And my old roommate's "reverse" commute from Blue Ash to Corryville wasn't really any better than a "standard" one when a bad storm hit Cincinnati in 2007. You cannot escape the fact that there is a lot of distance separating people from their workplaces. Suddenly physical distance once again wields the power it holds over the concept of time and people are reminded that it really is 12 miles away rather than "20 minutes".

And my old roommate's "reverse" commute from Blue Ash to Corryville wasn't really any better than a "standard" one when a bad storm hit Cincinnati in 2007. You cannot escape the fact that there is a lot of distance separating people from their workplaces. Suddenly physical distance once again wields the power it holds over the concept of time and people are reminded that it really is 12 miles away rather than "20 minutes".

 

Quite true.  Though there's also a reminder there that industrial sprawl very much supports residential sprawl.

 

IMO, we do a pretty good job of being proactive about expected weather events here.

Here's another problem sprawl is causing.  These issues aren't going to disappear.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/north-ridgeville/index.ssf/2014/03/avon_thinks_water_problems_in.html#comments

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

 

"People are hanging tough in urban areas," he says. "Some of them are going to stay there for the long term."

 

Yes we are...

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

 

"People are hanging tough in urban areas," he says. "Some of them are going to stay there for the long term."

 

Yes we are...

 

None of this is really new.  People said this during the 80s or early 90s as well.  Some even did, but those who did are typically the ones who did not have kids.

 

 

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

 

"People are hanging tough in urban areas," he says. "Some of them are going to stay there for the long term."

 

Yes we are...

 

None of this is really new.  People said this during the 80s or early 90s as well.  Some even did, but those who did are typically the ones who did not have kids.

 

 

 

So there were 12k people living in downtown Cleveland in the 80's and 90's with a waiting list for most apartment buildings?

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

 

"People are hanging tough in urban areas," he says. "Some of them are going to stay there for the long term."

 

Yes we are...

 

None of this is really new.  People said this during the 80s or early 90s as well.  Some even did, but those who did are typically the ones who did not have kids.

 

 

 

So there were 12k people living in downtown Cleveland in the 80's and 90's with a waiting list for most apartment buildings?

 

As the article said, people are delaying marriage and kids longer.  I'm not saying there's not more, but the trend remains the same:  younger people will move down there but aren't planning on raising kids there. 

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

 

"People are hanging tough in urban areas," he says. "Some of them are going to stay there for the long term."

 

Yes we are...

 

None of this is really new.  People said this during the 80s or early 90s as well.  Some even did, but those who did are typically the ones who did not have kids.

 

 

 

Plus there are a lot of new families moving into our neighborhood.  This past wknd I met a young couple (with a daughter) that moved to Gordon Square from Strongsville.  If you don't live/visit here than it's hard for you to see the change that's happening.  It's really a great thing.   

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

 

"People are hanging tough in urban areas," he says. "Some of them are going to stay there for the long term."

 

Yes we are...

 

None of this is really new.  People said this during the 80s or early 90s as well.  Some even did, but those who did are typically the ones who did not have kids.

 

 

 

So there were 12k people living in downtown Cleveland in the 80's and 90's with a waiting list for most apartment buildings?

 

As the article said, people are delaying marriage and kids longer.  I'm not saying there's not more, but the trend remains the same:  younger people will move down there but aren't planning on raising kids there. 

 

Why do you keep insisting that you know more about what people want than the people themselves, many of whom are even right here commenting? 

^Exactly, he just doesn't want to believe it. In a previous discussion he even went as far as calling me an activist for having a daughter and wanting to stay in Cleveland.  Get over yourself, old timer.

Discussion and different opinions are fine, but stop arguing.

What's happening with growth in Cleveland, and other metropolitan areas inner cities, is great.  No one can deny that.  However, what occurred throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's can not be ignored.  We need to stop blaming the folks who moved out during that time frame, and look at what leaders did wrong to encourage it.  We need to trust that out current leaders today are making the right decisions to allow the folks that desire inner city living, and an urban environment the opportunity to embark on taht, and raise their families there.  It's never going to be for everyone.  That's evident in any metropolitan area.  Heck, look at Chicago and NYC's sprawl.  But at some proportional degree, Cleveland will continue to offer growth for those who desire urbanity, and the sprawl will subside to manageable levels.  I trust that the same mistakes will not be made again. 

However, what occurred throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's can not be ignored.  We need to stop blaming the folks who moved out during that time frame, and look at what leaders did wrong to encourage it.

 

Subsidies for sprawl and little investment in cities by leaders

There has unquestionably been a shift towards urban living caused by the millenials and Gen Y'ers.  Part of it is younger people understanding better that density, cities, and urban areas are not the enemies of the green movement.  My generation believed 'green living' was accomplished through garden style apartments with lots of 'greenery.'

What's different this time is the Millennials and Gen Xers are having kids and STAYING in the city. They're banding together and forming groups and getting involved in schools and working to improve the schools. Columbus has at least two such groups -- Clintonville Go Public and South Side Stay -- aimed at improving the public schools where they want to send their kids. Chicago has Common Sense: Coalition of LSCs for Fair Funding, founded by a 30-something woman from a Cleveland suburb who's lived in Chicago for 10 years or so and is raising her kids in the city.

"@MRC_SLC: See ya, suburbs: More want to live in the big city http://t.co/PXkTksetsr via @USATODAY @leighgallagher"

 

"The trend also is driven by increasing numbers of young people delaying or foregoing marriage and childbirth, which often prompt moves to the suburbs."

 

 

 

"People are hanging tough in urban areas," he says. "Some of them are going to stay there for the long term."

 

Yes we are...

 

None of this is really new.  People said this during the 80s or early 90s as well.  Some even did, but those who did are typically the ones who did not have kids.

 

 

 

So there were 12k people living in downtown Cleveland in the 80's and 90's with a waiting list for most apartment buildings?

 

As the article said, people are delaying marriage and kids longer.  I'm not saying there's not more, but the trend remains the same:  younger people will move down there but aren't planning on raising kids there. 

 

Why do you keep insisting that you know more about what people want than the people themselves, many of whom are even right here commenting? 

 

What I'm saying is I've seen this before,  This is nothing new.  I considered it myself WBITD, if I got a job that was based downtown.  Which wasn't likely in manufacturing, but still....

 

When you look at the aggregate numbers, younger people have always moved into downtown areas, but head out to the "sprawl" once they have kids.  Even the original article references this. 

 

I'm not sure why it's so politically incorrect to point this out, but then again I don't consider "activist" to be a bad name...

^That general pattern has always been the case.  There have always been young people who want to live in downtown areas and there have always been some not-so-young people who have chosen to stay in downtown areas despite having kids.  The point you are missing is that there is a noticeable trend, albeit hardly changing the overall pattern, which has caused more people to want to live in denser, more walkable areas.  No twisting of the facts can refute that.  It's arithmetic.

The "I've seen this all before" mantra is what gets us into projection vs. reality situations like this:

 

http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/01/22/traffic-forecast-v-reality/

 

Thinking that "oh this is just a temporary blip" or "the patterns aren't >really< changing" or "they'll just do what everyone else has done" ignores the statistical factual results we actually see on the ground. 

 

 

 

When you look at the aggregate numbers, younger people have always moved into downtown areas, but head out to the "sprawl" once they have kids.  Even the original article references this. 

[/color]

 

Always? You mean since 1955 in the United States of America almost exclusively. I love how people seem to pretend that Earth didn't exist before the point that they're trying to make.

The "I've seen this all before" mantra is what gets us into projection vs. reality situations like this:

 

http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/01/22/traffic-forecast-v-reality/

 

Thinking that "oh this is just a temporary blip" or "the patterns aren't >really< changing" or "they'll just do what everyone else has done" ignores the statistical factual results we actually see on the ground. 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ALqhgVK9M

The numbers do show largely that by the time people hit 30, the population of that age group drops significantly downtown until about age 50 when things pick up a little . You also see the number of kids drop as age increases. The numbers do show that people generally are comfortable living downtown with a child up to age 5. After 5 though the number drops significantly as well. This is most likely nearly 100% to do with schools. Parks, youth activities, etc, also probably play a part but I would guess schools are the biggest factor.

It's not that the schools are that bad, it's that the other kids are. I know of some suburbs with poor, unmotivated kids in them and they are worse than some city schools. I'll put up the schools in Clintonville and NW Columbus up against ALL of the southern, eastern and western suburbs of Columbus no problem. The wealthier Columbus schools would crush all except Bexley. The professors' kids in town will wipe the floor clean with all the droputs' kids down in rusty Pintoland. And those far-off exurban school districts always have some trailer parks or crummy apartment complexes bursting with outgoing, distracting poor kids too.

 

Fact is in Ohio, if your school district isn't 100% rich kids, your kids will get bothered by the poor kids constantly. They're more outgoing than your kid. They will want to come over to your house every day. They will try to date your daughter. And moving to Grove City won't fix it.

 

Perhaps growing up around so much poorly maintained sprawl full of low-income individuals with rusty cars up on blocks has kept me from tying income to development patterns. If you grow up in an area where all sprawl looks good and most of the city looks bad than perhaps that affects your perception. I've seen poor sprawl, rich city, poor city, rich sprawl, poor rural, rich rural. We have it all right here in Columbus. And many square miles of each too.

It is far more comforting to have elementary school students going to school in your neighborhood with your neighbors' kids.  I have no idea where the nearest elementary school is relative to downtown Cleveland.

 

It's not just the schools themselves either, but also the after-school activities -- parks, playgrounds, sports teams, gymnastics/dance/karate studios, kid-friendly restaurants for birthday parties, etc. 

It is far more comforting to have elementary school students going to school in your neighborhood with your neighbors' kids.  I have no idea where the nearest elementary school is relative to downtown Cleveland.

 

It's not just the schools themselves either, but also the after-school activities -- parks, playgrounds, sports teams, gymnastics/dance/karate studios, kid-friendly restaurants for birthday parties, etc. 

 

Which is why I always say that "busing" did more damage to Cleveland and other US cities than any imaginable policy other than perhaps CERCLA.

 

When you look at the aggregate numbers, younger people have always moved into downtown areas, but head out to the "sprawl" once they have kids.  Even the original article references this. 

[/color]

 

Always? You mean since 1955 in the United States of America almost exclusively. I love how people seem to pretend that Earth didn't exist before the point that they're trying to make.

 

Okay, during the historically relevant time period in this nation.

 

We've been over the multitude of factors that kicked "sprawl" into gear after World War II.  A big one was the war workers who brought their families up to the suburbs after World War II. 

 

People with options almost always choose to raise their kids where they have some private space and control over their surroundings.  If you can change that, more power to ya....but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

It is far more comforting to have elementary school students going to school in your neighborhood with your neighbors' kids.  I have no idea where the nearest elementary school is relative to downtown Cleveland.

 

It's not just the schools themselves either, but also the after-school activities -- parks, playgrounds, sports teams, gymnastics/dance/karate studios, kid-friendly restaurants for birthday parties, etc. 

 

That's easy to say in this area, but actually, in other parts of the country, that's less common.  The wealthy Washington D.C./Northern Virginia suburbs region has a patchwork of magnet and other schools that pull over a much larger region than any one neighborhood, and they're pretty popular.  (It's prevalent enough that I sometimes wonder how many extra vehicle-miles are added to the burden of the roads there every month by people going to magnet/charter/private schools rather than their neighborhood schools ... it often seemed silly to me when I was there because many of those families were passing up excellent suburban school districts to go to the more distant ones.)

It is far more comforting to have elementary school students going to school in your neighborhood with your neighbors' kids.  I have no idea where the nearest elementary school is relative to downtown Cleveland.

 

It's not just the schools themselves either, but also the after-school activities -- parks, playgrounds, sports teams, gymnastics/dance/karate studios, kid-friendly restaurants for birthday parties, etc. 

 

That's easy to say in this area, but actually, in other parts of the country, that's less common.  The wealthy Washington D.C./Northern Virginia suburbs region has a patchwork of magnet and other schools that pull over a much larger region than any one neighborhood, and they're pretty popular.  (It's prevalent enough that I sometimes wonder how many extra vehicle-miles are added to the burden of the roads there every month by people going to magnet/charter/private schools rather than their neighborhood schools ... it often seemed silly to me when I was there because many of those families were passing up excellent suburban school districts to go to the more distant ones.)

DC’s not a neighborhood kind of place because so many people are from somewhere else.  That’s what my aunt, who lived there for decades, used to say.  She also explained their horrible traffic as everyone bringing their local driving habits to one crowded place.

 

Cleveland, on the other hand, was a very neighborhood oriented kind of place.  Keyword:  was.  Some of it may be coming back, in spots.

 

While DC neighborhoods like Adams Morgan, Capitol Hill, and Foggy Bottom don't have as many long-time residents, a lot of neighborhoods don't have high turnover rates. I'm thinking of Georgetown (minus students), Mount Pleasant, Petworth, 16th Street Heights, and most of the neighborhoods across the Anacostia River and west of Glover-Archbold Park.

 

When you look at the aggregate numbers, younger people have always moved into downtown areas, but head out to the "sprawl" once they have kids.  Even the original article references this. 

[/color]

 

Always? You mean since 1955 in the United States of America almost exclusively. I love how people seem to pretend that Earth didn't exist before the point that they're trying to make.

 

Okay, during the historically relevant time period in this nation.

 

 

So that's the only time in our continent's history that is important? I disagree.

Well, the time between 1861-1865 was definitely important, for example, but it doesn't have as much relevance for this particular topic.

The lack of sprawl in the thousands of years of humankind before massive American government subsidies for sprawl starting in the 1950s proves something if you ask me.

Depending on your definition, you could call the entire country "sprawl" before the Industrial Revolution.  Something like 90% of the population was rural.

 

At the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the largest city in the country; it had a population of something like 40,000.  Sprawltastic Dublin, Ohio clocks in at 43,000 today.

The lack of sprawl in the thousands of years of humankind before massive American government subsidies for sprawl starting in the 1950s proves something if you ask me.

I would argue that the automobile is the cause.  Even though cars saw their rise in the 20s, sprawl didn't really happen until the 50s because it was delayed by the Great Depression of the 30s and WWII of the 40s.  All the thousands of years before required people to live within walking distance of most institutions (the market, the well, etc.) and in close proximity for protection.  Prior to the car being affordable it was mostly the rich who lived outside the city on their large estates away from the hustle and bustle. 

Depending on your definition, you could call the entire country "sprawl" before the Industrial Revolution.  Something like 90% of the population was rural.

 

At the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the largest city in the country; it had a population of something like 40,000.  Sprawltastic Dublin, Ohio clocks in at 43,000 today.

 

Rural development patterns aren't sprawl.

The lack of sprawl in the thousands of years of humankind before massive American government subsidies for sprawl starting in the 1950s proves something if you ask me.

I would argue that the automobile is the cause.  Even though cars saw their rise in the 20s, sprawl didn't really happen until the 50s because it was delayed by the Great Depression of the 30s and WWII of the 40s.  All the thousands of years before required people to live within walking distance of most institutions (the market, the well, etc.) and in close proximity for protection.  Prior to the car being affordable it was mostly the rich who lived outside the city on their large estates away from the hustle and bustle.

 

You can go far back enough to say the invention of the wheel invented sprawl. The densest areas are those that are very old and built for the pedestrian. Not a lot of those exist in the United States. Anything that allowed for people to live further apart contributed, and not just transportation technology. Horse carriages, streetcars, rail, and the automobile all contributed greatly.

 

In fact, people lived sprawled out for millions of years before cities formed.

Depending on your definition, you could call the entire country "sprawl" before the Industrial Revolution.  Something like 90% of the population was rural.

 

At the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the largest city in the country; it had a population of something like 40,000.  Sprawltastic Dublin, Ohio clocks in at 43,000 today.

 

Rural development patterns aren't sprawl.

 

In that case, then Strive2Thrive has the right of it: You can't draw any inferences from the lack of autocentric development before the development of the automobile.

Bumping this as it addresses the trigger points of sprawl we are discussing now.

 

I found this looking for something else.  I sometimes write my longer rants offline. The file date indicates I wrote it in April, so it vanished:

 

 

If there ever was a “perfect storm” in American culture, it’s the emergence of suburbia,  Some of the things going on included:

 

-The declining need for manpower in agriculture and the emerging need in urban industry.

 

-The departure of many urban men for the military during World War II, as industry was booming to supply them.  Rural men flocked to the cities, usually without their families, to work in factories.  (One was my paternal grandfather).

 

-The frustrations of those rural men heading home for visits on the roads of the era.

 

-The fact that many immigrants from Europe came from rural backgrounds themselves (among them, my maternal grandfather).

 

-The unsuitability of draft animal drawn transport in dense cities as it was realized that horse exhaust was unhealthier than motor exhaust. 

 

-The mechanization of the American armed forces (a conscious decision that probably did more than anything else to win the war) and the accompanying familiarity with driving, riding, and fixing vehicles.

 

-The exposure to the German “autobahn” system, built by a command economy to tighten its control of a fractious nation.

 

-The threat of atomic attack.

 

-The hours that factory workers put in during the war, with little to spend the money on.

 

-The fact that after the war, the GIs came home and the formerly rural war workers showed no great inclination to go back home.

 

-The fact that the former were sick of close quarters in barracks and ships, and had no desire to replace it  with parents’ or in-laws’ basements.

 

-The fact that the rural war workers missed certain aspects of rural life, but certainly not all of them.  They wanted to stay in the urban areas, and wanted their families back with them…but not in tenements.

 

-Innovations in construction developed for and during the war, and their applicability to roads and houses.

 

-America’s continuing role as the manufactory for a war ravaged world, keeping the demand for labor high. 

 

-The unionization of the American work force keeping wages high and hours low.

 

There were other factors, but all of these meant that the only way to stop the growth of suburbia would have been with massive government intervention to prevent it.  There was nothing like the consensus that would have been needed to make that happen.  If anything, the consensus was in the opposite direction and the foes of suburban development would have been de-elected rather expeditiously.

The lack of sprawl in the thousands of years of humankind before massive American government subsidies for sprawl starting in the 1950s proves something if you ask me.

I would argue that the automobile is the cause.  Even though cars saw their rise in the 20s, sprawl didn't really happen until the 50s because it was delayed by the Great Depression of the 30s and WWII of the 40s.  All the thousands of years before required people to live within walking distance of most institutions (the market, the well, etc.) and in close proximity for protection.  Prior to the car being affordable it was mostly the rich who lived outside the city on their large estates away from the hustle and bustle. 

 

The automobile had to be enables by government subsidies resulting from the "Good Roads" movement and the creation of the first property taxes for auto infrastructure in cities and for the additional sewers, water lines and streets necessary for low-density development.

 

The rest of the world also has the automobile and some countries did indeed reshape their cities around the automobile. But most began to curtail that type of activity after the 1960s and restored their city centers for pedestrian centered activity. The difference in those countries is that driving doesn't receive nearly the subsidies that it does here.

 

One country that is still very auto-centric is Iraq.

^Those are valid points.  I have a friend from Germany and one reason you don't see much sprawl is the fact that the government owns all the land between cities and villages.  People can't just move "to the country".  Just building one new house in a small village takes a lot of time and government approvals.  When visiting it is in stark contrast to our country.  If you were to drive between Medina and Rittman there are houses and farms along the way, but in Germany there is nothing inbetween villages.  You might drive a few miles and see nothing but rolling hills, fields and forests.  I'm not saying its good or bad, just in contrast to what we are used to with land ownership. I can't speak on other countries, but I would venture to guess more countries in Europe are like Germany. And we all know Germans love their automobiles,  but they are not afraid of public transportation either!

The lack of sprawl in the thousands of years of humankind before massive American government subsidies for sprawl starting in the 1950s proves something if you ask me.

I would argue that the automobile is the cause.  Even though cars saw their rise in the 20s, sprawl didn't really happen until the 50s because it was delayed by the Great Depression of the 30s and WWII of the 40s.  All the thousands of years before required people to live within walking distance of most institutions (the market, the well, etc.) and in close proximity for protection.  Prior to the car being affordable it was mostly the rich who lived outside the city on their large estates away from the hustle and bustle. 

 

People don't realize that the FHA subsidized the loans that developers used to build the first big subdivisions after WWII.  Prior to that, something resembling a subdivision wasn't possible without investors more or less fronting the cash.  One example is Mariemont outside Cincinnati, which was primary financed by the Emery family around 1920.  The federal government took over the risk of financing these big projects from the banks.

 

 

That's easy to say in this area, but actually, in other parts of the country, that's less common.  The wealthy Washington D.C./Northern Virginia suburbs region has a patchwork of magnet and other schools that pull over a much larger region than any one neighborhood, and they're pretty popular.  (It's prevalent enough that I sometimes wonder how many extra vehicle-miles are added to the burden of the roads there every month by people going to magnet/charter/private schools rather than their neighborhood schools ... it often seemed silly to me when I was there because many of those families were passing up excellent suburban school districts to go to the more distant ones.)

 

Intrepid Middle-Class Parents Embark On Daring Search For Mythical Perfect School District

 

RICHMOND, VA—Sources confirmed that a harrowing journey commenced today at first light, when middle-class parents of two Ken and Deborah Linden courageously set off to find the perfect school district, a mythical realm of top-ranked, well-rounded education that many say only exists in legend.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/intrepid-middleclass-parents-embark-on-daring-sear,35568/

The lack of sprawl in the thousands of years of humankind before massive American government subsidies for sprawl starting in the 1950s proves something if you ask me.

I would argue that the automobile is the cause.  Even though cars saw their rise in the 20s, sprawl didn't really happen until the 50s because it was delayed by the Great Depression of the 30s and WWII of the 40s.  All the thousands of years before required people to live within walking distance of most institutions (the market, the well, etc.) and in close proximity for protection.  Prior to the car being affordable it was mostly the rich who lived outside the city on their large estates away from the hustle and bustle. 

 

People don't realize that the FHA subsidized the loans that developers used to build the first big subdivisions after WWII.  Prior to that, something resembling a subdivision wasn't possible without investors more or less fronting the cash.  One example is Mariemont outside Cincinnati, which was primary financed by the Emery family around 1920.  The federal government took over the risk of financing these big projects from the banks.

 

 

This was the era of big government getting involved in things like this, and there were also reasons for wanting to see this construction happen.  The demobilizing veterans, many of whom learned construction skills during the war, needed jobs and there was a housing shortage. 

People don't realize that the FHA subsidized the loans that developers used to build the first big subdivisions after WWII.  Prior to that, something resembling a subdivision wasn't possible without investors more or less fronting the cash.  One example is Mariemont outside Cincinnati, which was primary financed by the Emery family around 1920.  The federal government took over the risk of financing these big projects from the banks.

 

So what you're saying, is that big government which began the FHA in 1934, is responsible for suburban sprawl?  Thanks for the info, I didn't know that! 

People don't realize that the FHA subsidized the loans that developers used to build the first big subdivisions after WWII.  Prior to that, something resembling a subdivision wasn't possible without investors more or less fronting the cash.  One example is Mariemont outside Cincinnati, which was primary financed by the Emery family around 1920.  The federal government took over the risk of financing these big projects from the banks.

 

So what you're saying, is that big government which began the FHA in 1934, is responsible for suburban sprawl?  Thanks for the info, I didn't know that! 

 

Of course it had a lot to do with it.  It likely would have happened anyway, but the feds accelerated the process to meet perceived needs.  Those included boosting employment, increasing accessibility around the nation, preventing discontent among returning veterans, and atomic survivability. 

 

“Sprawl” wasn’t even an unintended consequence of these policies, it was semi-intended.  Later federal policies also boosted sprawl on a more unintentional basis.  Both by directly promoting sprawl, and harming central cities.

An interesting commentary on American re-urbanization:

 

America’s Urban Future

By VISHAAN CHAKRABARTIAPRIL 16, 2014

 

FOR all of the attention showered on hipster enclaves like Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Portland, Ore., America is only in the beginning stages of a historic urban reordering. After over a half-century of depopulation, cities have been filling up — and not just with young millennials, but with families and even older workers and retirees.

 

This reordering, should it continue, will have dramatic consequences for our politics and society — but only if the federal government undertakes its own historic reordering and shifts its priorities away from promoting the suburbs.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/opinion/americas-urban-future.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

Good article.

 

This stat shocked me:

 

"A staggering 90 percent of our gross domestic product and 86 percent of our jobs are generated in 3 percent of the continental United States, namely our cities."

 

 

^ It shocks most people.  The misunderstanding of what areas are most productive is why many of our economic and governmental policies are so screwed up. 

I'm sure that figure includes small cities and rural county seats, but the point is still valid. And, of course, those same small cities in rural areas get short shrift from the same national policies.