I thought he got it but then he lost me at the end with the development of "city centers" in the exurbs? :?

 

The first 2/3 were top notch though. I loved the line about overshooting by moving to the exurbs.

 

 

I had a similar cringe at the exurban "city centers." On the other hand, that would be a kind of infill, or at least a shaping of development in the hinterlands. One possibility of this kind of development would be the "city center" portion of development in the Darby Accord area west of Columbus. It acknowledges that new development will occur, but stipulates that the new development will be at urban densities. Another example is the Chattahoochie Hill Country area southwest of Atlanta, where transfer of development rights is being used to create dense rural villages and towns that allow new development while preserving farm- and woodland.

In Tysons Corner, or Polaris, people are likely to measure distances in miles, or half-miles, instead of "blocks" because there are no blocks. If there are no blocks, it's hostile to predestrians.

 

Paid for by the Bipedal Board to Bring Back Blocks.

 

I'm quoting and responding to myself, but as I write, I'm listening to an NPR lengthy story on Tyson's Corner and how it is screamingly inhospitable to pedestrians (and not very easy to navigate by car, either), and about plans to make it walkable -- with blocks! and a grid! -- once the DC metro makes it out to that exurban mess.

 

The NPR story did a great job of demonstrating the absurdity of the kind of development that defines Tysons.

at least its has a good mall store selection.  :oops:

So my fat, lazy, idiot roommate was watching Tyra or Oprah or one of those stupid shows the other day and the topic was obese teens.  I spoke up and said that I hate how fat and lazy Americans are (then I looked directly at her hoping she'd take the hint.)  She didn't get it and instead shot back this doozy:

 

"Oh, I know.  Americans are so fat.  But I think Americans would be less fat if Subways had Drive-Thrus because then American's could choose the healthy option."

 

I asked why people could just get out of their cars and walk inside and she went on about convenience and saving an extra minutes blah, blah blah...  The conversation degraded itself quite quickly and I just decided to leave. 

 

It drives me insane how stubborn people can be on the dumbest topics.

 

Actually, I'd go to Subway more if they had a drive through.  I strongly prefer the drive through not out of laziness, but a simple preference for waiting in my car by myself or with those I choose to be around, and my radio/MP3 player.

 

For one thing, curbing one's kids is becoming a lost art.

I would say that Brooks is arguing for the urbanization of suburban nodes, which is essentially what a light rail systems tend to do.

^ Well put.

^ You're right. And the economic case is easy to make. A mile of road (or of water lines or sewers or private utility lines) is much more cost-efficient if there are 100 homes on that mile stretch than if there are 20. When there are only 20, then the people in the existing, denser areas are subsidizing the lifestyle of those who choose sprawl. My former employer, American Farmland Trust, does "cost of community services" studies, and the pattern is the same across the country: while new subdivisions add local tax revenue, it is not enough revenue to pay for the services those homes require. Denser mixed use works is the best solution.

Essentially, the goal is to return to some variation on the 19C streetcar suburb (or most famously, the Mainline Suburbs of Philadelphia). It is series of towns set apart from one another connected by mass transit. In the modern world, a pure hub-spoke wouldn't work, but a series of concentric circles with a hub and spoke as well would probably be the best way to go. The challenge is that those areas that become a hub/node will win big over the long term, while those areas in between will mostly whither, which means new sources of blight (though my guess is that most of those areas are already far along that process).

Old Groveport is cool. What's around it is not.

Old Milford is cool. New Milford is not.

Old Grove City is cool, but tiny. The rest is lame and huge.

 

etc.

^ Pickerington, too. And Dublin. And Hilliard. And any number of other places in Franklin County and Ohio and the U.S. What happened?

 

Zoning.

 

Not that zoning is bad, but that there is so much bad zoning. In all of those places, the charming center is no doubt illegal under current zoning. Zoning was promoted as a solution to many problems, when the REAL solution was good planning that was backed up by zoning. But municipalities all over Ohio adopted zoning codes developed for other places and applied them to their own towns thinking that zoning was the answer. Most of those "Euclidian" codes mandated the separation of uses, making mixed-use areas, like those quaint village centers, illegal to replicate. They mandated wider lots and deeper setbacks and eliminated duplexes and other forms of low-income housing, except in "multi-family" ghettos, usually at highway interchanges.

 

I'm simplifying, but I'm essentially correct.

Sounds like Mr. Brooks is arguing for a bailout of suburbia/exurbia - there is too much need for reinvestment in the urban core areas to waste money in the hinterlands.  Instead of trying to make the suburban areas more urban - just revitalize the exsiting urban area - brownfield redeveloment, historic preservation, waterfront/riverfront development, downtown revitalization, etc.  There is plenty of excess land redevelopment capacity within the urban landscape to bring people back in which would increase density, revitalize areas, etc.  Why use taxpayer money to create town centers in places like West Chester??   

Old Groveport is cool. What's around it is not.

Old Milford is cool. New Milford is not.

Old Grove City is cool, but tiny. The rest is lame and huge.

 

etc.

 

The Pinnacle in Grove City is a wet dream for suburbanite people. There is some nice chain restaurants (I like any development that has a chipotle) but overall it sucks like any other new suburb.

Old Groveport is cool. What's around it is not.

Old Milford is cool. New Milford is not.

Old Grove City is cool, but tiny. The rest is lame and huge.

 

etc.

 

The Pinnacle in Grove City is a wet dream for suburbanite people. There is some nice chain restaurants (I like any development that has a chipotle) but overall it sucks like any other new suburb.

 

I don't get how people live in those cookie cutter craptastic houses.  Any house with a garage attached and in the front of the house isn't worth the materials it took to build it!

^ Pickerington, too. And Dublin. And Hilliard. And any number of other places in Franklin County and Ohio and the U.S. What happened?

 

Zoning.

 

Not that zoning is bad, but that there is so much bad zoning. In all of those places, the charming center is no doubt illegal under current zoning. Zoning was promoted as a solution to many problems, when the REAL solution was good planning that was backed up by zoning. But municipalities all over Ohio adopted zoning codes developed for other places and applied them to their own towns thinking that zoning was the answer. Most of those "Euclidian" codes mandated the separation of uses, making mixed-use areas, like those quaint village centers, illegal to replicate. They mandated wider lots and deeper setbacks and eliminated duplexes and other forms of low-income housing, except in "multi-family" ghettos, usually at highway interchanges.

 

I'm simplifying, but I'm essentially correct.

 

Zoning regulations in nice urban areas have their own evil agenda as well, at times, in an attempt to protect the neighborhood. Try being a small  business owner and affording the legal expertise required to get past the red tape including the oppressive permit process in places like Alexandria, VA.

 

Who wants to wait 2 weeks to get paper work so you can get approved to replace the letter "e" on the "Ye Olde Sandwich Shoppe" sign? Stuff like that promotes sprawl and many towns get on their high horse when they know George Washington has walked down one of their streets.

Sounds like Mr. Brooks is arguing for a bailout of suburbia/exurbia - there is too much need for reinvestment in the urban core areas to waste money in the hinterlands. Instead of trying to make the suburban areas more urban - just revitalize the exsiting urban area - brownfield redeveloment, historic preservation, waterfront/riverfront development, downtown revitalization, etc. There is plenty of excess land redevelopment capacity within the urban landscape to bring people back in which would increase density, revitalize areas, etc. Why use taxpayer money to create town centers in places like West Chester??

 

I support the idea of densifying the development in the hinterlands, but agree with you on the "fix-it first" philosophy. If we're going to target the investment, as Brooks encourages, the first target should be strengthening what we already have.

^

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/11/news/economy/infrastructure_warnings/index.htm

 

Caution: Work projects ahead

The government is set to spend hundreds of billions on energy, roads, railways and community development projects. Here's how to get stuff we actually want.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Last Updated: December 11, 2008: 10:08 AM ET

 

Can Obama fix America?

 

Should the Senate pass the auto bailout bill?

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In just over a month, hundreds of billions of dollars of your money could be funneling through the hands of every politician, from the president to the mayor of the smallest American town, in a plan to jumpstart the economy.

 

Much of the money will be spent on tax cuts and aid to cash strapped states. But a big chunk, perhaps $150 billion or more, will be devoted to infrastructure projects - things like roads, bridges, water lines and energy efficiency.

 

For maximum effect, experts say the cash should be doled out quickly. The plan could be approved just days after President-elect Obama takes office. Done right, it could create millions jobs and lubricate the economy. Done wrong, it presents innumerable opportunities for waste and fraud.

An unfortunatley reality is that the crushing burden of this collapse will fall most heavily on those families who have moved out to the boomburbs. That entire sector of the economy was built on the fluff of a bubble. Since capitalism requires growth, the goal should be to create new sources of growth - urbanized 'burbs is better than setting in a motion what happened after WWII, modern suburbia.

postwar suburbia is why there wasnt a return to late Depression economy after the war.  All those new houses required consumer durables.

But those consumer durables could just as easily gone into homes that didn't sprawl out from the center in segregated communities (segregated by race, and also segregated by land use).

How would you attempt to urbanize the exurbs? Or even the post-war burbs, which have the benefit of having smaller footprints? You can create a town center for civic functions, but from a commercial perspective how can it be done? Most of these suburbs are built around either freeway interchanges or on long strips of state or fed 4-lane highway which are extremely unfriendly to pedestrians even if they are modified. How can you get commercial access to the residential areas of the burbs without building new "villages" ? Is it worth the effort? Am I out of line with this thinking?

 

Check out KJPs Youngstown pictorial to see how long it takes nature to reclaim it's land. It's a lot faster than you would think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it worth the effort? Am I out of line with this thinking?

 

Not at all, dude.

 

The fact is, the damage has already been done. Although there are ways to transform suburban shopping centers into great places.  There's a great book about, I forgot what it's called. It just takes creativity. The best thing we can do is increase population and make sure future growth is concentrated in cities. Unfortunately, I think suburbs/exurbs will eventually be homes of low income people who need public transit the most. Urbanity IS the trend right now, if you can afford the more desirable areas. It would be particularly damaging to low income people though if they're pushed out there, because irrelevance of space works best for those who can afford cars, cell phones, fax, internet, and fibre optic communication, etc.

 

Some argue that you can only extend so far away from the urban center before it's impractical but you see what's already happend between Dayton and Cincinnati. Hell, big box retailers are one-stop shops for absolutely everything including starbucks and western union transfers. It's rendering space and organization of space obsolete in our minds but it's detrimental to the environment. I fear that people will be more desensitized to suburban wastelands like Tri-County in Cincinnati because they drive through it; they don't walk through it.

 

I know there are a lot of rail advocates on here. I enjoy riding on fixed rail; I love being around different kinds of people and not having the burden of owning a car but in my opinion, they only make fiscal sense in dense areas. People thought I was ignorant because I said I thought the light rail plan in Cincinnati was ridiculous. Why would I want to support a plan that had like the same number of stops in Blue Ash as in Cincinnati? Regional transportation policy makes no sense to me because the way it's set up, small municipalities get more clout than they deserve. The fact is, denser areas are simply a better investment - but everyone wants a slice of the pie, i.e. economic development that comes with freeway or even light rail accessibility. I don't understand how you would get the state or federal politicians on board to change that when your primal drive is getting re-elected and p!ssing off the least amount of the uneducated masses as possible.

 

 

Well said David.  Every blue moon you give me a glimmer of hope.  :clap:

Somehow you manage to make me feel like I'm in the honors special ed class. Thanks for this. Now get back to work and go publicly-relate something.

excellent points concerning Blue Ash, David

Somehow you manage to make me feel like I'm in the honors special ed class. Thanks for this. Now get back to work and go publicly-relate something.

 

Working on it. 

 

 

 

A couple comments:

We eventually urbanized the 1920s suburbs (which were seen as sprawling in their day). The immediate postwar 'burbs come in for a lot of grief, those weren't the most damaging. It is really the late 60s and onward sprawl that really put the nail in the coffin of American cities. That is when suburbs really started to set themselves in complete opposition to the city and provide all the necessities of life. Could we have developed a better version than the cul de sac sprawl of the postwar period, absolutely, but was new construction necessary by 1950 also yes. The other fact was that housing was seen a good place to put low skill workers at which a part of the reason for the industrialization of postwar housing construction (ah drywall).

 

Not all suburbs ca be 'urbanized', but I think plenty can. Many 'burbs started as small towns. It sometimes means transforming zombie malls into urban centers. It can also mean refashioning transportation corridors. It means changing zoning laws that allow for increased densities through teardown.

Not all suburbs ca be 'urbanized', but I think plenty can. Many 'burbs started as small towns. It sometimes means transforming zombie malls into urban centers. It can also mean refashioning transportation corridors. It means changing zoning laws that allow for increased densities through teardown.

 

This thought process will be key in the coming decade.  Good Point.

Courtesy of ULI - This is how you reinvent a suburban business district.

 

Realistically assessing the market

position and potential for a suburban

business district.

 

Building community support by

developing consensus among citizens,

government, and the private sector.

 

Developing a strategic plan that is

supported by the community and that

draws on professional expertise.

 

Rethinking existing zoning regulations

to allow mixed uses that can be

modified over time as the needs of

the community evolve.

 

Creating interconnected, pedestrian-friendly,

mixed-use districts from

existing isolated superblocks.

Embracing mixed uses that offer the

community a wider range of goods,

services, and experiences in one

location.

 

Creating pedestrian-friendly places

that encourage interaction.

 

Offering a choice of transportation

modes, such as pedestrian, transit,

bicycle, and automobile options.

 

Forming public/private partnerships to

minimize risk, develop strategies, and

implement change.

 

Sharing and managing parking to

reduce the number of spaces required

and consolidating more uses within

buildings to encourage pedestrians.

 

Also worth noting, although parking garages in suburbs often require city funding to make up for the difference between that and a surface lot; many developers don't capitalize on the potential for first floor retail/restaurants which could help alleviate or eliminate the garage parking fees suburbanites hate so much.

 

One might assume that would look incredibly tacky, but not with the right vision. Take for example Cadillac Ranch in Cincinnati. Many people do not consciously realize that they are eating below a parking garage which is creatively disguised. With the right vision and design principles, you could have this replace a suburban shopping center, while transforming the parking lot in front into a park. Almost anything is possible in the suburbs, really, it just requires a vision that you can sell to all of the parties involved. People just aren't motivated.

 

 

People on here would probably consider the suburban version an immitation of the real thing but that's exactly what they said about Garden Suburbs - most of which retain high property value to this day. If nothing else, we can make steps in the right direction to improve its longevity.

whoa... Cadillac Ranch looks sweet

It is really the late 60s and onward sprawl that really put the nail in the coffin of American cities. That is when suburbs really started to set themselves in complete opposition to the city and provide all the necessities of life.

 

To some degree this chronology is place-specfic, with some places seeing city-rejection happening earlier than others.  In Dayton it actually started in the late 1920-early 1930s as a psychological seperation.  Starting in the later 1950s, but accelerating in 1959 to 1969 there was economic seperation as suburban retail scaled up to be viable replacements to downtown shopping...this was all in place by 1965, before the first indoor mall.

 

 

 

 

The suburbs cant be re-urbanized as they are so spread out.  By increasing density you will have to give up space and that space has to go somewhere. 

 

For the residential areas, it would definitely be a gradual process. You could tear down single family homes and substitute it for multi unit buildings. Incorporate mixed uses. You can add sidewalks/pedestrian paths, bike lanes. Basically just work with what you have. Obviously it's a little hard to tear down houses and erase the people who are living there and emotionally attached to their homes. It would also have to make economic sense.

^ With the rate that suburbanites are becoming obese, it won't be too long until they start dying and their houses become vacant.

It tend to see as a long term valuation issue. The suburbs that manage to urbanize increase in value and desirability while those that don't decline and as that happens over a few decades, the built environment responds. One place gets ever greater investment, while the other likely moves on to some better use (determined likely by the food/energy environment of the day).

from Atlantic Monthly:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.

by Christopher B. Leinberger

 

The Next Slum?

 

 

Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading.

 

At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”

 

In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at Windy Ridge—many once sold for well over $500,000—but the phenomenon is the same. At the height of the boom, 10,000 new homes were built there in just four years. Now many are empty; renters of dubious character occupy others. Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local residents’ association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, “There’s been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the last few years.”

 

The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

The New Yorker recently had a great profile of the Florida real estate bubble:

 

ABSTRACT: A REPORTER AT LARGE about Florida’s real-estate market and the economic downturn. Writer visits a number of inland real-estate developments near Tampa, Florida. Developers there dreamed up instant communities, parceled out lots, and built look-alike two-story beige and yellow houses. The houses sold to some of the thousand or so people who moved to Florida every day. Now many are ghost subdivisions. In one community, Twin Lakes, property values dropped by more than a hundred thousand dollars in the past two years. Writer interviews Angie Harris, a Navy veteran and mother of five, who says of her neighbors, “It used to be people would wave. Now they don’t.” In another community, Hamilton Park, the writer interviews a woman named Lee Gaither, whose only income came from Disability payments. She was facing eviction and planned to sell many of her possessions on eBay. Florida is one of the places where the financial crisis began. Gary Mormino, a professor at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg, tells the writer that, “Florida, in some ways, resembles a modern Ponzi scheme. Everything is fine for me if a thousand newcomers come tomorrow.” The state depends for revenue on real-estate deals and sales taxes. By 2005, the housing market in Florida was hotter than it had ever been. Flipping houses and condominiums turned into an amateur middle-class pursuit. Writer tells about Floridians with modest incomes who made money buying and selling real estate. Mentions one case in which a house appreciated in value by almost fifty per cent overnight. According to an investigation by the Miami Herald, government oversight of the real-estate market was so negligent that more than ten thousand convicted criminals got jobs in the mortgage industry. Flipping and fraud burst the bubble. But in places like Pasco County, it was the ordinary desire of ordinary people to buy their own home that turned things toxic. Tells about Anita Lux, who moved to Florida from Michigan with her husband, Richard. Gives a brief history of Cape Coral, Florida, which was first developed in the fifties by two businessmen from Baltimore. Writer interviews a number of Florida residents who have lost their jobs or homes. A Fort Myers real-estate agent named Marc Joseph tells the writer, “Greed and easy money. That was the germ.” By last year, the highest foreclosure rate in the country could be found in Fort Myers and Cape Coral. Mentions other indicators of the economic hard times, including the closure of auto dealerships and the theft of copper. Writer visits the office of Tampa’s mayor, Pam Iorio, who is determined to build a light rail system to revive the city’s fortunes. A number of people in Florida told the writer that the state needs a fundamental change in its political culture.

 

Registration, I guess, is required to read the rest.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/02/09/090209fa_fact_packer

 

 

Gary Mormino, a professor at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg, tells the writer that, “Florida, in some ways, resembles a modern Ponzi scheme. Everything is fine for me if a thousand newcomers come tomorrow.”

 

This sort of described Sacramento in the 1980s.  There was a foundation of state government and miltiary spending and some spin offs from the Bay Area, but the deal was land development, which also fed a construction trades workforce.  It was wierd. I could never figure it out. 

 

 

The one issue about the Leinberger and similar narratives is that a return to the core requires a healthy enough economy that people can make those kind of choices. If a large percentage of home-owners are frozen where they are at for another 5-10 years (which I think is likely, irrespective of whether this gets much worse or just drifts along). The first sign of a re-urbanization movement would be higher rent pressure near the core and increasing arsons in exurbian 'hoods. Rent pressure near the core means that those not locked into a mortgage are choosing to leave the exurbs, while exurban arsons mean that those stuck someplace have gotten desperate and decided to rid themselves of their anchor.

 

My big caveat is that this does not mean once crappy urban neighborhoods are suddenly going to recover (Linden and South Linden in Cbus continue its inexorable decline and actually quite a lot of Cbus seems poised to lose value, but I digress). The neighborhoods that have a good base of home owners and a housing stock amenable to increased rental usage will be the most successful, while those with poor (esp. crappy post-WWII sprawl) quality homes will slide off the cliff. I imagine some overpriced neighborhoods will fall back to affordable if the 'hood is too dependent on single family homeownership to maintain value.

If this wasn't so sad, it would be funny.  Well, OK, it's still funny!  Sidewalks= Dream!

 

 

Make it so I can walk to school in Kaysville

By RUTH MALAN

 

KAYSVILLE -- Nine-year-old Braxton Hartmann has a dream. He dreams of the time when he will be able to walk or ride his bike to school.

 

Braxton, a third-grade student, rides a bus to Snow Horse Elementary School because there are no sidewalks along Angel Street and his parents feel it isn't safe for him to ride his bike.

 

"Cars cross over double lines," Braxton said.

 

"I want to ride my bike or walk to school because I want to keep in shape for soccer. It is probably a lot of money for schools to use buses when we could just walk to school."

 

So Braxton e-mailed Mayor Neka Roundy and offered to help the city raise money to provide sidewalks.

 

Councilman Ron Stephens called Braxton an "unusual young man," saying he had a neat idea and a wonderful dream.

 

"I was so impressed, I called him and talked about ideas and dreams. We share a dream for a sidewalk on Angel Street," Stephens said. ........

 

http://www.standard.net/live/news/166119/

 

 

 

Pathetic!! 

 

Hell, I didn't have sidewalks on my street and I was able to walk to and from school just fine! Pathetic, just pathetic 

"Councilman Ron Stephens called Braxton an "unusual young man," saying he had a neat idea and a wonderful dream."

 

Sidewalks are a wonderful dream?

In the modern developer-driven landscape, they're a wild-eyed fantasy.

"Councilman Ron Stephens called Braxton an "unusual young man," saying he had a neat idea and a wonderful dream."

 

Sidewalks are a wonderful dream?

 

I agree, this is a completely bizarre way to characterize it.  It's not like he wants moving, heated sidewalks. 

If this wasn't so sad, it would be funny.  Well, OK, it's still funny!  Sidewalks= Dream!

 

Honestly, for kids growing up in these dysfunctional, completely car-dependent environments, they are. I would have killed for sidewalks too when I was younger.

 

We lived in a rural/sprawl area that was typically muddy, and it wasn't safe to ride your back on most of the roads.

 

You and me both.  to a kid its a situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  You wouldn't dare walk on a neighbors lawn.We had to walk in the street and pray a car wouldn't hit us.

 

The street is curvy so you couldn't always tell if a car was coming.  There wasn't a lot of vehicular traffic, but in winter the snow drifts/mountains made it hard to walk or move out of the way in the event of a car.  Then drivers would honk and blow.

 

My mom wouldn't let us walk on Shaker because of the traffic (speeders) and the train.

"I want to ride my bike or walk to school because I want to keep in shape for soccer. It is probably a lot of money for schools to use buses when we could just walk to school."

 

I can't remember which book I read this in, but a huge percentage of school budgets go to bussing students, usually at the expense of quality teachers, teaching material, etc. The figure for how much was spent nationally on an average year was staggering.

 

Regarding the huge declining neighborhood of Linden as mentioned above, this is a good point that shouldn't be forgotten. Even though we're known for being the most well-off large city in the state, large swathes have not seen any of that wealth. Think the Polaris area or far north-west for moneyed sprawling suburbs. It'll will be quite some time before they switch places with a rough urban neighborhood. Especially when many here have been heavily suburbanized to boot.

Who's up for a tour of Columbus' northeast side; Milo-Grogan, Linden, North Central, and East Columbus: you'll never look at this city the same way again. If we're to make any of these neighborhoods attractive, rail looks like the only way to make any significant inroads. Otherwise, sprawl will just continue to push out far into Delaware County to the north.

I'm not usually the one saying this, but c'mon guys it ain't that bad.  I had no sidewalks either growing up, but I walked where I wanted when I wanted.  Problem solved.  If people are concerned about people walking in their yards, they should put in sidewalks.  Walking existed long before their yard did.

I'm not usually the one saying this, but c'mon guys it ain't that bad.  I had no sidewalks either growing up, but I walked where I wanted when I wanted.  Problem solved.  If people are concerned about people walking in their yards, they should put in sidewalks.  Walking existed long before their yard did.

 

My mother would have beat me if I walk on someone else lawn. We didn't have sidewalks then but now there are sidewalks in front of some homes.

I'm not usually the one saying this, but c'mon guys it ain't that bad.  I had no sidewalks either growing up, but I walked where I wanted when I wanted.  Problem solved.  If people are concerned about people walking in their yards, they should put in sidewalks.  Walking existed long before their yard did.

 

Where I lived, it was impossible to walk anywhere. It was wet all the time during the schoolyear. The soil never drained except during the summer drought season. You'd be covered in mud if you tried walking anywhere.

 

You also have to factor that some kids live in areas with lots of heavily-armed neighbors who don't want anyone on their lawn. Sidewalks are public right-of-ways. Lawns are not. There's just no excuse for our society stooping to such lows. Not putting sidewalks in is giving the middle finger to everyone below driving age (and anyone with vision problems).

 

But that's the thing about suburban areas, they just don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

 

Well as my fahter says, I don't want anyone on my front lawn, so your @ss better not walk on anyone else. 

 

You know, now that you say that c-dawg, I can see where you're coming from.  Some of the houses around here are connected by private paths that go between back yards.  I never thought about why those paths existed until just now.

The idea of people being so possessive about a tiny patch of land is curious to me.  The only thing that ever bothered me about any yard is seeing people let their dogs go in someone else's.  It's one thing to pass through because you need to, it's another entirely to leave poop.