Definitely a rural pastime.  Wasn't there a scene of that in Dazed and Confused?

getting off topic, but there's such a  scene in 'Stand by me' which was set in the 1950s, the characters called it mailbox baseball or something where they kept score based on how much damage you did to the box.

That's it!

We had that as a problem in rural upstate NY as well. I told my parents it was the price of moving me to the boondocks, but would they listen? Nooo.

 

When a rash of these would occur, a couple of enlightened neighbors would replace the existing mailbox with one filled with concrete. It wasn't legal, but yee hah!

 

 

 

Concrete in a mailbox?  I don't get it.

 

mailbox no longer gives, and the bat comes back at the wielder. At best ruins the bat and jams up his hands, but could potentiall come back and harm the car, hit the person holding it, etc. Git R Dun!

 

Why stop at concrete, then?  A little nitro glycerin would make for an even funnier YouTube video ...

^ Actually M80's in the mailbox is the other version of the game.

 

 

Yeah, it was one of the plots. I'm trying to think of that other movie where the teens stick out a bat of an old pickup truck and mow down a bunch of 'em at once. Pretty sure it was an '80s movie.

 

Dazed & Confused.  90's movie about the 70's.  Love that movie. 

That was the first movie that 327 brought up. Stand By Me was the one I brought up and skorasaurus identified.

 

 

 

"Benchwarmers:"

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2013/07/sustainability_consortium_seek.html

 

Report presents different regional development scenarios, with business as usual running a huge deficit.  (As a whole, Northeast Ohio is heading in the same direction as Detroit.)

 

The upshot is that by steering away from automobile-oriented development in the suburbs and concentrating investments where infrastructure already exists in cities, the region could save piles of money and be more economically competitive even if it does not add much population at all by 2040.

 

“If there’s a way to leverage the investment in the [existing] infrastructure around the region, the fiscal situation improves pretty dramatically,” said Chris Horne of Sasaki Associates of Watertown, Mass., the consulting firm that led development of the scenarios.

“The region has already invested a massive amount of capital into its systems of infrastructure and there are huge efficiencies to be gained from that,” he said. “But the tragedy is that is precisely the place where the region is hollowing out. It’s like burning at both ends.”

 

Just one of the questions this article raises for me is the following.  Assuming the regional population remains fairly stable (although the trend is a decline in population), just how many miles of roadway can we maintain?  And in follow up, how many miles do we already have?  Parallel questions arise for water lines, sewer lines, communication lines, etc.  We also increase our costs for trash collection, police, and fire services when we spread the same number of people further out.

 

We are going to be receiving a lot less help on road maintenance, along with funding for other local needs, from the state and federal governments in the future, so it's good that someone is looking at these numbers now.

The "nutshell" of the report the article summarizes is this......

 

A variation on the “Trend” explores what might happen if the region continued with its current development policies, but experienced a modestly higher growth in population of .8 percent, or 875,000 people.

 

Under that scenario, the red ink - the regional gap between revenues and expenses - would be negative 6.4 percent. But 48,400 additional acres of land would be consumed by suburban development – or 1.5 times the area of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. And 60,000 acres of agricultural land would be lost.

 

A third scenario, labeled “Do Things Differently,” assumes that the region consumes only 4,100 acres of land through additional suburban development, but builds 2.5 times the amount of new urban housing than under the “Trend” or "Business as Usual" scenario.

 

"Do Things Differently" also assumes that 20 percent more jobs would be located near transit than if current trends are allowed to continue. The result: a 10.4 percent surplus in local government budgets.

 

The surplus of revenues over expenses would grow to 13.8 percent if the region’s population employed pro-urban growth policies and added 875,000 new residents, as assumed in the higher-growth variation on the “Trend” scenario.

Yeah, it was one of the plots. I'm trying to think of that other movie where the teens stick out a bat of an old pickup truck and mow down a bunch of 'em at once. Pretty sure it was an '80s movie.

 

Dazed & Confused.  90's movie about the 70's.  Love that movie. 

 

Pretty much  accurate too, if you were a white kid in the suburbs.

 

One thing I never really thought of:  mail was delivered to the door when I lived in Maple Heights.  It's delivered to the curb in Walton Hills and Northfield Village (even though the latter has a similar layout to MH).

 

This could be the trend, since a mailman can cover a longer distance driving.  Especially with the aging of that workforce, and what happened in Maple Heights.....

 

 

>This could be the trend, since a mailman can cover a longer distance driving.

 

I just read an article about this last week.  The Post Office is refusing door to door delivery in new developments and is battling with developers and states about removing door to door more broadly.

 

 

Yeah, it was one of the plots. I'm trying to think of that other movie where the teens stick out a bat of an old pickup truck and mow down a bunch of 'em at once. Pretty sure it was an '80s movie.

 

Dazed & Confused.  90's movie about the 70's.  Love that movie. 

 

Pretty much  accurate too, if you were a white kid in the suburbs.

 

One thing I never really thought of:  mail was delivered to the door when I lived in Maple Heights.  It's delivered to the curb in Walton Hills and Northfield Village (even though the latter has a similar layout to MH).

 

This could be the trend, since a mailman can cover a longer distance driving.  Especially with the aging of that workforce, and what happened in Maple Heights.....

 

 

 

WAIT?  You have to go to the curb to collect your mail?  How barbaric!

Two stories that are almost inextricably connected.....and yet Ohio's current leaders fail to see that connection between mobility and economic opportunity.

 

Stranded by Sprawl

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 28, 2013

 

Detroit is a symbol of the old economy’s decline. It’s not just the derelict center; the metropolitan area as a whole lost population between 2000 and 2010, the worst performance among major cities. Atlanta, by contrast, epitomizes the rise of the Sun Belt; it gained more than a million people over the same period, roughly matching the performance of Dallas and Houston without the extra boost from oil.

 

Yet in one important respect booming Atlanta looks just like Detroit gone bust: both are places where the American dream seems to be dying, where the children of the poor have great difficulty climbing the economic ladder. In fact, upward social mobility — the extent to which children manage to achieve a higher socioeconomic status than their parents — is even lower in Atlanta than it is in Detroit. And it’s far lower in both cities than it is in, say, Boston or San Francisco, even though these cities have much slower growth than Atlanta.

 

So what’s the matter with Atlanta? A new study suggests that the city may just be too spread out, so that job opportunities are literally out of reach for people stranded in the wrong neighborhoods. Sprawl may be killing Horatio Alger.

 

Read more at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/krugman-stranded-by-sprawl.html?hp&_r=0

 

American Dream Beyond Reach?

 

A nationwide study found that Columbus is among the least-promising places in the nation for low-income children to climb the financial ladder.

 

Read more at:  http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/29/american-dream-beyond-reach.html

Honestly, I think a lot of gated communities and other exclusive subdivisions (as well as some large apartment complexes) have the right idea on this one.  They have all the mailboxes for the complex in one place, usually at the entrance to the development.  This works best when there's actually revenue coming in (from rent or association fees) to have something manned there (clubhouse/office/whatever) that can also be a package delivery spot, too, but even for just regular USPS, it has to save a lot of time.

Two stories that are almost inextricably connected.....and yet Ohio's current leaders fail to see that connection between mobility and economic opportunity.

 

Stranded by Sprawl

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 28, 2013

 

Detroit is a symbol of the old economy’s decline. It’s not just the derelict center; the metropolitan area as a whole lost population between 2000 and 2010, the worst performance among major cities. Atlanta, by contrast, epitomizes the rise of the Sun Belt; it gained more than a million people over the same period, roughly matching the performance of Dallas and Houston without the extra boost from oil.

 

Yet in one important respect booming Atlanta looks just like Detroit gone bust: both are places where the American dream seems to be dying, where the children of the poor have great difficulty climbing the economic ladder. In fact, upward social mobility — the extent to which children manage to achieve a higher socioeconomic status than their parents — is even lower in Atlanta than it is in Detroit. And it’s far lower in both cities than it is in, say, Boston or San Francisco, even though these cities have much slower growth than Atlanta.

 

So what’s the matter with Atlanta? A new study suggests that the city may just be too spread out, so that job opportunities are literally out of reach for people stranded in the wrong neighborhoods. Sprawl may be killing Horatio Alger.

 

Read more at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/krugman-stranded-by-sprawl.html?hp&_r=0

 

American Dream Beyond Reach?

 

A nationwide study found that Columbus is among the least-promising places in the nation for low-income children to climb the financial ladder.

 

Read more at:  http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/29/american-dream-beyond-reach.html

 

I've been saying ATL is "poor" and flooded by those who are poor.  To someone in the sticks or other region of the SouthEast, ATL looks like a good place to move up the social ladder, but it's a cruel joke.  It's also been called the black gay capital of the South, which is somewhat true.  However, most of them are on the lower end of the economic scale.

Honestly, I think a lot of gated communities and other exclusive subdivisions (as well as some large apartment complexes) have the right idea on this one.  They have all the mailboxes for the complex in one place, usually at the entrance to the development.  This works best when there's actually revenue coming in (from rent or association fees) to have something manned there (clubhouse/office/whatever) that can also be a package delivery spot, too, but even for just regular USPS, it has to save a lot of time.

 

This is popular in the south.  I don't want to stop at the "mail center" to get my mail, I want it at my door!

^ It makes sense in a low-density subdivision with a single point of entry.  It doesn't make much sense in a city neighborhood with connected blocks and people walking by the mailbox all the time. 

^ It makes sense in a low-density subdivision with a single point of entry.  It doesn't make much sense in a city neighborhood with connected blocks and people walking by the mailbox all the time. 

 

Well I guess you get what you pay for.

Honestly, I think a lot of gated communities and other exclusive subdivisions (as well as some large apartment complexes) have the right idea on this one.  They have all the mailboxes for the complex in one place, usually at the entrance to the development.  This works best when there's actually revenue coming in (from rent or association fees) to have something manned there (clubhouse/office/whatever) that can also be a package delivery spot, too, but even for just regular USPS, it has to save a lot of time.

 

This is popular in the south.  I don't want to stop at the "mail center" to get my mail, I want it at my door!

 

Then maybe you need to send USPS a nice check to cover that service. 

 

BTW your inbox is full MTS.

The Columbus study includes the whole metro. While I feel the wealthier parts of Columbus proper and the better 'burbs have very good upward mobility, the upward mobility in most of the surrounding counties (besides Delaware),the crappier 'burbs and places like the South Side is positively terrible. I ought to know. Going to college won't fix it either, because people's personal network of those who can actually, really get them a job is all in fields requiring blue-collar skills. People think Columbus is all white collar, but as anyone from these less glamorous areas can tell you it clearly is not.

 

What man from Columbus doesn't know how to drive a forklift? How many of us haven't been told to report to work at the warehouse between the hours of 1-4AM? Who doesn't hear a diesel engine and instinctive think "Crap, time to get back to work"?

We're not the only ones dealing with mail cutbacks. In the Netherlands they don't have post offices any more. The have little kiosks in stores. The mail carriers are college students and housewives working part time. And that's without sprawl!

Honestly, I think a lot of gated communities and other exclusive subdivisions (as well as some large apartment complexes) have the right idea on this one.  They have all the mailboxes for the complex in one place, usually at the entrance to the development.  This works best when there's actually revenue coming in (from rent or association fees) to have something manned there (clubhouse/office/whatever) that can also be a package delivery spot, too, but even for just regular USPS, it has to save a lot of time.

 

This is popular in the south.  I don't want to stop at the "mail center" to get my mail, I want it at my door!

 

Then maybe you need to send USPS a nice check to cover that service. 

 

BTW your inbox is full MTS.

No, that is why I would never live in one of those tacky tract home/townhome suburban subdivision!  No offense to anyone.

Yeah, it was one of the plots. I'm trying to think of that other movie where the teens stick out a bat of an old pickup truck and mow down a bunch of 'em at once. Pretty sure it was an '80s movie.

 

Dazed & Confused.  90's movie about the 70's.  Love that movie. 

 

Pretty much  accurate too, if you were a white kid in the suburbs.

 

One thing I never really thought of:  mail was delivered to the door when I lived in Maple Heights.  It's delivered to the curb in Walton Hills and Northfield Village (even though the latter has a similar layout to MH).

 

This could be the trend, since a mailman can cover a longer distance driving.  Especially with the aging of that workforce, and what happened in Maple Heights.....

 

 

 

WAIT?  You have to go to the curb to collect your mail?  How barbaric!

 

LOL!  I have a dog, it's not a problem.  :)

MTS how is a mail center in a new subdevelopment any different than the wall of mailboxes in a high rise building?  Besides the vertical nature...

^ You can walk to the one in a high rise. 

Probably discussion for another thread, but this may end up being a prime example where downtown's population growth and revival comes at the expense of certain City of Cleveland neighborhoods. In a city with negative population growth, any new development indirectly impacts other existing developments in the city. If you have only have demand for X apartments for people with incomes of Y in the city of Cleveland and you build more apartments for people with incomes of Y without the demand for those apartments in the City of Cleveland increasing, you're going to see problems pop up with excess supply in the outer neighborhoods.

 

Yup, this must be true because it is impossible for people to move in or out of the City of Cleveland.  It's a completely closed system.

 

Of course population is in flux at all times.

 

What I'm trying to convey is that Cleveland and Cuyahoga County in general have a glut of housing. When you add more housing units (don't get me wrong we need more housing downtown) it creates vacancy somewhere else, either directly or indirectly.

 

Example. New college grad takes job in Cleveland 15 years ago. Most popular option was generally Clifton/Edgewater/Gold Coast area. Today much more options exist for housing than before, yet the overall need for housing has dropped. Inevitably more choices exist. If Cuyahoga County loses population and you have a fixed number( or reduced number) of residents who can afford a certain property type ... any time you add more units, equilibrium has to be reached somewhere. Those that once were prime choices 15 years ago have to not raise rents, lower rents, or forego renovations. That then keeps spilling over to the next level of housing units,  and so forth, until a unit can't be rented or sold and becomes vacant somewhere in the region.

 

It's really simple supply and demand. Sure there may be demand for units downtown, but demand in the city/county/region is shrinking. You build more supply in one neighborhood but the bigger picture is even greater supply for lower demand. That equates to more vacant units. The same holds for retail in the region, but on a slightly different rationale.

 

Please feel free to move this response to the appropriate thread.

Based on your theory, what are your feelings if the new tenants are coming from srongsville?

Probably discussion for another thread, but this may end up being a prime example where downtown's population growth and revival comes at the expense of certain City of Cleveland neighborhoods. In a city with negative population growth, any new development indirectly impacts other existing developments in the city. If you have only have demand for X apartments for people with incomes of Y in the city of Cleveland and you build more apartments for people with incomes of Y without the demand for those apartments in the City of Cleveland increasing, you're going to see problems pop up with excess supply in the outer neighborhoods.

 

Yup, this must be true because it is impossible for people to move in or out of the City of Cleveland.  It's a completely closed system.

 

Of course population is in flux at all times.

 

What I'm trying to convey is that Cleveland and Cuyahoga County in general have a glut of housing. When you add more housing units (don't get me wrong we need more housing downtown) it creates vacancy somewhere else, either directly or indirectly.

 

Example. New college grad takes job in Cleveland 15 years ago. Most popular option was generally Clifton/Edgewater/Gold Coast area. Today much more options exist for housing than before, yet the overall need for housing has dropped. Inevitably more choices exist. If Cuyahoga County loses population and you have a fixed number( or reduced number) of residents who can afford a certain property type ... any time you add more units, equilibrium has to be reached somewhere. Those that once were prime choices 15 years ago have to not raise rents, lower rents, or forego renovations. That then keeps spilling over to the next level of housing units,  and so forth, until a unit can't be rented or sold and becomes vacant somewhere in the region.

 

It's really simple supply and demand. Sure there may be demand for units downtown, but demand in the city/county/region is shrinking. You build more supply in one neighborhood but the bigger picture is even greater supply for lower demand. That equates to more vacant units. The same holds for retail in the region, but on a slightly different rationale.

 

Please feel free to move this response to the appropriate thread.

 

This is what I've been saying vis a vis the people who want to build some great "New Urbanist" neighborhood from scratch with tax dollars.  It's not a good investment because even if it succeeds, it will be at the expense of another neighborhood.  If there's demand, best to expand the existing neighborhoods.

 

The vast majority of those in the sprawlburbs live there because they want living space.

The vast majority of those in the sprawlburbs live there because they want living space.[/color]

 

You keep saying this as if it's fact, but how do you explain the townhome, condo, and even SFH developments in some of the sprawlburbs which have tiny lots (and in many cases, smallish living spaces)?

^ Exactly.  Sure SOME people move to sprawling suburbs because they want to live in that kind of place.  However there's also people who move there due to factors that aren't based on the built form, such as proximity to a job, schools, friend or family networks, or any number of other things. 

^ Exactly.  Sure SOME people move to sprawling suburbs because they want to live in that kind of place.  However there's also people who move there due to factors that aren't based on the built form, such as proximity to a job, schools, friend or family networks, or any number of other things. 

 

...safety (perceived or real), desire for socioeconomic homogeneity, feeling of living the "American dream", liking anything shiny and new, stability of property values (perceived or real), keeping up with the Joneses, etc.

Yes.... the 'new build' draw was hugely popular with my generation when we were in our early 20's.  That's fading a bit now, but it never had to do with space.  People just wanted their cheaply built, expensively decorated NEW(er) apartments which only the burbs offered.

To me, "space" isn't even valuable until you get to 30-40 acres. Other than that whether I'm in a 800 sq. ft. apartment or a McMansion on 10 acres it's all the same to me. You still can't make a lot of noise, ride dirt bikes, have a big fire, shoot guns, rev you car loud or anything like that in sprawl either. "Oooh, I've got an extra bedroom, time to fill it with jars, boxes, old Easter baskets and other crap. This is really worth the extra $40,000." That's what people do too.

To me, "space" isn't even valuable until you get to 30-40 acres. Other than that whether I'm in a 800 sq. ft. apartment or a McMansion on 10 acres it's all the same to me. You still can't make a lot of noise, ride dirt bikes, have a big fire, shoot guns, rev you car loud or anything like that in sprawl either. "Oooh, I've got an extra bedroom, time to fill it with jars, boxes, old Easter baskets and other crap. This is really worth the extra $40,000." That's what people do too.

 

As someone that likes sports, I can see where an acre lot would be nice for small kids to be able to play catch, have a basketball hoop, etc.  But in a dense area, that's what the neighborhood park is for.  And most new developments I have seen have so much grading between lots that the usable area doesn't really allow for any of these activities anyway.  Besides, the oversized house plus oversized garage plus oversized driveway plus overdone landscaping takes up a large portion of the 1/4 to 1/3 acre lots.  Many backyards in Ohio City have as much contiguous usable space than many of these new suburban lots.

Nevertheless, a lot of the new-build, low-quality suburban housing is still substantially better than a lot of the >60-year-old housing in worse neighborhoods of Cleveland.  While I understand that if housing supply grows faster than household formation (or net in-migration), there will be homes lost, the fact remains that someone who is conceivably in the market for a $300k home in Westlake is not responsible, even in the most distant credible chain of causality, for the vacating of a property in East Cleveland.  Newly constructed (or completely restored) urban-friendly housing in a dynamic, walkable neighborhood like Tremont at $250k might conceivably compete for the same buyer; the properties on the verge of vacancy do not.

 

Not all urban housing is worth preserving.  There is plenty of housing in Ohio's urban cores that could be flattened and forgotten until it is hopefully replaced, possibly many years from now, by something better.

Based on your theory, what are your feelings if the new tenants are coming from srongsville?

 

That's actually a great example. Lets say a couple from Strongsville move downtown to a brand new unit added to the market. Since on a whole Cuyahoga County loses population, one more vacancy will be created somewhere. It could be that a family from Fairview Park moves in the Strongsville home. Their house is sold to someone from Brooklyn. The house in Brooklyn has tenants move in from an apt in Westpark. That apartment has tenants move from an apt building on Madison in Cleveland. The landlord can't find any tenant to take the Madison apartment, it becomes vacant and eventually the whole building becomes vacant and blighted. This is what is happening in Cleveland everyday. Everytime a new unit is added in Westlake or even Downtown, something goes vacant elsewhere, perhaps 20 iterations down the line.

 

 

Are you suggesting that we just don't build anything new so that people wanting a new place have to move out of Cuyahoga County and accelerate the decline in population (and open up a new vacancy anyway)?

To me, "space" isn't even valuable until you get to 30-40 acres. Other than that whether I'm in a 800 sq. ft. apartment or a McMansion on 10 acres it's all the same to me. You still can't make a lot of noise, ride dirt bikes, have a big fire, shoot guns, rev you car loud or anything like that in sprawl either. "Oooh, I've got an extra bedroom, time to fill it with jars, boxes, old Easter baskets and other crap. This is really worth the extra $40,000." That's what people do too.

 

As someone that likes sports, I can see where an acre lot would be nice for small kids to be able to play catch, have a basketball hoop, etc.  But in a dense area, that's what the neighborhood park is for.  And most new developments I have seen have so much grading between lots that the usable area doesn't really allow for any of these activities anyway.  Besides, the oversized house plus oversized garage plus oversized driveway plus overdone landscaping takes up a large portion of the 1/4 to 1/3 acre lots.  Many backyards in Ohio City have as much contiguous usable space than many of these new suburban lots.

 

Maybe what made me different when we lived in the 'burbs is that while we had a 1 acre lot, my folks had me go to the park or the school to burn off energy. We never had our own basketball hoop, pool or anything like that. We did have one of those home-assembled swing sets that I got too big for by age 7. They weren't going to spend money on that crap when their taxes had already paid for it elsewhere. But when we moved to the farm they had to buy thousands of dollars worth of stuff to keep me entertained because the public fixtures were way too far away. We had no cable, the internet wasn't a thing yet and I hadn't picked up any instruments. I was bored as hell!

This is what I've been saying vis a vis the people who want to build some great "New Urbanist" neighborhood from scratch with tax dollars.  It's not a good investment because even if it succeeds, it will be at the expense of another neighborhood.  If there's demand, best to expand the existing neighborhoods.

 

The vast majority of those in the sprawlburbs live there because they want living space.

 

There you go again, trying to speak for other people. And how is your tax-subsidized sprawl more of a response of the free market than our tax-subsidized new urbanism? Seems like when the subsidies start shifting to a new land use policy, the vanguards of the old policies scream bloody murder using a litany of hollow double-standards.

Get your government out of my government!

Are you suggesting that we just don't build anything new so that people wanting a new place have to move out of Cuyahoga County and accelerate the decline in population (and open up a new vacancy anyway)?

 

Of course not! That's crazy.

 

It hinges on the need for realistic plans for population growth. If we as a region are content with "managing decline" ... ouch in the near future ...

 

But it's a sobering thought. If we keep building new, without population gain, what's going to happen to some neighborhoods considered stable today in 10, 20, 30 years?

 

We will most certainly have to remove vacant units at an accelerating rate. This of course puts burden on infrastructure when neighborhood density is lost. Also, who wants to live on a street where half the homes are now weed lots. Which of course turns into land bank policy.

 

It's complex. The ideal situation is restoring neighborhoods through rehabs of vacant properties. But that's challenging. Perhaps gutting vacant 20 unit apartment buildings and turning them into 10 or 15 unit buildings would work. You reduce supply, preserve architecture, and provide a new product. The same could be said for double to single home conversions.  But obviously this won't work everywhere.

Are you suggesting that we just don't build anything new so that people wanting a new place have to move out of Cuyahoga County and accelerate the decline in population (and open up a new vacancy anyway)?

But it's a sobering thought. If we keep building new, without population gain, what's going to happen to some neighborhoods considered stable today in 10, 20, 30 years?

 

Note that we are predicted to gain population, just not as quickly as the rest of the country, on average.  So we will lose population proportionally but not in absolute terms.  It is absolute population (or, more accurately, household formation) that determines the need for housing.

 

We will most certainly have to remove vacant units at an accelerating rate. This of course puts burden on infrastructure when neighborhood density is lost. Also, who wants to live on a street where half the homes are now weed lots. Which of course turns into land bank policy.

 

That's assuming that we only grow outward.  Aggregate neighborhood density need not be lost even if certain neighborhoods gain it and others lose it.  Likewise if some of the suburbs start to truly collapse due to inward population migration, though rumors of the demise of the suburb I think are still a bit exaggerated.

 

It's complex. The ideal situation is restoring neighborhoods through rehabs of vacant properties. But that's challenging. Perhaps gutting vacant 20 unit apartment buildings and turning them into 10 or 15 unit buildings would work. You reduce supply, preserve architecture, and provide a new product. The same could be said for double to single home conversions.  But obviously this won't work everywhere.

 

It will work in many more areas than you might think.  Victorian Village in Columbus used to be a lot of single family homes, which then became multifamily homes, which then became single family homes again.  Even finding productive public or private uses for vacant lots where derelict properties have been demolished could be done.  They could be joined to adjacent parcels, converted to community gardens, or many other possible uses.  The worst thing we can do is hold onto blighted structures in the hope that some white knight will come in and fix them all someday.

I agree that we have a lot of out-dated, unpreservable stock to vacate and demolish before we even begin to have a conversation about net negatives with new builds...... especially new builds in the city and not some far off pasture in the exurbs

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-end-of-suburbs-means-for-boomers-2013-8

Brunswickians bitching about 303 on Facebook today. Gave me a good chuckle....

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-end-of-suburbs-means-for-boomers-2013-8

 

Hipsturbia!  LOL.  What would the Cleveland equivalent be?  Chagrin Falls?

"Middle-class whites abandon cities for new inner-ring suburbs. Then middle-class blacks abandon cities for inner-ring suburbs. So middle-class whites build and move to outer suburbs. So low-income blacks and others move to inner suburbs. Middle-class blacks move to outer suburbs, and the kids of middle-class whites leave outer suburbs for the central cities." This was the subject of a recent political cartoon. But this overly simplified situation IS manifesting itself in some real-world data........

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/over-50-percent-food-stamp-recipients-live-suburbs/6738/

Note that we are predicted to gain population, just not as quickly as the rest of the country, on average.

 

Ohio is projected to gain 156 people between 2015 and 2025.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf  (Projection made in 1997)

 

Ohio is projected to gain 197,388 between 2000 and 2030

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/state/projectionsagesex.html (Projection made in 2005)

 

Ohio is projected to gain 69,910 between 2015 and 2025

http://development.ohio.gov/files/research/P6001.pdf (Projection made in 2013)

 

All of these projections show increase, but not much.

 

>To me, "space" isn't even valuable until you get to 30-40 acres. Other than that whether I'm in a 800 sq. ft. apartment or a McMansion on 10 acres it's all the same to me. You still can't make a lot of noise, ride dirt bikes, have a big fire, shoot guns, rev you car loud or anything like that in sprawl either. "Oooh, I've got an extra bedroom, time to fill it with jars, boxes, old Easter baskets and other crap. This is really worth the extra $40,000." That's what people do too.

 

My parents have 39 acres out in the middle of nowhere.  The big downside is security -- the hillbillies have broken in twice, meaning they've had to degrade the house with security doors, an alarm system, etc.  Probably the worst design concession was a very high back deck with no staircase to the yard.  And yes, even without a staircase, the back deck door is a security door with like 6 locks on it. 

 

The other big trade-off is that even though you can have a huge vegetable garden and raise chickens and goats, you can't profitably farm such a small area.  And even though you can grow a lot of food on a 100x50ft. vegetable garden, you have to drive 50 miles round trip to run errands.  So you're saving money and fossil fuels by growing a lot of food on your own property, but it's offset by all the other errands. 

 

The other problem with living in the country is that a single ATV, chainsaw, or pickup truck ruins the peace & quiet.  You have to live on a truly enormous piece of property -- upwards of 1,000 acres -- before you can be guaranteed silence. 

 

 

 

 

 

You can hear Harleys riding 3 miles away out there. I live 3 miles from downtown, but I don't hear Harleys that are riding downtown because there are plenty of structures in the way. And there's a million Harleys in any semi-rural area.