Strip malls and sprawal. Is there a way out? (Columbus: real estate, houses)

[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?

[Natural510]

Yeah, it's the entire country outside college towns and some bigger cities, often dubbed the "Walmartization of America". In Ohio, you can try Athens and Yellow Springs, or the inner areas of Columbus, Cincinnati & Cleveland.

[jbcmh81]

Sprawl is a part of literally every city in America, regardless of size. It's not an Ohio-specific issue, though Ohio was practically the birthplace of the strip center back in the 1920s. All of Ohio's major cities, and even some of its smaller ones, have urban areas that are not dominated by this type of development. Stay out of the suburbs and you should be able to avoid most of it.

[SWOH]

There's some obvious options, like Chicago or Cleveland, as well as some less obvious options like Columbus, IN or Ann Arbor, MI.

What's your end goal?

[unfocused]

Athens has its own little sprawl zone on State St. On a Saturday its as crowded as anything in Columbus.

[bluecarebear]

It is everywhere. Look for the small towns without a Walmart. They are out there.

[IDtheftV]

Everybody hates sprawl, but gripes about some developer this or that who only puts houses on postage-stamp-sized lots. They also love zoning laws that prevent businesses from locating in neighborhoods and don't shop at ( expensive ) local small shops, but will drive to the big box stores.

The population of the US was 200 million in 1968 and is well over 300 million and heading for 400 million and will be over half a billion in the lifespan of most people alive now. Everyone has a right to live somewhere and everyone seems to want to reproduce.

More than urban sprawl, is the much increased demand for a "country" lifestyle where people don't have any problem with living 50 or more miles away from where they work. Many of the fires out West that are destroying houses would have just burned uninhabited hillsides ( where fires wouldn't have been systematically suppressed for these many years ).

Remember that even the historic districts of Ohio's cities were once just urban sprawl at one time.

Oh, the irony.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

Everybody hates sprawl, but gripes about some developer this or that who only puts houses on postage-stamp-sized lots. They also love zoning laws that prevent businesses from locating in neighborhoods and don't shop at ( expensive ) local small shops, but will drive to the big box stores.

The population of the US was 200 million in 1968 and is well over 300 million and heading for 400 million and will be over half a billion in the lifespan of most people alive now. Everyone has a right to live somewhere and everyone seems to want to reproduce.

More than urban sprawl, is the much increased demand for a "country" lifestyle where people don't have any problem with living 50 or more miles away from where they work. Many of the fires out West that are destroying houses would have just burned uninhabited hillsides ( where fires wouldn't have been systematically suppressed for these many years ).

Remember that even the historic districts of Ohio's cities were once just urban sprawl at one time.

Oh, the irony.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

To me, there are 2 types of sprawl. First, in places where population is growing quickly, land is at a premium, and developers build large-lot developments, causing the region's collective footprint to grow exponentially. Second, in places where population is stagnant, cheap new housing is being built, while quality older housing rots in the center city. Ohio suffers from the latter type of sprawl.

Based on these definitions of sprawl, I don't think any of our cities' historic districts qualify. The areas I'm familiar with have a typical urban layout. Sure, the individual lots in the higher class neighborhoods may have been a little larger, but they are still small by modern standards.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

Everybody hates sprawl, but gripes about some developer this or that who only puts houses on postage-stamp-sized lots. They also love zoning laws that prevent businesses from locating in neighborhoods and don't shop at ( expensive ) local small shops, but will drive to the big box stores.

The population of the US was 200 million in 1968 and is well over 300 million and heading for 400 million and will be over half a billion in the lifespan of most people alive now. Everyone has a right to live somewhere and everyone seems to want to reproduce.

More than urban sprawl, is the much increased demand for a "country" lifestyle where people don't have any problem with living 50 or more miles away from where they work. Many of the fires out West that are destroying houses would have just burned uninhabited hillsides ( where fires wouldn't have been systematically suppressed for these many years ).

Remember that even the historic districts of Ohio's cities were once just urban sprawl at one time.

Oh, the irony.

Not everyone hates sprawl considering that many people live in it and promote its construction. The people complaining about too much urban design/development are simply NOT the same type of people who don't like sprawl.

And country living is not that popular in general. There becomes an event horizon of sorts where there is a limit as to how far out from the city people are really willing to live. 50 miles is pretty far, especially when talking about commutes. That may be why rural areas and small towns nationally are more or less emptying out of people. 100 years ago, those places were more populated than they are now. People are increasingly moving closer to the city, or at least into metro areas. That doesn't necessarily mean they are living in an urban environment, but they're also balancing the desire to be in suburbia with the relative proximity of the core city. The jobs are in the city, or at least around it, so moving too far away does not make much sense for most people.

"Urban sprawl" doesn't really mean anything. Urban neighborhoods are built vastly differently than suburban ones. Sprawl itself is low-density, which is not the case for urban environments.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by JR_C

Based on these definitions of sprawl, I don't think any of our cities' historic districts qualify.

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.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

And country living is not that popular in general.

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.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

There becomes an event horizon of sorts where there is a limit as to how far out from the city people are really willing to live. 50 miles is pretty far, especially when talking about ... commutes.

"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. )