Strip malls and sprawal. Is there a way out?

[rrtechno]

According to the Montgomery County Auditors website, Carroll is in Riverside Corp., Beavercreek SD.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by JR_C

This is irrelevant when talking about modern cities. We have environmental laws, building and health codes.

This is still true today. But we keep using up our farmland to build more suburban sprawl.

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'll try again, since you didn't really engage any of the points I made in my post:

1) People don't want to live in the city
2) You can't make people live in said city.
2a) For the people who want to live in the city, they'll freely do so of their own will. That's why you see new development in the cities, sometimes in areas that used to be bombed out.

A new house appeals to me. It means no creaky floors, no stupid knob tubing that passes for an electrical system, no expensive rehabbing needed to add insulation or Ethernet wiring, and no iron water pipes that get rusty and leak.

Living in the suburbs appeals to me. It means less traffic, less noise, less congestion, fewer taxes, fewer games over at City Hall, and a far lower crime rate.

Guess what, that's my choice.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by JR_C

For the last 50 years, Ohio has embraced sprawl with open arms, and look where that got us.

You say that as if had the state put limits on "sprawl" things would be just dandy and people would have just stayed put in the cities and not simply moved out of state ( which is what would have happened to a much greater degree ).

Originally Posted by JR_C

Only now that our cities are starting to rebound from that neglect, have things started to improve for the state.

"Starting to rebound?" That's in interesting observation. I'm unclear on the definition of "rebound" might be.

Population increases? Businesses moving in? Housing developments being put inside the borders of places like Toledo, Youngstown, Cincinnati, et al? I'd like to know about this stuff.

Hint: Taking Federal money and spending it inside of the city borders doesn't count. Replacing torn-down housing with subsidized housing for recipients to trash doesn't count. This sort of spending does not involve someone risking anything to get stuff built. It's just spending someone else's money ( Margaret ).

[Fletchman]

I'm all in favor of trying to protect farmland. But it's a lot more complicated than that. Many farmers are very willing to sell to developers because commodity prices are quite low and the tax situation is getting worse.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

I'll try again, since you didn't really engage any of the points I made in my post:

1) People don't want to live in the city
2) You can't make people live in said city.
2a) For the people who want to live in the city, they'll freely do so of their own will. That's why you see new development in the cities, sometimes in areas that used to be bombed out.

1) I disagree. As with many things, I believe what people want falls on a bell curve. At the extremes, you have a few people who want to live in suburban areas, and a few people who want to live in urban areas. But most people fall somewhere in between, and just follow the path of least resistance. Because Ohio let its cities go to pot over the last few decades, (not that Ohio is the only state guilty of this, of course) people will move to the suburbs to avoid the hassles of poor schools, and higher crime rates, even if they have a desire to live in the city.

2) Before replying I reread this thread, and didn't see anyone suggest otherwise.

2a) Absolutely! And, as more people move back to the cities, the problems associated with cities will start to go away. This will make it easier for more people--who want to--to stay in the city.

A new house appeals to me. It means no creaky floors, no stupid knob tubing that passes for an electrical system, no expensive rehabbing needed to add insulation or Ethernet wiring, and no iron water pipes that get rusty and leak.

Living in the suburbs appeals to me. It means less traffic, less noise, less congestion, fewer taxes, fewer games over at City Hall, and a far lower crime rate.

Guess what, that's my choice.

An old house appeals to me. It means having: creaky floors and stairs, real plaster, real hardwood floors and woodwork, real wood siding, no plywood, architectural details that are congruous with the other architectural details on the house, etc. And, as a bonus of living in the Rust Belt, a quality older house is often still less expensive than building a new house in the suburbs.

Living in the city appeals to me. It means a shorter commute, less grass to mow, more amenities to walk to, a more attractive living environment.

And that's my choice, too. But our choices are kind of irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

You say that as if had the state put limits on "sprawl" things would be just dandy and people would have just stayed put in the cities and not simply moved out of state ( which is what would have happened to a much greater degree ).

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, if Ohio had done more to help its cities, people wouldn't have fled from them in such great numbers, and they wouldn't have fallen into such disrepair.

But I wonder if Oregon--a state that has implemented urban growth boundaries--is that bad? Is the economy bad? Is population declining?

"Starting to rebound?" That's in interesting observation. I'm unclear on the definition of "rebound" might be.

Population increases? Businesses moving in? Housing developments being put inside the borders of places like Toledo, Youngstown, Cincinnati, et al? I'd like to know about this stuff.

Hint: Taking Federal money and spending it inside of the city borders doesn't count. Replacing torn-down housing with subsidized housing for recipients to trash doesn't count. This sort of spending does not involve someone risking anything to get stuff built. It's just spending someone else's money ( Margaret ).

I can't say for Toledo or Cincinnati, as I don't regularly visit their subforums, but Cleveland has a developments thread, in the Cleveland subforum.

Youngstown is further behind other Ohio cities in its comeback, because it fell the furthest. It was just taking its first steps toward recovery when the recession hit. But, there has been quite a bit of redevelopment downtown, and in a few neighborhoods, since.

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by ju340109

I like living in Ohio but it seams like everywhere I go cities are just littered with strip malls and parking lots with not much in the way of quality public spaces and non-dumpy public transportation.

[insert 3 paragraph rant]

Anyone know of any places in Ohio or the mid-west where someone could live to escape the sprawl? I suspect the only places are within major cities where real estate isn't so cheap. The places I've been to have become so homogenized I can hardly tell one from another. Has the entire country become like this?

Yes.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by JR_C

But I wonder if Oregon--a state that has implemented urban growth boundaries--is that bad? Is the economy bad? Is population declining?

Oregon has a built-in source of population and economic growth - people escaping California. It's not really a relevant comparison.

I don't know Oregon that well, but I've been to the West side of Portland quite a bit ( Hillsboro ). The sprawal is quite evident. It doesn't look any different than Washington Township. It's different in one way; it takes about twice the amount of time to go x-miles due to the 'no/slow growth policy there. Instead of better roads, they have a dog-slow light rail that is basically an insanely slow and insanely expensive bus.

What people are complaining about when they complain about sprawal is just population growth. Places that are growing are sprawaling all over the countryside and places like the rustbelt look the same - only the cities there are emptying out.

Actually cities in Ohio have been emptying out for a century. Places where there are parking lots, office buildings downtown, ( in Dayton, a college campus ) used to be tree-lined neighborhoods where people used to walk their dogs and children used to play. At first, the neighborhoods were being pushed farther out because of growth and now they are doing it to avoid insane taxes and lack of parking.

I hope that people that complain about sprawal don't have children. Those children will one day be contributing to sprawal somewhere.

( Note: This post has been extensively speel-chequed. )