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.

 

They are possesive because it's their land to do with what they please. 

I grew up w/o sidewalks.  It was so suburban (not in a farming way) where I grew up that I thought no side-walks was the norm.  I'm lucky that I knew all my neighbors and it somewhat felt like a neighborhood, not just pure isolation.

 

I am a firm believer that the burbs destroyed the connectivity of most Americans.   

As a kid growing up, Euclid (Cle East side) was an excellent place to grow up.  Inner ring suburb with mature trees, lakefront beach clubs and rather densley populated.  Sidewalks as far as the eye could see.  Walked to school until the 6th grade, when we moved to Mentor...  Buses from there on out unfortunately.

When in KY (jr high years) we used to cut through yards a lot.  That was before people got into fences.  And there was a lot of dead fields and woods around so you could follow dirt bike paths or backwoods drives (for houses deeper in the woods on some property) across those to different subdivisions, or across sandpits.  Then there was the Waverly Hills property and the dynamite shack property and such which was not even posted. 

 

This was a lot different than Ohio, where there is more working farms and you are really isolated on a plat. 

 

There were a few working farms around my 'division too, but you didnt trespass there.

 

Now that I think of I wonder why I stayed interested in citys as I was really into "nature" and exploring this countryside.

 

 

I agree on the problems with busing - however, cities often bused as much or more than the suburbs due to court cases having to do with desegregation and the rise of magnet schools all of which took students away from their neighborhoods. Walked to school from K-8, then walked a mile to the Metro bus stop 9-10 and drove 11-12. Second-ring suburb with full sidewalks within the city of Cincinnati - we cut through yards all the time - sometimes we got yelled at sometimes we didn't.

 

Near NE Cbus neighborhoods is as bad as any area I've seen in Ohio.

Non-rural schools should NEVER, EVER be built in unwalkable areas, yet it seems like more and more are each year.

Now that I think of I wonder why I stayed interested in citys as I was really into "nature" and exploring this countryside.

 

Because city and wilderness is a nice duality.  Suburbs are the worst of everything.  With all that Mine! mentality and nothing open to the public, you just plain can't go anywhere as a kid.  To everyone who is obsessed with the sanctity of their yard, in a freaking subdivision: quit indulging your Gollum side.  It'll drive you insane.

The great thing about 20s 'burbs (as it seems to us today) is that they were still hedging when it came to the new-fangled invention - the car. The 20s was a great era of the car, but people were only beginning to change their lives to suit the car rather than the other way around.

^Pre-Interstate car use was exactly how the today's car use should be -- fun, adventure, racing, tinkering, local deliveries etc. instead of forcing almost everyone to use it for every mundane task.

do kids growing up in the exurbs think a place with sidewalks is "ghetto?" 

 

wickliffe person here.  growing up i liked the inter-burb subdivision connectivity between wickliffe and euclid to the west.  my area had 6 streets connecting the two.  contrast this to wickliffe and willowick between adjacent subs where there is only one connecting intersection. 

 

it's cool that you can walk all the way from downtown cleveland to willoughby on nothing but sidewalks. 

Cross country travel pre-interstate was a grind.  Two lane highways, stop & go traffic, speed traps, fatigue, risky passing, maybe a lot more head-on collisions.  Things were somewhat improved where there was early divided highways, like the old Route 66 in Illinois, which bypassed the towns, but at grade and with stoplights.

 

The great thing about 20s 'burbs (as it seems to us today) is that they were still hedging when it came to the new-fangled invention - the car. The 20s was a great era of the car, but people were only beginning to change their lives to suit the car rather than the other way around.

 

There was a shopping district in Chicago that was sort of hybrid like this: Belmont & Central. It was built starting in the late 1920s to the late 1940s, so architecturally it was a mix of deco and moderne, with some 1920s style terra cotta fantasia.  But since it was built in the early auto era the place was designed with rear parking...yet the stores all fronted the sidewalk.  So in effect the stores had two entrys.  And you go to it by public transit as well as car.   

 

 

^Pre-Interstate car use was exactly how the today's car use should be -- fun, adventure, racing, tinkering, local deliveries etc. instead of forcing almost everyone to use it for every mundane task.

 

Absolutely. The car itself was a not a bad invention by any means. In fact, it was a great invention. The problem came in the 1950's when we had the big highway buildout, and then urban renewal and street widenings. Originally, the car was viewed as a supplement to your life, not an essential need for everything you do. The car offered a weekend getaway or a longer distance business trip. It did not have to be used to survive. That's where we went wrong. We took things way too far in America, even further than Henry Ford could have ever imagined.

 

I'd assume this also had an effect on car accident deaths, because instead of most people driving 25 or 35 mph on urban streets, you had people going 45 or 55 mph on newly-widened roads and highways. There's a huge difference between hitting someone at 25 mph as opposed to 50 mph.

 

We really need to lower speed limits in our urban neighborhoods. 20-25MPH is ideal, 35MPH is not (which would you want your kids living on?) and certainly contributes to decline of urban areas. School systems are already a large enough deterrent whether real or perceived, so we don't need to add more reasons for people to avoid city living. Higher speeds and wider roads are suburbanization/urban renewal efforts that need to be done away with where they still exist. It's also no coincidence that the most successful business stretches are on roads that are 25-30MPH tops and also retain urban character as opposed to 35MPH or higher commercial roads which see lots of car-oriented development where there was once urban development.

The shopping trip to the grocery store is one of those things that car made much easier and less stressful. It is really the in-city highways that did all the damage to the urban fabric. I like the 2 lane rural road as much as the next guy, but when I've had to do 100 mi.+ trips on a regular basis - give me at least 3 lanes of nice smooth asphalt (or an affordable, quick train - but that hasn't been an option). Germany (roughly speaking) gets the car, city balance better than most. I wasn't impressed with Italy - cars and public transit are both hard to use - though we weren't willing to drive Vespas.

Cars made grocery shopping easier, but it also changed how we bought groceries. The ability to transport a week's worth of groceries in one trip to the supermarket--as opposed to every-other-day trips to the green grocer and butcher shop--led to larger package sizes and the need to keep all that food fresh until the next trip to market. This led to more highly processed and preservative-packed convenience foods. Ironic there would still be a need for convenience after saving all that time and energy with a single trip to the market. But I'd imagine spare time got consumed pretty quick being stuck in surface traffic doing all those things that used to be a 10-minute walk away.

Cars made grocery shopping easier, but it also changed how we bought groceries. The ability to transport a week's worth of groceries in one trip to the supermarket--as opposed to every-other-day trips to the green grocer and butcher shop--led to larger package sizes and the need to keep all that food fresh until the next trip to market. This led to more highly processed and preservative-packed convenience foods. Ironic there would still be a need for convenience after saving all that time and energy with a single trip to the market. But I'd imagine spare time got consumed pretty quick being stuck in surface traffic doing all those things that used to be a 10-minute walk away.

 

Yup...this was the first things that struck me while living in Holland.  Instead of going to the store once a week to get everything I need, I was going every couple days to get what I need.  Plus the grocery stores don't provide shopping bags so you bring your own.  I only bought what could fit in my backpack or what I could put in the basket on my bike.  The grocery store was a national chain (there was only one) and there were small versions of these stores pretty much everywhere so regardless of where you lived, it was likely there would be an Albert Heijn somewhere between your bus stop and your home.

We really need to lower speed limits in our urban neighborhoods. 20-25MPH is ideal, 35MPH is not (which would you want your kids living on?) and certainly contributes to decline of urban areas. School systems are already a large enough deterrent whether real or perceived, so we don't need to add more reasons for people to avoid city living. Higher speeds and wider roads are suburbanization/urban renewal efforts that need to be done away with where they still exist. It's also no coincidence that the most successful business stretches are on roads that are 25-30MPH tops and also retain urban character as opposed to 35MPH or higher commercial roads which see lots of car-oriented development where there was once urban development.

 

Suburbs have low speed limits and it doesn't make them any more pleasant.  Using scarce urban police power to enforce them is the dealbreaker for me.  Kids are safer when cops worry about crime instead of traffic.

 

I think a city needs true urban commercial corridors AND arterial cut-throughs that concentrate and contain the inevitable car-oriented development.  It shouldn't be all this or all that.  Cars are not evil.  Also, cities seeking (re)growth need to be welcoming and friendly.  Messing with people about the way they drive can detract from that.  Especially if cameras are involved... those flat-out offend some people. 

 

And which is safer for kids, a driver concentrating on the road or concentrating on where are the cops/cameras?  Of course some speeds are not reasonable and shouldn't be allowed.  But limiting everything to 25 mph isn't reasonable either. 

Urban Sprawl, Climate Change Fueled Atlanta Tornado

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/urbanstorm.html

 

A freakish tornado that ripped a $250 million path through Atlanta last March could be a sign of storms to come, if modern land use and climate change combine to produce man-made extreme weather events.

 

Using state-of-the art satellite data to model the storm in reverse, climatologists found it was likely fueled by a recent drought and unstable microclimates formed by the city's vast sprawl...

Fascinating stuff.

Fascinating stuff.

 

Unfortunately the tornado didn't destroy ATL.  Mother Nature could have done us all a big favor.

Where's Mrs. O'Leary's cow when you need her.

I've been to Brookville, it's not all that.

We really need to lower speed limits in our urban neighborhoods. 20-25MPH is ideal, 35MPH is not (which would you want your kids living on?) and certainly contributes to decline of urban areas. School systems are already a large enough deterrent whether real or perceived, so we don't need to add more reasons for people to avoid city living. Higher speeds and wider roads are suburbanization/urban renewal efforts that need to be done away with where they still exist. It's also no coincidence that the most successful business stretches are on roads that are 25-30MPH tops and also retain urban character as opposed to 35MPH or higher commercial roads which see lots of car-oriented development where there was once urban development.

 

Suburbs have low speed limits and it doesn't make them any more pleasant.  Using scarce urban police power to enforce them is the dealbreaker for me.  Kids are safer when cops worry about crime instead of traffic.

 

I think a city needs true urban commercial corridors AND arterial cut-throughs that concentrate and contain the inevitable car-oriented development.  It shouldn't be all this or all that.  Cars are not evil.  Also, cities seeking (re)growth need to be welcoming and friendly.  Messing with people about the way they drive can detract from that.  Especially if cameras are involved... those flat-out offend some people. 

 

And which is safer for kids, a driver concentrating on the road or concentrating on where are the cops/cameras?  Of course some speeds are not reasonable and shouldn't be allowed.  But limiting everything to 25 mph isn't reasonable either. 

 

Suburbs have low speed limits in their residential areas, but they tend to be too wide and the traffic engineers make streets all curvy and wavy to help slow down traffic. Their arterials are total opposites. Streets should have measures to enforce lower speed limits which should be included proactively instead of waiting for a threshold of people to get hit and then react to that. In some areas, narrowing roads (in some cases back to the way they used to be) can be effective without utilizing speed humps, raised intersections, etc.

 

Columbus doesn't need arterial cut-throughs, we have highways in every direction. We should be slowing traffic, especially on up-and-coming commercial streets, to encourage urban development. A road that attracts not just cars, but bikes, scooters, pedestrians, skateboarders, etc will also attract development that reflects those who are using said road vs. car-only development. This is not an anti-car position. This is inclusive, but it does admittedly strip cars of their special preferential treatment. Being welcoming to cars by providing a safer environment for driving, especially for newbies who don't know the ins and outs of the high-speed, multi-lane, one-ways, and at the same time welcoming other modes of transportation is a win-win situation for drivers, pedestrians, etc. Cameras won't accomplish that. Good road improvements have already demonstrated that they do.

 

If you live in the city, 25MPH is perfectly reasonable for trips since there is a higher concentration of destinations in a smaller area. 30MPH would have to be carefully done. This is especially true if you want to encourage cycling as transportation. In the Short North it's 30MPH, but traffic lights are more frequent, there are more cars (meaning it's not unusual for cars to be going less) and weekends see plenty of pedestrians. This is much like OSU where large groups of pedestrians dictate the rules of driving with their j-walking. Contrast that to Long in King-Lincoln which is just beginning to be revitalized. It's 30 MPH (I had something to do with that), but more dangerous since traffic lights are fewer and farther between, there's little traffic meaning cars may be going 35MPH, few pedestrians, and several large grass lots give the perception of wideness, whereas the Short North is built up against the street which "narrows" it. Again, there are numerous highways one can use and one should also remember that with slower speeds you can fit more cars on the same amount of road since they don't have to keep such a far distance for safety. The burbs are a different story since you have to drive from your sub-division onto a collector street for miles to the next big-box strip mall. Isn't the point of the city that it's multi-modal vs car-only and offers more in a smaller distance so that you don't have to drive long distances faster to get to where you want to go?

 

And why not attract good urban development in the process? Just look at Gay St. as an example. In all of Downtown there are so many wide, fast one-ways. Not one is seeing anywhere near the amount of development occurring along traffic-calmed Gay St. The exceptions being where Gay intersects with wide arterials (what a coincidence) and Front St., but the developer is building there with the knowledge that the city is converting that stretch of Front to a two-way. The downside to Gay is that it also functions as a traffic calmed island and to get there you have to enter Downtown by way of 35MPH arterials as your only options.

If you live in the city, 25MPH is perfectly reasonable for trips since there is a higher concentration of destinations in a smaller area. 30MPH would have to be carefully done. This is especially true if you want to encourage cycling as transportation.

 

I'm afraid our positions diverge a great deal on these issues.  For one thing, I'm not sure I want to encourage cycling as urban transportation.  Their speed makes them incompatible with cars and with pedestrians.  How many different lanes, observing different traffic laws, do we really want?  I don't think I share your vision for having pedestrians deal with multiple vehicle types in the same space.  I also don't think forcing people to drive slow will make them want to patronize businesses they don't patronize already. 

 

We can build vibrant walkable neighborhoods without needlessly hindering cars.  While the idea is definitely to have people shop more locally, that idea doesn't trump all other concerns.  One concern is that something you may need is neither in your hood nor accessible via freeway.  It isn't practical to take care of all needs in all hoods, so free movement among them is necessary for any to flourish.  That requires various modes of transportation working in harmony.  People need to walk more.  Transit should be expanded.  Development should encourage these modes over driving.  None of that requires cars or trucks to be intentionally inconvenienced.  The best way to encourage urban development is to make it inviting, to dispel the notion that living in a tighter community is unpleasant.  Aggressive speed limits are something I view as a move in the opposite direction.

 

While I'm not as familiar with Columbus, I actually think several Cleveland streets should be raised 25 to 35, or 35 to 45.

 

Small Is Beautiful

 

The towns that made the list all had fewer than 10,000 households. But some of these places are well-known just because they're small. The Chicago suburb of Kenilworth, Ill., which ranked fourth on the list, is considered the Midwest's wealthiest town.

 

I've never been to Brookville, nor Long Island at all, for that matter. But it doesn't sound anything like Kenilworth, which is not nearly so exclusive of others. It can't be: My wedding reception was there, and I ain't rich. It's a tree-shaded, inner-ring suburb on a street grid. It just has pricey real estate and wealthy inhabitants.

If you live in the city, 25MPH is perfectly reasonable for trips since there is a higher concentration of destinations in a smaller area. 30MPH would have to be carefully done. This is especially true if you want to encourage cycling as transportation.

 

While I'm not as familiar with Columbus, I actually think several Cleveland streets should be raised 25 to 35, or 35 to 45.

 

Columbus is practically a drag strip. Sometimes traffic can't even reach the speed limit.

If you live in the city, 25MPH is perfectly reasonable for trips since there is a higher concentration of destinations in a smaller area. 30MPH would have to be carefully done. This is especially true if you want to encourage cycling as transportation.

 

I'm afraid our positions diverge a great deal on these issues. For one thing, I'm not sure I want to encourage cycling as urban transportation. Their speed makes them incompatible with cars and with pedestrians. How many different lanes, observing different traffic laws, do we really want? I don't think I share your vision for having pedestrians deal with multiple vehicle types in the same space. I also don't think forcing people to drive slow will make them want to patronize businesses they don't patronize already.

 

We can build vibrant walkable neighborhoods without needlessly hindering cars. While the idea is definitely to have people shop more locally, that idea doesn't trump all other concerns. One concern is that something you may need is neither in your hood nor accessible via freeway. It isn't practical to take care of all needs in all hoods, so free movement among them is necessary for any to flourish. That requires various modes of transportation working in harmony. People need to walk more. Transit should be expanded. Development should encourage these modes over driving. None of that requires cars or trucks to be intentionally inconvenienced. The best way to encourage urban development is to make it inviting, to dispel the notion that living in a tighter community is unpleasant. Aggressive speed limits are something I view as a move in the opposite direction.

 

While I'm not as familiar with Columbus, I actually think several Cleveland streets should be raised 25 to 35, or 35 to 45.

 

Bikes are a part of the urban fabric in every city on earth and nothing will change that, though Columbus has sure endeavored to try.

Bikes are a part of the urban fabric in every city on earth and nothing will change that,

 

I agree, and I'm not trying to ban them.  But I do think they're a natural safety hazard, and on top of that many riders in Cleveland disregard traffic signals and weave around unpredictably.  They complain that no one respects them but they ride as if no one else exists.  None of this justifies lower speed limits, that's my point.

I think 5000 lb SUV's are a natural safety hazard.

I think 5000 lb SUV's are a natural safety hazard.

 

Me too.  They block everyone else's vision to enhance their own.  Personally I think all cars should be 70s pimp cars.  If you don't like the mileage take a train.  But if you must drive, do it in style.

I think 5000 lb SUV's are a natural safety hazard.

 

However, if you have a big family, that vehicle (or a large vehicle) might be necessary.

 

My brother has five kids.  They all have their own activities and equipment.  It's not easy putting all that stuff in a car.  It's easier now that the three older are teenagers and ride their bike or moped to their destinations. 

 

I think owning a big car/MiniVan/SUV, is a case by case situation.

Great point MTS.  I know having 3 under 5 yo, they all need to be in a booster or pumpkin seat.  We can't take all 3 in my car because those seats will not all fit in a back seat.  Therefore, you have to have a minivan or 3 row bench SUV for the extra seat.  It is seriously impossible to make it work in a car based on the new laws.  There is no physical way to cram them in one bench seat.  Not even worth trying. 

None of which makes those vehicles any safer for the rest of us who have to share the road with them.  I guess my point was that when two things of greatly different speed and weight have access to the same right of way, it makes for some degree of danger, but it's hard to point to one and say they're the sole culprit.

 

That said, I'm kind of liking the 70's pimp car idea.  All.....my.....friends......drive a low rider!

Great point MTS.  I know having 3 under 5 yo, they all need to be in a booster or pumpkin seat.  We can't take all 3 in my car because those seats will not all fit in a back seat.  Therefore, you have to have a minivan or 3 row bench SUV for the extra seat.  It is seriously impossible to make it work in a car based on the new laws.  There is no physical way to cram them in one bench seat.  Not even worth trying. 

It's so hard.  I remember when my brother and skank-in-law moved to their current house.  Just to go from my house to their house (Shaker Square to Hathaway Brown) it takes 20 minutes to pack the car.  My nephew was 7 so he didn't need a seat, but my 5 year neice and 4 year old nephew need that boster seat thingie, plus the baby car seat.  Its way too much work.  I could never have gotten all that in my little car.

 

Personally, for me it was always easier to take them on the train.  No car seat, no hassles.  Just get on and ride to Warrensville.

What ever happened to good old station wagons?  The proverbial family truckster?  Those were designed to haul large families, plus their stuff, without flipping over or blocking out the sun.

^^um, they were dangerous?  Between the gas fumes and the fact that kids were rolling around like cereal in a plastic bag, they weren't exactly a safe way to travel. 

^But the fun we had rolling around in the back was worth the risk! (until my brother fell out the back door)

^ Apparently these are legit problems with station wagons, but I think the safety comparison to SUVs is still favorable.  Especially when everyone else's safety is considered... not just the SUV passengers.  I've had more than one person tell me the view and the sense of power they get in an SUV is such that they can never go back to a regular car.

^But the fun we had rolling around in the back was worth the risk! (until my brother fell out the back door)

 

Shut up!  He fell out the back??  :o

My view has always been that an SUV is the appropriate vehicle if you're driving down unimproved roads (gravel ,dirt, or more than a few inches of snow) with a large enough group of passengers that they won't fit in a pickup. In most any other situation some other vehicle would be more appropriate. I've seen very few dirt or gravel roads in Northeast Ohio and generally if there's more than 6 inches of snow on the road itself, you probably shouldn't be driving anyway. By the way, there is a dirt road around the corner from my in-laws that makes a nice shortcut to their house, and my Focus does just fine on it.

^But the fun we had rolling around in the back was worth the risk! (until my brother fell out the back door)

 

Shut up! He fell out the back?? :o

We were in a parking lot and he was playing with the handle. He just got some bruises. I got some too when he kept hitting me for laughing at him about it.

^ Apparently these are legit problems with station wagons, but I think the safety comparison to SUVs is still favorable.  Especially when everyone else's safety is considered... not just the SUV passengers.  I've had more than one person tell me the view and the sense of power they get in an SUV is such that they can never go back to a regular car.

 

I think everyone had a wagon in the 70's.  To me the SUV is the "new" station wagon.

You can get quite a bit into those newer wagons like the Subaru Forrester.

^ Apparently these are legit problems with station wagons, but I think the safety comparison to SUVs is still favorable. Especially when everyone else's safety is considered... not just the SUV passengers. I've had more than one person tell me the view and the sense of power they get in an SUV is such that they can never go back to a regular car.

 

I think everyone had a wagon in the 70's. To me the SUV is the "new" station wagon.

 

Right, and we should go back to the low profile version.  These new crossover things are a step in that direction.  Another safety issue with SUVs, also related to their excessive height, is how their headlights shoot right into your mirror or into your face. 

Well even with the "lower profile" ones, you still have a problem if you have more than a couple of kids, certainly a big problem if it's more than 3.  3 little ones can squeeze into a backseat of a forrester, but if you have 4, you need a bigger vehicle with another row of seats. And it depends on what activities they are into.  If you get hockey kids or whatever, the back area of a forrester may not be big enough.

Well even with the "lower profile" ones, you still have a problem if you have more than a couple of kids, certainly a big problem if it's more than 3. 3 little ones can squeeze into a backseat of a forrester, but if you have 4, you need a bigger vehicle with another row of seats. And it depends on what activities they are into. If you get hockey kids or whatever, the back area of a forrester may not be big enough.

 

Crossover is terrible for 3 kids that are all in boosters or pumpkins.  HTe kid that has to be in the back is litterally launched over the back seat.  Honelstly, Mini vans are the way to go if you have three kids that legally have to be in boosters. 

^ Vans and Suburbans/Broncos existed in the height of the station wagon era, probably for this reason.  Sometimes you're really just busing people and you do need something big enough.  But I see these things driven around all the time now with one or two occupants.  I was little, but it seems like it was less common in the 70s for people to drive their bus-type vehicles on a daily basis.  For example we had an old van, but nobody drove that to work or to get groceries.

I see them a lot with one or two occupants as well, but you have to think, if they are dropping off the kids at daycare before coming to work, what do you expect to see?  You're not going to see a bunch of people driving downtown on a weekday with a car full of kids as they all put them in daycare close to their home.  They're not going to drop the kids off, come back and switch cars to continue on to work.

All in all, the SUV's you see driving around suburbia (threw that in there to stay on topic) that have one bench seat in the back are the most impracticable cars on the market.  They fit the same amount of people as a Neon, they have less trunk space than a Civic, and they are terrible on gas.  If people buy them because of their kids, that is crazy.  I hate to sound like an advocate for mini vans, but they can fit lots of kids, you can walk into the back on road trips and feed a kid without stopping (or get in their face and yell at them).  Also, when removing the seats, I fit 17 sheets of drywall (1/2") in the back and closed the door without damaginh any drywall.  They hold far more than a pick-up-truck. 

I see them a lot with one or two occupants as well, but you have to think, if they are dropping off the kids at daycare before coming to work, what do you expect to see?  You're not going to see a bunch of people driving downtown on a weekday with a car full of kids as they all put them in daycare close to their home.  They're not going to drop the kids off, come back and switch cars to continue on to work.

 

Good point.  But how did people survive before SUV's?  Families are smaller now.  Yet when we look at traffic footage from the 70s, it's mostly cars.  Now it's mostly trucks.  When I started driving in the early 90s, it was rare to be surrounded by trucks on all sides.  Now it's the norm.  I understand there are practical reasons for them, I just don't understand how it's the only way people can live.  We largely did without them before.