Yeah, not just people who "have to".

 

Well, it might be hard to see from well maintained suburbs like Westlake, Dublin or pretty much all of Cincinnati's burbs, but from rotted ones it isn't that hard.

 

*cough* Rolling Hills Mall

 

*cough* Westland area

 

*cough* Middletown

 

Especially if you don't find yourself in the center cities or melted down 'burbs at all, like people who live in Dublin and work at Easton. There's a good chance that they are so disconnected from anyone in poverty or twentysomethings if most of their free time is spent in wealthy 'burbs with children, teens and others in their 40-60s.

It's hard to see from the suburbs the major changes being written about in these articles. Ride the Rapid occasionally. I do, and I see many more young people riding than I did compared to just five years ago.

 

Well since even in NYC only about 40% of the metro area population lives in the city itself, and the number is more like 15%-20% in other areas, how major of a change is it if it's invisible to the bulk of the population?

OK, let me clarify. Where is the greatest population growth occurring right now? For the first time since the 1920s, it's in the cities. And many inner-ring suburbs are as urban in their density and character as the mother cities (ie: Cleveland Heights, Lakewood, etc). Furthermore, ridership on transit is at the highest levels since the federal government decided in 1956 to build Interstate highways. All of these are pretty significant change from the America you and I grew up in 30-40 years ago.

 

Now that I live at the Lakewood-Cleveland border, work downtown and commute by transit most of the time, I am exposed to this changes more than I would have been had I remained in Highland Heights or in Geauga County where I spent the first 26 years of my life. Is that still a surprise to you?

It's hard to see from the suburbs the major changes being written about in these articles. Ride the Rapid occasionally. I do, and I see many more young people riding than I did compared to just five years ago.

 

Well since even in NYC only about 40% of the metro area population lives in the city itself, and the number is more like 15%-20% in other areas, how major of a change is it if it's invisible to the bulk of the population?

 

Soooo......if Cleveland improves but you're in the Geauga County and don't see it....does the improvement really happen?

It's hard to see from the suburbs the major changes being written about in these articles. Ride the Rapid occasionally. I do, and I see many more young people riding than I did compared to just five years ago.

 

Well since even in NYC only about 40% of the metro area population lives in the city itself, and the number is more like 15%-20% in other areas, how major of a change is it if it's invisible to the bulk of the population?

 

In NYC there's a lot of people who would like to live in the city but cannot afford to because there is an undersupply of housing in the city but a much larger supply of suburban development.

 

That's the flip side of subsidies for suburban development -- it is often very inexpensive as compared to other choices because of the massive supply of it that is created.

OK, let me clarify. Where is the greatest population growth occurring right now? For the first time since the 1920s, it's in the cities. And many inner-ring suburbs are as urban in their density and character as the mother cities (ie: Cleveland Heights, Lakewood, etc). Furthermore, ridership on transit is at the highest levels since the federal government decided in 1956 to build Interstate highways. All of these are pretty significant change from the America you and I grew up in 30-40 years ago.

 

Now that I live at the Lakewood-Cleveland border, work downtown and commute by transit most of the time, I am exposed to this changes more than I would have been had I remained in Highland Heights or in Geauga County where I spent the first 26 years of my life. Is that still a surprise to you?

 

I have to some degree the opposite experience.  I grew up in a suburb with a very good transit system that maintained autonomy within RTA.  I also commuted to college mostly using same.  I’m saying that there were always younger riders, especially the kidless, even among the “don’t have to” crowd. 

 

I’m going to guess that most of your rides now are at “commute” time, and in the past that wasn’t the case.  That’s a big part of why you’re seeing more younger people now than you did before.

 

As for population growth, nationally it may or may not be the case that the biggest amount is happening in the cities.  It’s certainly not the case in Ohio, particularly Cleveland.  The city itself has not changed its boundaries and contains less than half the population of its peak.

 

Since your experience is in Cleveland, one must question if the same trend is being noted where the population is growing.

 

 

It's hard to see from the suburbs the major changes being written about in these articles. Ride the Rapid occasionally. I do, and I see many more young people riding than I did compared to just five years ago.

 

Well since even in NYC only about 40% of the metro area population lives in the city itself, and the number is more like 15%-20% in other areas, how major of a change is it if it's invisible to the bulk of the population?

 

NYC has a lot of distinctively urban areas in its metro that aren't part of the city. Including the two largest cities in the state of NJ, both within 10 miles of Manhattan. Both of those cities have independent light rail lines that serve those cities and nearby suburbs. Not to mention a great portion of NYC's true-blue suburbs are well-served by commuter rail and buses. Just saying...your 40% figure is meaningless.

As for population growth, nationally it may or may not be the case that the biggest amount is happening in the cities.  It’s certainly not the case in Ohio, particularly Cleveland.  The city itself has not changed its boundaries and contains less than half the population of its peak.

 

Since your experience is in Cleveland, one must question if the same trend is being noted where the population is growing.[/color]

 

Except that the areas of Cuyahoga County with the fastest growing population are downtown Cleveland and its immediately surrounding neighborhoods.

Cleveland's inner city is growing faster than its suburbs as young adults flock downtown

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/clevelands_inner_city_is_gorn.html

Of course with downtown Cleveland, you had so few people living there 20 years ago, so of course growth will be explosive.

 

However that study is defining Downtown,  they come up with 9,098 residents. To put that in perspective, that's just a measly 2.3% of the City of Cleveland's population and just 0.7% of Cuyahoga County's population. So while growth rates are high, the base population is low that it has negligible effects on total city population.

 

So yes, downtown is one of the few places growing in Cleveland and the population has more than doubled in a few decades. However, downtown Cleveland would have had to grow by at least 1,800% in recent decades just for the city as a whole to break even.

 

 

^ Why does Downtown have to undo the region's population loss alone?  It's not about growth rates for individual neighborhoods, or even raw numbers right now. The important thing is that larger trends are changing.  Today's young adults make up what, like 15-20% of the regional population (depending on how you define them.)  If people continue to choose the urban core over suburbs as they come of age, those inner neighborhoods will represent an ever-larger fraction of the regional population over time.

 

It's undeniable that our more walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods are seeing an influx of development and younger residents.  Many are light-years ahead of where they were just three years ago when the census was taken.  Best of all? Those neighborhoods show little evidence of losing steam.  Our leaders would be crazy or at least horribly inept to not try to recreate the conditions in all of our neighborhoods that have proven to attract reinvestment, especially improved transit, walking, and biking infrastructure.

^ Why does Downtown have to undo the region's population loss alone?  It's not about growth rates for individual neighborhoods, or even raw numbers right now. The important thing is that larger trends are changing.  Today's young adults make up what, like 15-20% of the regional population (depending on how you define them.)  If people continue to choose the urban core over suburbs as they come of age, those inner neighborhoods will represent an ever-larger fraction of the regional population over time.

 

It's undeniable that our more walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods are seeing an influx of development and younger residents.  Many are light-years ahead of where they were just three years ago when the census was taken.  Best of all? Those neighborhoods show little evidence of losing steam.  Our leaders would be crazy or at least horribly inept to not try to recreate the conditions in all of our neighborhoods that have proven to attract reinvestment, especially improved transit, walking, and biking infrastructure.

 

I agree. I was only saying that because downtown is one of only a handful of places in the city proper that's growing. 95% of Cleveland is still shrinking. So until those other census tracts and neighborhoods start to see population increases, the city is going to continue to lose population.

 

However, I look at West Blvd/Detroit/Madison. It's a very walkable neighborhood that has walking distance access to the Rapid. It has a great mix of housing stock. It is within reasonable walking distance to the lake and parks. There's a good mix of historic street fronting retail. There are numerous busses. Getting downtown is an easy 15 minute bike ride or an equivalent bus or rapid ride. Yet at the same time it's becoming blighted in spots year after year and continues to lose population year after year. Perhaps it's just a matter of time before TOD takes off here. But at the same time, it's got a lot of what everyone says a great urban neighborhood needs to attract people. Yet, the people are not coming, and it's a net loss year after year.

 

I think that might speak more about demand for housing in Cleveland. There are only so many young people desiring housing in Cleveland and they are concentrating in specific areas. Other metros feel the pinch of high rents, so young people look for cheaper areas. By comparison, the "trendy" areas in Cleveland are relatively cheap. It's not too hard to find rental units in Tremont/OC for most people's budgets, so the need to spill over into other areas has been slow.

 

But to bring this back on topic. It's an interesting trend. Young people are definitely desiring an urban setting, and with that generally comes a need for less driving. I think we'll see driving plummet if the big companies start relocating back from their suburban office parks. I wonder what percent of 25-35 year olds that live in Downtown/Tremont/Ohio City actually get in their cars and drive to Mayfield/Independence/Westlake for work every morning? Once those companies start coming back to the core, is when you'll see the real change happen.

 

 

That will be another 20 years because the people who make those location decisions in this part of the country right now are of the generation that is most likely to pray to the sprawl god.

But to bring this back on topic. It's an interesting trend. Young people are definitely desiring an urban setting, and with that generally comes a need for less driving. I think we'll see driving plummet if the big companies start relocating back from their suburban office parks. I wonder what percent of 25-35 year olds that live in Downtown/Tremont/Ohio City actually get in their cars and drive to Mayfield/Independence/Westlake for work every morning? Once those companies start coming back to the core, is when you'll see the real change happen.

 

I own some rental units in the area and most of my tenants are males in late 20's early 30's.  All but a couple reverse commute to jobs in the suburbs.  At night they are on bikes though--riding to the bars in Detroit Shoreway & OC.   

 

As an aside, I was at XYZ last weekend and it gave me great pleasure to see a bicycle "gang" of 20 somethings departing the bar on two wheels heading for another.  There must have been 20-30 all leaving at once.

However, I look at West Blvd/Detroit/Madison. It's a very walkable neighborhood that has walking distance access to the Rapid. It has a great mix of housing stock. It is within reasonable walking distance to the lake and parks. There's a good mix of historic street fronting retail. There are numerous busses. Getting downtown is an easy 15 minute bike ride or an equivalent bus or rapid ride. Yet at the same time it's becoming blighted in spots year after year and continues to lose population year after year. Perhaps it's just a matter of time before TOD takes off here. But at the same time, it's got a lot of what everyone says a great urban neighborhood needs to attract people. Yet, the people are not coming, and it's a net loss year after year.

 

I think that might speak more about demand for housing in Cleveland. There are only so many young people desiring housing in Cleveland and they are concentrating in specific areas. Other metros feel the pinch of high rents, so young people look for cheaper areas. By comparison, the "trendy" areas in Cleveland are relatively cheap. It's not too hard to find rental units in Tremont/OC for most people's budgets, so the need to spill over into other areas has been slow.

 

I think that just goes to show that even though the bones are there, people need something to walk or take transit TO, and that's a very important caveat for young people.  As I see it, there's little at present to walk to in that neighborhood- within a half mile in either direction of the West Boulevard Rapid Station, there's practically nothing along Detroit Avenue, and other than the CVS, nothing much worth walking to on Madison.  However that could change, and I do think that it will as development continues to radiate out from Gordon Square- as you noted, there is much more to build off of in that part of Cudell than in a lot of neighborhoods.  Unfortunately, growth in Cleveland is slow, but I think that area has some of the greatest potential in the city as far as benefiting from the demographic shifts we've been talking about goes... eventually.  I just hope it doesn't slide too much farther first.

 

But to bring this back on topic. It's an interesting trend. Young people are definitely desiring an urban setting, and with that generally comes a need for less driving. I think we'll see driving plummet if the big companies start relocating back from their suburban office parks. I wonder what percent of 25-35 year olds that live in Downtown/Tremont/Ohio City actually get in their cars and drive to Mayfield/Independence/Westlake for work every morning? Once those companies start coming back to the core, is when you'll see the real change happen.

 

I don't have statistics, but I personally know people that live in our neighborhood and reverse-commute to American Greetings (currently in Brooklyn but moving to Westlake), Parker-Hannifin in Mayfield Heights, and someone who bike-commutes every day from Ohio City to Parma Heights for a welding job.  I know even more that work downtown or in University Circle and take transit or bike.  It's been said in other threads, but we've been seeing a quiet revolution of sorts with younger, hipper companies taking advantage of relatively low rents downtown.  But as GCrites80s pointed out, those big "legacy" companies will take a long time to catch on... if they ever do.

That same principle probably explains why the Gold Coast area of Lakewood is also declining. Terrible decision to not have retail on Cliton over there.

 

It really is a shame that our rail system does not really provide a true urban experience. Because of this most(not all) people living in Tremont,Ohio City, etc. still drive to work, downtown or elsewhere. I think this hurts out neighborhoods ability to grow(faster), especially paired with our low density.

That same principle probably explains why the Gold Coast area of Lakewood is also declining. Terrible decision to not have retail on Cliton over there.

 

It really is a shame that our rail system does not really provide a true urban experience. Because of this most(not all) people living in Tremont,Ohio City, etc. still drive to work, downtown or elsewhere. I think this hurts out neighborhoods ability to grow(faster), especially paired with our low density.

 

Excellent point on the Gold Coast.  It's hard to believe with that much density in one place that the neighborhood doesn't DEMAND it. 

That same principle probably explains why the Gold Coast area of Lakewood is also declining. Terrible decision to not have retail on Cliton over there.

 

It really is a shame that our rail system does not really provide a true urban experience. Because of this most(not all) people living in Tremont,Ohio City, etc. still drive to work, downtown or elsewhere. I think this hurts out neighborhoods ability to grow(faster), especially paired with our low density.

 

It's why I believe the expiring sin tax should be used to adjust our rail system to tap into more nodes, as I laid out in the Cleveland Transit-Ideas For The Future. The sin tax is to small to finance some of the more grandiose plans out there, but it can do some important modifications now.

 

Excellent point on the Gold Coast.  It's hard to believe with that much density in one place that the neighborhood doesn't DEMAND it. 

 

The retail has moved down to I-90. And the housing hasn't been significantly updated in this area. Most of the apartments and condos are still of the 1960s design, as mine is and lack the finishes desired by today's youth. The price is right though, so I still see some younger people moving in.

^

What is the sin tax used for now? Who supports retaining it and why? Would it be possible (or easier) to retain the sin tax if it was dedicated to specific purposes?

^

What is the sin tax used for now? Who supports retaining it and why? Would it be possible (or easier) to retain the sin tax if it was dedicated to specific purposes?

 

Its retiring the bonds on Cleveland Browns Stadium, er, First Energy Stadium.

Stats show Americans not that into driving anymore

 

WASHINGTON - Driving in America has stalled, leading researchers to ask: Is the national love affair with the automobile over?

 

After rising for decades, total vehicle use in the U.S. -- the collective miles people drive -- peaked in August 2007. It then dropped sharply during the Great Recession and has largely plateaued since, even though the economy is recovering and the population growing. Just this week the Federal Highway Administration reported vehicle miles traveled during the first half of 2013 were down slightly, continuing the trend.

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/traffic/traffic_news/stats-show-americans-not-that-into-driving-anymore

Here too...

 

The Federal Highway Administration says driving is down again this year continuing trend from 1990s. So why are we adding more lane-miles while funds to trains and transit on which ridership is growing?

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/stats-show-americans-not-that-into-driving-anymore

To attract millenials, automakers look to smartphones

 

Millennials are driving less and getting their licenses and cars later, and automakers are left to figure out how to compete not just with each other but also with consumer electronics. Cars used to represent freedom — now everyone knows, including carmakers, that's not true anymore. For millennials — and almost everyone else — freedom is now the cellphone.

 

"I'm not sure that any car company truly understands this next generation of car buyers," says John McFarland, a director at General Motors. At 32, he's also in that next generation of car buyers.

 

I think the problem is that young people who do drive, aren't buying new cars. I drive the 1999 Ford Escort I got sophomore year of high school. It doesn't have cruise control, the A/C doesn't work (thankfully the heat does), the paint is wearing pretty quickly, it doesn't get out of park without a little jimmy, and the window doesn't seal unless you're careful when closing the door. This barely matters to me, though.

 

I think a lot of people in Gen Y / Millenials just want a car that runs, isn't expensive, and has an adequate sound system. I would also like A/C, but I've gone several years without it and it doesn't really bother me now and I think a lot of people would get used to it too (note: I am NOT suggesting companies stop offering A/C). Also, high gas milage is probably the most important thing. I don't give a sh!t about night vision, radar, or whatever technological gimmick the car companies try to include in their vehicles. It simply doesn't entice me (or a lot of my friends). These are often features that get forgotten once the new car smell goes away.

What a stupid concept. An UNBELIEVABLY stupid concept.  Millenials are uninterested in cars for many reasons, mostly financial along with a renewed interest in urban living, public transportation, and not having a family with kids until you're out of school (late 20s) and working for some time (perhaps mid 30s). And that's IF you can find work that pays over $40 thousand.

 

Who has ever complained that cars don't communicate to us in the same way as a smart phone. It looks Volkwagen just wants an excuse to utilize the word "synergy" in their marketing presentations and campaigns. Guess what, making cars substantially more expensive probably isn't the right direction. All these bells and whistles just scream failure.

 

What a stupid concept. An UNBELIEVABLY stupid concept.  Millenials are uninterested in cars for many reasons, mostly financial along with a renewed interest in urban living, public transportation, and not having a family with kids until you're out of school (late 20s) and working for some time (perhaps mid 30s). And that's IF you can find work that pays over $40 thousand.

 

Who has ever complained that cars don't communicate to us in the same way as a smart phone. It looks Volkwagen just wants an excuse to utilize the word "synergy" in their marketing presentations and campaigns. Guess what, making cars substantially more expensive probably isn't the right direction. All these bells and whistles just scream failure.

You need $40k/yr to buy a car?

I can't imagine buying or leasing a new car if you make less, and that is what car companies need to appreciate with their new models

You don't need to buy a new car though.

It's also important to realize that even though there are plenty of people who don't want to own a car, or who want to drive less, many are forced into it because there's simply no other viable option.  Just like not everyone who buys a house in the suburbs really likes suburbs, but if they can't afford better, or its closest to their job, or the schools are better, then that's the only option there is.  So when ODOT says we need to build the new Brent Spence Bridge because driving hasn't decreased in southwest Ohio like it has in other places (which is most likely BS anyway) the reason is because other than in some very specific living arrangements, there's simply no other choice but to drive.  No matter how much you try to live in Over-the-Rhine and walk to daily needs and such, if the only job you could find is in Blue Ash or Erlanger, well then it's pretty difficult to live car free even if you want to. 

I thought we were just talking about new cars, at least since that article was posted earlier today. My point is the new car market is f'ed in terms of millennial consumers, since the vehicles are too expensive and the idea of integrating smart phone features is just retarded.

I think the problem is that young people who do drive, aren't buying new cars. I drive the 1999 Ford Escort I got sophomore year of high school. It doesn't have cruise control, the A/C doesn't work (thankfully the heat does), the paint is wearing pretty quickly, it doesn't get out of park without a little jimmy, and the window doesn't seal unless you're careful when closing the door. This barely matters to me, though.

 

I just realized yesterday that I haven't bought gas for my car since June. I realized it after I drove my dad home from Cleveland Clinic to his independent living facility in Macedonia. It's the most driving I've done in my car all summer (not including driving my sister's car in New England). So I still have a quarter tank of gas left in my car. And I have a low mileage car that's in great condition and is a lot of fun to drive. But I just don't NEED to drive it much because of where I live (Lakewood), where I work (Downtown Cleveland) and because of the dense and diverse land uses as well as transportation choices available to me. Oh, did I mention it (a black 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe) is a lot of fun to drive?? I just don't drive it much....

 

My roommate was able to go from January to late April without getting gas this year. He's got a Hemi Ram, too. His Giant was getting a lot more love.

I notice that most of this discussion focuses on 20-somethings who are out in the real world and maybe can't afford a car. But the decline in driving is much deeper than that. It is much more than an economic decision. I have a 16-year-old son who could not be less interested in driving. I live in the city. I have many places I can walk or bike to. I'm a regular bus rider and have taught my kids to be familiar with transit, and encouraged them to use it. But my wife and I were insistent that all three of our sons know how to drive, even if they weren't interested in driving a lot or owning a car. We had to push all three into drivers ed. None was interested. The oldest, now out of college, announced in his sophomore year that he didn't ever want to own a car. (It's easier for him in Olympia, Wash., and the Seattle area, where he has all sorts of options -- bikes, buses, Amtrak, shuttles to the airport to catch light rail to Seattle, etc., etc.) When he comes back to Ohio to visit and has a car at his disposal, he still walks, bikes or takes the bus. My 20-year-old fought drivers ed, but got his license and now drives almost everywhere (that my change when he's off on his own and has to buy is own car). The youngest is even less interested than the others in driving. A lot of their friends are the same. These are not economically motivated decisions. These are kids with no interest in driving.

Millennial quiz:

 

A GT is what type of of transportation?

You've poisoned them against driving!! It's all on you! You are an oddity! An anti-American, tree-huggin' oddity!!

>GT

 

It was a BMX-style bike brad, like Mongoose. 

not an original observation and probably already has been made here, but isn't the lack of interest in driving at least in part the result of social media? who needs to drive to a friend's home to socialize or hang out with friends at the mall when you can just socialize/shop online? who needs to drive to some location to see/experience something or someplace when everything is available on the internet?

not an original observation and probably already has been made here, but isn't the lack of interest in driving at least in part the result of social media? who needs to drive to a friend's home to socialize or hang out with friends at the mall when you can just socialize/shop online? who needs to drive to some location to see/experience something or someplace when everything is available on the internet?

 

Yep.  No bouncing place to place to see where everyone is, either.  You already know, assuming they went anywhere at all.

And it is an observation shared, discussed and acknowledged here. Many factors are involved, which is why it isn't likely to be a short-term thing.

and we didn't have the most sophisticated means of simply getting in touch with others back then!

>GT

 

It was a BMX-style bike brad, like Mongoose. 

 

They do mountain and road too. But people from other generations would say Mustang GT, a Grand Touring sized-car or possibly something like a Porshce Carerra GT or Ferrari GT.

You can claim it is because the young people want to live in a carless society. That it plain bunk. Take the downtown living expansion of any city in the US, including Cincinnati, and the volume is still a small percentage, in fact not even significant.

 

The drop in young people driving is purely economic. The price of cars keeps increasing, while their income keeps decreasing. That is a simple equation. Anyone thinking dfifferent is simply deluding themselves.

 

This is not a green society battle. It really is a battle amongst the ultra rich and those who represented the rank and file middle class of thr last quarter century. The middle class is losing out, just about everywhere. And that will be the downfall of our society.

^In order to believe what you just said basically 100 percent of my group of friends and peers would have to be lying. I'm 24, I'm around people who are 20-30 years old all day everyday. I'm extremely social and talk about random urban issues with them. We like walking. We like leaving the car behind. Yes, economics is a factor, but that doesn't mean it's THE ONLY factor. Young people want to drive less and take public transit more. This is an accurate statement. And economics is in no way the only factor leading to this.

Young people want to drive less and take public transit more. This is an accurate statement.

 

Young people want to drive cars, invest in sound systems, and never take public transit. This is also an accurate statement. Unfortunately more young people have this mindset than your statement (which I wish was true)

 

More young people want to live in the suburbs than live in the "ghetto!" city (also unfortunate)

 

More young people want to live in cities than previous generations, but they are still a small portion of their generation.

Where are you living, the '90s? The car stereo thing has really died off. There's less than half as many car stereo stores as in the past. Go into a big-box electronics store and see how tiny the car stereo section is today. "Invest" in sound systems? What's the rate of return on a set of 15s?

Young people want to drive less and take public transit more. This is an accurate statement.

 

Young people want to drive cars, invest in sound systems, and never take public transit. This is also an accurate statement. Unfortunately more young people have this mindset than your statement (which I wish was true)

 

More young people want to live in the suburbs than live in the "ghetto!" city (also unfortunate)

 

More young people want to live in cities than previous generations, but they are still a small portion of their generation.

 

Please share some data or articles from sources not funded by oil/highway/neocon interests to back this up.

Yea, if all your knowledge of automobiles comes from the Republican News Entertainment Complex you basically know nothing about cars. I'd rather have a 7-year-old help me out. Yet, these guys think they know everything. Smokey Yunick would spit on them.

Im not a republican and I dont listen to or watch any republican news. Additionally I hate driving and have no interest in cars. I hope/plan on never living in a suburb and I hate suburban design style.

 

How many young people have moved to Downtown, Ohio City, Tremont, Gordon Square, etc. from the suburbs? Combined its less than 15,000. Its not hard to see that 15,000 people is not a majority by any means for this region. And the number could possibly be less than 10,000.

 

Edit: While trying to find an article, rather than raw census data I came across this article.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/01/clevelands_urban_scene_gets_a.html

Then why do you act like one? You use the Complex's anti-intellectual, denial-filled language that grates at everyone else. There's always going to be a large cohort of younger people in sprawl as long as the heavy subsidies continue; it is far too subsidized at this time to not attract investment. But so many of the twentysomethings out there look like Fred Durst in a flat billed Monster Energy hat now. Like it's 1999. They're not the skilled ones that keep an economy going or can be face-to-face with clients and other businesspeople. While I can't say a hipster offers the best first impression, at least they don't end every sentence with "dog".

 

And how many young people really want to live in the city but are stuck out in sprawl because they live with their folks due to financial reasons?

Measuring the response of the marketplace does not accurately measure the size of the potential market, or the beliefs of that market. The impact on Cleveland has built-in limitations, such as the inability of the market to respond to demand (because of low incomes and thus low rents). So how many are leaving Greater Cleveland in particular and Ohio in general for cities where they can live low-mileage lifestyles? What are the viewpoints of young people in Greater Cleveland, in Ohio, or in America?

 

There is always a lag time for the marketplace to respond to a dramatic shift in personal preferences, technologies and societal values of a demographic -- particularly the largest demographic group in American history. What I want to buy and do and what I am able buy and do are two very different things. It takes the free market a long time to catch up, and the public sector even longer. And since transportation infrastructure is almost exclusively owned and financed by the public sector, this sector is going to take a long time to realize it is still building infrastructure that is no longer needed or wanted.

 

EDIT: GCrites80s, please keep this on a policy level discussion, not a personal one. Thx

How do I act like one? Because I don't believe every fluff piece as if it is 100% true. Because I recognize most young people still prefer cars over transit? Prefer suburbs over the city?

 

If I had it my way there would be no highways, no density under 20k per square mile(which basically wipes out all of Cleveland), a massive subway system/passenger rail system, no building setbacks, and no wide avenues(Cleveland's staple). Walking would be the top form of transportation, followed by transit and rail. And historical preservation would be a top priority. Please find Republican with those views, let alone one of those views.