Cincinnati Versus Suburbs - Makes No Sense (Dayton, Hamilton: low income, crime)

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by motorman

Maybe before this discussion proceeds any further, it would behoove everyone to know specifically what KJ means by "suburbia." Just recently, I was informed by him that I, too, lived in a "suburb" because I lived in Norwood. (and so, too, the people of Hyde Park, Oakley, I guess) Not much of a contest if the CBD is pitted against the entire region around it, eh? So, KJ--just exactly where is the line of demarcation between "Cincinnati" and "its suburbs"? (at the limits of the CBD? the city boundary line? or maybe farther out near I-275?) The exact location of this Hadrian's Wall which divides us needs to be known.

That is not always easy to define. But to me if Norwood wanted to be part of Cincinnati it would have agreed to annexation years ago. But it has not, therefore is is a suburb. Certainly anything outside of Cincinnati's boundaries are suburbs. Hyde Park and Oakley are definitely part of the city though they have characteristics different from downtown. When you get to neighborhoods like Madisonville and Mt Washington they have a definite layout and look of a suburb, not an urban feel at all. But by definition they are part of Cincinnati and therefore not suburbs. So the city has both urban and suburban feeling areas within its own boundaries. But I will stick by a definition anything within the boundaries of Cincinnati is not a suburb, but anything outside is. If you live in one of those areas totally surrounded by Cincinnati, and don't like to be referenced as a suburb than go in front of your council and suggest annexation to Cincinnati. I think their reaction will inforce my position.

Following the US census definition of a contiguous urban development, Mason is part of urban Cincinnati since there are very few gaps in between. I personally think this is rediculous. I also feel it is rediculous to consider areas like Silverton, Deer Park, Madeira, Montgomery, Blue Ash, anything but suburbs. Again, if they wanted to be part of Cincinnati they would have applied for annexation years ago.

Your reference to Hadrian's Wall I believe is part of the problem. There should be no need to isolate Cincinnati from the surburbs and behave like there is a monumental struggle between the two. Each needs the other and also complements the other.

In my view the problem emanates from Cincinnati. It lost so much of its population it has to lay the blame somewhere. This usually results in blame everything/everyone but ourselves. With that attitude the suburbs are going to turn a deaf ear.

Those who think Cincinnati can just shrink into a little Midwestern town of 500,000 or so without the greater Metro Area around it and be recognized as a world class city are just living in some utopia which does not exist. Those Fortune 500 companies so often mentioned would be gone in an instant without the supporting Metro Area around us.

I am attempting to start a dialogue here as to how the entire region is going to prosper with the problems of the future. There are major challenges to overcome. But positions like the suburbs will not cooperate, etc. just don't get it done. Likewise, the suburbs cannot ignore Cincinnati since it is the business core from which everything radiates. It does not control the majority of jobs in the metropolitan area, but it certainly has a significant influence.

Let's face it, in today's world about 95% of decisions are based on financial analysis or government intervention. So let's focus on what will benefit the entire metro area, why, and most importantly how it is going to get done.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by flashes1

Why would someone move to be closer to a mall?

Because with retail development came residential. Before shopping malls downtown USA was retail. I am speaking from the perspective of an author who spent 40 years in retail development, he gives historical account after historical account and is an insider - so to speak. Please give the book a read, otherwise my perspective will certainly seem misplaced.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

But I will stick by a definition anything within the boundaries of Cincinnati is not a suburb, but anything outside is.

By definition, your definition is very typical of the problem. Thus, Urban Area comes into play. And Mason is anything but urban, though it is charming in it's own right. Therefore, Mason is not part of how the US Census figured the Cincinnati urban area. Now, please let me stop defending the US gummit. I don't like doing that.

No doubt, you will keep your definition and I will keep mine making further discussion moot.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by flashes1

You're suggesting a primary reason for the growth of suburbs is shopping malls? Really? I guess I need to read the article, but it doesn't make sense from an intuitive standpoint. Why would someone move to be closer to a mall?

I see it the other way around. Malls moved to where people live. Not vice versa. The growth of suburbs began in the 1950's with WW2 vets looking for cheap places to build homes and start their families. They further grew in the 1960's and 1970's with a lot of the turmoil in the inner cities which caused white America to flee to real/perceived safer ground. The Detroit and Watts riots made a lasting impression on whites at the time.

Oh, but is is not PC to identify why the whites fled the cities to the suburbs, but it is damn well the reason. Whether justifiable or not, you cannot ignore reality, racial unrest was the dominant reason. It is just a good sign of the changes which have occurred I now see non-whites moving into those same suburbs and enjoying good lives. I am happy significant changes in racial attitudes have happened in my lifetime. The unfortunate legacy is that many of our cities have never recovered from the suburban flight.

[TomJones123]

I am not trying to be PC. Mall development began in the mid 50s, as did suburban development. The suburbs were already happening by the time white flight kicked full force during the late 60s after the riots. Else, where would everyone flee to? Cornfields?

[Sarah Perry]

Originally Posted by flashes1

You're suggesting a primary reason for the growth of suburbs is shopping malls? Really? I guess I need to read the article, but it doesn't make sense from an intuitive standpoint. Why would someone move to be closer to a mall?

I see it the other way around. Malls moved to where people live. Not vice versa. The growth of suburbs began in the 1950's with WW2 vets looking for cheap places to build homes and start their families. They further grew in the 1960's and 1970's with a lot of the turmoil in the inner cities which caused white America to flee to real/perceived safer ground. The Detroit and Watts riots made a lasting impression on whites at the time.

I haven't read the book in question, but in this chicken-egg discussion everything I've ever read about land use, development, etc. says that retail follows residential development, not the other way around. Thus the absolute necessity in inner-city redevelopment efforts to get housing back into the central core, because in today's economy (as opposed to the 1950s and before) you just can't have much viable retail without a nearby population base. Yeah, downtown workers will support a minimal amount. But nothing like what people actually living nearby will support.

Look at the condition of retail in the CBD before some of it started to creep back with the recent revival. Not exactly anything to write home about.

[CarpathianPeasant]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

In my view the problem emanates from Cincinnati. It lost so much of its population it has to lay the blame somewhere. This usually results in blame everything/everyone but ourselves. With that attitude the suburbs are going to turn a deaf ear.

The established residents of a community want their community to be the best and, therefore, want local government officials (mayor, council members, town manager, township trustees, etc., etc.) committed to their own communities, to concentrate on the betterment of where they are, not the nearby mega-town or for that matter the state capital.

That's what causes the friction.

Now this is true of inner city neighborhoods as well. If there are tax dollars available, everyone wants it on their street.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

I am not trying to be PC. Mall development began in the mid 50s, as did suburban development. The suburbs were already happening by the time white flight kicked full force during the late 60s after the riots. Else, where would everyone flee to? Cornfields?

That is partially correct. When Kenwood Plaza opened in 1956 it was in recognition of the suburban development which had happened. I am confident because I already lived there. If you gave people a closer shopping avenue rather than going downtown, they will take it. So I state, the shopping mall is a result of people moving to the suburbs, not the reason. Once Kenwood Plaza was built, our trips to downtown became few and far between - what was the reason? Less travel, less time, less expense, three very good reasons.

The major influence in the acceleration of the suburbs was the racial unrest of the 60s. People wanted out of the City as fast as they could. Like it or not, PC or not, that was the primary reason. In just one year, Cincinnati lost 10% of its population.

Another major factor was the introduction of new businesses into Cincinnati. GE Evendale was one of the most significant. When they brought their facility to Cincinnati, the highly skilled technical workforce they brought with them needed a place to live. There were just not that many options which attracted them. The little town I lived in, Madeira benefited greatly from this. It was a reasonable commute distance from Evendale and had building space. It exploded almost overnight, as the engineers, etc. from GE Eendale decided to locate there. The fact that Madeira to this day has good schools goes back to the fact these professional people demanded it. And yes they were already there when the decision to build Kenwood Plaza was made, probably a signficant factor in the decision.

Respectively, those who feel I am not qualified to comment on current conditions in Cincinnati, then don't dish on my comments on how we got here. But again, how we got here is not important. What is important is where are we going in the future, and how are we going to pay for it? I can come up with a lot of great ideas, but when it comes to how we are going to pay for them I struggle.

[OlliesThoughts]

It seems there are strong ideological divisions between urban and suburban Cincinnati. This is demonstrated by the fact that Hamilton County has been one of the highest Republican Party contributors in the nation, while Cincinnati Proper votes consistently Democratic. I was struck by the voting patterns of the past local elections. This "division" doesn't seen to be tied so much to the City boundary, but more of an ideological spectrum that is liberal (for lack of a better word) in the city-center and becomes more individualistic as you move away from the City center. Maybe this is a typical urban-suburban phenomena?

Like in this map, the ideological division over school levy support can be seen between the City center and the City periphery.

[kjbrill]

Hey, I am thrilled by the number of responses. We are off on a good track. Now what me need are ideas, backed up with how to get it done, to solve the significant problems facing our entire metro. Let's hear more on that score.

Instead of telling us how it is, also tell us how it needs to be and how to get there.