It is not an all-or-nothing deal on most issues.  There is no reason that a city neighborhood cannot offer most of the amenities that come with the suburbs.  But you just touched on basically the only one that it can't offer, which is large private yard space.  327 is right about the density imperative.

 

Where were you in the Midtown thread? 327 could have used some backup there lol.

 

Heh.  "Midtown" isn't an area I'm familiar with ... and I spend too much time on these boards already.

 

I hear that! Midtown discussion is essentially a microcosm of this issue. It could be a textbook, "Competing Philosophies of Zoning, City Planning and Thread Locking."

Somehow, theoretical threads like this one don't get as personal.  Midtown (the Euclid Corridor) really is ground zero for this issue though. 

Shouldn't it go both ways then? Let's build some four-story mixed-use buildings on suburban culs de sac.

 

Crocker Park?

 

A self-contained shopping center built on a greenfield? Hardly a comparison.

There are certain things that a city needs to be a city. You can add suburban elements to cities as long as you don't take away what makes them cities. Big private yards in cities would have the result of spreading things out and reducing walkability for the entire neighborhood. At that point, is the resulting product still a "city" or is it a "streetcar suburb" or is it a "subdivision"? There are obviously multiple degrees of density that people can choose between.

 

I have no problem with people choosing to live in the type of environment they prefer, but people should have to pay the real cost of the infrastructure that serves them. If you live in a part of the city that is half as dense as mine, the city and various utilities have to build twice as much water and sewer pipes, electric lines, telephone lines, and cable lines to reach you compared to me. It's absolutely your choice to live in a place that has a big yard and more space between homes, but you should pay the actual cost and not be subsidized by people who live in much more efficient, denser neighborhoods.

 

Bingo! It's about cost of services.

Will Cleveland Finally Get Serious About Confronting Sprawl?

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/04/22/will-cleveland-finally-get-serious-about-confronting-sprawl/

 

Will Cleveland Finally Get Serious About Confronting Sprawl?

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/04/22/will-cleveland-finally-get-serious-about-confronting-sprawl/

Looks like Akron and Canton are pulling it southward.  Some degree of sprawl is inevitable here because there are multiple urban centers and Cleveland can't grow north.  That can be a regional advantage though.  Northeast Ohio offers a full range of urban, suburban, and rural environments.  Nice range of terrain options too, from hill country to open plains.

^ Sprawl is not inevitable when your regional population is stagnant

I dunno, I see growth in the Painesville area, so I don't know what the problem is :wink:. Seriously though, it's surprising that Mentor has become so stagnant. I know this has been mentioned before in other threads, but I remember how unstoppable the growth there seemed in the 60's. It was basically agricultural and within a few years all of a sudden thousands of people were moving in. I guess a lot of it was about white flight from Cleveland. I had a friend whose father grew up there and his family owned hundreds of acres, some of which is the land where Mentor High School is today, although I don't think they profited that much from its sale, probably because of that pesky eminent domain stuff.

I was quite hopeful that NOACA, would change direction from being seemingly so highway/anti-transit oriented, when they hired Grace Gallucci as director, a woman with a pro-transit background -- from Chicago's RTA, no less.  She's been here, now, 4 years and hopefully NOACA has changed to focus on more balanced growth between transit and cars, as well as more positive land-uses, like TOD and mixed-use developments, and less single-use big boxes, strip malls and cul-de-sac residential development that have bedeviled Greater Cleveland. 

 

Hopefully the current growth patterns have been changing in recent years from when the 2000-2010 population tracts were recorded favoring the usual growth/sprawl suspects: Western Cuyahoga/Eastern Lorain (the I-90 W corridor), the US 422 corridor of SE Cuyahoga/NE Geagua and, perhaps the worst: Medina county along I-71 south.   

The best antidote to sprawl is urban living done right.  Growth in the outer areas is going to continue, so the focus needs to be on fixing those big red splotches on the map.  That's going to require a lot of policy changes, most of them at the city level.  Getting people to live in old office buildings downtown (the nice little blue dot there) is easy compared to rebuilding the neighborhoods.  And re-purposing downtown as a wealthy enclave doesn't make that second task any easier. 

 

Most of the city's population can't afford a downtown apartment.  Not even close, the prices are seen as hilarious.  On a good day.  So on a downtown scale, most of the city's population is technically riff raff.  And riff raff is bad for downtown, because now it's a place for wealthy people to live.  And that's why I don't like that plan. 

 

Downtown can't pull away and become its own thing.  That big red splotch on the map needs downtown to focus on being the city's commercial hub, to focus on bringing the riff raff in, as shoppers and workers.  But now there's a growing constituency against that.  We just fragmented our whole transit system, no big deal, so the city's central square could be more quiet and contemplative.  Because who wants a commercial hub in their back yard, right?

I dunno, I see growth in the Painesville area, so I don't know what the problem is :wink:. Seriously though, it's surprising that Mentor has become so stagnant. I know this has been mentioned before in other threads, but I remember how unstoppable the growth there seemed in the 60's. It was basically agricultural and within a few years all of a sudden thousands of people were moving in. I guess a lot of it was about white flight from Cleveland. I had a friend whose father grew up there and his family owned hundreds of acres, some of which is the land where Mentor High School is today, although I don't think they profited that much from its sale, probably because of that pesky eminent domain stuff.

 

That's because Mentor is almost completely built out; there's little or no more undeveloped land there. The only land that I see left for residential development is the area by 615/Center Street, south of SR 84. There's also the wetlands to the North which I believe are protected....

 

The 2nd ring suburbs are running out of land: Brunswick is completely built up and out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick,_Ohio - their 2000 of 33,000 has only grown by 1500 or so in the past 15 years; Westlake (to my suprise, I feel that they have a bit more developed land still left), 2000 population of 31,000 has grown only 1500 or so.

 

I dunno, I see growth in the Painesville area, so I don't know what the problem is :wink:. Seriously though, it's surprising that Mentor has become so stagnant. I know this has been mentioned before in other threads, but I remember how unstoppable the growth there seemed in the 60's. It was basically agricultural and within a few years all of a sudden thousands of people were moving in. I guess a lot of it was about white flight from Cleveland. I had a friend whose father grew up there and his family owned hundreds of acres, some of which is the land where Mentor High School is today, although I don't think they profited that much from its sale, probably because of that pesky eminent domain stuff.

 

That's because Mentor is almost completely built out; there's little or no more undeveloped land there. The only land that I see left for residential development is the area by 615/Center Street, south of SR 84. There's also the wetlands to the North which I believe are protected....

 

The 2nd ring suburbs are running out of land: Brunswick is completely built up and out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick,_Ohio - their 2000 of 33,000 has only grown by 1500 or so in the past 15 years; Westlake (to my suprise, I feel that they have a bit more developed land still left), 2000 population of 31,000 has grown only 1500 or so.

 

 

It's only "built out" because Mentor doesn't want to build upward. If there's still demand to locate in Mentor, then they should allow denser development.

I dunno, I see growth in the Painesville area, so I don't know what the problem is :wink:. Seriously though, it's surprising that Mentor has become so stagnant. I know this has been mentioned before in other threads, but I remember how unstoppable the growth there seemed in the 60's. It was basically agricultural and within a few years all of a sudden thousands of people were moving in. I guess a lot of it was about white flight from Cleveland. I had a friend whose father grew up there and his family owned hundreds of acres, some of which is the land where Mentor High School is today, although I don't think they profited that much from its sale, probably because of that pesky eminent domain stuff.

 

That's because Mentor is almost completely built out; there's little or no more undeveloped land there. The only land that I see left for residential development is the area by 615/Center Street, south of SR 84. There's also the wetlands to the North which I believe are protected....

 

The 2nd ring suburbs are running out of land: Brunswick is completely built up and out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick,_Ohio - their 2000 of 33,000 has only grown by 1500 or so in the past 15 years; Westlake (to my suprise, I feel that they have a bit more developed land still left), 2000 population of 31,000 has grown only 1500 or so.

 

 

It's only "built out" because Mentor doesn't want to build upward. If there's still demand to locate in Mentor, then they should allow denser development.

Oh, agreed, it's only built up in their sense and practice of building usage and density ;)

I dunno, I see growth in the Painesville area, so I don't know what the problem is :wink:. Seriously though, it's surprising that Mentor has become so stagnant. I know this has been mentioned before in other threads, but I remember how unstoppable the growth there seemed in the 60's. It was basically agricultural and within a few years all of a sudden thousands of people were moving in. I guess a lot of it was about white flight from Cleveland. I had a friend whose father grew up there and his family owned hundreds of acres, some of which is the land where Mentor High School is today, although I don't think they profited that much from its sale, probably because of that pesky eminent domain stuff.

 

That's because Mentor is almost completely built out; there's little or no more undeveloped land there. The only land that I see left for residential development is the area by 615/Center Street, south of SR 84. There's also the wetlands to the North which I believe are protected....

 

The 2nd ring suburbs are running out of land: Brunswick is completely built up and out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick,_Ohio - their 2000 of 33,000 has only grown by 1500 or so in the past 15 years; Westlake (to my suprise, I feel that they have a bit more developed land still left), 2000 population of 31,000 has grown only 1500 or so.

 

 

It's only "built out" because Mentor doesn't want to build upward. If there's still demand to locate in Mentor, then they should allow denser development.

 

I think Mentor's not interested in any more residential, they are certainly interested in more business and commercial.

Even though there's a bit of resurgence in some city cores, most new growth is likely to continue in the suburbs -- but successful suburbs will grow differently, with more density and walkability. Sooner or later, places like Mentor will have to adapt to this or pay the consequences.

Anyone ever hang in Fairport Harbor or downtown Painesville? My parents and I spent Saturday there; both were immensely pleasant surprises, and they looked relatively healthy.

Even though there's a bit of resurgence in some city cores, most new growth is likely to continue in the suburbs -- but successful suburbs will grow differently, with more density and walkability. Sooner or later, places like Mentor will have to adapt to this or pay the consequences.

 

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.  I don't necessarily disagree that it is, but question if government action must or even should "nudge" it.

 

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.

 

Not necessarily.  Incumbent residents get preference in decisions for any zoning changes, so those who might want to move to an area into a denser development have essentially no say because "they don't live there."  Such living is in demand, but supply isn't able to meet it, thus the only response is for prices to go up.  That's what we're seeing. 

 

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.

 

Not necessarily.  Incumbent residents get preference in decisions for any zoning changes, so those who might want to move to an area into a denser development have essentially no say because "they don't live there."  Such living is in demand, but supply isn't able to meet it, thus the only response is for prices to go up.  That's what we're seeing. 

The decades of sprawl were driven by government policies -- local, state, federal. Willingness to buy suburban and exurban tract houses is not the same as demand for them. I realized this years ago when I was writing about suburbanites moving to new homes in old neighborhoods of Columbus. I heard people say they wanted now homes because they weren't handy enough for a fixer-upper, but their only options were new suburban tract homes or old fixer-uppers. Suburban policies demanded wide-lot, auto-oriented neighborhoods. For decades, the market failed to provide a range of alternatives.

^ Yes, in a lot of cities zoning makes existing lots too small to build on (whether practically or at all), usually limiting development potential to such an extent that the economics don't work out anymore.  Plus never forget the super onerous restrictions on lending that makes getting a mortgage on anything but a single-family detached house incredibly difficult. 

 

Just listen to this Strong Towns podcast about someone with more than enough financial resources to buy a small mixed-use building (two storefronts plus a couple of apartments above) to live in, who could not, despite going through multiple banks, secure a mortgage for this building with rent-paying tenants in a stable neighborhood.  Yet after giving up on the project, was able to get a LARGER mortgage for a single-family house in a matter of weeks with no hassles whatsoever. 

 

http://shoutengine.com/StrongTownsPodcast/the-frustrating-real-life-story-of-a-mixed-use-loa-16368

I'm at work so I can't listen to that but that's a pretty obvious example of how peculiar American lending practices have shaped American cities as much as transportation and zoning.  The banks have modeled their lending after FHA guidelines since the 1930s and so everything is streamlined for single-family homes.  You typically can get a loan for a single-family house with a much lower down payment and with a lower interest rate than anything that combines a residence with a commercial storefront.  Also, the process will be much faster. 

 

A simple apartment over a storefront is a commercial loan, typically requiring a 30% down payment (vs. as little as 3.5% for a single-family home), a higher interest rate, and 6 months cash reserves.  Banks and the FHA do not require 6 months cash reserves in addition to a down payment on a single-family house. 

So to put this in perspective, if you want to buy a single-family house for $100k vs. an apartment over a storefront for the same sum (realistic in Cincinnati and the rest of the Midwest), here is what it would look like:

 

House w/FHA loan: $3,500 down, 4.25% APR + $100/mo PMI

House w/Conventional: $20,000 down, 3.8% APR

Apt $30,000 down (at least) +  $10,000 cash reserves, 4.25-5% APR

 

 

So to buy a building of the same value, the cash needed ranges from $3,500 up to roughly $40,000. 

 

 

 

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.  I don't necessarily disagree that it is, but question if government action must or even should "nudge" it.

 

Government action of some kind, usually in the form of zoning, TIFs or other incentive to high density or even TOD growth, is necessary, ... otherwise, you have Houston which, btw, I heard a news report yesterday where an expert noted that the recent flooding in Houston was exacerbated by the lack of zoning -- all the runoff went onto somebody's property; almost no natural areas left.

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.  I don't necessarily disagree that it is, but question if government action must or even should "nudge" it.

 

Government action of some kind, usually in the form of zoning, TIFs or other incentive to high density or even TOD growth, is necessary, ... otherwise, you have Houston which, btw, I heard a news report yesterday where an expert noted that the recent flooding in Houston was exacerbated by the lack of zoning -- all the runoff went onto somebody's property; almost no natural areas left.

 

Well, incentives for higher density development are only necessary if you don't remove all the subsidies in place for low density development.  I'd say that's the better place to start rather than piling on subsidies to try to compensate for other subsidies.  That's more of a "fix the symptoms" approach rather than "fix the disease."

So to put this in perspective, if you want to buy a single-family house for $100k vs. an apartment over a storefront for the same sum (realistic in Cincinnati and the rest of the Midwest), here is what it would look like:

 

House w/FHA loan: $3,500 down, 4.25% APR + $100/mo PMI

House w/Conventional: $20,000 down, 3.8% APR

Apt $30,000 down (at least) +  $10,000 cash reserves, 4.25-5% APR

 

 

So to buy a building of the same value, the cash needed ranges from $3,500 up to roughly $40,000. 

 

 

 

 

Banks hate lending for retail expansion these days and their distaste doesn't discriminate between urban/suburban/rural or mixed use/strip mall/enclosed mall/standalone. It's because generally it is more difficult to replace a retail tenant than a residential one. There is also a glut of retail space nationwide.

^ Yes but even if you want to buy a small apartment building you're still kicked into the commercial mortgages if there's more than I think 3 units.  Most banks might balk if it's any sort of "income producing property" like a duplex.  You're quickly shunted into the 30% down, higher APR, and much higher reserve cash requirements. 

^ Yes but even if you want to buy a small apartment building you're still kicked into the commercial mortgages if there's more than I think 3 units.  Most banks might balk if it's any sort of "income producing property" like a duplex.  You're quickly shunted into the 30% down, higher APR, and much higher reserve cash requirements. 

 

 

4 units is the max for a conventional mortgage.  Sometimes you will see someone jam a fifth unit into the basement of a 4-family, which increases cash flow, but might not increase its resale value because the fifth unit prevents small-time investors from buying it and big-time guys don't screw around with 4-families after a certain point. 

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.  I don't necessarily disagree that it is, but question if government action must or even should "nudge" it.

 

Government action of some kind, usually in the form of zoning, TIFs or other incentive to high density or even TOD growth, is necessary, ... otherwise, you have Houston which, btw, I heard a news report yesterday where an expert noted that the recent flooding in Houston was exacerbated by the lack of zoning -- all the runoff went onto somebody's property; almost no natural areas left.

 

Well, incentives for higher density development are only necessary if you don't remove all the subsidies in place for low density development.  I'd say that's the better place to start rather than piling on subsidies to try to compensate for other subsidies.  That's more of a "fix the symptoms" approach rather than "fix the disease."

 

Correct.  Low-density development pattern have been subsidized at the federal level since 1937.  The FHA not only enabled the 30-year mortgage with 3.5% down, it also enabled the large postwar subdivisions by assuming the debt of developers.  Before WWII, there was almost no such thing as a company that built more than five homes per year.  They couldn't get the loans, meaning only syndicates with a ton of cash could build the row house strips you see on the east coast.  And there were a lot easier ways to make faster money back then, so most of the guys with a ton of cash were in other lines of business.  So the FHA made homebuilding, as an industry, big business. 

 

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.  I don't necessarily disagree that it is, but question if government action must or even should "nudge" it.

 

Government action of some kind, usually in the form of zoning, TIFs or other incentive to high density or even TOD growth, is necessary, ... otherwise, you have Houston which, btw, I heard a news report yesterday where an expert noted that the recent flooding in Houston was exacerbated by the lack of zoning -- all the runoff went onto somebody's property; almost no natural areas left.

 

Well, incentives for higher density development are only necessary if you don't remove all the subsidies in place for low density development.  I'd say that's the better place to start rather than piling on subsidies to try to compensate for other subsidies.  That's more of a "fix the symptoms" approach rather than "fix the disease."

 

Correct.  Low-density development pattern have been subsidized at the federal level since 1937.  The FHA not only enabled the 30-year mortgage with 3.5% down, it also enabled the large postwar subdivisions by assuming the debt of developers.  Before WWII, there was almost no such thing as a company that built more than five homes per year.  They couldn't get the loans, meaning only syndicates with a ton of cash could build the row house strips you see on the east coast.  And there were a lot easier ways to make faster money back then, so most of the guys with a ton of cash were in other lines of business.  So the FHA made homebuilding, as an industry, big business. 

 

 

After World War II it was really, really necessary.  The returning veterans needed places to live and things to do, and the rural men who came to the city to help build things for them had no desire to go back.  Neither was big on dense living arrangements either.  The former had had their fill on ships and barracks, the latter grew up on farms and were used to space.  The veterans came back familiar with motorized transportation and, in many cases, construction.

 

Politicians trying to reinforce the old living patterns would have been de-elected expeditiously.

^ You're making a lot of assumptions that you're purporting to be fact.  I won't deny that may be SOME factor, but if what you say is true why didn't the same happen with European or Japanese or Russian soldiers?  Much of suburbanization was supported as a way to keep the military industrial complex going.  There was great fear that the country would slip back into depression after the war, so all the manufacturing and logistics were directed into creating a much less efficient way of living than in the past.  What better way to keep the factories operating if everyone had to buy their own house, with all its own appliances, and their own car, to be driven on all new roads and highways to all new shopping centers with ample parking lots.  Jim Kunstler calls it "entropy made visible."  It really had little to do with "oh the poor farm folk won't want to live in an apartment."

And nowadays the farm loses tons of young people to urbanity. In those small towns, you'd better get hitched by 22 or you will die alone.

^ You're making a lot of assumptions that you're purporting to be fact.  I won't deny that may be SOME factor, but if what you say is true why didn't the same happen with European or Japanese or Russian soldiers?  Much of suburbanization was supported as a way to keep the military industrial complex going.  There was great fear that the country would slip back into depression after the war, so all the manufacturing and logistics were directed into creating a much less efficient way of living than in the past.  What better way to keep the factories operating if everyone had to buy their own house, with all its own appliances, and their own car, to be driven on all new roads and highways to all new shopping centers with ample parking lots.  Jim Kunstler calls it "entropy made visible."  It really had little to do with "oh the poor farm folk won't want to live in an apartment."

 

Not just the erstwhile farmers (by the way, this would include both my grandfathers, though the farms they grew up on were 4,500 miles apart) but the veterans, who were a very powerful political force.  The incumbents were quite wary of them, and keeping them content was a high priority (leaving aside the case that it was more of a duty).  A lot of them came home from their barracks and ships to their in-laws’ basements.  “Efficiency” may be a goal of planners, but it wasn’t on their list of priorities.  To say the least.

 

Russia and its new empire was a totalitarian state, Japan had a dictator named MacArthur, and both of them plus Europe were rebuilding themselves…..a task we helped with of course.

Post war sprawl in the USA was as close to inevitable as any trend in our history , perhaps in the planet’s.

The returning veterans needed housing. They didn't necessarily need, or want, suburban tract housing, but that's primarily what was available, due in large part to housing policies that favored single-family houses. Much of the demand could as easily have been met with newer, better apartments in and on the edges of existing communities.

They didn't need housing, as 450,000 fewer people returned in 1945 than were shipped out over the preceding 5 years.  My grandfather came back and moved back in with his parents. 

The returning veterans needed housing. They didn't necessarily need, or want, suburban tract housing, but that's primarily what was available, due in large part to housing policies that favored single-family houses. Much of the demand could as easily have been met with newer, better apartments in and on the edges of existing communities.

 

There were many different solutions to the housing crunch offered, that was the one that caught on.  For many reasons, including the fear of atomic attack.  Before the H bomb emerged as a real threat, sprawl was seen as improving attack survivability.

 

This wasn't some Great Conspiracy.  There were very real reasons why the suburban model prevailed in the US.

They didn't need housing, as 450,000 fewer people returned in 1945 than were shipped out over the preceding 5 years.  My grandfather came back and moved back in with his parents. 

 

Was he married?    That was a big driving force.  A lot of veterans got married before they went overseas.  Living with parents/in-laws wasn't a desirable solution but was often the only one available.

 

We encounter a discussion I often have with my daughter, the difference between "need" and "want".

The returning veterans needed housing. They didn't necessarily need, or want, suburban tract housing, but that's primarily what was available, due in large part to housing policies that favored single-family houses. Much of the demand could as easily have been met with newer, better apartments in and on the edges of existing communities.

 

There were many different solutions to the housing crunch offered, that was the one that caught on.  For many reasons, including the fear of atomic attack.  Before the H bomb emerged as a real threat, sprawl was seen as improving attack survivability.

 

This wasn't some Great Conspiracy.  There were very real reasons why the suburban model prevailed in the US.

 

 

Yes, the very real reason is that the government created it and subsidized it.  There is a great book on the FHA, written in 1986, well before the formation of the current anti-sprawl cottage industry:

http://www.amazon.com/Crabgrass-Frontier-Suburbanization-United-States/dp/0195049837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461690071&sr=8-1&keywords=crabgrass+frontiers

 

I remember the first page says something point-blank like "The FHA is, far and away, the government agency with more influence on the character of the American landscape and American life than any other".  It goes on to suggest that the FHA should have disappeared along with dozens of other federal agencies established during the Depression and decommissioned in the 1940s, but it alone proved incredibly useful to the economy beyond what practical need existed to built new single-family homes. 

 

The great 1940s-era quote in the book is from some rich guy -- "a homeowner cannot be a communist -- he has too much lawn work and upkeep to do".     

 

Anyone ever hang in Fairport Harbor or downtown Painesville? My parents and I spent Saturday there; both were immensely pleasant surprises, and they looked relatively healthy.

Were your parents there before or after this picture was taken? lol Obviously Painesville (like Cleveland) will never have the kind of vibrant downtown it had from generations past, but at least they're making cosmetic improvements (e.g. streetscaping) that hopefully will attract business. Unfortunately all the destruction over the past few decades did nothing to make Painesville an appealing place for this (I thought I wouldn't ever mourn the demolition of a parking garage, but that's the latest thing slated for the wrecking ball downtown. Then again it's across the street from what was the hospital, so who cares?) :-(

The returning veterans needed housing. They didn't necessarily need, or want, suburban tract housing, but that's primarily what was available, due in large part to housing policies that favored single-family houses. Much of the demand could as easily have been met with newer, better apartments in and on the edges of existing communities.

 

This wasn't some Great Conspiracy.  There were very real reasons why the suburban model prevailed in the US.

 

It's possible for both to be true.  Does anyone still doubt that the automakers actively sought pro-sprawl policies?  They built world's fair exhibits explaining the plan, so there was definitely a plan.  And they got the results they wanted, on a previously unthinkable scale, which would be an amazing coincidence if we're calling it that.

Well not only did federal policies enable and continue to promote sprawl, the government also insures what should be uninsurable waterfront properties (often vacation homes):http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2014/02/19/fema-cuts-a-break-to-wealthy-beachfront-property-owners-and-courts-climate-change-disaster/#1a2bbd2d13ec

 

So much of Florida and other coastal development was a scam -- some rich guy goes in and buys a few hundred acres of worthless waterfront property back in 1950, knows that the feds are working on setting up an insurance program as a back-door gift to the wealthy -- and then it's enacted and he sells off the lots for a 1,000% profit. 

 

What's so tragic about it all is that so much money made in the industrial Midwest found its way to coastal vacation homes instead of being reinvested in the Midwest. 

 

 

If it's truly in demand, it will happen.

 

Not necessarily.  Incumbent residents get preference in decisions for any zoning changes, so those who might want to move to an area into a denser development have essentially no say because "they don't live there."  Such living is in demand, but supply isn't able to meet it, thus the only response is for prices to go up.  That's what we're seeing. 

The decades of sprawl were driven by government policies -- local, state, federal. Willingness to buy suburban and exurban tract houses is not the same as demand for them. I realized this years ago when I was writing about suburbanites moving to new homes in old neighborhoods of Columbus. I heard people say they wanted now homes because they weren't handy enough for a fixer-upper, but their only options were new suburban tract homes or old fixer-uppers. Suburban policies demanded wide-lot, auto-oriented neighborhoods. For decades, the market failed to provide a range of alternatives.

 

 

I'd be intensely interested in reading more of what you wrote. How do I get a copy?

The returning veterans needed housing. They didn't necessarily need, or want, suburban tract housing, but that's primarily what was available, due in large part to housing policies that favored single-family houses. Much of the demand could as easily have been met with newer, better apartments in and on the edges of existing communities.

 

This wasn't some Great Conspiracy.  There were very real reasons why the suburban model prevailed in the US.

 

It's possible for both to be true.  Does anyone still doubt that the automakers actively sought pro-sprawl policies?  They built world's fair exhibits explaining the plan, so there was definitely a plan.  And they got the results they wanted, on a previously unthinkable scale, which would be an amazing coincidence if we're calling it that.

 

But they didn't have *that* kind of influence until sprawl was already in full effect.  And it's hard to call something a "conspiracy" that happened quite openly.

 

They were ahead of the curve, so to speak.  They hoped for it, they helped plan it, they were involved in paving it, but they didn't build that. 

 

Though the mechanization of the US military was one of the many factors that made sprawl a perfect cultural storm, so to speak, the automakers pushed that for different reasons, and once they saw its potential military leaders did too.

 

 

The decades of sprawl were driven by government policies -- local, state, federal. Willingness to buy suburban and exurban tract houses is not the same as demand for them. I realized this years ago when I was writing about suburbanites moving to new homes in old neighborhoods of Columbus. I heard people say they wanted now homes because they weren't handy enough for a fixer-upper, but their only options were new suburban tract homes or old fixer-uppers. Suburban policies demanded wide-lot, auto-oriented neighborhoods. For decades, the market failed to provide a range of alternatives.

 

 

I'd be intensely interested in reading more of what you wrote. How do I get a copy?

A couple of articles I wrote about 15 years ago when I was covering urban development for the Columbus Dispatch. I probably have a copy in my files somewhere, but it would be in the Dispatch archive (you either have to pay or get access at a library, however). It was during the original planning of Jeffrey Place, back when Joe Recchie and Concorde Capital were the developers -- probably 2001.

^ It may be that sprawl is better for modern warfare, or was at one time.  As for conspiracies, most of them aren't secrets.  They don't need to be.

The decades of sprawl were driven by government policies -- local, state, federal. Willingness to buy suburban and exurban tract houses is not the same as demand for them. I realized this years ago when I was writing about suburbanites moving to new homes in old neighborhoods of Columbus. I heard people say they wanted now homes because they weren't handy enough for a fixer-upper, but their only options were new suburban tract homes or old fixer-uppers. Suburban policies demanded wide-lot, auto-oriented neighborhoods. For decades, the market failed to provide a range of alternatives.

 

 

I'd be intensely interested in reading more of what you wrote. How do I get a copy?

A couple of articles I wrote about 15 years ago when I was covering urban development for the Columbus Dispatch. I probably have a copy in my files somewhere, but it would be in the Dispatch archive (you either have to pay or get access at a library, however). It was during the original planning of Jeffrey Place, back when Joe Recchie and Concorde Capital were the developers -- probably 2001.

 

Thanks UrbanSurfin[/member] I have access to newspapers.com I imagine it will be in there. Thanks again!

^ It may be that sprawl is better for modern warfare, or was at one time.  As for conspiracies, most of them aren't secrets.  They don't need to be.

 

The word by definition implies a degree of secrecy.

 

Sprawl was thought to make cities less vulnerable to A-bombs before H-bombs emerged, but that's not what I meant.  Mechanization meant that huge numbers of US servicemen learned to drive, and large numbers learned to fix vehicles or build roads.

Mechanization happened all over the world though, and sprawl didn't.  Postwar Europe had cars too, and they built freeways, and the war's destruction had given them a golden opportunity to reformat their entire built environment.  But they didn't.  Instead they maintained their density and their transit infrastructure, rebuilding their cities as before, while America chose to forcibly reformat its own intact cities. 

 

So no, American sprawl is not a result of natural laws or universal behavioral norms.  It was not some inevitable stage of history.  It was a result of specific policy choices by people in power who chose sprawl as their goal.

sorry, double post

Mechanization happened all over the world though, and sprawl didn't.  Postwar Europe had cars too, and they built freeways, and the war's destruction had given them a golden opportunity to reformat their entire built environment.  But they didn't.  Instead they maintained their density and their transit infrastructure, rebuilding their cities as before, while America chose to forcibly reformat its own intact cities. 

 

So no, American sprawl is not a result of natural laws or universal behavioral norms.  It was not some inevitable stage of history.  It was a result of specific policy choices by people in power who chose sprawl as their goal.

 

I like everything you say here, 327... One very uncomfortable difference with Europe and the United States -- as well as, even, Canada and the USA (where the older parts of urban Canada mirror Europe more than its Yankee cousins to the south), is the stronger racial, ethnic and socioeconomic divisions, particularly the racial ones, which seem to have a much stronger impact on all facets of life in this country, from socialization, worship, employment, education and housing patterns than either Canada or Europe... The "freedom" often touted in this country, is the freedom to move away and live away from "others" into one's own homogeneous community (i.e. Medina).  Cities are often looked at with contempt in the US of A, where as small towns and their farmers, esp those in the South and West, are portrayed as the American Ideal.

 

It's evolving and didn't just happen yesterday, or even 3 to 5 decades ago, when the urban freeway became the rage and generator of sprawl.  The Van Sweringens, and other Heights RE developers like them, touted their new communities as elevated up and away from all the soot and smoke of Cleveland ... as well as being away from "them."  The Vans wanted a look-alike, WASP-y community in their new Shaker Village as they banned African Americans and Jews from the town. 

Their tool for escape from the city was rapid transit, similar to commuter trains in Chicago and the East.... It became the auto and the freeway in the post WWII era and, to this day, especially when you hear Libertarian and Republican rhetoric, the City is once again viewed with suspicion and contempt, with some pols and political pundits not-so-subtly dropping in accompanying terms like "multiculturalism" as if this were some kind of plague.