Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.
That's not what anyone is suggesting. What they are suggesting is that we consolidate the functional Cleveland region. There is a reason suburbs like Strongsville or Avon are located on the outer edges of a metro region and not in the middle of Meigs County. They depend on the central city for their existence. For instance, Dublin is a suburb of Columbus, and noone would suggest it should become part of Cleveland.
The real problem isn't simply "swallowing" the suburbs into the central municipality, but to stop the unhealthy outward sprawl migration patterns.
That's not what anyone is suggesting. What they are suggesting is that we consolidate the functional Cleveland region. There is a reason suburbs like Strongsville or Avon are located on the outer edges of a metro region and not in the middle of Meigs County. They depend on the central city for their existence. For instance, Dublin is a suburb of Columbus, and noone would suggest it should become part of Cleveland.
The real problem isn't simply "swallowing" the suburbs into the central municipality, but to stop the unhealthy outward sprawl migration patterns.
So you don't think there is a reason suburbs are surrounding a central city? Do you think the best pattern of development would be to evenly distribute across the entire country so there are no metro areas?
Urbanization has been the most functionally sound method of creating a civilization for thousands of years. Just because we messed up our inner cities after World War II doesn't mean that it will (or should) always be that way.
So you don't think there is a reason suburbs are surrounding a central city? Do you think the best pattern of development would be to evenly distribute across the entire country so there are no metro areas?
Urbanization has been the most functionally sound method of creating a civilization for thousands of years. Just because we messed up our inner cities after World War II doesn't mean that it will (or should) always be that way.
A lot of businesses and people have relocated, from Cleveland to a relatively independent suburb. Apparently, this is what they want to do. However, this appears to bother you. I think you should value their independence, but you hate it. That is disturbing.
What bothers me is not the fact that suburbs exist or people wish to relocate, it's the unsustainable pattern of development in many of these places. We cannot continue to sprawl across the country, paving it over with huge parking lots and strip plazas built to last 20 years. We need to realize that it is important to preserve farmland. We need to realize that when we create places that not only make it easier to drive places, but in turn force everyone to drive to get anywhere, we are causing people to swallow up energy at a dangerously high rate. The economy of this country is not headed in the right direction, and we can't afford to be so wasteful. What will happen to the Strongsville's of the world when gas spikes next? Who will be paying to maintain and expand the (thanks to suburban sprawl) overextended highway system now that the gasoline tax can't pay for it?
I don't resent the fact that people have moved to a place like Westlake or Macedonia or Brunswick. I resent the way in which we are tearing apart this country in such a mindless way. Just because the ill effects of such development were not seen right away (and were in part cloaked by the government funding sprawl-inducing initiatives, as well as an economic bubble propping it up) doesn't mean we should pretend we can continue down this path.
Perhaps the worst part of suburbanization, however, is that many people are not moving because they want to live in a new place. Most new residents to the suburbs are simply moving a little further from the city, not relocating from California. Most of the reason for this stems from crime problems. However, we are seeing the crime slowly follow them out to the suburbs. First it was the inner rings, and now we are starting to see some of the second tier suburbs being swallowed by crime and the abandonment that follows. I feel that is why we don't build things to last anymore. It's as if people feel like they need to be nomads, constantly running from problems. If people want to stay in the Cleveland region they should collectively fight for their neighborhoods, rather than pick up and move, only to move again once problems arise in their new place of habitation. We do this for our country as a whole, do we not? We didn't pick up as a nation and move to Canada due to terrorist attacks. Instead we rallied around a cause to protect our country. I feel this needs to be done on a more local scale, or we're constantly going to be a countryh of nomads, burning an asphalt trail of blight and abandonment behind us.
I don't mind having a rational argument with you. I do not believe your position has no merit, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. But please refrain from simplistic one line replies attempting to somehow demean me with pointless statements about a position being "disturbing" and strawman arguments about how I hate people's "independence". Regardless of what I feel is the best form of development, I know that people should not be forced into any one way to live their lives. I simply promote urban vitality because I believe it is best for society as a whole. If people listen to my arguments and like what they hear, then great. If they disagree or choose to ignore them, that is fine as well.
Last edited by jam40jeff; 04-14-2009 at 01:54 AM..
What bothers me is not the fact that suburbs exist or people wish to relocate, it's the unsustainable pattern of development in many of these places. We cannot continue to sprawl across the country, paving it over with huge parking lots and strip plazas built to last 20 years. We need to realize that it is important to preserve farmland. We need to realize that when we create places that not only make it easier to drive places, but in turn force everyone to drive to get anywhere, we are causing people to swallow up energy at a dangerously high rate. The economy of this country is not headed in the right direction, and we can't afford to be so wasteful. What will happen to the Strongsville's of the world when gas spikes next? Who will be paying to maintain and expand the (thanks to suburban sprawl) overextended highway system now that the gasoline tax can't pay for it?
I don't resent the fact that people have moved to a place like Westlake or Macedonia or Brunswick. I resent the way in which we are tearing apart this country in such a mindless way. Just because the ill effects of such development were not seen right away (and were in part cloaked by the government funding sprawl-inducing initiatives, as well as an economic bubble propping it up) doesn't mean we should pretend we can continue down this path.
Perhaps the worst part of suburbanization, however, is that many people are not moving because they want to live in a new place. Most new residents to the suburbs are simply moving a little further from the city, not relocating from California. Most of the reason for this stems from crime problems. However, we are seeing the crime slowly follow them out to the suburbs. First it was the inner rings, and now we are starting to see some of the second tier suburbs being swallowed by crime and the abandonment that follows. I feel that is why we don't build things to last anymore. It's as if people feel like they need to be nomads, constantly running from problems. If people want to stay in the Cleveland region they should collectively fight for their neighborhoods, rather than pick up and move, only to move again once problems arise in their new place of habitation. We do this for our country as a whole, do we not? We didn't pick up as a nation and move to Canada due to terrorist attacks. Instead we rallied around a cause to protect our country. I feel this needs to be done on a more local scale, or we're constantly going to be a countryh of nomads, burning an asphalt trail of blight and abandonment behind us.
I don't mind having a rational argument with you. I do not believe your position has no merit, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. But please refrain from simplistic one line replies attempting to somehow demean me with pointless statements about a position being "disturbing" and strawman arguments about how I hate people's "independence". Regardless of what I feel is the best form of development, I know that people should not be forced into any one way to live their lives. I simply promote urban vitality because I believe it is best for society as a whole. If people listen to my arguments and like what they hear, then great. If they disagree or choose to ignore them, that is fine as well.
Bologna! You want to strip the suburbs of their independence What little they still have left.
That makes about as much sense as me saying you wish to bleed the city of its residents with your comments. What makes you think these suburbs have any independence to begin with anyways? Do many of the residents live and work in the same city in these places? I believe that these suburbs are wasteful as independent organizational entities, yes. That does not mean I am trying to strip people of their independence. If they want to stay put, move to Mansfield, Florida, or Germany, that is their choice. But if they want to live in the Cleveland region, with the advantages and disadvantages that come with it, then they should be a part of the Cleveland region, not some faux-independent municipality. The census classifies MSAs for a reason, due to live/work commuting patterns. I don't believe we should have wasteful local governments constantly forming on the fringes of the urbanized area whenever people feel like moving a little further out. Local governments are meant to serve independent areas like Sandusky, Tiffin, and Athens. I don't feel they are necessary or serve any useful purpose for Rocky River or Willowick. Where does it end? Should every development form an independent municipailty? If 5 residents don't like the rest of the people on the street, should they break off and create a new local government? If you have arguments for seperate independent local governments within one local economic market (the greater Cleveland area), then state your reasons for believing so. Berating me with one word exclamations and emoticons is not going to prove your point.
Good posts jam40jeff. Suburbs by definition are not independent. If not for the city core they would not even exist. It seems like many people in the Cleveland burbs do not realize this and could care less about the city. It is these misguided attitudes that have had so much to do with the city's and region's problems. Meanwhile, all these new suburbs create redundant governments and wasteful, poorly planned infrastructure that may easily become the ghettos of the future. For the region to prosper the city core must be made strong and supported by all.
That makes about as much sense as me saying you wish to bleed the city of its residents with your comments. What makes you think these suburbs have any independence to begin with anyways? Do many of the residents live and work in the same city in these places? I believe that these suburbs are wasteful as independent organizational entities, yes. That does not mean I am trying to strip people of their independence. If they want to stay put, move to Mansfield, Florida, or Germany, that is their choice. But if they want to live in the Cleveland region, with the advantages and disadvantages that come with it, then they should be a part of the Cleveland region, not some faux-independent municipality. The census classifies MSAs for a reason, due to live/work commuting patterns. I don't believe we should have wasteful local governments constantly forming on the fringes of the urbanized area whenever people feel like moving a little further out. Local governments are meant to serve independent areas like Sandusky, Tiffin, and Athens. I don't feel they are necessary or serve any useful purpose for Rocky River or Willowick. Where does it end? Should every development form an independent municipailty? If 5 residents don't like the rest of the people on the street, should they break off and create a new local government? If you have arguments for seperate independent local governments within one local economic market (the greater Cleveland area), then state your reasons for believing so. Berating me with one word exclamations and emoticons is not going to prove your point.
You appear to be in denial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Mix or Separate
What little they still have left.
Linear Mode
