem.  

 

I'm somewhat surprised the latter allows that.

Allows what?

1 hour ago, JB said:

Allows what?

 

Instead of grass........shrubbery.   Maybe they just said "neat!" but I am surprised.

 

I do think it's a good idea, though.   I'm waiting for the bioengineers to develop grass that stops growing at a set height.   Whoever patents *that* will be Elon-level hated by the envious.

Just now, E Rocc said:

 

Instead of grass........shrubbery.   Maybe they just said "neat!" but I am surprised.

 

I do think it's a good idea, though.   I'm waiting for the bioengineers to develop grass that stops growing at a set height.   Whoever patents *that* will be Elon-level hated by the envious.

Oh, I don’t do it in a way that’s messy for the most part. All of my flower beds have clear borders and I still do have grass. 

52 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Instead of grass........shrubbery.   Maybe they just said "neat!" but I am surprised.

 

I do think it's a good idea, though.   I'm waiting for the bioengineers to develop grass that stops growing at a set height.   Whoever patents *that* will be Elon-level hated by the envious.

Check out mondo grass.  It's often used in my neighborhood for small sections of lawn.

7 hours ago, Foraker said:

I guess it has some value as a"makes you think" post

Agreed, not sure I'm totally in line with the authors reasoning but it did get me thinking about various places I have lived. Since returning to NE Ohio after many years away I still haven't got a good handle about how the city vs suburb divide has evolved here. Back in the day when I lived in the area many (if not most) people I knew looked at Cleveland as a place for entertainment and jobs but not to live in. That seems to have improved, I think.  

On 7/17/2024 at 11:58 AM, TBideon said:

At least you're by the Headlands.

 

If that sand could talk....

23 hours ago, GCrites said:

It didn't mention Cincinnati which has strong city vs. suburb deathmatch culture. Unlike Columbus which doesn't have city vs. suburb deathmatch culture but does have city+suburbs vs. low-denisty surrounding counties deathmatch culture.

 

Cleveland doesn't really seem to have deathmatch culture at all, at least that I can see.   It's lower key.

 

From what I can see it's an uneasy truce that occasionally gets stirred up.  There's even a de facto give and take.  Example:  Brecksville gives the VA, takes Breen Technical Center.

 

Of course I live in the city and my sprawlburbs connects tend to be either out of county (Mentor) or the borderlands burbs between Akron and Cleveland that don't entirely identify with either.

Strong Towns story on Maumee:

 

American homeowners are wasting more space than ever before

 

The number of extra bedrooms — defined as a bedroom in excess of the number of people in the home, and even including one for an office — has reached a new high, according to a new report from Realtor.com.

The seven-fold jump over the past 40 years comes as the number of people in any given household has declined.

 

“If people value having extra space, then we didn’t overbuild during the McMansion era. But if homebuyers are simply tolerating these big homes because they’re what’s available, then perhaps we did overbuild a bit over the past few decades,” McLaughlin added.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/18/american-homeowners-are-wasting-more-space-than-ever-before.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

 

 

The article also states that houses actually stopped gaining bedrooms 10 years ago. So the state of only building sprawl seems to have died off. Building since 2013 has been more balanced.

On 12/20/2024 at 2:51 PM, GCrites said:

American homeowners are wasting more space than ever before

 

The number of extra bedrooms — defined as a bedroom in excess of the number of people in the home, and even including one for an office — has reached a new high, according to a new report from Realtor.com.

The seven-fold jump over the past 40 years comes as the number of people in any given household has declined.

 

“If people value having extra space, then we didn’t overbuild during the McMansion era. But if homebuyers are simply tolerating these big homes because they’re what’s available, then perhaps we did overbuild a bit over the past few decades,” McLaughlin added.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/18/american-homeowners-are-wasting-more-space-than-ever-before.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

 

 

The article also states that houses actually stopped gaining bedrooms 10 years ago. So the state of only building sprawl seems to have died off. Building since 2013 has been more balanced.

 

The word "wasting" indicates the biases of the author and previews what the slant of the article is going to be.  

 

Assertive anti-sprawl proselytizing is understandable in a way, because more density by definition requires more people living in dense conditions.   People who prefer it will often push for such without really caring if the others impacted desire it.

 

This raises the acrimony in city-suburban relations.   For the most part suburbanites just want to be left alone, but will get stubborn if they feel this isn't happening.

18 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

This raises the acrimony in city-suburban relations.   For the most part suburbanites just want to be left alone, but will get stubborn if they feel this isn't happening.

Edited January 24Jan 24 by thomasbw

FWIW, Europe has some awful and sprawling suburbs as well... not as bad as ours but still not great. The difference is, though, that most of those suburbs are still reached by train or decent public transit. 

 

Philadelphia is a great example of how that could actually work here. My coworker lives on the Main Line in Philly, in what can only be described as "sprawl", but walks .7 miles every morning to the train station to head into work. 

On 12/20/2024 at 2:51 PM, GCrites said:

“If people value having extra space, then we didn’t overbuild during the McMansion era. But if homebuyers are simply tolerating these big homes because they’re what’s available, then perhaps we did overbuild a bit over the past few decades,” McLaughlin added.

 

We've "browsed" for houses on and off since the kid was born, mostly just open houses. Our current 3BR 1776 sq ft house is in perfect location right in town and we love it overall, but it was built in 1906 so storage is minimal, and we have the usual old house maintenance. The downstairs is divided into multiple smallish rooms, which means some go underutilized while others are crammed.

When we bought our house, I definitely had the "new houses are junk" mentality because most of the ones we saw in our preferred price/size range were indeed low quality, despite their often more usable layouts. Now that we have some more flexibility on what we can afford, we have found well-built newer houses do actually exist. Problem is they are usually twice the size of our current house, not even including finished basements. Maybe justifiable if an older parent were to join our household at some point, but feels excessive otherwise.

Plus, most of the quality newer houses are in 1990s-2000s yuppie boomer neighborhoods with HOAs and manicured lawns, and a majority of residents we don't agree with politically. I think the only exceptions were in Gahanna and Worthington. Still too big though.