"Stealing" is a telling word here.  You can only steal something if it has a rightful owner.  Your analogy sets up the cities as the rightful owners of businesses and residents, which the suburbs are somehow expropriating, apparently using the master thief's tools of free parking, good schools, lower crime rates, and larger houses on larger lots.  That's not the way it works.  Just because the cities might have had them "first" (starting, tautologically, at some point in our past at which the cities did in fact have these things--go back far enough and the vast majority of the population was rural) doesn't mean that they have an eternal right to them.

 

It's a lot easier to accuse the suburbs of "stealing" residents and businesses than it is to concede that the cities have been doing a lot (or neglecting a lot) to drive them out.

 

Perhaps poaching is a better word?

 

No, it's not.

 

The perverse thing about the current system is the cities should be able to offer lower overall costs based on density ie infrastructure costs are divided by a higher number of payers but can't because they are straddled with excess fixed costs and the additional cost of socializing the outward expansion.

 

Density is not some kind of cure-all, and there are increased costs associated with density as well as decreased ones.  Building vertically is not easy, and building in already-crowded areas carries increased construction risks because the potential consequences of an accident are more severe.  Infrastructure costs are also not necessarily as cheap in the city as you think--they still probably do have the advantage on the suburbs, pound for pound and inch for inch, but not by as much as you're probably thinking.

 

The other thing that seems to happen is that "growth" or at least as defined here as new construction is "sexy" but maintenance is not.   ODOT is great at this. They are installing 5 miles of sound barrier walls along I-77 where they are widening it but the sound barrier walls along I-71 between the turnpike and W 150th are literally crumbling and falling down. Which seriously looks like sh!t. I am sure that the stimulus money was the main reason that the I-77 project is being built but the point is that ODOT wants to build new and better that's why that project was put on the table for the funds instead of the replacement project.

 

On this, we agree.  The lack of attention paid to existing infrastructure is disappointing.

Agree to disagree on most points. Just one clarification, my definition of city at this point basically includes any existing city or suburb. Not just the city proper.

 

Jolly good game chap!

 

A big reason infrastructure costs are not necessarily as cheap in the city is because much of the infrastructure in cities also has to support suburbanites, while the opposite is not true.  This isn't the case for all types of infrastructure for sure, but for a lot of it.  Many an inner city road widening project is for the benefit of those living farther out.  A lot of cities widened and added to their surface road networks in the 1930s-1970s on top of whatever interstate highways were being built.  This was done in part to compensate for the removal of streetcar systems and the shift away from public transportation to more driving.  However, as so many cities depopulated since the 1950s (though many didn't really start to fall significantly until the 60s or 70s) any new road projects within those cities after that time are of dubious value to the citizens who live there.  The traffic itself is a burden on residents who live or work adjacent to it, but it's made up of people commuting excessive distances to work and play.

 

Roads aren't the only example though.  Many water mains in cities need to be replaced not just because they're aging, but to serve more far-flung locales.  The major city in many regions were usually built along some sort of strategic body of water, while the suburbs in most cases are not.  It seems logical then that the city would try to extend its water network to serve as many "inland" areas as possible.  However, the price of this expansion is the cost of ever larger pipes in cities where they're already largest and most difficult/expensive to replace.  Also, many water districts resort to increasing water pressure to extend their service area.  This prematurely stresses the older pipes in cities and forces their earlier replacement. 

 

Sewers are in a similar situation, and due to their size they're one of the most expensive bits of infrastructure to install.  You could even argue that the presence of sanitary sewers is a greater inducer of sprawl than the presence of highways.  It's another case where adding new sewer lines to a greenfield development may be paid for by the developer, but the resulting need to add capacity to the treatment plant, or increase the size of interceptor sewers is shouldered by everyone in the district. 

 

Another aspect of this argument that's been somewhat danced around is that of age.  City infrastructure projects are expensive, especially when you have to replace aging systems that also need a capacity upgrade due to suburban development.  Much of the infrastructure in the suburbs is still pretty new, so the maintenance costs are obviously lower.  This skews the perception of those costs.  When it comes time to replace that infrastructure in a suburb that's not "teh new shiny" anymore, the prospect of having to raise taxes to provide maintenance (which remember wasn't needed when it was all new) on systems in an area that's no longer new and cool, will only serve to drive people out to the next new subdivision. 

 

So the cost advantage of density in cities is in many ways corrupted by the need to also provide services to suburban areas, while doing so with older infrastructure.  You can say that it costs more to live in a city than in a suburb because the city neighborhood's free ride of newness and public subsidy is over.  All the infrastructure to support the neighborhood has been put in place in the city, and everyone living there has to pay for it.  Whereas most suburbanites are trying to stay ahead of the wave of true cost, needing to move farther and farther out to do so, and leaving those liabilities for everyone else in their wake. 

Governments figured out long ago since water and sewers were essential, they funded them in ways that never required public votes.  For example, these deep tunnels are never put up to a vote because the population could never be compelled to vote for them with a tax increase.

 

After the federal government charged cities 5% of construction costs to build a network of interstate highways through them, their sucking effect could only be fought with a robust rail transit system.  But everyone (coincidence?) had already scrapped their streetcar systems, and only a few had subways beforehand, and construction of systems equivalent to those in Boston or Philadelphia at best requires the city to pay 20-50% of capital costs (and after Reagan's first term the 80% federal match is basically dead).

 

5% versus 50%, and the cities are no longer required to contribute for highway expansions and reconstruction.  How the hell are cities supposed to compete against suburbs with the deck stacked like that?

Gramarye, of course we all know that there are increased costs associated with density.  I hope that you are not actually trying to deny that cities are the economic engines of our economy, where our best ideas are born.  Simply put, if that were not true, then we wouldn't have cities.  Successful cities are always associated with the most prosperous economies and with growth.  Ohio is not growing, and our cities need help.  Your beloved suburbs will die with us, despite your pleas that you are not poaching or taking something that you do not own.  If things weren't changing, pretty soon you'd have nothing left to poach; then where will your growth come from?  Where will your people come from to fill your houses and free parking lots?  Seriously, you think masses of people are migrating from out of the state to a suburb of Cincinnati or Cleveland? 

 

You may not call it poaching when population and resources flow from Cities to adjacent suburbs, but you should put aside cultural differences and call it a problem.

 

An argument against sprawl isn't necessarily an argument against all suburbs or even the contemporary multi-nodal metropolitan region. Sprawl is when you have a land use that is predominately divided according to single uses w/ nearly all land filled by undifferentiated housing development that 'sprawls' across the landscape. A multi-nodal metropolis w/ a series of small differentiated towns w/ mostly mixed-use development w/ a vibrant urban center city would be better than the crap we have - fwiw, this is actually what most French and German cities (and to a lesser extent Italy and Spain). England is more complicated because it is essentially overpopulated especially around London.

So the cost advantage of density in cities is in many ways corrupted by the need to also provide services to suburban areas, while doing so with older infrastructure. You can say that it costs more to live in a city than in a suburb because the city neighborhood's free ride of newness and public subsidy is over. All the infrastructure to support the neighborhood has been put in place in the city, and everyone living there has to pay for it. Whereas most suburbanites are trying to stay ahead of the wave of true cost, needing to move farther and farther out to do so, and leaving those liabilities for everyone else in their wake.

 

This....you've hit the nail on the head, hard and square.

Gramarye, of course we all know that there are increased costs associated with density. I hope that you are not actually trying to deny that cities are the economic engines of our economy, where our best ideas are born. Simply put, if that were not true, then we wouldn't have cities.

 

I don't know what to say to this.  Yes, there have been good ideas to come from cities, but there have also been good ideas to come from suburbs and rural areas, too.  Ideas come from people, not from places.

 

As to "we wouldn't have cities if they weren't the economic engines of our economy," I think you're putting the cart before the horse.  Businesses are the primary economic engines of our economy.  If they're in the cities, then the cities are the economic engines of our economy.  If they're in the suburbs, then the suburbs are.

 

Your beloved suburbs will die with us, despite your pleas that you are not poaching or taking something that you do not own.

 

"Beloved?"  Now you're being clueless and illiterate in addition to arrogant and condescending.  I live an urban lifestyle and love it, and I've made no secret of that on this thread, other threads, or in real life when talking with my suburbanite coworkers.  I'm just not willing to share in the anti-suburb hate that permeates this site and poisons any attempts to develop more constructive ties between cities on suburbs based on mutual interest rather than on zero-sum resource competition.

 

You may not call it poaching when population and resources flow from Cities to adjacent suburbs, but you should put aside cultural differences and call it a problem.

 

Why?  They haven't left the area.  Those people and businesses are moving to areas where they believe they'll be happier, healthier, and wealthier.  If the city cannot offer that to them, then it cannot fault them for their choice.  And, in case you haven't been following any of the positive news on this site, there have been cases of businesses moving back into urban cores as well.  There *is* a positive case to be made for urban living, which I make at every opportunity.  That said, I stand by what I said earlier: Until the cities can offer size, safety, and schools, they will continue to hemorrhage families to the suburbs, and businesses will (and have already begun to) follow the residents.

When residents or businesses move out of the city to the suburb while there is no net growth, that is a HUGE problem.  More infrastructure needs to be built to support them in the new location, while everything that was already in place at the old location still has to be maintained, but with fewer taxes.  Sprawl without growth is just a way for the construction industry to keep making money, but at the expense of the whole region. 

A big reason infrastructure costs are not necessarily as cheap in the city is because much of the infrastructure in cities also has to support suburbanites, while the opposite is not true. This isn't the case for all types of infrastructure for sure, but for a lot of it. Many an inner city road widening project is for the benefit of those living farther out. A lot of cities widened and added to their surface road networks in the 1930s-1970s on top of whatever interstate highways were being built. This was done in part to compensate for the removal of streetcar systems and the shift away from public transportation to more driving. However, as so many cities depopulated since the 1950s (though many didn't really start to fall significantly until the 60s or 70s) any new road projects within those cities after that time are of dubious value to the citizens who live there. The traffic itself is a burden on residents who live or work adjacent to it, but it's made up of people commuting excessive distances to work and play.

 

More accurately, it's so that people will at least work downtown.

 

The counter-strategy that seems to arise from this paragraph is that you think that the cities should not have widened their streets (and converted some to one-way thoroughfares), thinking that would keep residents in the city.  You're refusing to consider the alternative possibility: refusing to accommodate commuters would simply have driven a lot of businesses out of the urban core, since their workers (and their clients and customers) couldn't get downtown and out again easily.

 

Roads aren't the only example though. Many water mains in cities need to be replaced not just because they're aging, but to serve more far-flung locales. The major city in many regions were usually built along some sort of strategic body of water, while the suburbs in most cases are not. It seems logical then that the city would try to extend its water network to serve as many "inland" areas as possible. However, the price of this expansion is the cost of ever larger pipes in cities where they're already largest and most difficult/expensive to replace. Also, many water districts resort to increasing water pressure to extend their service area. This prematurely stresses the older pipes in cities and forces their earlier replacement.

 

Ohio cities are allowed to charge suburban communities for hooking into urban water and sewer systems.  I'd be receptive to the argument that most cities aren't charging enough for doing so, since I don't really know what the numbers are, but at a conceptual level, there is nothing wrong with this system.  Better a small handful of large water and sewer systems serving an entire region than making everyone build their own.

 

Sewers are in a similar situation, and due to their size they're one of the most expensive bits of infrastructure to install. You could even argue that the presence of sanitary sewers is a greater inducer of sprawl than the presence of highways. It's another case where adding new sewer lines to a greenfield development may be paid for by the developer, but the resulting need to add capacity to the treatment plant, or increase the size of interceptor sewers is shouldered by everyone in the district.

 

"Everyone in the district" meaning both the suburbanites and the urbanites.  No advantage to either side. In fact, the suburbanite will be paying more on this score because the developer will build the cost of the sewer extension into the price of the suburban house; the urban condo developer just has to hook into the already-existing line.

 

So the cost advantage of density in cities is in many ways corrupted by the need to also provide services to suburban areas, while doing so with older infrastructure. You can say that it costs more to live in a city than in a suburb because the city neighborhood's free ride of newness and public subsidy is over. All the infrastructure to support the neighborhood has been put in place in the city, and everyone living there has to pay for it. Whereas most suburbanites are trying to stay ahead of the wave of true cost, needing to move farther and farther out to do so, and leaving those liabilities for everyone else in their wake.

 

Except that you already said that the developers will build the price of the infrastructure improvements they have to pay for into the prices of the homes they're building.  In addition, the big three issues--size, safety, and schools--remain unaddressed.

An argument against sprawl isn't necessarily an argument against all suburbs or even the contemporary multi-nodal metropolitan region. Sprawl is when you have a land use that is predominately divided according to single uses w/ nearly all land filled by undifferentiated housing development that 'sprawls' across the landscape.

 

If that's the case, then many urban neighborhoods also qualify, including some that are very popular among the urbanist crowd.  Victorian Village in Columbus is overwhelmingly residential, for example.  Well, there's architectural variety, so I guess it's not "undifferentiated," but it's undifferentiated as between residential and other housing types.  It's just close enough to the Short North and the commercial areas west of the river that most people don't care overmuch.

Sewers are in a similar situation, and due to their size they're one of the most expensive bits of infrastructure to install.  You could even argue that the presence of sanitary sewers is a greater inducer of sprawl than the presence of highways.  It's another case where adding new sewer lines to a greenfield development may be paid for by the developer, but the resulting need to add capacity to the treatment plant, or increase the size of interceptor sewers is shouldered by everyone in the district.

 

"Everyone in the district" meaning both the suburbanites and the urbanites.  No advantage to either side.  In fact, the suburbanite will be paying more on this score because the developer will build the cost of the sewer extension into the price of the suburban house; the urban condo developer just has to hook into the already-existing line.

 

Um, no.  The the suburbanites and urbanites are both paying for the upgrades, but what is the urbanite getting for it?  Nothing.  The suburbanite gets their new sewers in their new subdivision, while the urbanite gets a higher bill.  That condo developer can just hook into the already existing line because it's already sized for the location it's in. 

 

So the cost advantage of density in cities is in many ways corrupted by the need to also provide services to suburban areas, while doing so with older infrastructure.  You can say that it costs more to live in a city than in a suburb because the city neighborhood's free ride of newness and public subsidy is over.  All the infrastructure to support the neighborhood has been put in place in the city, and everyone living there has to pay for it.  Whereas most suburbanites are trying to stay ahead of the wave of true cost, needing to move farther and farther out to do so, and leaving those liabilities for everyone else in their wake.

 

Except that you already said that the developers will build the price of the infrastructure improvements they have to pay for into the prices of the homes they're building.  In addition, the big three issues--size, safety, and schools--remain unaddressed.

 

Again, no.  The developers only build and pass along the price of the immediate infrastructure within their own development.  The cost to support that infrastructure is what's shouldered by everyone.  The developer and residents of a subdivision pay for the cost of the roads, water lines, sewers, and power lines inside their subdivision, but everyone (whether living in that subdivision or not) pays for the resultant arterial road widening, the new water mains, sewer treatment plants, expanded schools, fire departments, police departments, libraries, city government workers, public works departments, and parks that those residents require. 

When residents or businesses move out of the city to the suburb while there is no net growth, that is a HUGE problem.  More infrastructure needs to be built to support them in the new location, while everything that was already in place at the old location still has to be maintained, but with fewer taxes.  Sprawl without growth is just a way for the construction industry to keep making money, but at the expense of the whole region.

 

No.  It is a way for people to move into neighborhoods where they get better schools, lower taxes, lower crime rates, and more house for their money.  Writing it off to something so cynical as a way for the construction industry to keep making money is shallow and specious.  If the cities actually offered something for everyone--particularly middle-class families, which is the predominant demographic fleeing to the suburbs--the construction industry would simply have evolved differently over the past generation and be more stocked with expertise on urban construction.  The construction industry will simply build where people want to live.

 

The case for urban living must be made on positive lines, not "we think you get too much money from the government, so we're going to take it from you as soon as we seize power."  In the court of public opinion, that comes off as either whiny or condescending, depending on the tone of the speaker.  At the ballot box, urban dwellers, particularly politically active and creative ones, are far outnumbered.  Structurally, the townships wield an incredible amount of power in the state legislature.

 

I will never try to sell my coworkers on the argument that they're simply leeching off of me because I live in the city and they live in the suburbs.  What makes an impression on them is that I'm rolling out of bed when they're getting in their cars, that I have five different pretty decent happy hours that I can walk to after work and then walk home from thereafter, that I walk outside to get a perfect view of the Fourth of July fireworks, and so on.  I smile when they talk about mowing their lawns (though on this point, I think that they like having their lawns, much as they gripe about maintaining them).  I ride my bike out of my parking garage and I'm already on the Towpath Trail.  For the moment, I can also note that I deal with less traffic than they do (but of course, if as many people moved downtown as I'd like, that would change).

 

Bottom line:

 

First, there is no need for a war on suburbia.

 

Second, if you declare such a war, you will lose.

>Writing it off to something so cynical as a way for the construction industry to keep making money is shallow and specious.

 

If you study 1920-1960, there was a blatant and multi-faceted anti-city-pro-suburb propaganda campaign.  There's simply no denying that.  If wasn't on vacation right now I'd scan the stuff from newspaper ads, articles, and pamphlets.   

More infrastructure needs to be built to support them in the new location, while everything that was already in place at the old location still has to be maintained, but with fewer taxes.

 

How can you sit there and say this is not a horrible misallocation of resources?  All for the purpose of getting something new, shiny, and cheap with temporary subsidies and socializing the burden on everyone for your own benefit.  How about trying to fix the problems instead of simply running away from them to the next development on the fringe?

More infrastructure needs to be built to support them in the new location, while everything that was already in place at the old location still has to be maintained, but with fewer taxes.

 

How can you sit there and say this is not a horrible misallocation of resources? All for the purpose of getting something new, shiny, and cheap with temporary subsidies and socializing the burden on everyone for your own benefit. How about trying to fix the problems instead of simply running away from them to the next development on the fringe?

 

New, shiny, and cheap is better than old, decrepit, crime-ridden health hazards.

 

Also, as I've already said, I live in the city.  I think my WalkScore was a 92 or 90.

 

Also, everyone who pays taxes deals with socialized burdens for the benefits of others.  I'd love nothing more than to stop paying for others' Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and unemployment, for the drug war, for some of our military expenditures, agriculture subsidies, and so on, but I'm not given a choice in those matters.  Others would love to stop funding roads and other suburban infrastructure construction.

Gramarye, of course we all know that there are increased costs associated with density.  I hope that you are not actually trying to deny that cities are the economic engines of our economy, where our best ideas are born.  Simply put, if that were not true, then we wouldn't have cities.

 

I don't know what to say to this.  Yes, there have been good ideas to come from cities, but there have also been good ideas to come from suburbs and rural areas, too.  Ideas come from people, not from places.

 

I disagree.  They mostly come from people interacting in useful ways in space.  Interactions in suburbs are designed to be less frequent and have ended up also being less useful.  That is self-evident to anyone who has lived in both.

 

As to "we wouldn't have cities if they weren't the economic engines of our economy," I think you're putting the cart before the horse.  Businesses are the primary economic engines of our economy.  If they're in the cities, then the cities are the economic engines of our economy.  If they're in the suburbs, then the suburbs are.

 

Business *development* is the engine of our economy, and it happens in cities.  Poaching established businesses with established capital and ideas and carting them to the suburbs because it is cheaper and has free parking is not business development.  It is poaching.

 

Your beloved suburbs will die with us, despite your pleas that you are not poaching or taking something that you do not own.

 

"Beloved?"  Now you're being clueless and illiterate in addition to arrogant and condescending.  I live an urban lifestyle and love it, and I've made no secret of that on this thread, other threads, or in real life when talking with my suburbanite coworkers.  I'm just not willing to share in the anti-suburb hate that permeates this site and poisons any attempts to develop more constructive ties between cities on suburbs based on mutual interest rather than on zero-sum resource competition.

 

I don't have to know you or understand anything about your lifestyle to comment the way I did on your clear and persistent defense of the migration of city population to surrounding suburbs.

 

You may not call it poaching when population and resources flow from Cities to adjacent suburbs, but you should put aside cultural differences and call it a problem.

 

Why?  They haven't left the area.  Those people and businesses are moving to areas where they believe they'll be happier, healthier, and wealthier.  If the city cannot offer that to them, then it cannot fault them for their choice.  And, in case you haven't been following any of the positive news on this site, there have been cases of businesses moving back into urban cores as well.  There *is* a positive case to be made for urban living, which I make at every opportunity.  That said, I stand by what I said earlier: Until the cities can offer size, safety, and schools, they will continue to hemorrhage families to the suburbs, and businesses will (and have already begun to) follow the residents.

 

"Why? They haven't left the area." Do you want to retract that one?

 

Look, there are so many problems that underlie the issues with schools and crime etc. that you mention.  But the fact is that many of our cities have been depopulated in the span of three generations.  Do you actually think the cities themselves caused all of this, and must now just "fix their product"? 

 

If you study 1920-1960, there was a blatant and multi-faceted anti-city-pro-suburb propaganda campaign. There's simply no denying that. If wasn't on vacation right now I'd scan the stuff from newspaper ads, articles, and pamphlets.

 

Doing a quick review of the year 1960, I discovered that it was 50 years ago.

 

Crime continued to escalate in America's most visible urban cores for decades after that--I think crime peaked in NYC in 1979, though I'm not 100% sure about that.  Houses in the suburbs continued to increase in size.  The quality of urban public school systems still leaves a great deal to be desired.  In other words, regardless of what happened decades before I was born, the problems that that "propaganda campaign" (of which I admit I know nothing and care less) identified were and are real.  Whining about how people have different values and priorities than you is going to convince no one; all you're going to be doing is preaching to the choir.  Well, OK, you'll be preaching to people like me, too--but lots of us don't like getting preached at.

Gramarye and jjakucyk both make very good points.

 

In my opinion, the biggest problem with ever-further-from-city-center suburbia, and perhaps a place to look for a solution, is exactly the problems highlighted by jjakucyk concerning further burdening on utilities that the new suburbs do not pay for. 

 

Water, sewer, electric lines, etc. -- how can we make new suburban developers pay the full cost of the burdens the new development will impose on the regional utility networks?  If they did have to pay those costs, far-flung developments would be a lot less attractive.

>Doing a quick review of the year 1960, I discovered that it was 50 years ago.

 

Review my post from 50 minutes ago.  You clearly have not studied the bureaucratic process by which pro-suburb versus pro-city infrastructure is built and maintained.  There was a brief period stretching between 1970 and 1982 when 80% federal funds were available not just for rail transit, but for heavy rail subways (all new-start rail systems since, with the exception of the LA subway, have been "light rail").  This is when the Washington Metro, MARTA, and single subway lines in Baltimore and Buffalo were built, along with many improvements to the existing systems such as the Harvard-Alewife extension in Boston and the first phases of the Second Avenue Subway in New York.  Extensions and completions of these projects were killed by the 81-82 Reagan cuts and they haven't returned, despite eight years of Clinton and nearly two of Obama. 

 

This is why Atlanta has spent billions expanding its highway network without requiring a vote of the public for the past 30 years while MARTA has limped along, completing only piecemeal extensions into the suburbs created by the highways. In Cincinnati there has been no vote on any road project whatsoever since 1956 while  votes that would have activated the old subway have failed in 1972, 1979, 1980, and 2002.  Those efforts were killed respectfully by Tom Luken (named by Washington Monthly as one of the worst 10 congressmen), Ken Blackwell (suspected to have rigged the 2004 presidential election), and a pizza deliveryman named Stephen Louis.  The cards are stacked so steeply that Cincinnati was compelled to vote against its self-interest by a dude who claimed to have invented the Jarvits Artificial Heart but was really slinging pizzas. 

 

 

 

 

>Doing a quick review of the year 1960, I discovered that it was 50 years ago.

 

Review my post from 50 minutes ago. You clearly have not studied the bureaucratic process by which pro-suburb versus pro-city infrastructure is built and maintained. There was a brief period stretching between 1970 and 1982 when 80% federal funds were available not just for rail transit, but for heavy rail subways (all new-start rail systems since, with the exception of the LA subway, have been "light rail"). This is when the Washington Metro, MARTA, and single subway lines in Baltimore and Buffalo were built, along with many improvements to the existing systems such as the Harvard-Alewife extension in Boston and the first phases of the Second Avenue Subway in New York. Extensions and completions of these projects were killed by the 81-82 Reagan cuts and they haven't returned, despite eight years of Clinton and nearly two of Obama.  

 

This is why Atlanta has spent billions expanding its highway network without requiring a vote of the public for the past 30 years while MARTA has limped along, completing only piecemeal extensions into the suburbs created by the highways. In Cincinnati there has been no vote on any road project whatsoever since 1956 while votes that would have activated the old subway have failed in 1972, 1979, 1980, and 2002. Those efforts were killed respectfully by Tom Luken (named by Washington Monthly as one of the worst 10 congressmen), Ken Blackwell (suspected to have rigged the 2004 presidential election), and a pizza deliveryman named Stephen Louis. The cards are stacked so steeply that Cincinnati was compelled to vote against its self-interest by a dude who claimed to have invented the Jarvits Artificial Heart but was really slinging pizzas.

 

This is getting far more partisan than I'm comfortable getting: You call them the "Reagan cuts" even though they passed through a Democratic Congress, and you list off Clinton and Obama, the Democratic presidents we've had since then, as though they're naturally supposed to be the friends of public transit while the Republicans are supposed to oppose it (also ignoring the GOP Congress from 1994-2000), then take potshots at Blackwell (who you won't catch me defending) and some other Congressman I've never heard of.

 

I don't suppose it's in your character to ever concede that a pro-urban ballot initiative failed on its own merits, or that road improvements might actually succeed if they were put up to votes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see pro-transit ballot initiative succeed and I was disappointed that the political winds never developed behind the Columbus streetcar project.  Nevertheless, I'm not going to get into a Democrats-good vs. Republicans-bad discussion here.  Neither party is in favor of crime, lousy schools, and small, decrepit houses.  The subsidization angle is a red herring.  Those subsidies are the product of democratic demand, not some kind of corporate-and-conservative brainwashing of the ignorant masses or whatever you're trying to imply it was.  If more people become convinced of the case for urban living, democratic support will follow with it, followed shortly by the very subsidies you so decry now.

 

I don't suppose it's in your character to ever concede that a pro-urban ballot initiative failed on its own merits, or that road improvements might actually succeed if they were put up to votes.

 

Might is a very important word in that sentence.  Highway and road construction doesn't have to live up to that scrutiny.  It never has.  This means not only that it has to survive the vote itself, but also the public discussion and scrutiny preceding that vote.  It's a level of discipline that transit is expected to meet, but outside of a small circle of urbanists like on this board, highway funding is a given.

 

I don't suppose it's in your character to ever concede that a pro-urban ballot initiative failed on its own merits, or that road improvements might actually succeed if they were put up to votes.

 

Might is a very important word in that sentence. Highway and road construction doesn't have to live up to that scrutiny. It never has. This means not only that it has to survive the vote itself, but also the public discussion and scrutiny preceding that vote. It's a level of discipline that transit is expected to meet, but outside of a small circle of urbanists like on this board, highway funding is a given.

 

That didn't answer my question.

 

Do you actually think that many, if any, would fail?

Water, sewer, electric lines, etc. -- how can we make new suburban developers pay the full cost of the burdens the new development will impose on the regional utility networks? If they did have to pay those costs, far-flung developments would be a lot less attractive.

 

Or if they had to help pay for the convention centers, stadiums, museums, libraries, etc. of the nearby large city that they enjoy (this especially applies to suburbs just outside of the core county).  And don't tell me they're "pumping money into the city just by going downtown".  Every resident of the metro area does this when they enjoy a game at the ballpark, it's just that some don't have to help pay for it through taxes.

Whether road projects would fail or not isn't really the issue, but that nobody ever bothers to ask the question.  Road projects are basically given a free pass, while transit projects are put through the wringer and require voter support.  It's just a very uneven playing field. 

>I don't suppose it's in your character to ever concede that a pro-urban ballot initiative failed on its own merits, or that road improvements might actually succeed if they were put up to votes.

 

I've spent years studying this stuff.  By "studying" I mean digging up reports and looking up thousands of news articles and editorials on microfilm as well as leases and state laws in the Hamilton County law library. Federal laws can now be looked up on the internet, which makes that part easy. 

 

In Cincinnati, *many* road project bond issues failed up until 1956.  They used to vote on extremely specific stuff like paving streets between two very specific points (often less than a mile), and "street widenings", which consisted of merely pushing the curb lines back without adding any lanes.  Best-known, Central Parkway bonds failed twice before they won in a special spring election in 1924.  Expressway bonds failed in 1946 before being backed by something called the Cincinnati Southern Railway-Expressway Bond Act in 1949.  Expressway bond issues passed in 1950 and 1956 but bonds for the Blue Ash Airport failed three times, which is how Cincinnati's main airport ended up at the temporary location in Boone County, KY.

 

Whether road projects would fail or not isn't really the issue, but that nobody ever bothers to ask the question. Road projects are basically given a free pass, while transit projects are put through the wringer and require voter support. It's just a very uneven playing field.

 

In other words, the actual results might be exactly what they are today.

 

I'd also note that the 3C project need not be put to a statewide vote outside of the legislature, though those hurdles alone are disappointing enough.

I would generally argue that if it is walkable w/in about hour+ and perhaps accessible via transit to the core in less than 15 minutes, then you aren't in a sprawling situation. Suburban development was constructed in opposition to urban life by opponents of the urban influence on the American character - often the rural and small town politicians who dominated most state capitals.

Gramarye, of course we all know that there are increased costs associated with density.  I hope that you are not actually trying to deny that cities are the economic engines of our economy, where our best ideas are born.  Simply put, if that were not true, then we wouldn't have cities.

 

I don't know what to say to this.  Yes, there have been good ideas to come from cities, but there have also been good ideas to come from suburbs and rural areas, too.  Ideas come from people, not from places.

 

I disagree.  They mostly come from people interacting in useful ways in space.  Interactions in suburbs are designed to be less frequent and have ended up also being less useful.  That is self-evident to anyone who has lived in both.

 

Having lived in both, I don't know how you could say this.  I doubt you would find suburban neighborhoods where most everyone on the block doesn't know each other and have some social relationship.  Meanwhile I know a couple people on my floor, I hang out with my one neighbor, but otherwise I know nothing about anyone in the rest of my building.  In the 10 plus years of apartment living I did, I was never particular interactive with my neighbors.  City life is more transient anyway...people are more rooted in suburbs and take more time to know their neighbors. People are typically closer in smaller towns than they are in large cities.

 

Anyway, cities deteriorated for no other reason than the same reasons why each of you won't live in parts of your city.  If you're really looking to be some noble urban trend setter, get out of your hip urban neighborhood and go live where the people you're chastising won't.  Then I'll listen to this nonsense about how government subsidies, highways, or whatever policy caused inner cities to decline. 

 

The reason cities decline is exactly as Gramarye stated:  decline of safety, decline of schools, and a decline of a standard of living.  So people moved where the criteria that is important to them could be met - the same reason you've chose to live where you live.

The reason cities decline is exactly as Gramarye stated:  decline of safety, decline of schools, and a decline of a standard of living, BECAUSE OF THE government subsidies, highways, and other policies that caused the redlining of city neighborhoods. 

>Then I'll listen to this nonsense about how government subsidies, highways, or whatever policy caused inner cities to decline. 

 

It's facts, brother.  Cities adopted policies of "decentralization of industry", all kinds of terminology.  Cincinnati made it a matter of policy to remove residents from the basin but they weren't able to do it until they got New Deal funds to start bulldozing the West End.  That process continued through the 1960's until the federal money dried up both for the bulldozing and the peripheral public housing developments like English Woods and Fay Apartments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  "Doing a quick review of the year 1960, I discovered that it was 50 years ago."

 

  Most utility infrastructure was in place before 1960 and is still in service.

 

  Besides the physical plant, most of the non-physical infrastructure that is still in effect such as zoning ordinaces, utility policy, subdivision regulations, etc. also dates to this era or earlier.

 

  The present suburbs, including new development, is very much a product of the 1960's or earlier.

The National Housing Act of 1934, the G.I. Bill, and the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act are perfect examples of how government supported sprawling development. 

 

The National Housing Act saw the Federal Government regulating interest rates and availability of home loans.  This directly led to redlining of many city neighborhoods simply because they were older.  Thus, even people who wanted to fix up their homes couldn't get loans for it, nor could people wanting to move in to those neighborhoods get mortgages. 

 

The G.I. Bill provided for zero down payment home loans.  That was only available to home buyers, not renters.  Since many city neighborhoods were being redlined by lenders, they generally built their new single-family house in the suburbs, which the banks deemed the "safest bet."

 

The Interstate Highway act needs little explanation.  Just consider this.  It was touted as a series of defense highways, and Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense at the time was also the president of General Motors. 

 

  "Let's get rid of traffic jams!

 

  VOTE FOR - City-wide Expressways, Street Improvements, Modern Traffic Lights,....

 

    ...And what a bargain! These are but 3 of the 12 important bond issues to be voted. All 12 cost us only $44 million, but we will get $134 million worth of improvements. Why? Because the Federal and State governments will spend an ADDITIONAL $90 MILLION OR MORE on these projects...our money that would otherwise have been spent in other cities...."

 

  -Cincinnati Enquirer, 10-17-1950

The reason cities decline is exactly as Gramarye stated:  decline of safety, decline of schools, and a decline of a standard of living, BECAUSE OF THE government subsidies, highways, and other policies that caused the redlining of city neighborhoods.

 

I consider this a statement of of the obvious, but apparently it needs to be said here: If you really believe that the restoration of the cities depends on the elimination of federal highway funding, then the cities are lost.  You will never get majority support for an urbanist agenda if that's considered an essential part of it.  Highways are popular, they're necessary (much as you might want to deny it), and they're not the enemy you think they are.

 

I strongly urge you to consider making peace with the existence of highways, commuters, and suburbs, and focus on adding transit in addition to the continued maintenance and improvement of the highway network, not in place of it.  If you want to see cooperative regional initiatives on police, fire, 911, sanitation, etc., you're going to have to work with some of these people that it strongly appears that you harbor nothing but contempt for.  Even most people in the cities enjoy having highway access, and in fact, I consider one of the perks of living downtown to be that I have more highway access than most suburbanites--I can get on a 65MPH road going in basically any cardinal direction within five minutes.  Most suburbanites have to weave through rabbit warrens of cul-de-sacs and spiderwebs of 35MPH streets before they get to the one onramp that they use to get out of their burb.

 

I admit that the federal government's track record on housing policy isn't stellar.  That's one thing we can agree on in principle, though I bet we'd differ substantially on some of the particulars (I'd also get rid of the CRA, for example).

 

As for federal subsidies: They find their way into the cities by other routes, too.  Keep in mind that political power flows with population, generally, anyway, and the cities have that.  The cities are just the recipients of federal largesse in other ways than those directly related to new construction and land use--federal money gets funneled through other urban institutions, including municipal governments, universities, banks (particularly recently), etc.

  "I strongly urge you to consider making peace with the existence of highways, commuters, and suburbs..."

 

  Here in Cincinnati there is a plan to enlarge an interchange that will demolish a functioning, urban neighborhood. How do you make peace with that?

 

   

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind that political power flows with population, generally, anyway, and the cities have that.

 

Population is more suburban/exurban these days.  Central cities are not as dominant as they were in the 1940s & 50s, and even perhaps in the 60s

 

  In Hamilton County, the City of Cincinnati has about 300,000 while the remainder of Hamilton County has 700,000. (Round numbers.) Cincinnati is the minority.

 

  Cincinnati no longer has the political power relative to the rest of the county that it once had.

Such a situation, even where there is significant metropolitan fragmentation (i.e. many small incorporated suburbs, like in Hamilton County) is actually a good argument AGAINST consolidated city/counties, like Indianapolis, Louisville, Lexington, and Nashville.  It seems to work well when the incorporated city is already strong in both population and politics, so consolidation is a way to broaden that influence and control growth so that it's beneficial to the whole.  When essentially annexing a bunch of suburban municipalities in a region where they in aggregate are larger and stronger than the city proper, then you have a problem. 

 

Indy and Louisville have already seen some of the problems of consolidation in that suddenly suburban interests make up the majority of the constituency.  That makes it very difficult to implement beneficial urban projects that aren't perceived as good for the whole region, while suburban projects like road widening get the go-ahead with little opposition.  We saw back in 2002 here in Cincinnati that the very ambitious Metro Moves plan was easily shot down by all the voters of the county, even if those in the city may have been in favor of it.  The city by itself has only just barely been able to get the streetcar project going, but imagine if the people of Anderson Township, Kenwood, Madeira, Blue Ash, Delhi, and Springdale also had a real say in the project.

^That's the exact reason why the streetcar failed in Columbus. 

  "I strongly urge you to consider making peace with the existence of highways, commuters, and suburbs..."

 

  Here in Cincinnati there is a plan to enlarge an interchange that will demolish a functioning, urban neighborhood. How do you make peace with that?

 

I wasn't speaking of individual projects that might be uniquely objectionable.  I was speaking about a generalized objection to suburban land use patterns and lifestyles (i.e., primarily automobile-based transportation, single-family homes, etc.) overall.

 

jjakucyk's post illustrates probably why I'm more pro-regionalism than almost anyone else on this board: It doesn't matter to me that suburbanites will have their proportional say in consolidated regional governments (whether general or specific, e.g., specific service authorities).  That's part of the turf.  Posts like jjakucyk cause me to shake my head in disbelief.  It's like regionalism is only good if it sufficiently disenfranchises suburban voters that urban interests will dominate all major decisions, which of course are presumptively "beneficial to the whole."  Not even a moment's consideration was given to the notion that a project that the city was in favor of but the suburbs opposed might not be "beneficial to the whole."  This is exactly why regionalism faces entrenched opposition in the suburbs--they know that most of the people pushing for regional government want to structure it somehow, however they can, to make it so that the cities gain power at the expense of the suburbs.  What are they supposed to think from reading posts like that?  Why exactly is it presumptively bad if "suburban interests make up the majority of the constituency" of whatever consolidated government one proposes?

Because, as has been already pointed out repeatedly by various people, the cards (media, cultural, and federal/state policy and grants) are stacked decisively against traditional cities in favor of new suburbs.  Cincinnati getting the streetcar funding this week is a spectacular argument in favor of *not* consolidating city-county government.  Suburban residents have been brainwashed by the media into being anti-streetcar, those city councilmen seeking county offices have voted anti-streetcar in order to appease county voters, etc.  Cincinnati has suffered over the years from a variety of mayors such as Tom Luken and Ken Blackwell who have carried out anti-city political strategies in order to set themselves up for runs for state and federal offices.  Suburban township trustees, county commissioners, etc. do not do the opposite.  An anti-city brand has won time and time again in Cincinnati over the past 50 years while an anti-suburb brand doesn't win a place in the state legislature or U.S. House of Representatives. 

 

 

 

Because, as has been already pointed out repeatedly by various people, the cards (media, cultural, and federal/state policy and grants) are stacked decisively against traditional cities in favor of new suburbs. Cincinnati getting the streetcar funding this week is a spectacular argument in favor of *not* consolidating city-county government. Suburban residents have been brainwashed by the media into being anti-streetcar, those city councilmen seeking county offices have voted anti-streetcar in order to appease county voters, etc. Cincinnati has suffered over the years from a variety of mayors such as Tom Luken and Ken Blackwell who have carried out anti-city political strategies in order to set themselves up for runs for state and federal offices. Suburban township trustees, county commissioners, etc. do not do the opposite. An anti-city brand has won time and time again in Cincinnati over the past 50 years while an anti-suburb brand doesn't win a place in the state legislature or U.S. House of Representatives.

 

And somehow this is all because of "brainwashing," not considered preference, when people disagree with you, whereas you and the people who agree with you, of course, are completely objective, balanced, and not brainwashed at all.

 

Would you be in a hurry to find areas of cooperation with someone who simply talked about how you were "brainwashed" and how the "cards were stacked in your favor?"  I doubt it.  You'd take the first as a sign of a seriously condescending attitude problem and the second as evidence that trying to work with the other side is a very bad idea because they'll be looking for any opportunity to stick a knife in your back, thinking all the while that you deserved it because you had it so good for so long.

Gramarye, I feel exactly the same way about your posts.  You consistently twist arguments around to make them seem biased and ill-informed by ignoring or misinterpreting key points.  Take the consolidation arguments.  I said that because of the power of suburban interests under a consolidated government, projects that benefit suburban areas get the green light while urban projects are held to the standard of being beneficial to all or else no go.  Your assertion that "not even a moment's consideration was given to the notion that a project that the city was in favor of but the suburbs opposed might not be 'beneficial to the whole'" is irrelevant.  My point is that projects that benefit the city are unlikely to pass under consolidation, because many times they're NOT directly beneficial to the whole region, while suburban projects which ALSO DO NOT BENEFIT THE REGION AS A WHOLE, are passed through with little or no opposition.  The actual (though in reality the problem is usually perceived) benefits of a project are immaterial.  The problem is that urban projects are held not only to a higher standard of scrutiny, but they also have to pass through a system that's already a majority biased against them. 

 

You asked why having a majority suburban constituency is a bad thing in a consolidated government, well there's one example.  I gave examples in my last post too, but you seemed to miss those.  Right now in a fragmented government, the suburbs are generally left alone to do their own thing.  If they want to widen a road, or approve a new shopping center, or try to revitalize their own little downtown, they get the approval of their community and they do it.  Nobody else usually gives a fuss.  On the other hand, when the City of Cincinnati tries to do something to better itself, everyone cries bloody murder.  The opposition to the current streetcar plan comes mostly from outlying suburbs, many not even in the same county.  They flood the newspaper editorials, TV news channels, and other media outlets with opposition, and for no good reason other than to cause a fuss.  It IS a problem though, because they change the perception of the project, even though they really don't have a say.  Still, they influence council members who might be running for county or state offices, and it disproportionately affects the voice of city residents.

 

It has been shown many times over in this thread how the cards ARE decidedly stacked against cities.  I must point out, yet again, that trying to even out those cards is NOT a "war on suburbs" and it's not an all or nothing, or a win-lose proposition.  No, the idea is to reestablish some balance in policy that allows people real choices in where to live and work.  To say that eliminating policies that currently subsidize suburban development and don't do the same for urban development is a "war on suburbs" is as absurd as saying the civil rights movement was a war on whites, or that gay marriage is a war on straights.  Wanting to even out the playing field is not a war, it's an attempt to end discrimination and unfair practices. 

It has been shown many times over in this thread how the cards ARE decidedly stacked against cities.  I must point out, yet again, that trying to even out those cards is NOT a "war on suburbs" and it's not an all or nothing, or a win-lose proposition.  No, the idea is to reestablish some balance in policy that allows people real choices in where to live and work.  To say that eliminating policies that currently subsidize suburban development and don't do the same for urban development is a "war on suburbs" is as absurd as saying the civil rights movement was a war on whites, or that gay marriage is a war on straights.  Wanting to even out the playing field is not a war, it's an attempt to end discrimination and unfair practices.

 

Again, this is begging the question (whether or not the cards are "uneven," and also whether they are perceived to be so by the people from whom you're trying to redirect resources and influence).  However, I think we've both made our points by now.

 

I will continue to advocate and work for an urbanist agenda that works *with* the suburbs, not against them.  The problem is that I seem to have to spend half my time distancing myself from those who *are* fighting a war on the suburbs, while denying the same for whatever reason.

 

Even if you think the suburbs have too much power and need to be brought down to size, wars to recover ill-gotten gains are wars nonetheless.  If the Native Americans or Mexico tried to carve out parts of America on the theory that it was unjustly taken from them, it would still be a war.

 

This victim mentality will get you absolutely nowhere.

 

Also, just as a strategic point: In your own words, your enemy is numerically superior, has the media in the tank for it, has political power disproportionate even to its superior numbers, etc. etc.  Strategically, why go out of your way to antagonize an enemy like that by being so directly confrontational?

I have to agree with Gramarye on this issue. I suspect that what you really want to do, J, is change people's minds. Antagonizing them will not do this. I do not believe we live in a world where conspiracies compel people to be anti-city, it's simply circumstances that do this. And in Cincinnati's case, a lack of good role models. I think most Greater Cincinnatians actually do see themselves as citizens of one community, it just has desirable parts and undesirable ones. And I beleive that most of these people simply disfavor Cincinnati proper because it is undesirable, not because it is urban.

 

I compare the suburb-city relationship to that of a parent and child. The child-suburb thinks it knows best because it has the illusion of endless opportunity. It sees the parent-city's weaknesses as intrinsic faults while taking its strengths for granted. But inevitably the suburb gets older too and eventually its only remaining asset is its lower density. Then the region itself becomes mature when economic growth declines or simply can't keep up with the now-geographically-enormous developing fringe. I think this is the come-to-Jesus moment for a region, when you have no more Masons but lots of Fairfaxes and Mount Healthys. If this circumstance comes to pass along with a revitalized urban core, you might actually have aging suburbs look at the urban core for guidance and inspiration instead of disdain.

I'm not trying to antagonize, nor am I advocating try to "recover ill-gotten gains" by somehow asking suburbs to pay reparations to their parent city.  What's done is done, and we have to deal with the built environment that we have.  However, that doesn't mean we need to keep subsidizing new development, building more roads, expanding sewers, and the like. 

 

The recent housing bubble collapse has shown that exurban areas and those in highly car-dependent locales are some of the hardest hit by falling values.  With gasoline prices on the rise again, and since those areas are the least able to be served by alternate modes of transit, they're going to be even tougher sells in the future.  Since the suburban building machine is mostly idle right now, it's a good time to implement new policies that aren't so one-sided in favor of the suburbs.  The suburbs we have are already here, and they're not going away anytime soon, but now is the time to retrench and try to improve what we already have.  We can accommodate so many more people in the amount of space our metro areas take up, and we really can't afford to keep pressing outwards.

 

This brings me to a related question, which I'm not really sure I have an answer for.  Namely, assuming transportation technology, fuel prices, mortgages, government incentives, etc., all remain relatively constant, is there still some limit to how big (in distance) a metro area can grow?  The pattern of excessive sprawl has been going on for 60-70 years now, but would it continue linearly to the same extent for the next 60-70 years?  Something tells me it wouldn't, just because no matter how many "edge city" job centers may develop around the periphery, there's still usually a need by a decent number of people to be within a certain distance of the downtown core.  There does seem to be a relationship between the overall land area occupied versus the size of the central city (i.e. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all sprawl out a lot more than Indianapolis, Buffalo, Memphis, or St. Louis), but even that doesn't seem to be a linear relationship.  Those bigger cities tend to have more dense suburbs, and while they do reach farther out, they don't do so by the same amount as their population would suggest.  I think at some point it just gets to be too far away, and eventually the development just can't continue, or perhaps the density ends up petering out until it just becomes semi-rural and there's no real delineation.  It's something to ponder anyway. 

I'm not trying to antagonize, nor am I advocating try to "recover ill-gotten gains" by somehow asking suburbs to pay reparations to their parent city.  What's done is done, and we have to deal with the built environment that we have.  However, that doesn't mean we need to keep subsidizing new development, building more roads, expanding sewers, and the like.

 

I know you weren't asking for the suburbs to "pay reparations," but you do appear to be trying to have the suburbs get a smaller slice of the pie when it comes to transportation and development dollars, even in absolute terms, not to mention relative terms.

 

The recent housing bubble collapse has shown that exurban areas and those in highly car-dependent locales are some of the hardest hit by falling values.  With gasoline prices on the rise again, and since those areas are the least able to be served by alternate modes of transit, they're going to be even tougher sells in the future.  Since the suburban building machine is mostly idle right now, it's a good time to implement new policies that aren't so one-sided in favor of the suburbs.  The suburbs we have are already here, and they're not going away anytime soon, but now is the time to retrench and try to improve what we already have.  We can accommodate so many more people in the amount of space our metro areas take up, and we really can't afford to keep pressing outwards.

 

At the very least, I would suggest that the word "retrench" is somewhat tone-deaf if you really are trying to convince a suburban audience.  "Improve upon what we already have" is fine, though--we would certainly agree with that in principle, though of course "what we already have" is quite a lot, so our priorities under that umbrella might differ.  That is nevertheless something that I would be willing to stand up and say in a suburban town hall as a non-confrontational counterargument to a proposal to keep building farther and farther away from the urban center.

 

Also, note that you've changed the terms of the debate here: You're stating that because of high gas prices and locked-in development patterns, that the suburbs will become less popular in the future, i.e., that opinion will shift towards the cities again vis-a-vis the status quo.  On this, we completely agree, and I certainly try to do my part to move that needle.  I was at a wedding today and spent at least a few minutes that evening talking up the positives of living where I do, and talking up a couple of open houses at luxury downtown condos (still out of my price range, sadly) that I mentioned I might want to live in someday, given the location, amenities, etc.  This changes the focus of the debate from changing policy over the objections of suburbanites to changing the opinions of suburbanites themselves, i.e., so that any later policy changes are consensual, not a product of institutional maneuvering.  Likewise, it involves respecting the opinions of suburbanites enough to let them make their attempt to make their own way if, after considering the urbanist argument, they reject it.  If gas goes to $5/gal., I can always encourage them to revisit the argument later.  In the meantime, I refuse to engage in this "level playing field" preaching and thereby come off as a prick to my coworkers from Solon, Brecksville, Twinsburg, Fairlawn, etc. just because they happen to live in neighborhoods that would bore me to torpor in weeks.  If times change and they start shaking their heads at the increased costs of suburban living that no government policy can shield them from, e.g., increased gas prices, more vulnerable utility systems, general ennui, etc., I will have the credibility to renew the case for an active, cosmopolitan lifestyle with them later.  The people who talked down to them today won't.

 

This brings me to a related question, which I'm not really sure I have an answer for.  Namely, assuming transportation technology, fuel prices, mortgages, government incentives, etc., all remain relatively constant, is there still some limit to how big (in distance) a metro area can grow?  The pattern of excessive sprawl has been going on for 60-70 years now, but would it continue linearly to the same extent for the next 60-70 years?  Something tells me it wouldn't, just because no matter how many "edge city" job centers may develop around the periphery, there's still usually a need by a decent number of people to be within a certain distance of the downtown core.  There does seem to be a relationship between the overall land area occupied versus the size of the central city (i.e. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all sprawl out a lot more than Indianapolis, Buffalo, Memphis, or St. Louis), but even that doesn't seem to be a linear relationship.  Those bigger cities tend to have more dense suburbs, and while they do reach farther out, they don't do so by the same amount as their population would suggest.  I think at some point it just gets to be too far away, and eventually the development just can't continue, or perhaps the density ends up petering out until it just becomes semi-rural and there's no real delineation.  It's something to ponder anyway.

 

I guess it depends on where you draw the line of what exactly *is* a suburb of Chicago or New York.  There are outlying areas of Chicago that are ritzy, low-density enclaves with seven-figure houses basically as far as the eye can see.  Also, for example, when I lived in Charlottesville, Virginia for law school, there were actually people who commuted to Washington, D.C. three days a week for work, which I consider an unfathomably long time (how many hours of one's life can one stand to waste in a car?).  That said, I still wouldn't call it a suburb or even an exurb of D.C. just because a handful of people there make the commute.

 

Assuming all of those things remain constant, I think there is a limit to how big any metro area can grow, which will vary based on the levels that that technology, fuel prices, mortgage rates, and government funding levels are assumed to be.  That said, that assumption only works for the sake of argument.  In real life, particularly on the technological front, things are never constant.  America was once overwhelmingly rural, after all.  It's gone through many phases since then.

 

    Automobiles and highways get most of the attention in this debate, but again I will bring up sewer and water utilities as a very strong factor in metro area development. Basicly, for even suburban-level density, a developer needs sewer and water. Beyond the range of sewer and water are hobby farms, 5-acre residential lots, and then the real remaining agricultural property. Thus, the limit of sprawl I think is sewer and water.

 

  Of all of the utiliites - electric, cable tv, sewer, water, natural gas - the most expensive are sewer and water.

 

    Here's the part where the city/ suburb conflict comes into play. Most sewer and water districts charge by the volume of water used, in cubic feet. This isn't necessarily proportional to the cost of service. It costs more to deliver a cubic foot of water 25 miles than it does to deliver it 2 miles. Furthermore, it costs more to serve a 100 foot wide lot than it does to serve a 25 foot wide lot.

 

    Some sewer and water districts charge the suburbs a little higher rate, but it's still not high enough to pay for service. The city really is subsidizing the suburbs in the case of sewer and water, in most districts.

 

   

 

   

It is worth noting that many areas tried large-scale suburbanization w/out sewer expansion (and even some w/out water expansion), but the environment simply couldn't handle it and folks are still have to spend lots of money to bring those developments onto the grid. Cbus has a number of in-city developments that aren't on the sewer system (septic instead).