I see what you're saying.  I think it would be nice if there was a happy medium.  I would love a more walk-able suburb, where you COULD walk to the store fairly easily if you wanted and were up for some exercise, but not so close that it's in the middle of the neighborhood you are trying to keep quiet.  We do that now, but honestly more often than not we drive.  Partly due to the weather, partly because of time, partly because it's really hard to carry a gallon of milk and 3 other things for 1.5 miles, and I don't always have 1.5 hours to devote to just running an errand like getting a gallon of milk.  Because I'm busy, that makes me wrong?  I see what you're saying, I just wish there were more of a happy medium.

 

I'm curious what you (and others) think of people who live in the country?  Are they "wrong" too?  They have to drive 45 minutes or an hour to get to the store. 

I've never heard of a city with nowhere else to go.  Not even modern Detroit, although it's getting there.  I think as a kid there's a limit to what you can do and learn in the confines of a yard.  Especially when it's surounded exclusively with other yards.  Just having a front porch on an active street, even if the kid can never leave that porch, allows them to observe civilization in action. 

I see what you're saying.  I think it would be nice if there was a happy medium.  I would love a more walk-able suburb, where you COULD walk to the store fairly easily if you wanted and were up for some exercise, but not so close that it's in the middle of the neighborhood you are trying to keep quiet.  We do that now, but honestly more often than not we drive.  Partly due to the weather, partly because of time, partly because it's really hard to carry a gallon of milk and 3 other things for 1.5 miles, and I don't always have 1.5 hours to devote to just running an errand like getting a gallon of milk.  Because I'm busy, that makes me wrong?  I see what you're saying, I just wish there were more of a happy medium.

 

I'm curious what you (and others) think of people who live in the country?  Are they "wrong" too?  They have to drive 45 minutes or an hour to get to the store. 

 

The answer to your problem is first-ring suburbs. At least in Cincinnat, most first ring suburbs are setup like that.

I see what you're saying.  I think it would be nice if there was a happy medium.  I would love a more walk-able suburb, where you COULD walk to the store fairly easily if you wanted and were up for some exercise, but not so close that it's in the middle of the neighborhood you are trying to keep quiet.  We do that now, but honestly more often than not we drive.  Partly due to the weather, partly because of time, partly because it's really hard to carry a gallon of milk and 3 other things for 1.5 miles, and I don't always have 1.5 hours to devote to just running an errand like getting a gallon of milk.  Because I'm busy, that makes me wrong?  I see what you're saying, I just wish there were more of a happy medium.

 

I'm curious what you (and others) think of people who live in the country?  Are they "wrong" too?  They have to drive 45 minutes or an hour to get to the store. 

 

The answer to your problem is first-ring suburbs. At least in Cincinnat, most first ring suburbs are setup like that.

 

Thanks.  I've only visited Cincy a few times but it seems a really interesting place.  I haven't had a chance to get much out of downtown though.

 

Much of urban Columbus except for OSU and East Campus in particular meet that happy medium including first-ring suburbs which are not technically a part of the city. Even Victorian and Italian Village are mostly quiet, with the Short North just down the street. Columbus, even Downtown, was all low-density residential. You won't find a single block of urban townhomes like you can in Cincinnati. Even the most urban of neighborhoods mainly consist of signle-family homes, which makes the desertion of those neighborhoods very confusing since they offered the stereotypical American Dream™ of owning your own detached home and some land. The only reasons I can think of are racism and classism in that order, that people were willing to give up culture for cheap stuff since they wouldn't then have to be around black-people and/or those who were of a lower-income level.

 

As for people who live in the country and commute 45 miles to the store, yes they are absolutely wrong for squandering a finite reasource, especially one that requires the death of US soldiers and civilians in foreign nations where that resource needs to be extracted for their "lifestyle". Fortunately those days will be over and they'll have to at least have a little bit of culture when forced to move to a nearby small town.

Having a private playground or pool at the center of a subdivision is a cheap substitute for sharing a genuine park bordering several different neighborhoods. Whereas you're guaranteed to only meet your neighbors at the sub's recreation center, you will meet more interesting people i.e., folks from a wider socio-economic spectrum, at a public park.

 

Kids having nothing to do is a problem whether they're on the front stoop or cocooned away inside with videogames. Given a choice, I (and my kids) would choose the stoop in a heartbeat.

 

Here's something I don't get about the traditional developer driven suburb--large front yard.  Who uses the front yard if you have an equally large back yard?  Why not move the houses much closer to the street, add nice front porches and still leave about 5-10ft or so of setback for a nice garden or landscaping in the front.  You then create potential interaction between the houses and the street.  You can talk to neighbhors on their porch without yelling up to them or going onto their property, and you make it more walkable by moving the buildings closer in (I don't know why that is the case but it is). 

 

Then you can either cut down the total size of the subdivision or double the size of the backyard and have it be the same size.

 

Interesting article about the American Front Porch: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/AM483_97/projects/cook/first.htm

I'm curious what you (and others) think of people who live in the country? Are they "wrong" too? They have to drive 45 minutes or an hour to get to the store.

 

If they're not farming, I do wonder what they need all that space and distance for.  And I ask, in all seriousness, where the bears are supposed to live if people keep doing that.  If their life revolves around the city, i.e. they work in the city, don't grow/raise food, and commute a zillion miles for everything... then yes I think "country living" is wrong.  Actions have consequences beyond our own personal bubbles.

I don't think a pool is trying to be a substitute park, and I definitely can see why a private pool is highly preferable to a public pool, and why you'd only want to make a pool available to people who pay the HOA dues.  I grew up a swimmer going to a mix of private and public pools and the public ones were absolutely awful.  I mean, yes, it's been awhile since I was a little kid and maybe they're different now, but when you have to pay to join a pool, it's maintaned and staffed better. 

 

I've never seen a private park.  Parks are just generally frequented by whomever lives close by.

I'm curious what you (and others) think of people who live in the country? Are they "wrong" too? They have to drive 45 minutes or an hour to get to the store.

 

If they're not farming, I do wonder what they need all that space and distance for. And I ask, in all seriousness, where the bears are supposed to live if people keep doing that. If their life revolves around the city, i.e. they work in the city, don't grow/raise food, and commute a zillion miles for everything... then yes I think "country living" is wrong. Actions have consequences beyond our own personal bubbles.

 

This is such an interesting conversation for me!  Thank you for answering.  See, I think other things are "wrong" as well, but people pick and choose what they think are wrong things.  What if you have a suburban family who recycles everything, has a "green" house with solar panels and drives a Hybrid.  And you have an urban family who doesn't recycle and their trash is full of plastic bottles and styrofoam containers.  And they have a dog and don't clean up after it when they take it on walks.  I mean, why assume that just because they are urban, they are "doing good" and because they are suburban they are "doing bad." There are different things that are good and bad, IMO.

I think sprawl is damaging enough, in itself, that it needs to be met head-on.  Green isn't the only issue.  There's more to it.  Erma Bombeck (I think) had a line about how civilization began to fall apart when people started building multiple bathrooms per house instead of having to coordinate and share.  Subdivision-style living is antisocial at its core.  It's causing us to lose communication and empathy skills on a broad scale.

 

To make it a little more personal:  I spent a lot of my childhood in a semi-rural setting.  For the most part, other kids were not accessible by even by bike.  While some aspects of this were enjoyable, the major drawback was that I learned to deal with other people several years late.  Most of my interactions were with adults, with whom there was no peer dynamic from which to learn.  This also resulted in me expressing myself, in 2009, as an adult from the late 70s/early 80s.  When I was 12 we moved to a suburban area, at which point I began catching up.  I still did not really understand people until after I had graduated from the suburban high school and spent some time in the city.

thx for the interesting dialogue.

I think sprawl is damaging enough, in itself, that it needs to be met head-on. Green isn't the only issue. There's more to it. Erma Bombeck (I think) had a line about how civilization began to fall apart when people started building multiple bathrooms per house instead of having to coordinate and share. Subdivision-style living is antisocial at its core. It's causing us to lose communication and empathy skills on a broad scale.

 

To make it a little more personal: I spent a lot of my childhood in a semi-rural setting. For the most part, other kids were not accessible by even by bike. While some aspects of this were enjoyable, the major drawback was that I learned to deal with other people several years late. Most of my interactions were with adults, with whom there was no peer dynamic from which to learn. This also resulted in me expressing myself, in 2009, as an adult from the late 70s/early 80s. When I was 12 we moved to a suburban area, at which point I began catching up. I still did not really understand people until after I had graduated from the suburban high school and spent some time in the city.

 

I really don't think that subdivisions are causing us to lose communication...Subdivisions have been around since the 50's.  And, if you want to include secions of Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, Parma Heights, they have subdivisions too.  I guess you need to define what is sprawl and what isn't.  Is Strongsville sprawl?  Is Parma and Euclid sprawl?  Really, your chocie of where and how you live is mostly due to your lifestyle.

most subdivisions I have seen from the 1950s still retained a grid pattern.  I think the culs-du-sac of modern subdivisions might have more to do with it.

Strongsville is definitely sprawl, most of Parma and Euclid aren't.  I don't think Middleburgh Hts is sprawl either, R&R.  The inner ring burbs are set apart in their urbanity.  They were a step in the wrong direction but still generally liveable.  But now there are modern subdivision developments in inner-city Cleveland, like along Euclid and in Central.  Of this I do not approve. 

I don't see much difference in strongsville and MH except that Strongsville has a lot more decent retail.  MH would be much better if we had more/better retail IMO.  Both have developments, both have retail that, if you want to walk to it, requires being very purposeful and going against the grain, etc.  I think MH has older housing stock and less retail, that's the difference.

I think sprawl is damaging enough, in itself, that it needs to be met head-on.  Green isn't the only issue.  There's more to it.  Erma Bombeck (I think) had a line about how civilization began to fall apart when people started building multiple bathrooms per house instead of having to coordinate and share.  Subdivision-style living is antisocial at its core.  It's causing us to lose communication and empathy skills on a broad scale.

 

To make it a little more personal:  I spent a lot of my childhood in a semi-rural setting.  For the most part, other kids were not accessible by even by bike.  While some aspects of this were enjoyable, the major drawback was that I learned to deal with other people several years late.  Most of my interactions were with adults, with whom there was no peer dynamic from which to learn.  This also resulted in me expressing myself, in 2009, as an adult from the late 70s/early 80s.  When I was 12 we moved to a suburban area, at which point I began catching up.  I still did not really understand people until after I had graduated from the suburban high school and spent some time in the city.

 

I really don't think that subdivisions are causing us to lose communication...Subdivisions have been around since the 50's.  And, if you want to include secions of Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, Parma Heights, they have subdivisions too.  I guess you need to define what is sprawl and what isn't.  Is Strongsville sprawl?  Is Parma and Euclid sprawl?  Really, your chocie of where and how you live is mostly due to your lifestyle.

 

What Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights area's would you consider "sub divided"?

 

In Shaker I can only think the area near Laurel falls under that and in Cleve. Hts. the area in Nothern CH by Belvoir.

I find the occurance of a general break down of American social fabric over the past several decades (rampant obesity, school violence, anti-depressent popping soccer moms, etc, etc, etc) and the apex of suburban sprawl, as more than just a coincedence.

I find the occurance of a general break down of American social fabric over the past several decades (rampant obesity, school violence, anti-depressent popping soccer moms, etc, etc, etc) and the apex of suburban sprawl, as more than just a coincedence.

 

Interesting, I never thought about it that way.

Interestingly, I believe the problems with our food system to be one of the biggest contributors to the obesity problem, namely the rise of fast food and processed food and the tripling of portion sizes that Americans have demanded since the 50s, along with the chemicals and artificial nature of the food we eat compared to what our grandparents and great grandparents lived on.  This is one of MY main causes, just like anti-sprawl is some other people's cause.  It's incredibly sad to me that it's front page news that someone is having a garden planted (Michelle Obama).

Interestingly, I believe the problems with our food system to be one of the biggest contributors to the obesity problem, namely the rise of fast food and processed food and the tripling of portion sizes that Americans have demanded since the 50s, along with the chemicals and artificial nature of the food we eat compared to what our grandparents and great grandparents lived on.  This is one of MY main causes, just like anti-sprawl is some other people's cause.  It's incredibly sad to me that it's front page news that someone is having a garden planted (Michelle Obama).

 

Sad in a bad way?  She's speaking about the topics you discussed above.  She is in your camp.

 

I think its NEEDED and NECESSARY as front page news to counter balance the advertisements that you see from fast food restaurants.

Interestingly, I believe the problems with our food system to be one of the biggest contributors to the obesity problem, namely the rise of fast food and processed food and the tripling of portion sizes that Americans have demanded since the 50s, along with the chemicals and artificial nature of the food we eat compared to what our grandparents and great grandparents lived on. This is one of MY main causes, just like anti-sprawl is some other people's cause. It's incredibly sad to me that it's front page news that someone is having a garden planted (Michelle Obama).

 

Sad in a bad way? She's speaking about the topics you discussed above. She is in your camp.

 

I think its NEEDED and NECESSARY as front page news to counter balance the advertisements that you see from fast food restaurants.

 

No, I mean it's sad that this is so unusual that it is front page news. sad that we have come to this state.  I know it's also good in other ways, but it's just sad to think we are so far removed from our food system that someone putting in a garden is almost as rare as if she were cultivating sea monkeys for a science experiment or something.

 

What Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights area's would you consider "sub divided"?

 

In Shaker I can only think the area near Laurel falls under that and in Cleve. Hts. the area in Nothern CH by Belvoir.

 

"Subdivision" is really a bad term for this discussion, as nearly everything outside of Cleveland's original town plat was at one point a subdivision of surrounding agricultural plats.  This includes much of the Flats and Davenport Bluffs, for example, as well as the Heights, and all the rest of Cleveland's neighborhoods and suburbs..  "Subdivision" is just the process by which Cleveland and many other American cities were developed.  Really we should call them something else, like "ungridded neighborhoods" or "semi private neighborhoods".

 

What Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights area's would you consider "sub divided"?

 

In Shaker I can only think the area near Laurel falls under that and in Cleve. Hts. the area in Nothern CH by Belvoir.

 

"Subdivision" is really a bad term for this discussion, as nearly everything outside of Cleveland's original town plat was at one point a subdivision of surrounding agricultural plats.  This includes much of the Flats and Davenport Bluffs, for example, as well as the Heights, and all the rest of Cleveland's neighborhoods and suburbs..  "Subdivision" is just the process by which Cleveland and many other American cities were developed.  Really we should call them something else, like "ungridded neighborhoods" or "semi private neighborhoods".

 

True True.  I mean look how CH and SH were built.

I find the occurance of a general break down of American social fabric over the past several decades (rampant obesity, school violence, anti-depressent popping soccer moms, etc, etc, etc) and the apex of suburban sprawl, as more than just a coincedence.

Interesting, I never thought about it that way.

 

I do.  All the time. 

 

And for purposes of this discussion, I'm referring to "subdivisions" as described in the Rush song of that name.  This means Cul-de-Sacs and aggressively compartmentalized zoning.  Streetcar suburbs that mimic and extend the city's layout would not fit this description.

We can just go around with this all day.  I mean in 1940, the area along Neff Road along with areas along Judson and Lotus just north of Miles was sprawl.  Today, Strongsville is sprawl.  And I'mm with RnR, I really don't think the problems W28th stated are the fault of subdivisions, rahter the internet, TV and radio.  And last time I checked, people in the city use the internet, TV and Radio.  Please provide back up as to why Mom will pop pills in Strongsville, but not in Old Brooklyn.  Or why will kids in Brecksville be obese, and not kids in Collinwood.  That correlation really makes no sense to me at all.

The obesity issue, while involving many more factors, is clearly tied in with car dependence and lack of walking/carrying.  The pills and attitude problems may result from increased isolation.  I believe so, at any rate.  TV and internet have impacted that as well.  But I maintain that the anti-social effects of these factors are exacerbated in subdivisions because subdivisions are designed to encourage them and provide fewer options.

I think it's tied in but is just not the main cause.  There is not "one" cause you can single out for the obesity issue, it is a combination of factors.  There are plenty of fit people who live in the burbs and overweight people who live in urban areas.

Very insightful discussion.  327 is correct, the problem is to a degree physiological.  Suburbanites value safety (or perceived safety) above all and to the exclusion of all.  To the extent these fears are real we need to ask ourselves, why are we unwilling to permanently incarcerate criminal sociopaths.  This would eliminate the need for safety to trump urban design.  We did this in the 40's and into the 50's.  Thereafter, we let these psychopaths run loose on our grid style streets.  I grew up in Maple Heights (a grid based inner ring suburb) on Clare Avenue with stores we walked to on Warrensville Center Rd. in the 50's.  It was great!

To the extent these fears are real we need to ask ourselves, why are we unwilling to permanently incarcerate criminal sociopaths.

 

And that, I believe, is the fault of our overly litigious society.  It's no longer as simple as "arrest a criminal, then they go to jail" with all the lawyers we have who make a living off of getting people out of trouble.

I didn't expect the mass closing of mental institutions to come up, but yes, that caused major problems for US cities.

Which brings us to this:

 

I'd amplify the point that subdivision is a poor word to describe the situation. I'd also second the idea that a predominance of curvilinear cul-de-sacs is the most problematic model of development.

  Most of my interactions were with adults, with whom there was no peer dynamic from which to learn.  This also resulted in me expressing myself, in 2009, as an adult from the late 70s/early 80s.

 

In what ways do you feel that you act as someone form the '70s-'80s?

I believe the problems with our food system to be one of the biggest contributors to the obesity problem, namely the rise of fast food and processed food and the tripling of portion sizes that Americans have demanded since the 50s, along with the chemicals and artificial nature of the food we eat compared to what our grandparents and great grandparents lived on.  This is one of MY main causes, just like anti-sprawl is some other people's cause. 

 

The concept of a food system is interesting, especially when one things of the urban/regional geography aspects of this...a congruence of distribution and business process, and the physical evidence...corner stores, frequency of shopping to provision the larder, pulling foodstuffs into the neighborhoods via city transfer and drayage operations, wholesale markets for produce, meat, etc, and a belt of truck farms and market gardens around citys to provision the wholesale markets.

 

Im wondering if anyone really has studied this from a historical POV.  The "warehouse districts" or "wholesale districts" we see near downtowns and the rail yars, including freight houses and cold storage, was part of this system. 

 

Fascinating stuff. 

 

I think when they invented refrigiration, that permitted things to ramp up in scale.  The frequency of provisioning decreased, but the volume during one shopping trip increases, so you had larger supermarkets, and then economies of scale kicked in.

 

Or something like that.

 

 

 

Which brings us to this:

 

 

I love this guys! Great video.

 

Thats exactly what I was saying - about permeable, interactive edges and especially their importance at the edge of public spaces. That's why a lot of public spaces are failures - there's no life at the edge. In a lot of downtowns, public spaces are surrounded by huge skyscrapers with one or two entrances. Not permeable, interactive stores on the first floor. In a lot of planned communities, you see parks that face fenced in back yards on three corners. It looks tacky and less functional. The park in your neighborhood could serve as a model.

 

I think he made a good point about using nature as a band-aid for architectural blunders. I liked his example. I always viewed that kind of grade separation as positive, since it adds to the complexity of a street but I guess it comes at the expense of decreased visibility as well as looking less inviting, more exclusive in some cases. The below grade mall on High St. is certainly a failure and would probably prove his point.

 

Im wondering if anyone really has studied this from a historical POV.  The "warehouse districts" or "wholesale districts" we see near downtowns and the rail yars, including freight houses and cold storage, was part of this system. 

 

 

I don't know of anything authoritative and comprehensive on the subject, but there's been some work. I remember seeing a display at the Smithsonian about five years ago -- the special transportation exhibit in the American History museum -- that showed trains bringing in food to one of the old urban market districts. The text noted that the first grocery stores (as opposed to separate butcher, baker, greengrocer, etc) were seen as a big-box-like threat to the corner stores.

 

Refrigeration made it possible for food to keep longer, but we also have tomatoes and peppers bred not for taste but for their ability to look pretty while being trucked across the country.

 

And now, today, the time is right for a kind of return to some of the old ways. I'm on the governor's Food Policy Advisory Council, which is to promote local food systems in Ohio. It's far more than farmer's markets. If we do this right, there will be processing and distribution jobs in Ohio cities and towns, and farmland finally will be seen as more that open space ready to be replaced by shopping malls, subdivisions and warehouses.

I see what you're saying.  I think it would be nice if there was a happy medium.  I would love a more walk-able suburb, where you COULD walk to the store fairly easily if you wanted and were up for some exercise, but not so close that it's in the middle of the neighborhood you are trying to keep quiet.  We do that now, but honestly more often than not we drive.  Partly due to the weather, partly because of time, partly because it's really hard to carry a gallon of milk and 3 other things for 1.5 miles, and I don't always have 1.5 hours to devote to just running an errand like getting a gallon of milk.  Because I'm busy, that makes me wrong?  I see what you're saying, I just wish there were more of a happy medium.

 

I'm curious what you (and others) think of people who live in the country?  Are they "wrong" too?  They have to drive 45 minutes or an hour to get to the store.

 

 

The answer to your problem is first-ring suburbs. At least in Cincinnat, most first ring suburbs are setup like that.

 

Thanks.  I've only visited Cincy a few times but it seems a really interesting place.  I haven't had a chance to get much out of downtown though.

 

Much of urban Columbus except for OSU and East Campus in particular meet that happy medium including first-ring suburbs which are not technically a part of the city. Even Victorian and Italian Village are mostly quiet, with the Short North just down the street. Columbus, even Downtown, was all low-density residential. You won't find a single block of urban townhomes like you can in Cincinnati. Even the most urban of neighborhoods mainly consist of signle-family homes, which makes the desertion of those neighborhoods very confusing since they offered the stereotypical American Dream™ of owning your own detached home and some land. The only reasons I can think of are racism and classism in that order, that people were willing to give up culture for cheap stuff since they wouldn't then have to be around black-people and/or those who were of a lower-income level.

 

As for people who live in the country and commute 45 miles to the store, yes they are absolutely wrong for squandering a finite reasource, especially one that requires the death of US soldiers and civilians in foreign nations where that resource needs to be extracted for their "lifestyle". Fortunately those days will be over and they'll have to at least have a little bit of culture when forced to move to a nearby small town.

Kind of interesting to bring up a map and zoom out enough to see where the general grid layout of the suburbs stopped and the squiggly streets of the subdivisons start.  Seems like anything south of Pleasent Valley or Sprauge is all subdivisions.  Intersing to take a gander at.

Most of my interactions were with adults, with whom there was no peer dynamic from which to learn. This also resulted in me expressing myself, in 2009, as an adult from the late 70s/early 80s.

 

In what ways do you feel that you act as someone form the '70s-'80s?

 

Little things.  Expressions I use, my baseline of taste.  Anyone my age has that era for a childhood frame of reference.  The difference for me was overexposure to adults and underexposure to kids.  So I was the dork who brought up Jackson 5 when everybody was talking about Thriller.  When Nirvana and hip hop came around I was a rock purist.  These dang kids and their music.  It's probably like this for a lot of people who grew up in exurban or rural settings, pre-internet.

To the extent these fears are real we need to ask ourselves, why are we unwilling to permanently incarcerate criminal sociopaths.

 

And that, I believe, is the fault of our overly litigious society. It's no longer as simple as "arrest a criminal, then they go to jail" with all the lawyers we have who make a living off of getting people out of trouble.

 

Can you back this up with a source?  Or is this just a perception?

 

Defense lawyers generally make less than most other types lawyers, not much more than some social workers.  You don't go into criminal law to become wealthy, you become a corporate lawyer.  Even most ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyers struggle -- there are only a few who have gotten lucky with the big case and big windfall. 

 

Here's a link to what the average lawyer makes, and while lawyers generally do well, they're not paid as well as I initially would have thought.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary

 

Additionally, the Columbus Dispatch and other papers recently reported that 1 in 25 Ohioans is in jail, on probation or on parole.  A record percentage, and an expensive one.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/02/aprison.html?sid=101

 

This seems to suggest that we are not failing to incarcerate, but says nothing about the permanency of the incarceration.  If you have some statistics to support your conclusions, I'd like to see them.

 

The thing that concerns me is the cost of our current prison system and whether we are effectively rehabbing the people incarcerated and freed. 

http://www.drc.state.oh.us/WEB/planning.htm

 

I suspect that to a degree denser development can mean knowing who your neighbors are and can help people avoid bad decisions and provide more help during hard times. 

 

Sprawling, car-dependent suburban lifestyles seem to mean that are more isolated.  You might know your immediate neighbors, but that's all.  Most suburbs that I have lived in did not provide a sense of community, I had to drive to find a community to be part of -- in a church or through a school.  And as a result my acquaintances mostly were not neighbors and not very close.  If I failed to show up at some functions for a month they might wonder where I was but no one would stop by the house to check up on me.  Yet now I live in a more urban area and although admittedly most of my friends are still from the same places -- church and school, they all live close by and I also know more neighbors.  It may just be perception, but I think we all look out for each other more.

 

Many times when a criminal defendant gets off, it's because the police behaved in a manner unbecoming to a free country.  Different ways of enforcing the constitution on police have been discussed.  Unfortunately these more punitive options aren't popular with the police.

 

Suburban living, with its high price of admission and overtly racist initial setup, has exacerbated both racial and economic segregation.  It has also strengthened the link between racial and economic segregation.  This leads to all kinds of results nobody likes.

Many times when a criminal defendant gets off, it's because the police behaved in a manner unbecoming to a free country. Different ways of enforcing the constitution on police have been discussed. Unfortunately these more punitive options aren't popular with the police.

 

Suburban living, with its high price of admission and overtly racist initial setup, has exacerbated both racial and economic segregation. It has also strengthened the link between racial and economic segregation. This leads to all kinds of results nobody likes.

 

I really think that this is possibly true in Midwestern area's, but far from the truth in the Sunbelt, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. 

I really think if you want to blame anyone for sprawl, don't blame today's young families, rather, blame the families that moved out in the 60's and 70's.  They ultimately are the ones to blame for the massive downfall of the inner city.  They were the ones who really turned their back on the city and will not look back.  I really think todays young families cater to the inner city much more than the families that ran in the 60's and 70's.  Today's suburbanites actually go to Indians games, tailgate for Browns games, go out to dinner on E4th/warehouse etc.  They may not live in the city, but alot of their jobs probably are not in the city( thanks to people that fled in the 60's and 70's). 

Many times when a criminal defendant gets off, it's because the police behaved in a manner unbecoming to a free country.  Different ways of enforcing the constitution on police have been discussed.  Unfortunately these more punitive options aren't popular with the police.

 

Suburban living, with its high price of admission and overtly racist initial setup, has exacerbated both racial and economic segregation.  It has also strengthened the link between racial and economic segregation.  This leads to all kinds of results nobody likes.

 

I really think that this is possibly true in Midwestern area's, but far from the truth in the Sunbelt, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. 

 

How so?  It's certainy true historically in those states.  I'm not familiar with their current demographics, but I'm familiar with 60s era litigation over their old demographics, voting rights, and housing discrimination. 

 

Edit:  I totally agree that it's the fault of earlier generations.

 

 

How so? It's certainy true historically in those states. I'm not familiar with their current demographics, but I'm familiar with 60s era litigation over their old demographics, voting rights, and housing discrimination.

 

Edit: I totally agree that it's the fault of earlier generations.

 

Well, that was boring.  I thought we could debate that.  Oh well.

I thought we agreed on the age issue but not the regional issue. 

 

Why is the south different?  I say it's not.  You say it is?  Only a [whatever you are] would say something so stupid!

Can you back this up with a source? Or is this just a perception?

 

Defense lawyers generally make less than most other types lawyers, not much more than some social workers. You don't go into criminal law to become wealthy, you become a corporate lawyer. Even most ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyers struggle -- there are only a few who have gotten lucky with the big case and big windfall.

 

Additionally, the Columbus Dispatch and other papers recently reported that 1 in 25 Ohioans is in jail, on probation or on parole. A record percentage, and an expensive one.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/02/aprison.html?sid=101

 

Sprawling, car-dependent suburban lifestyles seem to mean that are more isolated. You might know your immediate neighbors, but that's all.

 

 

Hi Foraker and welcome to the forum!

 

Off and on (including my current position of 5 years), I have worked for lawyers quite a bit during my adult life, so I take my comments from my personal experience. I know exactly how much they make, and yes, corporate lawyers generally do make more but it really depends on the person and their practice.  I used to work for a criminal lawyer who has his own small practice.  He is in court pretty much every day and easily makes as much as an average corporate attorney.  There is the potential to make more in a bigger corporate firm as you can become a PGL or get larger cases and what have you, but if you are a real go-getter there is plenty of money to be made in criminal and PI.  I don't have any statistics.  My argument isn't that criminal attorneys more, less or the same than corporate attorneys, it's that there is a VERY lucrative living to be made if you are a criminal and/or PI attorney compared to a lot of other jobs, and it has lured a lot of people into that field specifically for the purpose of making a lot of money, as opposed to wanting to "uphold the law" or "do the right thing" or whatever.  I would certainly offer that those doing what I consider "good" law work, such as a lawyer working for Greenpeace or the Sierra Club, makes peanuts compared to an average criminal attorney. Thus the "lure" is to go into areas of law where you can make a lot of money.  "a lot" is relative and there is of course a big scale depending on what type of law you practice and where you live.

 

As to how many Ohioans may or may not be in jail, when I say "society" I mean the country, not Ohio.  I do not know what the statistics are.  But there are a lot more lawyers who make a living off of getting people out of trouble than there used to be, and people making money where it used to be a person just saying "oops, my fault" that have led to a very litigious society.  That is my perception.  50, 100 years ago, you didn't have someone bringing a lawsuit because someone got a hair in their salad or because someone lost control of their car and hit a guardrail, and now you do.

 

As to the isolated nature of suburban living, I think that's precisely what many people want, and I don't know how one says that's "bad" but having nosy neighbors who monitor your every move is "good" if that's not the way you want to live your life.  There are houses I have rejected before too much looking around simply because the neighbors are absolutely on top of you and when you look out your window, you're looking right into their bathroom or whatever.  I don't WANT someone keeping tabs on my comings and goings or asking why I wasn't at the development meeting.  I choose my friends and social circle as people I want to associate with and not just because I happen to live next door to them.  If you happen to luck in to people you live close by to whom you WANT to associate with that closely, that's great, but I would rather have a community where people weren't snooping around on my business and only watched my house if I asked them to because I was going on vacation or something instead of as a general course of events.  I just think it's a case of different strokes.

Most suburbs that I have lived in did not provide a sense of community, I had to drive to find a community to be part of -- in a church or through a school.  And as a result my acquaintances mostly were not neighbors and not very close.  If I failed to show up at some functions for a month they might wonder where I was but no one would stop by the house to check up on me.

 

That's what I hate, for all this talk about "sense of community". A person lives in a new development less than 5 years. People move so frequently that they're inevitably not going to know their neighbors very well - especially in an environment where they're so isolated. The people in the "community" have no prior history with each other. In fact, these places are practically marketed as a "fresh start".

 

I don't doubt that a lot of neighborhoods in the city are like that - Manhattan is probably the epitome of that but at least they're not trying to be pretend they're Pleasantville.

I find that even though i can see into my neighbors house, (but not their Bathroom, thank god for frosted glass) I find a certain anomynity in living in the city (inner ring burb). I don't know if it is the kind of people or the overload of all the comings and goings of all of the people but I never feel like I am being watched or having tabs kept on me. Everyone seems to be too busy to care. I guess my feeling stem from growing up at the end of a dead-end rural road (no cul de sacs here) I had several neighbors that knew every car that came down the road to my house. Literally looking out there windows as the car drove by.

I really think if you want to blame anyone for sprawl, don't blame today's young families, rather, blame the families that moved out in the 60's and 70's. They ultimately are the ones to blame for the massive downfall of the central city. They were the ones who really turned their back on the city and will not look back. I really think todays young families cater to the inner city much more than the families that ran in the 60's and 70's. Today's suburbanites actually go to Indians games, tailgate for Browns games, go out to dinner on E4th/warehouse etc. They may not live in the city, but alot of their jobs probably are not in the city( thanks to people that fled in the 60's and 70's).

 

gotribe, I would agree with you that most the damage was done in the 60's, 70's. Many of our problems today are a legacy of that incredibly rampant self-destruction. Any of us born after that time can't even begin to imagine just how much we lost. If I talk to people who are of the WW2 generation, they tell stories of an urban Ohio that we can only dream of. The streets were teaming with people, there was real mass transit, the nightlife, arts, and entertainment scenes were excellent, and the public schools were great. I personally do know a few people with kids (both in Toledo and suburban districts) who pick their area solely based on "reputation" of the public school. The ones with kids in Toledo city limits try to live by Bowsher so they can get suburban quality schools in a more urban area. The reason hoity-toity, stick-in-butt Perrysburg is so popular (too popular for its own good) is because of the schools. Still, all this doesn't really explain why Maumee is bleeding so bad. Maumee has some of the best schools in Northwest Ohio and it's a cute historic rivertown. Just another one of life's mysteries...probably more just the general downfall of Northwest Ohio than anything else.

 

Intresting, I did not know maumee was losing people.  For us, we never looked for the best of the best school district for our kids, but we also didn't want to move to an area where schools were plagued with crime.  Most importantly for our family was, can we be at ease letting our kids go in the backyard and play unsupervised.  Can they walk down to a friends house at the end of the street.  Schools are schools.  2+2=4 no matter what school you attend.  Personally, I have always hated when people say"We wanted to move to so and so because they have great schools".  AKA, we are racist snobs who also feel like everyone around us is white trash.  Good schools, give me a break.  If your kids can't learn in Parma schools, that's not Parma's fault.  The good school system thing has been used for too many years as a cover up for closet racists.  Solons schools are good because Doctor's, Lawyers and Engineers moved out there and are raising families.  Not because all the summa cum laude teachers went there for jobs. 

I really think the nosy neighbor problem gets worse the more suburban the area becomes.  The further out you get, the more suspicious and security-minded the people are.  People in the city are used to weirdos and weirdness, so they're less concerned about what everyone else is up to.