You're right.  This should not be an issue solely for destitute municipalities.  We can't Cleveland-ize all the poverty while shielding the wealth in little pocket boroughs.  That's why it makes more sense to just merge the whole county in one move. 

 

What benefit would the "pockets" get from this?  Keep in mind that we are not a socialist nation and the people in these areas, in particular, are not socialists.

 

Would they resist?  Would they be successful?

 

Mergers may seem to make sense from the standpoint of planners and some government officials, but the people actually involved may have much different priorities.

 

This isn't Sim City.

I would disagree as to what kind of country this is, but that's not even the issue here.  I mean, it isn't a medieval nation either. 

 

It makes no economic sense-- for anyone-- to encourage municipal collapse or to have explosive messes blossoming right down the road from wherever you are.  Reality doesn't change just because Gates Mills fancies itself isolated from the greater metro.  The benefits of metropolitan county mergers are easily observable nationwide, as are the perils of resisting them.  This isn't a matter of political ideology.  This has reached a point of sense vs. lack of sense.

I would disagree as to what kind of country this is, but that's not even the issue here.  I mean, it isn't a medieval nation either. 

 

It makes no economic sense-- for anyone-- to encourage municipal collapse or to have explosive messes blossoming right down the road from wherever you are.  Reality doesn't change just because Gates Mills fancies itself isolated from the greater metro.  The benefits of metropolitan county mergers are easily observable nationwide, as are the perils of resisting them.  This isn't a matter of political ideology.  This has reached a point of sense vs. lack of sense.

 

There's a difference between "isolated from" and "distinct from".  Those communities that have carried out policies that have led to success have neither the incentive nor desire t melt back into a common pool.  The fable of The Little Red comes to mind.

 

Solon has done well, Bedford less well, Maple Heights still less.  They started out very similar.  This is due to policies.

You're kidding.  Look at a map.  One is a first ring suburb, the second a second ring, and the third is a new suburb with developable land.  Do you not notice the pattern here?  Build at the next exit, abandon what's old?  It's just Solon's turn to grow.  A monkey could be mayor, and it will do fine till all that shiny new infrastructure, housing stock and commercial gets old.

You're kidding.  Look at a map.  One is a first ring suburb, the second a second ring, and the third is a new suburb with developable land.  Do you not notice the pattern here?  Build at the next exit, abandon what's old?  It's just Solon's turn to grow.  A monkey could be mayor, and it will do fine till all that shiny new infrastructure, housing stock and commercial gets old.

 

Bedford actually began developing before Maple Heights did, indeed Maple split off from Bedford township.

 

It could also be that Solon has had a pro business reputation, Bedford's middling, and Maple Heights has traditionally been anti-business.

 

 

On top of the obvious tax consequences, there is nothing "pro-business" about having 50+ different regulatory regimes in one county.  Instead of one permit department a business can visit at its own convenience, we have itinerant officers who only show up Tuesdays at 11.  Drop everything and get someone down there!  Wait... do we have a license?  No, not that one, the other one.  It takes a whole stack of licenses (each for the exact same thing) to operate in Cuyahoga County. 

Aside from the obvious tax consequences, there is nothing "pro-business" about having 50+ different regulatory regimes in one county.  Instead of one permit department a business can visit at its own convenience, we have itinerant officers who only show up Tuesdays at 11.  Drop everything and get someone down there!  Wait... do we have a license?  No, not that one, the other one.  It takes a whole stack of licenses (each for the exact same thing) to operate in Cuyahoga County. 

 

That suggests the possible benefits of some consolidation, but not full merger.

 

There's some of the former going on out in the 'burbs.  For example, Walton Hills shares a fire department with Oakwood, Sagamore Hills with Northfield Center.  The Center doesn't have its own police force it uses the county sherrif.

 

As for full mergers, Hudson and Hudson Township merged in 1994 with mixed results.  A vote to merge Twinsburg and Twinsburg Township failed both places in 2000.

Drops in the bucket.  I'm talking about offering businesses a single regulatory entity covering a million+ people.  Just think of all those double income taxes we won't have to pay anymore.  Summit County is welcome to join too!  Let's make it two million.  We can start drawing major employers from the coasts... as soon as we prove we can work together with people who live a couple miles away.

On top of the obvious tax consequences, there is nothing "pro-business" about having 50+ different regulatory regimes in one county.  Instead of one permit department a business can visit at its own convenience, we have itinerant officers who only show up Tuesdays at 11.  Drop everything and get someone down there!  Wait... do we have a license?  No, not that one, the other one.  It takes a whole stack of licenses (each for the exact same thing) to operate in Cuyahoga County. 

 

The former mayor of Madison, Wisconsin, now president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, made this exact point at a recent Akron Roundtable, and highlighted what he had done to streamline that process at least within the city limits.  But that was also part of the problem: It was just an issue of many jurisdictions, it was an issue of sometimes having too many different redundant and/or overlapping permitting requirements even within a single city.

 

The potential for regulatory streamlining is more attractive than the potential for direct fiscal savings, for the reasons we discussed a few pages ago.  But you will never get support for that while the residents of the outer communities think that we will get a uniform set of regulations, and it will be uniformly Cleveland's sclerotic bureaucracy with its big-government city council.  Drew Carey's libertarian clashes with Cleveland's city council back in 2010 come to mind.  You would either have to preserve some self-rule for the integrated neighborhoods (which, of course, partly dilutes the reason for merger in the first place), make an integrated county charter that puts a thumb on the scale against higher taxes and more regulation (e.g., supermajority or concurrent majority requirements), have a ward system that guarantees considerable representation from the former younger burbs in the new county council, or some combination of the above.

On top of the obvious tax consequences, there is nothing "pro-business" about having 50+ different regulatory regimes in one county.  Instead of one permit department a business can visit at its own convenience, we have itinerant officers who only show up Tuesdays at 11.  Drop everything and get someone down there!  Wait... do we have a license?  No, not that one, the other one.  It takes a whole stack of licenses (each for the exact same thing) to operate in Cuyahoga County. 

 

The former mayor of Madison, Wisconsin, now president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, made this exact point at a recent Akron Roundtable, and highlighted what he had done to streamline that process at least within the city limits.  But that was also part of the problem: It was just an issue of many jurisdictions, it was an issue of sometimes having too many different redundant and/or overlapping permitting requirements even within a single city.

 

The potential for regulatory streamlining is more attractive than the potential for direct fiscal savings, for the reasons we discussed a few pages ago.  But you will never get support for that while the residents of the outer communities think that we will get a uniform set of regulations, and it will be uniformly Cleveland's sclerotic bureaucracy with its big-government city council.  Drew Carey's libertarian clashes with Cleveland's city council back in 2010 come to mind.  You would either have to preserve some self-rule for the integrated neighborhoods (which, of course, partly dilutes the reason for merger in the first place), make an integrated county charter that puts a thumb on the scale against higher taxes and more regulation (e.g., supermajority or concurrent majority requirements), have a ward system that guarantees considerable representation from the former younger burbs in the new county council, or some combination of the above.

 

My understanding is the rules within Cleveland have changed to give the wards a lot more autonomy.  Which makes sense, and argues against the "benefits" of full consolidation.

 

"But you will never get support for that while the residents of the outer communities think that we will get a uniform set of regulations, and it will be uniformly Cleveland's sclerotic bureaucracy with its big-government city council."

 

Yes, people will believe that's the reason for proposing any merger, and to a large degree they will be right.

Bedford actually began developing before Maple Heights did, indeed Maple split off from Bedford township.

 

It could also be that Solon has had a pro business reputation, Bedford's middling, and Maple Heights has traditionally been anti-business.

 

 

 

This is an argument that is easy to make but very hard to prove. It's at least as likely the the varying level of success for each of these suburbs is largely due to the nature of the businesses that at various times allowed them to thrive (heavy industry which is dying nationwide versus white collar) and/or the geographic nature of the suburbs themselves and when they were they developed. In other words, Solon vs. Maple is apples to oranges, and the success or failure of each goes beyond simple local decision-making. But when it comes time for Maple to make decisions that do affect its future, it certainly doesn't help that it's supposed to be "competing" with neighbors like Solon that have inherent advantages that Maple could never hope to duplicate.

Bedford actually began developing before Maple Heights did, indeed Maple split off from Bedford township.

 

It could also be that Solon has had a pro business reputation, Bedford's middling, and Maple Heights has traditionally been anti-business.

 

 

 

This is an argument that is easy to make but very hard to prove. It's at least as likely the the varying level of success for each of these suburbs is largely due to the nature of the businesses that at various times allowed them to thrive (heavy industry which is dying nationwide versus white collar) and/or the geographic nature of the suburbs themselves and when they were they developed. In other words, Solon vs. Maple is apples to oranges, and the success or failure of each goes beyond simple local decision-making. But when it comes time for Maple to make decisions that do affect its future, it certainly doesn't help that it's supposed to be "competing" with neighbors like Solon that have inherent advantages that Maple could never hope to duplicate.

 

Solon has/had heavy industry.  I would venture to guess the manufacturing profile of the towns was similar.

 

It's more than just inherent advantages, but willingness to take advantage.  Maple has really strong rail and freeway access.  The city government actually fought the intermodal terminal and passed laws restricting warehousing.

The story of every American no-growth metro area that's still sprawling outward and dragging open a wider doughnut hole of poverty and desperation....

 

How to Decimate a City

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/syracuse-slums/416892/

^I wonder if that 500  million dollar bond for an interstate was ever paid for. That's an amazing high number for 1954. Since the Cincinnati subway was about 30 million.

The story of every American no-growth metro area that's still sprawling outward and dragging open a wider doughnut hole of poverty and desperation....

 

How to Decimate a City

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/syracuse-slums/416892/

 

Yeah, Syracuse is a disaster. Even compared to its competition like Rochester, Buffalo, and Toledo, it's pretty dismal and the downtown is really weak. I don't think it has the same potential as its Great Lakes counterparts do. It is a very depressing place. Syracuse has the same extreme poverty as Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc., but doesn't seem to have as much hope. :| People constantly sing the praises of Buffalo and Cleveland, and big money is starting to pour in. Even Toledo has a lot of fans in Southeast Michigan, and it's getting substantial Detroit spillover investment. Who is investing in Syracuse?

 

The article rightly pointed out the devastation created by that freeway through Syracuse's downtown. In terms of urban planning, it's pretty bad and is a case study of things done wrong in America.

 

Still, when looking at historic urban architecture, there is a lot more than expected (probably 10 times the stock of a young boomtown like Austin). Keep in mind Syracuse only lost 35% of its population. That's nothing compared to Cleveland or Detroit. Syracuse should have potential, but its location is doing it no favors. It has none of the benefits of a Great Lake, but it still has the same brutal winters. It's a tough sell, and I think the university is all that's really keeping it alive. :|

 

I don't understand how a visually lackluster place like Austin can boom so much when another major university town with much prettier geography, better urbanity, and a better location is suffering so much. I feel really bad for Syracuse.

Syracuse has the advantage of being the safest city from natural disasters in the US:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/media/top-10-safest-us-cities-from-natural-disasters/11/

^What about the blizzards haha?

^What about the blizzards haha?

 

I have a friend that lives there who once lost her car for three weeks after parking at the airport for a short trip and having it buried under 48" of lake effect snow. 

Can't wait to see this gem of a story about Avon...  :whip:

 

Buyers snatch up real estate in NE Ohio 'Boomtown'

 

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/30580224/buyers-snatch-up-real-estate-in-ne-ohio-boomtown

I don't understand how a visually lackluster place like Austin can boom so much when another major university town with much prettier geography, better urbanity, and a better location is suffering so much. I feel really bad for Syracuse.

 

People seem much more willing to put up with brutal summers than with brutal winters. I'd much rather take the latter than having to deal with six months of awful humidity.

Half the time winter pusses out anyway south of I-70. Though I do get jealous in the last half of August when NEO is already cooling off as we still scorch in Columbus.

^ Or even the Hamilton/Butler County line.  There's many times in winter when Oxford or Hamilton are much colder than Cincinnati.  The boundary between climate zones 4 and 5 used for energy code calculations and such is on that line too. So Hamilton and Clermont Counties, and the others along the Ohio River, are included with all of Kentucky, Virginia, and most of Tennessee, while the rest of Ohio is zoned like most of Pennsylvania, southern lower Michigan, northern Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

I don't understand how a visually lackluster place like Austin can boom so much when another major university town with much prettier geography, better urbanity, and a better location is suffering so much. I feel really bad for Syracuse.

 

People seem much more willing to put up with brutal summers than with brutal winters. I'd much rather take the latter than having to deal with six months of awful humidity.

 

This is true, but Texas is truly miserable in the summer. I hate cold weather as much as the next person (I have cold-induced asthma which makes it even worse), but I'm a coastal Californian, so I'm used to mild year-round weather. I wouldn't want to live in Texas (or Florida) heat. There is a cost to that heat too. I bet air conditioning bills are sky high in states like Texas and Florida. I hate air conditioning.

 

Austin is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and outside its party-oriented downtown and university district, it is pretty terrible (though sadly that car-dependent sprawl is typical of many American cities). It's an ugly place compared to the lush Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forests of upstate New York. New York is honestly one of the prettiest states in America, and the fact its Rust Belt cities upstate are suffering so much is really disheartening. They deserve to be in better shape, and the architecture present in cities like Syracuse is excellent. The university is excellent too, so it really throws a wrench in the whole "eds and meds" model...

 

The freeway cutting in half downtown Syracuse sucks big time, but there are plenty of boomtowns with similar infrastructure issues. :| Most of our migration patterns don't make any sense in this country...

^ Or even the Hamilton/Butler County line.  There's many times in winter when Oxford or Hamilton are much colder than Cincinnati. 

 

They get the cold blast that Cincinnati doesn't. Those hills you see on the western portion of 275 shield Cincinnati from getting whatever the wind feels like blowing in.

I don't understand how a visually lackluster place like Austin can boom so much when another major university town with much prettier geography, better urbanity, and a better location is suffering so much. I feel really bad for Syracuse.

 

People seem much more willing to put up with brutal summers than with brutal winters. I'd much rather take the latter than having to deal with six months of awful humidity.

 

This is true, but Texas is truly miserable in the summer. I hate cold weather as much as the next person (I have cold-induced asthma which makes it even worse), but I'm a coastal Californian, so I'm used to mild year-round weather. I wouldn't want to live in Texas (or Florida) heat. There is a cost to that heat too. I bet air conditioning bills are sky high in states like Texas and Florida. I hate air conditioning.

 

Austin is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and outside its party-oriented downtown and university district, it is pretty terrible (though sadly that car-dependent sprawl is typical of many American cities). It's an ugly place compared to the lush Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forests of upstate New York. New York is honestly one of the prettiest states in America, and the fact its Rust Belt cities upstate are suffering so much is really disheartening. They deserve to be in better shape, and the architecture present in cities like Syracuse is excellent. The university is excellent too, so it really throws a wrench in the whole "eds and meds" model...

 

The freeway cutting in half downtown Syracuse sucks big time, but there are plenty of boomtowns with similar infrastructure issues. :| Most of our migration patterns don't make any sense in this country...

 

They don't from a planner's perspective because they are not the result of collective, but aggregate individual decisions.  Texas heat is consistent, and therefore it's easier to adapt. 

 

In the case of Austin, it's sort of a "best of both worlds":  culturally tolerant while benefiting from the conservative policies of the state as a whole.  It's Texas's "liberal reservation" and most of the balance of the state is somewhat indulgent.  In part, that's because it doesn't have enough direct clout to challenge the status quo.

Yeah, Syracuse is a disaster. Even compared to its competition like Rochester, Buffalo, and Toledo, it's pretty dismal and the downtown is really weak. I don't think it has the same potential as its Great Lakes counterparts do. It is a very depressing place. Syracuse has the same extreme poverty as Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc., but doesn't seem to have as much hope. :| People constantly sing the praises of Buffalo and Cleveland, and big money is starting to pour in. Even Toledo has a lot of fans in Southeast Michigan, and it's getting substantial Detroit spillover investment. Who is investing in Syracuse?

 

I was in Syracuse a month ago. You make some good points (and I haven't yet finished the Atlantic article), but the downtown is not as dead as you make it sound. The Armory Square area is thriving with shops, restaurants, bars, activities -- people thronging the sidewalks. It was a pleasant surprise. (I didn't eat there -- we ate at a busy neighborhood Polish restaurant down the hill from a tidy Irish neighborhood.) We all agree the architecture is great, and there also is a grand, restored downtown theater. That said, there's no question the highway hurt the core, and my hosts (Ohioans who moved there 30 years ago to work for the local newspaper -- a little sister of the Plain Dealer with management and a website that may be even worse) took me to some of the troubled neighborhoods and outlined the problems. But they also said there is an immigrant population that's growing and beginning to show signs of neighborhood investment.

"The majority of sprawl is produced by those who are fleeing from sprawl."  —Alex Krieger.

 

"The majority of sprawl is produced by those who are fleeing from sprawl."  —Alex Krieger.

 

I don't think it's really sprawl most of them are fleeing.

When we moved from Highland Heights in 1978 for Bainbridge in Geauga County, we fled sprawl. Before my parents got married, they lived in the 1950s in East Cleveland and Cleveland Heights. Their first home together in 1963 was a bungalow in Lyndhurst. As their family got bigger they moved in 1966 to Highland Heights which was still pretty undeveloped. By the late 1970s, the traffic on Ridgebury Boulevard was so bad that we couldn't make left turns out of our street. I remember my parents saying the traffic, noise and taxes keep getting worse every place they move to. So they decided to take a farther leap outward to rural Geauga County. Guess what happened to Bainbridge in the 15 years we lived there?

I think you're the exception to the general trend then, KJP.  The 20th century mass out-migration of northeastern and midwestern cities were not in response to sprawl.

Sure it was. For most of my life I've heard from people who complain about traffic, noise and taxes in the inner ring suburbs they moved to. Then they complain again about the next ring they move out to. And so on.

 

It's a vicious cycle. People keep creating the very thing they disliked in their prior surroundings. This segment of society has unrealistic and insatiable goals and expectations because they end up destroying what they desired by moving to it. Happens everywhere. Let's all move to the peace and quiet where the taxes are low because it's undeveloped. And when it gets built out, the peace and quiet is gone and the only way to raise revenues to sustain aging schools and infrastructure is to raise taxes. So the locusts move on and destroy the next green pasture farther out, leaving behind an aging community behind for poor people from the older parts of the metro to move into.

 

I don't know what's so surprising about any of this. It's been the MO for most sprawling cities of the Northeast and Midwest USA for nearly 100 years. There's plenty of reports to read on the subject.

I think KJP is correct. The people who move like this don't refer to it as sprawl, they refer to it as noise and traffic, but they are essentially fleeing sprawl.

 

I have several coworkers in Columbus who refuse to live inside 270 because of the "noise and traffic." So they move out to places like Johnstown and before that, Powell and Lewis Center. They bring the noise and traffic with them. Lewis Center and Powell have some of the worst traffic in the area, far worse than those of us in inner ring neighborhoods. For those of us inside 270, it seems to me we actually have less noise and traffic because we actually have the road capacity to handle the population.

I'm definitely anti sprawl but when people flee the city for the far flung suburbs, they may mention "noise & traffic", but they are also fleeing failing schools, crime, declining home values and lousy city services.  I get that this fleeing only advances the hollowing out of the cities but I also see how cities often fail at stemming the tide of this exodus.  City leadership needs to look hard at what they can do to retain residents & attract new.  I think Cleveland finally gets that now but only about 20 - 30 yrs later than they should have.

Part of the appeal of suburbia is this idea that you can have the best of two worlds. You can have the wide open spaces of rural America but you can also have the advantages of living in a city such as being close to an employment centers, shopping, restaurants, etc. But people who move into that suburb early on aren't happy about the continuing growth and added traffic congestion in the following years, not to mention 15 years down the road when things start to decay and high end retailers start being replaced with the discount variety. So many of them move further out to the next hot suburb, and the cycle keeps repeating itself.

I'm definitely anti sprawl but when people flee the city for the far flung suburbs, they may mention "noise & traffic", but they are also fleeing failing schools, crime, declining home values and lousy city services.  I get that this fleeing only advances the hollowing out of the cities but I also see how cities often fail at stemming the tide of this exodus.  City leadership needs to look hard at what they can do to retain residents & attract new.  I think Cleveland finally gets that now but only about 20 - 30 yrs later than they should have.

 

I think your description applies well to the initial suburbanization of American in the 50s-70s caused by white flight, unsanitary conditions, etc. Since then, many, many people (and I can only speak using anecdotal evidence of people I know) leave well functioning suburbs with good schools and services, due to noise and traffic.

 

I grew up on the East side in the same neck of the woods KJP is referring to. My family lives on Ridgebury, actually. We make those left turns out of our driveway. Most of my parents' siblings live outside Cuyahoga County. They go to subdivisions in Bainbridge and Chardon, and they drive to Cuyahoga County for work. Noise and traffic are a big factor they will cite. Cuyahoga County taxes are another one.

I think you're the exception to the general trend then, KJP.  The 20th century mass out-migration of northeastern and midwestern cities were not in response to sprawl.

 

I grew up in Willoughby/Mentor and saw plenty of people fleeing from the same.    Start with a bunch of traffic around too way many strip malls, throw in a few minority faces and they were all packing up their leaky Harleys and heading for Madison and Perry....

And to be fair, sometimes my parents' outward movement wasn't motivated by noise, traffic or taxes, especially in their 1966 move to Highland Heights. They had a bigger family and needed a bigger house. Although they could have found larger homes in Cleveland Heights -- and in fact they looked there. But part of what drives sprawl is what CSU's Tom Bier often spoke of -- that moving outward equates to moving upward in life. You get a better paying job or a promotion -- you move outward. So my parents did what many people of the era were doing -- if your economic condition improves, you move out. You don't move in. Only the old money people with no kids lived in the old neighborhood of Cleveland Heights. And my parents wanted my sibs and I to live amongst kids our age.

 

Then there's this guy who has a different opinion about why some people flee the previous ring of suburban sprawl for the newest ring featuring cocoon-like gated subdivisions....

https://domz60.wordpress.com/category/sprawl-suburbia/

 

By the way, this is what Ridgebury Boulevard in Highland Heights (on the right, Lyndhurst on the left) looked like in July 1964, two years before we moved there. The at-grade views are looking west. Our street was Oakview, one block west of Colony and two blocks west of Eastlawn, shown below. The aerial was shot, also in July 1964, looking east down Ridgebury from Richmond Road at the bottom....

 

Ridgebury at Colony 7-64 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Ridgebury at Eastlawn 7-64 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Ridgebury Blvd aerial 7-64 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

"...failing schools, crime, declining home values and lousy city services" are symptoms of the problem, not the cause.  Schools don't fail until the middle and upper class residents leave and take their kids with them.  Crime is not a problem in healthy neighborhoods, crime follows blight, same with declining home values, though declining values are also a symptom of the decline of a neighborhood, as well as the noise, traffic, etc.  There's usually inflection/tipping points with these things sure, but fleeing any neighborhood/suburb/city that's not viewed as "the new hotness" anymore triggers and compounds those problems. 

 

The one anomaly is the declining service quality.  Cities could have maintained their services if they hadn't been depopulated to suburban density levels.  Prior to that, the effective service/infrastructure footprint of each household and business was small enough that providing services could be done cost-effectively.  Even in their bombed-out and aged states, most cities actually do OK under the circumstances, a testament to their inherent efficiency.  Suburbs on the other hand, with the exception of very wealthy ones, only have their newness to rely on.  New infrastructure doesn't need much maintenance, and new growth pays taxes to cover the old.  However, when either of those things change (stuff gets old, or they can't add new subdivisions), then the ponzi scheme crumbles and taxes go up, causing people to move on to greener pastures.  A statistic from Strong Towns states that a typical McMansion on a cul-de-sac requires decades in property tax payments just to cover the cost of their portion of their own street, and that's if ALL the taxes went just to the street.  Never mind the schools, police, fire, subsidized sewer and water lines, and all the collector and arterial streets that also need money too. 

And to be fair, sometimes my parents' outward movement wasn't motivated by noise, traffic or taxes, especially in their 1966 move to Highland Heights. They had a bigger family and needed a bigger house. Although they could have found larger homes in Cleveland Heights -- and in fact they looked there. But part of what drives sprawl is what CSU's Tom Bier often spoke of -- that moving outward equates to moving upward in life. You get a better paying job or a promotion -- you move outward. So my parents did what many people of the era were doing -- if your economic condition improves, you move out. You don't move in. Only the old money people with no kids lived in the old neighborhood of Cleveland Heights. And my parents wanted my sibs and I to live amongst kids our age.

 

Then there's this guy who has a different opinion about why some people flee the previous ring of suburban sprawl for the newest ring featuring cocoon-like gated subdivisions....

https://domz60.wordpress.com/category/sprawl-suburbia/

 

By the way, this is what Ridgebury Boulevard in Highland Heights (on the right, Lyndhurst on the left) looked like in July 1964, two years before we moved there. The at-grade views are looking west. Our street was Oakview, one block west of Colony and two blocks west of Eastlawn, shown below. The aerial was shot, also in July 1964, looking east down Ridgebury from Richmond Road at the bottom....

 

Ridgebury at Colony 7-64 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Ridgebury at Eastlawn 7-64 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Ridgebury Blvd aerial 7-64 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Yes, the cultural attitudes of the time certainly were in favor of moving farther out. As well as many economic incentives which we've discussed here at length. I didn't mean to be so harsh on my aunts and uncles (who I love very much :D), I just meant to say that they do in fact move outwards due to noise and traffic. I've heard it from their mouthes.

 

Those pictures are awesome. I will show them to my parents tomorrow, they will love them. Actually my Dad was talking a few months ago about Ridgebury being a dirt road in the 60s. They live a few streets East of Brainard, on the corner with Ridgebury.

I think KJP is correct. The people who move like this don't refer to it as sprawl, they refer to it as noise and traffic, but they are essentially fleeing sprawl.

 

Or are they fleeing "creeping density"?

 

It’s pretty much a given that in the Cleveland area, residential sprawl happened in three waves. 

 

The first wave was triggered by the same causes that happened nationwide, the long list I posted way upthread.

 

The second wave was triggered primarily by the school busing order. 

 

The third wave was triggered by the housing bubble and the affiliated increase in loan availability.  Section 8 also played a role, but a secondary one.

 

People departed the city, and this had a wave impact as people who had an antipathy for density took advantage of the demand for their existing houses and moved further out.  In some cases, such as Columbia Station, using zoning laws to inhibit further population increases.

 

 

I think different people moved for different reasons. Some people moved for one reason. Some moved for many reasons.

 

Ironically, when we lived in Highland Heights in the 1970s, we still went to my dad's family doctor back in Cleveland Heights near the south end of Cain Park. While my sister was seeing the doctor, my dad took me for walks around the neighborhood, past the shops and restaurants along Lee Road, through the park, by all of the great old houses. Then we went back to Highland Heights which was not mixed use nor had any woodsy parks nearby nor were the endless string of look-a-like homes architecturally interesting. I tried going for a walks in my own Highland Heights neighborhood, but it wasn't enjoyable. Obviously I too young to understand what the difference was, but I noticed a difference even at that young age.

 

So when I was old enough and financially stable enough to move out on my own and to decide where I wanted to live, I ultimately chose to move inward (ie: geographically closer to Public Square) -- first to Berea and then to Lakewood. I would have moved to Lakewood right away, but I wasn't sure of what I wanted in housing, so I rented an apartment in Berea and spent the next three years looking around until I found what I wanted.

 

BTW, my mother has been moving progressively closer to Public Square since my dad died. This year, she moved to an apartment in Cleveland (Kamms area). So she has also reversed her decades-long outward as did my sister, who moved to within a mile of Cleveland in Parma.

I think KJP is correct. The people who move like this don't refer to it as sprawl, they refer to it as noise and traffic, but they are essentially fleeing sprawl.

Or are they fleeing "creeping density"?

 

They might tell you they dislike density and are fleeing density, but ask them why they dislike density. They'll tell you it's because of noise, traffic, and maybe access to nature. They dislike density they're so used to density being done so poorly.

 

To me sprawl does not necessarily mean low density. There are lots of highly dense sprawled out places. See Polaris in Columbus for the most extreme example but I think many suburbs all over Ohio would qualify. There are tons of apartments and newer houses around the mall. High density but you need a car to go anywhere. Horrible traffic.

 

If you gave people a complete urban area where their own two feet can get them to parks, groceries, and other necessities, they might not hate density so much. Not everybody wants to be on top of each other like they're in Manhattan. But if you had a well designed city with good transit and the level of density of say, Collinwood or Glenville (as originally designed), you could get a nice sized yard and a nice sized house and still be able to walk places.

If Los Angeles was built to the density (and with the narrow streets...very important) of central Paris, then you could fit the entire population within a 20 minute walk of the beach.  Then the whole rest of the LA basin could remain farms, orchards, pastures, and nature.  That's what makes European villages so nice.  They're thoroughly urban places, but in just a few minutes walk you're out in the country.  It's only when people try to live out in that country that they push it farther and farther away and the whole built environment metastasizes into the sprawl, or even the industrial-age hypertrophy we think is good urbanism but is notably flawed. 

I think KJP is correct. The people who move like this don't refer to it as sprawl, they refer to it as noise and traffic, but they are essentially fleeing sprawl.

Or are they fleeing "creeping density"?

 

They might tell you they dislike density and are fleeing density, but ask them why they dislike density. They'll tell you it's because of noise, traffic, and maybe access to nature. They dislike density they're so used to density being done so poorly.

 

To me sprawl does not necessarily mean low density. There are lots of highly dense sprawled out places. See Polaris in Columbus for the most extreme example but I think many suburbs all over Ohio would qualify. There are tons of apartments and newer houses around the mall. High density but you need a car to go anywhere. Horrible traffic.

 

If you gave people a complete urban area where their own two feet can get them to parks, groceries, and other necessities, they might not hate density so much. Not everybody wants to be on top of each other like they're in Manhattan. But if you had a well designed city with good transit and the level of density of say, Collinwood or Glenville (as originally designed), you could get a nice sized yard and a nice sized house and still be able to walk places.

 

To a point that's true.  Look at Lakewood and University Heights, significantly denser than Cleveland but losing population at a much lower rate.

 

Still, I think you're leaving out a couple important considerations:  privacy, and elbow room.  Americans seem to value those things more than others, many cultural indicators suggest that.  With the density of central Paris you could put nine million people a 20 minute walk from the beach, but could you get that many Americans to want to live that way?

 

To some degree people equate density with crowding, and many don't wish to live that way.  Work, shop, eat, maybe....but not necessarily live. 

If Los Angeles was built to the density (and with the narrow streets...very important) of central Paris, then you could fit the entire population within a 20 minute walk of the beach.  Then the whole rest of the LA basin could remain farms, orchards, pastures, and nature.  That's what makes European villages so nice.  They're thoroughly urban places, but in just a few minutes walk you're out in the country.  It's only when people try to live out in that country that they push it farther and farther away and the whole built environment metastasizes into the sprawl, or even the industrial-age hypertrophy we think is good urbanism but is notably flawed. 

 

In Europe and even older Canadian eastern cities like Montreal and Quebec city, premiums are placed on urban walk-a-bility and convenience was well as preserving natural rural areas around cities.  The urban cores are meticulously maintained.  Here in America, the automobile along with its cousin libertariabism, wrecked our cities with the push to create living areas further and further from the downtown core.  Then add the this country's incessant capitalism which dictates that all fallow land = a failure to reap a profit.  These are the roots of good old American sprawl.

I think KJP is correct. The people who move like this don't refer to it as sprawl, they refer to it as noise and traffic, but they are essentially fleeing sprawl.

Or are they fleeing "creeping density"?

 

They might tell you they dislike density and are fleeing density, but ask them why they dislike density. They'll tell you it's because of noise, traffic, and maybe access to nature. They dislike density they're so used to density being done so poorly.

 

To me sprawl does not necessarily mean low density. There are lots of highly dense sprawled out places. See Polaris in Columbus for the most extreme example but I think many suburbs all over Ohio would qualify. There are tons of apartments and newer houses around the mall. High density but you need a car to go anywhere. Horrible traffic.

 

If you gave people a complete urban area where their own two feet can get them to parks, groceries, and other necessities, they might not hate density so much. Not everybody wants to be on top of each other like they're in Manhattan. But if you had a well designed city with good transit and the level of density of say, Collinwood or Glenville (as originally designed), you could get a nice sized yard and a nice sized house and still be able to walk places.

 

To a point that's true.  Look at Lakewood and University Heights, significantly denser than Cleveland but losing population at a much lower rate.

 

Still, I think you're leaving out a couple important considerations:  privacy, and elbow room.  Americans seem to value those things more than others, many cultural indicators suggest that.  With the density of central Paris you could put nine million people a 20 minute walk from the beach, but could you get that many Americans to want to live that way?

 

To some degree people equate density with crowding, and many don't wish to live that way.  Work, shop, eat, maybe....but not necessarily live. 

 

That is a very good description of the ideals which led to sprawl, ideals which are now fading from American life as abruptly as they appeared.

 

Still, I think you're leaving out a couple important considerations:  privacy, and elbow room.  Americans seem to value those things more than others, many cultural indicators suggest that.

 

Like what? ... And if its true, why are more Americans, esp younger ones, turning away from their parent's suburban/ex-urban isolated/cul-de-sac lifestyle and heading back into urban locales like, say, Cleveland?  Such statements are just rationalizations created by the entrepreneurs who have historically made the big bucks on sprawl: Detroit, Big Oil, realtors, road builders, etc.... I believe this just as much as the old canard: 'The American love-affair with the automobile,' brought to you by our aforementioned, seriously failing big city neighbor to the NW.

They might tell you they dislike density and are fleeing density, but ask them why they dislike density. They'll tell you it's because of noise, traffic, and maybe access to nature. They dislike density they're so used to density being done so poorly.

 

To me sprawl does not necessarily mean low density. There are lots of highly dense sprawled out places. See Polaris in Columbus for the most extreme example but I think many suburbs all over Ohio would qualify. There are tons of apartments and newer houses around the mall. High density but you need a car to go anywhere. Horrible traffic.

 

If you gave people a complete urban area where their own two feet can get them to parks, groceries, and other necessities, they might not hate density so much. Not everybody wants to be on top of each other like they're in Manhattan. But if you had a well designed city with good transit and the level of density of say, Collinwood or Glenville (as originally designed), you could get a nice sized yard and a nice sized house and still be able to walk places.

 

To a point that's true.  Look at Lakewood and University Heights, significantly denser than Cleveland but losing population at a much lower rate.

 

Still, I think you're leaving out a couple important considerations:  privacy, and elbow room.  Americans seem to value those things more than others, many cultural indicators suggest that.  With the density of central Paris you could put nine million people a 20 minute walk from the beach, but could you get that many Americans to want to live that way?

 

To some degree people equate density with crowding, and many don't wish to live that way.  Work, shop, eat, maybe....but not necessarily live. 

 

I don't think I'm leaving those considerations out. My point in the second paragraph is that a Collinwood or Glenville or pretty much any traditional Cleveland neighborhood as originally designed would provide the levels of privacy and elbow room most people are accustomed to. Many of the middle class subdivisions I've been to in Geauga County and elsewhere have houses no further apart than in those neighborhoods. They have small yards and they have zero trees (which provide privacy) because all the trees are mowed down to create the subdivisions. They're dense places. Just poorly designed.

 

The only difference is that driving is the only viable transportation mode in those areas. Sprawl is less about houses being too far apart, and more about cul-de-sacs instead of street grids, no sidewalks, no business nearby due to antiquated zoning laws, antiquated ideas about separation of uses, giant parking lots, and poor transit options. If you create a multimodal neighborhood you have the same level of density with less traffic and noise. Then I don't think these people would dislike density so much... because I don't think it's [reasonable] density that they actually dislike.

 

You'd always have the people who want a house on two acres in Munson, and that's fine. But if you look at the market right now, it's obvious that there is a surplus of sprawl while there is high demand and low supply in desirable urban neighborhoods. Take a look at home prices and rents. So whatever the natural preferences of Americans are, the real estate market is off balance, and tilted too much in favor of sprawl. Right now you're seeing the market shift to a new equilibrium.

In coastal California, much of the sprawl is over 10,000 people per square mile. This is way denser than any central city in Ohio, and some of these suburban areas peak over 50,000 people per square mile (of course our big cities do too, with SF peaking well over 100,000 people per square mile). A lot of suburban inner Bay Area actually has enough population density to support street-level retail and walkable urbanism. The problem is it's built for cars, and by the time BART was finally built in the 1970's, these suburbs were already pretty big. Plus, they were better scaled for light rail, not heavy rail. It's actually somewhat comical to see 700-foot long trains blazing through the sky at 80 mph in some of these places (BART is mostly aerial once it leaves the urban core of the Bay).

 

A sleepy town (despite having over 100,000 people) like Daly City just south of San Francisco has a population density more than double Cleveland and triple Cincinnati. Very little space is wasted on yards and there are not setbacks in most neighborhoods. The architecture is nothing to write home about, but it's visually very dense. Unfortunately, Daly City is built for cars (though there is a single BART station to service all of those 100,000 people). Coastal California suburbs are the worst of both worlds- you live on top of your neighbors, deal with the noise/annoyances, but don't get any of the pedestrian benefits. You've still got to go to the central cities to find that. Daly City folks hang out in SF because that's where action is at.

 

There are only a handful of suburbs that are exceptions to this car-dependent rule, but that's because they were built as streetcar suburbs, not car suburbs. Berkeley and Alameda are Oakland's two best suburbs because they were built for streetcars (and Berkeley now has heavy rail subway). Santa Monica is LA's best suburb because it was built for streetcars. Pasadena's core is also a nice example of a streetcar suburb and railway town.

 

These large California streetcar suburbs have roughly the same population density as a place like Daly City, but Daly City is your classic post-WW2 freeway suburb, just hyper dense compared to the post-WW2 suburbs you see in the Midwest. Even New York City's suburbs are a lot less dense than many coastal California suburbs. I don't think there is any East Coast or Great Lakes equivalent to Daly City.

 

*Ohio suburbs are shockingly low density, but there are still a few good sizable examples of streetcar suburbs like Lakewood. Lakewood is excellent, and hilariously now has a higher average density than any major city in Ohio.

I'm definitely anti sprawl but when people flee the city for the far flung suburbs, they may mention "noise & traffic", but they are also fleeing failing schools, crime, declining home values and lousy city services.

 

At least two of the things (education and home values) on that list are perception-based issues that are worsened by the occurrence of sprawl.

 

Specifically in reference to education, I'll just use Cleveland Heights as an example. The schools in CH-UH offer the same high quality of education as it did 30-40 years ago. The only difference is that it serves a significantly more challenging enrollment base then it did in prior decades which results in lower test scores (which in turn is the basis for some to refer to the schools here as "failing"). I think a similar statement can be made regarding many other inner-ring suburbs, though perhaps not necessarily for a larger system like CMSD.