How come not a single public place on the east side of Cleveland has a restroom? (transport, water)

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by ferraris

There's a difference between using them and actually supporting them being built.

Once they're built, they're built. Why not use them? My not using them wont' bring back whatever was destroyed to build them.

It's still NIMBY-ism. By using the freeway, you are admitting that it's useful and of specific benefit to you. Yet, you still wouldn't want one within a mile of your house.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

It's still NIMBY-ism. By using the freeway, you are admitting that it's useful and of specific benefit to you. Yet, you still wouldn't want one within a mile of your house.

By using something that a monopoly forced (and forces) you to fund, I don't think that means you think it is useful. Unless we are going to devolve into the "if you don't like it, get out" mindset, I think it's quite reasonable to criticize gov projects. I wouldn't want to live somewhere where nobody did. We all use tons of gov services that suck. They don't allow there to be an option.

The before and after pics of Cleveland pre and post highway construction is dramatic. I would love to live in that old Cleveland if it were still around today.

[ferraris]

In hopes of keeping this readable, I'm only partially quoting you.

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Yet, the depletion rate in Shaker heights is nearly 2x the national rate. I'm sorry, but freeways are not the root cause of that decline.

Household size has fallen from 3.14 in 1970 to 2.54 today - a 19.1% drop. (US Census Source - Excel File) Shaker's population dropped 25% like you said, and I argue that it's nearly entirely due to the declining household sizes. Shaker Heights is primarily a family area, so they would be even more effected by declining household sizes because there are less children. There also will be people who just aged in place - a family of 5 in 1970 could be just the parents or even just one spouse in 2017, even if the house belongs to the same exact family. That's not a bad thing, and it's not a case of flight or abandonment.

Yes, the US as a whole boomed in population. But again, Shaker was almost completely built out by 1970. Without completely rebuilding the area, there was no way any of that population gain was going to be added to Shaker. There just weren't any more housing units being built for people to move in to.

I think the lack of a freeway helped Shaker remain attractive and keep its population (in terms of occupied households, not absolute numbers).

Did the "office" jobs tend to move to the suburbs which were wooing companies with the promises of new, abated facilities? Of course they did. Did freeways make commutes easier? Most certainly. Were freeways the root cause of the transition? Absolutely not.

I think I can agree with you here. Freeways weren't the root cause, but they were, and are, a necessary ingredient.

You most certainly can be against the concept of something and still use it. However, that doesn't mean that NIMBY BOFO isn't in full effect in the given situation. And, the mere fact that you use something means that you have some sort of support for it and recognize its benefit. Otherwise, you wouldn't use it.

I recognize that highways have benefits, but the question is, do they outweigh the costs?

In Pittsburgh I lived on the North Side, which was ravaged by highways (279, 579, PA-65, PA-28). I used them all the time. I would absolutely have preferred to have intact neighborhoods and business districts available to me instead of the highways, but like I said earlier...once they're gone, they're gone. It wouldn't make any sense for people to not use the highways to their benefit when they're already paying the price of destroyed neighborhoods.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

By using something that a monopoly forced (and forces) you to fund, I don't think that means you think it is useful. Unless we are going to devolve into the "if you don't like it, get out" mindset, I think it's quite reasonable to criticize gov projects. I wouldn't want to live somewhere where nobody did. We all use tons of gov services that suck. They don't allow there to be an option.

If you truly loathed it, you wouldn't use it unless there was absolutely no other way. I can get from Painesville to Avon using routes 20 and 254. I can also use I-90 and cut my travel time by 2/3. Clearly, it is a useful entity and a far better option.

We've probably all shopped at the non-government project called Wal-Mart, too. I haven't met a person yet who likes Wal-Mart or thinks it's a status symbol to live near one. Yet, they're the world's top retailer (depending on your source) even though hundreds of other options exist.

The before and after pics of Cleveland pre and post highway construction is dramatic. I would love to live in that old Cleveland if it were still around today.

Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't. It's easy to wax nostalgic about things which you can only speculate and romanticize. I'm sure there was, just like anything, a lot of bad to go with the perceived good.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

If you truly loathed it, you wouldn't use it unless there was absolutely no other way. I can get from Painesville to Avon using routes 20 and 254. I can also use I-90 and cut my travel time by 2/3. Clearly, it is a useful entity and a far better option.

We've probably all shopped at the non-government project called Wal-Mart, too. I haven't met a person yet who likes Wal-Mart or thinks it's a status symbol to live near one. Yet, they're the world's top retailer (depending on your source) even though hundreds of other options exist.



Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't. It's easy to wax nostalgic about things which you can only speculate and romanticize. I'm sure there was, just like anything, a lot of bad to go with the perceived good.

[j_ws]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

I can get from Painesville to Avon using routes 20 and 254. I can also use I-90 and cut my travel time by 2/3. Clearly, it is a useful entity and a far better option.

Which is fine and convenient. The problematic parts are the segments that were pushed directly through existing communities. No one here is saying we should have no highways, they're just saying highways would have been better constructed by not demolishing huge swaths of the built environment.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by j_ws

Which is fine and convenient. The problematic parts are the segments that were pushed directly through existing communities. No one here is saying we should have no highways, they're just saying highways would have been better constructed by not demolishing huge swaths of the built environment.

And then, we come right back to the NIMBY point. People want highways and use them daily, they just don't want them where they don't think they should be. If it was left up to "they," highways among many other things we all take for granted wouldn't exist. Highways/freeways are only really useful if they connect dense commercial areas which, unfortunately, almost always have had developed areas adjacent to them. Any way you slice it, something would have to give.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

And then, we come right back to the NIMBY point. People want highways and use them daily, they just don't want them where they don't think they should be. If it was left up to "they," highways among many other things we all take for granted wouldn't exist. Highways/freeways are only really useful if they connect dense commercial areas which, unfortunately, almost always have had developed areas adjacent to them. Any way you slice it, something would have to give.

So please tell me what the rigorous process and criteria were that the federal government used in determining where to put the highways.

Governments are famous for doing remarkably idiotic things, especially at that time in our history. I've honestly never met an urban renewal defender, so it's interesting seeing this side of things.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

And then, we come right back to the NIMBY point. People want highways and use them daily, they just don't want them where they don't think they should be. If it was left up to "they," highways among many other things we all take for granted wouldn't exist. Highways/freeways are only really useful if they connect dense commercial areas which, unfortunately, almost always have had developed areas adjacent to them. Any way you slice it, something would have to give.

That's not a NIMBY. NIMBY is "I don't want it in my neighborhood", not "I don't want it in anywhere that it's a bad idea"

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

So please tell me what the rigorous process and criteria were that the federal government used in determining where to put the highways.

Governments are famous for doing remarkably idiotic things, especially at that time in our history. I've honestly never met an urban renewal defender, so it's interesting seeing this side of things.

Freeways that were fought and never built.

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...ad/72YcvQVISag
Cleveland's Forgotten Freeways - The Cleveland Memory Project