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 might have a streetcar before Cincinnati has a streetcar.

 

Link for Detroit's plan which is moving forward. Also, don't forget IN and WI where urban rail is not happening.

Detroit is doing the damn thing. If Detroit can do it, we have no excuses. Woodward makes a lot of sense, and it could really be a game changer for Detroit. The sheer size of the line they're planning is pretty impressive.

This is a long doc but gets the message across.  Sprawling from Grace

 

^^Minneapolis and Chicago are the only other two cities that have shown they're serious about urban rail. And maybe Cincinnati if the streetcar isn't stalled indefinitely. Detroit, in addition to the streetcar, should aggressively remove lanes from their road system: they don't have the money to maintain roads built for 2x the traffic they have now, which would be better spent on rail and minimizing annual costs for road repair. Right now their urban roads are built for suburban commuters and suburban development (hence urban blocks broken up by drive-thrus and such), not for urban residents and businesses.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/high-gas-prices-suburbs-slums-110321.html

 

Americans rarely think much about zoning, but it governs almost every facet of how we live our lives. And unintended consequences of 50-year-old zoning codes may be about to turn some of our loveliest and quietest suburbs into the next slums.

 

Why? Simply because they've been built too far away from everything else, and we won't be able to afford the gasoline it takes to go to and fro.

 

Suburbs: slums of the future?

 

At least, that's the provocative conclusion of Peter Newman, one of the authors of a study released by the Planning Institute of Australia late last year.

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

The Sprawl Bubble by Chuck Banas

 

[ Buffalo's Chuck Banas is a great thinker, doer, and writer on urban matters. He graciously allowed me to repost some of his articles, and this is sadly the last one I have on file. It was written in 2009 and so some of it addresses what was going on at that time, but the perspective remains relevant, even if sprawl is not your issue. - Aaron. ]

 

I’m certainly not the first pundit to comment on the recent economic meltdown, and I sure won’t be the last. But there is a side to this crisis that almost no one is talking about, perhaps because it hits a little too close to home—literally.

 

The two primary assumptions embedded in our national dialog seem to be that (1) like the dot-com bust of 2000, the problem is a fairly recent phenomenon caused by the latest round of irrational exuberance on Wall Street, and that (2) worst-case, we’ll all be able to go back to the old borrow-and-spend way of life in a couple years. Both are symptoms of denial that make it impossible to address the larger problem.

 

This crisis is not simply about bad suburban housing debt. By some estimates, more than one-eighth of the retail space in the U.S. will be sitting vacant within a few months. The graph at right illustrates that situation very clearly. I’m thinking you’ll be shocked by it. Whether or not that’s the case, kindly indulge me and read on.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/04/13/the-sprawl-bubble-by-chuck-banas/

 

Lake County's flat growth is impacting development planning

 

In 1960, planning leaders within Lake County thought the county’s population would continue to boom like it had during the post World War II era.

 

During those days there was talk of someday building an airport in Madison and extending state Route 2 all the way east through the county.

 

Lake County had a population of 148,115 in 1960, nearly double from 1950 when it was 75,979, according to the U.S. Census.

 

Local planners projected there would be 278,000 people living in the county by 1975, and 365,000 in 1985, county Planning Commission Director Jason Boyd said Tuesday while giving an update to commissioners on the latest U.S. Census results.

 

Officials said at that time that the urban development from Cleveland would span out to Lake County’s eastern border.

 

“The rationale was basing the growth of Wickliffe, Willowick, Eastlake and Willoughby,” he said.

 

Instead, Lake County remained a suburban county, and the county’s population just reached 230,041 in 2010, according to the latest Census results.

 

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/04/14/news/doc4da5b4ffb35e7771575641.txt

^Best line in the article was the last...

“It looks like we’re going to have to start thinking about redevelopment rather than development,”

Ha. That's stating the obvious. In America, most of the land that's easy and cheap to develop has already been used. Instead of developers taking a concept and matching it to a site, they're going to have to look at a specific site and figure out the best use. It's going to take more creativity.

But it's so much easier to start designing with a blank sheet. :-)

In America, most of the land that's easy and cheap to develop has already been used.

 

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure about that.

what did they expect? western lake county peaked in population in 1970, and is full of eastern european or italian grandparents. it may be out-county, but it's still inner-ring, with only euclid separating wickliffe and willowick from collinwood. it's 3.9 miles from the county line to east 185th along I-90.

 

also, the article mentions growth to the east being "two counties out" referring to geauga, which is immediately east of cuy, and portage which is opposite cuyahoga at a "four corners." the writer probably thinks you need to travel through lake county to get to geauga from cuy, for some reason.

Around here, two counties out could be a completely different metro.

Around here, two counties out could be a completely different metro.

 

Around here, two counties out is always a different metro now that Ashtabula County is not part of the MSA, and even one county out is sometimes a different metro (Summit).

 

The two county comment was really odd.  I could see if he was trying to talk about (mostly non-existent) growth in Geneva or something, but none of the 4 counties he mentioned (Geauga, Portage, Lorain, and Medina) are two counties out (although Portage is iffy).

The two county comment was really odd.  I could see if he was trying to talk about (mostly non-existent) growth in Geneva or something, but none of the 4 counties he mentioned (Geauga, Portage, Lorain, and Medina) are two counties out (although Portage is iffy).

Find me directions from Cleveland to Ravenna or Chardon that don't briefly pass through another county. Sure you could go out of your way and get to Chardon via Chesterland, but why? Just playing devil's advocate here, and the writer's comment makes no sense with the west side.

CNBC is going to show "SPRAWLING FROM GRACE" April 20 at 10pm....

 

"The unintended consequences of suburban sprawl inform David M. Edwards' documentary detailing the dangers Americans face should we fail to reevaluate our approach to urban development. The suburban way of life isn't simply at risk; it's in absolute peril. How can a country support such inefficient horizontal growth patterns when the very existence of such patterns threatens to bankrupt the entire nation? By interviewing close to thirty experts on the subject, Edwards discovers that we can no longer continue building our cities as we did in the past. While the suburbs once seemed an essential part of out maturation as a society, it now contributes to pollution, increased health risks, and a decreasing quality of life. But as non-renewable fossil fuels are being slowly depleted, Americans remain trapped behind the wheels of their own cars. With each new subdivision, strip mall, and corporate office block, the promise of a better tomorrow slips further away. So is there a solution to making our society sustainable in a post-fossil-fuel world? By exploring the efforts of state and city governments to invest in such viable alternatives as BRT (Bus Rapid Transit, commuter rail, and light rail, Edwards reveals why innovative thinking regarding land use and transportation is essential to keeping our society functional."

 

Suburban growth focused on inner and outer communities

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-26-suburbs-growth-census-demographics_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

 

 

Not sure if this has already been linked on another thread, but it seemed appropriate for here, too:

 

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/the_collapse_of_the_key_assump.html

 

The collapse of the "key assumptions" of sprawl

 

Basically, the premise of the column (and the re-linked WaPo column within it) is that the suburban growth model was predicated on four key assumptions, all of which are being reexamined or are failing at least in part:

 

    * America had an unlimited supply of land;

    * Automobiles and road building, thanks to inexpensive and presumably inexhaustible supplies of petroleum, would forever satisfy metropolitan transportation needs;

    * Grouping homogeneous land uses, not intermixing them, would best protect property values, especially for residences; and

    * The only way to realize the American dream was to own and inhabit a mortgaged house.

 

I think it's a relatively well-thought-out piece, and is mercifully clinical compared to some of the "repent-ye-suburban-sinners" polemics on this subject that I've become more accustomed to seeing.

 

I think that he may have omitted some other key assumptions that have retained a significant amount of force, including assumptions related to school quality and neighborhood safety; those might be secondary to his mind, since his background is in architecture, so the physical build is naturally where his mind focuses at first.  However, the assumptions about the physical build *are* important, and I think he has identified a number of them that really do matter.

 

It's also worth noting that these assumptions have not completely collapsed, which is in part why suburbs do continue to grow notwithstanding the resurgence in interest in urban living.  America may not have an unlimited amount of land--but it still does have a very large amount of it, even in the areas of the country that we think of as extremely densely populated like New Jersey.  Our autocentric infrastructure is heavily exposed to petroleum prices right now and will never be completely divorced from those prices, but neither will a transit-centric infrastructure, and the gradual electrification of the commuter vehicle fleet and the transition to a mix of fuels including natural gas for commercial vehicles (especially buses) will dilute (not eliminate, but dilute) the heavy exposure to oil that is the consequence of our current autocentrism.

 

Many land uses are still homogeneous.  What we typically think of as "mixed use" generally mixes residential, light commercial, and retail specifically, with perhaps the occasional light industrial space thrown in.  Most other land uses remain isolated, and generally for understandable reasons; walking to work is great if you work at an office building, but you might not want to live within easy walking distance of the Timken plant, or Hopkins.

 

Likewise, notwithstanding the mortgage crisis, most people do still want to own their own home; even I am iffy on the idea, even though I've crunched the numbers and I'm fairly confident that I come out ahead by renting.  I'm not convinced that widespread homeownership is necessarily inconsistent with urban living, either.  Indeed, this was the one assumption that he listed that I wasn't certain deserved to be on the list of assumptions necessarily undergirding suburban growth, at least not phrased the way he phrased it.  Many people look at moving downtown and then are turned away by the high cost of ownership in urban areas.

And another one, for good measure, from the Economist:

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/03/migration_trends

 

The point about artificial constraints on supply in urban areas being part of what's driving up the cost of buying a residence in many urban locales to unattainable heights for most people was particularly compelling.

I have found the ultimate sprawl story!

 

Excerpt:

 

When drastic price cuts weren't enough to entice buyers, he decided to throw in $17,000 cash toward the purchase of a car with every house. (That money can only be spent at the local General Motors dealer, of course -- because, let's go U.S.A.!)

 

So this is what it has come to. Developers are now giving away vehicles to entice people to live in distant suburbs with life-draining commutes just when gas is hitting $5 a gallon. And a few consumers are biting -- one is quoted as saying, "My money was in the bank, collecting very little interest, so I thought I might as well take a little gamble."

 

...more...

http://www.grist.org/sprawl/2011-04-26-desperate-sprawl-developer-gives-away-cars-with-houses

I have found the ultimate sprawl story!

 

Excerpt:

 

When drastic price cuts weren't enough to entice buyers, he decided to throw in $17,000 cash toward the purchase of a car with every house. (That money can only be spent at the local General Motors dealer, of course -- because, let's go U.S.A.!)

 

So this is what it has come to. Developers are now giving away vehicles to entice people to live in distant suburbs with life-draining commutes just when gas is hitting $5 a gallon. And a few consumers are biting -- one is quoted as saying, "My money was in the bank, collecting very little interest, so I thought I might as well take a little gamble."

 

...more...

http://www.grist.org/sprawl/2011-04-26-desperate-sprawl-developer-gives-away-cars-with-houses

 

If the developer can afford to "give away" a car with each house, shouldn't it clue you in that he's rippng you off?  That he's been ripping everyone off for many years?

I don't know that it necessarily indicates he's ripping anyone off... he's just cutting $17k out of his profit margin... which means he's probably desparate because he has invested millions of dollars building homes in some subdivision and if he can't entice people to buy, even if its at a very low profit margin or potentially a loss on each home... he might go belly up.

And you can bet that the bottom line between him and the GM dealership is not $17,000 per purchase.  And you can also bet that there is some fine print in there about sticker prices at the dealership being non-negotiable should you wish to use the credit.

It doesn't seem to "tip anyone off" when a car dealership is offering you $5K for any car, no matter what condition, if you purchase from them. People just do not think about the big picture or the fine print or what they're really losing out on. 99.9% of all leasing customers have no idea what the price of the car is that they're renting long-term, they are almost all being charged on full MSRP sticker price of the car. This R.E. deal doesn't sound any more or less suspect to the car "deals" I see being offered every day. As the famous quote goes, "there's a sucker born every minute."

What an excellent piece.

 

I spent four years in southeast Michigan doing my undergrad at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor (about the same distance from Detroit as Akron is to Cleveland). While Ann Arbor is this "bubble" of urban planning in Michigan, southeast Michigan is a suburban wasteland of mile by mile grids cleverly named after each mile of farm field they once bisected. Just zoom on a google map and you'll see this pattern replicated for miles and miles. It's truly an unfortunate situation because the school attracts thousands of talented students from all over the US but yet it's so hard to convince graduates to stay behind for jobs in Metro Detroit.

 

As the article mentions, there is a sliver of possible urban hope in southern Oakland County around Birmingham/Ferndale, but outside of that there are few cities/neighborhoods epitomizing the lifestyle that young educated professionals desire.

 

I, like most other graduates in SE Michigan, had no desire to even look for a job in Metro Detroit.

 

I don't want to hate on the region, because that's not my intent, but Cleveland should consider itself extremely fortunate that it has neighborhoods such as Edgewater, Detroit-Shoreway, Kamm's Corners, Ohio City, Tremont, University Circle, the Warehouse District, Shaker Square because Detroit DOES NOT have hip trendy neighborhoods like these scattered throughout its city limits that it can advertise to young educated professionals.

 

Cleveland is very fortunate to have a tight core and a tight ring of suburbs (thanks Lake Erie!) and has done, in my opinion, a great job of building up its hip neighborhoods to attract the "creative class" ... especially with respect to metros with similar economic shortfalls. However there is one caveat to that, which rings true for any Great Lakes rust belt ... jobs.

 

It's really two-fold, first the actual availability of decent well paid jobs for young professionals, and secondly the location of these jobs. While yes you can tout the urban lifestyle with great neighborhoods such as Tremont and the Detroit-Shoreway to a prospective educated professional considering a job here, but the problem is that so many of the jobs are in the suburbs. Great, you've always wanted to live in an urban environment and found this great loft apartment, with coffee shops, and restaurants, and bars, and parks nearby! Too bad that at 7 am you need to get up and get in your car and hop on 480 and drive for 45 minutes out to 271 to your suburban office park! Such is the story for Cleveland and Detroit and so many other cities. Which is why the young recent college grads crave the Portlands and San Frans and NYCs of the world.

 

Once the big companies started building the office parks and mid rises out near freeway interchanges, it made it that much harder for the urban core to come back. I don't have the number off hand, but I believe that Cleveland's urban core only houses 17% of the jobs in the region (someone correct me on that please) so as much as one touts the urban assets that we have to any potential new comers to the city, chances are they won't be working downtown. We have a great public transportation system that gets people from our neighborhoods and inner rings to downtown, but it's rendered useless when the people who move into these neighborhoods aren't going downtown for work. It truly is a shame.

 

I'll stop my little comment here. But as a young professional, Cleveland needs to somehow get these office parks to come back downtown. In my opinion, it's the number one issue needed to address in fixing the city. The suburban office park has got to stop. But yet we've got Eaton leaving shortly and American Greetings not even considering a Cleveland location ... appears we are just in for more sprawl. :(

 

 

 

 

 

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/

I'll stop my little comment here. But as a young professional, Cleveland needs to somehow get these office parks to come back downtown. In my opinion, it's the number one issue needed to address in fixing the city. The suburban office park has got to stop. But yet we've got Eaton leaving shortly and American Greetings not even considering a Cleveland location ... appears we are just in for more sprawl. :(

 

 

Those are unfortunately losses. Especially for American Greetings. I think the honchos at American Greetings, which employs many artists and writers, is totally misunderstanding the full package necessary to attract young, creative talent. Hallmark gets it, which is why they're kicking AG's ass.

 

But it's not all gloom and doom. Rosetta digital marketing is bringing (has brought?) more than 200 jobs from Beachwood to downtown, and hiring another 200 employees.

 

SparkBase LLC and Analiza Inc., both of Solon, moved from the suburbs to Tyler Village in the city's Asiatown district. There are others, but I can't remember their names. They may not be as big as Rosetta, but they are growing about as quickly. And that's a big difference to large, old-school (stodgy?) companies like American Greetings and Eaton.

 

I know we have a lot more movement to see, but I think between all the demographic (the demands of GenY and the retirements of Baby Boomers) and economic ($4-$5 gas) revolutions occurring, I think the days of the suburban office park expansions are numbered. Even in Greater Cleveland, the suburban defections have slowed greatly, based on my casual observations.

I dunno about that. I just hear people talking about how they're going to pick up a 2nd/PT job to offset the cost of gas. Nobody seems interested in moving closer from what I've heard, esp with RE prices continuing to be soft.

I dunno about that. I just hear people talking about how they're going to pick up a 2nd/PT job to offset the cost of gas. Nobody seems interested in moving closer from what I've heard, esp with RE prices continuing to be soft.

 

I think if the housing market weren't still in the dumps there might be a different story.  Everyone in suburbia (including myself) is married to their house right now.  If it were possible to sell your house in a reasonable amount of time, people may be considering moving to make their commute easier. 

I dunno about that. I just hear people talking about how they're going to pick up a 2nd/PT job to offset the cost of gas. Nobody seems interested in moving closer from what I've heard, esp with RE prices continuing to be soft.

 

I think if the housing market weren't still in the dumps there might be a different story.  Everyone in suburbia (including myself) is married to their house right now.  If it were possible to sell your house in a reasonable amount of time, people may be considering moving to make their commute easier. 

 

The question is, in relative terms, is selling a house in suburbia in order to move closer in to work (assuming that you work in a more urban area than that in which you live, of course) going to get easier even in a housing market recovery?  If "everyone in suburbia" wants to sell as soon as the market recovers, the market in suburbia will never really recover because as soon as it ticks upward slightly, more people will immediately start listing their houses and pushing the price down again.

I don't think "everyone" wants to move. They largely want to stay, but the gas prices are forcing some to make lifestyle changes. I think people will change a lot of things about their lives to stay in the suburbs before selling (particularly in this market) and moving closer to an urban work location.  Fewer vacations, eating out less, cutting down on all the junky crap they waste $ on, taking a 2nd job, whatever. But it will take a lot more than $5/gal gas to drive them back. $20 a gallon, yeah, that will produce massive lifestyle changes including relocating right to the urban core or very close by.

I seem to think that the people who live in suburbia, want to live in suburbia.  We can't keep beating up the people whol lived in Cleveland, or the inner ring.  They did that, and made the choice to move to the suburbs.  Its like a girlfriend telling you, I don't like you, I want to break up and just be friends.  The people in the suburbs made up their mind that they want to live there, they will do what it takes to live there, but they still want to enjoy Cleveland.  I think the effort needs to focus on gettng transplants into the city, and young professionals looking for their first home.  suburbs are everywhere around every major city, and they always will be whether one likes it or not.  Just because they are there doesn't mean the city needs to fall apart. 

I don't think "everyone" wants to move. They largely want to stay, but the gas prices are forcing some to make lifestyle changes. I think people will change a lot of things about their lives to stay in the suburbs before selling (particularly in this market) and moving closer to an urban work location.  Fewer vacations, eating out less, cutting down on all the junky crap they waste $ on, taking a 2nd job, whatever. But it will take a lot more than $5/gal gas to drive them back. $20 a gallon, yeah, that will produce massive lifestyle changes including relocating right to the urban core or very close by.

I agree with you, I would never sell my house becasue of the price of gas.  Would I cut back on other things such as cable TV, and going out, sure, but not my house.  I absolutely love Cleveland inside and out, however, I honestly do not want to own residential property there. 

The trouble is that there's a lot of jobs in the suburbs and edge cities too.  You're pretty much at the whim of whatever job you're lucky enough to have or find.  The city dweller who finds a job in the suburbs is almost as screwed as the suburbanite who works downtown.  While the suburbanite might be lucky enough to have a rush hour bus route to get to work or commuter rail in a larger city, and maybe park-and-ride options, they're still having to drive around a lot more for their other non-work daily needs.  The city dweller may be able to get to the store or nearby restaurants easily, but reverse commuting is next to impossible without a car in most cities. 

 

Both situations are difficult in the face of rising energy prices, because the tradeoffs are pretty big and unable to be mitigated much.  Of course the city dweller who works in the city is in the best position to ride out high transportation costs, but the suburbanite who lives in the same or a nearby suburb is probably better off than even the city dweller who must reverse commute out to the suburbs. 

I don't think the city dweller who works in the city is better off than the suburb dweller who works in or very near that burb. And at least where we live, the suburban would be ahead in terms of dealing with the weather. If you are a mom shopping for a family of 4, you won't care if there's a grocery store only about a mile away that you "could" walk to and pull a big rolling cart behind you, both ways in the rain or snow, you're going to drive there. I really think so much that the urban lifestyle is more tailor made for singles or young professional couples than families. There are, of course, families that live in the urban core and make it work for their family style, and singles and young couples who live in the burbs, but largely, I think it's people with families that fled, because living the city is not family-friendly to the lifestyle a family wants. When you have kids, you want a yard for them to play in, you want to be able to have people over for a BBQ, have a birthday party in the back yard, have a place for them to play (again, big yard) where they're not having to walk a mile to and from a park or something. You want stores close by so you can do your necessary shopping, dry cleaning, get an ice cream, pick up prescriptions, get an eye exam, go out to eat, etc. all within a close driving distance. People don't "hate" cities that moved to the burbs, the cities just don't offer what a lot of families want.

I made no no statements about the subjective qualities of being "better off." I said the city dweller who works in the city is "in the best position to ride out high transportation costs."  Those are very different things. 

 

One thing that seems to get missed a lot in these discussions is that there are plenty of people who live or work in places they would not otherwise want to.  Many of those young couples who move out to the suburbs when they have kids do so not because they don't want to live in the city anymore, but because of issues with schools or crime or affordability of housing.  They simply have no other choice.  If they could raise their kids in the city with equal quality schools, many more would.  Some of the city dwellers who move out to the suburbs do so because the job they managed to land is in some office park outside the beltway.  Commuting 20 miles each way is tough even as a reverse commute.  If you've gotta have a car anyway, then trying to stay in the city makes less sense.  There's all sorts of factors at play that interact with each other.  Taxes and zoning are other big ones too.  That growing family can't stay in the city because they can't afford a big enough apartment, condo, or house.  Well the fact that they're so expensive is in no small part because building additional supply of that kind of housing is nearly always restricted by zoning laws.  I could go on and on, but it's not simple enough to say that just because people have chosen to live in the suburbs it shows that's what they all prefer.  Of course it's the same with inner city living as well. 

Our son is now 9 months old and we have no intention of moving out of the urban core.

 

When you have kids, you want a yard for them to play in, you want to be able to have people over for a BBQ, have a birthday party in the back yard, have a place for them to play (again, big yard) where they're not having to walk a mile to and from a park or something.

We're three blocks from Washington Park which will be one of the City of Cincinnati's premier parks taking up over an entire city block.  There is also plenty of off street parking that is rarely, if ever, full.  Evenings/Sundays off street parking is no cost.  Our condo building has a deck and party room, just like many downtown residential buildings, to host events.

 

You want stores close by so you can do your necessary shopping,

We are a block away from a butcher/small grocer and blocks away from a variety of grocers/retailers (even if there could always be more hardware and other miscellaneous shopping options with some better hours)

 

dry cleaning,

There is a dry cleaner just six blocks away with great hours.

 

get an ice cream

Graeters is only six blocks away at Cincinnati's Fountain Square and has great hours.

 

pick up prescriptions

We are six blocks from two Walgreens to pick up medicines.

 

get an eye exam

My eye doctor, dentist and primary care physician are all within ten blocks of our residence.

 

go out to eat, etc. all within a close driving distance.

We are a mere few blocks away from dozens of restaurants (many family friendly).

 

People don't "hate" cities that moved to the burbs, the cities just don't offer what a lot of families want.

There are many family events on Fountain Square, many educational/fun events at the Main Branch Library, the Contemporary Arts Center has a children's area, the Children's Museum is about a mile away, and many, many other random family events are held in the Central Business District.  I agree that some of the city schools need to be improved (like many of those in our family we are planning on sending our child to Catholics schools anyway).  However, there are also some fantastic Cincinnati Public Schools (for example the nationally known School for the Creative and Performing Arts is two blocks away).

 

Sorry if I'm coming off harsh, but I would strenuously argue against the assertion that cities are not family friendly.

bfwissel - It's accounts like yours that make me confident that I could raise a family in downtown or OTR Cincinnati. My girlfriend and I are moving to OTR in July, and I'm slowly but surely convincing her we could have a family in the 'hood.

10 blocks in the ice and snow is not an easy walk for anybody going to the eye doctor, I'm sorry. And I don't know about your condo, but my apartment complex charges $300 for the party room! I'm not having any parties anywhere where it's $300, certainly not several times a year.

 

I'm not saying you don't have some good places, but for the majority of families, walking 10 blocks to the doctor or 6 blocks for ice cream, esp if you have several really little ones, is not great. Also you can't go if it's snowing or cold or raining, which is a good portion of the year here. If you want to get an ice cream and go to the dry cleaners AND go to the grocery, I imagine hitting several places at once is not possible since they're not all in the same location. One might be 6 blocks this way, another 6 blocks that way, etc.

10 blocks in the ice and snow is not an easy walk for anybody going to the eye doctor, I'm sorry. And I don't know about your condo, but my apartment complex charges $300 for the party room! I'm not having any parties anywhere where it's $300, certainly not several times a year.

 

The move downtown where the party room's free! :)

 

And why do you assume you have to walk everywhere?  Many people in the city still have a car for the times they need to go places when walking isn't feasible, and then there's always that awful thing called public transportation.

Well, public trans isn't free either. And waiting 20 minutes for a bus, shuttling 2 small children onto and off the a bus while pulling a cart full of groceries, and it possibly raining during your trip, that just doesn't sound like very much fun to me. It would take twice as long to get to and from the store.  Not to mention which I couldn't shop at most of the places I want to shop at.

Well, public trans isn't free either. And waiting 20 minutes for a bus, shuttling 2 small children onto and off the a bus while pulling a cart full of groceries, and it possibly raining during your trip, that just doesn't sound like very much fun to me. It would take twice as long to get to and from the store.  Not to mention which I couldn't shop at most of the places I want to shop at.

 

And driving is free?

 

Besides, we didn't say it was always easier.  There are tradeoffs.  Sometimes it may be easier to get to a store in an urban area, and sometimes it may be easier in the suburbs.  However, more driving will almost always be required in the suburbs, and the original statement was simply that people living in the city would be more immune to high transportation costs.

Would you drive to the ice cream store in the ice and snow at all?  There's many trips that may be marginally more unpleasant in bad weather when walking or taking transit, but which are hugely burdensome if not avoided altogether when you have to drive yourself.  It seems to me it'd be easier to walk the kids several blocks to a store or restaurant or whatever than to have to strap them into their car seats, drive to wherever you're going, unstrap them, then walk the remainder of the distance to whatever it is you're going to. 

Most icecream places are closed in the winter anyways, unless its the crap like Dairy Queen, and who goes on rainy days anyways. You could always hold off going to the grocery store on a nice day, and like jam40jeff said, its not like you cannot drive anywhere just because you live in a city, you aren't forced to walk, but it is nice to at least have the option. The only major concern in my opinion about living in the city currently, is the lack of good public schools, and higher crime. Not everyone has the money to send their kids to private schools.

2 Things.

 

1. Bus fare is far more consistent than gas prices.

 

2. Because I walk/take the bus everywhere... I haven't filled my tank in about $0.60...

I didn't mean to get the conversation off track. Like I said, i believe the majority of families, that type of urban, walk everywhere or wait around for a bus lifestyle is just not what they're looking for, and when you combine it with things like worse schools and increased crime (real or perceived danger), this is why so many families moved to the suburbs and want to stay there.

The real reason people moved to the suburbs has to do with discrimination. People dislike living near people who are different from themselves in race, skin color, wealth, income, family type, etc. In the suburbs, you generally live in a homogenous community giving you a (false) sense of security/safety.

 

The reason people STAY in suburbs is because its what they are used to. Humans are creatures of habit. Combine that with the fact that most urban centers are populated with people who are different than those in the 'burbs, and it only makes moves to the core than much less likely.

Not true at all. That's a 70s generalization. The suburbs I've been to around here at least have a very diverse population. In my building alone we have Indians, Hispanics, elderly, next door are Asians and some African Americans. There are quite a few Arab and AA folks out walking with the Indians around the lake. Whites are probably the minority in my area. There are several indian groceries, an arab grocery, an asian grocery, etc. Lots of Goya foods in the supermarket, which responds to local customer demands.

 

When I lived in North Olmsted I saw a lot of diversity as well. There are a LOT of apartments there and they bring a diverse crowd. I'm not saying there are as many black people or asians in north olmsted as there are, say, in cleveland heights, but it's not for some exclusionary reason, it's just because they haven't gravitated there as much.

 

I feel perfectly safe around all of my neighbors, because we choose to live in a community where people respect the grounds, keep quiet hours at night, pay high rents for good, 24 hour maintenance that keeps the buildings and grounds clean and nice, etc. At the playground in our complex, you see kids of all different races playing together. My son just had a nice "conversation" with an Indian toddler last night.

pay high rents

 

You proved my point. You are surrounded with people who are like you in income. The people may look different but you live with people of equal means. Are there affordable units in your building?

My kids love growing up in the city where they can walk or ride bikes to the grocery store or candy store or barber shop or cafe, or take the bus if they need to go further. They like the independence of not having to be hauled everywhere by a parent.

depends on what you consider affordable. The rents are in line with every other suburban community in Cleveland, yes. I just went out looking at apartments last year, in brooklyn, N Olmsted, Parma Heights, Westlake, they're not higher than those places. Mine are higher than the starting rents because as a longer-term resident, my rent is increased every year. You can get in a new apartment here, smaller than mine, for considerably less than what I'm paying, so yeah, def. affordable. One of the main reasons we didn't leave is all the other places we looked at were more money for less amenities, or at least what we look for in terms of amenities.