Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can guarantee ( but not prove, of course ) that at some time in the past, there were people who complained about the ruining of virgin land ( that they used to play on as children ) by all those Oregon houses.
Point taken with building the new stuff whilst serviceable old stuff goes back to the earth in Dayton. I wouldn't call it "cheap" though. Much new housing has innovations that older houses get when being rehabbed.
One reason is that it's "cheaper" or less expensive is that the new stuff doesn't have to support an old city with its many layers of regulation and bureaucracy and promises made by long gone politicians.
There may be tax breaks and stuff on buying an old house in Dayton, but anyone with any sense knows that sooner or later, the city is coming for the buyer with their hand out. It's at that point that it's going to 'cost' ...
For these reasons, there is no way out.
It doesn't have to be popular to "offend" if the definition of "offend" is to place an unwanted building on what was once a pretty hillside or field. It's popular enough to make a city look like it's sprawling over all the hills and valleys for miles and miles.
Having lived in Phoenix, there are not that many rich suckers ( 'f' - optional ) with homes on the scenic mountains - ruining the view for jillions while getting a nice view for themselves. It doesn't take many 'show' homes to trash a mountainside.
I lived in Albuquerque too ( and looked at Denver ). All along the Rockies, there are a small ( percentage-wise ) number of houses 10, 20, ... 50+ miles out who endure brutal commutes when perfectly good places are available close to where they work. What used to be beautiful scenery is now endless UN-dense housing ruining the views. It's sprawl and it's not dense in once sense, but it's really dense in another.
Have you ever read the forums for cities where lots of people are moving into? They brag about how a 1-hour commute is nothing and they can make the sacrifice - like they are doing some great public service.
"Event Horizon?" How dare you sir or maam - introduce physics into this discussion ( and use cooler language than me )?
Again, it doesn't have to be popular to have hundreds of homes in a small area. As you move to the <Snort!> Event Horizon, there are enough houses, albeit a declining number that makes it look like the end of a city will never get there ( like trying to find the end of a rainbow ).
I used to drive to Eaton a lot, and never really noticed when I was 'outside' of Miamisburg's pull. There was always more around the next bend or over the next hill. There were lots of farms, but then there would be a cluster of homes where the people probably worked miles away. Many homes, surrounded by fields were obviously just the home of a long-distance commuter.
Sorry I threw out "50 miles" since a 50-mile commute into town via freeway can generally be made quicker than a 25-mile one via country roads. Along a freeway, it's not uncommon for the sprawl to extend well into the 70-80-... mile range. It may not be very "dense," but it definitely is bedrooms for a commute back to town.
Also, people like to talk about moving employment to the "sprawl" areas. All that this does is push out what was a 30-mile sprawl-place another 30-miles ( give or take ). Lebanon ( between Dayton and Cincinnati on State Rt. 48 ) is a perfectly good place to live if you work on the outside of those towns. If you worked in either downtown, it would be too far out.
( I apologize for making a lot of my comments Dayton-centric. I'm sure there are towns between Cleveland and Youngstown that used to be surrounded by nothing but farms, but now only "farm" bedrooms for people who work on the outskirts of those bigger cities. )
Thanks for giving the Lebanon commuters a shout out!
Yes the "anti-sprawl" people tend to forget that there are now a lot of jobs located outside the city-core in "sprawl land" The part of Westchestser I work in (basically the border of fairfield/hamilton) has a tremendous amout of light industrial/warehouse/manufacturing. Lebanon itself actually has a surprisingly decent small manufacturing base.
In which case living in the hinterlands as we do (live in Lebanon, both commute to WC) makes just as much sense geographically as living in Cinci and commuting to WC. (actually more - the commute up 75 in the morning is irritating, having done it the first 6 months I lived here).
The quaint idea that all jobs are in the city and the surrounding towns offer nothing but cheap housing is a bit dated at this time, as "cheap land" does not just appeal to frugal homeowners -- an awful lot of businesses have taken advantage of that and located their operations outside city centers as well.
While a number of businesses are again considering downtowns (which I applaud and have no issue with) - they seem to mostly be office-tower type businesses. (advertising/finance/real-estate/etc..) Manufacturing generally requires larger land-mass, as does warehouse/distribution/etc.. All of which are still a significant part of the economy. If you want those to relocate back to cities, it will mean finding viable cheap land for them to do so -- which either means emminent domain battles, or significant tax burdens for brownfield cleanup... When there's a tempting fallow cornfield of 40+ acres just outside the beltway with good highway access just ready to go..
Hard to compete with that.
That said I think the realization that suburbs/exurbs can be more than just ugly strip malls is starting to
set in. Basically strip malls evolved into the "MALL" which evolved into the covered mall and is now somewhat going a reversal ino the (indoor or outdoor) lifestyle center. Also a lot of 'burbs (inner or outer) are basically putting together their own "downtown" areas. (Westchester has attempted this)
These areas may or may not be to your taste, but who's to say in another 4 or 5 decades that the new model is not a large downtown surrounded my multiple satellite downtowns.
As transportation speed/efficiency increases, a city's (or msa's) land mass seems to grow correspondingly.
That doesn't seem likely to reverse at this time. Even as downtown cores (some) revitalize, that doesn't simultaneously negate the surrounding cities/burbs unless significant other problems come into play.
Thanks for giving the Lebanon commuters a shout out!
Yes the "anti-sprawl" people tend to forget that there are now a lot of jobs located outside the city-core in "sprawl land" The part of Westchestser I work in (basically the border of fairfield/hamilton) has a tremendous amout of light industrial/warehouse/manufacturing. Lebanon itself actually has a surprisingly decent small manufacturing base.
In which case living in the hinterlands as we do (live in Lebanon, both commute to WC) makes just as much sense geographically as living in Cinci and commuting to WC. (actually more - the commute up 75 in the morning is irritating, having done it the first 6 months I lived here).
The quaint idea that all jobs are in the city and the surrounding towns offer nothing but cheap housing is a bit dated at this time, as "cheap land" does not just appeal to frugal homeowners -- an awful lot of businesses have taken advantage of that and located their operations outside city centers as well.
While a number of businesses are again considering downtowns (which I applaud and have no issue with) - they seem to mostly be office-tower type businesses. (advertising/finance/real-estate/etc..) Manufacturing generally requires larger land-mass, as does warehouse/distribution/etc.. All of which are still a significant part of the economy. If you want those to relocate back to cities, it will mean finding viable cheap land for them to do so -- which either means emminent domain battles, or significant tax burdens for brownfield cleanup... When there's a tempting fallow cornfield of 40+ acres just outside the beltway with good highway access just ready to go..
Hard to compete with that.
That said I think the realization that suburbs/exurbs can be more than just ugly strip malls is starting to
set in. Basically strip malls evolved into the "MALL" which evolved into the covered mall and is now somewhat going a reversal ino the (indoor or outdoor) lifestyle center. Also a lot of 'burbs (inner or outer) are basically putting together their own "downtown" areas. (Westchester has attempted this)
These areas may or may not be to your taste, but who's to say in another 4 or 5 decades that the new model is not a large downtown surrounded my multiple satellite downtowns.
As transportation speed/efficiency increases, a city's (or msa's) land mass seems to grow correspondingly.
That doesn't seem likely to reverse at this time. Even as downtown cores (some) revitalize, that doesn't simultaneously negate the surrounding cities/burbs unless significant other problems come into play.
That's kind of what Atlanta has...there is downtown...then Midtown/Atlantic Station (which has dense highrises)...then north of that is Buckhead (more residential/retail oriented but Buckhead beats out many larger cities w/ just it's skyline)...then even further north is Perimeter Center...then several of the suburbs have created their own downtowns
Lebanon ( between Dayton and Cincinnati on State Rt. 48 ) is a perfectly good place to live if you work on the outside of those towns. If you worked in either downtown, it would be too far out
Lebanon was a lot better 40 years ago when there were only 8000 people in town and Burger Chef was our only fast food place and we still had our drive-in movie theater. The town has had it's share of sprawl and PFAs. At least SE Ohio still has some small towns that have not been ruined by "progress."
Urban school districts play a significant role in determining where families want to live. The urban schools have such poor reputations and I don't see that changing. So they head to the suburbs with the best schools.
Urban school districts play a significant role in determining where families want to live. The urban schools have such poor reputations and I don't see that changing. So they head to the suburbs with the best schools.
Plus, taxes play a huge role too.
Maybe this is the subject for another thread, but yes, the middle class avoids urban schools because they perform poorly. But, urban schools perform poorly because the middle class has mostly left them. And, I think it's likely that urban schools will continue to perform poorly until the middle class comes back to them. So, how do we break this cycle?
Maybe this is the subject for another thread, but yes, the middle class avoids urban schools because they perform poorly. But, urban schools perform poorly because the middle class has mostly left them. And, I think it's likely that urban schools will continue to perform poorly until the middle class comes back to them. So, how do we break this cycle?
Well, to simply expand on the schools thing a bit, it goes beyond merely the quality of education that a school age child would receive - it also plays a big role on whether the houses in that neighborhood will appreciate or not.
Any city that's successfully revitalized its neighborhoods has either 1) focused on improving one or a few schools to the point where they appeal to parents, or 2) have a viable network of private and charter schools which can provide a feasible alternative. Cincinnati for instance has always had a large Catholic presence and a large number of private schools that allow someone to both live in the city and stay out of the public school district. Dayton, just an hour north, doesn't have that - there's only one Catholic high school worth mentioning inside the city limits.
There's a number of charter schools popping up, and the jury is still out on whether they're more effective. I think so; if only marginally.
That's the whole premise behind school choice, giving students in failing districts vouchers provided by the state to allow them to attend school in a better district.
Technically, Carroll is in Dayton's city limits even though it's almost in Kettering and Beavercreek, so there is a second Catholic high school in Dayton.
Technically, Carroll is in Dayton's city limits even though it's almost in Kettering and Beavercreek, so there is a second Catholic high school in Dayton.
I could have sworn Carroll was in Kettering and that I was only referring to Chaminade-Julienne? In that case I stand corrected.
Anyhoo, I'm of the belief that "sprawl" is not evil. Throughout history, a city has rarely gotten bigger than it takes someone more than about 60 minutes to get from one end of town to the other. Looking at the ancient Romans, even though the capital, Rome, had about 1.5 million people at it's peak, it had a very small footprint - only being about two miles from end to end - or about an hour of walking time.
It was dense, an urbanophile's dream. And it was also disgusting. Plague was in the streets, it was crowded and noisy. Except for the large public buildings, many Romans lived in five to seven story buildings, and the upper floors were of questionable construction. The patricians, equestrians, and other connected rich would have nothing to do with it - they owned country villas outside the city and would only visit if needed... on horseback, something that increased their "commute" range.
And the city was not self-sufficient. As soon as the grain imports stopped, the city starved in the third century. By 500 AD, after the collapse of the empire, the city's population went from 1.5 million to maybe 20,000.
***
Fast forward to today, and great inventions like the automobile have encouraged development in areas that used to be undesirable - but even now, almost no distinct metro area is more than about 60 miles from one end to another - or, an hour's travel time by car. (There are places, such as Cleveland-Akron and Cincinnati-Dayton where two areas have grown together; but that's an exception to what I'm getting at here.)
"Sprawl" happens because people simply don't want to live in the city. They're fed up with the corrupt politics at City Hall, they're tired of the taxes, they're tired of the games, and they're tired of the abysmal school districts.
When you oppose "sprawl", you oppose the free choice of people to live wherever they please.
It is one thing to say you propose a "smart" development that incorporates walkability, other forms of transit, or other ways to reduce the environmental impact. But to simply oppose suburban developments without providing a viable alternative is just counterproductive and will cause Ohio to fall behind other states.
And no, brownfield development in many cases isn't a viable alternative, for reasons listed above. If it was, they would be redeveloped by now.
***
In a nutshell, I don't want a way out of "sprawl". It's called economic development and it's making sure Ohio doesn't fall further behind the other states. I like the idea of new construction, free of the city's problems, city politics, and city taxes.
I could have sworn Carroll was in Kettering and that I was only referring to Chaminade-Julienne? In that case I stand corrected.
Anyhoo, I'm of the belief that "sprawl" is not evil. Throughout history, a city has rarely gotten bigger than it takes someone more than about 60 minutes to get from one end of town to the other. Looking at the ancient Romans, even though the capital, Rome, had about 1.5 million people at it's peak, it had a very small footprint - only being about two miles from end to end - or about an hour of walking time.
It was dense, an urbanophile's dream. And it was also disgusting. Plague was in the streets, it was crowded and noisy. Except for the large public buildings, many Romans lived in five to seven story buildings, and the upper floors were of questionable construction. The patricians, equestrians, and other connected rich would have nothing to do with it - they owned country villas outside the city and would only visit if needed... on horseback, something that increased their "commute" range.
This is irrelevant when talking about modern cities. We have environmental laws, building and health codes.
Quote:
And the city was not self-sufficient. As soon as the grain imports stopped, the city starved in the third century. By 500 AD, after the collapse of the empire, the city's population went from 1.5 million to maybe 20,000.
This is still true today. But we keep using up our farmland to build more suburban sprawl.
Quote:
Fast forward to today, and great inventions like the automobile have encouraged development in areas that used to be undesirable - but even now, almost no distinct metro area is more than about 60 miles from one end to another - or, an hour's travel time by car. (There are places, such as Cleveland-Akron and Cincinnati-Dayton where two areas have grown together; but that's an exception to what I'm getting at here.)
"Sprawl" happens because people simply don't want to live in the city. They're fed up with the corrupt politics at City Hall, they're tired of the taxes, they're tired of the games, and they're tired of the abysmal school districts.
When you oppose "sprawl", you oppose the free choice of people to live wherever they please.
It is one thing to say you propose a "smart" development that incorporates walkability, other forms of transit, or other ways to reduce the environmental impact. But to simply oppose suburban developments without providing a viable alternative is just counterproductive and will cause Ohio to fall behind other states.
And no, brownfield development in many cases isn't a viable alternative, for reasons listed above. If it was, they would be redeveloped by now.
***
In a nutshell, I don't want a way out of "sprawl". It's called economic development and it's making sure Ohio doesn't fall further behind the other states. I like the idea of new construction, free of the city's problems, city politics, and city taxes.
For the last 50 years, Ohio has embraced sprawl with open arms, and look where that got us. Only now that our cities are starting to rebound from that neglect, have things started to improve for the state.
I could have sworn Carroll was in Kettering and that I was only referring to Chaminade-Julienne?
Alter is in Kettering, if I remember right Carroll is on Linden east of Woodman just outside the Dayton city limits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
