New Geography

Author: Joel Kotkin

  • No More Urban Hype

    Just months ago, urban revivalists could see the rosy dawn of a new era for America’s cities. With rising gas prices and soaring foreclosures hitting the long-despised hinterland, urban boosters and their media claque were proclaiming suburbia home to, as the Atlantic put it, “the next slums.” Time magazine, the Financial Times, CNN and, of course, The New York Times all embraced the notion of a new urban epoch.

    Yet in one of those ironies that markets play on hypesters, the mortgage crisis is now puncturing the urbanists’ bubble. The mortgage meltdown that first singed the suburbs and exurbs, after all, was largely financed by Wall Street, the hedge funds, the investment banks, insurers and the rest of the highly city-centric top of the paper food chain.

    So, now we can expect some of the biggest layoffs and drops in income next to be found in the once high-flying urban cores. In New York alone, Wall Street has shed over 25,000 jobs – and the region could shed a total of 165,000 over the next two years.

    Not surprisingly, the property crisis once seen as the problem of the silly, aspiring working class and the McMansion nouveaus has now spread deep into the bailiwick of the urban sophisticates. For the first time in years, many Manhattan apartments are selling for well below purchase price, something unheard of during the boom. In Brooklyn, a 24% drop in sales over the last three months even has boosters talking of an imminent “Brownstone bust.”

    Even San Francisco – arguably the most recession-resistant big city due to its large concentration of nonprofits and “trustifarians” – is seeing prices drop for the first time in years. Far more vulnerable are fledgling neo-urban markets like Los Angeles, Atlanta, Oakland, Calif., San Diego, Memphis, Tenn., Miami and Dallas. Sales are down in most of these markets, as are prices.

    Signs of the times: desperate developers offering goodies to buyers. One downtown Los Angeles property owner has even offered to buy a Mini Cooper for anyone bold enough to buy a loft. Others, in Oakland, Boston and Atlanta, are resorting to auctions to offload their product. Foreclosures have taken place in several other markets, including Charlotte, N.C., and Philadelphia.

    Not surprisingly, many new projects conceived at the height of the bubble are being canceled, and some newly minted condominiums converted into rentals. The rental option makes immediate sense but does not help create the ambiance of luxury so coveted by wannabe cool cities. High-end buyers generally do not covet the idea of having a bunch of college-student renters enjoying a similarly granite-counter-topped unit next door. This is not necessarily good news for expensive restaurants or boutiques either.

    In addition, just if anyone is checking, even at the peak of gas prices, there remains virtually no evidence of any massive movement of the bourgeoisie back into the burghs. One assumes that the now plunging oil prices will not hurt suburban commuters.

    In reality, what we have is a market that is stuck in almost all geographies. Rather than shift people into the urban cores, or vice-versa, the mortgage crisis is simply stopping everyone in their tracks. Even if people wanted to move into the core cities, they could not sell their suburban houses to make the down payments.

    Nor is there ample reason to believe the urban migration will pick up in the near future. Crime has soared in some cities such as Oakland and Chicago. (“Obamastan” has suffered more murders this year than much larger New York and Los Angeles.) Overall, urban crime remains three times that of suburbs; a suddenly rising instance of mayhem threatens many urban recoveries.

    And in the end, it’s really all about the economy. The looming massive layoffs in many key urban markets – notably New York, Chicago and San Francisco – cannot possibly help. Finance has remained one industry that has continued to cluster in core cities, even as most others moved to the suburbs and smaller towns.

    Moreover, it is not just New York. Now, as the butcher’s bill for mortgage mania comes due, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco are all facing large-scale layoffs. The office market in the Windy City, for example, is being decimated by cutbacks at JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia, as well as at the commodity exchanges. So far, the less finance-dependent suburban market appears less impacted.

    A recent visit to Chicago confirmed these trends. The once ballyhooed Trump Tower, once seen as the nation’s tallest luxury condominium, remains incomplete, with a massive crane still perched at its top and troubled by persistent rumors of failing financial support. Another hyped project, Santiago Calatrava’s 2000-foot, 150-story Chicago Spire, is stuck in the ground because the developer has stopped paying his “starchitect’s” bill. All this is not too surprising, given a reported 73% drop in downtown home sales for the first half of the year.

    For a decade or more, city leaders have kept thinking that something from outside – demographic changes, high fuel prices or changing consumer tastes – would create a revival for them. This allowed them to avoid doing hard, nasty things like cutting often-outrageous public employee pensions, streamlining regulations, cutting taxes levied on businesses or improving often-dismal schools and basic infrastructure.

    Maybe the current downturn can be a wake-up call for city boosters. Overall, since 2000, the average job growth in cities has averaged less than one-sixth that of suburbs, according to research by my colleagues at the Praxis Strategy Group. This has been particularly notable in higher-paying blue collar positions in manufacturing and warehousing, but increasingly applies also to higher-end business services.

    Cities should start realizing that their biggest problem is not a shortage of cultural venues and performance artists but a chronic lack of decent, middle class jobs. And to be sure, older cities do possess critical advantages such as already existing, if often tattered, transportation systems and the best strategic locations. Their old industrial districts possess an existing infrastructure and, in some cases, a residual pool of skilled labor and some decent job-training facilities. If properly prodded, local universities could also become part of the solution by seeding new entrepreneurial ventures.

    But such a return to basics may be nullified by the prospect of an urban Democrat coming into the White House and a Congress dominated by the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Barney Frank. This will revive hope that largely suburban middle-class taxpayers will now bail out bloated city budgets and often-absurd projects (convention centers, stadia and associated nonsense).

    City leaders and land speculators may also play the Al Gore card of combating “global warming” to block new roads, single-family housing estates and even the transfer of jobs to the supposedly energy-inefficient suburbs. However, over time, the suburban-exurban majority is unlikely to support this approach. To experience a real renaissance, cities need to learn how to make themselves more congenial again to those – industry, entrepreneurs and the middle class – who have found themselves forced to head to the fringes for almost a half century.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

  • Global Warming Cooling?

    Back when the media was more obsessed with the state of global warming than the state of global lending, the environmental movement appeared completely ascendant. But with economic concerns in both Europe and North America on rise, their premier issue of global warming seems to be losing some of its political cache.

    A good account of what’s happening both in Canada and Europe can be found in the green blog, Breakthrough. There’s even some advanced thinking here about the need to make something like a “carbon tax” a spur to economic growth. On target for the most part, Greens seem to have a problem thinking about the economy. Like John McCain, it’s not their strong point.

    These shifts in popular concerns, as well as the real estate downturn, create an odd atmosphere for the kind of restrictive legislation discussed in Wendell Cox’s timely article. Still there remains a great temptation – justified or not by the facts – to use global warming as a means of imposing the perennial anti-suburban agenda of some planners, large urban developers, smart growth advocates and urbanists.

    Perhaps it is a good strategy for density advocates to push their case now when it all seems so theoretical and builders are still walking around in shock. It may take years to absorb vacant condo towers as well as newly foreclosed single family houses. Only when the economy turns around will the conflict over what actually is greenest – as well as most market friendly – intensify again.

  • The biggest issue remains undecided

    Unless something completely unexpected occurs, the presidential election has been settled, with Barack Obama the clear winner. Yet, except for the Republican Party’s demise, the most important issue of this era — the future of the middle class — remains largely unaddressed.

    Indeed, even as social polarization has diminished — a change that is reflected in Obama’s electoral success — economic polarization has intensified. Globalization and the securitization of almost everything have created arguably the greatest concentration of wealth since before the Great Depression.

    During much of the 20th century, the middle class was on a roll, with strong income gains and increasing rates of homeownership. But in the past few decades, while returns to capital and to certain elite occupations grew rapidly, wages for lower-income and middle-class workers have stagnated.

    To date, neither Obama nor John McCain has articulated a clear message of how to restore the path to upward mobility. Recent proposals from both candidates have been distinctly ad hoc and have had a short-term orientation — not surprising, given the severity of the crisis and the brief period left before the election.

    Yet over time, how the next president, presumably Obama, addresses the problems of middle-class Americans will determine the future of American politics. The party that captures the loyalty of that class — as Republicans did in the early 20th century; Democrats, from the 1930s to the 1960s; and Republicans, again after that — will dominate the nation’s politics in the coming decade.

    The political future may lie with a party that embraces a growth-oriented economic strategy that focuses on the creation of higher-income productive jobs for both younger and older workers. But it’s far from clear that the Democrats under Obama are ready to play that role.

    Clearly, these are not the Democrats of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, Harry Truman’s Fair Deal or even Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Working- and middle-class Americans, including small farmers, low-level proprietors and ethnic businessmen, constituted the primary base for those Democrats. Although some leading Democrats, notably Roosevelt himself, came from the aristocracy, the upper classes and most of the corporate hierarchy remained fiercely Republican.

    But now the old class lines have changed. The once-impregnable visual barriers of the past — which separated the ultrarich from the rest of us — have largely dissolved. As Irving Kristol once noted, “Who doesn’t wear blue jeans these days?” Today, you can walk into a film studio, software corporation or high-tech firm and have trouble distinguishing the upper tiers from at least the middle ranks.

    Many of these moguls today tend to be socially and environmentally liberal and strong supporters of the Democratic Party. Yet despite their attire and attendance at U2 concerts, their economic concerns will remain radically different from the rest of society. Having secured their support, a President Obama may be forced to take great pains to secure the fortunes of the likes of George Soros, Robert Rubin, the Google decabillionaires and other big party funders.

    We may have witnessed the birth of this new class in the bizarre alliance of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barney Frank with Wall Street’s viceroy, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Once fully in power, these Democrats likely will begin by propping up the financial elites — much as Bush has done — but will also have to make a “grand bargain” to satisfy key party constituencies outside of the financial elite.

    There are already hints of this in Obama’s recent statements. His program to send cash to the poor through tax credits and other largesse can be seen as a political payout to his large, heavily minority, urban constituency. Massive bailouts for failing city, state and county governments — another part of the senator’s program — would also bolster public employee unions and their pension funds, both of which have emerged as key Democratic backers. New handouts for the U.S.-based auto industry, as Obama has recently suggested, would, not coincidentally, help one of the last large, unionized private sectors.

    Sadly, none of this will do more to create upward mobility, particularly for the next generation. The working poor may get a few hundred desperately needed dollars to spend, but this is no substitute for a policy that would stimulate production of jobs. Unions and their pension funds would get an extended holiday from addressing their often outrageously generous retirement and medical benefits, but that comes at the expense of the larger, private work force. The financial elites could secure government support for stabilized markets but would have little incentive to invest in domestic production industries and middle-class employment.

    Finally, Obama’s base of highly educated, socially liberal, professional Democrats — largely insulated in universities and nonprofits from economic distress — would be rewarded with the political validation of their worldviews on everything from gay marriage and diversity to environmentalism. More federal support for education, another likely Obama initiative, could also allow them to keep comfortably feathering their nests.

    Over time, however, such an approach could threaten the unity of the Democratic Party. This prospect emerged in the first House vote on the initial Wall Street bailout package. In addition to economic fundamentalist Republicans, many suburban, exurban and rural Democrats also found the plan objectionable. Hostility was particularly marked in the Great Plains, Appalachia, South Texas and other areas strongly oriented toward energy production, manufacturing and logistics.

    This growing wing of populist Democrats, often more socially conservative than their coastal and urban counterparts, tend to favor steering capital toward sectors such as domestic energy production, agriculture, manufactured goods and domestically sourced specialized services. All these, they believe, could drive up incomes and salaries for a wide spectrum of Americans far better than boosting transfer payments or shoring up investment banks.

    This political approach does not appeal to the urban liberals now dominant in both the Democratic Congress and the Obama camp. These represent places, such as New York, San Francisco and Chicago, that are increasingly more dependent on speculative real estate and financial assets than producing goods. Their primary interest in the next few years will be to find out how to create yet another bubble, perhaps tied to designated “green” industries, which could send local land values and stocks soaring again to unsustainable heights.

    All this, however, leaves the Democrats and Obama in a quandary. They could favor programs to expand industry, energy production and basic infrastructure, but they would risk of a wrathful Gore and his allies. It will take all Obama’s considerable political skill to balance his commitments to the greens, the hedge fund industry and venture capitalists with creating a program that will increase the incomes and prospects for middle-class Americans.

    Republicans could take advantage of this schism — if they have the intelligence and foresight to do so. The GOP could embrace the old Hamiltonian policy of internal improvements and incentives for the country’s industrial, energy and logistics companies that still employ millions of working- and middle-class Americans.

    After all, the legacy of corporate socialism bequeathed by President Bush makes it almost impossible for Republicans to sell themselves as economic libertarians. They will need to offer something to the middle class besides the well-worn politics of social resentment and military belligerence.

    But such a GOP rebirth likely lies in the future, if ever. In the next few years, the Democrats will have to address the nation’s growing class chasm on their own. How they do this may well determine not only the future success of the Obama presidency, but the survival of the American aspirational model, as well.

    This article originally appeared at Politico.

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of www.newgeography.com. He is finishing a book on the American future.

  • Turns Out There’s Good News on Main St.

    As the financial crisis takes down Wall Street, the regular folks on Main Street are biting their nails, watching the toxic tsunami head their way. But for all our nightmares of drowning in a sea of bad mortgages, foreclosed homes and shrunken retirement plans, the truth is that the effects of this meltdown won’t be all bad in the long run. In one regard, it could offer our society a net positive: Forced into belt-tightening, Americans are likely to strengthen our family and community ties and to center our lives more closely on the places where we live.

    This trend toward what I call “the new localism” has been underway for some years, driven by changing demographics, new technologies and rising energy prices. But the economic downturn will probably accelerate it as individuals and corporations look not to the global stage but closer to home, concentrating and congregating on the Main Streets where we choose to live – in the suburbs, in urban neighborhoods or in small towns.

    In his 1972 bestseller, “A Nation of Strangers,” social critic Vance Packard depicted the United States as “a society coming apart at the seams.” He was only one in a long cavalcade of futurists who have envisioned an America of ever-increasing “spatial mobility” that would give rise to weaker families, childlessness and anonymous communities.

    Packard and others may not have been far off for their time: In 1970, nearly 20 percent of Americans changed their place of residence every year. But by 2004, that figure had dropped to 14 percent, the lowest level since 1950. Americans born today are actually more likely to reside near their place of birth than those who lived in the 19th century. Part of this is due to our aging population, because older people are far less likely to move than those under 30. But more limited economic options may intensify this phenomenon while bringing a host of social, economic and environmental benefits in their wake.

    For one thing, they may strengthen those long-weakening family ties. We’re already seeing signs of that. American family life today may not look like “Ozzie and Harriet,” with its two-parent nuclear family, but it reflects a pattern of earlier generations, when extended networks helped families withstand the dislocations of the westward expansion or of immigration.

    With a majority of married women now working, parents are frequently sharing child-rearing duties, and other family members are getting into the act. Grandparents and other relatives help provide care for roughly half of all preschoolers in the country. As the cost of living rises, this trend could accelerate.

    At the same time, difficulty in getting reasonable mortgages and the realities of diminished IRAs will force baby boomers and Generation Xers both to prolong their parental responsibilities and to delay their retirements. This, too, is already happening: According to one study, one-fourth of Gen-Xers still receive help from their parents. And as many as 40 percent of Americans between 20 and 34, according to another survey, live at least part-time with their parents.

    This clustering of families, after decades of dispersion, will spur more localism, which has a simple premise: The longer people stay in their homes and communities, the more they identify with and care for those places.

    This is evident in everything from the mushrooming of farmers markets in communities nationwide to burgeoning suburban cultural institutions. Since the 1980s, suburbs outside such cities as Chicago, Atlanta, Washington and Los Angeles have been building or contemplating new town centers – their own Main Streets, if you will, village squares intended to foster a unique local identity and community focus. Scores of suburban towns have established local orchestras and built playhouses and symphony halls – Strathmore Hall in Bethesda is one example. All this activity has dispelled some of the view of suburbs as strongholds of middle-class torpor.

    “This used to be a place where people went to sleep,” says Patricia Jones, president of the Arts Alliance, a group that helps raise funds for the sprawling, $63 million Civic Arts Plaza in the Los Angeles suburb of Thousand Oaks. “Now it’s a place where people live, work and find their entertainment. It’s a totally different environment. It’s not boring anymore.”

    Not only that, it’s probably more interconnected than ever before. In suburbs and cities from Los Angeles to New York, Web-based community newsletters have sprung up to keep residents informed of goings-on in their neighborhoods and to provide a sense of connectedness. “There’s an attempt in this neighborhood to break down the city feel and to see this more as a kind of a small town,” says Ellen Moncure, who edits the Flatbush Family Network Web site in New York. “It may be in the city, but it’s a community unto itself, a place where you can stay and raise your children.”

    Bolstering the trend are today’s higher energy prices, which make Americans’ old nomadic patterns less economically viable in more ways than one. Take recreation. More and more, says Tim Schneider, publisher of a magazine specializing in sports travel, people are sticking close to home instead of trekking far and wide in search of fun things to do. “Stay cations,” or vacations near home, are taking the place of trips to exotic distant locales. This means tougher times for such traditional tourist hot spots as Las Vegas and Hawaii, both of which have seen a drop-off in flight arrivals due to airline cutbacks. But there’s a moral for cities, says Schneider: Instead of counting on convention centers and arts and cultural facilities to attract outside tourists, most would do better to promote local “place-branding” events such as festivals, rodeos, sports tournaments and the like.

    Higher energy prices may also refocus local economies in unexpected ways. For generations, most Americans have been buying their food from distant corporate providers. But with shipping costs – and food-safety concerns – on the rise, the trend to buy local is moving into the mainstream. In Maryland, the number of farmers markets has grown from 20 in 1991 to 84 today. In 1977, California had four such markets; today it has more than 500. Higher energy costs could also benefit local manufacturers, bringing, say, clothing manufacture back to the Los Angeles garment district from China.

    The final factor driving the localist trend is technology, which has led to a rapid expansion of home-based work and to companies’ setting up work locations closer to where their employees live. The number of home-based workers has doubled twice as quickly in this decade as in the last and is now about 9 million. Nationwide, 13 million people telecommuted at least one day a week in 2007, a 16 percent leap from 2004. And more than 22 million people run home-based businesses.

    A recent study suggests that more than one-quarter of the U.S. workforce could eventually participate full- or part-time in this new work pattern. And over time, it will accelerate localism. Commuting – which became common only over the past century – has cut workers off from the places where they live. Home-based work, by contrast, gives people more choice about where they work and more time to spend with their families and communities.

    Telecommunication allows people who want privacy, low-density neighborhoods and good schools to live in small towns in a way never before possible. It also allows a firm such as Renaissance Learning, a leading educational software company, to set up headquarters in Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., a city of 17,500 whose small-town feeling, broad river and wooded countryside appeal to many workers. “We don’t have any trouble recruiting people here,” says Mark Swanson, the firm’s technical director.

    Yet the desire to stay in the local community isn’t limited to small towns or suburbs. I see it where I live, in California’s San Fernando Valley, or in parts of my mother’s native Brooklyn, where lots of people employed in fields such as the arts, consulting and design work at home or nearby and crowd the coffee shops, restaurants and stores of streets such as Ventura Boulevard in Studio City or once-decayed but now bustling Cortelyou Road in Flatbush.

    In the end, localism is neither urban nor anti-urban. At its heart, it represents something larger: a historic American tradition that sees society’s smaller units as vital and the proper focus of most people’s lives. This made the United States different from Europe, which, as Alexis de Tocqueville noted, has long tended toward centralization of power and decision-making.

    The expansion of the European welfare state has further fostered this trend. But it’s also true that Europeans tend to move less than Americans. And the powerful resistance to the most intrusive forms of European Union integration, such as a continent-wide constitution, suggest that strong localist elements remain imbedded in European communities.

    But if Europe is joining the trend, the United States is likely to be the leader in pushing decentralization. What most impressed Tocqueville wasn’t our large cities but the vitality of our many smaller towns and communities. “The intelligence and the power are dispersed abroad,” he wrote, “and instead of radiating from a point, they cross each other in every direction.”

    Today’s localist revival reflects this tradition, but with the benefit of the great access to the larger world that technology provides. It offers the prospect of an America that, rather than being “a nation of strangers,” can aspire again to be a nation of neighbors . . . in places that we choose for ourselves.

    This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of www.newgeography.com. He is finishing a book on the American future.

  • New York’s Decentralized Economy?

    Even before the Wall Street meltdown, the New York area was going through its own de-clustering. No it hasn’t – and probably never will – become a multi polar area in the style of Los Angeles, Houston or Phoenix, but the trend to deconcentrate jobs has been inexorable over the last thirty years, according to a new report by our friends at the Center for an Urban Future.

    The report states:

    “In 1975, New York City accounted for 53.1 percent of all private sector jobs in the 17-county metro region. But by 2005, the five boroughs’ share was just 47.2. Most of the ci ty’s losses occurred in Manhattan, which had 33.9 percent of the region’s private sector jobs in 1975 but only 28.8 percent in 2005.”

    None of this is particularly worrisome in that the shrinkage of the city’s jobs slowed considerably in the past decade up to 2005. The whole region showed some growth. But what happens now with an estimated 150,000 or more jobs expected to be wiped out due to the financial crisis? This may prove the biggest crisis faced by the city since the “Ford to City: Drop Dead” days of the 1970s.

    Both the Giuliani and the Bloomberg legacies surely will now be tested.

  • Telecommuting will be a big part of our future

    There’s yet another study, this one from Hewitt Associates, that confirms our notion that telecommuting will be an ever bigger part of our future. A Washington Post piece picked up by blogger Steve Bartin also quotes consultant James Ware about the environmental and economic forces pushing firms and individuals towards full or part-time telecommuting, “The combination of gas prices and climate-change issues is going to push a lot of people in that direction.”

    You don’t have to be an Al Gore apostle or a new urbanist to see that telecommuting could be part of the solution for reducing commutes and energy use while also creating the basis for viable communities. What continues to mystify: only a few environmentalists and neo-traditionalist developers embrace this trend. Perhaps it has something to do with individual choice, and the fact that it does allow people to live in the kind of dispersed and low-density environments that so many of these kind of people tend to despise.

    Yet there is nothing anti-urban in embracing telecommuting. Many cities, such as San Francisco and Santa Monica, are hotbeds for entrepreneurs working from home. In fact, as the economy continues to decluster, this may be one way traditional cities can reinvent themselves: through the work of a new generation of high-tech artisans. It also offers opportunities for suburbs to reinvent themselves as something other than bedroom communities filled with miserable commuters. For rural towns, it provides a chance to plug into the broader global economy. All geographies benefit when people can choose the kind of community they both desire and can afford.

  • Here They Go Again

    Recent soundings from Washington suggest that neither party has a solid idea of what to do about the deepening economic crisis. It makes me cringe to hear Barney Frank, Chairman of House Financial Services Committee, talking about a big stimulus to “prop up consumption”.

    Under the Democratic-controlled Congress, this would likely include the usual tax relief to middle and working class Americans, as well as big new payments to hard-pressed cities and states. To be sure, the interests of wage-earning Americans should be paramount, but this is reminiscent of the “stimulus” plan earlier this year that did little more than “prop up” spending on consumer goods for a couple months.

    Since many of these products are made in China or somewhere overseas, who are we helping most here? In addition, of course, the bail out of local governments benefits a prime Democratic constituency — public employee union. If we are going to cough up more to pay their salaries, why not ask them first to accept less largesse? Maybe they can agree not to retire until they are in their sixties, like the rest of us chumps, I mean, taxpayers. Then we can talk bailout.

    However, let’s not pick on Democrats alone. The Republicans seem to like consumer “stimulus” but only when spiked with more tax cuts for their dwindling, but still significant cadre of wealthy Americans. Maybe this will help consumption a bit more at Bloomingdales than Wal-mart, but in the end, who cares?

    My thought is that we should focus instead on the core issues of stimulating the “real economy” through incentives for high value manufacturing, domestic energy producers of all kinds (including nuclear power) and investment in basic infrastructure, including new transmission lines, research in clean and alternative fuels. All of these things would reduce our increasingly debilitating dependence on other countries to fund our deficits and consumption habits.

    To lift spirits of Americans the most we need a program that aims to make the country less dependent on both Middle East energy producers and Chinese manufacturers. As we did starting in the 1930s, let us create a climate for real upward mobility based on expanding the productive economy. It’s time to stop relying on quick sugar highs to spur more consumption of items we do not produce or can’t afford and time to start getting back to basics.

  • What a Difference 1500 Miles Makes

    After several days in New York, I encountered serious climate change — in terms of atmosphere — at a USA-Canada Summit in Grand Forks, ND. Sure people were concerned about the market meltdown, but the talk was all of new plans for expanding the economy across both sides of the border. The distressed martinis of Manhattan nights were gone in a place where drinks also came with good cheer.

    Perhaps most inspiring was an appearance by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) who spoke of the economic crisis but in terms far less hyperbolic than those used by many members of Congress and most of the media. He compared to the current crisis to a low tide that has exposed some weak points in the economy but has not fundamentally altered the underlying strength of what he called “the real economy”.

    This includes the manufacturing, farm, energy and business services firms that are flourishing across large parts of the country, particularly in the Heartland. Firms representing these industries at the conference were not whining about competition or the credit crunch, but talking about cooperation across the border and the prospect of a better future.

    How refreshing it would be if either of the two major candidates, particularly Senator Obama, the likely winner, spoke with such confidence about the intrinsic strengths of the country and this continent in general. I would not deny the real significance of the stock market crash and the real estate mess, but, as Senator Dorgan suggested, “optimism” about the future has been a primary driver of American progress since the founding.

    Let’s hope Senator Obama, or Senator McCain, lose some of their negative rhetoric when they take office. It may be good politics now to be a nay-sayer, but as President, these fellows will need to comprehend the country’s fundamental strengths and how to utilize them to make a strong recovery.

  • Post-Imperial Foreign Policy: Our best allies are countries most like US

    When the Presidential and vice-Presidential hopefuls talk foreign policy, they look every which way — towards the Middle East, Russia, Europe, Asia or Africa, but they largely ignore our own backyard.

    In the next decades of the 21st Century, our policymakers will need different priorities. When looking for our closest allies, we may well need to look away from current entanglements in unfortunate, far away places and towards a stronger relationship with countries — notably Canada — with whom we share so much.

    This requires some understanding of where we are today. The breathless talk of an “end of history” and inevitable democratization that accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union should be swept aside by now. Instead we need to understand both a greater diversity in national systems and, increasingly, a trend towards ever more authoritarian regimes.

    Anyone who has studied history should understand this. Authoritarianism has been the default mode for millennia and seems likely to remain so in the foreseeable future.

    Twenty years ago it was possible to see in Russia and even in China, signs of a transformation towards democracy and a civil society. But clearly Putinism has produced something of a legal dictatorship in Russia, a downsized Soviet Union dressed in democratic garb. China seemed headed towards a more civil, less dictatorial state — before Tiananmen ended that dream. The recent Olympics seemed to highlight an authoritarian success story in a way that the designers of the 1936 Berlin Olympics would have appreciated.

    The influence of these countries, particularly China, in the developing world is also growing. Many see the so-called “Beijing Consensus” — placing economic development ahead of even modest democratization — as more appealing than the inherent inefficiencies of popular control, not to mention American hectoring and self-righteousness.

    Even our closest historic allies in Europe are increasingly asserting their own notions of what is best for them. With a rapidly aging, even declining population, these countries do not share the basic American need for sustained, vibrant economic growth over the next few decades. Instead they likely will continue to embrace a conscious policy of slow growth and stability. This will not change even when the hated George Bush is gone — despite a possible flurry of post-election Obamamania.

    How to respond to these trends? Flex our muscles? Been there, done that and what has it gotten us? In the end, we will have fewer opportunities to apply either military or economic power. The latter is now too well dispersed in the world and likely to become more decentralized in the coming decades. Even military power has its limits as can be seen by the rise of asymmetrical warfare. At the same time rising economies like China are rapidly increasing their military might as well.

    None of this means that we should accept the fashionable notion of American decline. Although obscured by the current financial crisis, our unique strengths — demographic, economic, and even political — remain very much intact. An aging Europe, the favored candidate for preeminence among many east coast policy wonks — does not share these assets. They have their own ethnic problems, a weak military, a shrinking supply of skilled workers and a continuing dearth of babies. Their economic system may not have our unfortunate penchant for excess, but built on security, it appears to restrain innovation and risk-taking.

    China, India and Russia and other rising powers of today also face enormous demographic and economic challenges. All have large populations of poor people once you leave the westernized cores. Russia’s economy is overly dependent on commodities; China and Russia face demographic declines equal or even worse than the EU.

    So where can we find our best allies? We look to those countries who share our demographic vitality, our fecundity and common values — Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Like the United States these countries are also “countries of aspiration.” They remain enormously attractive to both skilled and unskilled immigrants, including those from Europe and Asia. If there’s a brain drain in the world, it’s mostly to the US, Canada and Australia.

    Although born to British colonialism, these countries have over time, notes historian David Cannadine, “increasingly come to resemble the United States”. This is not a matter of liking George Bush, eating McDonald’s or even getting fat. It’s about young countries that are, in their own fashion, knitting together diverse legacies, including those of indigenous people. Strong pockets of anti-Americanism exist in certain circles in all of these countries, but on the grassroots level the similarities are likely to become more striking over time.

    Bolstering ties with Canada represents by far the greatest opportunity. High energy costs mean proximity matters more than ever. Canadian and American firms need to share adjacent markets. This will strengthen even more the strongest bilateral trade relationship on the planet.

    Perhaps even more important are family ties. Canada remains the largest source of visitors to the United States and vice-versa. Some 800,000 Canadians have settled permanently in the United States; 200,000 Americans have moved north to Canada. Many have dual citizenship. (A quick disclaimer: my wife is a native of Quebec and a dual citizen).

    Building on these natural ties will take some psychological changes in both countries. A strong alliance requires both a confident Canada and a respectful America. Americans need to stop thinking of Canada as a kind of northern icebox that we raid for resources when hungry. Canadians, for their part, should no longer regard themselves as America’s poor cousins but as equal partners with enormous resources, both human and material.

    With Canada, this relationship can be immediately strengthened at both the national and regional level. One step would be to embark on a program of cross-border infrastructure that would expand trade corridors from the Arctic down to Mexico, from Cascadia to the north Atlantic. Such steps would increase markets and productive capacity across our common continent.

    Another potential opportunity lies in building an alliance around environmental and energy issues. A strongly integrated North American Energy Community, including Mexico, could insulate Americans from unreliable suppliers in the Middle East, Russia and South America. For Canadians, it would cement a stable, long-term relationship with a steady customer and perhaps guarantee a floor on prices.

    Finally, NAEC would work on environmental concerns related to energy. We all share a common space here in North America; mountain ranges, rivers, lakes and topographical zones do not recognize borders. As we work to secure our common energy future, we should then create a sustainable future for all the residents of the great continent.

    Of course, none of this likely will excite the policy elites in Washington. They are already atwitter with ideas for how the President should address our relations with Pakistan, Russia, China or other troublesome distant place. It would be refreshing instead if perhaps Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain, on taking office, might first consider to build stronger relations with a neighbor who shares not only values and family ties but also this vast, rich and blessed continent.

    Joel Kotkin is Executive Editor of NewGeography.com.

  • Manhattan Sinking

    Anyone in New York recently can see that the swagger is now gone. With the economy losing its primary engine – a relative handful of financial hotshots- the whole plutonomic system seems to be under major stress. The state and city budgets also seem to be heading south in a big way.

    You can see this strolling through Soho and peering into empty restaurants and nearly empty shops. Clerks and waiters now actually seem to want you to enter. The $350 children’s sweaters are now on the sales rack, for about a third the price.

    Wall Street area is in even worse shape, says friend of the New Geography, Jonathan Bowles of the Center for an Urban Future. Yet there are signs of dynamism. Jonathan and I went to lunch on 32nd Street, also known as Little Korea. Here the restaurants and stores, many of them tied to the global garment trade, seem as busy as ever. Good value, hard work and plain old sticktoitivness will still pay off, even in a recession.

    New York will bounce back but the impetus likely won’t come from the investment bankers or the fashionistas. Instead, look for the Koreans, Indians, Africans and other newcomers — and the skilled media and other artisans now mostly living in Brooklyn and Queens — to pick up the slack. A more affordable, less luxury-obsessed city is good news for them. It makes running a business or buying a house or condo a possible dream. These are the folks most capable of reinventing the city in the post-bubble age.