Maybe 30 years ago or so my family would spend a couple of weeks at a rental cottage at some mystical, far away place called North Lake. Very rustic, and incredibly far removed from anything we recognized in our old Detroit suburb. It always seemed like it was an 8-hour drive away. According to <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=1603+s+eton,+birmingham,+mi+48009&daddr=n+territorial+and+hadley&sll=42.386983,-84.008675&sspn=0.014074,0.026307&ie=UTF8&ll=42.456901,-83.604584&spn=0.449858,0.841827&t=p&z=10">Google</a> maps, it was 57 miles and no more than an hour and twenty minutes away. To think many people commute that far every day. No wonder people can never get away from it all: they live there.

A fair number of Cincinnati's suburbs started out as summer home towns for city folks. Mt. Healthy pops to mind, but there were a few others. Some of this reversed with the whole snow bird phenomena. You also had places like Mackinac in Michigan at the end of rail lines where people went for the summer. SE Indiana was a big center for Cincinnatians as well.

Many of Cleveland's lakefront communities started out as summer cottage towns.  If you keep going out west past Vermillion, you can get a pretty good idea of what Avon Lake, Sheffield Lake or Bay looked like 75 years ago- cottages on little streets dead ending at the lake.  Same thing on the Eastern shore.

it's the same out east, cottages on streets dead ending at the lake in willowick, eastlake, willoughby...

I'm pretty peeved that Columbus hasn't adopted a smart growth policy for all redevelopment within city borders, which encompasses plenty of land that was annexed and turned into sprawl thanks to the shortsightedness of our previous city government officials. This would be more attractive if we were to stop subsidizing sprawl statewide so that developers couldn't cross the border and build on farmland in a neighboring county. Still, we have plenty of land that has been sprawled on that is deserted  with big empty parking lots for new sprawl further out, as if that wasn't evidence enough for us to put an end to such short-sighted, temporary places. ODOT has a good map, pretty amazing they've done something right.

 

Sprawlitious!!

Columbus has the most f'd up city boundaries I am aware of.  I wonder if there will ever be a push to make those little chunks of unincorporated land annex to adjacent or surrounding cities.  A similar push has been happening in Greater Seattle, because it becomes difficult and expensive for the counties to service such a piecemeal jurisdiction.

Columbus has the most f'd up city boundaries I am aware of.  I wonder if there will ever be a push to make those little chunks of unincorporated land annex to adjacent or surrounding cities.  A similar push has been happening in Greater Seattle, because it becomes difficult and expensive for the counties to service such a piecemeal jurisdiction.

 

Try Jacksonville, Fl.  even worse.

Further, Columbus is filled with people who brag "we live in [suburb] but pay Columbus taxes," or "we pay Columbus taxes but have [suburb] schools." The latter is by design, the former is a result of the cut-and-paste annexing. The only real beef I have is the Columbus Zoo being sandwiched between Dublin and Powell. Hate that zoo!

Columbus and its sunbelt annexation policy.  They apparently have annexed all their big outlying shopping centers.  Looks like they even snagged some of the Dublin "edge city" stuff too?

^The White Elephant Retail Parcels of Tomorrow...TODAY!

^The White Elephant Retail Parcels of Tomorrow...TODAY!

 

Was that a Troy, MI reference?

Yesterday's trite marketing constructions...LAST WEEK!

Those little bits and pieces screw the townships as well.

Further, Columbus is filled with people who brag "we live in [suburb] but pay Columbus taxes," or "we pay Columbus taxes but have [suburb] schools." The latter is by design, the former is a result of the cut-and-paste annexing. The only real beef I have is the Columbus Zoo being sandwiched between Dublin and Powell. Hate that zoo!

 

Worse, the zoo has one of the biggest parking lots I've ever seen: acres and acres of undulating asphalt near the banks of the Scioto. It's environmentally hostile -- especially given that there are ways to do permeable-surface pavement for parking lots. But it really should be a garage, rather than a surface lot. Better yet: decent transit to to zoo. Even better: a zoo that's not out in sprawlburbia.

^Thank you! After navigating the blacktop ocean, my wife and I were nearly crushed alive by the irony of the zoo's preachy-ass "environmental footprint" exhibit. Add to that their expansion into the golf course business, and you get groaners like this pro-environment opportunity from Columbus Zoo/Zafari Golf Course seasonal employment page:

 

Positions available for 18 years of age and older:  Golf Course Maintenance Worker (must possess pesticide applicator license through Ohio Dept. of Agriculture). http://www.colszoo.org/hr/SeasonalEmployment.aspx

 

Point this stuff out to the typical Columbusite and they look at you like you just stepped out of a flying saucer. To which I say: "Klatu, Verada, GetbackinyourgaddamnExcursionandgetoutofmyface."

June 25, 2008

Rethinking the Country Life as Energy Costs Rise

By PETER S. GOODMAN

 

ELIZABETH, Colo. — Suddenly, the economics of American suburban life are under assault as skyrocketing energy prices inflate the costs of reaching, heating and cooling homes on the distant edges of metropolitan areas.

 

Just off Singing Hills Road, in one of hundreds of two-story homes dotting a former cattle ranch beyond the southern fringes of Denver, Phil Boyle and his family openly wonder if they will have to move close to town to get some relief.

 

They still revel in the space and quiet that has drawn a steady exodus from American cities toward places like this for more than half a century. Their living room ceiling soars two stories high. A swing-set sways in the breeze in their backyard. Their wrap-around porch looks out over the flat scrub of the high plains to the snow-capped peaks of the Rocky Mountains.

 

...

 

“Living closer in, in a smaller space, where you don’t have that commute,” he said. “It’s definitely something we talk about. Before it was ‘we spend too much time driving.’ Now, it’s ‘we spend too much time and money driving.’ ”

 

...

 

Basic household arithmetic appears to be furthering the trend: In 2003, the average suburban household spent $1,422 a year on gasoline, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By April of this year — when gas prices were about $3.60 a gallon— the same household was spending $3,196 a year, more than doubling consumption in dollar terms in less than five years.

 

...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25exurbs.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1214406444-3oturLYoBV5zK84e/aPGsA

 

Love the photo that went with the article. Suburbia stereotyped......

 

Megan Werner, with her children, lives in Elizabeth, Colorado, a once-rural community. (Kevin Moloney for The New York Times)

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/24/business/exurbs.php

 

^Father, working three jobs to pay for all this, not pictured.

Awesome

I read this article on the NY Times website and looked through the slideshow showing many more shots of this development.  I often hear that we (urbanites and suburbanites) are moving so far apart in our values that we can't even understand each other any more.  That really hit home as I realized that I can't for the life of me see the attraction in living in this treeless, desolate stretch of vinyl sided homes, let alone paying a premium price to live there.

X  quote of the day!

 

I mean, can you really call an area like that a "neighborhood"?  How do you interact with your neighbors?  The shade is people move to those place so they don't have to be social or interact with anyone.  To me it's sad.

I disagree.  That family looks happy and safe.  When I have kids, those two things will be the bottom line, and it looks like this family has already achieved it.

I disagree. That family looks happy and safe. When I have kids, those two things will be the bottom line, and it looks like this family has already achieved it.

 

I don't know about that. It looks like a good place to raise a kid, but not necessarily a good place to BE a kid. When my oldest was about 8, several years ago, I drove through one of the neighborhoods like the one pictured, with big homes and large yards. I asked if he would like to live there. He said, no -- the houses were too far apart and his friends would be further away. It did not have the neighborhood feel that he was accustomed to. Now he's 17 and still feels the same way -- he has the freedom to use his bus pass all over the city, is not constrained by having to use a car all the time, etc.

I disagree.  That family looks happy and safe.  When I have kids, those two things will be the bottom line, and it looks like this family has already achieved it.

 

I disagree.  "Looks" can be deceiving.  Just because the parents got what they want, that doesn't mean the kids are "happy nor safe".  Where are most child molestors or predators?  They lurk in the suburbs, because they know, that no dysfunctional family will admit to be dysfunctional.

 

Just because one lives outside of the city core, that does not equate to "safe".

^ I love how suburban folk feel as if they've cornered the market in knowing their neighbors. I live in the city. I not only know my neighbors, I know what time they get up in the morning and what radio station they're listening to when they leave for work. In fact, I don't know HOW you'd go about meeting neighbors without the common areas city living affords; exactly the type of set-up suburbs shun, unless there's shopping involved.

 

One of the creepiest things I've ever seen was when I was looking at a rental house in Westerville off of Sunbury road. It was a two story garage-in-front number in a Totally 80's cul-de-sac-style subdivision, the type with clusters of houses that back up to common areas. My son made a bee-line for the playground equipment there. I was stuck by how the swings and jungle gym appeared as if they hadn't been used in years. Then I looked around and noticed that the common area was ringed by privacy fences, and peeking out over the top of each fence, in each yard, was a new, expensive-looking play structure. 

 

We fled that house as if it were in Amityville.

oops I posted this on the fuel prices thread. Anyway, I like this discussion. Taking the obvious financial cost out of the equation, do people that have these horrendous commutes take the time to calculate the  family/social consequences? say you commute an extra hour a day to live in the exurbs, that is a minimum of 5 hours a week (more than a a few weeks vacation by the end of the year) you could be spending with your kids or loved ones.. or bettering yourself with a hobby....doing community service, exercising, cooking,..the list goes on. What I know about child development is that meaningful parent face time is about the most important thing you can give a child to nurture all aspects of their development.  A huge fertilized lawn has not been recognized as essential.

^ I love how suburban folk feel as if they've cornered the market in knowing their neighbors. I live in the city. I not only know my neighbors, I know what time they get up in the morning and what radio station they're listening to when they leave for work. In fact, I don't know HOW you'd go about meeting neighbors without the common areas city living affords; exactly the type of set-up suburbs shun, unless there's shopping involved.

 

One of the creepiest things I've ever seen was when I was looking at a rental house in Westerville off of Sunbury road. It was a two story garage-in-front number in a Totally 80's cul-de-sac-style subdivision, the type with clusters of houses that back up to common areas. My son made a bee-line for the playground equipment there. I was stuck by how the swings and jungle gym appeared as if they hadn't been used in years. Then I looked around and noticed that the common area was ringed by privacy fences, and peeking out over the top of each fence, in each yard, was a new, expensive-looking play structure. 

 

We fled that house as if it were in Amityville.

 

thats because those folks are all trying to keep up with the Jones.

 

He'll I've even fallen for that BS. 

I disagree. That family looks happy and safe. When I have kids, those two things will be the bottom line, and it looks like this family has already achieved it.

 

Perhaps, although it is just one photo.  I think I would have hated what I see of that place as a kid, though.  What would you do?  Kick your soccer ball into that net over and over again?  There is no neighborhood to go explore, no woods to play in, just one large field, most of it private, and presumably off limits.  Can those kids ride their bikes to any other kids' houses (and if so, how many), a candy store, or a park?  So often the answer in what parents consider the ideal suburb is "no".

I disagree.  That family looks happy and safe.  When I have kids, those two things will be the bottom line, and it looks like this family has already achieved it.

 

I don't know about that. It looks like a good place to raise a kid, but not necessarily a good place to BE a kid. When my oldest was about 8, several years ago, I drove through one of the neighborhoods like the one pictured, with big homes and large yards. I asked if he would like to live there. He said, no -- the houses were too far apart and his friends would be further away. It did not have the neighborhood feel that he was accustomed to. Now he's 17 and still feels the same way -- he has the freedom to use his bus pass all over the city, is not constrained by having to use a car all the time, etc.

 

Until I was 12, my family lived in Groveport, an older suburb of Columbus. It was no ordinary post '60s suburb, because most of it consisted of a 1800s-early 1900s small town that was built on a human scale. I could walk or ride my bicycle everywhere I needed to go -- school, the store, friend's houses, bicycle trails, parks, the pool, whatever. The old R/W for the interurban tracks was a trail that got me where I needed to go. Then we moved to the country. Having land was nice, but except for the run-down trailer park across the road (which was bad news), there were no other human beings for miles. My bike was useless.

 

Any time I wanted to see friends, they or I had to be chauffeured, wasting a bunch of our parents' time. Since that was inconvenient, my folks ended up spending a bunch of money on video games and quads/dirt bikes to keep me from going nuts. The quads and dirt bikes were good for me (we have 425 acres, though; most people don't have that luxury), but the video games almost turned me into one of those massively overweight, maladjusted video zombie kids. Ultra-long bus rides cut into my free and homework time (I can't read in a moving vehicle without getting a splitting headache, except oddly enough, I can read on a subway all day). I started doing really crappy in school and failed a grade. I'd say that I didn't totally recover from the loss of freedom that the lack of walk/bikeability provides a youth until I was in college in a walkable area at age 20. I had already had a driver's license and a really cool car for four years, but it took that long to break the chains.

 

Obviously, if you're a kid born into an unwalkable situation, you don't know what you're missing, but living in an exurban hellhole on 1 acre without access to dirt bikes, guns, big mudholes, go-karts and other "real country" fun stuff, how do you keep from going nuts? Be an emo kid and cut yourself all the time? So that's where those kids come from!

^Great insights.

Don't like sprawl?  Move to West Chester!!!!

 

From the Enquirer:

 

"... Gloria Bryant, after telling trustees she moved from Detroit to avoid the kind of sprawl she’s witnessing in West Chester. "

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080625/NEWS01/306250109

^ Aw, jeez. Sounds like one of those types that builds a house next to the freeway and expects the government to build them a noise wall.

"Obviously, if you're a kid born into an unwalkable situation, you don't know what you're missing, but living in an exurban hellhole on 1 acre without access to dirt bikes, guns, big mudholes, go-karts and other "real country" fun stuff, how do you keep from going nuts? Be an emo kid and cut yourself all the time? So that's where those kids come from! "

 

I couldn't agree more. My parents house is in the country, in the middle of woods with about 20 acre on a lake. Guess what  the boats and lake were great 4 months a year, but the other 8 months there was nothing to do. It sucked, but I didn't know any better. As a kid I was stuck with the two families on my deadend street with kids to play with, neither family that I am still friends with today. Compare that with the 60 kids on my street in Lakewood.

 

One downside to living in the city was I read a ton as a kid, now I barely have time to read at all. Or maybe it the fact that I now have to act grown up with a house and a family and a job...

Oh and the time I spend on Urban Ohio getting educated.

 

Emo kids....that cracked me up...

I can't believe people are taking my comment and then talking about CHILD MOLESTERS lurking in surbubs or exurbs.  What?  And I know people who lived on their parents' farms in Oklahoma who had excellent upbringings, despite not living in any urban setting.  From this one picture, the family looks happy.  I don't understand how anyone can possibly disagree with that assessment, and "some of you" have got to get off your high horses when someone says something that may not be 110% pro city living. 

^I'll agree it's presumptuous that there's a molester lurking behind every shed in suburbia. However, it's equally presumptuous to look at a staged photo of a mom and three kids and discern that they've achieved happiness and safety. In fact, on the basis of the fact that they're admittedly having trouble affording their lifestyle, it stands to reason that their kids will suffer in the long run. Money problems break up a lot of marriages, and with the college fund going into the tank every week, these kids may have to scramble for an education. What's the old saying? Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations?

I think some of us are speaking from experience when we say that exurban/rural upbringing is isolating for a child.  I don't think most parents appreciate that.  I always envied my friends who got to live in an actual neighborhood, where there were other kids to play with.  And I think that I was relatively lucky compared to these kids in the photo, as my home was surrounded by woods and creeks that I could explore.  A treeless field doesn't seem to offer the same possibilities.

From this one picture, the family looks happy.  I don't understand how anyone can possibly disagree with that assessment

 

Maybe because the picture was staged? :roll:  And if you're that overprotective that your kids are only allowed to play in your yard, you could easily get a house in Lakewood and Cleveland Heights that would have PLENTY of space for your kids to jump rope and play with a sword (as in the picture), let alone a basketball hoop, play catch, etc.  Oh yeah, and then they could ride their bike up to the pool and park with a real baseball field if you loosen the leash.

 

I grew up on a small yard and my brother and I always found ways to make great games out of small spaces.  We had relatives in the exurbs that had a bigger yard that was virtually unusable because it was fill dirt that sloped off on the sides and odd landscaping scattering about, so the damn ball was always rolling away instead of staying within the yard and the mulched mini-trees were just nuissances.  I always hated going there because I felt trapped in an unfriendly environment...there were never any other kids around that would play...nowhere else to go...etc.  I think the fact that families are happier in this environment is a complete myth, especially for the kids.  It's an idyllic view sold to us by builders and developers that want to sell more new houses.  I'm sure there are happy families there, but I would bet many of them would find they could be just as happy in a more urban area.

I make a lot of sacrifices for my kids, but a move to a big house in exurbia seems more geared toward mom and dad's social cred than anything else.

 

Seriously: if your children are in danger move them to a safer place. If you simply want more room, get rid of some junk.

Growing up in the city, I just really wanted a flat spot that was slightly more than 60 ft. 6 in., which we didn't have and that's why I'm a historian and not pitching for the Reds. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Those kids in the picture could enjoy those same exact activities (jumping rope, practicing goals) in a modestly sized yard or heaven forbid, in a park with other kids -- have even more fun. I suppose in the exurban situation that one of their friends from school that lives two townships over could be delivered in an SUV to play with them.

That's ridiculous.  You don't know how far the kids have to go to see their friends or go to school.  And I'm sure a lot of farmer's kids, which is analogous to exurbs, grow up just as happily and/or unhappily than urban kids.

 

It's so dumb how so many urbanohio posters unequivically equate urban living as GOOD, suburban living as BAD, and exurban living as DUMB and BAD. 

I grew up in the suburbs, so I have nothing against them.....  But I think people here (whether they realized it or not) were more angered by the suggestion that surburbia was the only place they could live where their kids could safely play.

I think - and this will be the last thing I'll say on this since I've made my point and don't want to endlessly argue over opinion - that people on UO look for reasons to be offended at times and purposely get overly defensive about legitimate concerns with urban living. 

Pose a legitimate concern about urban living then--there are plenty to choose from. But basically you're just getting cranky at the people who caught you swooning over a staged photo of suburbia.

 

Hey, we all have our moments of weakness.

I make a lot of sacrifices for my kids, but a move to a big house in exurbia seems more geared toward mom and dad's social cred than anything else.

 

Seriously: if your children are in danger move them to a safer place. If you simply want more room, get rid of some junk.

 

DING!  DING!  DING!  We've got a winner here!  (sidebar:  I still can't get with your one bathroom setup though :wink: )

 

From this one picture, the family looks happy.  I don't understand how anyone can possibly disagree with that assessment

 

Maybe because the picture was staged? :roll:  And if you're that overprotective that your kids are only allowed to play in your yard, you could easily get a house in Lakewood and Cleveland Heights that would have PLENTY of space for your kids to jump rope and play with a sword (as in the picture), let alone a basketball hoop, play catch, etc.  Oh yeah, and then they could ride their bike up to the pool and park with a real baseball field if you loosen the leash.

 

I grew up on a small yard and my brother and I always found ways to make great games out of small spaces.  We had relatives in the exurbs that had a bigger yard that was virtually unusable because it was fill dirt that sloped off on the sides and odd landscaping scattering about, so the damn ball was always rolling away instead of staying within the yard and the mulched mini-trees were just nuissances.  I always hated going there because I felt trapped in an unfriendly environment...there were never any other kids around that would play...nowhere else to go...etc.  I think the fact that families are happier in this environment is a complete myth, especially for the kids.  It's an idyllic view sold to us by builders and developers that want to sell more new houses.  I'm sure there are happy families there, but I would bet many of them would find they could be just as happy in a more urban area.

We'll growing up in the 'burbs, my experience was similar to most.  I didn't have a lot of friends.  As a kid we had the swing set and Jungle Gym (remember those) but I could ride my bike over to Thorton Park, walk/ride to the Shaker Lakes, Forest Hills, Cain or Cumberland Parks.

 

Because we had relatives in Cleveland and Cleveland Hts., we always had a family pass to Cumberland Pool or Thorton Park.  It's what my parents wanted, and I thought thats how everyone should live.

 

I grew up in the suburbs, so I have nothing against them.....  But I think people here (whether they realized it or not) were more angered by the suggestion that surburbia was the only place they could live where their kids could safely play.

 

I couldn't agree more.  Just look to Cleveland.bomb for ridiculous generalizations.  How many times do people on there say "tear down the entire eastside" as if every single home on everysingle street on the entire eastside is bad.

We celebrate the small towns of Ohio on this site. Walkable/bikeable areas of small towns are great for being a kid, as long as there are at least a few things to do. While they might not learn much about different types of people, at least they won't be isolated.

 

And remember, kids aren't that much safer in the 'burbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural areas. Things like bullying, theft, fistfights, getting hit by cars, sports injuries and drugs care not of location. Add to the mix nonurban dangers such as quad/dirtbike crashes, tractor-related injuries, auto accidents from spending a lot of time in the car, hunting accidents, snakebites, hiking incidents, drowning in a pond, exploring old barns, tornadoes and injuries from animals -- just to name a few -- and kid safety outside of cities is little better if at all. Plus, the amount of childhood obesity in walkable cities is much lower.

I think we all have opinions based on where we grew up and our parents lifestyle and where we currently live and our current lifestlye.

 

I disagree.  That family looks happy and safe.  When I have kids, those two things will be the bottom line, and it looks like this family has already achieved it.

 

Could not have been said better.  After my wife and I had kids, the number one priority became our kids hapiness and safety.  No longer were we concerned about the type of house we lived in, the stores along the street we lived off of, or the restaurants we wanted to be near to.  We decided to have kids and felt as though it was our job to supply them with safety and happiness.  It would sadden me to have to tell my kids to come inside because it was starting to get dark out, or there are suspicious people walking down the street.  As a parent, I would feel a failure.  I don't want my kids to remember growing up on the wrong sides of the tracks.  We were not trying to "keep up with the Jones".  Our house is no where near the size of the Jones.  That is a commen misunderstanding by people.  Trust me, couples with kids pretty much have our same outlook...I think.  We just knew that we wanted to live in a safe neighborhood with plenty of kids around for them to play with and in a school system that did not have much crime surrounding it.  Granted, we did not move all the way out to Medina or even Strongsville, but we are in the suburbs.  However, just like anywhere, you need to keep an eye on your kids because anything can happen anywhere. 

 

My wife and I sometimes laugh at what we used to think we wanted as adults.  Raise the kids in the city and take them out to locally owned restaurants etc.  But something changed for us after we had that first little one.  After we saw them walk for the first time, ride their bike for the first time, go to school on the first day.  We knew we just wanted them to be safe and happy.  Oh, and FYI, our house was built in 1946, is 1300 sq ft, 1.5 baths (3 girls ughhh) and sits on a postage stamp lot...but knock on wood, crime levels are low. 

 

 

Well my question for those who move "out" because they wanted better.

 

Why not stay in the community you're living in and work to improve your neighborhoods, schools, parks, street, community instead of moving to a place that has or perceived to have all that in place?