New Geography

Author: admin

  • Strategic Diminshment at the Heart of New Housing Policy

    Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post takes on the role of homeownership in our society. I’m generally a fan of Samuelson’s writing, a normally sober, cold-eyed analysis of issues without favor to one ideology over another, so imagine my disappointment when reading him say, “The relentless promotion of homeownership as the embodiment of the American dream has outlived its usefulness.”

    Of course, there’s more to his column. He goes on to say:

    Unfortunately, we let a sensible goal become a foolish fetish. Not everyone can become a homeowner. Some are too young and footloose; some are too old and dependent; some are too poor or irresponsible. Some don’t want a home.

    This is different that saying homeownership is not a worthy goal for our nation and is quite distinct from the ideas of Richard Florida, who has previously written that homeownership is overrated and who’s recent “Roadmap” to recovery focuses on de-emphasizing homeownership. Where Florida is right is in acknowledging that this would “blow up” the fundamentals of our economy.

    He’s also engaging in what I call strategic diminishment – that is, consciously pursuing a future that is less than our current state. Many elite progressives think we have it too good and that our lifestyle choices are harmful to ourselves and our planet. It’s not enough that they want to be scolds; they want to use the power of government to change America into a place where our quality of life is diminished.

    And progressives also glorify this reduction with a “less is more” attitude. The Washington Post recently presented the case against air conditioning, and USA Today reported on the banning of drive-throughs in the city that pioneered them sixty years ago. I’ve addressed strategic diminishment as it relates to the mobility and the Obama administration’s “Livable Communities Act,” but this is also true for homeowners and covers not just the percentage of homeowners but even the size of homes. Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation warns how even the President has adopted a worrisome narrative on homeownership.

    Before we go off the deep end, let’s clear up two points. First, the crisis we’ve gotten ourselves into is not because people own homes. It’s because of the flawed policies promoting homeownership. We know about the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also contributing were various land-use planning schemes collectively known as Smart Growth.

    Second, homeownership has many benefits. Homeownership is more than a lifestyle choice; it’s a source of wealth and stability. And when homeowners take out a second mortgage on their homes, it’s often as a source for financing their own small businesses – another ideal we associate with the American Dream.

    There are countries with equal or greater rates of homeownership that do not have government intervention policies that skew the market. But as we consider housing policy at the local, state, and federal levels, what should be the principles on which it is based?

    • Owning a home is a laudable goal held by millions of Americans.
    • Homeownership is positive good that should never be discouraged by government policy.
    • Everyone should have the right to pursue homeownership, but not everyone is ready to be a homeowner.
    • Government’s role is not to determine who should be a homeowner or when and where they should buy a home.
    • Markets are better than mandates at creating the environment in which people pursue renting or owning homes according to their ability.

    Before we adopt A Nation of Renters as our new creed, let’s fix the broken policies that got us here.

    Ed Braddy is executive director of the American Dream Coalition, a non-profit grassroots and public policy organization that promotes freedom, mobility, and affordable homeownership. The ADC’s annual conference takes place September 23-25 in Orlando, Florida. For more information, visit americandreamcoalition.org or email Ed at ed@americandreamcoalition.org.

  • Greg

  • Rental Cars Sale

  • Robbin Smith

  • Resort Towns Becoming Neo-Company Towns

    Over the past few years resort communities – communities ideal for a ski vacation, a beach week, a hiking excursion or the like – have been hard hit by the downturn in real estate.

    The key question is how these communities can be revived. If the issues involved are successfully addressed head-on, these small towns are able to provide significant amounts of affordable housing, viable and productive public transportation networks, and public functions such as parks, schools, police, and fire, despite limited financial and physical resources.

    Resort towns face growth-related issues not usually associated with such perceived idyllic settings. Many of these involve concerns over sprawl, workforce housing and lack of basic infrastructure. In the wake of the financial fallout that has affected both primary and second homes, there is an opportunity to address a quiver of such issues. Resort communities are still hard pressed to provide adequate housing stock for their workers, despite vacancies and stalled projects throughout their respective regions.

    Most stalled or dead projects were geared to higher-end buyers searching for second, or third or fourth, homes. As the lenders and creditors seize these assets and write down their values after taking heavy losses, perhaps there is an opportunity to reposition them and solve both worker housing demand and over supply of second homes.

    Indeed, post-write down, these places can become profitable through the conversion of costly amenities, like golf courses, in to less capital and maintenance intensive community amenities, such as walking trails or greenbelts. Note, however, that many of these communities can be relatively remote, so assessing transportation systems for workers will be necessary. This, too, can become an opportunity, as concentrated and growing communities provide growth centers for transportation systems.

    There is an added bonus to such an approach, often overlooked by competing sides of the battle over “sustainability” that weighs ever more heavily in regions whose economy is built primarily on the natural environment. The environmental lobby, which likely opposed such communities from the onset, may be too hostile to embrace the conversion to workforce housing. But, whatever their wishes, these communities are not going away; few will become 21st Century ghost towns. They are already built, with their infrastructure laid in. The question will be how to promote “creative destruction” without destroying the physical environment.

    Populating such areas with local workers also addresses the oft-ignored social, political and economic end of the sustainability equation. There is an opportunity to promote the evolution of true communities, with neighbors and stakeholders likely to take up the cause, among other things, of protecting the natural environment in their community and promoting transportation alternatives. Indeed, the “green” movement gains by putting existing buildings to better use than simply being second homes for the affluent. And, in the amenity region, they could grow their constituency. This should be a win-win for environmentalists, families, new purchasers and indeed everyone, except perhaps the original developer.

    Such resort communities may have started as a ski or golf resort, but they can certainly be transformed into something far less ephemeral. These places would remain amenity-based, but not in the same sense that a golf community uses the golf course as a sales and marketing pawn. Instead, they could evolve much like the company towns of the industrial era, with the difference being that a single, centralized corporation is not the hub of the wheel.

    A series of public and private institutions, unique to that particular place and not replicable, will become the anchors. These intstitutions would provide the central “amenities” that provide for the needs of the expanding number of home-based or spin-off businesses and the services they require. In this sense, a new hub of economic development can emerge. The remaining tourists at the resorts, as well as groups such as students and visiting faculty at universities, could bring some dynamism to both local residents and businesses.

    So, what exactly is the market for real estate sales in these communities? College towns and resort towns have inherent advantages. One key consideration will be physical access to larger communities, airports and other key transport facilities. Another will be to make sure that high levels of communications technology – internet, cell phones, laptops, etc. – are installed. Although there is still no substitute for face-to-face contact, technology can enable markets to attract the quality-of-life-seekers who nonetheless want to and need to feel as if they can get where they need to go.

    Thus, these “neo-company” towns need airport access and the ability to easily and quickly connect to large international airports. For example, the mountain communities of the west need air connections to Salt Lake City or Denver. The physical connectedness complements the technological connectedness to overcome the isolation that has made the countryside so difficult for business activities. Those seeking lifestyle-driven locales are the same demographic groups, marketers, merchandisers and trendwatchers often considered major trendsetters, along with Generation Y, or the millennials, and the Baby Boomers. The millennials are getting in to their 30s and many want a better environment than the suburbs for themselves and their kids, but they still want the quality schools and range of housing types often unavailable or unaffordable in major core urban areas such as Washington, New York or Los Angeles. On the other end of the age spectrum are the Baby Boomers, a huge cohort that has been re-writing demographic trends as they age. The Baby Boomers are working in large numbers beyond the traditional retirement age. They are, however, slowing down and cutting back on work hours, focusing increasingly on their own lifestyle. Educated, motivated, active and relatively worldly, a large portion of Baby Boomers should be attracted to the amenities and activities in resort communities for their primary residences.

    Lastly, combining both the millennials and the Baby Boomers allows for greater proximity within family units. Both the millennials and boomers make location choices based not only on lifestyle, but family consideration, as well. As aging parents make lifestyle choices and decide to relocate, their children are increasingly following, concerned about their care and also taking advantage of grandparents able to provide daycare. This is particularly critical for dual income households.

    These locational decisions by two enormous demographic cohorts have the potential to profoundly shape the built environment. The reconfigured resort communities could create new communities, new economic vitality and a powerful constituency to preserve local character and environment. Rather than a legacy of abandoned, foreclosed, slow-selling or otherwise underutilized developments, we can create a harvest of new, sustainable communities for a broad spectrum of generations and incomes.

    Howard Kozloff is Manager of Development Strategies and Director of Operations at Hart Howerton, an international strategy, planning and design firm based in New York, San Francisco and London.

    Photo by caribb

  • Going Underground in Australia

    Just over a decade ago, governments in Australia were immune to calls for accelerated infrastructure investment in our major urban centres. Plans for strategic reinvestment were rare. Much has changed in that time, maybe too much. It seems that enthusiasm for major urban infrastructure now runs ahead of impartial assessment of the cost, versus the claimed benefits. A proposed $8.2 billion underground rail loop for Brisbane, along with a new underground station for its busy downtown, provides one example of an over exuberant propensity to spend.

    The idea of new underground heavy rail lines to connect with the commuter rail system of southeast Queensland isn’t new. I can recall some 15 years ago proposing just that in a policy paper for the Property Council. The paper identified new stations in the CBD as a critical element in making use of rail transit more user friendly. The existing downtown stations, we argued, were barely downtown anymore, because the modern downtown (of close to 2 million square metres of office space, major retail, and entertainment hubs) had shifted toward the river and away from the stations.

    This large concentration of office workers should prove prime candidates for public transit, since they typically work regular hours (which helps with service schedules) and are concentrated at the centre of a hub and spoke system. But the walk from their workplace to the nearest stations, in summer heat or rain, represents (among other things) a disincentive to rail transit. So logically a new underground station (or even two) which brings the convenience of commuter rail closer to the workplace should encourage more people to make use public transport. Clearly, if you owned office buildings anywhere along the river edge of the ‘Golden Triangle’, you’d welcome this initiative with open arms and beg the Government to fast track the proposal.

    So it could indeed be a great idea. But first there are few unanswered questions about the economics of heavy rail commuter transport. The latest State Government figures show that every trip, by each and every commuter on the City Train network, is now subsidized to the tune of $10. That’s per trip, so for every daily return trip, the taxpayer is forking over $20 per commuter. And that’s after commuters have paid their fare – remember it’s only the subsidy. Even worse, the numbers of patrons are falling, from 60.7 million to 57 million in a year. (Worth reading the article “Taxpayers’ share of rail fares increases, while CityTrain passengers continue to decline” in The Courier Mail, June 15, 2010).

    The concern here is that under this failed pricing model, more commuters may also mean more subsidies and a greater tax burden on the taxpayer. In short, there doesn’t seem to be an economy of scale: if more people caught the train under the present system, it could cost more in subsidies, not less.

    Ironically, an online poll taken in connection with the above story revealed that 79% of respondents (out of 824) claimed that train fares are already too high. This is especially ironic for two reasons: commuters with jobs in the CBD market are, on average, paid more than their suburban counterparts and commuters who use the rail service are increasingly drawn from more affluent inner city and middle ring suburbs. The proportion of public transport users who begin their journey in lower income, outer suburbs, is relatively small.

    The evidence for this is found in papers by people such as Dr Paul Rees, School of Global Studies, Social Science & Planning at RMIT, and others. Various studies increasingly point to a rising correlation between rail (and tram in the case of Melbourne) use and proximity to central city workplaces. Put crudely, big chunks of that $10 each way subsidy are being paid for by low and middle income taxpayers in the outer suburbs (far from convenient train stations) so higher paid central city workers can have access to a convenient form of transport from their inner city or middle ring home, to work.
    As for the mooted new underground rail network, according to the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, the network will service “Toowong, West End, the city, Newstead, Bowen Hills, Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore.” In Brisbane’s case, these are inner city areas which enjoy some of the highest real estate prices in the region. In short, this is where the rich people live and will also be subsidized.

    A further question needs to be raised about the potential growth in commuter rail traffic, notwithstanding the convenience of a new CBD station. With the exception of the new line to Springfield, there are no new lines being laid and no new stations proposed. The catchment populations around the various train stations that form the City Train network are variously touted as ‘TOD’ (transit oriented development) zones but … there’s been precious little development activity to show for a decade of discussion.

    In the end, simply building more housing around train stations won’t mean more commuters to the CBD because most of the jobs are in the suburbs in the first place, and getting more so. I am unaware of any State Planning Policy which aims to concentrate more office and retail workers in the CBD (indeed the pressure is on to decentralize). And without more workers in the CBD, there are simply not going to be more commuters wanting to go there. So you can have more housing around train stations but this won’t mean more people working in the city – unless there’s also going to be more jobs in the city (or the mode share rises).

    An additional brake on increasing patronage of the heavy rail network is the inability to get to a suburban train station in order to easily catch the train. If you live more than a kilometre from a train station (the overwhelmingly majority of all residents), you would need to drive your car to a station to ride. But stations have precious little in the way of parking for these commuters, and nearby residents justifiably object to having their streets turned into kerbside carparks for daily rail commuters. This is one of many practical realities holding back increases in mode share of rail as a percentage of all commuter trips. That proportion has remained stubbornly fixed at under 10% of all trips for Brisbane (rail and bus and ferry combined) while for the CBD the mode share sits at some 45% of all commuter trips (bus, rail and ferry combined).

    So while the notion of a new underground rail line with a new CBD station sounds like a terrific idea, you’d hope that those who are responsible for spending our money will be running some hard numbers on the feasibility. This cross river rail project is mooted to cost something like $8.2 billion dollars in today’s terms. By the time they get around to building it, it will no doubt cost more.

    Even if the cross river rail and new station managed to achieve the result of 100,000 new rail commuters, that still works out to $82,000 per extra commuter. And if those commuters are to continue to be further subsidised to the tune of $10 per trip, each way, every day, this could be the sort of infrastructure initiative which ends up costing the community a great deal.

    You’d hope the numbers are being compiled rationally, dispassionately and independently, and the proper questions asked. Quality, strategic infrastructure investment in our urban areas is an economic necessity. But irrationally conceived projects of dubious economic merit are not the way forward.

    Ross Elliott is a 20 year veteran of property and real estate in Australia, and has held leading roles with national advocacy organizations. He was written and spoken extensively on housing and urban growth issues in Australia and maintains a blog devoted to public policy discussion: The Pulse.

    Photo by monkeyc.net

  • Me

  • Chickens from Wal-Mart?

    As I arrived for a visit, my 90 year old father was perusing ads from his favorite big box store for chicken parts. Seizing the moment that all children savor, I sought to impress him with my declaration: “I buy my chicken parts – albeit at higher prices – at the natural foods store; you know daddy, where the chickens ate naturally off the barn yard floor like they did when you were a boy”? Not missing a beat and dashing my hope for an “at a boy,” he retorted: “I saw what those chickens ate off the barnyard floor and I’ll buy my chickens at Walmart(s)!”

    And so, in his own way, my father just about sums it up – and puts me in my place. For one, he certainly doesn’t long for the good old days that were anything but. He was raised poor in Appalachia Kentucky and likely had to work for his supper, wringing the neck of a chicken that ate whatever it could scrape from the dirt. He prefers the modern conveniences like the big box stores so hated by the urbane crowd. And, so we see the clash of the old versus the new; of culture that is good and culture that is changing to fit the times in which we live.

    How does that translate into the lives we lead and where we are going? Note that the “Walmart chicken man” is the same father who observed that computers were evil because they had put blue collar line workers like him on the street. So, in this the age of “technology as savior” and as the end all be all, we are alas seeing a revival of interest in local culture. We are seeing the dawn of small versions of big box stores and the “re-sizing” of American lifestyles. As The Economist (May 15, 2010) has noted, some really smart people may simply wish to live next door to cows and chickens even if my father does not. There’s a notion that small may appeal to people living in an outrageously outsized world. This can be seen in a renewed interest in coming home or staying home in the smaller towns of America.

    But, that return toward local culture goes only so far. The palpable interest in lifestyles that eschew the “cold flickering computer screen in the middle of the night” in favor of warmer and more nurturing places does not mean we can return to the past. Frankly, as my father reminds me, we might not want to. The new small town lifestyle is anything but complacent and “old fashioned.”

    There are stories abounding of telecommuters working for big east/west coast companies inventing software programs – inspired by the springtime hills alive with rosebud trees. There is even the former advertising executive, who commented upon hearing of friend’s involvement in a controversy: “There is always extraordinary life (in the countryside) beyond controversy … I am farming these days and stifling my leadership urges except for cows, goats and Border Collies.”

    As much as we might like to think that youthful retirees and young millennials will relocate to the mythic “Mayberry,” with its homespun values and slow deliberate quality of life, the successful Mayberry has to offer more than nostalgia. The pleasing camaraderie of neighbors is not enough. You also need educational opportunities, good health care and transportation. People may be seeking warmth and nurturance and bucolic scenes but we are demanding lot, fed by the 21st century to hold such contradictory views as shopping at Starbucks or Wal-mart while marching in the street for more locally-owned shops.

    So in the face of all this, how do we build a rural America that can sustain our small towns and offer an alternative lifestyle of Americans who yearn for one? We are accustomed to turning our “lonely eyes” to technology for all the answers and indeed it is critically important. But, the answer for small town rural America lies in merging the blessings of technology with the culture that makes the small town lifestyle so special.

    To put it bluntly: culture eats technology on any day of the week. Examples range from Afghanistan’s impenetrable and powerful ground level tribal network that thwarts the strongest armies – from the British to the Soviets to the US – to the puzzling rejection of educational attainment in Appalachia due to the reality of fear that “getting smart” will only encourage children to leave home. In the rougher part of the world, “staying close to home” is deeply rooted in ancient cultural ties to land and place.

    So, how do we combine the technology that will lift up economic prosperity and build wealth and while understanding better the role of local culture in creating the resilient rural communities of the future? I call it the ultimate “mash-up”. It will require the combination of the five Ps: PERSPECTIVE and hard-nosed research to know where you stand: who is coming to or staying in your community or region; investment in PEOPLE and their education and health and other documented needs; recognition and promotion of PLACE, PRESERVATION of what is dear in our culture; and finally putting all that together with technology that can bring economic PROSPERITY not only in dollars but in quality of life.

    We certainly need to take what technology offers, with its gift of allowing us to live and work anywhere. But this is a hollow benefit unless we imbue it with the culture that makes our lives special. It won’t be computers that will make our rural places unique. It will be the native music, crafts and stories and how we preserve and adapt them to modern times.

    Sylvia Lovely is an author, commentator and speaker on issues relating to communities and how we must adapt to the new landscape that is the 21st century.

    Photo by pfly.

  • BRT is ERP (or, Bus Rapid Transit is Enlightened Responsible Planning)

    Robert Sullivan’s recent article in New York magazine, “Subway on the Street”, marks a welcome addition to transportation discussions in New York City. New Yorkers are currently faced with seemingly paradoxical transportation plans that call for subway and bus service cuts, while relatively short and exceedingly expensive underground subways are being built (Sullivan discusses both).

    However, also at the same time, a monumental partnership between the city’s transit agency (MTA) and the DOT is taking root. The result is a new bus rapid transit line in the Bronx – Bx12 SBS, short for “select bus service” – the focus of Sullivan’s article.

    To be clear, bus rapid transit is not a New York innovation. Cities throughout the world, and in the United States, have experimented with bus rapid transit lines with general, albeit not absolute, success. But it is nonetheless refreshing to see the largest city in the United States accept buses as potential congestion relief tools.

    Jay Walder, a New Yorker named head of the MTA after holding a similar position in London, brought the same promise of a more fully integrated bus and rail system to his home city.
    Encouraging innovation, expanding applicability and increasing efficiency are not the exclusive domains of the private sector, even if it feels that way. New York is showing, as cities repeatedly do, the potential for public-sponsored reinvention as a result of resilience.

    Howard Kozloff is Manager of Development Strategies and Director of Operations at Hart Howerton, an international strategy, planning and design firm based in New York, San Francisco and London.

  • Politicus