A quick spin through the south suburban frontier off Ohio Route 48. 

 

 

 

 

Brand new elementary school

 

 

“On Paradise Drive”

 

 

 

 

 

Roundabouts and water features are the cool new things for larger subdivisions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look ma! Look what we can grow!

 

(vomits)

Dear God.

Paradise, indeed.  :roll:

Stunning!!!!!!!11

Don't lie Jeffrey, you really wanted a suburban home and were out there visiting an open house.

 

CONFESS!

 

;)

The best is that homes along this retention pond will be advertised as having a "lake view" :roll:

 

Stunning!!!!!!!11

 

Indeed - I feel like I've been stunned as well...

 

Paradise Drive looked more like Fantasy Island to me!

Pleasantville

^

that's more Springboro. 

 

$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Look ma! Look what we can grow!

 

...usually soybeans or corn.  A lot of the land around here thats held in speculation is being contract-farmed as it gives the developer some sort of tax wright-off (or so I'm told), so you will see property in cultivation right until it goes under development.

 

Don't lie Jeffrey, you really wanted a suburban home and were out there visiting an open house.

 

Hah...actually I already live out here, or about three or four miles or so from here.

 

####################

 

 

On Paradise Drive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The secret history of this place is in the first pix, that big water tower, which wasn't there when I moved to this area.

 

None of this would be possible without water service.  And what's left unspoken is who makes up these water boards, who are their political supporters, how & when they decide to extend the mains, who pays for it. 

 

 

 

 

The secret history of this place is in the first pix, that big water tower, which wasn't there when I moved to this area.

 

But those lucky residents get to enjoy a Tank View.

 

And the "lake". And the "scenery". And the "farmland" that is fast disappearing around them.

 

Hey ma! Let's move out into the country to be away from it all? We can live next to the other crop of houses.

How much worse would sprawl be if we didn't subsidize our farmers? This is the type of stuff that happens when people in rural areas are desperate for money and sell their land.

And the "lake". And the "scenery". And the "farmland" that is fast disappearing around them.

 

Hey ma! Let's move out into the country to be away from it all? We can live next to the other crop of houses.

 

And no Chipotle in sight... how do people manage?!

^^ Not always. There are a lot of factory farms that sell off for the tax loophole, use the $$$ to buy up more fringe farmland, and start over.

This isn't Lebanon?  Oops my mistake.  How could I be so stupid.

^Lebanon is much more worldly and cultured. Thought you knew.

What ever floats your boat, but Jesus H Christ!  I hate sprawzilla and fake boulevard(ette)s. The traffic circle must be an attempt at the new urban look. Ugh.  Give me narrow alleys, well worn bricks and a boarded up store or two anyday.

 

How much worse would sprawl be if we didn't subsidize our farmers? This is the type of stuff that happens when people in rural areas are desperate for money and sell their land.

 

It has more to do with the "Green Revolution" increasing crop yields both here and around the world.  The main impact is that global starvation is almost always caused by politics, not agricultural failure.  The secondary impact:  we don't need as much farmland.

 

The people who sell their land typically move out a little further, then zone the new place in order to keep it rural.  Columbia Station was that way during the late 90s and probably still is. 

It has more to do with the "Green Revolution" increasing crop yields both here and around the world.  The main impact is that global starvation is almost always caused by politics, not agricultural failure.  The secondary impact:  we don't need as much farmland.

 

The increasing crop yields probably are not sustainable. They come from intensive farming with petrochemical-derived herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers that are causing long-term damage to ecosystems. Genetic modifications create crops that are resistant to insect damage and can withstand herbicides used to control weeds, but insect pests are adapting to the genetic modifications and weeds are developing tolerance for the herbicides.

 

Meanwhile, intensive agriculture and yield maximization are depleting the carbon and carbon-source organic material in soil that make it a viable medium for plant growth.

 

Enormous amounts of fossil-fuel energy are consumed and emissions are created in manufacturing the machines used in intensive agriculture, far more even than the energy consumed and emissions created in operating the machines.

Roundabouts and water features are the cool new things for larger subdivisions

 

And clock towers, if you're lucky.

 

That second photo is such a joke.  If that's not blight, what is?

 

 

Roundabouts and water features are the cool new things for larger subdivisions

 

And clock towers, if you're lucky.

 

Let's just pray there's not enough room in that clock tower for a sniper.

^ Nah...I'm sure the materials are so cheap that it wouldn't be able to support a person's weight, unless he/she was really small.  So keep an eye on the disgruntled children.

Disgruntled exurban loner kids with weapons? Never happen.

^

hah..yeah, i recall hearing  about a movie on this theme..disgruntled teen agers take over this Arizona suburb or something like that.  From the very late 1970s or early 80s. 

 

The roundabout concept comes from that sucessfull Settlers Walk development off of Springboro Pike, to the west of here (that one has a gazebo in the middle, instead of a clocktower).  Definetly developer copycat, but this happened in olden days too (the "parks" of Lexington and the "courts" of Louisville...neat platting ideas, copied by other developers).

 

I think I'll take a trip down Springboro way this Sunday, down 741.  You can be "present at the creation" of a new suburban strip, as it is just forming up down there.  That is one area that has went through a lot of change since my time here in Dayton, while this OH 48 corridor isn't changed all that much, even with these new plats. 

 

Aside from the subdivisions, what is your opinion on the landscape in general?  I find it melancholy somehow, this stretch of country off of 48. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can be "present at the creation..."

 

"Hey ma! Look what just popped out of her! A brand new house!"

 

The area looks very... flat and rather boring. At least around here, our subdivisions are on rolling terrain.

No panhandlers or anybody that doesn't look exactly like you.

Conformism as tyranny!

Yeah everyone who acts like me!

And you can recognize all your neighbors safely from inside a giant SUV, safe from any kind of human contact.

Those lakes look so ugly. Theres one in my moms subdivision, with a little walking path around it. No one ever walks on it, all it does is attract geese that end up standing in the middle of the road next to it.

The next great plague will travel on the wings of goose shit.

Kunstler once said that a suburban house is just a giant TV set constantly broadcasting "we're normal, we're normal, we're normal" 24 hours a day.

It amazes me how sometimes the "non-conformists" are the quickest to judge how others should live.

 

We're a (more or less) free society.  People are able to seek the surroundings they prefer, to the limits of their capability.

 

Personally, I think any alternative to that is worse than the "diseases" of conformity, blandness, and sprawl.

"We're a (more or less) free society.  People are able to seek the surroundings they prefer, to the limits of their capability."

 

If people lived in a complete bubble, that would be just ducky. If peoples' actions had no consequences, or consequences that only affected them - I'd agree with you.

 

However, their "capability" is often at taxpayer expense in highway/utility extenstion subsidies, etc. which is then at the expense of older areas who could use the funds for aging infrastructure. Once the new areas fall out of favor or get "exurbanized", the process repeats itself. So if you leave consider things like responsible use of resources, sustainable land use, etc. to be us imposing our values on others, I guess many of us are guilty as charged.

 

 

^^When a stranger's "personal choice" affects my quality of life, that's a problem. If there is an essential evil of sprawl, it's the denial of the interconnectedness of our lives and the true impact of the decisions we make. Consider then, that in a very real sense, a disproportionate quantity of public resources are redirected to underwrite this way of life, and you'll see that there's nothing "free" about the choices being made here.

"We're a (more or less) free society.  People are able to seek the surroundings they prefer, to the limits of their capability."

 

If people lived in a complete bubble, that would be just ducky. If peoples' actions had no consequences, or consequences that only affected them - I'd agree with you.

 

However, their "capability" is often at taxpayer expense in highway/utility extenstion subsidies, etc. which is then at the expense of older areas who could use the funds for aging infrastructure. Once the new areas fall out of favor or get "exurbanized", the process repeats itself. So if you leave consider things like responsible use of resources, sustainable land use, etc. to be us imposing our values on others, I guess many of us are guilty as charged.

 

I'm a "small l libertarian", and the majority here seems to be communitarian-leaning, so I doubt we're ever going to agree. 

 

I've commented elsewhere that the sprawl (and hence the taxpayers/customers) often precedes the roads/utilities.  Take a look at roads like 82 in Macedonia or 303 in Streetsboro that can't be expanded and you'll see it.

 

People, particularly Americans, prefer breathing space.  I'm the first to say that there are costs to that, but I daresay the costs of enforcing otherwise, even by "encouragement" are steeper.

^I work in Aurora so I'm in that area everyday so I feel I can comment.  What you're saying wouldn't be an issue if the growth that was happening in Macedonia and Streetsboro was sustainable, walkable, and not at the expense of the region.  Formerly rural areas will have roads that cannot be expanded and there's no doubt about it.  The Chillocothe Turnpike is a good example of a road that was set up a long time ago for trade withint he Western Reserve.  The problem is that these formerly rural areas are being built up with no planning or reason.  Does there need to be a Wal-Mart accross the street from Geauga Lake and then a few miles down the road only because it's in another municipality?  If the people who live off of Rt.43 can't drive an extra 4 miles to a different Wal-Mart then was it really that important in the first place?  There's no reason for a city with less than 15,000 people, stretched across 13 square miles (Aurora) to have worse traffic than a city with 60,000 people living in ~5 square miles (Lakewood).  People wanting to live where they want to live isn't the problem, the problem is the unsustainable growth that is coming with it.  And then, when Macedonia loses it's rural "charm" then the trend will continue and Mantua will be the next great "boomtown", causing Macedonia to force higher taxes (shudder the thought), causing more people to move out, more traffic congestion, continue ad nausium until Cleveland and Erie are connected to eachother with a base population that could fit with "breating room" in 1/3 the space.  I could be young and idealistic, and "upper west-side, pseudo-intellectual, liberal...readers dad, they're called readers."  But alas, this is just an observation with obvious exaggerations.

^I work in Aurora so I'm in that area everyday so I feel I can comment.  What you're saying wouldn't be an issue if the growth that was happening in Macedonia and Streetsboro was sustainable, walkable, and not at the expense of the region.  Formerly rural areas will have roads that cannot be expanded and there's no doubt about it.  The Chillocothe Turnpike is a good example of a road that was set up a long time ago for trade withint he Western Reserve.  The problem is that these formerly rural areas are being built up with no planning or reason.  Does there need to be a Wal-Mart accross the street from Geauga Lake and then a few miles down the road only because it's in another municipality?  If the people who live off of Rt.43 can't drive an extra 4 miles to a different Wal-Mart then was it really that important in the first place?  There's no reason for a city with less than 15,000 people, stretched across 13 square miles (Aurora) to have worse traffic than a city with 60,000 people living in ~5 square miles (Lakewood).  People wanting to live where they want to live isn't the problem, the problem is the unsustainable growth that is coming with it.  And then, when Macedonia loses it's rural "charm" then the trend will continue and Mantua will be the next great "boomtown", causing Macedonia to force higher taxes (shudder the thought), causing more people to move out, more traffic congestion, continue ad nausium until Cleveland and Erie are connected to eachother with a base population that could fit with "breating room" in 1/3 the space.  I could be young and idealistic, and "upper west-side, pseudo-intellectual, liberal...readers dad, they're called readers."  But alas, this is just an observation with obvious exaggerations.

 

That Wallyworld was built by Geagua Lake traffic, something unrelated to sprawl and also something the neighbors attempt to avoid whenever possible.

 

Things that aren't "sustainable" are, by definition, not sustained.  But the point here was to counter the view some seem to have, that "sprawl" is driven by road building, not the other way around.

 

A little planning ahead can go a long way where these suburbs are concerned, but it need not be "regionalized", indeed it can be better accomplished locally.  Columbia Station, last I looked, had zoned itself into large lots and a smaller population.  But a better example would be Walton Hills, which is a "second generation suburb".  It split off from Bedford, and zoned itself so it wouldn't become "crackerbox" suburbia.  It's almost inner ring, but still a very pleasant place to live if one values space (and is willing to pay for private schools, as almost all residents do), reminiscent of early-development exurbs, and its stayed that way for over 40 years.  Macedonia and Sagamore Hills, beyond it, are developing McMansions and heavy traffic.  The only real heavy traffic in WH is during rush hour on Alexander or Northfield.

I didn't leave a good analogy.  So, if you went in for a doctor's visit and your docotr told you, "Sir, I'm concerned about your weight, if you don't lose at least 50 pounds you put yourself at risk for hart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or even death. I urge to to change your diet and start an exercise program."  I doubt that anyone in their right minds would respond to the doctor by saying, "Ok, i take your suggestion and I feel you are wrong for trying to suggest I change my lifestyle.  As a human being I'm permitted a certain amount of autonomy and one of those free choices is the food I eat.  Iam insulted that you would insult my intelligence by suggesting I change."  And, if someone did respond that way, they would be surely ridiculed.  Do, I think suburbs and rural areas are bad? Not in the least.  Do I think sprawl without growth is detrimental?  You betcha.

I hate sprawl like most people on here, and I wouldn't live there. But from what I've seen, new urbanism communities are realllllly expensive.

I didn't leave a good analogy.  So, if you went in for a doctor's visit and your docotr told you, "Sir, I'm concerned about your weight, if you don't lose at least 50 pounds you put yourself at risk for hart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or even death. I urge to to change your diet and start an exercise program."  I doubt that anyone in their right minds would respond to the doctor by saying, "Ok, i take your suggestion and I feel you are wrong for trying to suggest I change my lifestyle.  As a human being I'm permitted a certain amount of autonomy and one of those free choices is the food I eat.  Iam insulted that you would insult my intelligence by suggesting I change."  And, if someone did respond that way, they would be surely ridiculed.  Do, I think suburbs and rural areas are bad? Not in the least.  Do I think sprawl without growth is detrimental?  You betcha.

 

Was early sprawl of the crowded inner cities entirely driven by growth?  Not at all.  It was driven by comfort.  Likewise the latest round.  It's allowing the crowded population that remains in the cities to spread out.  Yes, some people move because they are uncomfortable with the cultures spreading out.  That's also preferable to "culture war", a close analogy to "good fences make good neighbors".

 

Either extreme is unhealthy, but eventually a comfortable equilibrium is reached.  If transportation becomes a problem, contraction will happen.  We've seen it to some degree with older people, returning to their old neighborhoods upon retirement rather than maintain big houses and big lots.  That happens less now, but safety is the reason.

^Urban/exurban equlibrium will be attained at the cost of a great deal of suffering, but that suffering will be felt last by the individuals who've benefited most from it: the developers and those who benefit financially from their business. Even the tiniest "l" libertarian acknowledges that an individual's rights reach their limit once they bring harm to others. Unfortunately, I don't think the forces that benefit from sprawl have anything to do with any size "L" libertarianism. But once developers start paying for their own water treatment systems and power plants and pony up the cash every time the roads need to be widened, then I'll break away from the hive and be your wing man anytime, Maverick.

^ unh oh that means you'll have to play a shirtless slo-mo....err, heh heh i said mo....ahem...volleyball game with him too.

 

but seriously i should say....nice reply. i would add not to mention the cost of developer driven laissez faire sprawl to the environment. libertarians do breathe air and like clean water dont they?

Here is my two cent(s) --

 

Suburban and exurban development is far more costly to construct. Water, sewer and gas lines, along with fiber optics, telephone, and electricity lines, serve a lesser amount of people at further distances. There is no denying that, because as development sprawls further outward, and more subdivisions are approved on country two-lane roads 20 miles from a city center, then the utilities must be extended out.

 

Louisville metro has a horrible problem with this. They approve of subdivisions on roads with no utilities, on two-lane country roads that are not designed for suburban-style traffic, in areas where fire, police, and ambulance service is weak, and in areas of natural significance (i.e. a subdivision next to a nature preserve, as has happened here). But the developer will balk and cry when he is assessed a fee to pay for his lion's share of utility development, and as has been the case here, the developer wins out -- because he'll threaten to "take his housing project" to the other county. The metro also does not have impact fees (or didn't a year ago), so the developers never have to pay for an upgraded highway leading to their development, or for utilities that must be extended far out, and etc. That puts an unfair burden on those who must pay for 5 miles of utilities to serve a 100-home subdivision far out of the city.

 

You think that is fair? To put unfair burdens on citizens so that some suburban dweller can live 10 miles out of the city? If they want the service so very badly, then they can pay for it themselves -- road works, utility, and all.

What seicer said, I think.

 

Locally, my water/sewer rates keep going up to pay for expansion of service to outlying developments. Meanwhile, the subdivision dwellers pay the same $ per cubic foot of usage that I do. That doesn't seem to follow libertarian concepts.

 

To have an actual "user pays" system, shouldn't the people who live farther away from the municipal sewer & water plants pay more, in proportion to the additional miles of infrastructure it takes to serve them?

 

There's a whole 'nother issue regarding the reduced property taxes on downtown land cleared to provide parking for commuters' cars. It throws an additional burden on us city residents to subsidize parking for suburban commuters, at the expense of revenue for public transportation that would serve more taxpayers in or near the city's core.

What seicer said, I think.

 

Locally, my water/sewer rates keep going up to pay for expansion of service to outlying developments. Meanwhile, the subdivision dwellers pay the same $ per cubic foot of usage that I do. That doesn't seem to follow libertarian concepts.

 

To have an actual "user pays" system, shouldn't the people who live farther away from the municipal sewer & water plants pay more, in proportion to the additional miles of infrastructure it takes to serve them?

 

There's a whole 'nother issue regarding the reduced property taxes on downtown land cleared to provide parking for commuters' cars. It throws an additional burden on us city residents to subsidize parking for suburban commuters, at the expense of revenue for public transportation that would serve more taxpayers in or near the city's core.

 

Preach Brother Rob!!!

I kind of rambled in an incoherent way, but at least you got the point :)

 

Rob, you brought up another point. Suburban to downtown commuters require wider roads that only see peak traffic in a certain direction only for a few hours. There is a lot of wasted capacity, to the tune of at least 70% on most roadways. Granted, there are exceptions, such as when there is a healthy amount of jobs in the suburbs and downtown (which is very rare), or when there are variable-lane assignments (also, very rare). So for all of the widening and reconstruction we do on highways across the United States, only a certain percentage of that road will actually be used.

 

Then we have downtown parking. Cities or agencies supported by the city often construct municipal parking lots that take the place of city parks or other downtown buildings -- structures that could be revenue generators. Parking garages are far more expensive but more efficient for the vehicle, but also take up a lot of space. Where are the bike racks? Where are the bike lanes? Where are the light-rail lines? All three are incompatible with suburban land usage.

 

If suburban dwellers _really_ want to live out so far, they can first,

a. Subsidize urban dwellers, like me, for having to shell money out of _my_ pocket for their exceedingly wide roads, for their out-of-the-way utilities, for their fire, ambulance, and police access, and for loss of downtown land (parking).

b. Pay their fair share of utilities based upon the location.

For the Dayton area downtown commuting is pretty irrelevant given the way employment has decentralized. 

 

Some of the places you see in the pix here are actually "close to work" if the residents work in the office or industrial developments in Springboro, Franklin, or off of I-675.  It is not that this is miles from downtown (which it is), but that the people who live here are most likely not driving that far, given how decetnralized employment has become in this area.

 

seicer is correct about the pretty bad development habits in Jefferson County. That was one thing my parents noticed when moving from Chicago, at how "trashy" (their words...or did they say "junky"? Whatever.) suburban Louisville looked.  Suburbia around Louisville is still pretty bad, with the well-planned development the exception, and makes the older parts of that city look good in comparison. 

 

Lexington does a better job at planning sprawl, or at least they used to.  Some of the newer developments in the Dayton area are also examples of planned sprawl, where site planning and zoning ameliorates some of the worst features of this kind of developement. 

 

There was a big critique of suburbia back in the late 1950s and in the 1960s, at how ugly it all was.  Some of this critique was accepted by the real estate development community and the planning profession, leading to things like PUD, access control, sign ordnances, more landscaping, and so forth. This doesn't address the sustainability issue, which is a new critique of suburbia, actually a bit different than the aesthetic critiques of the 1960s (though there was an "efficiency" aspect to that earlier critique).

 

I probably need to go out and take some pix of what I'm talking about.

 

 

Here is an example of planned sprawl, where a few little things go to soften the impact of new developement.

 

This is the extension of Spring Valley road, which now connects Ohio 48 and 741, east-west.  What they did here is site the new development away from the highway and put in a lot of open space and landscaping (which hasn't matured yet), including earth berms, to mask the road somewhat (moreso the single family home plat across the street).  There is also enough open space to permit the road to be widened ,  and they put in sidewalks, which could be used for bikes.  The little woodlot of forest line in the distance is on Holes Creek, and is protected, I think, by a conservation easment.