With the housing pressure building in parts of Cleveland (particularly the near west side), I have heard about some legitimately good charter schools filling the needs of affluent parents unwilling to move to the 'burbs or shell out the bucks for private school.  The Charter School clientele is largely self selecting so you don't face some of the problems you get in the default public schools.  I don't know that much about Charter Schools but they seem to be the best possible avenue for retaining affluent couples who want kids in the City, Cleveland at least.

 

I have heard the Near West Intergenerational School cited as an example of this.  I have heard the names of others but don't remember them.

 

http://www.tisonline.org/nwis/

Because I've been through this argument 30-40 times in the past 15 years with people.  People blow up when you pinpoint the true motive for their elaborate dance.

 

And how do you determine the true motive of their "elaborate dance" as you put it?  Do you decide?

 

First of all, as any parent knows, they are never embarrassed by their children for something over which the child has no control; such as intelligence.  Secondly, suburbanites would not be eligible to send their children to Cincinnati magnet schools.  Thirdly, who would wait in those ridiculous lines if they didn't have too?

 

Did you go to one of these magnet schools?

People outside CPS can send their children to the CPS magnet schools, but they have to pay a significant fee.  I'm not sure what it is. 

 

I went to Catholic Schools, but they have become so expensive that I now think they are a waste of money. 

CPS has open enrollment.  Kids from the suburbs can go to CPS tuition free, but if the school is over-enrolled, city residents get first dibs.

 

http://www.cps-k12.org/schools/enroll/open-enrollment

 

Also, jmeck, no parent would ever be embarrassed by their kid's IQ.  My son couldn't get into Walnut Hills, but I am super proud of him.  The entrance tests are basically IQ tests, not tests of how hard they work etc.

I'm just going to recycle one of my rants from last year here:

 

It's not that the schools are that bad, it's that the other kids are. I know of some suburbs with poor, unmotivated kids in them and they are worse than some city schools. I'll put up the schools in Clintonville and NW Columbus up against ALL of the southern, eastern and western suburbs of Columbus no problem. The wealthier Columbus schools would crush all except Bexley. The professors' kids in town will wipe the floor clean with all the droputs' kids down in rusty Pintoland. And those far-off exurban school districts always have some trailer parks or crummy apartment complexes bursting with outgoing, distracting poor kids too.

 

Fact is in Ohio, if your school district isn't 100% rich kids, your kids will get bothered by the poor kids constantly. They're more outgoing than your kid. They will want to come over to your house every day. They will try to date your daughter. And moving to Grove City won't fix it.

 

Perhaps growing up around so much poorly maintained sprawl full of low-income individuals with rusty cars up on blocks has kept me from tying income to development patterns. If you grow up in an area where all sprawl looks good and most of the city looks bad than perhaps that affects your perception. I've seen poor sprawl, rich city, poor city, rich sprawl, poor rural, rich rural. We have it all right here in Columbus. And many square miles of each too.

 

Schools are definitely a factor for people not moving into urban areas.

 

What I don't get is the resistance to building better sprawl. In areas that have "good" school districts.

 

 

I've posted a parallel thread on City-Data, and one resident poster there suggested it is harder for walkable new suburban developments to get financing. I don't know whether or not that is the case, but it seems like one plausible behind the scenes explanation. Because a lot of people out there demand this type of product... ideally it can be achieved in cities but when it cannot, I don't understand why these consumers get pigeonholed into something they don't want.

 

The current suburban slash and burn development model doesn't meet the average Millennial or Baby Boomer's lifestyle demands. These kinds of homes requires more maintenance, upkeep, and pesticide than anyone should have to deal with. Consumers are screaming they want less land, walkable accessibility to parks, community centers, restaurants, bars, and shops, all in a quality built house within a quality neighborhood "worth saving".

 

 

Aside from financing and lack of competition, why can't developers meet these goals in the communities they choose to build?

^ Zoning officials afraid to shake up the status quo for fear of incurring the wrath of busybody citizens who would raise hell for anyone who might make it easier for "those people" to move in to "their" neighborhood. 

 

It's much more fine-grained than you might think.  "Those people" could be folks with "merely half a million dollars" to spend on a house compared to the entrenched owners who built something for $750K.  The people in the development with $300K homes are fearful of those who can "only" spend $250K and will zealously enforce any covenants or restrictions to keep them in their own separate pod out of sight.  It's pecking order.  Part of this comes from the banks' slavish devotion to comps which must be stupidly close by.  This is easy in homogeneous subdivisions, but in mixed neighborhoods the banks can't seem to figure it out or look more than a block or two away. 

CPS has open enrollment.  Kids from the suburbs can go to CPS tuition free, but if the school is over-enrolled, city residents get first dibs.

 

http://www.cps-k12.org/schools/enroll/open-enrollment

 

Also, jmeck, no parent would ever be embarrassed by their kid's IQ.  My son couldn't get into Walnut Hills, but I am super proud of him.  The entrance tests are basically IQ tests, not tests of how hard they work etc.

 

I am 20 years removed from taking standardized tests so I don't know what they test for anymore, but I've always been skeptical of their ability to predict future "success".  We had many people from my college prep high school (which had an entrance test) fall off the planet thanks to drug addiction and other things that happen in life.  Meanwhile academic success does not neatly predict one's professional future.  We had a lot of guys inherit a lot of money and/or family businesses so I'm not sure how you can call any of them a "success" given the fact their life was planned out for them, and that a number of them are turning into cigar-chomping scumbags.  Meanwhile a couple guys who got perfect or near-perfect SAT/ACT scores are struggling with low-paying academic or social services careers. 

 

 

I've posted a parallel thread on City-Data, and one resident poster there suggested it is harder for walkable new suburban developments to get financing. I don't know whether or not that is the case, but it seems like one plausible behind the scenes explanation.

 

 

That is true. It's because of the retail component of a mixed use space. These days it's tough to get financing for retail spaces since the U.S. has way too much of it. Also, the banks have experienced the leapfrogging effect of sprawl going bad after only 10-12 years as someone else built something even further out.

CPS has open enrollment.  Kids from the suburbs can go to CPS tuition free, but if the school is over-enrolled, city residents get first dibs.

 

http://www.cps-k12.org/schools/enroll/open-enrollment

 

Also, jmeck, no parent would ever be embarrassed by their kid's IQ.  My son couldn't get into Walnut Hills, but I am super proud of him.  The entrance tests are basically IQ tests, not tests of how hard they work etc.

 

I am 20 years removed from taking standardized tests so I don't know what they test for anymore, but I've always been skeptical of their ability to predict future "success".  We had many people from my college prep high school (which had an entrance test) fall off the planet thanks to drug addiction and other things that happen in life.  Meanwhile academic success does not neatly predict one's professional future.  We had a lot of guys inherit a lot of money and/or family businesses so I'm not sure how you can call any of them a "success" given the fact their life was planned out for them, and that a number of them are turning into cigar-chomping scumbags.  Meanwhile a couple guys who got perfect or near-perfect SAT/ACT scores are struggling with low-paying academic or social services careers.

 

I may be biased because I did extremely well on the big standardized tests, but I do think they have significant predictive power for the years immediately following that test.  Obviously, the farther out you go, the less predictive power they have.  But the SAT and ACT really are good barometers of how well one is prepared for college, the LSAT is a good gauge of how prepared you are for law school, the MCAT is a good gauge of how prepared you are for medical school, etc.

 

I wouldn't suggest that the IQ test I took to get into the gifted program in 7th grade would be a good predictor of how much career success I'd enjoy in my thirties, of course.  But even there, I'd say it isn't completely irrelevant.

 

In terms of the thread topic, though, I would argue that there are diminishing returns to looking at the professional success of the school's parents the farther you go up the income ladder.  That is because of what jmecklenborg noted about academic success vs. professional success.  A neighborhood with homes in the $150k and up range (in Ohio) might actually contain a solid core of very bright people (and good parents) who simply chose less lucrative careers.  Their children will still contribute to a positive learning environment at whatever school they attend.  They might well not be that far behind those from Ohio neighborhoods where the average home price is $500k.  But learning environment does matter greatly and many urban schools cannot offer it; neighborhoods with significant amounts of welfare dependency and dysfunctional families, where the average home price is well under $100k and many of them are not owner-occupied, still generally result in very hostile learning environments.  (Short version: in terms of difference in educational culture, the difference between middle class and upper class is small; the difference between middle class and lower class is large.)

CPS has open enrollment.  Kids from the suburbs can go to CPS tuition free, but if the school is over-enrolled, city residents get first dibs.

 

http://www.cps-k12.org/schools/enroll/open-enrollment

 

Also, jmeck, no parent would ever be embarrassed by their kid's IQ.  My son couldn't get into Walnut Hills, but I am super proud of him.  The entrance tests are basically IQ tests, not tests of how hard they work etc.

 

I am 20 years removed from taking standardized tests so I don't know what they test for anymore, but I've always been skeptical of their ability to predict future "success".  We had many people from my college prep high school (which had an entrance test) fall off the planet thanks to drug addiction and other things that happen in life.  Meanwhile academic success does not neatly predict one's professional future.  We had a lot of guys inherit a lot of money and/or family businesses so I'm not sure how you can call any of them a "success" given the fact their life was planned out for them, and that a number of them are turning into cigar-chomping scumbags.  Meanwhile a couple guys who got perfect or near-perfect SAT/ACT scores are struggling with low-paying academic or social services careers.

 

I may be biased because I did extremely well on the big standardized tests, but I do think they have significant predictive power for the years immediately following that test.  Obviously, the farther out you go, the less predictive power they have.  But the SAT and ACT really are good barometers of how well one is prepared for college, the LSAT is a good gauge of how prepared you are for law school, the MCAT is a good gauge of how prepared you are for business school, etc.

 

I wouldn't suggest that the IQ test I took to get into the gifted program in 7th grade would be a good predictor of how much career success I'd enjoy in my thirties, of course.  But even there, I'd say it isn't completely irrelevant.

 

In terms of the thread topic, though, I would argue that there are diminishing returns to looking at the professional success of the school's parents the farther you go up the income ladder.  That is because of what jmecklenborg noted about academic success vs. professional success.  A neighborhood with homes in the $150k and up range (in Ohio) might actually contain a solid core of very bright people (and good parents) who simply chose less lucrative careers.  Their children will still contribute to a positive learning environment at whatever school they attend.  They might well not be that far behind those from Ohio neighborhoods where the average home price is $500k.  But learning environment does matter greatly and many urban schools cannot offer it; neighborhoods with significant amounts of welfare dependency and dysfunctional families, where the average home price is well under $100k and many of them are not owner-occupied, still generally result in very hostile learning environments.  (Short version: in terms of difference in educational culture, the difference between middle class and upper class is small; the difference between middle class and lower class is large.)

 

We're getting off topic here, but I suspect they have more to do with ability than preparation.  I blew away the PSAT despite starting it late (losing about 20 minutes on the time limit, not to mention being a bit drunk) and scored exactly what it predicted I would on the SAT.  I got into Case based on that, for which I was not prepared.  Likewise, I completed the exam for my professional certification in much less time than was allotted.  The fact that these tests allow one to focus makes a difference.

 

Back on topic, I suspect the demand for these new neighborhoods comes in part from the spread of anti-intellectual culture in older ones.  Even the smartest kids are sometimes easily distracted by such.  I don't think people care that much about income and they care increasingly less about race, except as a cultural indicator.  They do care about culture and it should be noted that plenty of poorer cultures still value education and do well at school.

Even keeping it on topic, though (which is really just a continuation of the general "suburban sprawl news & discussion" topic, and honestly, I think these topics could easily be merged), one of the dominant impetuses for continued sprawl is school districts.  That's even more the case because physical safety, which was one, is less and less of a concern at the moment as [most] cities really have become much safer.

 

The three "s's"--space, safety, and schools--still form the core of the case for suburbia.  Some of it is perception and some is reality.  The half-illusion/half-reality of space is what people were discussing upthread: builders are cutting a lot of corners to offer 3000 square feet for prices they think people will pay (and I've actually encountered a few recent-builds in the $500k+ range that had major mechanical and other "under the hood" problems), and of course we talk a lot about the level of taxpayer subsidies needed to support autocentric infrastructure to rabbit-warren developments.  Schools are a more substantive issue, though, so I tend to end up gravitating that way in the endless "why sprawl?!?!" threads here regardless of what the particular trigger of the day was.

Space,safety and schools may have driven the last couple of generations out of the city to the 'burbs. But, as I've said before, that's not a predictor of the current and coming generations. There's ample evidence that Millennials and younger Gen Xers are different in the way they look at cars, transportation, suburbia, cities, and schools -- that they like the urban feel and convenience and want to remain there, despite the challenge of schools and safety. They may be radically different from their predecessors in staying to improve things rather than running from their problems.

In terms of the thread topic, though, I would argue that there are diminishing returns to looking at the professional success of the school's parents the farther you go up the income ladder.  That is because of what jmecklenborg noted about academic success vs. professional success.  A neighborhood with homes in the $150k and up range (in Ohio) might actually contain a solid core of very bright people (and good parents) who simply chose less lucrative careers.  Their children will still contribute to a positive learning environment at whatever school they attend.  They might well not be that far behind those from Ohio neighborhoods where the average home price is $500k.  But learning environment does matter greatly and many urban schools cannot offer it; neighborhoods with significant amounts of welfare dependency and dysfunctional families, where the average home price is well under $100k and many of them are not owner-occupied, still generally result in very hostile learning environments.  (Short version: in terms of difference in educational culture, the difference between middle class and upper class is small; the difference between middle class and lower class is large.)

 

Great point! Here's my hypothesis on this that I've held for a number of years....

 

I strongly believe the most successful people come from solidly middle class background. Not upper middle class, but solid middle class. So for Ohio, maybe a $180k home at most with parents making $60k/yr each at most. The best and brightest (as in the absolute cream of the crop of students) from my knowledge always seemed to share this background - typical plain house, worth about this value, parents with incomes around here, etc. Rarely was there any variation (like, an absolutely exceptional student from a $300+k home or < $100k.). The students from this kind of background seemed to be the ones that got the 36 ACT, the full ride scholarship, pursued the advanced STEM degrees, etc. Rarely if ever do I see a student from an affluent background (i.e. the child of a CEO, high up VP, etc.) pursuing a STEM degree.

 

Again, I'm throwing out huge stereotypes here. I don't mean to offend anyone or "prove" a point, but this is what I have noticed from my interactions with thousands of individuals around my age from grade school to the workforce as well as dozens of absolutely exceptional students.

 

I've posted a parallel thread on City-Data, and one resident poster there suggested it is harder for walkable new suburban developments to get financing. I don't know whether or not that is the case, but it seems like one plausible behind the scenes explanation.

 

 

That is true. It's because of the retail component of a mixed use space. These days it's tough to get financing for retail spaces since the U.S. has way too much of it. Also, the banks have experienced the leapfrogging effect of sprawl going bad after only 10-12 years as someone else built something even further out.

 

Thanks, good to know.

 

Building off the bolded point, wouldn't that be a reason to finance walkable, dynamic communities instead of generic slash and burn sprawl?

 

The key is to build places people actually will want to live now and in the future, and developers still can't get it right. If this were the auto industry we'd be calling all developers AMC Motors and they'd be dead.

 

Or KMart. Why do we keep building f***ing KMarts? (not literally, but I hope you all understand my point. Why keep doing the same stupid thing over and over?)

I think there's some things in this question you are asking, about why suburban sprawl-type neighborhoods keep getting built, that you will never understand until you have children.  Just a guess that you don't, perhaps by your username "OHKID".

 

I've lived in urban downtowns for the last decade and while it has it's advantages, so many things just get reprioritized when you have small children. 

 

1. Urban townhomes are smaller, more vertical, more steps, less floor plan, than suburban townhomes.  When you are trying to make dinner while junior is napping & your daughter is watching spongebob, you want to see all that. 

 

2.  Having all the bedrooms on the same floor is important.  Very common in suburban homes, not in urban homes. 

 

3.  Having a basement to store junk, make a play room, etc is essential with young kids.  Again, very common in the suburbs, not so much in the urban lifestyle. 

 

4.  People today are incredibly unable to fix things themselves.  People don't even want to paint a bedroom, let alone remodel a bathroom or do a new kitchen.  Hiring a contractor is very expensive.  Much easier to just buy in the new subdivision where everything is done.  Even better when you can pick your own cabinets, flooring, fixtures, etc.

 

Edit:  Adding #5.  People with young kids don't really care about walkable neighborhoods.  When you have young kids, you aren't going to see a live music show or eat out or do anything, even if it's next door.  You have no free time to do this stuff so having it in close proximity is irrelevant.

You can easily raise kids in a dense, urban environment.  People just want the suburban lifestyle because that's what they grew up with and don't consider alternatives when they have kids of their own.  Plus, they think urban means downtown, and won't even consider all of the core urban neighborhoods with large spacious homes, sidewalks, and yards.  Too many poor people, too many black people.  This is changing, but not pervasive enough or fast enough to significantly slow the expansion of suburban sprawl.

You can easily raise kids in a dense, urban environment.  People just want the suburban lifestyle because that's what they grew up with and don't consider alternatives when they have kids of their own.  Plus, they think urban means downtown, and won't even consider all of the core urban neighborhoods with large spacious homes, sidewalks, and yards.  Too many poor people, too many black people.  This is changing, but not pervasive enough or fast enough to significantly slow the expansion of suburban sprawl.

 

You can, but it's not easy. 

 

Core urban neighborhoods with large spacious yards = high taxes, high maintenance, high heating bills

 

You can call suburbanites racist or scared or stupid but when you look at the costs, it's never even close to buy a $200k house in suburbs vs a $200k house in the city.

Space,safety and schools may have driven the last couple of generations out of the city to the 'burbs. But, as I've said before, that's not a predictor of the current and coming generations. There's ample evidence that Millennials and younger Gen Xers are different in the way they look at cars, transportation, suburbia, cities, and schools -- that they like the urban feel and convenience and want to remain there, despite the challenge of schools and safety. They may be radically different from their predecessors in staying to improve things rather than running from their problems.

 

They are also putting off having kids.

 

By the way, those weren't, and aren't, "our" problems.  The people who owned the problems weren't willing to address them.  Very few people want to fight a futile battle 24-7.

The big thing is that people think they need way more space for those things than they really do. You don't need 3200 square feet to raise two kids. You don't need 2000 square feet to raise two kids.

 

I grew up for the first decade of my life (I have two brothers, one older one younger) in a 1400 square foot saltbox colonial in central Massachusetts that had no basement. The property was almost half an acre but only a tiny portion was useable since it was on a big hill.

 

When we moved to Ohio we moved into a 3200 square foot house and almost immediately finished 1100 square feet of the basement. So we had 4300 square feet of living space. My parents have been sick of that much space ever since even as my older brother still lives there with his 4 year old niece. My mom has stated over and over how having more space just meant they bought more crap they didn't need. And it's true. That's how people work.

 

A typical family of four only needs 1200-1500 square feet to be able to function quite nicely with plenty of space. Kids don't need a lot of space for a yard either. Having an extra hundred feet of grass past your swingset doesn't improve the quality of that child's life.

 

I think somewhere along the line people got duped into thinking they need WAY more space and stuff than they really do to raise their kids. You don't need an extra 1500 square feet the moment you have one child or even two or three. All it does is result in you purchasing more stuff that doesn't improve the quality of life of anyone and just burns a hole in your wallet.

The big thing is that people think they need way more space for those things than they really do. You don't need 3200 square feet to raise two kids. You don't need 2000 square feet to raise two kids.

 

I grew up for the first decade of my life (I have two brothers, one older one younger) in a 1400 square foot saltbox colonial in central Massachusetts that had no basement. The property was almost half an acre but only a tiny portion was useable since it was on a big hill.

 

When we moved to Ohio we moved into a 3200 square foot house and almost immediately finished 1100 square feet of the basement. So we had 4300 square feet of living space. My parents have been sick of that much space ever since even as my older brother still lives there with his 4 year old niece. My mom has stated over and over how having more space just meant they bought more crap they didn't need. And it's true. That's how people work.

 

A typical family of four only needs 1200-1500 square feet to be able to function quite nicely with plenty of space. Kids don't need a lot of space for a yard either. Having an extra hundred feet of grass past your swingset doesn't improve the quality of that child's life.

 

I think somewhere along the line people got duped into thinking they need WAY more space and stuff than they really do to raise their kids. You don't need an extra 1500 square feet the moment you have one child or even two or three. All it does is result in you purchasing more stuff that doesn't improve the quality of life of anyone and just burns a hole in your wallet.

 

We need to send a seed colony of suburbanites to Europe and let them live for a couple years.  Could make for some good reality TV.

The big thing is that people think they need way more space for those things than they really do. You don't need 3200 square feet to raise two kids. You don't need 2000 square feet to raise two kids.

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is a common argumentative trap that urbanists fall into: the "you don't need X" arguments.  You also don't need walkable mixed-use neighborhoods.  By definition, when we talk about people whose home price ranges are in the $250k+ range, you are talking to people who can afford more than basic needs.  I know that what you meant is that you can get a better value by having less house but less commute and more amenities, but language matters.  The "why do you need X?" questions can rub some people the wrong way.

 

When my wife and I moved out of downtown Akron to west Akron in 2013, we definitely did buy more house than we need.  But the fact that I didn't exactly need a wine cellar doesn't mean I can't try to get as much use as possible out of it! :angel:

My thought process is that two people only really need 600-800 square feet. Let's use the 800 square foot number to be generous. Be generous and add two kids' bedrooms at 100 square feet each. That's 1000 sq. ft. Add another bathroom at 5'x8'. That's 1040 sq. ft. A bigger kitchen and dining area at 50 sq. ft. each is 1140 sq. ft. And a generous playroom at 15' x 10' and you're still only at 1300 or so. Increase the whole house by 10 percent to be generous for tertiary spaces and you're still under 1500 sq. ft.

 

I'm still lost at how people suddenly feel like they need a 20' x 24' great room, a master suite that's 600 sq. ft. or larger, one more bathroom per child, a 1000 sq. ft. play basement, etc. the moment a kid comes into the picture. Even if you're generous in the amount of space you dedicate to kids, you will never arrive at 3200 sq. ft. or more for a normal family.

 

And the fact that so many families reside in homes under 2000 sq. ft. and function just fine is testament to this. Think about all the people living in the first round of suburban homes built in places like North Royalton/Brecksville/Broadview Hts./etc. outside of Cleveland. I grew up there and most of my friends lived in typical 70s and 80s suburban homes in the 1200-1800 sq. ft. range and had multiple siblings and functioned just fine. Most even had formal dining and living rooms which is a complete and utter waste of space in essentially every single situation.

 

I'll never believe a single person when they say they, "NEED" a big suburban house for their family. It just isn't true.

 

Edit: To your point Gramarye, this was more a response to the comments that once you have kids you "need" that much more space. I get the appeal, but it's never actually necessary. Which was the point of the discussion about "needing" to move to the suburbs once children are in the picture.

Space,safety and schools may have driven the last couple of generations out of the city to the 'burbs. But, as I've said before, that's not a predictor of the current and coming generations. There's ample evidence that Millennials and younger Gen Xers are different in the way they look at cars, transportation, suburbia, cities, and schools -- that they like the urban feel and convenience and want to remain there, despite the challenge of schools and safety. They may be radically different from their predecessors in staying to improve things rather than running from their problems.

 

They are also putting off having kids.

 

By the way, those weren't, and aren't, "our" problems.  The people who owned the problems weren't willing to address them.  Very few people want to fight a futile battle 24-7.

They ARE having kids. And they are staying in the city. And instead of turning their backs on the urban poverty and the lack of jobs/decent wages for working people and the schools, they are sticking with the urban public school districts and trying to make things better. They recognize that problems in the community BELONG to the community as a whole. Maybe there are very few people who want to fight the battle 24/7, but those who do are heroes. Those who flee are not.

Space,safety and schools may have driven the last couple of generations out of the city to the 'burbs. But, as I've said before, that's not a predictor of the current and coming generations. There's ample evidence that Millennials and younger Gen Xers are different in the way they look at cars, transportation, suburbia, cities, and schools -- that they like the urban feel and convenience and want to remain there, despite the challenge of schools and safety. They may be radically different from their predecessors in staying to improve things rather than running from their problems.

 

They are also putting off having kids.

 

By the way, those weren't, and aren't, "our" problems.  The people who owned the problems weren't willing to address them.  Very few people want to fight a futile battle 24-7.

They ARE having kids. And they are staying in the city. And instead of turning their backs on the urban poverty and the lack of jobs/decent wages for working people and the schools, they are sticking with the urban public school districts and trying to make things better. They recognize that problems in the community BELONG to the community as a whole. Maybe there are very few people who want to fight the battle 24/7, but those who do are heroes. Those who flee are not.

 

How many, though?  E Rocc is right, not many of them are sacrificing their children to urban public schools just to make some kind of statement.  One reason that it's become easier now is that many cities have developed magnet schools that allow successful urban professionals to send their children to good learning environments without having to leave the city (or pay for private school).  Columbus Alternative makes urbanism a much more viable option in Columbus than if you had to try to convince a doctor or accountant to send her kid to Briggs (and would be an even stronger case if they had the capacity to take all applicants rather than just working by lottery).

They ARE having kids. And they are staying in the city. And instead of turning their backs on the urban poverty and the lack of jobs/decent wages for working people and the schools, they are sticking with the urban public school districts and trying to make things better. They recognize that problems in the community BELONG to the community as a whole. Maybe there are very few people who want to fight the battle 24/7, but those who do are heroes. Those who flee are not.

 

What urban public school district are you using as a reference if you don't mind me asking?  The savior thing works in certain areas, particularly ones that may have rough spots but are largely still functional.  I see your from Columbus but in Cleveland there are vast neighborhoods and school districts that are so poor, and have been racked with violence, dysfunction, and abandonment for decades that even the most progressive folks with options won't locate there willingly.  It sucks but it's a reality.

My thought process is that two people only really need 600-800 square feet. Let's use the 800 square foot number to be generous.

 

I live alone in an 850-square-foot condo and my furniture, TVs, computers and accesstories, book cases, records, tapes, photographs, family records, CDs, etc are jammed in here. My storage lockers in the basement are filled to the roofs and doors. And I collect fewer things than anyone else in my family and I keep having to throw out stuff I inherit every time someone dies. And yes, I need this stuff. If I didn't have these things that are part of my life and evidence thereof, it would be like chopping off parts of my body.

Okay, then make it 1500 for two people. My point is still the same. You're only at 2200ish square feet for a family of four.

 

The thing is, young families generally don't have anywhere near as much stuff as they used to. The digital age has changed how we store things. We don't have huge CD/record collections, movie collections, etc. that require a lot of space and I have noticed a drastic drop in people who collect things at all. Amongst my peers I can't name a single person (and I know a lot of people) who has large collections of anything. Almost everyone has the typical furniture found in a home and a computer/entertainment area that functions as their digital storage space. This changes a lot about how people utilize space I think which has an effect on how young families decide how much square footage they think is appropriate for their family.

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is a common argumentative trap that urbanists fall into: the "you don't need X" arguments.  You also don't need walkable mixed-use neighborhoods. 

 

Yes and no. It's an old talking point, but what about Peak Oil? What about sustainable living, using our natural resources carefully, and ethical sourcing (so higher cost good produced without child/slave labor, bad working conditions, etc.)?

 

Food prices are (or were, at least) going up in comparison to inflation. Other commodities are too. And more and more consumers are demanding ethically created products, from fair trade clothing to organic locally grown fruits and vegetables. More individuals and families are putting their money towards experiences, like a brew at the new craft brewery down the street, rather than items, like a new Escalade. And products now are built with higher quality and last longer than they ever have (homebuilding being a notable difference from this trend, where quality has declined significantly over time). Standards concerning workplace conditions, environmental regulations, and diversity are stronger than they ever have been before. And are becoming more and more reflective of how society works every day. And consumers are demanding more service and better value from the products they purchase - an excellent case in point being the rise of fast-casual dining establishments over fast food.

 

So in short, costs on every aspect of our lives are going up. And where costs aren't going up, they are being decimated by the internet (who needs a real lawyer when you can get a will on LegalZoom? Who needs a copy editor when spell check can do the work? Who needs to buy a CD or a movie when we can just rent it or view it for free with Netflix or Youtube? Who needs to buy a book when you have a Kindle? - me for the last one, but that's beside the point haha).

 

Two factors are at play, the first being increasing commodity costs and the second being decreasing information costs. Every day we are learning how to rent, share, and get by with less while achieving the same result - a la the Ubers, Youtubes, and Amazons of our world are finding ways to better utilize resources. To put it simply, our world is getting lean.

 

Suburban housing is bloated. As a YP, even if I had a family (which gottaplan correctly called that I do not) I wouldn't want a big yard. Instead, I would want to live in a community that could serve as my yard - imagine the Shaker Squares, Lakwoods, Grandview Heights', Oakwoods, Hyde Parks, etc. of our world. Or even a cool small town like Troy, OH or Columbus, IN would be great too. In essence, I would "rent" my "real" yard by living in a walkable community that takes care of all of the maintenance and upkeep, etc. of all of those spaces. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's a leaner, smarter, more efficient way to live.

 

And if we really want to get serious about solving peak oil and excessive resource consumption, creating sustainable communities desirable communities for generations to come, limiting our local environmental impact, and allow ourselves to have the ability to better connect to one another, we need to promote living in communities that foster these qualities. Cities do an excellent job of this, but then again cities can only target a narrow population. Solutions are needed for all people, and gottaplan and others point out a lot of good points the average skeptical suburban parent would be thinking. But even then what frustrates me is the fact that the demand is there but yet developers refuse to do anything about it.

Maybe there are very few people who want to fight the battle 24/7, but those who do are heroes. Those who flee are not.

 

Jeezus, you need to get a grip.  Choosing the City over the suburbs does not make a person a hero.  And people in the suburbs can still be plenty involved in their community, via schools, local government, etc.  Christ, quit trying to fit everyone in a box...

Maybe there are very few people who want to fight the battle 24/7, but those who do are heroes. Those who flee are not.

 

Jeezus, you need to get a grip.  Choosing the City over the suburbs does not make a person a hero.  And people in the suburbs can still be plenty involved in their community, via schools, local government, etc.  Christ, quit trying to fit everyone in a box...

 

I didn't say urban people are good and suburban people are bad. I said that people who are willing to stay where there are significant challenges and dangers, and live in those neighborhoods 24/7, and work to reduce crime and strengthen schools and improve the perception of schools are heroes. I have some neighbors here in the Columbus neighborhood of Weinland Park who are heroes. I'm not. I came here after they paved the way. But those who leave the city to send their kids to school with the kids of others of their same socioeconomic status are not heroes. They are doing nothing to help solve the problems of the cities.

 

What urban public school district are you using as a reference if you don't mind me asking?  The savior thing works in certain areas, particularly ones that may have rough spots but are largely still functional.  I see your from Columbus but in Cleveland there are vast neighborhoods and school districts that are so poor, and have been racked with violence, dysfunction, and abandonment for decades that even the most progressive folks with options won't locate there willingly.  It sucks but it's a reality.

Good point. I live in Weinland Park, which is a challenged neighborhood. But I had been living in Clintonville, where my wife teaches in the public school. And, yes, that is a desirable place. It has plenty of middle-class white NIMBY dysfunction, but not the violent/abandonment dysfunction. A group called Clintonville Go Public has been around for about five years to encourage families to stay in the city when their kids reach school age. Or middle school age, or high school age. They raise money for the schools, get very involved, etc. They've been a model for South Side Stay, which does similar work in Merion Village and German Village. I'm told there's another group in the Short North area. These people are not heroes. They're going against the grain and doing good things, but in areas that, for the most part, are stable. There are similar groups I know of in Washington, on the North Side of Chicago, and in many other cities. The challenge is to get this kind of engagement in truly troubled neighborhoods. But those challenges go far beyond the scope of school-focused initiatives.

 

The thing is, young families generally don't have anywhere near as much stuff as they used to. The digital age has changed how we store things. We don't have huge CD/record collections, movie collections, etc. that require a lot of space and I have noticed a drastic drop in people who collect things at all. Amongst my peers I can't name a single person (and I know a lot of people) who has large collections of anything.

 

Video game collecting has exploded over the past 5 years, especially the 1985-2000 era. Prices on out-of-print games are climbing so quickly that even we as "industry pros" can't keep up sometimes. Demand is out of control. Also collecting related to Pokemon (games, cards, plush etc.) is extremely hot with Millennials.

 

But, this kind of collecting doesn't take up as much space as say hoarding old car parts or gas station memorabilia.

Maybe there are very few people who want to fight the battle 24/7, but those who do are heroes. Those who flee are not.

 

Jeezus, you need to get a grip.  Choosing the City over the suburbs does not make a person a hero.  And people in the suburbs can still be plenty involved in their community, via schools, local government, etc.  Christ, quit trying to fit everyone in a box...

 

I didn't say urban people are good and suburban people are bad. I said that people who are willing to stay where there are significant challenges and dangers, and live in those neighborhoods 24/7, and work to reduce crime and strengthen schools and improve the perception of schools are heroes. I have some neighbors here in the Columbus neighborhood of Weinland Park who are heroes. I'm not. I came here after they paved the way. But those who leave the city to send their kids to school with the kids of others of their same socioeconomic status are not heroes. They are doing nothing to help solve the problems of the cities.

 

Good people and good parents are just that regardless of where they reside.

My thought process is that two people only really need 600-800 square feet. Let's use the 800 square foot number to be generous. Be generous and add two kids' bedrooms at 100 square feet each. That's 1000 sq. ft. Add another bathroom at 5'x8'. That's 1040 sq. ft. A bigger kitchen and dining area at 50 sq. ft. each is 1140 sq. ft. And a generous playroom at 15' x 10' and you're still only at 1300 or so. Increase the whole house by 10 percent to be generous for tertiary spaces and you're still under 1500 sq. ft.

 

I'm still lost at how people suddenly feel like they need a 20' x 24' great room, a master suite that's 600 sq. ft. or larger, one more bathroom per child, a 1000 sq. ft. play basement, etc. the moment a kid comes into the picture. Even if you're generous in the amount of space you dedicate to kids, you will never arrive at 3200 sq. ft. or more for a normal family.

 

And the fact that so many families reside in homes under 2000 sq. ft. and function just fine is testament to this. Think about all the people living in the first round of suburban homes built in places like North Royalton/Brecksville/Broadview Hts./etc. outside of Cleveland. I grew up there and most of my friends lived in typical 70s and 80s suburban homes in the 1200-1800 sq. ft. range and had multiple siblings and functioned just fine. Most even had formal dining and living rooms which is a complete and utter waste of space in essentially every single situation.

 

I'll never believe a single person when they say they, "NEED" a big suburban house for their family. It just isn't true.

 

Edit: To your point Gramarye, this was more a response to the comments that once you have kids you "need" that much more space. I get the appeal, but it's never actually necessary. Which was the point of the discussion about "needing" to move to the suburbs once children are in the picture.

 

Understood, and while I can't speak for Gramarye, you all help me refine my debating points on the issues I am passionate about so I try to return the favor sometimes.

 

The "you don't need" approach is pretty much a guaranteed turnoff for anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, and as KJP showed, not just them.  The way it's often presented, it drips of  socialist paternalism.  I don't think you meant it that way, but enough people do that its a trigger word.

 

As for fighting the battle, I'm not sure people without kids realize, or people with older kids always remember, what a second full time job it can be to raise a smaller child, let alone multiples.  Adding the Great Crusade Of Saving The City to the burden, well it's something you have to be super passionate about.  To each their own, but not everyone is that dedicated, especially when the task can be Canutian.

The big thing is that people think they need way more space for those things than they really do. You don't need 3200 square feet to raise two kids. You don't need 2000 square feet to raise two kids.

 

I grew up for the first decade of my life (I have two brothers, one older one younger) in a 1400 square foot saltbox colonial in central Massachusetts that had no basement. The property was almost half an acre but only a tiny portion was useable since it was on a big hill.

 

When we moved to Ohio we moved into a 3200 square foot house and almost immediately finished 1100 square feet of the basement. So we had 4300 square feet of living space. My parents have been sick of that much space ever since even as my older brother still lives there with his 4 year old niece. My mom has stated over and over how having more space just meant they bought more crap they didn't need. And it's true. That's how people work.

 

A typical family of four only needs 1200-1500 square feet to be able to function quite nicely with plenty of space. Kids don't need a lot of space for a yard either. Having an extra hundred feet of grass past your swingset doesn't improve the quality of that child's life.

 

I think somewhere along the line people got duped into thinking they need WAY more space and stuff than they really do to raise their kids. You don't need an extra 1500 square feet the moment you have one child or even two or three. All it does is result in you purchasing more stuff that doesn't improve the quality of life of anyone and just burns a hole in your wallet.

 

We need to send a seed colony of suburbanites to Europe and let them live for a couple years.  Could make for some good reality TV.

 

Keep in mind that we're mostly descended from people who left Europe, some for precisely that reason.

^I think throwing that argument into the mix disregards the hundred+ years since that mass migration happened. Comparing conditions to when most of our ancestors came over to modern conditions is silly at best. Think about how highly most cities in Europe rank in terms of livability compared to the US. Modern Europe is loaded with cities that are amazingly clean, safe, exciting, and perfect for raising families.

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is a common argumentative trap that urbanists fall into: the "you don't need X" arguments.  You also don't need walkable mixed-use neighborhoods. 

 

Yes and no. It's an old talking point, but what about Peak Oil? What about sustainable living, using our natural resources carefully, and ethical sourcing (so higher cost good produced without child/slave labor, bad working conditions, etc.)?

 

Food prices are (or were, at least) going up in comparison to inflation. Other commodities are too. And more and more consumers are demanding ethically created products, from fair trade clothing to organic locally grown fruits and vegetables. More individuals and families are putting their money towards experiences, like a brew at the new craft brewery down the street, rather than items, like a new Escalade. And products now are built with higher quality and last longer than they ever have (homebuilding being a notable difference from this trend, where quality has declined significantly over time). Standards concerning workplace conditions, environmental regulations, and diversity are stronger than they ever have been before. And are becoming more and more reflective of how society works every day. And consumers are demanding more service and better value from the products they purchase - an excellent case in point being the rise of fast-casual dining establishments over fast food.

 

So in short, costs on every aspect of our lives are going up. And where costs aren't going up, they are being decimated by the internet (who needs a real lawyer when you can get a will on LegalZoom? Who needs a copy editor when spell check can do the work? Who needs to buy a CD or a movie when we can just rent it or view it for free with Netflix or Youtube? Who needs to buy a book when you have a Kindle? - me for the last one, but that's beside the point haha).

 

Two factors are at play, the first being increasing commodity costs and the second being decreasing information costs. Every day we are learning how to rent, share, and get by with less while achieving the same result - a la the Ubers, Youtubes, and Amazons of our world are finding ways to better utilize resources. To put it simply, our world is getting lean.

 

Suburban housing is bloated. As a YP, even if I had a family (which gottaplan correctly called that I do not) I wouldn't want a big yard. Instead, I would want to live in a community that could serve as my yard - imagine the Shaker Squares, Lakwoods, Grandview Heights', Oakwoods, Hyde Parks, etc. of our world. Or even a cool small town like Troy, OH or Columbus, IN would be great too. In essence, I would "rent" my "real" yard by living in a walkable community that takes care of all of the maintenance and upkeep, etc. of all of those spaces. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's a leaner, smarter, more efficient way to live.

 

And if we really want to get serious about solving peak oil and excessive resource consumption, creating sustainable communities desirable communities for generations to come, limiting our local environmental impact, and allow ourselves to have the ability to better connect to one another, we need to promote living in communities that foster these qualities. Cities do an excellent job of this, but then again cities can only target a narrow population. Solutions are needed for all people, and gottaplan and others point out a lot of good points the average skeptical suburban parent would be thinking. But even then what frustrates me is the fact that the demand is there but yet developers refuse to do anything about it.

 

As has been pointed out, while the demand is certainly there and is probably increasing, it's not as big as some may think or wish it was.  There's still a lot of neighborhoods in the inner ring (for example, Bedford on the streets off downtown) that have that potential.  If the demand really existed beyond that, at least some developers would be all over it.

 

"Walkability" can often be determined by where you live in a neighborhood as much as the neighborhood itself.  My house is quite walkable, at least when it hasn't snowed. At the end of my street, it isn't.

Understood, and while I can't speak for Gramarye, you all help me refine my debating points on the issues I am passionate about so I try to return the favor sometimes.

 

The "you don't need" approach is pretty much a guaranteed turnoff for anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, and as KJP showed, not just them.  The way it's often presented, it drips of  socialist paternalism.  I don't think you meant it that way, but enough people do that its a trigger word.

 

This is basically what I was going for as well.  And changing it to grate less really isn't that difficult: Just ask "why do you want X?" instead of why you need it.

 

My usual response focuses instead on how urban environments can in fact offer good variants of the concerns that draw people to the suburbs.  In terms of space, living near a large public park is better to me than having a large yard.  It's true that if you're the kind who distrusts other kids (and parents) in the neighborhood, then that won't convince you because the fact that the park is shared is more a downside than the fact that the park is large (and doesn't take any work on my part to maintain!) is an upside.  In terms of safety, I note that my neighborhood in west Akron is actually quite physically safe on its own, and in terms of distance from worse neighborhoods, because of the weird shape of municipal borders, it's actually just as distant from the problem neighborhoods as some suburbs are.  The municipal boundary isn't magical.  Also, since I'm perfectly willing to say things I don't actually believe when I think it matters to my audience, I can note that most of my neighborhood is not on a bus line, so you don't have much of an issue with transients from rougher neigborhoods.  (As I said, I'm well aware that that's basically a bogus concern, but many people still sincerely hold it.)  And in terms of schools, I raise the point about the magnet schools (and vouchers, where they're available) that I made above.  Akron's NIHF and Early College high schools are doing pretty well, though admittedly (I think) at the cost of extracurriculars that I'd also value.

^I think throwing that argument into the mix disregards the hundred+ years since that mass migration happened. Comparing conditions to when most of our ancestors came over to modern conditions is silly at best. Think about how highly most cities in Europe rank in terms of livability compared to the US. Modern Europe is loaded with cities that are amazingly clean, safe, exciting, and perfect for raising families.

 

Not really, because the people of those migrations were the ones who "yearned to breathe free", and often enough that meant the space to do so.

Which disregards how terrible the living conditions they were coming from were. Having 50 square feet per person in a disgustingly polluted city where you had no opportunities is not the same thing as living in Europe now.

 

It's still not a reasonable comparison whatsoever.

Which disregards how terrible the living conditions they were coming from were. Having 50 square feet per person in a disgustingly polluted city where you had no opportunities is not the same thing as living in Europe now.

 

It's still not a reasonable comparison whatsoever.

 

Primarily the people most bothered by this came here.  I suspect antipathy for density may have some genetic influences.

I think you're missing the actual reasons people moved. It wasn't a disdain for density. It was the specific type of density found in Europe at the time. It was dirty, polluted, there wasn't electricity yet, no air conditioning, no central heat, no indoor plumbing, etc. The living conditions were abysmal at best. They wanted to escape THOSE qualities, not the idea of living in a city.

 

This has absolutely no relation to modern day Europe or modern day American cities. Density wasn't the factor that drove people here, the oppressing conditions were.

^ Do we even know how many were going from cities in Europe to cities in America, versus farm to farm, farm to city, or city to farm?  Things like the Irish potato famine sent a lot of farmers over here, but did they start new farms or move to American cities?  Maybe by the late 19th and early 20th centuries the immigrants were fleeing Europe more for lack of economic opportunity than any particular problem with "density" which were really not any better here if moving from a European city to an American one.  Earlier on in the 19th century and for much of the 18th I think immigration was based more on farming and homesteading without the supposed encumbrances of more cooperative European farming villages (heaven forbid).  That rural "value" does continue to pollute modern discourse, but these are all ancestors we're talking about here, so while there's certainly values being passed on from generation to generation, I think it's silly to attribute preferences to anything innate.

Not to mention that I'm not sure that there's anything genetic (or at least any influence remotely strong enough to overcome other factors) about density preferences.  Urban orientation is not sexual orientation, despite some people being kind of urb-curious, transurbanist, or multimodal. :P  :evil:

:drunk:

I think you're missing the actual reasons people moved. It wasn't a disdain for density. It was the specific type of density found in Europe at the time. It was dirty, polluted, there wasn't electricity yet, no air conditioning, no central heat, no indoor plumbing, etc. The living conditions were abysmal at best. They wanted to escape THOSE qualities, not the idea of living in a city.

 

This has absolutely no relation to modern day Europe or modern day American cities. Density wasn't the factor that drove people here, the oppressing conditions were.

 

I'm saying it was probably a factor.

 

The only factor?  Of course not.  But if it was indeed a factor, the typical American immigrant would be a little more conscious of personal space than the typical European stay-behind.  It would work the same way as evolution, a trait which is slightly more prevalent becomes moreso.

 

I don’t think anyone would question the idea that Asians are far less conscious of personal space than Americans.    Could Europeans fall somewhere in between?

 

It's not genetic. They weren't coming here for "personal space" they were coming for various economic reasons and to escape the oppression and filth of living in Europe at the time. That's not the same thing as some Millennial choosing to live in Downtown Cincinnati vs. Mason.

 

This comparison lacks any actual basis in reality or any relation to what's happening in 2015 at all.

I'm so confused, I don't know if we are discussing the Pilgrims or the Turn of the 20th Century immigrants!

 

All of my grandparents came here for economic reasons.  Even though they were from what we might call the middle class, none of them were the oldest son, so they got nothing!  It was either come here for potential, or stay there with little.

It really doesn't matter which we're discussing. The reason still was never to escape cities and density.

 

Economics, oppression, terrible qualities of life, etc. have always been the reason for immigration to America.

I have everything in my family from people who came over on the Mayflower (seriously, or at least my mom's dad thinks it's serious) to Germans who came here after WWI (post-Versailles Germany was obviously not the best place to live).  I don't recall density being on any of their lists of things to get away from.