You're absolutely correct, but at least 27 years later than David Beach and his Green City on a Blue Lake initiative (once housed at the CMNH) eloquently presented. In that time, it has gotten worse, especially since the Subprime Loan crash of the early 2000s.
No, it's not sustainable, and neither is unregulated capitalism nor continuing to burn fossil fuels. As long as greed exists, our days are numbered. I'm glad that I'm as old as I am.
Ooh, boy! This is a potential can of worms that might, eventually, find its way open.
I could ruminate at length about all you’ve discussed with this article but I don’t have that kind of time.
Suffice it to say, continued sprawl is not sustainable and it will continue to destroy not just urban centers, but it is likely to start affecting inner ring suburbs and even suburbs that hit their peak in the 70s, for instance.
You used the example of Bedford to illustrate the point and that is a pretty good example of a community at an obvious turning point. The fact that the community rallied around the building of new school infrastructure is great news.
Contrast that with the example of Parma and their ongoing struggle to pass any school levy at all. In the next twenty years, does anyone really believe Parma is going to be a worthwhile place for anyone with school aged children to live if they can’t get a handle on their very real school funding issues? For now, that doomsday clock keeps ticking.
I'm in Cincinnati and have been a Strong Towns member for several years. We have a Strong Towns Local Conversation group called Civic Cincinnati; I checked, and there's also a group in Cleveland that appears to primarily communicate through Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/strong_towns_cle/).
It’s natural for people to want more space, especially families. I wish I could afford to live closer to the city, but every service is worse and costs more on top of paying more for the smaller house I’d have to live in. I bought a 70’s house in burbs with great schools and trust me when I say all homes are expensive to update and maintain.
Is it sustainable? I actually think it is. Technology will eventually make itvquite sustainable(I see a world of electrified self driving cars and spread out renewable power generation and storage). Meanwhile I see the urban core being a destination and a place to centralize regional industry/business around. Single people, childless couples, and retirees will still want to live in these cities too which is are groups growing in size. Older suburbs are in demand as much as newer ones. Cost of housing is such that people still buy older homes to renovate. The dilapidated, asbestos ridden, cloned tiny houses they threw up on a weekend during the 50’s post war demand crunch clearly are a bit of a problem these days, but they aren’t all exactly worth saving. In their place newer higher density housing is getting built. I think there’s issue is more these cities adapting to their role as being a livable destination again, not just a place for people to drive into for work.
Wow! You've done a lot of work, here!
You're absolutely correct, but at least 27 years later than David Beach and his Green City on a Blue Lake initiative (once housed at the CMNH) eloquently presented. In that time, it has gotten worse, especially since the Subprime Loan crash of the early 2000s.
No, it's not sustainable, and neither is unregulated capitalism nor continuing to burn fossil fuels. As long as greed exists, our days are numbered. I'm glad that I'm as old as I am.
Ooh, boy! This is a potential can of worms that might, eventually, find its way open.
I could ruminate at length about all you’ve discussed with this article but I don’t have that kind of time.
Suffice it to say, continued sprawl is not sustainable and it will continue to destroy not just urban centers, but it is likely to start affecting inner ring suburbs and even suburbs that hit their peak in the 70s, for instance.
You used the example of Bedford to illustrate the point and that is a pretty good example of a community at an obvious turning point. The fact that the community rallied around the building of new school infrastructure is great news.
Contrast that with the example of Parma and their ongoing struggle to pass any school levy at all. In the next twenty years, does anyone really believe Parma is going to be a worthwhile place for anyone with school aged children to live if they can’t get a handle on their very real school funding issues? For now, that doomsday clock keeps ticking.
Have you discovered Strong Towns yet? Much of what you talk about is something they've been writing about for years under the heading of the Growth Ponzi Scheme (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020-8-28-the-growth-ponzi-scheme-a-crash-course).
I'm in Cincinnati and have been a Strong Towns member for several years. We have a Strong Towns Local Conversation group called Civic Cincinnati; I checked, and there's also a group in Cleveland that appears to primarily communicate through Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/strong_towns_cle/).
Wow. I didnt know this existed. Looks like my people haha. Thank you
I found them early in my traffic safety advocacy in 2016-17. They led me to my people :-)
It’s natural for people to want more space, especially families. I wish I could afford to live closer to the city, but every service is worse and costs more on top of paying more for the smaller house I’d have to live in. I bought a 70’s house in burbs with great schools and trust me when I say all homes are expensive to update and maintain.
Is it sustainable? I actually think it is. Technology will eventually make itvquite sustainable(I see a world of electrified self driving cars and spread out renewable power generation and storage). Meanwhile I see the urban core being a destination and a place to centralize regional industry/business around. Single people, childless couples, and retirees will still want to live in these cities too which is are groups growing in size. Older suburbs are in demand as much as newer ones. Cost of housing is such that people still buy older homes to renovate. The dilapidated, asbestos ridden, cloned tiny houses they threw up on a weekend during the 50’s post war demand crunch clearly are a bit of a problem these days, but they aren’t all exactly worth saving. In their place newer higher density housing is getting built. I think there’s issue is more these cities adapting to their role as being a livable destination again, not just a place for people to drive into for work.