Me too. Though I would definitely like more room than my 850 sq ft apartment.

I live in a 490 square foot studio and don't want more. I drive a Fiat 500 and don't want a bigger car. The bigger your house is the more crap you don't need you fill it with. I have no desire for that life.

I mostly want the space for my kid and for entertaining. I wish he had a yard, and could go out and play in it and we could have backyard bbqs and birthday parties there instead of always having to go rent a space. And having more than like 2 people over at a time here just gets very crowded and horrible.

Yeah, it would.  But unfortunately everyone in this country wants the biggest they can get.  That includes everything from houses to cars to sandwiches!

 

I'm not sure about that.  The fact that people might prefer 2500sf to 1500sf doesn't necessarily mean that they'd all prefer 5000sf even more.

 

On the car front, I think the needle has moved at least somewhat away from consumer light trucks/SUVs and back towards more normal form factors for cars.  It might not be the kind of thing that's noticeable to someone whose polestar is the complete elimination of the SUV and the pickup, but on the margins, I think we have more people who could afford an extended cab pickup instead choosing a smaller car with a slicker option package.

 

On the sandwiches front, 'fraid I can't help you there.  Melt is awesome. :-P

I mostly want the space for my kid and for entertaining. I wish he had a yard, and could go out and play in it and we could have backyard bbqs and birthday parties there instead of always having to go rent a space. And having more than like 2 people over at a time here just gets very crowded and horrible.

 

Doesn't your apartment complex have a party room or some other kind of multi-purpose area?

It costs $275 to rent. Not in my budget, ever.

Wow. Who pays that?

 

How many hours do you get?

I think you get 4 hours for that. It's utilized fairly regularly, I see balloons for bridal showers and such. I think it's a complete rip-off.

Yeah, it would.  But unfortunately everyone in this country wants the biggest they can get.  That includes everything from houses to cars to sandwiches!

 

I'm not sure about that.  The fact that people might prefer 2500sf to 1500sf doesn't necessarily mean that they'd all prefer 5000sf even more.

 

On the car front, I think the needle has moved at least somewhat away from consumer light trucks/SUVs and back towards more normal form factors for cars.  It might not be the kind of thing that's noticeable to someone whose polestar is the complete elimination of the SUV and the pickup, but on the margins, I think we have more people who could afford an extended cab pickup instead choosing a smaller car with a slicker option package.

 

On the sandwiches front, 'fraid I can't help you there.  Melt is awesome. :-P

This isn't a good forum to poll that, but consumer trends have proven that people want things bigger today then the past.  Just look at the inner ring suburbs versus the exurbs.  People in suburbia and exurbia will pay $100k more for a crappy Ryan home because it's 3500 sqft versus a well built home thats 2000 sqft.  I live in Medina County, and I see that every day.  I too live in a 1500 sqft house that is far below what we can afford, drive a 6 year old Honda Civic.  Our friends choose to live lives that are much different.  They cart around 2 kids in Denali's and Acadia's and live in McMansions.  To each their own.  Our plan after the kids are 18 is to move into a 2 bedroom apartment in the City.  My point is, less of the population wants this. 

 

I challenge you to find me some builders that build subdivisions with well built 1300 sqft 3 bedroom custom single family homes on a small lots.  Not sure that business model would be very lucrative in todays times.    Years ago, they did this all over Cleveland, Rocky River, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights etc. 

Wow is my reaction too. I know the Women's Club Pavillion at lake wood park is about $50 an hour to rent and that seats over a 100 people with a full kitchen.

 

One of the things I found having kids is that if they have some place to go ( parks or neighbors, etc) you'll need less space than if they are isolated.

$50 an hour isn't exactly cheap either. I mean, even a kid's birthday party should be about 3 hours, and that's $150 with no F&B. I rent a pavilion at the rec center which has a playground right next to it. It's $40. To me, that's cheap. So far it hasn't poured rain on his birthday except when he turned 1 and we had a really big pavilion (for even less money) down at mill creek in youngstown and since it was warm enough, we just had the party anyway. Everyone came and still had fun even though they couldn't play in the grass.

 

As to the larger topic, I guess I am somewhere in the middle. After living in apartments basically non-stop since I was 18, I would really, really like to have a lot more space than I have now. I don't want a giant SUV and a big McMansion as who has the time or energy to clean that sh*t, but it would be really, really nice to have more room, a yard, a porch or back patio, ability to actually cook out/BBQ, have dinner parties, and stuff like that. I really want it. I will never have it, but it's hard living HERE where every single other family I know has a house and D is the only one that doesn't. Every time we go to a kid's birthday party at a house, he whines about not having a basement or not having a big room or whatever, and I feel bad about it. I know there are worse things than a kid not having a big house. It's just a personal failing feeling. I do want more.

What's funny is that a lot of the "I want more space, a yard, self-ownership, storage, etc." arguments can usually be satisfied with a row house, even an attached row house.  It's perhaps a bit more common in places like Baltimore or over in England, especially the ones with deep enough lots to accommodate both a decent back yard/patio and even a garage in the rear, which you also see in detached row house neighborhoods like a lot of Chicago too.  Still, that gets you so much of the "suburban" desires without sacrificing walkability.  Going much beyond that into streetcar suburb typologies, inner ring suburbs, outer suburbs, etc., is just diminishing returns.  Heck, such rowhouse neighborhoods in London are even called suburbs. 

I think you get 4 hours for that. It's utilized fairly regularly, I see balloons for bridal showers and such. I think it's a complete rip-off.

 

Wow, that is pricey! Ours is $25 plus a refundable $25 deposit. It's not a huge party room, but it's on the seventh floor with a great view of the Gold Coast. And it's next to an indoor pool and an adjoining sun/moon deck that don't cost anything to rent/deposit.

What's funny is that a lot of the "I want more space, a yard, self-ownership, storage, etc." arguments can usually be satisfied with a row house, even an attached row house.  It's perhaps a bit more common in places like Baltimore or over in England, especially the ones with deep enough lots to accommodate both a decent back yard/patio and even a garage in the rear, which you also see in detached row house neighborhoods like a lot of Chicago too.  Still, that gets you so much of the "suburban" desires without sacrificing walkability.  Going much beyond that into streetcar suburb typologies, inner ring suburbs, outer suburbs, etc., is just diminishing returns.  Heck, such rowhouse neighborhoods in London are even called suburbs. 

 

I wish Cleveland had some of the historic rowhouses that the older, east coast cities have. The coolest ones I think I've seen are along the 3000ish (I think?) blocks of Prospect. Modern developers seem more than willing to mimic these styles in their building, but they always get thrown into artificial-feeling developments in the suburbs which defeats the purpose IMO.

They cart around 2 kids in Denali's and Acadia's and live in McMansions.  To each their own.  Our plan after the kids are 18 is to move into a 2 bedroom apartment in the City.  My point is, less of the population wants this. 

 

I'm not sure what your source of information is, but a larger and growing segment of the population wants smaller homes. This is just one article, form a few years ago: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/01/13/no-mcmansions-for-millennials/. There are hundreds more about Millennials, aging Boomers, and others who want smaller homes, smaller lots, walkability, fewer cars, etc. etc, etc. Ask Realtors, homebuilders, municipal leaders, demographers, etc. etc. etc.

What's funny is that a lot of the "I want more space, a yard, self-ownership, storage, etc." arguments can usually be satisfied with a row house, even an attached row house.  It's perhaps a bit more common in places like Baltimore or over in England, especially the ones with deep enough lots to accommodate both a decent back yard/patio and even a garage in the rear, which you also see in detached row house neighborhoods like a lot of Chicago too.  Still, that gets you so much of the "suburban" desires without sacrificing walkability.  Going much beyond that into streetcar suburb typologies, inner ring suburbs, outer suburbs, etc., is just diminishing returns.  Heck, such rowhouse neighborhoods in London are even called suburbs. 

 

I wish Cleveland had some of the historic rowhouses that the older, east coast cities have. The coolest ones I think I've seen are along the 3000ish (I think?) blocks of Prospect. Modern developers seem more than willing to mimic these styles in their building, but they always get thrown into artificial-feeling developments in the suburbs which defeats the purpose IMO.

 

This.  My cousin lived in a unit like that in a sprawling suburb of D.C. in northern Virginia for a while.  Perfectly good house, but the whole point of townhome living is walkability; when you put them out in winding, autocentric cul-de-sacs, you're getting the worst of both worlds: no yards or usable greenspace for the owners, and no walkability for the neighborhood, either.

 

However, in inner-ring suburbs where streets tend to be laid out slightly more in a grid pattern, I think you could get more traction from this kind of development as we begin to replace some of the older inner-ring suburban housing stock.

Yeah, a rowhouse or townhome would not give much of an advantage over what I have now. I want to have BBQs, I know that sounds pedestrian, but many townhomes have the same "no grilling out" restriction that apartments do. And still not really a yard, or a place for a garden or a patio or whatever.

 

But I agree with the post above, that this could be good in inner ring suburbs like Lakewood.

^Not sure you have exactly the same type of thing in mind as Clevelander17 and jjakucyk.  Older urban row houses are "fee simple" properties, with no HOA or condo association restrictions, and often (usually?) have back yards or terraces.  Here's the aerial view of a swath of brownstone Brooklyn (home to many a BBQ): https://goo.gl/maps/ywwx8  If the houses are divided into rental units, sometimes the backyard is shared, sometimes only the ground floor unit has access.

 

They aren't as architecturally pleasing (IMHO) but Cleveland doubles offer a nice compromise between renting and having a back yard.

I suppose so. I'm just really, really tired of sharing at this point in my life. I've been waiting my turn to do the laundry or for the close-to-the-building parking space for 27 years. I don't want to share my yard. Ever. I mean, I know I sound extremist, but I'm tired of constantly smelling other people's food cooking, seeing dozens of their pairs of shoes in the hallway, hearing them stomping above me, and being told I can only have holiday decorations up for 2 weeks before a holiday or else I get a note in my door. There are a lot of advantages to apartment living, to be sure, and I have enjoyed many of those. But for my kid, I just wish we could have our own space. Our own. Not shared. I could do laundry at midnight or vacuum at 7am and not get a note about it. It's amazing to contemplate.

RnR, you should consider buying a condo in my building. We have none of those problems and you can get a two-bedroom condo for under $40,000.

Thanks. I can't leave my SD and I am not eligible for any sort of loan, but appreciate the thought.

^SD?

 

They cart around 2 kids in Denali's and Acadia's and live in McMansions.  To each their own.  Our plan after the kids are 18 is to move into a 2 bedroom apartment in the City.  My point is, less of the population wants this. 

 

I'm not sure what your source of information is, but a larger and growing segment of the population wants smaller homes. This is just one article, form a few years ago: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/01/13/no-mcmansions-for-millennials/. There are hundreds more about Millennials, aging Boomers, and others who want smaller homes, smaller lots, walkability, fewer cars, etc. etc, etc. Ask Realtors, homebuilders, municipal leaders, demographers, etc. etc. etc.

 

There are several market segments after different things, so while I think you're right about some, gotribe is surely right about a big chunk of it too.  FWIW, the median sf of new single family houses dipped briefly during the Great Recession but then continued increasing again and hit its all time high in 2013 (the last year of census data): https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/medavgsqft.pdf  That ignores the change in mix between multifamily and single family new construction, which I'm pretty sure means the average size of all new units has declined, but still underscores how skewed the market for single family homes is towards big square footage.

SD=school district. If I leave my son's district, I would lose shared custody.

 

This.  My cousin lived in a unit like that in a sprawling suburb of D.C. in northern Virginia for a while.  Perfectly good house, but the whole point of townhome living is walkability; when you put them out in winding, autocentric cul-de-sacs, you're getting the worst of both worlds: no yards or usable greenspace for the owners, and no walkability for the neighborhood, either.

 

However, in inner-ring suburbs where streets tend to be laid out slightly more in a grid pattern, I think you could get more traction from this kind of development as we begin to replace some of the older inner-ring suburban housing stock.

 

Cleveland Heights has a little of both. In the Cedar-Fairmount area, there has been some development of newer-looking townhomes in an older, walkable part of the city. I wish these homes had more of a retro look, but either way it's a nice housing option for the area.

 

Unfortunately, further north in Cleveland Heights across from Severance on the old JCC land, you have a development (Bluestone) that bills itself as having "Chicago-style" townhomes, but with very little walkability in that neighborhood.

Bluestone would probably do decent on walkscore. Not the ideal type of walkability, but it is still walkable..... To the extent you define walkability as amenities within 1 mile

Bluestone would probably do decent on walkscore. Not the ideal type of walkability, but it is still walkable..... To the extent you define walkability as amenities within 1 mile

 

It scores a 61. Not bad, but not great and crossing over to Severance (where the majority of nearby amenities exist) might be a challenge. But I just have a hard time with the way they bill these units as Chicago-style homes when what makes actual Chicago townhouses special is not only their architecture but their seamless fit into real, authentic neighborhoods. That's what I think we need more of. (When my dream of completely tearing down the Superior Triangle comes to fruition, that would be a great location ;) ).

RnR, you should consider buying a condo in my building. We have none of those problems and you can get a two-bedroom condo for under $40,000.

 

what's your association dues

RnR, you should consider buying a condo in my building. We have none of those problems and you can get a two-bedroom condo for under $40,000.

 

what's your association dues

 

$2.50 per square foot.

RnR, you should consider buying a condo in my building. We have none of those problems and you can get a two-bedroom condo for under $40,000.

 

what's your association dues

 

$2.50 per square foot.

 

I hope that's per year!

I was looking around on Google maps in the Houston area and just seeing how many suburbs and by-pass highways was incredible.. and i stumbled upon this..

 

https://goo.gl/maps/DZ3FA

 

3 interchanges in a single three mile stretch with absolutely nothing around it. Sprawl-educing subsidized interchanges for home developers at its finest.

It seems to work for them since they are one of the fastest growing metros in the united states. Something is working.

It seems to work for them since they are one of the fastest growing metros in the united states. Something is working.

  Time will tell.  In the meantime, those three interchanges are aging and nothing has been built yet to support the maintenance cost.  That seems like "dumb" construction.

 

Shouldn't we only add to our infrastructure maintenance costs when there is a tax base to support it?

It seems to work for them since they are one of the fastest growing metros in the united states. Something is working.

 

Houston is so dependent on oil money that it goes through booms and busts.  I remember visiting my parents friends there in the 80's as a kid during a bust time and every other house in their neighborhood or proto-McMansions was for sale or foreclosed on.  It was a oddly creepy solitude....

It seems to work for them since they are one of the fastest growing metros in the united states. Something is working.

  Time will tell.  In the meantime, those three interchanges are aging and nothing has been built yet to support the maintenance cost.  That seems like "dumb" construction.

 

Shouldn't we only add to our infrastructure maintenance costs when there is a tax base to support it?

 

We don't have anything in place to cap new housing construction when thousands of homes and lots are sitting empty in older neighborhoods.  In fact we have the exact opposite in place -- a federal agency, the FHA, that exists to keep new construction happening. 

What's funny is that a lot of the "I want more space, a yard, self-ownership, storage, etc." arguments can usually be satisfied with a row house, even an attached row house.  It's perhaps a bit more common in places like Baltimore or over in England, especially the ones with deep enough lots to accommodate both a decent back yard/patio and even a garage in the rear, which you also see in detached row house neighborhoods like a lot of Chicago too.  Still, that gets you so much of the "suburban" desires without sacrificing walkability.  Going much beyond that into streetcar suburb typologies, inner ring suburbs, outer suburbs, etc., is just diminishing returns.  Heck, such rowhouse neighborhoods in London are even called suburbs. 

 

Exactly, a lot of people jump to the conclusion that the only options are a tiny apartment in the city or a big house in the suburbs. In reality, you can find a house with a yard in lot of dense urban neighborhoods.

 

People also think that they need to have a huge lawn if they have kids or a dog, when in reality a smaller yard would be just fine... not to mention that there are great parks in urban areas that you can go to.

There are some great web videos on New York City's backyard gardens.  They typically measure no more than 20x20 feet but people do pack a lot into that amount of space. 

Smarter choices by cities on how & where to grow, won't be driven by urban/suburban ideologies, but by better math. http://t.co/d2IVWlq3on

A New Index to Measure Sprawl Gives High Marks to Los Angeles

L.A. is the least sprawling metro area in the country, according to this analysis, besting New York and San Francisco.

 

Cleveland & NEO rank 4th worst in U.S. in sprawl

 

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/02/a-new-index-to-measure-sprawl-gives-high-marks-to-los-angeles/385559/?utm_source=SFTwitter

^Fourth worst in change in sprawl, 2000-2010, according to what you posted.  Not fourth worst in sprawl.

Less fragmented metro areas are more productive http://wapo.st/1FumoYI

 

The difference between the medium-low and medium-high is pretty dramatic. I'd imagine it would be more gradual.

Bloomberg State/Muni ‏@StatesAndCities  8m8 minutes ago

Suburbs are out. Downtowns are in: http://ow.ly/JASZK

Are the outer suburbs safer than urban places? You sure?

 

The answer isn't to spend tax dollars to expand roads to keep jobs sprawling outward and extend transit to those jobs. How is the labor force supposed to reach these jobs?? 25 percent of Cleveland households have no car, and many more households must share one car among multiple wage earners. So how about investing tax dollars to clean up polluted properties and put jobs where the workers are??

The answer isn't to spend tax dollars to expand roads to keep jobs sprawling outward and extend transit to those jobs. How is the labor force supposed to reach these jobs?? 25 percent of Cleveland households have no car, and many more households must share one car among multiple wage earners. So how about investing tax dollars to clean up polluted properties and put jobs where the workers are??

 

That really is the million dollar question.  In my line of work, dealing with real estate & construction, I see people constantly looking for properties for large scale distribution/manufacturing/research.  Those spaces don't exist anywhere but out in the suburbs, close to highway interchanges.  Building some in the city, assuming you used tax dollars to acquire the land, clean up the property, and develop it with necessary infrastructure, you still wouldn't have a very marketable property, because you'd be in the middle of the city, not near the highway connections for transportation.  There's a reason why big parts of the east side of Cleveland are so dead.  There's no highway access.

The answer isn't to spend tax dollars to expand roads to keep jobs sprawling outward and extend transit to those jobs. How is the labor force supposed to reach these jobs?? 25 percent of Cleveland households have no car, and many more households must share one car among multiple wage earners. So how about investing tax dollars to clean up polluted properties and put jobs where the workers are??

 

The thing is, industrial sprawl and residential sprawl have very different causes.  The latter has, at most, a minor impact on the former, as does crime, traffic, etc. 

 

The overwhelming driving force for industrial sprawl is CERCLA.  Few are inclined to risk inheriting liability for a defunct company’s buried mess.  Is easier to build on a greenfield.

 

The answer isn't to spend tax dollars to expand roads to keep jobs sprawling outward and extend transit to those jobs. How is the labor force supposed to reach these jobs?? 25 percent of Cleveland households have no car, and many more households must share one car among multiple wage earners. So how about investing tax dollars to clean up polluted properties and put jobs where the workers are??

 

The thing is, industrial sprawl and residential sprawl have very different causes.  The latter has, at most, a minor impact on the former, as does crime, traffic, etc. 

 

The overwhelming driving force for industrial sprawl is CERCLA.  Few are inclined to risk inheriting liability for a defunct company’s buried mess.  Is easier to build on a greenfield.

 

 

Of course, cheaper & easier to build on greenfield.  Faster too.  Going through the steps of a full blown EPA cleanup can take years.  Assuming Cleveland tackled this themselves and had clean ready-to-build sites, they still wouldn't have the highway access that suburban locations do

There are new warehouses on the periphery of any of the big European cities.  The difference between there and here is that you see covered bus stops all over the place because there it is recognized that many workers do not have cars and don't want to have cars. 

 

Suburban warehouses and plants deal with all kinds of odd crime issues.  One of the big ones aside from overt break-ins is the theft of catalytic converters from delivery trucks.  Also many owner-operators siphon fuel from fleet trucks that they dock next to. 

Of course, cheaper & easier to build on greenfield.  Faster too.  Going through the steps of a full blown EPA cleanup can take years.  Assuming Cleveland tackled this themselves and had clean ready-to-build sites, they still wouldn't have the highway access that suburban locations do

 

No, you have more access to highways. Draw concentric circles 2-5 miles around any site in Cleveland and odds are you'll hit a highway with your circle.

 

BTW, you sound like Greyhound. They want to put their terminals close to highways so they can get on/off the roads more quickly and save fuel. But their ridership doesn't live out by the highway.

 

If you want to build a factory far from labor and you aren't paying $15+ per hour, how do you expect prospective workers to afford driving to your workplace unless you or the government subsidizes their driving?

Of course, cheaper & easier to build on greenfield.  Faster too.  Going through the steps of a full blown EPA cleanup can take years.  Assuming Cleveland tackled this themselves and had clean ready-to-build sites, they still wouldn't have the highway access that suburban locations do

 

No, you have more access to highways. Draw concentric circles 2-5 miles around any site in Cleveland and odds are you'll hit a highway with your circle.

 

BTW, you sound like Greyhound. They want to put their terminals close to highways so they can get on/off the roads more quickly and save fuel. But their ridership doesn't live out by the highway.

 

If you want to build a factory far from labor and you aren't paying $15+ per hour, how do you expect prospective workers to afford driving to your workplace unless you or the government subsidizes their driving?

 

2 to 5 miles from a highway is an eternity