I am the quintessential wannabe urbanite stuck in the suburbs.  The city itself brings me there.  The fact that it is a dense urban oasis full of life, shopping, restaurants & theatres – all of it brings me there.

 

I go out of my way to dine, shop and spend my leisure time in downtown.

 

I think the emphasis on "drawing" suburbanites and tourists downtown is overrated.  There is no way that transitional and occasional users of a space are going to be able to sustain the kind of activity necessary for a lively downtown.  If cities want to rebuild their downtowns, or neighborhoods, for that matter, they need to focus on the stakeholders--the residents and workers in those communities.

 

Agree 100%, I am around these people enough to know that I wouldn't invest or bet anything on their consistency to visit a downtown establishment.  The city needs to focus on the residents first and foremost.

 

I always say, if it doesn't work for the people already there, how is it going to work for people who aren't there yet? 

My number one draw to downtown when I didn't live in the city was visiting friends and relatives who did...residents are a draw in and of themselves...

this is what we need to draw people into the city

http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2006/02/rb_06_feb_21.html

That's certainly one way!  So what's it going to be for Ohio's downtowns?  All we need is a stupid idea and an e-mail list.  I know we have the stupid ideas covered!

^ Everyone paints their face in tiger stripes and swims across the Ohio River naked ;)

If you talk to the people marketing many of these new condos, they will tell you they are not even trying to market downtown living to suburbanites.  They are going after young professionals, empty-nesters and upper level executives who want to be close to their jobs, entertainment, good restaurants, etc.

 

Most suburban homeowners either have families or are so deeply in debt with their McMansions that they would never consider pulling up stakes and moving downtown. That's not to say that some owuld not, but they are not who developers are aiming at for potential customers.  If they were, they would set up sales offices out in the burbs.

 

That said, I like what I am seeing in the developments here in Columbus, both in downtown and in neighboring areas like German Village, the Brewery District and the Short North. The amenities are also starting to show up, like a major new Kroger's in the Brewery District.  Now, if they could only figure out what to do with that soon-to-be-a-cave City Center Mall.

^I agree man. When people are married and have kids, they generally want to have a big house that is affordable, big yard, good schools, safe neighborhood, and all of that other typical suburban stuff.  Gas prices are not high enough for people to care enough about driving 15-30 minutes downtown to get to work.  The inner city is best marketed towards young professionals that don't have the same concerns that married couples with kids have.  Look at Boston, it has a high urban density. It's only 48 square miles, and has over 500k in population. Cincinnati is 78 sq miles and has roughly 320k.  I'm sure theres a lot of reasons why Boston has such a high number of people living in the city but I bet one of the biggest reasons is because there is so many universities in and near Boston.  Businesses work closely with universities.  They share resources with each other and the Univ. provides a quality workforce, so educational institutions are important to a city's economy.  I think if Cinci had another major university we would definitely see a higher inner city population here.

^I agree man. When people are married and have kids, they generally want to have a big house that is affordable, big yard, good schools, safe neighborhood, and all of that other typical suburban stuff.  Gas prices are not high enough for people to care enough about driving 15-30 minutes downtown to get to work.  The inner city is best marketed towards young professionals that don't have the same concerns that married couples with kids have.  Look at Boston, it has a high urban density. It's only 48 square miles, and has over 500k in population. Cincinnati is 78 sq miles and has roughly 320k.  I'm sure theres a lot of reasons why Boston has such a high number of people living in the city but I bet one of the biggest reasons is because there is so many universities in and near Boston.  Businesses work closely with universities.  They share resources with each other and the Univ. provides a quality workforce, so educational institutions are important to a city's economy.  I think if Cinci had another major university we would definitely see a higher inner city population here.

 

I don't get the blind attitude toward how to live when you have a family. Why do you just have to live in a suburb, because it's expected of you? Although a university may help Cincy, it may do nothing. Columbus has approximately 31,000 students at CSCC, CCAD, etc, but there's no student housing anywhere there. It looks like the former Seneca hotel will finally aid in this by being converted into apartments for students.

^I agree man. When people are married and have kids, they generally want to have a big house that is affordable, big yard, good schools, safe neighborhood, and all of that other typical suburban stuff.  Gas prices are not high enough for people to care enough about driving 15-30 minutes downtown to get to work.  The inner city is best marketed towards young professionals that don't have the same concerns that married couples with kids have.  Look at Boston, it has a high urban density. It's only 48 square miles, and has over 500k in population. Cincinnati is 78 sq miles and has roughly 320k.  I'm sure theres a lot of reasons why Boston has such a high number of people living in the city but I bet one of the biggest reasons is because there is so many universities in and near Boston.  Businesses work closely with universities.  They share resources with each other and the Univ. provides a quality workforce, so educational institutions are important to a city's economy.  I think if Cinci had another major university we would definitely see a higher inner city population here.

 

Actually, I think its the city transportation infrastructure.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  People regardless of thier marital status never needed to move from teh cities urban core.  Companies never need to make a mass exodus to the burbs since their employees were smack dab in the middle of the city.  In addition, Boston is a City/State type of city. Such as Denver, Atlanta, SLC, Portland, Seattle, etc.  Mass, only has one large city to be concerned with, where as in Ohio we have three large metro areas to spread the wealth.

^I agree man. When people are married and have kids, they generally want to have a big house that is affordable, big yard, good schools, safe neighborhood, and all of that other typical suburban stuff.  Gas prices are not high enough for people to care enough about driving 15-30 minutes downtown to get to work.  The inner city is best marketed towards young professionals that don't have the same concerns that married couples with kids have.  Look at Boston, it has a high urban density. It's only 48 square miles, and has over 500k in population. Cincinnati is 78 sq miles and has roughly 320k.  I'm sure theres a lot of reasons why Boston has such a high number of people living in the city but I bet one of the biggest reasons is because there is so many universities in and near Boston.  Businesses work closely with universities.  They share resources with each other and the Univ. provides a quality workforce, so educational institutions are important to a city's economy.  I think if Cinci had another major university we would definitely see a higher inner city population here.

 

I don't get the blind attitude toward how to live when you have a family. Why do you just have to live in a suburb, because it's expected of you? Although a university may help Cincy, it may do nothing. Columbus has approximately 31,000 students at CSCC, CCAD, etc, but there's no student housing anywhere there. It looks like the former Seneca hotel will finally aid in this by being converted into apartments for students.

I don't fully understand why so many people prefer the suburbs either, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a reality right now.  I think a university would work under the right circumstances.  There may not be housing near CCAD but I'm sure students still tend to live nearby. Community colleges (CSCC) have a higher percentage of older people that are already established somewhere else. The demand for housing on campus isn't as bad, but I know you still make a valid point.  You have Ohio State, the second largest university in the United States only a few miles north of downtown, and I'd bet your urban core (atleast on the short north side) is doing better because of it.

^I agree man. When people are married and have kids, they generally want to have a big house that is affordable, big yard, good schools, safe neighborhood, and all of that other typical suburban stuff.  Gas prices are not high enough for people to care enough about driving 15-30 minutes downtown to get to work.  The inner city is best marketed towards young professionals that don't have the same concerns that married couples with kids have.  Look at Boston, it has a high urban density. It's only 48 square miles, and has over 500k in population. Cincinnati is 78 sq miles and has roughly 320k.  I'm sure theres a lot of reasons why Boston has such a high number of people living in the city but I bet one of the biggest reasons is because there is so many universities in and near Boston.  Businesses work closely with universities.  They share resources with each other and the Univ. provides a quality workforce, so educational institutions are important to a city's economy.  I think if Cinci had another major university we would definitely see a higher inner city population here.

 

Actually, I think its the city transportation infrastructure.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  People regardless of thier marital status never needed to move from teh cities urban core.  Companies never need to make a mass exodus to the burbs since their employees were smack dab in the middle of the city.  In addition, Boston is a City/State type of city. Such as Denver, Atlanta, SLC, Portland, Seattle, etc.  Mass, only has one large city to be concerned with, where as in Ohio we have three large metro areas to spread the wealth.

  I don't see how having more cities in Ohio causes people to go to the suburbs.  I don't understand how states divide wealth to different cities.  Can you expand on that? I don't understand how that gives Ohio a disadvantage.

Living in the suburbs is a status thing plain and simple.  People want to say they live in Westlake or Strongsville or Blue Ash (I think) etc.  And when they have kids, they don't want people like their parents relatives or friends saying over and over again, "why do you live downtown.  Where are the kids going to play or go to school."  It's basically what the norm is and not what they want.  They don't want people to think their crazy when they buy a condo downtown for 350k and at the same time are thinking about starting a family.  I don't think it's crazy at all.

Living in the suburbs is a status thing plain and simple.

 

There is truth to this, but I don't believe it is the absolute truth.  People definately do move to the suburbs for status reasons:  to associate with a prestigious city, and to buy a large house on a lot of land to impress other people.  In America we are typically judged by our perceived wealth, and these things all add to the perception of wealth.  Although in my opinion, it doesn't really impress a whole lot of people and just covers up peoples insecurities about themselves. 

 

However, there are valid reasons for moving to suburbs that don't relate to status.  Namely, inner-city schools suck, plain and simple.  Also, statistically, suburbs are going to be safer than the inner-city. 

 

I, myself, live in the city.  I find the suburbs to be anti-social, and void of culture... things I feel would detract from my quality of life.  I don't have kids, however.  When I have kids the question of schools will come up, and then I'll have a hard decision to make...

My number one draw to downtown when I didn't live in the city was visiting friends and relatives who did...residents are a draw in and of themselves...

 

Exactly.  Since I've moved down here, my friends and family have spent a lot more time downtown.  They're starting to realize I'm not crazy. 

However, there are valid reasons for moving to suburbs that don't relate to status.  Namely, inner-city schools suck, plain and simple.  Also, statistically, suburbs are going to be safer than the inner-city. 

 

Bingo... If I didn't have kids, I wouldn't hesitate to live in the heart of the city.  Unfortunately, because of the state of many inner city schools, the suburbs are the obvious choice for many.  We're looking to move to the Cleveland area within the next year or year and a half; and though I would love to live in the city proper, schools are a big concern for us.  I know there are other options such as charter or private schools, but I'm not totally sold on charter schools yet and as tight as our budget is right now, private schools are out of the question.  For this reason, we will more than likely end up residing in either Shaker or Cleveland Hts (I can't go out any further than that).

 

As for the topic of the thread, I live within the Akron city limits, although barely; I can take a short walk in the woods next to my place and be in Cuyahoga Falls.  Things that draw me downtown are usually special events such as shows, outdoor concerts and festivals, baseball games, etc... 

 

Though I have a couple of libraries in my immediate vicinity, I took my son to the main library downtown a couple of times last summer.  Since he isn't exposed to downtown like I was as a kid (I practically grew up downtown; hence my eternal love of urbanism), I try to get him down there every once in a while so he can get a real taste of the city.  He's really into busses right now, so I think we'll ride the bus downtown a few times in the future to make trips to the library (he's only 3; I know it's sad, I'm already trying to turn him into a little urbanist).

Many suburban school districts are just as lousy as the large urban ones, and you'll see more of this as urban decay continues to spread outward.

 

It's interesting that in some parts, living in the suburbs is seen as a status thing.  Where there is a vibrant inner city, living in the city is the status thing. 

 

I don't buy the "big house, big yard" thing, either.  In my inner-city neighborhood, the houses are mostly 80-100 years old, but are larger than most anything in the new suburbs.  The average townhouse in my 'hood is 2500-3000 square feet.  Granted, the lots are small, but when you have a fantastic large park one block away, who needs a yard to take care of?

 

If there was a manual that ever explained you have to buy a house in the suburbs with a big yard when you have kids, no one ever gave me my copy.

Jeez people on here love to be in opposition just for the sake of opposition.  If someone makes a generalization, just take it as a generalization. Status is a huge reason why people live in the suburbs.  Status is the same reason why so many people in Cincinnati Public School districts send their kids to Summit, X,Ursula,Ursuline,Elder, Purcell, etcetera.  Mariemont, Wyoming, and Indian Hill are ranked as one of the best high schools in the naton, why should anyone live in the inner city and pay out the ass to send their kids to a private school just so they can get a decent education, when they can live in the suburbs?  Not everyone can get into Walnut or SCPA.  Go ahead and say "No David I disagree, people send their kids to private schools for religious reasons, or because of the good education, and it's not just inner city kids that go to those schools".  These are the same people that buy huge SUVs to improve their status and bitch about gas prices.  They're the type of people that buy houses that cost the highest amount they are approved for on a loan, and they are common.  They may not make up 100 percent of the population but they do make up a large percentage.  It would be great if we could fix the public schools, but money per student isn't the problem.  The only thing that would make a difference in public school safety and quality is fixing the inner city.

So how do we fix inner cities if federal and state policies are geared toward promoting new suburban development?

greenbelts for everyone!

 

 

Living in the suburbs is a status thing plain and simple.  People want to say they live in Westlake or Strongsville or Blue Ash (I think) etc. 

 

Last October in the main train station in Rome I met a group of middle aged tourists from "Ohio".  When as I asked them where exactly, they were careful to tell me that they were originally from Lakewood but were now living in Westlake with the implication that they had made it in the world.  They also happened to fit every European's worst stereotype of the chunky, poorly dressed, loud, moronic American (they asked me to help them use the very un-tricky ATM)...so needless to say, I wasn't particularly awed by their home address.

 

Living in the suburbs is a status thing plain and simple. 

 

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think that many people raising a family have additional considerations:

1) Is it easy?

2) Is it affordable?

3) Is it good for my kids?

 

Not every suburb meets these criteria, but raising a family can be tough business and I think at the end of the day most parents want to do what makes the most sense for the kids, and then themselves. Can it be done in the city, absolutely.  But not for everyone.

 

Plus this is one area where net in-migration really makes a difference.  I don't know many people who grew up in Cleveland proper, their parents had either left a generation ago and they were raised in the suburbs and now feel comfortable there.  Someone just moving to Ohio may be more likely to move into a city proper. 

 

It is all individual choice, which should be preserved, but not necessarily weighed in favor through incentives towards the suburbs.

You don't even need to go to Rome to see that.  I meet plenty of people like that here in DC.  Some of them are completely dumbfounded that people of all types live "in the city".  I get the sense they somehow look down on city dwellers, until they find out a studio apartment is more expensive than their glorious vinyl-sided off-the-shelf design 4 bedroom McMansion.

 

    Just one note about the big yard comment:

 

    It seems that suburbanites want new houses, as opposed to pre-owned ones. This is similar to the want of new cars, new clothes, etc.

 

  In all fairness, new homes generally are better insulated, have more parking space or garage space, are laid out inside for entertainment centers, refrigerators, computers, and have many other advantages that older houses do not have.

 

    In general, the new houses are found in the suburbs, and they also come with yards. Yes, there are new houses in the city, but they are few. Could it be that the new construction is just as important or more so than lot size?

For most folks I know it comes down to schools first, and then housing type (new or older).  Being able to walk to something was not even a remote consideration.  I chose to live in Cleveland Hts specifically because of the walkable neighborhoods (and the beautiful old houses).  When I mention that to friends, some acknowledge, that yes, having a walkable neighborhood would be kind of nice, but they don't get why it would be that impt.  They also suggest that if I had kids, a walkable neighborhood wouldn't matter very much and that I'd pick mainly on schools.  That said, I've never once felt any of them picked their neighborhood b/c of status, regardless of how chic a name it has.  Perhaps this is b/c most of them moved here from out-of-town and so didn't grow up with all the biases about one town being a higher-status place to live.

 

One other interesting story: a friend moving back to Cleveland was looking for his house.  His parents (who live east of 271) were mortified when he suggest he might look at Cle Hts/Shaker Hts, b/c of perceived safety issues.  Fortunately, he looked for himself and talked to others and ended up in Shaker.  Not exactly downtown urban, but not house farm land either...

I don't think schools are as big a factor as people make them out to be.  Only 25% of all households in the U.S. have school-age children.  I have to think, in reasonable order, the most important considerations in choosing housing are:

 

1.  price

2.  safety

3.  convenience

4.  ease of commute

5.  schools

 

One other interesting story: a friend moving back to Cleveland was looking for his house.  His parents (who live east of 271) were mortified when he suggest he might look at Cle Hts/Shaker Hts, b/c of perceived safety issues.  Fortunately, he looked for himself and talked to others and ended up in Shaker.  Not exactly downtown urban, but not house farm land either...

 

I think this is indeed a pretty commonly held view among far eastern suburbanites and I find it deeply depressing.  Hard to believe there isn't an element of racism behind it: statistically, CH and SH are substantially safer than the average US locality (see, e.g., http://www.city-data.com/city/Shaker-Heights-Ohio.html) and have only been getting safer over the last several years.  Shaker's schools are still excellent.  If I wasn't so desperate to see their money flow into city retail I would happily let the pathetic saps rot at Eton Collection and Beachwood Place but I worry about the future of the central city as long as so many people think of CH and SH as the big scary city.

 

I was also a little puzzled to read on the otherwise informative auto-free in Cleveland guide http://members.tripod.com/~lewyn/index.htmautofree#shaker  that "the blocks south of the Blue Line tend to be poor and dangerous..."  I am all for calling it like is (e.g., tough to argue that much of the city of cleveland isn't dangerous) but I am not sure what scale would deem a large swath of Shaker "dangerous."

 

^yeah, when i moved into the square area, the Shaker Square development peoples basically told me, "stay north of buckeye"

as a person that grew up in shaker and a current resident of shaker square, I can't believe that someone thinks that area is bad

 

One other interesting story: a friend moving back to Cleveland was looking for his house.  His parents (who live east of 271) were mortified when he suggest he might look at Cle Hts/Shaker Hts, b/c of perceived safety issues.  Fortunately, he looked for himself and talked to others and ended up in Shaker.  Not exactly downtown urban, but not house farm land either...

These people need to get outta their "protected glass house"!

 

^yeah, when i moved into the square area, the Shaker Square development peoples basically told me, "stay north of buckeye"

 

When was this?? 

My dad grew up in Shaker Heights. Is it better now than what it was? because if I remember correctly, he said it was a bad area. This was back in the 70s.

I honestly can't think of areas in Shaker Hts I would term as being 'bad'.  I guess everyone has their own opinions, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would think of Shaker as being bad or dangerous.  IMO, I think Shaker is still one of the all around best suburbs in Greater Cleveland.

I live in Lakewood, and the things that regularly bring me downtown are work, dining, live music and entertainment, and just hanging out with friends at a bar or dance club.  I have occasionally shopped at Tower City, but only because I had some time to kill while downtown, it's not much of a destination in and of itself for me. 

 

Most of the things I do downtown I can do outside of downtown, and I often do, but like most people I am always interested in new experiences, people watching, and I like to go to places where lots of people are, and the more diverse and eclectic the people, the more interesting and stimulating the experience.  Those who prefer to be comfortably unchallenged and need to be surrounded by others just like themselves probably have no need or interest in venturing out of the suburbs, but I think most people get bored of that.

 

Ironically, my parents grew up in Cleveland and we lived in Old Brooklyn until I was 4, then we moved to Stow for my Dad's job transfer, but we visited Cleveland fairly frequently and I always got the feeling my parents still consider Cleveland home.  Now that I live up here in Lakewood and work downtown and they are in ultra-suburban Munroe Falls, I think they are a bit envious.

 

P.S.  Pope - I love your new avatar...

^yeah, when i moved into the square area, the Shaker Square development peoples basically told me, "stay north of buckeye"

 

When was this?? 

 

when i lived on the square circa 2004. Also, if i remember the pamphlet correctly, there was only like two properties south of shaker. I know its up to the landlord to get listed......

 

P.S.  Pope - I love your new avatar...

 

yeah, i was inspired one night while watching tv basically on any channel after 12:00, could have been volks or bert k, but i chose good ol' marc.

Would you believe he's getting his own TV show?  I received the following on a performing arts mailing list I'm on:

 

Auditions for the “Mark Norton Show” will be held at:

 

North Coast Casting

4913 Storer Ave

Cleveland, OH 44102

216-651-5441

 

On Feb. 19th from 5 to 9 PM / Open Call!

 

Mark Norton is the owner of Norton’s Furniture in Cleveland. You may have seen his commercials on channel 19. Deep voice and pony tail! Has already developed a strong following!

 

The show to be aired on PAX TV channel 23 and PAX seen on numerous cable channels.

 

Looking for 18 and over males and females all types, no age limit (total of 10 to 14) for scripted and improve comedy sketches!

 

Show format will be similar to Saturday Night Live.

 

Bring photo and resume and be prepared to do improv and interview.

 

Deferred pay.

wow, i cant wait, if you hear anything be sure to keep us posted. Surely the ghoul will make an appearance. Hell this is such great news it might even deserve its own thread.

I stay up to 2 AM just to catch his commercials sometimes. 

So this creepy guy wants people to come to a rough neighborhood to see him about an acting gig in which one would receive "deferred pay"?  Hmmm.....This could be my big break!

It's interesting that in some parts, living in the suburbs is seen as a status thing.  Where there is a vibrant inner city, living in the city is the status thing. 

 

I totally agree with this, although no city in Ohio is at that point yet and suburban Ohio still holds the most status.  Most cities where the city is a status symbol have far flung Estate suburbs and old steetcar suburbs that are status symbols, but the mediocre suburbs in between are not impressive.  European cities have always been like that, while quite a few American cities are now going that way as well.  Of course it is more fashionable to live in Manhattan, Boston, DC, Chicago and San Fran than in their suburbs...but places like Seattle, Austin and Atlanta are joining that list where it is actually a status symbol to live in the city proper.  Columbus probably has the best chance of becoming one of those type of places in Ohio in the near future.

 

I kind of got sick of hearing the "How can we get suburbanites downtown" mantra that is such a common thing to hear in Ohio. The truth is, when you have a vibrant city, suburbanites are not something you aspire to appeal to...they are something that you kind of make fun of.  Stereotypes like...fat and slow are common.  They can't navigate the public transit, block escalators and walk aimlessly.  All stereotypes I know...but it's kinda true.  It would be nice to see a city in Ohio get to that point.

 

 

I kind of got sick of hearing the "How can we get suburbanites downtown" mantra that is such a common thing to hear in Ohio. The truth is, when you have a vibrant city, suburbanites are not something you aspire to appeal to...they are something that you kind of make fun of.  Stereotypes like...fat and slow are common.  They can't navigate the public transit, block escalators and walk aimlessly.  All stereotypes I know...but it's kinda true.  It would be nice to see a city in Ohio get to that point.

 

You just blew my mind!  That would be a total paradigm shift.  I like it!

I kind of got sick of hearing the "How can we get suburbanites downtown" mantra that is such a common thing to hear in Ohio. The truth is, when you have a vibrant city, suburbanites are not something you aspire to appeal to...they are something that you kind of make fun of.  Stereotypes like...fat and slow are common.  They can't navigate the public transit, block escalators and walk aimlessly.  All stereotypes I know...but it's kinda true.  It would be nice to see a city in Ohio get to that point.

 

Well, that's an interesting take on the "culture wars."

It's interesting that in some parts, living in the suburbs is seen as a status thing.  Where there is a vibrant inner city, living in the city is the status thing. 

 

I totally agree with this, although no city in Ohio is at that point yet and suburban Ohio still holds the most status.  Most cities where the city is a status symbol have far flung Estate suburbs and old steetcar suburbs that are status symbols, but the mediocre suburbs in between are not impressive.  European cities have always been like that, while quite a few American cities are now going that way as well.  Of course it is more fashionable to live in Manhattan, Boston, DC, Chicago and San Fran than in their suburbs...but places like Seattle, Austin and Atlanta are joining that list where it is actually a status symbol to live in the city proper.  Columbus probably has the best chance of becoming one of those type of places in Ohio in the near future.

 

I kind of got sick of hearing the "How can we get suburbanites downtown" mantra that is such a common thing to hear in Ohio. The truth is, when you have a vibrant city, suburbanites are not something you aspire to appeal to...they are something that you kind of make fun of.  Stereotypes like...fat and slow are common.  They can't navigate the public transit, block escalators and walk aimlessly.  All stereotypes I know...but it's kinda true.  It would be nice to see a city in Ohio get to that point.

 

 

Great insight  :-)

 

The truth is, when you have a vibrant city, suburbanites are not something you aspire to appeal to...they are something that you kind of make fun of.  Stereotypes like...fat and slow are common.  They can't navigate the public transit, block escalators and walk aimlessly.  All stereotypes I know...but it's kinda true. 

 

No, in that mentality, suburbanites are people you *definitely* make fun of. 

I kind of got sick of hearing the "How can we get suburbanites downtown" mantra that is such a common thing to hear in Ohio. The truth is, when you have a vibrant city, suburbanites are not something you aspire to appeal to...

 

This is an interesting take, but I don't think it's very productive, nor is it healthy.  I don't like divisions; there is no reason people should need to make fun of or look down at people who choose to live a suburban lifestyle just like there is no reason for suburbanites to look down at people who live in an urban setting.  It does nobody any good to think that way, other than to satisfy our egos and make us feel better about ourselves.  A bad and ultimately destructive motivation, in my opinion. 

 

Do we "need" to draw suburbanites downtown?  Well, "need" is a strong word.  But I'm reminded of a Michael Jordan line when he was asked why he didn't do very much to advance "progressive" causes or somesuch, or why he wasn't endorsing a democrat.  Think of it what you will but this line almost makes me forgive him for The Shot:  "Republicans buy shoes too."  Suburbanites buy shoes, they buy clothes, they go out to eat.  If Downtown and other urban neighborhoods are already alien to a lot of suburbanites, does it do downtown any good to alienate them even further with a holier-than-thou, go-back-to Avon Lake/Gates Mills attitude? 

 

 

And, an off-topic note:  Is it really the "Mark Norton Show"?  I thought his name was Mark Brown.  I suppose everyone (like me) assumes his name is Mark Norton, since he runs a place called Norton Furniture, and because, as we all know, his name is Mark, "and we can count on it"

^ I agree with that.  The anti-suburbanite attitude is not helpful.

 

It's especially important in downtown of all places, because downtown is not just another urban neighborhood, but rather should be a regional center.  I do agree with many posts here that priorities should be to make downtown into a livable neighborhood rather than trying to rely on outsiders or suburbanites, but I don't think this means that those people should be dismissed entirely.  Downtown should be a special neighborhood that caters to the entire metro, not just its own residents.  Otherwise it's not much of a downtown.

I am not so worried about hurting suburbanite feelings.  Don't be so protective, I think they can handle it.  After all, they denigrate cities all the time.

 

Look, the point is to make cities the place with status.  I believe it is "either-or", not both.  If the suburbs are the status symbol, then cities lose.  A shift in status would be productive and healthy. 

No, but replicating the Avon Lakes and Gates Mills in urban neighborhoods for the comfort of suburbanites is even more destructive.  Urban neighborhoods need to serve their own residents and workers first, and outsiders second.

 

If someone wants to come into my neighborhood for a meal or a beer, that's fine.  Just don't be disappointed and upset because it doesn't look like your own.

Since I see so many posts about suburbanites coming downtown touted as the panacea for all urban woes, I wanted to post an alternative viewpoint.  I don't think it is productive or healthy to create a a city that is an occasional playground for suburbanites.  And I guess "making fun" isn't the best choice of words.  Anyone who lives in big city knows what I mean when you talk about suburbanites and tourists and some of their annoying habits and 'un-city ways.  This is what irks urban dwellers...I don't mean making fun just because they live in the suburbs....I mean making fun because they are a huge glaring stereotype of an American suburbanite. 

 

 

I don't think it is productive or healthy to create a a city that is an occasional playground for suburbanites.

I also don't think it's good to create a city that is nothing more than an occasional playground for suburbanites, but I see no reason why the city shouldn't be that in addition to a vibrant place on its own.  And again, regarding downtown in particular, there has got to be more emphasis on non-residents there than in most other urban neighborhoods, although they still shouldn't be the primary focus.

 

A shift in status from the suburbs back to the city would be great, but what I'm reading in some of the posts here is advocacy of a shift in snobbery and exclusivity to the city as well.  That's bad enough as it is, but returning once more to downtown specifically (which is what this thread is--or at least used to be--about), it's especially not productive say "this is MY neighborhood which serves ME and not YOU" in a place that ought to be a center for an entire metropolitan area.

I don't think anyone is arguing to shut outsiders out of the urban neighborhoods (unlike the suburbs, which use exclusive zoning and restrictive covenants to enforce socioeconomically homogenous communities).  City neighborhoods, one of which is downtown, must be functional for the people who already live and work there, or there will be zero visitors from the outside. 

 

I guess I'm lost.  Do suburbanites require extra entertainment options that are not desired by city dwellers?  Are suburbanites so fundamentally different in what they eat, what they buy, and their leisure pastimes that they have different needs in an urban setting?

 

To me, it would be insulting to see an enterprise in my neighborhood that caters almost exclusively to outsiders, as if the people who already live there aren't good enough to patronize this particular enterprise.  This isn't snobbery--it's just common sense. 

 

   

^ I'm thinking not that there needs to be some special options for suburbanites or that you want to literally shut them out; it's just an unwelcoming attitude I'm perceiving.  Even so, I think it's important that places do cater to more than just the neighborhood, although certainly not to the exclusion of the neighborhood.  Say, for instance, a famous 5-star restaurant.  Should we be upset that it's downtown when most of its customers come from outside the immediate neighborhood?  Same goes for cultural attractions like museums.  The implication I'm getting from some posts is that we should not encourage things like that because we shouldn't want to attract outsiders.

 

Again, though, I place extreme importance on the distinction between downtown and any other neighborhood.  Downtown is a shared neighborhood and you can't reasonably expect it to be "yours" in the same way that you could with other neighborhoods.