That's not a bad idea. All those handicap ramps leading straight to gravelly dirt and grass with "push to cross xxxx St." buttons floating in the middle of nothing do look silly.

So, what if, instead of wasting a huge amount of money on these pedestrian improvements that will never be used, the municipality or developer (whoever's funding the project) could opt to pay 75% of the cost of those improvements into a fund. The money from that fund could then be used to pay for pedestrian improvements in area where there are actually pedestrians.

Interesting thought, but it doesn't do anything for the people in those areas who don't have options, and it does not prepare for the retrofit that a lot of suburban areas will have to face in the coming years.

The main reasoning behind it is that the money would have a much higher ROI if spent in an urban area. Rather than a suburban developer or township government spending $100,000 to build partial sidewalks and crosswalks at all intersections in a new development, they could pay $75,000 into a fund, and that would go a long way towards repairing sidewalks or making pedestrian improvements in neighborhoods where people actually do walk. And it would save the suburban developer money in the process.

 

As far as the retrofitting suburbia idea goes, I am just not convinced that it's ever going to happen. I think we will see a handful of good examples of it happening around the county, but I think that most strip malls and subdivisions are either going to:

 

(1) continue to be occupied by people who enjoy a suburban lifestyle;

(2) be demolished and rebuilt as new urbanist developments; or

(3) be allowed to decline and ultimately be abandoned in the way that so many urban neighborhoods were.

 

Suburban retail was not built to last and needs to be demolished and rebuilt every 30 years or so anyway. People who like to live in subdivisions will continue to do so, and I don't see those neighborhoods becoming more urban, because people who live there have chosen to live their lives around driving.

 

People who like to live in subdivisions will continue to do so, and I don't see those neighborhoods becoming more urban, because people who live there have chosen to live their lives around driving.

 

Or at least defaulted to it without thinking.

In suburban areas, you'll often see these goofy intersection where they build a tiny section of sidewalk on each corner of the intersection and install crosswalks with pedestrian signals. But as soon as you go beyond that intersection, there are no sidewalks and no pedestrians.

 

This is a codified requirement of the ADA all traffic signals, no matter where they are located, must provided accommodation for folks with disabilities (e.g curb ramps, detectable warnings and/or audible crossing signals), even if no other pedestrian facilities are present. This is due to the fact that the lack of pedestrian facilities does not prohibit pedestrians from using the right of way and the ADA requirements still must be met.

In suburban areas, you'll often see these goofy intersection where they build a tiny section of sidewalk on each corner of the intersection and install crosswalks with pedestrian signals. But as soon as you go beyond that intersection, there are no sidewalks and no pedestrians.

 

This is a codified requirement of the ADA all traffic signals, no matter where they are located, must provided accommodation for folks with disabilities (e.g curb ramps, detectable warnings and/or audible crossing signals), even if no other pedestrian facilities are present. This is due to the fact that the lack of pedestrian facilities does not prohibit pedestrians from using the right of way and the ADA requirements still must be met.

 

Sure, if this were to be implemented, it would need to be a carved out exception. Similar to how older buildings can be rehabbed and remain ADA inaccessible because there's no realistic way that you're going to install elevators in buildings from 1880. You could apply that same logic to suburban streets and say, this street does not even have sidewalks, therefore it doesn't make sense to spend money making the intersection ADA accessible. You could even earmark that money for improvements that increase ADA accessibility in urban areas. (Alternatively, you could require all suburban streets to have sidewalks for their entire lengths...)

^ the engineering field is very risk-adverse. You would have to ban pedestrian access to the street in question; since lack of walks does not prohibit pedestrians. If someone in a wheelchair was crossing an intersection and was struck by a car since he could not mount the curb due to a lack of a curb cut, the liability would fall on the designer. This is different from a  lack of an elevator in an older building, which is more of an inconvenience.  If the same person in the wheelchair got struck by a car when he choose to stay on the roadway and not use the curb cut then its a different story. The ADA itself is addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations.

 

I agree that more pedestrian facilities need to be constructed, and you should notice that in recent times more and more projects are including them.  Its that "black hole" from 1960's thru the mid to late 80's where no new developments or roadways had pedestrian facilities. Some communities built in that era are now investing in retro-fitting sidewalks and such; Anderson and Symmes Township come to mind.  They have some amount of density that in some parts it does make sense to walk.

 

Suburban retail was not built to last and needs to be demolished and rebuilt every 30 years or so anyway. People who like to live in subdivisions will continue to do so, and I don't see those neighborhoods becoming more urban, because people who live there have chosen to live their lives around driving.

 

Most malls have or will be demolished, but many strip malls, especially mid-sized and small ones are now 50 years old or more.  The one in the neighborhood where I grew up was the third strip shopping center built in the Cincinnati area, built around 1951.  So it's now about 65 years old. 

 

The first one in Cincinnati was the Roselawn Shop-in, somewhere between Section Rd. and where Cross County Hwy is now.  It was built in 1948 or 1949. 

 

 

 

 

People who like to live in subdivisions will continue to do so, and I don't see those neighborhoods becoming more urban, because people who live there have chosen to live their lives around driving.

 

Or at least defaulted to it without thinking.

Or because they didn't have many options.

 

Suburban retail was not built to last and needs to be demolished and rebuilt every 30 years or so anyway. People who like to live in subdivisions will continue to do so, and I don't see those neighborhoods becoming more urban, because people who live there have chosen to live their lives around driving.

 

Most malls have or will be demolished, but many strip malls, especially mid-sized and small ones are now 50 years old or more.  The one in the neighborhood where I grew up was the third strip shopping center built in the Cincinnati area, built around 1951.  So it's now about 65 years old. 

 

The first one in Cincinnati was the Roselawn Shop-in, somewhere between Section Rd. and where Cross County Hwy is now.  It was built in 1948 or 1949. 

 

 

 

 

We've gotten a handful of jobs recently that are quick photoshop jobs and suggestions of how to "spruce up" dated strip malls.

 

*architecture is so glamorous, lemme tell you*

 

Their size makes them easier to reinvest in and modernize just enough to be relevant looking again. Malls are gigantic and can't so easily be modernized. Strip malls are going to long outlast actual malls I think.

 

People who like to live in subdivisions will continue to do so, and I don't see those neighborhoods becoming more urban, because people who live there have chosen to live their lives around driving.

 

Or at least defaulted to it without thinking.

Or because they didn't have many options.

 

There is a certain portion of very wealthy people that will always prefer gated suburban communities. The overall trends may be moving away from that, but some people will cling to suburbia, just like some people clung to urban areas during the dark days for cities.

A lot of the original strip malls in Cincinnati had...BASEMENTS.  This means they had rentable basement spaces that opened to the rear.  The only one I can think of in the city is the very small strip mall containing the UDF and Gold Star Chili at the corner of Burnett & MLK.  It has or had other stores in the basement. 

 

The White Oak Shopping Center has about a dozen businesses located in the basement.  When I was a kid there was a karate school, the driving school that I ended up going to, and a slot car club down there.  I have no idea what's back there now.  The West Side also has some other amusing suburban building adaptations, like the old motel at the corner of Race & Harrison that was turned...into a strip mall.   

 

 

The slot car track and the space it was in looked a lot like this, except there was a second 10-12 lane track that was simply a figure-8 with very steep banks and a third pretty elaborate track made of stock Tyco track pieces. 

 

 

 

Awesome. For a while there (late 2000s) Columbus had slot car dragstrips set up all over town. There were so many of them that I couldn't keep track of them when people would come into HobbyTown asking where to run them. Alas, we didn't stock any 1/24th scale parts which is the most popular size. By now all the drag strips are gone. There still is one traditional road course one on the West Side that's been there at least 25 years.

 

'80s-'90s hobby shops were way cool. Something bad happened to the hobby industry when everything went ready-to-run while all the little toy stores closed right around the same time. I used to fantasize about the HobbyTown going back 20 years (I worked there in 2009) in time so that I could talk to the old dorks that used to hang around those places rather than the strange mix of bored 'billies that smashed up their T-Maxx again jumping it off their shed and New Albany parents looking for the smart-kid toys we sold.

Bicycle shops are about the only thing left that was like how hobby stores, camera stores, record stores, music stores, etc., used to be.  Every neighborhood used to have one, or there was at least one on each "side" of town.  Sometimes they were in strip malls but more often they were in odd commercial buildings or houses. 

 

Some of these independent shops were killed off by national chains like Hobby Lobby (I think -- I've never been in one), Guitar Center, etc., whereas other industries have been completely killed off.  I really miss neighborhood record stores and neighborhood camera stores.  Most cities also had at least 1 "pro" camera store and a "pro" lab.  It's amazing thinking back to how knowledgeable so many people on the staffs of all of these stores used to be.  All of that has been replaced by online forums and youtube how-to videos. 

 

As for bicycle stores...it's the only industry left where each independent shop is a place where they sell new products, some used products, do repairs, do clinics, and have a community of hobbyists centered around the store.  There are still some small independent hardware stores around too, but they're all in the shadow of Lowe's and Home Depot.  There is no national bicycle tyrant.  Trek is the closest thing to it, but then again Trek is the only American company that actually makes a lot of bikes in the United States, so it's tough to completely hate them.   

Bicycle shops are about the only thing left that was like how hobby stores, camera stores, record stores, music stores, etc., used to be.  Every neighborhood used to have one, or there was at least one on each "side" of town.  Sometimes they were in strip malls but more often they were in odd commercial buildings or houses. 

 

Some of these independent shops were killed off by national chains like Hobby Lobby (I think -- I've never been in one)

 

 

Oh Hobby Lobby is arts & crafts like a Michael's, not a store full of R/C stuff, trains  and whatnot. HobbyTown is the franchise that is more like an old hobby store.

 

New Albany's old hobby store back in the '90s (when the village's population lied around 200) was underneath a grain silo.

As for bicycle stores...it's the only industry left where each independent shop is a place where they sell new products, some used products, do repairs, do clinics, and have a community of hobbyists centered around the store.  There are still some small independent hardware stores around too, but they're all in the shadow of Lowe's and Home Depot.  There is no national bicycle tyrant.  Trek is the closest thing to it, but then again Trek is the only American company that actually makes a lot of bikes in the United States, so it's tough to completely hate them. 

 

Your point is valid, but I'd argue that Performance approaches the "bicycle tyrant" definition, and in some places is the big game in town.  Even in Cincinnati where Montgomery is king, the Performance store at Kenwood has more square footage than the bulk of independents.

 

Also, Trek no longer makes many bikes in the states.  Only their highest-end carbon fiber bikes are made in Waterloo, about 10,000 out of their annual production of ~1.5M.  Everything else is made in Taiwan or China, which is where 99% (that's a real number) of bikes in the world are made.  Second place for US bikes is Waterford (also Wisconsin) at 2,000 bikes a year.

Those mid-school Made in the USA bike shop-grade BMXs from the '80s were produced in extremely small numbers.

^Didn't Huffy used to build in Ohio?

 

Bicycle shops have done a great job staying independent and being community-focused. It's tough for someone like Amazon to take them out. It really sucks what happened with camera stores and other specialty shops. Online retail can't replace what's lost when you lose local businesses that cater to specialty clients.

 

As for bicycle stores...it's the only industry left where each independent shop is a place where they sell new products, some used products, do repairs, do clinics, and have a community of hobbyists centered around the store.  There are still some small independent hardware stores around too, but they're all in the shadow of Lowe's and Home Depot.  There is no national bicycle tyrant.  Trek is the closest thing to it, but then again Trek is the only American company that actually makes a lot of bikes in the United States, so it's tough to completely hate them.

 

Surviving pro camera stores usually have strong locations with pedestrian traffic and are set up like those bike shops. They generally shy from major repairs (which is better left to the manufacturer), but they can help diagnose and recommend best course of action. They also have workshops, bring in guest speakers, and sell used products. Usually they have a loyal customer base if they've been in the city for a while.

 

Still, it's a battle against B&H. The camera world has that mega online retailer that took out most of the little guys. It's true that in the past, pretty much every major city had pro camera stores. The sales tax system in the United States is completely unfair. Online retailers should have to charge sales tax at point-of-sale to make things equal.

 

I don't think bicycles have anything like B&H...

Allow me to change the subject with something completely different.

 

Last month, UrbanCincy hosted various urbanists writers from around the country for a meeting in Cincinnati. During one of our sessions, one guy made an off-the-cuff comment that I think might actually be a really good idea. It is as follow:

 

In suburban areas, you'll often see these goofy intersection where they build a tiny section of sidewalk on each corner of the intersection and install crosswalks with pedestrian signals. But as soon as you go beyond that intersection, there are no sidewalks and no pedestrians.

 

So, what if, instead of wasting a huge amount of money on these pedestrian improvements that will never be used, the municipality or developer (whoever's funding the project) could opt to pay 75% of the cost of those improvements into a fund. The money from that fund could then be used to pay for pedestrian improvements in area where there are actually pedestrians.

 

That's a slippery slope that reminds me of San Francisco's "Affordable Housing Fund." Basically, money goes into the city's pot any time a market-rate housing development is built, but that money rarely comes back out in the form of "affordable" housing. It also discourages anyone from building housing.

 

*And there is always the danger that any time you throw money into the public coffers, that money is never seen again...it's quite likely that's happening in SF.

^Didn't Huffy used to build in Ohio?

 

 

 

Yeah, I think the plant was in Lima or Findlay... Fostoria maybe? I imagine that during their brief entrance into the bike-shop-grade bike market in '86 or so they were making those bikes here.

^There was a good book back in the day called "The Wal-Mart Effect" that chronicled the situation with Huffy. I remember we read that book in an econ class at OU. Basically, Wal-Mart demanded that Huffy build a bunch of their lower-cost bikes at a loss or lose their business relationship. This ended up leading to the closure of the Ohio plant (I think it was near Lima), with everybody getting laid off. Huffy outsourced to China, but still couldn't keep up with Wal-Mart's increasing demands, and eventually declared bankruptcy. Wal-Mart created a race to the bottom...

 

So not only did Wal-Mart take out a lot of independent retailers, they also killed off American manufacturers. Those everyday low, low prices come at a real cost to Americans...

 

*The effect that company has had on urban retail and American manufacturing is gigantic.

Yeah my company bought the building next door last year.  That company went under because they got an account with Wal-Mart which ended up eventually comprising 90% of their business.  They were making pots and pans or something similarly simple.  Supposedly the company went into debt to buy equipment necessary to manufacture to Wal-Mart's specs, then Wal-Mart dropped them after they found another vendor.  With those payments to make it was game over. 

 

Huffy was in Celina.

^There was a good book back in the day called "The Wal-Mart Effect" that chronicled the situation with Huffy. I remember we read that book in an econ class at OU. Basically, Wal-Mart demanded that Huffy build a bunch of their lower-cost bikes at a loss or lose their business relationship. This ended up leading to the closure of the Ohio plant (I think it was near Lima), with everybody getting laid off. Huffy outsourced to China, but still couldn't keep up with Wal-Mart's increasing demands, and eventually declared bankruptcy. Wal-Mart created a race to the bottom...

 

So not only did Wal-Mart take out a lot of independent retailers, they also killed off American manufacturers. Those everyday low, low prices come at a real cost to Americans...

 

*The effect that company has had on urban retail and American manufacturing is gigantic.

Ink s right. Huffy was in Celina. But it's not the only Ohio company destroyed by Wal-Mart. They used the same tactics on Rubbermaid.

I NEVER shop at Wal-Mart. Even if they offered stuff for free, I wouldn't go there. Of course if they offered stuff for free, that means someone's working as a slave to make it possible.

Yeah my company bought the building next door last year.  That company went under because they got an account with Wal-Mart which ended up eventually comprising 90% of their business.  They were making pots and pans or something similarly simple.  Supposedly the company went into debt to buy equipment necessary to manufacture to Wal-Mart's specs, then Wal-Mart dropped them after they found another vendor.  With those payments to make it was game over. 

 

Those are actually a modification of automotive purchasing tactics.

Aerial photos show boom, then bust for East Akron and Chapel Hill: Eyes over Akron

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/12/freeways_were_a_boon_then_a_bo.html

Calgary Ends the 'Sprawl Subsidy' https://t.co/B6ZLbRPmwE

This is how the suburbs die

Michael Brendan Dougherty

SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

January 21, 2016

 

In  1974, corporate behemoth GE moved its headquarters from Manhattan to the suburban Fairfield, Connecticut. Last week, it announced that it was leaving Fairfield for Boston's waterfront district. And as GE goes, it has people wondering whether the suburbs are going to lose their economic lifeblood.

 

Mad Men reminded us that mid-century advertising executives worked in the heart of Manhattan, but slowly began their retreat to the burbs as crime exploded in New York City. The corporate offices followed them and their growing families in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

It created an environmental effect. Westchester, New York, has IBM, Pepsi, MasterCard, Atlas Air. Fairfield has Time Warner Cable, WWE, Ethan Allen, Priceline and many more. This diffusion throughout the suburbs allowed executives to keep their family in one town for years, but still be able to change companies throughout their career.

 

MORE:

http://theweek.com/articles/600250/how-suburbs-die

Where Sprawl Makes It Tougher to Rise Up the Social Ranks

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/sprawl-social-mobility-ewing-chetty-krugman/431535/?utm_source=SFFB …

No, large apartment buildings won't devalue your home

http://streets.mn/2016/02/07/no-large-apartment-buildings-wont-devalue-your-home/

Meanwhile, Cleveland is seeing the most egregious sprawl-type development in areas like Hough that are nowhere near any freeway.

 

Why is it "egregious" if it's in the inner city?  Isn't it better than abandonment and urban prairie?

 

No, because it's a round peg in a square hole with a very limited market.  Those who prefer sprawl will seek actual sprawl.  Those who prefer urban living will seek actual urban living.  Plus, the entire city is worse off with low density neighborhoods this close to downtown.  For example, it's harder to put walkable retail along Euclid or Chester when the walkable population is limited in this way.  On a larger transit-oriented scale, the same goes for downtown.

Meanwhile, Cleveland is seeing the most egregious sprawl-type development in areas like Hough that are nowhere near any freeway.

 

Why is it "egregious" if it's in the inner city?  Isn't it better than abandonment and urban prairie?

 

No, because it's a round peg in a square hole with a very limited market.  Those who prefer sprawl will seek actual sprawl.  Those who prefer urban living will seek actual urban living.  Plus, the entire city is worse off with low density neighborhoods this close to downtown.  For example, it's harder to put walkable retail along Euclid or Chester when the walkable population is limited in this way.  On a larger transit-oriented scale, the same goes for downtown.

 

No?  It's not better than abandonment and urban prairie?

 

I can understand the point some of you make about sprawl and resources.  I don't agree with it, but I can see where you're coming from.

 

I can't see why inner city neighborhoods can't and shouldn't have some of the amenities people normally associate with the suburbs.  This area, for example, is a close commute to both Cleveland Clinic and downtown.  Why does it have to be either dense packed, a slum, or abandoned?

 

Is urban living an "all or nothing" deal?  To live close one must live dense?

Cost-benefit favors it strongly and the city's overall structural design is premised on it.  Sections of the city don't exist in isolation.  Density in one area strengthens surrounding areas, while lack of density makes areas around it less viable.  The sum total of the city's density affects downtown's viability as a downtown, affects the viability of the city-wide transit system.  There's a cascade effect in either direction.  The further out you get, the less this matters, which is why I don't begrudge the suburbs their sprawl.  I see it as a reasonable compromise.

Meanwhile, Cleveland is seeing the most egregious sprawl-type development in areas like Hough that are nowhere near any freeway.

 

Why is it "egregious" if it's in the inner city?  Isn't it better than abandonment and urban prairie?

 

No, because it's a round peg in a square hole with a very limited market.  Those who prefer sprawl will seek actual sprawl.  Those who prefer urban living will seek actual urban living.  Plus, the entire city is worse off with low density neighborhoods this close to downtown.  For example, it's harder to put walkable retail along Euclid or Chester when the walkable population is limited in this way.  On a larger transit-oriented scale, the same goes for downtown.

 

No?  It's not better than abandonment and urban prairie?

 

I can understand the point some of you make about sprawl and resources.  I don't agree with it, but I can see where you're coming from.

 

I can't see why inner city neighborhoods can't and shouldn't have some of the amenities people normally associate with the suburbs.  This area, for example, is a close commute to both Cleveland Clinic and downtown.  Why does it have to be either dense packed, a slum, or abandoned?

 

Is urban living an "all or nothing" deal?  To live close one must live dense?

 

It is not an all-or-nothing deal on most issues.  There is no reason that a city neighborhood cannot offer most of the amenities that come with the suburbs.  But you just touched on basically the only one that it can't offer, which is large private yard space.  327 is right about the density imperative.  All non-autocentric modes of transportation from walking all the way up to heavy commuter rail are premised on a critical mass of density, and those amenities are central to the value proposition of urban living.  The viability of ground floor retail with limited parking is likewise often premised at least in part on a critical mass of nearby residents that can only be achieved with dense development.  It isn't just about avoiding the bad (i.e., avoiding the significant costs of infrastructure maintenance when each house requires hundreds of feet or more of pipe, wire, and concrete to get water, power, and sidewalks), it's about ensuring that the critical foundation for the good parts of urban living exist as well.  Otherwise you can just end up with autocentric density (see, e.g., Lennox Village right off I-77 at Ghent Rd., or a hundred other single-use, car-dependent, cookie-cutter developments like it), which quite justifiably become points of attack for critics of density overall.

Suburban development doesn't pay its own way in infrastructure and services, so allowing suburban development in a city that already has city-level infrastructure to support is even worse because it takes that land off the market that could be put to better use and creates a residency that is resistant to change.  It's like, having a little oil in your car engine is better than having none, but if you don't have enough to prevent damage, then it's still a futile effort and you're just wasting the oil and money. 

When I was a kid we moved from a neighborhood with small postwar houses on small lots where everyone had a fence (usually chain link) to one with bigger back yards and few fences.  In the old neighborhood we played baseball in the street whereas in the neighborhood with bigger back yards we played in the back yards.  But the real action in either neighborhood was in the random patches of woods that saw little use by anyone other than kids who built tree houses and teenagers who smoked and drank.  I do think it's great to have a private outdoor space for a kid to play, but I don't think that having a big yard makes much of a difference since the kids in an area will tend to congregate in the woods, outside gas stations, or whatever else the hangout spot happens to be. 

 

Personally if I had the choice I would never live in an apartment with no balcony or outdoor space.  I have a house with a tiny back yard by suburban standards but I don't know what I'd do with a bigger yard. 

 

 

 

 

It is not an all-or-nothing deal on most issues.  There is no reason that a city neighborhood cannot offer most of the amenities that come with the suburbs.  But you just touched on basically the only one that it can't offer, which is large private yard space.  327 is right about the density imperative.  All non-autocentric modes of transportation from walking all the way up to heavy commuter rail are premised on a critical mass of density, and those amenities are central to the value proposition of urban living.  The viability of ground floor retail with limited parking is likewise often premised at least in part on a critical mass of nearby residents that can only be achieved with dense development.  It isn't just about avoiding the bad (i.e., avoiding the significant costs of infrastructure maintenance when each house requires hundreds of feet or more of pipe, wire, and concrete to get water, power, and sidewalks), it's about ensuring that the critical foundation for the good parts of urban living exist as well.  Otherwise you can just end up with autocentric density (see, e.g., Lennox Village right off I-77 at Ghent Rd., or a hundred other single-use, car-dependent, cookie-cutter developments like it), which quite justifiably become points of attack for critics of density overall.

 

I think we're getting a little into Sim City territory and overemphasizing the macro at the expense of the micro.  A residential neighborhood exists to serve its residents,  moreso than planners or the city as a whole.  Additionally, at least what I see in the Hough area resembles Bedford, not Walton Hills. 

 

But even if it did take a larger yards model, and it worked: why not?  Presumably it would not exist if people with choices didn't want to live there.  Do you want more of them living in your city, or driving to and from the suburbs?

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

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

 

Crocker Park?

It is not an all-or-nothing deal on most issues.  There is no reason that a city neighborhood cannot offer most of the amenities that come with the suburbs.  But you just touched on basically the only one that it can't offer, which is large private yard space.  327 is right about the density imperative.  All non-autocentric modes of transportation from walking all the way up to heavy commuter rail are premised on a critical mass of density, and those amenities are central to the value proposition of urban living.  The viability of ground floor retail with limited parking is likewise often premised at least in part on a critical mass of nearby residents that can only be achieved with dense development.  It isn't just about avoiding the bad (i.e., avoiding the significant costs of infrastructure maintenance when each house requires hundreds of feet or more of pipe, wire, and concrete to get water, power, and sidewalks), it's about ensuring that the critical foundation for the good parts of urban living exist as well.  Otherwise you can just end up with autocentric density (see, e.g., Lennox Village right off I-77 at Ghent Rd., or a hundred other single-use, car-dependent, cookie-cutter developments like it), which quite justifiably become points of attack for critics of density overall.

 

I think we're getting a little into Sim City territory and overemphasizing the macro at the expense of the micro.  A residential neighborhood exists to serve its residents,  moreso than planners or the city as a whole.  Additionally, at least what I see in the Hough area resembles Bedford, not Walton Hills. 

 

But even if it did take a larger yards model, and it worked: why not?  Presumably it would not exist if people with choices didn't want to live there.  Do you want more of them living in your city, or driving to and from the suburbs?

 

I want more of them living in the city than large private yards can allow, for the reasons I stated--there is a critical mass needed to support other amenities that are essential for a healthy city, because a city (especially a landlocked one, as most major Ohio cities are) cannot simply grow by growing outward.

 

When you're dealing with downtown cores in particular, not just urban neighborhoods, every inch counts.  Even in urban neighborhoods outside of downtown, space is at a premium.

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

 

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

It is not an all-or-nothing deal on most issues.  There is no reason that a city neighborhood cannot offer most of the amenities that come with the suburbs.  But you just touched on basically the only one that it can't offer, which is large private yard space.  327 is right about the density imperative.  All non-autocentric modes of transportation from walking all the way up to heavy commuter rail are premised on a critical mass of density, and those amenities are central to the value proposition of urban living.  The viability of ground floor retail with limited parking is likewise often premised at least in part on a critical mass of nearby residents that can only be achieved with dense development.  It isn't just about avoiding the bad (i.e., avoiding the significant costs of infrastructure maintenance when each house requires hundreds of feet or more of pipe, wire, and concrete to get water, power, and sidewalks), it's about ensuring that the critical foundation for the good parts of urban living exist as well.  Otherwise you can just end up with autocentric density (see, e.g., Lennox Village right off I-77 at Ghent Rd., or a hundred other single-use, car-dependent, cookie-cutter developments like it), which quite justifiably become points of attack for critics of density overall.

 

I think we're getting a little into Sim City territory and overemphasizing the macro at the expense of the micro.  A residential neighborhood exists to serve its residents,  moreso than planners or the city as a whole.  Additionally, at least what I see in the Hough area resembles Bedford, not Walton Hills. 

 

But even if it did take a larger yards model, and it worked: why not?  Presumably it would not exist if people with choices didn't want to live there.  Do you want more of them living in your city, or driving to and from the suburbs?

 

Because building suburb in the city makes the entire city less viable.  You want to analyze urban neighborhoods in isolation but that's not how they operate.  Demand for suburbs in the city is sufficiently low that these neighborhoods remain decrepit and dysfunctional.  This can be observed.  Adding plazas and McMansions clearly has not helped.  My point is that we need to recognize how much damage they're causing and put an end to it.

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

 

I get that you were being tongue-in-cheek, but it's important to acknowledge the reality that that wouldn't work, either.

Somebody has probably figured this out and plotted it all on a graph, but there must be different thresholds which enable different levels of walkability, and then that walkability feeds on itself as more day-to-day tasks are brought within walking distance.  In the LA basin (south central and then down toward Orange County) there is almost no interruption to the build environment, and it being flat and always having nice weather, there should be a lot of people out walking.  But there aren't because most jobs are zoned into different areas, so that there is a distinct separation of residences and jobs that means most walks are over 1 mile.  Also, the grid is organized into half-mile blocks, so people are psychologically discouraged from walking.  The streets are usually wide and many of the half-mile blocks have the back yards of houses facing the main streets with a privacy wall, meaning people must walk circuitously to get out of their block, then they must walk along main streets that are often somewhat unattractive.  I bring up this example because in those sprawling LA basin areas, almost every house has a little back yard.  But there is more than just the back yard that leads to a lowering of densities that extends walking distances and so then minimizes the number of walker-friendly daily tasks. 

 

Even in traditional urban areas, the density of the population and therefor the walkability of a single-family home area is affected by lot sizes and street widths.  An area with 80-foot wide streets and 200-foot deep blocks (each house on a 25x100 lot) will have a significantly less-dense population than one with houses on 25x70 lots and 40 foot-wide streets. 

 

 

 

I would never suggest LA as an example of doing it right.  But it has the weather and the economy to overcome bad planning.  There will be demand in LA until the water runs out, no matter how difficult or costly it is to live there.  Demand in cities like Cleveland is largely tied to traditional urbanity.  If we're going to draw new residents, that's how we're doing it.

Yeah, we're basically talking about the concept of transect zones in form-based codes:

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

The weird thing about the LA basin is that it is not organized around radial arterial roads.  Some of the original interurban railroad traveled directly between the original towns in the basin (i.e. the Pacific Electric ROW between LA and Santa Ana), but a 1/2 mile grid was overlaid over the whole thing before initial streets took form.  So there aren't direct streets between the original nodes of activity, and so commerce developed in a dispersed way rather than in strips that concentrated it and would have encouraged more walking. 

 

This is in total contrast to how Cincinnati developed.  Dozens of arterial roads formed in the early 1800s before a gridded network of streets was established.  These roads date from when stuff was hauled by animals, and so roads developed in ways that avoided hills or found the most gradual slopes.  Then a the township grid was laid on top of this.  So that's why Cincinnati tends to still have functioning traditional neighborhood business districts but also doesn't have much traffic congestion.  It shares that characteristic with Detroit, where major diagonal avenues were made part of the city's original plan.  Take those big diagonals out of Detroit and traffic would be way worse...something more in line with what LA experiences.