Growth policies

City shouldn't push outward, critics contend

Monday,  September 7, 2009 3:07 AM

By Mark Ferenchik and Elizabeth Gibson

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Gene Krebs, co-director of the anti-sprawl group Greater Ohio, said Columbus' growth has created an illusion that everything is fine when the city's core continues to hollow out with vacant and abandoned houses.

 

"They need to examine if their internal policies conflict with each other," Krebs said. "Are they encouraging expansion to Zanesville" while trying to revitalize the central city?

 

Read more at:

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/09/07/COLUMBUSSPRAWL.ART_ART_09-07-09_A1_8EF0DDR.html?sid=101

Supposedly urban Europe is every bit as anti-urban as the U.S. and in many prevented their urban areas from becoming as intensely developed as the U.S. allowed its largest cities to become. England is the home of the garden city movement. Germany has a very conflicted attitude toward cities that shows up in all sorts of things, especially that which flowed from the Nazi-era, but also the Green Party movement there.

^

Stadt Luft Mact Frei versus Wohnen im Grune.

 

Yet. German cities, even the provincial ones, are pretty lively compared to the US.  Perhaps not the same degree of hostility or rejection there than here.

 

 

A big difference is how Europeans living in suburban areas (many of which are rather dense) view the city. They don't have the unwarranted fears that many suburban Americans have to go downtown and seem to include the city in their lives rather than isolate themselves from it.

It helps that many of their cities have simply reversed where the poor lives. The banlieues outside of Paris are the most famous, but Italy has similar poor neighborhoods far from the wealthier core.

We need to stress the idea that density is not so much about people per square mile or units per acre, but about good urban design. And that goes for small towns. Mayberry is built at urban density.

Suburbs aren't necessarily resource hogs (take walkable, bikeable Grandview Heights), whereas sprawl is 100% of the time (all new development north of 270). I don't view sprawl as "evil" myself, but rather "insane", in that we're basically consuming as many resources as fast as possible in a universe where resources are few and finite.  Most Americans need a refresher course in physics.

 

I come from the school of thought that to be "evil" one has to know what they're doing is wrong. It's like the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. There has to be malice to be evil. I look at sprawl more as "short-sighted," or "dumb." Most suburbanites don't see anything wrong with it, so they're not the evil ones. The people who market sprawl knowing full well its social, economic, and environmental implications would be more the "evil" ones. But today, many of the people marketing sprawl don't have a clue about the pre-WW2 urban era, so many of them can plead ignorance too. As pro-urbanites, it's our job to educate and show real world examples that there's a better way to build communities. Condemning suburbanites for being evil or demonizing them will do nothing to solve the problem.

 

And suburb doesn't have to be suburban and core city doesn't have to be urban. All of Ohio's core cities have suburban development within their city limits, in fact, quite a lot of it. Many urban commercial districts were torn down and converted to modern strip malls in the name of progress, streets were widened, urban renewal, etc.

 

That's basically what I had summarized. A big problem with sprawling suburbia, just for emphasis, is that the people living there are attempting to escape reality and are most likely not doing so consciously. No need to think about where that oil comes from or where anything comes from for that matter. Everything just appears, is neatly packaged, and taken for granted that "that's the way it is". There is no acknowledgment, at least from their actions, of how the world works when it comes to resources. Not to say that such an ignorant attitude doesn't exist in the city, but you'll come across a much higher ratio of environment-conscious residents than you would there, which is virtually non-existent, especially when I left the burbs.  ;)

 

Regarding the above article on growth in Columbus, the smart-growth, or "intelligent land use" group Greater Ohio is worth checking out as it is a state-wide organization.

 

Regardless of what other suburbs and counties choose to do Columbus should take a stand, set an example, and leave them to suffer for their poor development choices. Hell, we sure are already when it comes to the sprawling northeast side, the dead malls, and don't forget the east side in which Hamilton Rd was the major sprawling commercial strip (now mostly abandoned), which moved east to Brice Rd (now mostly abandoned), and now that sprawling development moved even further east to Rt 256 located in Reynoldsburg, so Columbus no longer gets to rake in quick cash from development there. Not only do we have swathes of decrepit sprawl, but on top of that huge amounts of abandoned homes in numerous, large inner-city neighborhoods.

 

The sad reality is that city leaders still say, even after the previous disasters, that annexing Reynoldsburg would be the answer. The city of Columbus is still as gung-ho about sprawl as they were before and I see it all the time whenever I travel out to the burg to visit my parents. Once you cross over into "Columbus" from there you'll see new strip mall development popping up and along with them the wheelchair mandated sidewalks that end in a grassy ditch on either side, which is about as far Columbus is willing to go to "urbanize" these areas. This isn't cheap, by the way. The city is spending $26 million (originally estimated at $18 million last year) on a 3.6 mile stretch of Morse Rd. That includes tree-lined medians, new sidewalks (wheelchair-accessible), and skinny bike lanes along 3 lanes of 50MPH traffic in each direction all lined with sprawling developments. Of course, it's heavily geared to automobiles first and foremost and will therefore see the same kind of car-oriented development as before, if that is enough to attract such development to fill in the vacancies. Seems like they missed the memo about how people treat sprawl as something that's easily disposable and will likely move on to greener pastures out in the burbs, out of reach of any annexation.

 

I should also mention that where the city is adding bike lanes and sidewalks they are also doubling (or more) the amount of "car" lanes, because obviously the answer to having to put up with induced traffic a couple hours a day is to spend lots of money on lots of new lanes. Problem solved! You can thank the Project Managers for that.

The people who market sprawl knowing full well its social, economic, and environmental implications would be more the "evil" ones.

 

I'm not sure I'd label the developers who "market" sprawl as evil. Today's developers, by and large, play by the rules. The sprawl they're developing is in accordance with the zoning laws. The problem is, Ohio is zoned for sprawl. In many places, density is illegal. Mixed-use neighborhood urban commercial districts are illegal. Big-a$$ parking lots are required.

Columbusite:  If Columbus hadn't expanded outward, it would have been boxed in by its suburbs the way Cleveland and Cincinnati have been.  The sprawl would have happened anyway, because that was what people wanted.  The only difference is that Hamilton, Brice, etc. would have been outside the city limits, in some suburb that never actually came into existence (or just in Brice itself, which might have grown greatly had Columbus not).  There is only so much that urban planning can do to fight tens of thousands of people who want to leave.  You have to make them want to stay.  Lecturing them on the alleged sins of their chosen lifestyle and demanding that they ride bikes everywhere simply won't do that.  You seem to think that the expansion of any development to Hamilton and Brice could have been prevented, and I have no idea why you persist in thinking that.  Someone was going to develop that land, and if Columbus failed to keep its inner neighborhoods safe--which is exactly what happened--people were going to move out there.

I think Columbus could have better managed the land it took through annexation. There is a lot of poor quality development in the city that will eventually hurt the city a lot. It could encouraged a higher density, especially quality small multi-family homes (esp. duplexes or four-families). Instead there is a lot of craptastic plastic housing.

I'll grant that it could have enabled it more by not using its zoning code to compel sprawl so much.  I don't know about encouraged, though I'll grant that the fizzling of the recent streetcar initiative was discouraging.  That could have proactively encouraged density.

 

Columbus wasn't responsible for Easton killing City Center, though.  It wasn't responsible for Westerville, Worthington, Dublin, etc.  Columbus' growth policies at least mean that it's surrounded by basically only 1.5 suburb rings instead of however many Cleveland and Cincinnati have to contend with.

The sprawl in central Ohio has less to do with annexation than with the land-use policies of Columbus and its suburbs -- and with the lack of direction from the state on land policy. Cities all over America adopted zoning codes without any understanding of what a zoning code does or of the importance of planning. It was bad zoning codes -- even more than urban flight -- that led to sprawl.

The sprawl in central Ohio has less to do with annexation than with the land-use policies of Columbus and its suburbs -- and with the lack of direction from the state on land policy. Cities all over America adopted zoning codes without any understanding of what a zoning code does or of the importance of planning. It was bad zoning codes -- even more than urban flight -- that led to sprawl.

But if you drive around Franklin County, it is clear the lowest quality developments are usually in Columbus. This is especially true on the north side as you move through Cbus, Westerville, and Worthington. Cincinnati managed to fill nearly all of its postwar development (through final buildout in the 60s) with a lot of multi-family housing mixed in with single family.

I just got into a discussion with a coworker about people wanting to live outside of Hamilton County.

 

My question is basically, what can you find in Butler, Warren or the other adjacent counties that you can't find in Hamilton?

 

(besides Ikea and miles of chain restaurants, of course...)

If you work in Mason or West Chester or Eastgate . . . a shorter commute.

That's a perfectly legitimate reason...but we were talking about people that work in the city.

Columbusite:  If Columbus hadn't expanded outward, it would have been boxed in by its suburbs the way Cleveland and Cincinnati have been.  The sprawl would have happened anyway, because that was what people wanted.  The only difference is that Hamilton, Brice, etc. would have been outside the city limits, in some suburb that never actually came into existence (or just in Brice itself, which might have grown greatly had Columbus not).  There is only so much that urban planning can do to fight tens of thousands of people who want to leave.  You have to make them want to stay.  Lecturing them on the alleged sins of their chosen lifestyle and demanding that they ride bikes everywhere simply won't do that.  You seem to think that the expansion of any development to Hamilton and Brice could have been prevented, and I have no idea why you persist in thinking that.  Someone was going to develop that land, and if Columbus failed to keep its inner neighborhoods safe--which is exactly what happened--people were going to move out there.

 

You can annex land and zone it for multi-modal, mixed use development. You can't ignore all the incentives people were given to move combined with disinvestment and demolition of existing urban neighborhoods and a mass transit system. Letting the city fall apart instead of investing in it will lead to unhappy residents. Despite what Columbus had done as far as an "out with the old, in with the new" attitude, urban suburbs like Grandview and Bexley invested money to preserve what they had, have stood the test of time and seem to have always been desirable places and did in fact serve as examples for how to develop on all that new annexed land: low-density and urban. It's a shame that no one bothered to take notice, or if they did why do that when you can make more profit off of cheap, cookie-cutter homes, thanks in large part to subsidies to do so?

 

The problem isn't so much that development reached Hamilton and Brice, but what kind of development is there. I don't bother to lecture sprawlers, since I prefer to preach to the choir and while everyone should ideally ride bikes everywhere, I'm a realist and would rather everyone have the option to do so. As far as crime as a significant reason for the exodus of Columbus, I haven't found anything to gauge the extent of that factor as a contributor. In any case, Brice and Hamilton are now burdens that we would be better off without.

Study: Denser development may cut pollution

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY

 

Would Americans drive less if they stopped living on big lots far from urban centers? If so, would that reduce pollution and dependence on energy? By how much?

 

Meeting the growing demand for conveniently located homes in neighborhoods designed to encourage walking could significantly reduce the number of miles Americans drive while giving people more housing choices, a national research panel has concluded.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-09-08-density_N.htm 

 

I love the ironically named "Reason Foundation" director who states that if we only develop walkable, denser communities that would give people few choices for where to live and that they should have the right to choose exurbia. What about what we have now which mandates sprawl in many cases making it illegal for any walkable, mixed-use development? Not much thinking going on at that "think tank".

Supposedly urban Europe is every bit as anti-urban as the U.S. and in many prevented their urban areas from becoming as intensely developed as the U.S. allowed its largest cities to become. England is the home of the garden city movement. Germany has a very conflicted attitude toward cities that shows up in all sorts of things, especially that which flowed from the Nazi-era, but also the Green Party movement there.

 

I think you need to visit Europe. When you return, tell me if you still feel the same way.

 

Columbusite:  If Columbus hadn't expanded outward, it would have been boxed in by its suburbs the way Cleveland and Cincinnati have been.  The sprawl would have happened anyway, because that was what people wanted. 

 

You know, we're all going to die, so why don't we just make murder legal?

 

We all assume that people want sprawl because it happened. But that's assuming we live in a free market, which we don't. If we paid for the full costs of sprawl, I seriously question how many people really want it. Yes, I'd love to have a Porsche with all the trimmings, but I can't afford it. But if the government is going to give me all sorts of tax advantages, subsidies and grants so I can afford it, you bet your ass I would get one.

 

BTW, I'd also like to drink beer everyday, eat anything I want, and smoke cigarettes like a chimney, but I can't afford all the costs of those activities either. We weren't always as responsible or so well informed of the costs of those activities. That awareness is starting to emerge with the costs of sprawl, too.

I have been to Europe, traveled extensively around Germany and Italy and bopped in on London and coastal Croatia.

Walker over at ColumbusUnderground is seeking questions to ask Dan Williamson, a spokesman for mayor Coleman, and Greg Davies, at City Hall this coming Monday about annexation. Ask away!

One of the things Van Jones was making noise about was "environmental racism", i.e. heavy industries being located in heavily minority areas.

 

There was some talk about this during the very beginning of the Clinton Administration, until it was squelched by big city mayors who considered the concept a threat to their employment bases. 

 

Would anti-sprawl advocates rather see an emissions generating plant built in inner city Cleveland, or somewhere in Medina County?

One of the things Van Jones was making noise about was "environmental racism", i.e. heavy industries being located in heavily minority areas.

 

There was some talk about this during the very beginning of the Clinton Administration, until it was squelched by big city mayors who considered the concept a threat to their employment bases.

 

Would anti-sprawl advocates rather see an emissions generating plant built in inner city Cleveland, or somewhere in Medina County?

 

In the modern deindustrializing economy, the direction of cause and effect is reversed. Minorities were hemmed into the neighborhoods that already had degraded environments rather than environmentally degrading industries being placed near minorities.

Tyler Cowen has been looking at various explanations for sprawl recently. He is a libertarian economist so he is generally more sprawl friendly than those of us around here, but for data-monkeys there is some good stuff. http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/

One of the things Van Jones was making noise about was "environmental racism", i.e. heavy industries being located in heavily minority areas.

 

There was some talk about this during the very beginning of the Clinton Administration, until it was squelched by big city mayors who considered the concept a threat to their employment bases. 

 

Would anti-sprawl advocates rather see an emissions generating plant built in inner city Cleveland, or somewhere in Medina County?

 

In the modern deindustrializing economy, the direction of cause and effect is reversed. Minorities were hemmed into the neighborhoods that already had degraded environments rather than environmentally degrading industries being placed near minorities.

 

A plant in Cleveland allows its employees to get there via public transit, while a plant in the exurbs does not. 

 

Industrial sprawl is definitely one of the driving forces for residential sprawl.  CERCLA and crime already promote industrial sprawl, the chance of being targetted by the feds for locating your plant near minorities is only one more potential factor.

An emissions-generating plant cannot be built in the inner city of Cleveland, or anywhere in Cuyahoga County, Geauga County, Lorain County, Summit County or Lake County. All are  non-attainment counties with respect to EPA air quality regulations (Medina MAY be compliant). Thus, if a plant is to locate in one of those counties, it would have to go through an EPA-permitting process that takes a minimum of one year, and the permit would have to show the plant will not worsen air quality. That means also building and operating scrubbers or doing something else to offset the emissions. Manufacturers aren't willing to do any of this, so they have to locate well beyond even the collar counties of Cuyahoga if they really want to be near a large labor pool.

 

My suggestion is to simplify and accelerate the permitting process, and then include tax breaks, federal funding or both to encourage plants to install/operate scrubbers so that the air quality standards are no longer unfunded mandates. I would hope these would be sufficient to encourage more factories to locate where the labor pools are, rather than force the labor to relocate to rural areas where the plants have no choice but to go.

 

On that score, yes, I would rather see an industrial plant put in the city, built and operated as a low-emissions facility and be accessible to as many job-seekers as possible.

A little blurb worth noting.......

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100120/BLOGS03/100129981

 

Wednesday's Quick Hits

 

Blog entry: January 20, 2010, 10:49 am    |    Author: SCOTT SUTTELL

 

• This isn't exactly surprising, but it's extremely troubling. The Wall Street Journal reports that a new Brookings Institution report finds the suburbs are home to America's largest and fastest-growing poor population, and Cleveland is among the hardest-hit areas in the country. The country's largest metro areas “saw their poor population grow by 25% between 2000 and 2008, according to the report, faster than primary cities and well above the poverty growth in small cities and rural areas,” The Journal reports. The Brookings study found that by 2008, “large suburbs were home to 1.5 million more poor than their primary cities and housed almost one-third of the nation's poor overall.”

A little blurb worth noting.......

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100120/BLOGS03/100129981

 

Wednesday's Quick Hits

 

Blog entry: January 20, 2010, 10:49 am     |     Author: SCOTT SUTTELL

 

• This isn't exactly surprising, but it's extremely troubling. The Wall Street Journal reports that a new Brookings Institution report finds the suburbs are home to America's largest and fastest-growing poor population, and Cleveland is among the hardest-hit areas in the country. The country's largest metro areas “saw their poor population grow by 25% between 2000 and 2008, according to the report, faster than primary cities and well above the poverty growth in small cities and rural areas,” The Journal reports. The Brookings study found that by 2008, “large suburbs were home to 1.5 million more poor than their primary cities and housed almost one-third of the nation's poor overall.”

 

From this same link there is a Job Search Difficulty Index of 50 cities.

The rankings are Here

More faux right-wing tripe that conveniently overlooks the massive government intervention which made suburbia affordable.....

 

 

The War Against Suburbia

By Joel Kotkin

Thursday, January 21, 2010

 

Filed under: Public Square, Culture, Government & Politics

 

A year into the Obama administration, America’s dominant geography, suburbia, is now in open revolt against an urban-centric regime.

 

...For the first time in memory, the suburbs are under a conscious and sustained attack from Washington. Little that the adminstration has pushed—from the Wall Street bailouts to the proposed “cap and trade” policies—offers much to predominately middle-income oriented suburbanites and instead appears to have worked to alienate them.

 

And then there are the policies that seem targeted against suburbs. In everything from land use and transportation to “green” energy policy, the Obama administration has been pushing an agenda that seeks to move Americans out of their preferred suburban locales and into the dense, transit-dependent locales they have eschewed for generations.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/january/the-war-against-suburbia

wow.

So. For the first time in decades, policies are not tilted in favor of suburbs, and now that is considered an attack on suburbia? It's really just balancing the scale.

Doesn't this dude realize that people are choosing to move back to the city under their own will?????

He makes a couple of interesting points, but he seems to ignore the history of policies encouraging sprawl and is upset by the potential of policies that are more balanced. It is a very ignorant view. Suburbia isn't being attacked, unfairness in policy is being worked against.

 

Some people will always choose the city if given the option, others will always choose the suburbs, but many people will choose the place close to work, with good schools, good transportation options, a small yard, and low crime regardless of whether it is in the city or suburbs. If policies are in place that encourage people to move to the suburbs and drive more, many people will choose to do that. If the same policies are changed to be more balanced, I would think many people would choose to move to the city.

^ Well put.

A little blurb worth noting.......

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100120/BLOGS03/100129981

 

Wednesday's Quick Hits

 

Blog entry: January 20, 2010, 10:49 am   |   Author: SCOTT SUTTELL

 

• This isn't exactly surprising, but it's extremely troubling. The Wall Street Journal reports that a new Brookings Institution report finds the suburbs are home to America's largest and fastest-growing poor population, and Cleveland is among the hardest-hit areas in the country. The country's largest metro areas “saw their poor population grow by 25% between 2000 and 2008, according to the report, faster than primary cities and well above the poverty growth in small cities and rural areas,” The Journal reports. The Brookings study found that by 2008, “large suburbs were home to 1.5 million more poor than their primary cities and housed almost one-third of the nation's poor overall.”

 

It's hardly surprising, is it?  With the lower density and worse public transit in the 'burbs, it is much harder for the working suburban poor to get to work, recover from a job loss, personal vehicle breakdowns or medical emergency.  In my own experience, you also know and are socially close to far fewer neighbors, meaning less community support as well. 

So. For the first time in decades, policies are not tilted in favor of suburbs, and now that is considered an attack on suburbia? It's really just balancing the scale.

 

That's all a matter of perspective.  If one considered the status quo "balanced" (which is something of a loaded term), one would be more likely to see the shift towards more urban-friendly policies as an attack on suburbia.  If one thought (as I'm sure most regulars on these boards do) that environmental and land use policies were tilted towards suburbia before, then the administrations moves would be more towards "balance."

 

However, after skimming the article, I'm also curious as to which facts--which proposals--the author sees as part of this "War on Suburbia."  He says that the bailouts were anti-suburban (somehow loosely tied to increasing density); I don't see that.  Cap-and-trade, if passed, would largely influence electricity prices, which aren't more expensive in the suburbs than in the cities, particularly relative to cubic footage of houses.  I haven't seen anything that I would call a war on suburbia: national policies favoring urban growth boundaries, rewards for communities who zone for higher densities, expansion of commuter rail transit, or (this would be the strongest evidence) reduced federal funding for superhighway construction.

^

 

Wow, the Trib finally discovered suburban skyscrapers in Chicagoland.

 

I think their graphic must only be showing offices since I know there are a lot of high rise apartments and condos out in suburbia, particularly in those old railroad suburbs, even as far west as Wheaton, way out in DuPage County (which I guess isn’t so far out anymore).  There’s also a lot of offices between the 7 and 12 stories out in the burbs, including one in Oak Park, from the 1950s or 60s (developed by the Mackle Brothers, who developed Marco Island in Florida).

 

One of the first suburban high rises in the Western Suburbs was in Oak Brook, actually integrated right into the Oak Brook shopping mall, opening on to the central court (Oak Brook used to be an outdoor mall).

 

Increasing density via skyscrapers makes a lot of sense for those old railroad suburb downtowns, since they usually are built around Metra stations; commuting by train and walking to work from the station to a suburban high rise is quite do-able.

 

Thought this was interesting:

 

The gist is that they can't sell $400,000 townhomes in Pepper Pike, and FCE wants to rearrange the plans to sell townhomes in the $200,000 to $300,000 range.  But all the Pepper Pike folks are all like "Not in my backyard!"

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100222/SUB1/302229981

 

In the hope that less may prove more after the collapse of the new-home market, Forest City Enterprises Inc. wants the tony enclave of Pepper Pike to authorize a change in plans for the townhouse portion of the plush Sterling Lakes subdivision so that Pulte Homes could build modestly priced units there.

 

Pepper Pike officials want Forest City to stay the course and offer townhouses costing upwards of $400,000. The Cleveland-based megadeveloper instead hopes to clear the way for units in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, low for new construction by the standards of the pricey East Side suburb.

 

.......Forest City clearly confronts a dilemma. While single-family home sites at Sterling Lakes are selling slowly, the townhouse area dubbed “Sterling Pointe” is dead in the water: Eight, in various stages of construction, are available; six have sold in the $400,000 range since 2006.

 

Of course, the WSJ says people are "trapped" in place (meaning they're trapped in cities?)......

 

June 22, 2010, 4:40 PM ET

Suburb Population Growth Slows

By Conor Dougherty

 

Suburban growth lagged from July 2008 to July 2009, another indication of how the recession and housing bust have kept people trapped in place, according to an analysis of Census data by Brookings Institution demographer William Frey. “There has been a widespread slowdown in suburban growth especially since mid decade,” says Mr. Frey.

 

According to Frey’s analysis, between July 2008 and July 2009, 27 of the the 52 biggest metro areas saw their suburbs grow slower than in the year-earlier period, and 33 slowed down from the torrid growth in 2004-2005, when the housing boom was in full swing. The slowdown was especially stark in cities hit hardest by the housing bust, including Phoenix, Las Vegas and Orlando. (See a sortable chart of city growth)

 

In 2008-2009, 13 metro areas — including Chicago, Seattle, Washington DC, Denver and Charlotte — saw their core city area grow faster than the suburbs, up from 6 in 2004-2005.

 

READ MORE - SEE CHART AT:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/06/22/suburb-population-growth-slows/

Eh, it's all in how you spin the data.  That chart though, particularly the fact that it's sortable, was very interesting.  In most places, the suburbs are still growing faster than the cities in percentage growth terms, which translates into even larger numbers in absolute terms for the most part, because the suburbs' base population number is larger than the city's in most metro areas.

 

Suburban growth slowed, yes, so the headline is accurate--but I'm actually surprised to see that it's actually still growing in every major metro area but Detroit.  There have been several headlines about suburbs basically wiped out by the foreclosure crisis--places at the leading edge of the wave when the wave collapsed.

Hmmm. This article shows the delusions of grandeur some suburbanites have regarding their living arrangement.

 

 

Derided no more, suburban life is turning serious

AP

 

By ALAN SCHER ZAGIER, Associated Press Writer Alan Scher Zagier, Associated Press Writer – 45 mins ago

 

SHAWNEE, Kan. – The numbingly similar tract homes, endless strip malls and multiple minivans filled with youth soccer players indelibly mark this former Indian mission territory as a Kansas City suburb.

 

Look deeper, and a more nuanced portrait of Johnson County, Kansas emerges: an economic powerhouse that has eclipsed its big-city neighbor in political influence. An educated community with a vibrant arts scene. And a cultural melting pot where Brazilian grocers and Vietnamese nail salons blend in with the Walmarts and Burger Kings.

 

Suburban America has been the butt of jokes and stereotypes for decades. The portrayal persists in Hollywood, which continues to zing the 'burbs with over-the-top tales of conniving, desperate housewives and wayward soccer moms in bed with Mexican drug lords.

 

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100705/ap_on_re_us/us_studying_the_suburbs

The article is really depressing.. especially the quote at the end.

 

It's very sad that there are people that want to celebrate suburbia as if it is some great way of life.

 

I feel like the writer is a little misinformed though. Hasn't it been a recent trend where our major cities, even some of the declining ones, have been growing, with people from the suburbs moving back in?

yay suburbs.

 

I still believe my theory that doll houses caused the recession, is correct.  Kids are programmed at a young age to want these big, suburban-style houses, and they try to get them no matter the cost (even if they can't really afford it).  Want + greed is dangerous.

yay suburbs.

 

I still believe my theory that doll houses caused the recession, is correct. Kids are programmed at a young age to want these big, suburban-style houses, and they try to get them no matter the cost (even if they can't really afford it). Want + greed is dangerous.

 

Cost per square foot is generally cheaper in the suburbs for residential square footage of comparable quality.  A quarter million buys a lot of house in the suburbs; it doesn't buy as much Lebensraum in the city, and will likely come with the added expense of private school, too.  Of course, urban living offers cost savings in other ways, notably in transportation expenses, but it's often not enough to make up the difference, especially for families with children.  I think you're barking up the wrong tree.  Those who claim that suburbia is subsidized may have a point, but from the perspective of the "kids" wanting "these big, suburban-style houses," that simply means that they're accepting the subsidy because it makes things cheaper for them (or, from a different perspective, they've already paid that subsidy, so they might as well take advantage of it).

 

I constantly operate under the assumption on these boards that those with the most naked hate for the suburbs here (a) graduated from suburban high schools (of at least the inner ring), and (b) have no children.

 

It's easy for me to live an urban lifestyle.  Alone, I have an income above the national median household income--and I'm unmarried and childless, which means I can live with a roommate and split costs.  If I chose to buy, I could rent out spare bedrooms to continue to add to my income and defray the higher "end-user" costs of urban living.  If I had a wife and children, particularly approaching school age, the suburbs would suddenly start to seem like a much more attractive option.

 

Size, safety, and schools.  Until the urban core can deliver them, it's going to continue to hemorrhage families to the suburbs.  No amount of sanctimonious lectures or snide remarks about suburbanites is going to change that.

msa1092 picked out the most depressing thing in the article, but I thought this was another incredibly asinine quote-  "Despite the shrinking populations of cities and their waning influence, urban studies remains a fixture on many college campuses."  As if "urban studies" ends at the edge of the center city!

Gramarye, big houses cost a lot more to "staff and operate".  Way more furniture, way higher utility bills, landscaping, more to insure, etc.  Plus, many suburban homes pay an association fee. If you were already going to send your kids to Catholic schools as is commonly the case in Cincinnati, there is no increased school cost.

 

The fact is the decisions and sensibilities of suburbanites are never challenged.  If they are, half the time they don't even realize they're being challenged.  Meanwhile someone who chooses to live in the city, or merely chooses to bike or walk to work, is looked upon with suspicion. 

 

 

 

I am well aware that sprawl is not a response to market forces and has been government subsidized since day one.  I know of some of the reasons such as zoning laws, the federal highway system, and loans which made buying homes easier, but could someone spell out all the ways, or the main ways in which government has subsidized sprawl from the onset?  I went through thees pages but cannot find  a solid breakdown. 

Gramarye, big houses cost a lot more to "staff and operate". Way more furniture, way higher utility bills, landscaping, more to insure, etc. Plus, many suburban homes pay an association fee. If you were already going to send your kids to Catholic schools as is commonly the case in Cincinnati, there is no increased school cost.

 

Most urban condos have association fees, too, you know.

 

You're right about the school costs for those who pay the premium to live in a good school district and then pay for private school on top of that.  That decision never made sense to me.  I knew a kid who went to St. Charles on the east side of Columbus--who would have gone to Upper Arlington had he gone to public school.  Considering that Upper Arlington is on the northwest side of the city, he had to go a long way to get to school, too.  That decision never made the slightest bit of sense to me.

 

The fact is the decisions and sensibilities of suburbanites are never challenged. If they are, half the time they don't even realize they're being challenged. Meanwhile someone who chooses to live in the city, or merely chooses to bike or walk to work, is looked upon with suspicion.

 

Hah.  On the former point, obviously some suburbanites don't feel that way, or there wouldn't be a "suburban history" museum opening, per the above-quoted article.  I think they feel that their sensibilities *are* being challenged, or at least some of them do.  ("Suburbanites" is also far too broad a brush with which to paint.  That sweeps in a good amount of the country, maybe even the majority.)

 

On the latter point, maybe I somehow live in a bubble, but I haven't detected a single person at the office who has "looked upon me with suspicion" for revealing that I live within walking distance to work--and yes, most of my coworkers are well aware, since I cherish the opportunities to point out my apartment building from my office window when coworkers ask.  I know another attorney at a major law firm in Akron that lives in my building, a doctor, and a fair number of other white collar professionals.  All of us have the means to live in pretty nice suburbs if we wished.  None of us feel pressured to move out there to maintain our professional images.  A junior partner in the office actually recently confessed to me that she would enjoy living in <a href="http://www.northsidelofts.com/">Northside Lofts</a> (it came up in conversation because we were talking about where I'd want to live someday, and I listed that off as the kind of place that I'd like to settle in); she has school age children, however, so she doesn't consider downtown living much of an option right now.  So, far from being "viewed with suspicion," revealing that I lead an urban lifestyle, and intend to continue to do so if at all possible, actually got quite a positive reaction from one of my immediate superiors.  What exactly do you mean when you say "viewed with suspicion," anyway?