Dense urban areas often have old CSO's that are in need of a very expensive replacement.  Cincinnati has a big problem with that, and the price tag is somewhere around $2 billion.  Because of the density and a slew of other things, I'm sure replacement is more costly than expansion in suburban areas.  This probably offsets the disparity in cost, at least somewhat. 

 

Don't suburban developers often times pay more for installation anyways? 

My view is, you can't put down the consumer (the resident of the suburbs), but rather put the blame on the enablers (the politicians that allowed this to happen).  The consumer is pretty much doing what is in the best intrest of their family, and choosing a lcoation that they feel they can enjoy living.  If the enablers never made these locations an option in the 50's and 60's, we would not be in this spot today.  Not only doing we struggle retaining residents in the inner city, but also, jobs.  In my 16 years as an engineer, I have never had a job in the inner city.  They have all been out in the burbs.  From a commuting standpoint, the burbs have always been cloder to my job than the inner city.  I am not saying I am fine with this, but it is what it is, and it was not created by people like myself, that being the consumer. 

"...and the price tag is somewhere around $2 billion."

 

  It's more than double that. The sewer district has committed about $2 billion toward improvements, but that will not be enough to solve all the problems.

 

  The Ohio EPA has a policy that basicly says there will be no new development served by combined sewers. Thus, it is easier for a developer to build in a post-1960 suburb than in a core city with combined sewers. This is a very big deal.

Some interesting thoughts on population density:

 

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/random-density-facts/

 

 

The Somerville point demonstrates that, in practice, density is not so much about people per square mile or units per acre as it is about design. There's a great book I just got, called Visualizing Density, by the Lincoln Land Institute, that makes that point. The cover of the book is an aerial shot of Somerville.

I'd be interested to know if Somerville has much in the way of non residential land uses.  It could explain why it's more dense (pop/sq mile) than Boston or Chicago.

I'd be interested to know if Somerville has much in the way of non residential land uses. It could explain why it's more dense (pop/sq mile) than Boston or Chicago.

 

I would guess not much; it has the benefit of being an “urban suburb” of sorts.  That’s the reason all the cities in New Jersey just across the Hudson from Manhattan are the densest places in the country: they’re more or less bedroom communities.

I'm sure there are other examples of commercially dense sprawl  surrounded  by residential development which could benefit greatly from  some minor pedestrian improvements, but are still walkable for a decent  number of people.

Is Sprawl Really Not Dense Enough?

 

The assumption from both urbanite and suburbanite is that only cars make sense for those living in sprawl: distances are too vast and density too low for any alternative. I have to say after making maps of some neighborhoods that there are some great, unassuming exceptions. Take  Bethel Rd centered around Dierker Rd for example. Walkscore gives it a 72/100.

 

N High in my hood (South Clintonville) ranks only a measly 6 points higher: both are more or less equally walkable. Here's why.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111104896988294047058.000493063f1f1ce29ee08&ll=40.064574,-83.070888&spn=0.035804,0.066777&output=embed&w=425&h=350

 

Blue Site Markers - Strip mall Centers

 

Green - 10 minutes or less walking distance from a dense strip mall.

 

Yellow - 10 minutes or less bike ride from Bethel & Dierker.

 

If you live around this area, the most centrally located and walkable,  it's a 5 minute bike ride or 22 minute walk maximum to restaurants, a movie theater, bookstore, grocery store, strip club (won't find that in any of our premier urban hoods), bowling alley (ditto), and that's just heading west.

 

Heading east it's 8 min. by bike on Bethel  (on the back roads it's 7) vs 4 by car or 19 on foot to reach ethnic restaurants and bakeries, bars and even a Middle Eastern grocery store. Too far for walking, but close by bike are even more dining, shopping, and nightlife options near Olentangy.

 

Due south it's a 10 min. walk to a Mexican restaurant, 17 to to a grocery store and Korean restaurant located around the corner, while taking a bike cuts it down to 5 or less.

 

Not only does Bethel match Clintonville's stretch of High St for walkability, but the road conditions are very similar: 35MPH on High, 40MPH on Bethel, and both have two travel lanes in each direction although Bethel has a median, more dedicated turn lanes, and farther distances between traffic signals. This makes me wonder, why don't we see nearly as much foot traffic and cyclists on Bethel Rd vs. Clintonville's High St? Is a mere 5MPH difference all it takes to scare them away? While I'd say that is certainly part of the answer we should also look at accessibility for cars vs. other modes.

 

Pedestrians certainly have it easier than cyclists since walking on a sidewalk doesn't present the same psychological challenge of riding in traffic going at higher speeds (drivers going the speed limit are the "slow" ones), not to mention that there are few instances of side road alternatives and the fact that strip malls are by and large lacking in places to lock up a bike, since you won't find meters or parking signs here. Instead, you will find that you're guaranteed a spot if you drive meaning that the city has made it the easiest option and therefore the one most likely to be taken by residents even when they are within a short walk or bike ride. The good thing about the arterial roads here is that any confident cyclist can take the right hand lane while allowing faster traffic to pass on the left. You may get honked at more often by motorists who are not used to cyclists on "their" turf, but otherwise they'll treat you just the same as they do on High St.

 

Bethel is a perfect candidate for a 10 MPH speed reduction from 40MPH to 30MPH: it now only takes 6 minutes from Olentangy River Rd to Sawmill (3 miles) by car and 16 minutes by bike (13 in the opposite direction since it's downhill). More real accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists, and scooterists means less traffic for motoring commuters  top contend with since others have left their car at home for short trips where a car alternative is not only feasible, but an easy and safe option.

 

If only the city government thought it was worth tilting the infrastructure more in favor of transportation options that aren't cars, the roads in this area could easily be retrofitted for other modes of travel. Heck, even signing shopping centers within a 10 min. walk away for pedestrians would be a good step, since most probably don't even think twice about always driving.

 

http://columbus-ite.com/2010/10/24/is-sprawl-really-not-dense-enough/

Hasn't the "suburbs" and/or "the suburban dream" died?  :wtf:

 

I thought McMansions and the amount of them in foreclosure in the 'burbs was the final nail in the coffin?!

^MTS I really don't see any hard evidence of this, especially in the South or Midwest, but even on the coasts.

^MTS I really don't see any hard evidence of this, especially in the South or Midwest, but even on the coasts.

 

I dont know.  I dont think building or sales of these homes can stay at levels they were at in the past 5/10 years.

 

When is the current inventory going to be absorbed?

Five myths about the suburbs

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR2011021102615.html

 

 

1. Suburbs are white, middle-class enclaves.

 

2. Suburbs aren't cool.

 

3. Suburbs are a product of the free market.

 

4. Suburbs are politically conservative.

 

5. Suburbanites don't care about the environment.

 

 

 

3. Suburbs are a product of the free market.

 

Well, at least they got one myth correct! ;)

3. Suburbs are a product of the free market.

 

Well, at least they got one myth correct! ;)

 

Yeah I know. I'm sure Solon is full of just as many cool (and liberal, which go hand in hand) bars, restaurants and shops as Tremont. #5 may be the most puzzling, since the simple act to choosing to live in the burbs is an anti-environment action for a plethora of reasons.

The "cool" part suggests Lakewood and Birmingham Mich as examples of "cool" suburbs, noting how non-suburban they are.  Well, yeah.  But that doesn't make Solon cool, it just illustrates that prewar development is better than postwar, and very little suburban land is developed like Lakewood.  So no, suburbs are still not cool.

#5 may be the most puzzling, since the simple act to choosing to live in the burbs is an anti-environment action for a plethora of reasons.

 

I don't find it that puzzling.  Many people assume that the more greenery and "open space" in the suburbs makes them more environmentally friendly than "teh OMG concrete everywhere in the big city!"  Just because it's green and a few creeks and woods are preserved that makes them seem better.  Unfortunately, few understand the reality of energy usage, excessive driving, and inefficient land use that comes with suburban development. 

 

That said, the suburbs are the best place to implement green technologies such as composting, solar energy, gray water, rain water capture, electric cars, etc., because of the space available to accommodate those things at each dwelling.  You can't do much composting or solar energy capture in a high-rise apartment block, after all.   

 

Andres Duany has said that we shouldn't "punish" city dwellers with excessive regulation (say for even better building performance, alternative energy, recycling, etc.) because they're already doing their part by living compactly, walking, and taking transit.  Don't punish the farmers or rural dwellers either because they can't afford it and there's not enough of them to make much difference.  The focus should be on improving the performance of suburban areas because they are the worst performers when you consider both ecological destruction (best=wilderness, worst=city centers) AND social well-being (best=city centers, worst=wilderness).  The suburbs are at the slump in the middle, not the best at anything, and only marginally good at either one, so they need the most help, so to speak. 

The "cool" part suggests Lakewood and Birmingham Mich as examples of "cool" suburbs, noting how non-suburban they are.  Well, yeah.  But that doesn't make Solon cool, it just illustrates that prewar development is better than postwar, and very little suburban land is developed like Lakewood.  So no, suburbs are still not cool.

Agreed. I think post-war suburbs and the sprawl outward are considered 'the burbs in this conversation. While cities such as Lakewood and Grandview Hts are really just municipalities  that for one reason or another just never were annexed by the city. I read that article and shook my head, it just was cherry picked factoids.

'First-ring' suburbs getting second look

Thursday, February 17, 2011  02:53 AM

BY MARK FERENCHIK

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Columbus neighborhoods such as Merion Village and Eastmoor could be mini-boomtowns in upcoming decades as younger and older residents choose houses close to work, shopping and recreation.

 

That's what the leader of the Urban Land Institute told a group of academics and planners last weekend in Raleigh, N.C., while discussing how to reimagine and redevelop "first-ring" suburbs and neighborhoods for the 21st century.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/17/first-ring-suburbs-getting-second-look.html?sid=101

It amazing how now even our outer ring suburbs are getting life sucked out of them by even farther outer ring suburbs. According to wikipedia numbers(could be wrong but usually aren't that far off) these are so numbers.

 

Shrinking Cities:

 

Willowick Ohio, 21,237 people in 1970, 13,727's today

 

Eastlake Ohio, 21,954 people in 1980, 19,500 today

 

Rocky River Ohio, 22,958 people in 1970, 18,900 today

 

North Olmsted Ohio, 36,480 people in 1980, 31,319 today

 

 

Growing Cities:

 

Mentor Ohio, 2,383 people in 1950, 51,825 today

 

Strongsville Ohio,  9,897 people in 1960, 43,825 in 2000. (Wikipedia shows an small estimated decrease today, not sure if thats correct)

 

Westlake Ohio, 4,912 people in 1950, 31,719 in 2000. (Wikipedia also shows small estimated decrease here)

 

Willoughby Ohio,5,450 people in 1950, 22621 in 2000. (Growth mainly due to available land being built on, original core shrinking. Also small estimated decrease this year too)

 

 

And this is not including any of the really far out cities that are also growing. This trend has to stop eventually or the majority of our population will be living 45 minutes to an hour outside of downtown.

 

Check this out from Wester Reserve Land Conservancy:

 

http://www.wrlandconservancy.org/casestudy-cuyahoga.htm

 

In a roughly 50-year span, the population of Cuyahoga County increased by about 0.3 percent while the amount of developed land nearly tripled. That translates into thousands of miles of new roads, and water and sewer lines, plus new schools, and additional public-safety workers and vehicles – all to serve essentially the same population. That means the per capita cost of providing these public services rose significantly.

 

 

 

 

^^ I think the majority of that change in the inner rings is driven by change in US demographics, according to the census burea Average US household size delined from 3.14 to around 2.6 during the 2000s. If you look at Rocky River, which is a very stable (middle ring suburb, half prewar/half post war) and was completely built by the 60s you will see that the decline in population from 1970 to 2000 lines up almost perfectly with that figure. We just have less people living in the same number of units.  Very few inner rings are suffering from flight, most of the change is made up of a household demographic shift. Am I out on a limb with this theory? Also the percentage of single person households in the US increased from 17% in 1970 to 27% in 2007. So over a quarter of our housing units are occupied by a single person.

 

www.marketingcharts.com/.../census-data-average-us-household-size-declines-to-26-10679/

 

^ That sounds about right.

It amazing how now even our outer ring suburbs are getting life sucked out of them by even farther outer ring suburbs. According to wikipedia numbers(could be wrong but usually aren't that far off) these are so numbers.

 

Shrinking Cities:

 

Willowick Ohio, 21,237 people in 1970, 13,727's today

 

Eastlake Ohio, 21,954 people in 1980, 19,500 today

 

Rocky River Ohio, 22,958 people in 1970, 18,900 today

 

North Olmsted Ohio, 36,480 people in 1980, 31,319 today

A significant factor in these towns shrinking is that they're primarily post war sprawl and a large portion of the homes there are still owned by the original residents. As they age they become empty nesters, and then eventually widows/widowers. It makes sense that the population numbers were higher in the 70's than now as the original residents' kids were still at home then. I would guess you'd see a similar pattern in virtually any town that went through significant growth post war. The neighborhoods that are booming now are going to go through the same decline 30-40 years from now.

CBC: I don't think you're out of line with that demographic shift statistic at all.  In fact, I think that the demographic shift numbers may be even more concentrated in some inner-ring suburbs where parents (and grandparents) of a generation ago would look to raise large families.  There are places in Canton where the average household size was probably well above 4 in 1950, possibly even above 5.  Now a lot of those houses have maybe one or two senior citizens in them, or maybe even nobody.

@ Keith: I think you have that going on in the 50s/60s ranch home sprawly part in SW Rocky River, where you can drive down the street and it seems that everyhouse has a buick, caddy or lincoln in the drive. I am willing to bet that a large portion of these homes are still owned by the original owners who had a houseful of kids or teenagers in the 1970's.

@ Keith: I think you have that going on in the 50s/60s ranch home sprawly part in SW Rocky River, where you can drive down the street and it seems that everyhouse has a buick, caddy or lincoln in the drive. I am willing to bet that a large portion of these homes are still owned by the original owners who had a houseful of kids or teenagers in the 1970's.

I don't really know Rocky River, but I know a good portion of the residents in Willowick are in their 70s still in their 1950's bungalows, with a few younger families, like mine, sprinkled throughout. Eastlake seems to be the same. Some neighborhoods in Willoughby look like they're only about 20 years behind on the decline.

personal anecdote time

 

my grandpa's house in seven hills had 5 people living there in the 70s, 1 now

my dad's house in seven hills had 3 people in the early 80s, 1 now

my grandma's house in wickliffe had 3 people in the 80s, 1 now

my mom's house in wickliffe had 2 people in the 90s, 1 now (and 3 previously before she bought it).

there hasn't been any change of homeownership between the dates mentioned and today

 

this is just an increase of one-person households due to empty-nesting, divorce, and aging

^

I thnink thats what we are seeing.  One can have population decline, but still have a rough parity of units to housholds.  Or even an increase in households, depending on kids moving out on their own, and divorces, etc.

Still, a lot of people are still moving to Mentor, Westlake, and Strongsville. They have to come from somewhere.

 

  The same effect applies to passenger automobiles. Whereas in 1960 the typical car on the road had two or three people in it, about 90 percent of automobiles on the road today carry only the driver. So, a city of, say, 100,000 people in 1960 might have had 30,000 cars, but the same city today has 90,000 people and 80,000 cars. Automobile use has gone up even while the population remained stable or declined. This of course leads to an increase in lane-miles of road per capita.

FYI: the average number of occupants per today is 1.2, according the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

 

personal anecdote time

 

my grandpa's house in seven hills had 5 people living there in the 70s, 1 now

my dad's house in seven hills had 3 people in the early 80s, 1 now

my grandma's house in wickliffe had 3 people in the 80s, 1 now

my mom's house in wickliffe had 2 people in the 90s, 1 now (and 3 previously before she bought it).

there hasn't been any change of homeownership between the dates mentioned and today

 

this is just an increase of one-person households due to empty-nesting, divorce, and aging

 

My mother lives alone. My father lives alone. My sister lives alone and I live alone. There are others in similar situations.

 

Imagine if there's a long-lasting economic crisis, such as from peak oil, another credit crisis because Wall Street hasn't learned anything, etc. etc. Would family members start moving back in together to save money? Or friends moving in together? We already have an oversupply of housing. Wonder what a significant amount of household re-consolidations would do metro areas? Would we see a lot abandoned houses, where might we see them in the greatest numbers, and why do you think those locations would be the places with the most abandonment?

 

I think the oldest, most neglected houses in the city and the newest, oversized houses in exurbia would be the most common casualties. I hate to see so many older urban homes be lost, but when I travel through some neighborhoods of Cleveland, I can't imagine how some of these houses are still standing. And those aren't even in the worst areas. I was in the southern part of the Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood the other night and saw far too many homes that looked abandoned and very ragged. I think the best kept areas of the inner city, the solid inner-ring suburbs and a few of the 1970s-80s suburbs like Westlake or Dublin that aren't all one land use might do OK.

I live on a very kid filled and family friendly street of single family homes in Lakewood (western CLE inner burbs) and even though there are at least 60-70 kids on the street due to the relative density of the housing , I am pretty sure that if I did the math our average would be under 3 people per house. About half of the families have kids, but most of those families have two kids, probably a quarter of the families with kids have one, there are two families with four kids, a handful have three (like me) and their is one family that have 6 kids. The rest are either retired/kids moved out  couples or younger couples that don't have kids.  These are big 2500 to 3500 sqft mostly foursquare,  century houses that have walk up attics and the such. The original Exurbs of Cleveland. I imagine back in the day these were filled to the brim with kids. Lakewood has seen it's population tumble from a peak of around 75k to probably just about 50k today. I imagine the drop off due to household size had a bigger impact here because  tradionally Lakewood was know as a big Irish Catholic city, so there were a large number of stereotypically large catholic families in the 60 and 70s where 5 or 6 kids were fairly common.

 

A big problem in a lot of these post war suburbs, is that the population didn't turn over fast enough and the area ends up graying with the residents. 

A big problem in a lot of these post war suburbs, is that the population didn't turn over fast enough and the area ends up graying with the residents. 

 

I'm not sure that that problem is unique to inner-ring suburbs, or even that it correlates strongly with inner-ring suburbs.  Grandview Heights near Columbus, for example, seems to have become something of a youth destination, though I'm sure that there are older residents that are simply less visible.  I know a lot of my OSU class that stayed in Columbus found its way into Grandview Heights, though.

 

Meanwhile, the older-and-smaller-household phenomenon you describe affects the exurbs, too.  Indeed, in my high school district (Southwest Licking/Watkins Memorial), which covers the exurbs of Pataskala and Etna and the more rural villages of Kirkersville and Outville, one of the major obstacles to getting any school funding, even when economic times were better, was the preponderance of elderly residents on fixed incomes who had no stake (even a past stake) in the school system.

 

It isn't just the inner-ring suburbs that are greying.  The entire country is.  After all, it's not like those six-child Irish Catholic families moved to an exurb, or back into the downtown core, either.  Most likely, the six kids grew up and none of them have six kids.  Those large families have all but vanished from American demography.

^ yeah sorry about that  I kind of jumped subjects with that last line. I totally agreed. Grandview is the hot place to live among my college friends in Columbus (of course most of them are from there.) I was speaking about the post war burbs, like Middleberg Hts in Cle or the north of 161 area in Columbus by the old Northland mall (before the immigrant wave) . I think most of the "street car" inner ring suburbs such as Lakewood and Grandview Hts missed that originally  because there was virtually no new housing built from 1930 to the late 40s. I actually think that Lakewood has gotten much younger in the 8 years that I have lived there. It always has had a large population of young families, due to good schools and affordable housing options, but the large number of "babuska" old ladies seems to have declined dramatically, which makes sense because I assume that a large number of families started there in the late 40s and early 50s, filled up the housing stock. Most probably lived in the same house for 50 years. These people would now be in their late 80s and 90s and either moved on to the great urban enviromentt in the sky or into a nursing home/assisted living.

Most residential neighborhoods go through a stage in their development when they become dominated by the elderly - the phrase I've seen is Naturally Occurring Retirement Community or NORC. The question for a neighborhood's future is what happens next. The 20s era 'burbs turned over mostly in 60s and 70s or went downhill. The postwar 'burbs turned over in the 80s and 90s and now we are seeing the 60s and 70s neighborhoods have these issues (certainly that seems to be the case in parts of northern Cbus and Westerville). Everybody ages together and then they die, move to Florida/AZ or get shipped off to the home.

^NORC. I like it.

NORC sounds like something I heard either in a Dr. Seuss book or on Animaniacs.

75k at it's peak to 50k is actually a pretty healthy decline over the long term. There's probably numerous examples of first ring suburbs that are doing well and dealt with a similar decline as percentage of population loss. We simply don't have as many kids as we used to. That's much better than Cleveland which lost roughly half of it's population (I believe it peaked at 950k, yeah?) You have to remember that back then, cities were crowded, people had no privacy and those who get really nostalgic forget how filthy cities were. City life is much more appealing now than it was when more people lived it. If people had double the kids they have now, I can't imagine the property tax burden.

In urban century, whither suburbia?

Mary Newsom

Posted: Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011

 

Last year the global population crested a major ridge. More than half the world's people now live in urban areas. It's the Century of the City.

 

But in America, the 21st century should also be the Century of the Suburb - the re-imagined suburb.

 

That's particularly true in Sun Belt cities like Charlotte. They saw huge growth during a time when low-density, suburban development was admired, even required.

 

Now, the suburbia-dominated Sun Belt has a vast challenge. How we meet it may well determine whether our cities thrive or fade.

 

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/17/2068301/in-urban-century-whither-suburbia.html#ixzz1EcGJFfah

Five myths about the suburbs

 

That article was on the front page of the Louisville Courier-Journals op-ed section.  Which is interesting because one could say, now with merger, "Jefferson County" is the new city, and the surrounding counties are the new suburbs since people are, apparently, moving out of "Metro Louisville" to these counties.

 

The "inner ring suburb" concept seems to be changing with time.

 

For me these suburbs were suburbs that predated WWII.  The best examples I can think about are in Chicagoland.  Places like Berwyn, Cicero, Elmwood Park, Oak Park, Forest Park. 

 

I guess for Ohio the examples would be Lakewood and Cleveland Heights, maybe Norwood and St Bernard and Silverton.  Bexley, Oakwood, Grandview Heights would be other examples.

 

Only in the past 10-20 years or so has this concept been broadened to take in postwar suburbia (from 1946 thru 1980 or so).  I'd call that middle ring suburbia.

 

But concept of "rings" is also questionable.  In a place like Chicago, which grew along rail lines, its more like "fingers" of these inner ring suburbs.  And also in Louisville, where postwar suburbia followed the foru-lane highways built by the WPA in the 1930s and 40s, you have fingers of 1950s suburbia extending pretty far out of the city.

The ring concept of urban development comes out of early 20C urban theory. It was especially popular among Chicago school sociologists and historians. Zane Miller's book on Boss Cox era Cincinnati relies on a very social scientific variation version of ring theory.

FWIW, Silverton is mostly postwar, but Norwood and St. Bernard would definitely be first ring (I'd add in city neighborhoods that were annexed and developed after 1900 and even more so after 1920).

^

Yeah, I can see the ring thing working as an abstration or diagram.

 

 

In some ways this interest in...shall we say...the first wave of postwar suburbia and its fate reminds me of the old

'gray area' concept from the 1950s and 1960s. 

 

 

Michigan CEO: Soul-Crushing Sprawl Killing Business

 

From: Andrew Basile, Jr

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 12:16 PM

Subject: Why our growing firm may have to leave Michigan.

 

All,

 

I hope you find this essay of interest/value. It’s probably something

you’ve heard a million times but I thought I ought to at least try to

vocalize it rather than silently surrender.

 

We have a patent law firm in Troy. In 2006, our firm’s legacy domestic

automotive business collapsed. We rebuilt our practice with out-of-state

clients in a range of industries, including clients like Google, Nissan and

Abbott Labs, located in the US, Japan, Europe and China.

 

Today, we have 40 highly-paid employees and much of our work now

comes from out of state. This makes us a service exporter. We are very

proud of the contribution our firm makes to the local economy. We also

created a not-for-profit incubator using excess space in our office. The

incubator is home to 4 start-ups, all of which are generating revenue and

two of which have started employing people. This is something we do

without charge as a charity to help the state.

Read the full post at: http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michigan-business-owner-soul-crushing-sprawl-driving-us-away/

Excellent piece!

Interesting perspective. I think there's a lot more to Detroit's issues attracting talent than just the sprawl, but that aspect shouldn't be ignored.

3 min public announcement

 

^^^That article is applicable not just to Detroit, but most Great Lakes cities. They deliver on suburbia, but are lacking in delivering truly urban places that hit all the right notes. This can be experienced first hand in our downtowns suburban expressways. As long as downtowns and urban neighborhoods are prioritized for suburban commuters we'll still be offering less enticing imitations of what is available in greater quantity and quality on the coasts.

3 min public announcement

 

 

Nice

 

Worth a look: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/realestate/20Lizo.html?src=recg

 

"The areas that many young adults seek are “walkable to the train and to a downtown,” said Nina Petraro Bastardi, 28, who is active with the Young Adult Alliance of Action Long Island, a nonprofit that will host a housing and rental expo on April 9."

3 min public announcement

 

 

 

Nice

 

 

That video's almost three years old now, and things certainly haven't gotten any better out there.

Michigan CEO: Soul-Crushing Sprawl Killing Business

 

From: Andrew Basile, Jr

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 12:16 PM

Subject: Why our growing firm may have to leave Michigan.

Read the full post at: http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michigan-business-owner-soul-crushing-sprawl-driving-us-away/

 

Best quote:

 

We don’t have a perception problem, we have a reality problem.

 

Ohio, take note. We're every bit as suburban as Michigan, and our politics are going to make it much worse. I don't hear Rick Snyder talking about killing intercity passenger rail and transit projects. Hell, it's now looking like Detroit will have a streetcar before Cincinnati has a streetcar if Kasich has his way. This state's political revolution is a death blow for Ohio's urban places. Places that have functional urbanity care about the public realm. That makes them hardcore socialists, communists, leftists, bleeding hearts, etc.