New Geography

Category: Demographics

  • New York Commuting Profile: From Monocentrism to Edgeless City

    The US Bureau of the Census has just released detailed county to county and place (municipality) to place work trip flow tables. This new data is the most comprehensive since the 2000 census and covers 2006 to 2008.

    The county to county data is particularly useful for analysis in the nation’s largest metropolitan area (Note 1), New York. The New York metropolitan area has more than 19 million people and stretches across 6,700 square miles of land area, one half of it in the urban area, which is the urban footprint that includes all areas, including suburbs, in the continuous urbanization (3,350 square miles) and the other half rural (Note 2). This area is composed of 23 counties, which makes far finer grain analysis possible than in Los Angeles, with just two counties or San Diego, where its single county precludes any county based metropolitan area analysis.

    The New York metropolitan area’s counties extend east to west from Suffolk on Long Island to Pike in Pennsylvania and north to south from Putnam in the Hudson Valley to Ocean on the New Jersey shore. Surprisingly, it does not include Fairfield and New Haven counties in Connecticut, which have strong economic ties to the urban area (and which are a part of the larger, Census designated “combined statistical area”). Indeed, major parts of these two counties can be considered part of the New York urban area (Note #3).

    Median house age is a useful indicator of the urban form in segments of a metropolitan area. This examination breaks the New York metropolitan area into rings. The core is New York County (Manhattan, where the median construction date of owned dwellings is 1942). The first ring is the other four boroughs of New York City. The inner ring includes counties outside the city in which the median aged house was built in the 1950s, while the outer ring includes counties in which the median aged house was built in the 1960s or later. The one anomaly is Staten Island (Richmond County) which although politically part of the city of New York, demonstrates a mean housing age closer to that of the outer ring (median construction date 1971). Visually it resembles late suburban New Jersey much more than it does the rest of the city. However, Staten Island’s strong ties to the city justify its classification with the other boroughs.

    Comparatively Centralized: New York is one of the most centralized large urban areas in the high income world,with only Tokyo ranking higher among areas over 5 million population. The Manhattan business district, located to the south of 59th Street is the world’s second largest (following Tokyo’s Yamanote Loop). But in terms of employment density Manhattan has more than double the employment density. What was, at least until recently, indisputably the world’s most spectacular skyline leads many to conclude that nearly everyone works in Manhattan.

    A Highly Decentralized Metropolitan Area: Yet in reality, New York is a highly decentralized metropolitan area. Approximately 74% of employment is outside Manhattan and the jobs are comparatively evenly dispersed among the sectors. There is more employment in the inner ring suburbs than in Manhattan (28%). Even the outer ring is competitive has nearly as many jobs, at 24%. Finally, the balance of the city, the four boroughs, has 22% of the employment (Figure 1).

    Wide Variations in the Jobs-Housing Balance: It is hard to understate the intensity of Manhattan’s central business district employment. Manhattan has 2.71 jobs for every resident worker. An important tenet of modern urban planning theory is to achieve a balance of jobs and housing. Manhattan’s jobs/housing imbalance is certainly the most acute of any county in the United States, yet it is to Manhattan that purveyors of smart growth densification policies are routinely drawn.

    Manhattan’s huge excess of jobs contrasts with employment the rest of the the city, where the jobs-housing balance at the county level is 0.67, the lowest in the metropolitan area. The inner ring suburbs have the highest jobs-housing balance at 0.93, while the outer suburbs have a jobs-housing balance of 0.87 (Figure 2), nearly one-third higher than the non-Manhattan boroughs (three of which are more dense than any major municipal jurisdiction in the nation). The city’s strongest jobs-housing balance is in Brooklyn (Kings County), at 0.72, which is lower than all of the suburban counties except for the most remote (Pike, Putnam and Sussex).

    Manhattan’s Impact: Diminishing Rapidly with Distance: There is no doubt that Manhattan remains the core of the New York economy, but that is less true the further you go out. While nearly 70% of the core’s workers commute from outside Manhattan, the employment influence of Manhattan drops off like the temperature falls the further you get away from a fireplace.

    86% of Manhattan’s resident workers have jobs in Manhattan, but only 35% of workers living in the city’s other boroughs work in Manhattan. This falls off to 14% in the inner suburban counties and 6% in the outer suburban counties (Figure 3). In Sussex County and Ocean County, New Jersey, only 2% of resident workers commute to Manhattan.

    Working Close to Home: At the same time a larger number of resident workers outside Manhattan work in their home counties than work in Manhattan. In the balance of the city, 46% of workers have jobs in the same counties. The inner suburban counties employ 56% of their resident workers, while the outer suburban counties employ 63%. Overall, 58% of New Yorkers work in their county of residence, more than double the share that work in Manhattan (Figure 4). In Richmond County (Staten Island), Suffolk County and Rockland counties in New York and Pike County, Pennsylvania, more than 80% of jobs are filled by local residents.

    Local Workers Generally Come from the Same Counties: A review of the residential location of workers by job location reinforces the dominantly local nature of commuting in New York. Overall, 56% of jobs are filled by residents of the same county. The figure is the highest in the outer ring suburban counties, at 73%. The inner ring suburban areas draw 60% of their workers from the same county, while the balance of the city draws 69%. In Manhattan, with its seriously out of balance jobs and housing, just 32% of the jobs are filled by it residents (Figure 5).

    Dispersion: Past and Present. All of this is a huge change from a half-century ago. In 1956 (according to data in the classic Anatomy of A Metropolitan Area, by Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon), Manhattan accounted for 43% of the metropolitan area’s employment (1950 metropolitan definition). Since that time, employment has fallen substantially in Manhattan and risen elsewhere. There have been gains in the outer boroughs, related principally to the strong population growth Queens and Staten Island. There were also gains in the inner suburban counties. The strongest gains were in the outer suburban counties (Figure 6).

    The dispersion is continuing. As Ed McMahon and I showed in Empire State Exodus, there is considerable migration from New York to Pennsylvania, as people are moving to metropolitan areas such as Allentown and Wilkes-Barre. Obviously, as the modest level of commuting from the outer counties of metropolitan New York indicates, relatively few of these people are commuting to Manhattan. This impression may be more a product of the fact the Manhattan-based media only recognizes workers when they actually make it into town; those who stay in the periphery, it seems, might as well live on another planet.

    New York, with as by far the strongest central business district in the nation, still has moved from virtual monocentrism, to the Edge Cities polycentrism of Joel Garreau and increasingly even to the amorphous Edgeless Cities employment dispersion of Robert Lang. The strong core continues to regenerate, but no longer exerts anything like its former dominant influence.

    ——-

    Note 1: For complete data.

    Note 2: For a description of urban terms (metropolitan area, urban area, etc).

    Note 3: Demographia World Urban Areas includes the continuous urbanization of southwestern Connecticut as a part of the New York urban area.

    ——-

    Table 1
    COMMUTING IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA (2006-2008): SUMMARY BY GEOGRAPHIC RING
    RINGS Ring Jobs/Housing Balance (Jobs per Resident Worker) Workers Employed in Residence County Share of Jobs Filled by County Residents Workers Employed in New York County (Manhattan) Average One-Way Work Trip Time (Minutes): Residence Average One-Way Work Trip Time (Minutes): Workplace Median Year Owned Housing Built
    NYC: Manhattan 1 2.719 86.3% 31.7% 86.3%                30.3                49.1 1942
    NYC: Balance 2 0.674 46.4% 68.8% 35.6%                42.0                37.3 1939-1971
    Inner Ring 3 0.927 56.0% 60.4% 14.4%                30.5                29.1 1950-1956
    Outer Ring 4 0.870 63.1% 72.5% 6.2%                31.3                26.0 1967-1983
    New York MSA 1.000 57.6% 57.6% 26.1%                34.5                35.5 1955
    Derived from American Community Survey data (2006-2008)
    Note: MSA work trip times (residence and work location) differ because commuters from outside the MSA are included

     

    Table 2
    COMMUTING IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA (2006-2008): SUMMARY BY COUNTY
    COUNTIES Ring Jobs/Housing Balance (Jobs per Resident Worker) Workers Employed in Residence County Share of Jobs Filled by County Residents Workers Employed in New York County (Manhattan) Average One-Way Work Trip Time (Minutes): Residence Average One-Way Work Trip Time (Minutes): Workplace Median Year Owned Housing Built
    New York Co., NY 1 2.719 86.3% 31.7% 86.3%                30.3                49.1 1942
    Bronx Co., NY 2 0.676 44.3% 65.6% 36.8%                41.1                35.7 1950
    Kings Co., NY 2 0.721 51.2% 71.0% 36.7%                42.3                39.0 1939
    Queens Co., NY 2 0.645 42.4% 65.7% 36.0%                42.0                37.5 1949
    Richmond Co., NY 2 0.585 47.3% 80.8% 26.3%                42.7                29.8 1971
    Bergen Co., NJ 3 0.960 56.7% 59.1% 15.0%                29.3                27.2 1956
    Essex Co., NJ 3 1.052 53.6% 50.9% 9.7%                30.8                31.8 1953
    Hudson Co., NJ 3 0.892 47.1% 52.8% 23.6%                32.4                35.1 1950
    Passaic Co., NJ 3 0.797 45.3% 56.8% 4.3%                27.0                28.0 1954
    Union Co., NJ 3 0.969 50.7% 52.3% 7.1%                33.0                27.6 1954
    Nassau Co., NY 3 0.884 59.1% 66.8% 14.8%                31.6                30.0 1954
    Westchester Co., NY 3 0.928 67.3% 72.6% 19.9%                33.6                27.7 1955
    Hunterdon Co., NJ 4 0.736 49.5% 67.2% 3.7%                31.4                28.2 1978
    Middlesex Co., NJ 4 0.943 58.5% 62.0% 7.7%                26.9                25.8 1968
    Monmouth Co., NJ 4 0.880 63.4% 72.0% 8.2%                33.2                23.8 1970
    Morris Co., NJ 4 1.097 58.7% 53.5% 5.4%                29.4                31.2 1967
    Ocean Co., NJ 4 0.723 63.4% 87.7% 2.0%                31.1                21.3 1977
    Somerset Co., NJ 4 0.988 46.7% 47.3% 5.6%                31.0                31.1 1978
    Sussex Co., NJ 4 0.565 44.5% 78.8% 2.3%                38.2                23.7 1972
    Putnam Co., NY 4 0.441 30.9% 70.1% 8.0%                37.0                24.4 1967
    Rockland Co., NY 4 0.763 61.2% 80.1% 12.0%                29.8                25.1 1969
    Suffolk Co., NY 4 0.872 76.2% 87.4% 5.7%                29.8                23.5 1967
    Pike Co., PA 4 0.574 45.9% 80.0% 4.6%                44.1                25.2 1983
    New York MSA 1.000 57.6% 57.6% 26.1%                34.5                35.5 1955

    ——-

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

    Photo: Levittown (Nassau County): Inner Suburban (photo by author)

  • Millennials Are Looking for Something Completely Different

    As the country’s political distemper grows, many commentators, reflecting their own generational biases, mistakenly assume that voters are looking for less government as the solution to the nation’s ills. But survey research data from Washington think tank, NDN, shows that a majority of Americans (54%), and particularly the country’s youngest generation, Millennials, born 1982-2003, (58%), actually favor a more active government, rather than one that “stays out of society and the economy.”

    “Dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic Congress,” generational expert Neil Howe has observed, “is probably more fed by their failure to use government boldly and vigorously to face hard challenges than by their excessive boldness.”.

    What Millennials are looking for in terms of public policy, to borrow John Cleese’s warning to his Monty Python audience, is something completely different. They are not buying into the tired approaches of either party that have produced the current partisan gridlock in Washington.

    Millennials are not interested in letting ideological posturing stand in the way of “getting stuff done,” as they like to say. Their generation’s idealism – in sharp contrast to the more ideological approach adopted by Boomers – is characterized by a pragmatic impulse focused on finding practical solutions to problems. Much like the civic generations – most notably the World War II era “greatest generation” – before them, Millennials want to reinvigorate the nation’s institutions utilizing government to improve basic conditions in areas as diverse as health care, education and environmental protection.

    However, unlike America’s last civic generation, the GI Generation (born 1901-1924), Millennials do not want to place responsibility for achieving their desired results in a remote, opaque bureaucracy. After all, Millennials were not shaped either by the New Deal era or the Second World War, when government expanded to deal with economic and international concerns that threatened the very existence of American democracy. . Instead they tend to see government’s role more like that of their parents who set the rules but left room for negotiation on what the rewards would be for abiding by the rules as well as the consequences for not doing so. In this Millennialist approach, government provides information and resources to help individuals connect and learn from each other but let’s each person decide how best to discharge their civic obligations.

    The healthcare reform legislation that was forged out of the white heat of the political debate in Congress came surprisingly close to this model. It disappointed ideological Boomers on both sides of the aisle. Liberals didn’t get their dream of a single payer system or even its “nose-under-the-tent” counterpart, the so-called public option. But conservatives were unable, even after Republican Scott Brown’s surprise election as a United States Senator from deep blue Massachusetts, to prevent Congress from mandating that every person in America buy health insurance in order to achieve the goal of universal access. By building a framework for universal coverage on the scaffolding of the existing private insurance system, the final legislative solution used the liberal approach of regulation and national mandates to create a new role for government, but kept government out of the business of actually providing health care.

    The final shape of that reform reflects a new Millennialist approach to the making and implementation of public policy. This approach will result in setting new national standards in many aspects of our national life while, at the same time, allowing individuals to make their own choices about how to comply with those standards.

    The recent adoption by a majority of states of national curriculum standards for what students must learn in core disciplines such as English, math and science is further evidence of this trend. These standards, developed and coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, outlines “the knowledge and skills students should have within their K-12 education careers,” without dictating how schools should teach the material.

    Meanwhile the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” grant program, has sparked a firestorm of educational reform legislation in states competing for the money that weaken the hold of administrators and teachers’ unions on what goes on in the classroom. The demands of the parents of Millennials for bottom line results, reflected in such grass roots initiatives as the Parent Revolution in California and Connecticut, is providing the political support needed to take on the current educational monopoly. This will help open the door to widespread experimentation about what works best at the local school level.

    As of yet, there is no sign at the national level that a more Millennialist approach to addressing concerns over global warming and environmental degradation has been achieved. But the failure of Congress to pass more bureaucratic approaches, such as cap-and-trade, suggest there is an opportunity for such ideas to take hold in the future. For instance, a campaign to reduce the carbon intensive nature of the nation’s infrastructure could include a government sponsored effort to display the carbon footprint of most consumer products. This would allow individuals decide how to alter their personal purchasing decisions to produce the most environmentally favorable results.

    Similarly, the goal of reducing fuel consumption per family could be achieved by providing tax incentives for telecommuting or for trading in aging gas guzzlers for vehicles that exceed the newly strengthened fuel economy standards for passenger cars. These policies, and others like them, would leave it up to each individual to decide the extent to which they wish to contribute to environmental improvement. Just as anti- smoking campaigns financed by taxes on cigarettes has been found to be an effective deterrent to smoking , the strategy would be to “nudge” rather than command behavior in order to achieve the desired policy goal. Given the strong environmental sensitivity of the younger generation, this approach will likely accomplish more in terms of actual carbon usage reduction than the ideologically-driven schemes proposed by Boomers in Congress.

    The trajectory of public policy in a Millennial Era is becoming increasingly evident. The push for an increasing number of national standards and preferred behavior will cause libertarians to decry the evolving “nanny state” and argue strenuously against an increasingly intrusive government. But liberals, too, may be upset by approaches that eschew “top down” bureaucratic solutions and focus on using government to improve society without new administrative burden.

    In the future the public, led by Millennials, will be the one forging sustainable solutions. National consensus, coupled with localism and individual choice, will become the watchwords of the nation’s newest civic era.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

    Photo by Vincent J. Brown

  • Mass Transit: The Great Train Robbery

    Last month promoters of the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Los Angeles rail projects, both past and future, held a party to celebrate their “success.” Although this may well have been justified for transit-builders and urban land speculators, there may be far less call for celebration among L.A.’s beleaguered commuters.

    Despite promises that the $8 billion invested in rail lines over the past two decades would lessen L.A.’s traffic congestion and reshape how Angelenos get to work, the sad reality is that there has been no increase in MTA transit ridership since before the rail expansion began in 1985.

    Much of the problem, notes Tom Rubin, a former chief financial officers for the MTA’s predecessor agency, stems from the shift of funding priorities to trains from the city’s more affordable and flexible bus network. Meanwhile, traffic has gotten worse, with delay hours growing from 44 hours a year in 1982 to 70 hours in 2007.

    Sadly, this situation is not unique to Los Angeles. In cities across the country where there have been massive investments in light rail–from the Portland area to Dallas and Charlotte, N.C., and a host of others–the percentage of people taking transit has stagnated or even declined. Nationwide, the percentage of people taking transit to work is now lower than it was in 1980.

    None of this is to argue that we should not invest in transit. It even makes sense if the subsidy required for each transit trip is far higher than for a motorist on the streets or highways. Transit should be considered a public good, particularly for those without access to a car–notably young people, the disabled, the poor and the elderly. Policy should focus on how we invest, at what cost and, ultimately, for whose benefit.

    In some regions with large concentrations of employment, downtown major rail systems often attract many riders (although virtually all lose lots of money). The primary example would be the New York City area, which is one of only two regions (the other being Washington, D.C.) with over one-fifth of total employment in the urban core. In the country as a whole barely 10% of employment is in the city; and in many cities that grew most in the 20th century, such as Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles and Phoenix, the central business district’s share falls well under 5%.

    Some other urban routes–for example between Houston’s relatively buoyant downtown and the massive, ever expanding Texas Medical Center–could potentially prove suitable for trains. But most transit investments would be far more financially sustainable if focused on more cost-efficient methods such as rapid bus lanes, which, according to the Government Accountability Office, is roughly one-third the cost of light rail.

    Making the right choices has become more crucial during the economic downturn, even in New York City. The city and the federal government continue to pour billions into a gold-plated Second Avenue subway but now plan to cut back drastically on the bus service that serves large numbers of commuters from the outer boroughs and more remote parts of Manhattan.

    Ultimately the choice to invest in new subways and light rail as opposed to buses reflects both a class bias and the agenda of what may best described as the “density lobby.” The people who will ride the eight-mile long Second Avenue subway, now under construction for what New York magazine reports may be a total cost of over $17 billion, are largely a very affluent group. The new subway line will also provide opportunity for big developers to build high-density residential towers along the route. In contrast, the bus-riders, as the left-of-center City Limits points out, tend to be working- and middle-class residents from more unfashionable, lower-density districts in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island.

    The proposals for High Speed Rail–a favorite boondoggle of the Obama administration and some state administrators–reveals some of the same misplaced fiscal priorities. California’s State Treasurer, Democrat Bill Lockyer, has lambasted the proposed HSR line between Los Angeles and the Bay Area, suggesting the state may not be able to sell private investors on between $10 billion and $12 billion in bonds without additional public subsidies.

    Other prominent Democrats as well as the State Auditor’s office have challenged the promoters’ claims about the viability of the system and its potential drain on more reasonable priced transit project.

    This issue funding priorities was raised recently by the current administrator of the Federal Transportation Authority, Peter Rogoff, who questioned the wisdom of expanding expensive rail and other transit projects when many districts “can’t afford to operate” their own systems. He noted that already almost 30% of all existing “transit assets” are in “poor or marginal condition.”

    Ultimately we need to ask what constitutes transit’s primary mission: to carry more people to work or to reshape our metropolitan areas for ever denser development. As opposed to buses, which largely serve those without access to cars, light rail lines are often aimed at middle-class residents who would also be potential buyers of high-density luxury housing. In this sense, light rail constitutes a critical element in an expanded effort to reshape the metropolis in a way preferred by many new urbanists, planners and urban land speculators.

    The problem facing these so-called visionaries lies in the evolving nature of the workplace in most parts of the country, where jobs, outside of government employment, are increasingly dispersed. Given these realities, transit agencies should be looking at innovative ways to reach farther to the periphery, in part to provide access to inner-city residents to a wider range of employment options. Considering more than 80% of all commuter trips are between areas outside downtown, priority should be given to more flexible, less costly systems such as rapid commuter bus lines, bus rapid transit, as well as subsidized dial-a-ride and jitney services that can work between suburban centers.

    If reducing energy use and carbon emissions remains the goal, much more emphasis should be placed as well on telecommuting. In many cities that have invested heavily in rail transit–Dallas, Denver and Salt Lake City, for example–the percentage of people working from home is now markedly larger than those taking any form of mass transit. Since the approval of the Dallas light rail system in the 1980s, for example, the transit share of work trips has dropped from 4.3% to 2.1%; the work-at-home share has grown from 2.3% to 4.3%.

    In fact, people who work from home now surpass transit users in 36 out of 52 metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million–and receive virtually no financial backing from governments. Yet if New York, home to roughly 40% of the nation’s transit commuters, was taken out of the calculations, at-home workers already outnumber the number of people taking transit to work; and since 2000 their numbers have been growing roughly twice as fast as those of transit riders.

    Clearly we should not spend our ever more scarce transit resources on a nostalgia crusade to make our cities function much the way they did in the late 1800s. Instead, we need to construct systems reflecting the technology and geographic realities of the 21st century and place our primary focus on helping people, particularly those in need, find efficient, economically sustainable ways to get around.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo: Michael | Ruiz

  • Vancouver: Moving to the Suburbs

    A few weeks ago, The New York Times touted purported savings that a household would save by living in the core city of New York (in Brooklyn) instead of the suburbs (South Orange, New Jersey). The article downplayed the 1,000 fewer square feet the money bought in Brooklyn and did not consider the 40% higher cost of living.

    The Province in Vancouver has now followed with a near identical story, except that the urban household in will make do with even less space. The city of Vancouver household will live in 800 square feet, or 1,200 fewer square feet in the high rise condominium than in a suburban Coquitlam detached house used in the comparison. Like The Times, The Province is little concerned with the smaller size of the house and misses the fact that the cost of living is from 10% to 20% less in the suburbs and exurbs than it is in the city of Vancouver.

    Nonetheless, according to Tsur Somerville, director of the University of British Columbia UBC Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate, who assisted in developing the figures for The Province, “If all they cared about were the dollars, they wanted to have $600,000 worth of real estate and then minimize their out-of-pocket costs, all else being considered, then being in the city is better,” A commenter appropriately notes the volatility of strata (condominium association) fees, which suggests that out-of-pocket costs could rise significantly.

    Canadians are not listening to “their betters” any more than Americans. US Census data indicates a continuing strong migration of people from the central cities and strong migration to the suburbs, despite heroic efforts on the part of the media and others to mask the reality.

    “Being in the city” may be preferable to some in the Vancouver area, however not to the majority of the age group (25 to 44 years) most likely to move is voting for the suburbs, according to a recent Statistics Canada report. According to the report:

    “… there continues to be a migration of many young adults and families from central municipalities to surrounding municipalities, while few move in the opposite direction.”

    For every one person who moved from the suburbs to the city of Vancouver between 2001 and 2006 (in the age group):

    • Among all in the age group, 1.8 people moved to the suburbs from the city for every person moving to city from the suburbs.
    • Among those in the age group with advanced degrees, 1.7 people moved to the suburbs for every person moving to the city.
    • Among those earning $100,000 to $150,000, 3.4 people moved to the suburbs for every person moving to the city. The ratio fell to 2.0 times for those making over $150,000.
    • More than 25% of the age group population who had their first children between 2001 and 2006 moved to the suburbs from the city, more than five times as many as moved to the city from the suburbs.

    A table in the Statistics Canada report shows people in “creative class” occupations moving in greater numbers to the suburbs than to the city.

    However, not everyone is moving in larger numbers to the suburbs.

    • More of the lowest income people are moving to the city than to the suburbs.
    • Artists have moved in greater numbers to the city than to the suburbs.
    • University professors and other university personnel have moved in greater numbers to the city than to the suburbs, perhaps explaining why so many in these groups misunderstand the direction of the migration.

    The Statistics Canada report provided a similar analysis for Canada’s two larger metropolitan areas, Toronto and Montreal. In Toronto, moves to the suburbs were 3.5 times moves to the city, while in Montreal 2.7 central city dwellers moved to the suburbs for every suburbanite moving to the city. This does not, however, necessarily indicate that the exodus to the suburbs is stronger in Toronto and Montreal. It is rather an indication of the fact that these two central cities represent a larger share of their metropolitan population than Vancouver. This means that more of the core out-migration is captured in Toronto and Montreal.

    So, the media continues the “drumbeat” and the people keep marching — in the opposite direction.

  • Melbourne: Government Seeking Housing Affordability

    Once a country known as “lucky” for its affordable quality of life, Australia has achieved legendary status as a place where public policies have destroyed housing affordability for the middle class. Draconian land rationing policies (called “urban consolidation” in Australia and more generally “compact city” policy or “smart growth”), have made it virtually illegal to build houses outside tightly drawn urban growth boundaries that leave virtually no room for new construction beyond the urban fringe. As a result, house prices have increased to the point that Australia now suffers one of the most unaffordable markets in the world.

    The consequences of this may finally be dawning on some governments. The state of Victoria, for example, is expanding its urban growth boundary around Melbourne.

    Severely Unaffordable Australia: The Reserve Bank of Australia (the central bank) has described the considerable extent to which house prices have increased relative to incomes since the 1980s. The annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey makes similar findings, showing that the price of housing has doubled or tripled relative to household incomes over the past quarter century. All major markets in Australia are “severely unaffordable.” This has occurred in a country that has long boasted one of the largest home ownership shares in the world, which epitomized the “Great Australian Dream.” Until urban consolidation policies were widely adopted and strictly enforced, Australia’s housing affordability (measured by the Median Multiple, which is the median house price divided by median household income) was virtually the same as that of the United States.

    That has changed radically. Over the past two years, the median house price in Melbourne, has risen by 30%.

    Expanding Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary: In this environment, it comes as welcome news that the Brumby Labor government has enacted an expansion of the Melbourne urban growth boundary. The initiative attracted broad based support, including that of the Liberal-National opposition in the Victoria (state) parliament. The government expects that the expansion will “maintain” housing affordability.

    There was, not surprisingly, the kind of hysteria that has become typical of Australian land use debates. Suburban Casey Mayor Lorraine Wreford expressed concern that the expansion would consume agricultural land and increase food costs. In fact, the higher costs that Melburnians are paying for housing as a result of the urban growth boundary is more than enough to pay grocery bills for the neighbors on both sides.

    The “loss of agricultural land” argument is even more daft in Australia than in the United States. Australia’s agricultural production continues to improve, which has permitted huge amounts of land to be abandoned and returned to its natural state. Since 1981, an area nearly the size of New South Wales has been taken out of agricultural production. Lest anyone think that urbanization is a factor, this is more than 50 times the land area of all the urbanization that has developed in Australia since western colonization began.

    Will it be Enough? The risk, however, is that the urban growth boundary expansion may not be enough to materially improve housing affordability. The expansion is modest, at less than 170 square miles (440 square kilometers*). Worryingly, the government indicates that this will be the last urban growth boundary expansion in this generation.

    How Much Land is Needed for Housing Affordability? However, US experience indicates that a surprisingly small amount of developable land beyond the urban fringe may be enough to keep land and house prices from escalating.

    For example, Portland’s urban growth boundary appears to have had little cost escalation impact on house prices until the 1990s, when urban fringe developable land within the urban ground boundary fell to less than 10% compared in relation to the already developed urban footprint (Note). This is the equivalent of a developable ring around Portland of less than one/half mile (0.8 kilometers in Portland).

    As the developable land became more scarce, house prices escalated. Now, Portland house prices are more than one-third above the historic Median Multiple norm of 3.0 and they peaked at more than 60% above during the housing bubble.

    Similarly, there are virtual urban growth boundaries in Las Vegas and Phoenix. These development constraints are defined by circumferential government owned land, which has been released to the market at rates intended to maximize revenues, which means they minimize housing affordability. Yet these constraints appear to have had little impact on prices until developable fringe land dropped to below 20% relative to the urban footprint.

    Strengthening Melbourne’s Competitive Position? The Victorian action may have been impelled by a recognition that the affordability-driven economic stagnation already existent in Sydney could well spread. This could help to restore Melbourne to its role as Australia’s principal urban area, more than a century after having been dethroned by Sydney. Bernard Salt, one of the nation’s leading demographers, has predicted that Melbourne’s population will exceed that of Sydney by in less than 20 years.

    Offering Australia’s future generations the chance to live out the Great Australian Dream by improving housing affordability could not only expand Melbourne’s competitive edge over Sydney, but could even neutralize fast-growing Brisbane’s trajectory. Ross Elliot has suggested that the new Southeast Queensland Regional plan could seriously retard growth in that vibrant area.

    Are Australian House Prices in a Bubble?

    There is a raging debate over whether Australia’s housing price boom is an asset bubble. International financial analysts Edward Chancellor, who correctly predicted the Great Recession, believes that Australian housing is a bubble that will burst before long. Others disagree. Either way, Australia loses.

    • If Australia’s price boom is a bubble, history says it will burst (as virtually all do), likely inflicting serious damage to the economy. In this regard, Australia could be more at risk than the United States was in its housing bubble burst, since housing in virtually every market, large and small, has been driven up to unsustainable levels. In the United States, the bubble was contained within markets accounting for about one-half of housing, where Australian-type planning policies were in operation. Other markets, such as Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta and much the Great Plains did not experience the bubble.
    • If Australia’s planners have simply succeeded in raising the long term price of housing and there is no bubble (as many Australian analysts suggest), then future generations of Australians will have much less money to spend and their standard of living will lower than it would otherwise have been.

    Regrettably, the spirited debate over an Australian “bubble” is far different that the public deliberations that preceded the adoption of urban consolidation policies in Australia. For the most part, state governments and planning academics carefully avoided any discussion of the housing affordability consequences. Perhaps this was out of ignorance. But whatever the intentions, the smart growthers have imposed great costs on both present and future generations of Australians.

    —–

    Note: This is a far smaller area than recent research suggesting a relationship between geographic constraints (mountains and other undevelopable land) and higher house prices. Research by Albert Saiz at Wharton uses a 50 kilometer (30 mile) radius from the urban core to identify the share of land that can be developed. The data in the research would indicate that more than 1,750 square miles are developable, yet Portland is among the more geographically constrained according to this analysis. This seems to be an unreasonably large area for measuring the impact of geographical constraints. It is nearly 4 times the urban footprint of Portland and is nearly 60 times the developable land area that exhibited virtually no impact on housing affordability in Portland in the early 1990s and is more land area than covered by all but 8 of the world’s largest urban areas. It is to be expected that that politically imposed development constraints (strongly enforced as in Portland and Australia) render any more remote geographical constraints irrelevant.

    Photo: Inside the expanded urban growth boundary: Western Freeway toward Melton (photography by author)

    *The original version of this essay read 17 square miles and 44 square kilometers.

  • 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

  • A New War Between The States

    Nearly a century and half since the United States last divided, a new “irrepressible conflict” is brewing between the states. It revolves around the expansion of federal power at the expense of state and local prerogatives. It also reflects a growing economic divide, arguably more important than the much discussed ideological one, between very different regional economies.

    This conflict could grow in the coming years, particularly as the Obama administration seeks to impose a singular federal will against a generally more conservative set of state governments. The likely election of a more center-right Congress will exacerbate the problem. We may enter a golden age of critical court decisions over the true extent of federal or executive power.

    Some states are already challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care program. Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona joined a suit on March 23 by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum to overturn the law. And Arizona’s right to make its own pre-immigration regulations has gained support from nine other states: Texas, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan and Virginia.

    These may be just the opening salvos. If the Republicans and conservative Democrats gain effective control of Congress, the White House may choose to push its agenda through the ever expanding federal apparat. This would transform a policy dispute into something resembling a constitutional crisis.

    Such legal kerfuffles are unlikely to serve as precursors to armed conflict. But the political and rhetorical battles will certainly be heated. The federalistas can take heart from the the Civil War of a century and a half ago, which was decisively won by the union. They can also gain some encouragement from the ultimate success of the New Deal and of World War II.

    The federal government’s greatest bragging right–ending the absolute evil of slavery–was secured during the last war between the states. While most Union soldiers may have gone to war for the Union, the final result was an end to slavery. The consolidation of that gain during the 1960s also rests on expanded federalism.

    But the Civil War also was, as Karl Marx observed, a conflict between powerful economic interests. The Southern economy depended heavily on the export of commodities–primarily cotton, but also tobacco and other foodstuffs. It enjoyed profitable trading ties with the capitalistic superpower of the time, Great Britain. The North, in contrast, was an emerging industrial power for whom the British Empire represented the prime competitor.

    After the war the industrial capitalists ran the country virtually unchallenged. They overcame the Southern commodity producers politically and burdened them with high tariffs. By the 1890s American manufacturing surpassed Great Britain. The North became relatively rich while the South and much of the West remained backwaters until the 1950s.

    The economic map looks very different today. Generally speaking, states in relatively good economic shape are concentrated in an economic “zone of sanity” across the vast Great Plains. They are also in the least “fiscal peril,” according to a recent Pew study. Not surprisingly, these states see little reason to extend federal power and increase taxation in order to bail out their more profligate counterparts.

    To a large extent these states, according to Pew, are also the ones willing to reform their pension and other spending to keep down costs. Significantly, strong pension reforms have been enacted in some hard-hit sunbelt states–such as Nevada, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona–which appear to be following the fiscal model of the zone-of-sanity states.

    In contrast those states most favorable to a more powerful Washington are often the ones suffering the worst fiscal situations. They also seem least willing to solve their structural budget issues. Free-spending, poorly managed states like New York, California, Michigan, Oregon and Illinois–all of which are controlled by the president’s political allies, need massive federal largesse to pay their bills without ruinous tax increases or painful cuts. Some localities in these states could become the Greeks of late 2010 as they head inexorably toward defaults.

    The differences between the states, however, extend beyond budget items. Many of the worst-managed also benefit from more federal spending on academic and medical research, and from subsidies for their often expensive green energy policies. They can also argue, with some justification, that the zone-of-sanity states have benefited in the past from federal crop supports, military spending and highway funding. Now it’s their turn for disproportionate time at the trough.

    Perhaps the most divisive issue will be the Obama administration’s proposed “cap and trade” legislation. For the most part, the strongest opposition comes from coal-dependent, industrial heartland states such as Indiana, whose governor, Mitch Daniels, has denounced the legislation as “imperialism” from Washington. Other keen opposition can be expected among members in both parties from energy-producing states like West Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming.

    In contrast “cap and trade” seems less of a problem to the rapidly deindustrializing coastal states. Many of these states pride themselves as exemplars of an emerging low-carbon “information economy” and seem determined to limit their gas-spewing sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and transportation. A strong federal mandate on carbon emissions also would diminish the competitive gap between states like California, burdened by draconian local climate change policies, and less restrictive places like Texas.

    So who is likely to win the emerging new war between the states? Federal partisans might paint their opponents as the new “Confederates” fighting a protracted rear guard action, this time against science and social enlightenment. Certainly some demographic trends–youth attitudes on environmental issues, growing ethnic diversity and urbanization of “rural” states–favor the unionists.

    Yet you can argue that the fiscally strong states will be better positioned for the future. In contrast to the mid-19th-century Confederates, whose population growth paled compared with the Northern states, many of today’s demographic trends favor the anti-federalists.

    Over the past decade America’s population and enterprises have been shifting away from the unionist strongholds. Once depopulating states like Kentucky and the Dakotas are enjoying net in-migration from the rest of the country. Texas gradually threatens to supplant California as the leading destination for the young and ambitious.

    This suggests that after the 2010 census we could see something of a neo-confederate majority in Congress. Historical patterns may be repeating themselves, but they could produce a very different final result.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo: Marxchivist

  • 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

  • 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.

  • The Decline and Revival of an American Suburb

    In 1952, a white Protestant couple from Pasadena, California along with their newly born first child, moved 22 miles east to a small town called Covina. There, among acres of open space and endless rows of orange, lemon, and avocado trees, the young family was able to purchase a plot of land and build a brand-new home with swimming pool for a total of $20,000.

    Not far away, in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County straddled by the towns of La Puente, Baldwin Park and West Covina, a Mexican-American Catholic couple from central Los Angeles with two small daughters purchased a newly built 3-bedroom, 2-bath home with a large backyard for $15,000. The young husband had served in the Navy during World War II, allowing the couple to buy their home with the help of the G.I. Bill. The year was 1956.

    The two couples featured are my paternal and maternal grandparents. Both were young families of the prosperous post-war years claiming their stake on the middle class American Dream. My paternal grandfather worked as a sales representative for Drackett Products (the creators of Drano and Windex- now part of S.C. Johnson & Son) while my maternal grandfather worked as unionized welder at an aerospace plant in Burbank. Both grandmothers were career stay-at-home moms.

    The place they chose to call home is the San Gabriel Valley- a sprawling expanse east of Los Angeles comprised of 47 independent municipalities and unincorporated areas. Today, the region is a demographically diverse melting pot of more than 2 million residents. To a casual visitor heading east towards the Inland Empire on one of the Valley’s three main east-west arteries (the 210, 10 and 60 freeways), the separate municipalities-with names like Glendora, Rosemead, and Duarte-are virtually indistinguishable. Aside from Pasadena, the oldest city in the Valley and famous for its Rose Parade and accompanying Rose Bowl Game, most San Gabriel Valley cities are largely forgettable in terms of architecture or town planning.

    Such failings in the built environment were not a consideration back in the 50s and 60s. My father describes his childhood setting as ‘heaven on earth’ where he could ride his bike with friends for miles from his home exploring rolling hills, untouched rivers and endless citrus groves.

    My mother describes her childhood neighborhood as what Life magazine once dubbed ‘kidsville. She recalls the neighborhood kids playing a variety of games outside in the street after school. Most often, she would not even be allowed inside the house until 5 pm when dinner was promptly served. On special occasions, her parents would take her and her siblings, my aunt and uncle, to a new fast-food joint called In-N-Out Burger. The now iconic chain had their first location literally just around the corner from their home.

    By the mid 1970s, both of my parents had left the San Gabriel Valley for another valley in Northern California where they met and later got married. My younger sister and I were raised in the Bay Area’s Silicon Valley, but we would still make the drive down to Southern California at least once a year to visit relatives.

    This trip always prompted mixed feelings from my parents.

    My father later explained to me that over the course of 25 years the San Gabriel Valley had devolved from an idyllic bedroom community to a crowded and polluted assortment of endless strip-malls. The year he left, 1973, had one of the worst air-pollution levels on record. Most days it was impossible to even see the majestic San Gabriel Mountains towering over the Valley. Sometimes, my father tells me, his high school football practices had to be canceled due to the inability of the players to catch their breath.

    Today the air-quality is significantly improved (thanks in large part to the introduction of catalytic converters to automobiles).

    The demographic make-up is also drastically different. My mother’s childhood street, which was about 50-50 split between Mexican-Americans and white Americans is now predominately populated by Central American immigrants. Long gone are the children playing on the street and neighbors socializing with each other. Now, most homes have unkempt front lawns surrounded by chain-link fences and windows and doors with security bars on them. On commercial streets nearby, strip malls are dominated by small restaurants and grocery stores with signs in Spanish catering to the local Latino community.

    In the neighboring city of West Covina, the present demographics are markedly more mixed. About half of the population is of Hispanic origin while the remainder is split between white and Asian. The Asian influx to West Covina is a recent phenomenon, taking place over the past two decades. This is physically visible in several strip malls throughout the city catering to Chinese immigrants and Chinese Americans.

    The growing Asian population is part of a larger trend in the greater San Gabriel Valley region. Already, cities in the western part of the Valley, including Alhambra, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, and even the upscale enclave of San Marino, are majority Asian. Die-hard foodies of Southern California claim this area has the most authentic Chinese food in North America.

    I can’t blame my parents for wondering what happened to the suburban utopia of their youth. Many other Baby Boomers across the U.S. probably share similar sentiments about the communities where they grew up.

    Yet if the dream seems endangered, or even delusional, to many sophisticated Americans, many other people, particularly immigrants from outside of America’s borders, want a piece of it.

    Ultimately these newcomers may be the ones to save suburbs like those in the San Gabriel Valley. They are the ones now starting businesses, improving their houses, and building the new cultural institutions. This may not be the suburbia of my parent’s childhood but it is not the doomed dystopia imagined by many urbane observers.

    These newly energized suburbs will also not depend as much on the center city. More residents now work closer to home, and fewer commute to the core of Los Angeles, which has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs over the past decade.

    Instead these towns are reviving along the lines of ‘suburb as village’, building on now underutilized downtown areas with charming mid-century structures that once served as commercial hubs for their respective towns. A growing emphasis on locality, as well as a renewed interest in civic identity, may help these places find their individual character once again – even if the signs of revival may be in Mandarin or Spanish as well as English.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of California. Raised in Silicon Valley, he developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. Adam attended the University of Southern California in Los Angeles where he earned a Bachelor of Architecture degree. He currently lives in China where he works in the architecture profession. His blog can be read at http://adamnathanielmayer.blogspot.com/

    Photo by BurlyInTheBay