New Geography

Category: planning

  • Lessons from the Left: When Radicals Rule – For Thirty Years

    Contrary to popular notions held even here in southern California, Santa Monica was never really a beach town or bedroom community. It was a blue-collar industrial town, home to the famed Douglas Aircraft from before World War II until the 1970s.

    When I first lived there in the early ’70s, the city was pretty dilapidated, decaying and declining (except for the attractive neighborhoods of large expensive homes in the city’s northern sections). I remember a lot of retirees, students, and like me and my wife, renters of small apartments in old buildings. The tiredness of the place was incongruous with its great location and weather. But then the first of several spectacular rises in real estate values took off. Rents started rising precipitously as well, and in a city where 80% of residents were renters, a political earthquake shook the establishment: in 1979 voters passed rent control and soon after that elected a slate of politicians backed by the SMRR – Santa Monicans for Renter Rights – to a majority on the city council. It has now been 30 years that the city of Santa Monica has been dominated by the politics and politicians of SMRR. What have they wrought?

    There have been some momentous battles. Property owners, denied the full use and fair value of their property, came to calling the place “the People’s Republic of Santa Monica.” As economists would predict, rent control resulted in the loss of rental units (and therefore the number of renters), slowed construction of new units, led to the deterioration of existing units as landlords deferred maintenance, decreased the city’s diversity, and increased its exclusivity. These were all opposite effects the original intentions of the new radical rulers.

    But rent control was not the only “social justice” concern on the SMRR agenda; “homeless friendly” policies led to an explosion of homeless people in the city, which comedian Harry Shearer reminds the nation every week on his NPR radio show is “The Home of the Homeless.”

    Other battles fought over the years have involved traffic issues, a living wage ordinance, preferential parking zones, McMansions, development and redevelopment, planning, zoning, schools, affordable housing requirements, and the height of fences and hedges – a thousand things big and small one would expect in a city of 85,000 residents and an annual budget of over $500 million. At some point in the 1980s, the SMRR-dominated City Council, once anti-development, realized that development could generate millions of dollars for city government necessary for funding its political agenda. Massive rezoning and redevelopment were approved.

    One might think that inconsistent policies often causing opposite effect of their intentions would have weakened the left. But two large factors have come into play over time. First, SMRR does not rule without consent and consensus – many, perhaps more than half, of home owners have supported the progressive politics and policies of the SMRR-controlled city council. Secondly, despite the concerns of some property owners and economists, Santa Monica has prospered. Despite powerful regulation, hotels, arts, jobs, and restaurants continue to flow into the city. Opponents on both sides concede most of the population is content and satisfied with the status quo.

    This has been accomplished with pragmatism and a willingness to change policies that were not working. The worst effects of rent control are in the past due to a state law that allowed vacancy decontrol. Same with homelessness: residents wanted to be “progressive” but realized that being kind to the homeless only increased their numbers. The city still overdoes it on permits, regulations, etc., but homeowners and business want to be “progressive,” so they go along with it (and they like regulation when it benefits their interests).

    The city decided to make itself a tourist destination, and it is, but when it looked like nothing but hotels would be built, voters passed a proposition to halt hotel development. On the other hand, last November voters defeated Prop T, which would have limited most commercial development in the city to 75,000 square feet a year for the next 15 years.

    Santa Monica Place, a huge indoor shopping mall, outlived its usefulness, so now it’s being rebuilt as an outdoor mixed-use development. A living wage law was passed by the City Council, and then repealed by voters.

    SMRR is a political machine that has dominated the city for 30 years, using money, favors, jobs for the connected (and bupkis for those not) to build voting blocs for power and control. It inserts its people onto all the boards and commissions with input into policymaking. Their power ultimately comes from persuading renters, who are still a big majority of the city’s inhabitants, that they need SMRR for protection from “greedy landlords.”

    So SMRR dominates political life in the city of Santa Monica, but it does so with the consent of many homeowners, property and business owners, as well as renters. Santa Monica is green, PC, insufferably “tolerant,” self-satisfied, etc., but still doing well for itself. Taxes, rules, regulations and restrictions are onerous, but people and businesses still want to be there.

    I have lived through and observed the political battles of the last 30 years as a renter, homeowner and briefly as a landlord (never again, thanks). The transformation of Santa Monica reflects an interesting story: left-leaning activists who realize they can bend the establishment by controlling it from the inside. They then become the new establishment, but like in today’s left-leaning academia, work to make sure they themselves are never similarly deposed. And yes, I wonder if it holds lessons for the nation, with President Obama and the Democrats now in control and looking to implement a left-leaning agenda.

    What might those lessons be? One, particularly difficult for conservatives to accept, is that the time-tested machinations of leftist political machines sometimes work. They work for the powerful and the connected (who get to have their cake and eat it too: financial reward with a patina of progressivism), and they are perceived to work for the powerless and unconnected (however deleterious in reality). And that the left can come to power and rule with the consent of the governed, if it doesn’t “push the envelope” beyond a certain point, changes course when warranted, rewards cronies and allies, co-opts opponents where possible (and freezes them out where not). It worked for Tammany Hall, it has worked for Mayor Daley, and it seems to be working for Obama. Saul Alinsky would be proud of his protégé.

    Perhaps at the heart of its success is that like all successful political machines, SMRR “fixes potholes.” Frank Gruber, who writes a weekly column about life and politics in Santa Monica for The Lookout News, calls this “squeaky wheel government.” SMRR council members try to turn every complaining resident – and there are many – into happy SMRR voters. Whatever the aims of SMRR, they have created a popular government.

    Gruber, who considers himself an “old leftie” of the “jobs, housing, education, environment” school, takes SMRR to task for putting the needs of comfortable voters (traffic, for instance) ahead of the needs of the larger community (such as jobs for minority youth). (A collection of Gruber’s columns has recently been published in a book called, fittingly, Urban Worrier: Making Politics Personal.)

    In the 2008 elections, in which Santa Monicans voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, all four incumbents of the City Council won easily. SMRR seems as entrenched as always. In at least this paradisiacal portion of Southern California, left-wing government appears to be working – even if sometimes at odds with its own old radical objectives.

    Dr. Roger Selbert is a trend analyst, researcher, writer and speaker. Growth Strategies is his newsletter on economic, social and demographic trends; IntegratedRetailing.com is his web site on retail trends. Roger is US economic analyst for the Institute for Business Cycle Analysis and its US Consumer Demand Index, a monthly survey of American households’ buying intentions.

  • Shrinking the Rust Belt

    An article in the London Daily Telegraph suggesting that President Obama might back a major program of bulldozing parts of cities in the Rust Belt has put so-called “shrinking cities” back in the spotlight. Many cities around the country, especially in the Rust Belt have experienced major population loss in their urban cores which has sometimes spilled into their entire metro area. They have thousands of abandoned homes, decayed infrastructure, environmental challenges, and no growth to justify a belief that many districts will ever be repopulated.

    Cities in the Rust Belt grew in an era when large scale manufacturing required large amounts of labor. Today, productivity improvements mean that the United States can set new industrial production records with a fraction of the workforce of yesteryear. With much of its traditional labor force no longer as in demand in the modern economy, many Rust Belt cities lack an economic raison d’etre. Some may transform themselves for the modern economy, but many will be forced to accept the reality of a significantly diminished stature in the 21st century.

    In this world, size can prove a liability. One of the biggest problems in turning around Detroit is the sheer size of the region. The metro area has a population of 4.5 million – not including nearby Ann Arbor or Windsor, Canada. Is there really any need in the modern day for a city the size of Detroit in Southeastern Michigan? It seems doubtful. As I’ve argued before, transforming that city’s economy would be much easier if the region were smaller.

    One challenge is that a decline in population, which is already occurring naturally, doesn’t shrink the area of urbanization or the accompanying infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Indeed, although it is losing population and can’t support the infrastructure it has, Detroit still wants to build more, such a new regional rail transit system. And legacy debts such as pension liabilities don’t get smaller just because people leave. As with leverage, scale economics works in declining places as well as on the growing ones. The people who operate new transit systems or police who secure expanded areas must be paid. Roads, sewers, and water lines need to be maintained. In many places that are losing people, jobs, and tax base, such fixed costs could prove ruinous over the long run.

    Under such conditions, Rust Belt cities require both outside help and a program of managed shrinkage. The first challenge will be getting these cities, especially larger ones like Detroit, to admit that they need to do it on a regional basis. Medium sized cities like Flint and Youngstown have been more willing to face up to challenges. In contrast, places like Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo still see themselves as important national cities. Pride is blocking the effort to undertake a major managed shrinkage program. Instead of adjusting to reality, these cities continue to pour hundreds of millions into projects that vainly attempt to restart growth. .

    What would a federally assisted managed shrinkage program look like? No one can say for sure since this is a new field in America. Clearly, study of what has happened in Europe, particularly in Germany, where managed shrinkage has long been on the agenda, is warranted. But these ideas can’t just be transplanted via lift and drop. We need to create a distinctly American program informed by the best practices of elsewhere. That program should include the following elements:

    1. Education. Raising educational attainment not only makes people more employable in the new economy, it makes them more mobile.
    2. Relocation Assistance. Many people in the Rust Belt might want to move but be unable to do so because they are upside down on a mortgage or can’t sell their house. As more people leave, that will put downward pressure on the housing market. Hence, some government relocation assistance to help buy out people who want to move might be helpful.
    3. Shrinking the Urban Footprint. The quantity of urbanized land needs to be reduced so that the excess housing and infrastructure can be retired and the cost of servicing it eliminated. This means painfully identifying areas which will not receive reinvestment, and encouraging and assisting the people and businesses that remain to relocate. This will be difficult as these neighborhoods are still the locales for people’s homes and they have a strong emotional sense of ownership. Sensitivity is clearly called for. We need to increase localized density in areas targeted for redevelopment and convert other areas to non-urbanized uses such as nature preserves or agriculture. This will be a long process.
    4. Financial Restructuring. Older cities are often hobbled by mountains of debt, underfunded pensions, overstaffed payrolls, and too many municipal fixed assets. The government needs to be right-sized. Federal assistance may be needed to take over pensions and to give cities some tools to restructure unsustainable debt loads outside of bankruptcy.
    5. Development Restrictions. In return for federal assistance, there ought to be a real insistence that these cities sign up to the shrinkage programs. This might include enforceable restrictions on their ability to adopt policies that are oriented towards servicing growth such as restrictions on the ability to use federal funding for net new infrastructure. For example, if Detroit wants to build a federally funded rail system, it should retire an equivalent amount of other infrastructure elsewhere to offset it.

    Participation would be voluntary, but the federal government should make it clear that it will not finance futile attempts by these cities to try to recapture the glory of their pasts.

    This is of course only a conceptual outline of a program. Significant thought, analysis, and research would be needed to develop a program. Given our lack of experience in the field, experiments should be encouraged, flexibility granted within broad parameters, and real world feedback continuously incorporated back into the program. Clearly, we will not get everything right the first time around. We need to have the courage to learn from our mistakes and not forge headlong into failure simply because it would look like a political retreat.

    This won’t be pleasant or easy. It is not a path anyone wants to take. But given the condition of much of the Rust Belt, the only viable options appear to be painful ones. As local blogger Tom Jones recently said, “Too often, dealing with urban problems in Memphis is like the stages of grief. Just this once, maybe we can move past denial, anger, bargaining and depression, and unabashedly move to acceptance and develop the kinds of bold plans that can truly make a difference in the trajectory of our city.”

    Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile.

  • Did Homeowners Cause The Great Recession?

    The person who caused the current world recession can be found not on Wall Street or the city of London, but instead could be you, and your next-door neighbor–the people who put so much of their savings and credit to buy a house.

    Increasingly, conventional wisdom places the fundamental blame for the worldwide downturn on people’s desire–particularly in places like the U.K., the U.S. and Spain–to own their own home. Acceptance of the long-term serfdom of renting, the logic increasingly goes, could help restore order and the rightful balance of nature.

    Once considered sacrosanct by conservatives and social democrats alike, homeownership is increasingly seen as a form of economic derangement. The critics of the small owner include economists like Paul Krugman and Ed Glaeser, who identify the over-hot pursuit of homes as one critical cause for the recession. Others suggest it would be perhaps nobler to put money into something more consequential, like stocks.

    Homeowners also get spanked by leading new urbanists, like Brookings scholar and urban real estate developer Chris Leinberger. He lays blame for the downturn not on unscrupulous financiers but squarely on aspiring suburban home buyers. “Sprawl,” he intones, “is the root cause of the financial crisis.”

    If only we built more high-density, transit-oriented housing–which, incidentally, is not exactly thriving–the crisis could be happily resolved, he believes. This approach is echoed by big-city theoreticians like Richard Florida, who believes that both homeownership and the single-family house “has outlived its usefulness.” In his “creative age,” we won’t have much room for either single-family homes or owners. Instead, we will be leasing our ever-more-tiny cribs–just like yuppies with their BMWs–as we wander from job to job.

    To be sure, many people who bought homes in the last few years should not have qualified. Weak lending standards, promoted by both unscrupulous industry figures like Countrywide’s Angelo Mozillo as well as Congress–including the many “friends” receiving cut-rate loans from the disgraced mortgage firm–clearly made things worse.

    Yet the recent real estate debacles should not obscure the tremendous positives associated with homeownership. Widespread and diffuse ownership of property has been a critical element in successful republics, from early Rome and the Dutch Republic to the foundation of the United States. Jefferson held that “small land holders are the most precious part of a state.” In the ensuing generation, progressives embraced widespread ownership of property as central to democratic aims. Lincoln’s Homestead Act stands out as a prime example.

    Even by the 1940s, this model was only partially realized. Barely 40% of the population owned their homes. Homeownership remained confined largely to small-town denizens and the urban upper classes. No one in my mother’s family–growing up in the tenements of Brownsville, Brooklyn–even considered homeownership an achievable goal. It was hard enough simply to pay the rent and put food on the table.

    Yet by the 1960s, rising prosperity and government-subsidized loans helped most of my numerous aunts and uncles own their residence.

    Presidents from Roosevelt to Clinton all identified homeownership as a critical social goal. Government loan programs exploded as housing starts doubled in the post-war era. By 2005, the homeownership rate was approaching 70%.

    This trend also took place in other advanced countries, from the U.K. and Australia to Canada and Spain. It reflected what the Italian urbanist Edgardo Contini once referred to as “the universal aspiration.” In some cases, such as Japan, societies that had been divided between landlords and peasants for millennia now boasted a huge, and growing, cadre of small owners.

    In virtually every country, this was largely a suburban phenomenon. People bought houses where land was cheaper, stores and schools newer. Here, too, people could transcend the often confining social limits of the old neighborhood. It was also, as the novelist Ralph G. Martin, noted “a paradise for children.”

    Through all this, the chattering class never lost its contempt for homeowners and their suburban refuges. Old gentry long disliked the idea of dispersed ownership of property–even if many got rich selling their own estates to developers. Aesthetes disliked the seemingly banal housing tracts “rising hideously,” as Robert Caro put it, from the urban periphery. This critique was applied not only to Queens and Long Island but also to places like Milton Keynes or Basildon outside London, and greater Tokyo’s Chiba prefecture.

    Along with the fashion police, the new owners also took criticism from their urban betters, many of them also owners of country homes, for deserting the city. Some on the left feared the homeowners as a bastion of conservative politics. Architects, planners and developers identified them as opponents of their grand plans to refashion suburbia into a denser, more rental-oriented environment.

    Yet, despite the disdain, the dream of homeownership survived. Many boomers, who in their 1960s radical phase denounced suburban tracts as sterile and racist, meekly ended up buying homes there. So, increasingly, did middle-class minorities, whose rates of homeownership rose faster after 1994 than that of whites.

    To be sure, the financial crisis has led to a sharp drop in levels of homeownership, as occurred in the last big recession of the early 1990s. In the future, some suggest that aging boomers will force the home market to collapse even more due both to the current mortgage meltdown and changing demographics.

    Yet there are limits to how far homeownership will drop. Urban boosters, apartment-builders and greens–all advocates of expanding the renter class–tend to ignore several key facts. For one thing, the vast majority of boomers are holding onto their mostly suburban homes far longer than ever suspected. Many will remain there until forced into assisted living, nursing homes or the cemetery.

    Then we have the X generation, who, if anything, has favored large homes and exurbs in large numbers. In addition, behind them lie the large cohorts of millenials, who according to surveys conducted by generational chroniclers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, prioritize the ownership idea even more than their boomer parents do.

    No doubt, the weak economy will slow this generation’s push into the home market. However, by the next decade, as this generation enters the late 20s and early 30s, they will find their economic footing and be ready to enter the market for houses in a big way.

    The real question then will become which companies and regions will meet the expanding demand. Over the past decade, we saw the demand for housing push middle-class families toward destinations as varied as Las Vegas and Phoenix, Austin, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta. Others have started heading to more affordable markets in the nation’s heartland, to the metropolitan areas like Kansas City, Des Moines and Sioux Falls.

    Rather than a source of economic weakness, this renewed quest for homeownership could underpin a sustainable recovery. As prices fall to reasonable levels, more people will qualify for reasonable loans. First, the empty houses and somewhat later, the condominiums now on the market will find buyers, in most places in a matter of a few years.

    This shift will create huge opportunities for a diverse set of geographies. For urban areas like New York or Los Angeles, there will be a unique–perhaps once in a generation–chance to induce middle-class people to settle down in big-city homes or condominiums. If they become homeowners, they will be more likely to stay than move elsewhere to the suburbs or other regions when the time comes to buy a home.

    Other, more affordable, less regulated and often more economically dynamic places like Texas and the Great Plains may realize even greater gains. Over time, we will likely see a recovery in some now-suffering parts of the Sunbelt. The renewal of home demand could also help revitalize many of our hardest-hit sectors, including construction and manufacturing.

    Sadly, some policymakers in Washington seem less than enthusiastic about this prospect. Many close to President Obama seem to dislike single-family homes and suburbs. Some embrace the policy which the British called “cramming,” essentially forcing people into ever smaller, denser units. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently praised the notion of small apartments with numerous people. “You know, body heat keeps a lot of the apartment warm,” he suggested. You can’t do this in a big apartment with a few people.”

    My suspicion is that most Americans are not quite ready to become their own heaters, any more than modern farm families like having farm animals live with them–although they, too, generate warmth. Instead, we should explore less unpleasant ways to cut energy use though such things as incentives for decentralizing work, promoting home-based labor, more tree planning and effective insulation.

    An administration that places itself at odds with the “universal aspiration” that has driven growth in the advanced world for over a half-century could delay a full recovery unnecessarily. Advocacy of what amounts to declining living standards and a return to feudalism might also prove a less than successful political strategy.

    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. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin early next year.

  • The Suburban Economy and its Enemies

    Treasury Secretary Ken Henry’s recent address to business economists was an apt prism through which to survey Sydney’s immediate past and distant future. According to reports, he said ‘the [Chinese] resources boom had produced a “two-speed” economy, with unemployment rising in the south-eastern states but falling in the west and north’. Dr Henry is reported to have told his Sydney audience, ‘I don’t think everybody in this room should be moving to Perth. But let me make this prediction: some of you will’.

    These comments serve as a reminder of how quickly the ground shifts in an open and dynamic economy. It wasn’t so long ago that New South Wales, dominated by Sydney, was dubbed the powerhouse of Australia’s extended boom.

    Even the most elaborate attempts at urban planning can be superseded by events. After all, modern Sydney was itself, until recently, shaped by forces that outpaced the bureaucrats and planners. These forces are assuming a new dynamic in the conditions described by Dr Henry. Competition from the interstate resources boom is a now major factor driving state politics, together with slowing jobs and property markets and nagging infrastructure constraints. All are feeding the momentum for revitalization – for a new phase of urban growth that will push the limits advocated by planners, environmentalists and others campaigning to turn the city’s socio-economic tide.

    The suburban economy

    There is surprisingly little acknowledgement that, overall, the transformation of suburban Sydney in the wake of globalisation has been a success story. Over the last twenty years, the middle to outer suburbs adapted to volatile domestic and international environments, as well as technological change at breakneck speed, with an effective model of economic development. The key point is that this had more to do with the interplay of space and mobility than good planning.

    By no means was this inevitable. Sydney could have succumbed to the downside of what urban theorists call the ‘world city’ phenomenon. According to the research group Globalisation and World Cities (GaWC), world cities are major international hubs with stronger ties to the global economy in terms of capital flows, trade and movement of people and information than to their own hinterlands. GaWC ranks Sydney in the second or ‘beta’ echelon of world cities, along with places like San Francisco and Mexico City (Melbourne is ranked in the third or ‘gamma’ echelon). Hence Sydney’s ‘global arc corridor’, which stretches from Macquarie Park south to the CBD’s gleaming towers and onto Sydney Airport and Port Botany, hosts the cream of the country’s finance, legal and business services, information technology, engineering and marketing industries.

    Some world cities are distinguished by vast disparities in wealth and economic opportunity – between such globally oriented zones, sucking up the region’s capital, infrastructure capacity, skills base and government services, and stagnant hinterlands inhabited by struggling workers in declining, marginal industries or masses of unemployed. But that was not Sydney’s fate.

    Why and how did a viable economy develop in the middle to outer suburbs of the city? To answer this question it is necessary to recall some of the constants of Sydney’s recent history. The gradual emergence of global Sydney generated higher land values throughout the inner-city. Consequently, many inner-city land uses associated with nineteenth century transport nodes, such as the light industrial plants, depots and warehouses clustered near the railway junction south of the CBD or along the harbour foreshores of the inner-west were no longer sustainable in the face of escalating demands for office space and gentrification.

    Combined with the growth of motor vehicle mobility for passenger and freight transport, particularly since the 1950s, this led to the transfer of many industrial, transport and warehousing activities to cheaper land on the western and south-western fringes. At that stage of the city’s evolution, there were relatively few restrictions on the acquisition of space for these and related purposes. And the growth of road transport relative to maritime and rail sealed the necessary links to international gateways on the eastern seaboard, like Sydney Harbour, Port Botany and the airport.

    These trends were intensified by the construction of a road network to service the interstices of Sydney’s nineteenth century ‘hub-and-spokes’ or radial railway lines, culminating in the orbital motorway network (the dreaded ‘tollways’). Not only did motor vehicle mobility facilitate industrial dispersion, but also residential settlement adjacent to the new industrial jobs. The radial railway lines were Sydney’s nineteenth and early twentieth century template; the orbital motorway is the city’s contemporary template.

    As in the case of industrial relocation, there were fewer restrictions on residential development for the workers employed in these dispersed industries (this began to change by the mid-1990s). Inexpensive housing, a mild climate, out-door lifestyles and a preference for detached houses on sizeable blocks were also attractions. Over time western Sydney achieved 75 per cent regional employment self-containment, and key travel patterns are now intra-regional.

    Later phases of globalisation reinforced this spatial pattern. The rise of global Sydney was a major driver, at least since the early 1980s, of economic policies that favoured the liberalisation of economic activity. Naturally, this had repercussions across the rest of the city. One fundamental outcome was the expansion of services – such as retail – relative to manufacturing and commodities as a proportion of the national economy. The appearance of diverse service industries in the outer suburbs was yet another function of space and mobility. In western Sydney, this was closely associated with the region’s booming population growth. From the 1970s to recent times, western Sydney’s population growth outstripped the rest of the city and country.

    By the early 1990s, market oriented reform had ushered in a period of low inflation, interest rates and input costs, the latter having been wrung from difficult reforms to energy and other public utilities. The interaction of steady economic and population growth powered a strong consumer economy linked to settlement of the fringe suburbs. Such areas experienced a boom in residential and commercial construction, and the related demand for household fixtures, appliances and goods.

    These conditions unleashed a thriving small business sector in services, operating in a competitive market characterised by low entry barriers (low costs and overheads) and narrow profit margins. This, too, was a by-product of globalisation, as SGS Economics and Planning explain: ‘The concentration of small business activity in NSW (and Sydney) and the more rapid growth in the share of employment in this sector compared with other parts of Australia may reflect the tendency for heightened fragmentation of supply chains in globally engaged economic regions’. Presumably, this is why Mark Latham harped on about ‘the small business-people, the contractors, franchisees and consultants of the new economy’.

    While market pressures caused the ‘unbundling’ of service providers, advanced information and communications technologies were integrating head office, back office, manufacturing and distribution activities in land extensive facilities like the 50,000 plus square metre Coles Myer and Coca Cola distribution centres at Eastern Creek, and, in a different way, cutting-edge business and technology parks like Norwest and Macquarie Park. These facilities, contiguous with the orbital motorway, are creatures of space and motor vehicle mobility, and always will be.

    That is why the best elements of the NSW government’s City of Cities plan represent responsive rather than prescriptive planning; they reinforce successful trends emerging from the interplay of market forces. Plans for intensive commercial development along orbital motorway corridors, such as the M7 and particularly at its intersection with the M4, dubbed ‘the western Sydney employment hub’, the refocus on important western centres like Parramatta, Liverpool and Penrith as ‘regional cities’, and the series of road-rail transport interchanges (also land extensive) are prime examples.

    Its enemies

    This vibrant though vulnerable web of socio-economic connections is always at the mercy of global conditions – witness the impact of petrol prices – but also increasingly under challenge from domestic political actors, principally environmentalists, urban planners, some property developers and opinion makers. Their determination to freeze urban boundaries and, as far as possible, reduce mobility to public transport capacity, particularly rail, is hurting Sydney. Hopefully, their influence is gradually receding under Morris Iemma’s leadership.

    Environmentalists and planners – two increasingly interchangeable categories – are oblivious to the prospect that their creeping regulations and imposts, and misallocated resources, could unravel the suburban economy. Yet they will always struggle to mobilise public opinion. Their all-purpose pretext, the climate change hypothesis, relies on aggregated data which can’t be used to argue particular cases. Take the NSW government’s recent decision to review the costly ‘energy efficiency building sustainability’ rules. While the Housing Industry Association came to the issue armed with a raft of statistics about price impacts and falling housing starts, green outfits like the Total Environment Centre could do little but sputter the magic words ‘greenhouse’ and ‘global warming’. They were not in a position to show why, how and to what extent this particular decision would exacerbate climate change.

    Their other weapon is the peculiar concept of ecological or urban ‘footprint’. This purports to measure how much productive land and water an individual, a city, a country, or humanity requires to produce all the resources it consumes. On this measure, Sydney has a footprint that covers 49 per cent of NSW or 150 times its actual size, so its expansion must be constrained. The notion that wealth can be equated to an amount of land, however, is a throwback to pre-modern times. In advanced economies, wealth creation has more to do with the elaborate transformation of natural inputs, capital accumulation, forms of business organisation and services. And as one scathing writer points out, the concept fails to acknowledge that a stretch of land can be used for several different purposes simultaneously. Nevertheless, this absurd idea continues to pass unmolested into almost every discussion of urban planning, including City of Cities.

    If environmentalists are taken seriously at all, it is because they ride on the back of vested interests who benefit from artificially inflated land values, since this is the inevitable consequence of restricting new releases. Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs argues that the reluctance of governments to burst the bubble of housing unaffordability by releasing more land for development can be traced to the undue influence of existing property owners, including powerful developers, who stand to suffer a capital loss if the scarcity value of land is diminished. It is a case of the ‘haves’ depriving the ‘have nots’, such as low income earners and young first home buyers.

    Then there are the progressive academics and commentators who insist the suburbs are zones of social alienation, inimical to personal contentment and well-being. Consider the Australian Financial Review’s property writer Tina Perinotto, who opposes sprawl because we can’t afford the ‘psychologists to deal with people who end up in the lonely greenfield sites’, or left-wing writer Natasha Cica, who raves about ‘the aesthetic and ethical slums of McMansion affluenza’, or Sydney Morning Herald planning and architecture writer Elizabeth Farrelly, who calls suburbanisation ‘total-indulgence parenting’, or urban policy academic Brendan Gleeson, who believes ‘shadows of fear and antipathy are spreading across’ the suburbs.

    Progressives clearly feel a need to delegitimise suburban life. This stems from their barely suppressed rage against people they can’t control. Like Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, suburban people have strayed too far from civilisation, they contend, and will lose their minds. Yet they fail to explain why surveys indicate an overwhelming preference for detached housing on sizeable blocks, or why the latest Australian Unity Wellbeing Index registers higher rates of happiness amongst suburban people than their inner-city counterparts.

    The left’s new poster-boy of urbanism, Gleeson, in particular, leads a tortured existence: he idealises suburbs as the nation’s ‘heartlands’ while hating almost everything about them. Gleeson has latched on to the emergence of so-called ‘gated’ communities as ‘harmful to collective democratic purpose’. This sort of socio-economic segregation is a recognised downside of the ‘world city’ scenario, especially in developing countries. In Sydney, however, it is more likely to mark a transitional stage of historically disadvantaged areas attracting more prosperous residents, eager to replicate the superior amenity of affluent suburbs. To the extent that it heralds the arrival of generally higher living standards in these localities, it is not necessarily the evil denounced by Gleeson.

    Of course, the enemies of growth don’t give a damn about the storm clouds perceived by Dr Henry. Sooner or later, however, they will bow to the inevitable: space and mobility made Sydney’s past; they will make the city’s future, if it is to be a future worth having.

    This article originally appeared at The New City Journal

  • Why Attitude Matters: How Nebraska is Reaping the Stimulus

    In what are tough times for most states, conditions for business remain surprisingly good in Nebraska. Like other states in the “zone of sanity” Nebraska is especially supportive of small businesses.

    Nebraska is one of a series out of mid-American outliers. In 2008 – a year of a severe national contraction – the state experienced a 3.6 percent growth in gross domestic product. Its current unemployment rate of just 4.4 percent stands at less than half the U.S. rate of 9.4 percent (latest available from Bureau of Labor Statistics).

    The state itself is in good financial shape, with a cash reserve over $500 million (including a $20 million to $30 million operating surplus every year since 2001). I believe there are two important factors fundamental to Nebraska’s health. The first lies in cooperation across levels and borders – which was described in my piece on regional cooperation in the Omaha World-Herald. This positive attitude toward growth and economic development in Nebraska extends through every level – you find it at the state, regional, county and city level. A supportive attitude toward development plays an important role in making things work.

    The second and perhaps more important factor critical to fostering an environment supportive of growth and prosperity lies with a broad acceptance of the benefits of on-going economic development as a source of continued quality of life. This attitude can be described – as opposed to the traditional NIMBYism seen so often in more crowded, coastal states – as “Yes, In My BackYard” or YIMBYism. Nebraska has pockets of pro-development populations, like Sarpy County, on the southern border of the city of Omaha.

    Before moving to Omaha, my business was based in Santa Monica, California. With a population of about 89,000, Santa Monica is a beautiful city consisting of smart people who often make foolish choices. Many residents in Santa Monica, like those in Portland and other NIMBY-areas of the country, oppose development in their neighborhoods.

    Many who live in million-dollar single-family homes in Santa Monica were opposed to building new middle-class jobs and homes in their neighborhood, although they often favor building homes for the poor, albeit somewhere not in their bailiwick. This promotes a “haves versus have-nots” social order, and also doesn’t make sense from a personal point of view. Whenever the growth debate was on the table (which it often is in Santa Monica), I would tell people, “Wouldn’t you like to build jobs and housing so your children can work and live in Santa Monica, too? Do you want your grandchildren to move to Texas? Because I assure you they are building middle-class jobs and housing in Texas.”

    In contrast I’ve found some pro-growth Nebraskans who relentlessly seek making development happen. For the mayors of the United Cities of Sarpy County, the emphasis is on cooperation as a path to success. Recent developments around my adopted hometown of Bellevue, Nebraska – home to Offutt Air Force Base and U.S. Strategic Command – provide a simple, straight-forward example of how YIMBYism works in practice.

    About seven years ago, the City of Bellevue, along with the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, funded an economic development plan that could be used to set a community agenda for growth. The resulting plan highlighted several locations where development was feasible, desirable and likely to lead to greater growth. One of the initial designated areas is a 6.5 mile corridor along Fort Crook Road. “Fort Crook Road,” says Megan Lucas, President of the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, “is the spine of Bellevue. Other nodes of economic development will fill-in around Fort Crook when it is ready to move forward.”

    The City and the Chamber then devised a development plan specific for the Fort Crook Road Corridor. The Fort Crook Road Plan was approved as part of a new comprehensive plan for City development – with zoning updated to accommodate retail development along the entire length. The long-range plan is to shift the road west, closer to an existing active railroad line, and to create a linear park along the median strip to connect two existing trail systems – the Lewis & Clark in the north and the Bellevue Loop of the Keystone Trail on south end.

    Two points make this specific example interesting. The foresight in developing the comprehensive plans for the area positioned it perfectly for the current environment. A good chunk of the Fort Crook Road Corridor is currently occupied by an abandoned concrete production facility. These blighted structures need to be demolished to get the property ready for development. But since the City already owns the property and a comprehensive development plan is in place, the project is “shovel ready” – those magic words that qualify any development project for federal stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

    In contrast, there are hundreds of worthy projects in every state that will not qualify for Stimulus money because they fail to meet the “shovel ready” requirement. Part of the Fort Crook Road Plan made it through the initial review stages for stimulus funding in Nebraska. The project ranked in the top three in the state for eligibility and suitability. According to Mayor Ed Babbitt, some stimulus funding has been allocated to revise traffic signals in the corridor; funding to remove blighted structures will likely come later this year from an environmental clean-up fund.

    The second point that makes the Fort Crook Road Corridor an interesting example is that one of its biggest proponents – Megan Lucas – lives in the Corridor. The development and expansion of Fort Crook Road is in her backyard. She and many other residents in Bellevue are saying, “Yes, In My Backyard.” Even more recently, three cities in Sarpy County vied to be the location of a Triple-A ballpark to be built in cooperation with the Omaha Royals of the Pacific Coast League. YIMBY-ite residents far out-numbered the NIMBY-ites at every public forum on the choice of location. A positive attitude toward economic development has emerged as a major factor in getting ready for the stimulus – something many in the Obama bastions in the blue states might want to consider.

    Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. Her training in finance and economics began with editing briefing documents for the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She worked in operations at depository trust and clearing corporations in San Francisco and New York, including Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of DTCC; formerly, she was a Senior Research Economist studying capital markets at the Milken Institute. Her PhD in economics is from New York University. In addition to teaching economics and finance at New York University and University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business), Trimbath is co-author of Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets.

  • NGVideo: Reviving Plotlands

    Everybody knows we urgently need to build more homes in Britain, but how, when and where will this happen? WORLDbytes interviewed Ian Abley, an architect and manager of Audacity at the plotlands in Dunton, Essex where from the 1920s East End working class couples built cheap homes themselves. Could we do this now? Ian Abley argues we should collectively break the Town & Country Planning law of 1947 which made buying and building on redundant farmland, like the plotlands, illegal.

    More information and related resources are available here.

    This video and its description are derived from original content by WORLDbytes.org with the express permission of their authors. To see the original full-length video, visit this page.

  • Smart Growth Bill Vetoed

    Texas Governor Rick Perry has vetoed a bill that would have created a state level “smart growth” program. The veto message is below.

    June 19, 2009

    Pursuant to Article IV, Section 14, of the Texas Constitution, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, do hereby disapprove of and veto Senate Bill No. 2169 of the 81st Texas Legislature, Regular Session, due to the following objections:

    Senate Bill No. 2169 would create a new governmental body that would centralize the decision-making process in Austin for the planning of communities through an interagency work group on “smart growth” policy. Decisions about the growth of communities should be made by local governments closest to the people living and working in these areas. Local governments can already adopt “smart growth” policies based on the desires of the community without a state-led effort that endorses such planning. This legislation would promote a one-size-fits-all approach to land use and planning that would not work across a state as large and diverse as Texas.

    IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed my name officially and caused the Seal of the State to be affixed hereto at Austin, this the 19th day of June, 2009.

    RICK PERRY
    Governor of Texas

    Reference: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/veto/12632/

  • On Our Knees: Prince Charles vs. Lord Rogers

    It is no wonder that architect Richard Rogers is feeling a bit peeved at Prince Charles. This month, the heir to the British throne scuppered plans for a £1 billion development putting 552 apartments on the 12.8-acre site of the old Chelsea Barracks. Rogers was most offended that the Prince used his Royalty to by-pass the usual planning law consultation, by speaking direct to the Qatari royalty who owned the site.

    This is not the first time the heir to the throne has acted as Lord High Planner. Twenty five years ago, he threw a hissy fit about a modernist, hi-tech tower development planned on the national gallery. It was created by the firm Ahrends, Burton and Koralek – but inspired by a Rogers’ design. His sub-majesty called it a ‘monstrous carbuncle’ on the face of a much loved and elegant friend (his ancestor predecessor William IV had a lower opinion of William Wilkins late classical design – ‘a nasty pokey little hole’). He got his way, then, and a pseudo-classical outgrowth was manufactured by Robert Venturi.

    Just a month ago, Charles was asked back to the Royal Institute of British Architects, where he first made the ‘carbuncle’ attack, and even apologised, half-jokingly, promising not to set off another debate about modernist versus traditional architecture. But word had already got out that he was going to sabotage the Chelsea Barracks development.

    Charles’ has been dogged, or perhaps the word is better dogmatic, in his interest in architecture and planning. Out in Dorchester, on land owned by the Duchy of Lancaster (that’s Prince Charles, to you and me) he constructed a weird dreamscape of a village called Poundbury, wholly built according to the Prince’s own ideals, of tradition, community and high density dwellings, designed by the new urbanist Leon Krier. It is full of desperately traditional motifs, like a film set, and it is supposed to be built to dissuade car use (though according to a recent survey, resident are above average car users).

    Richard Rogers has dared break ranks with the Prince publicly over his busy bodying. Rogers makes some excellent points. The Prince is but a man, amongst many: why should he have more say so than anyone else? The Prince will not debate his views, so why should he be allowed this influence on political choices? Even moderate constitutionalists agree that the Royalty enjoys its formal position as head of state (which Charles will become, if his mother Queen Elizabeth dies) on the condition that they keep out of day-to-day politics.

    One person who put some real flesh on the bones of Rogers’ complaints has been Vicky Richardson, the editor of the architecture magazine Blueprint. When Charles stood to address the Royal Institute of British Architects, she shouted out ‘abolish the monarchy’, a cry that was perhaps a bit too plebeian for Richard Rogers.

    Rogers is the last person to be telling us that we should not fawn to established authority. Let me spell it out for you. This is no plebe; it’s Sir Richard Rogers, Baron Rogers of Riverside, a peer of the realm. In 1991, Rogers, in an act of fealty, bent down on one knee before the Queen, to be made a knight. In 1996, he was made a Baron, and sits in the unelected House of Lords (on the Labour benches). Quite why Rogers thinks he is free of the oaths he made to protect the Queen – and consequently her progeny – is not clear.

    Richard Rogers’ leaning on the Royal brand when it suits him is not the end of his fixation with authority over the common people. Though he pressed a few demotic buttons when he turned on Prince Charles, there was a weird undercurrent of superiority in his complaints. Prince Charles is not an expert he was keen to say. Charles has no expertise in architecture … unlike Richard Rogers. It was quite a snooty put down to place on a soon-to-be King.

    Rogers went further, asking whether things ought to be changed, so that the unspoken rule that the monarchy stay out of everyday politics might be shored up. Indeed, Richard Rogers called for a panel of constitutional experts to re-examine the Prince’s powers. ‘A panel of constitutional experts’? Who are these ‘experts’ that know better than the rest of us how the United Kingdom ought to be run? A committee of the House of Lords, perhaps?

    At the heart of Richard Rogers case against the monarchy is not an argument for the people against entrenched authority. Rather, it is an argument for a new elite to take over – ‘experts’ (so-called), technocrats, people like Rogers himself, who know better than the rest of us how we should live.

    In real fact, Rogers may be even more a throwback to medievalism than the Prince. Rogers’s Chelsea Barracks development has been attacked for being too ‘modern’. But the row is cast in terms of traditional versus modern, because in many ways, Rogers plans are more backward looking that Charles’s.

    One feature that lies behind the many complaints that preceded Charles’ intervention is the density of the development. Originally planned for 638 flats, the developers were persuaded to reduce the number and increase the open space from two to 6.2 acres.

    Local people resent more bodies being crammed into an already overcrowded, teeming and increasingly dehumanized London. In this process, Rogers is far more a villain than the unlikable Prince. In 1998 his government appointed Urban Task Force saddled planning authorities with the principle that most new development would take place on ‘brownfield’, that is previously built-upon land, not newer greenfield sites out in the country.

    This is almost something out of apartheid or the 19th Century enclosure acts. The policy is to keep Londoners kettled up behind the Green Belt, telling local authorities to keep filling in every patch of land that becomes available with extra housing, densifying the city. Ironically, the Prince entirely agrees with Rogers on the need for densification – but at least he prefers something more humane, like a nice cottagey feel, and some old stonework.

    The ‘urban nimbys’ who objected to the Chelsea barrack development are a new thing. In north London, residents protested against an apartment block squeezed into a space that used to be garages at Pilgrims Way. Under the regional plan, drawn up on rules laid out by Baron Rogers, local objections have no purchase, because the overriding goal is cramming: forcing ever more people in a fixed amount of space. That is why Rogers is so angry with the Prince. Rogers has the planning approval all sewn up. Because his development offers the highest density, it ticks all the right boxes as far as the planners are concerned. But for residents, looking at results of cramming on their already limited space, 500 new flats squeezed in does not look so good. They have a right to object, but the plan – blessed by the experts, knighted and not – trumps their objections.

    Rogers objects that the Prince is using his hereditary power. But what makes Rogers so cross is that he is accustomed to exercising unchecked and undemocratic power to get his own way. He cannot quite believe that there might be a greater unelected power in the land than his own.

    The fact is the so-called great are only great because we are on our knees, said the Irish rebel James Connolly. It is time the British stood up and kicked both of these unelected overlords out, whether to the manor born or entitled by their “expertise”.

    James Heartfield is author of Let’s Build! Why we need five million homes in the next ten years, and a director of www.Audacity.org.

    Image courtesy of Henry Bloomfield

  • Sustaining Localism in the English Suburban Context

    Localism, a longstanding agenda of the Green Party in the context of the UK economy, is gaining ground in the current economic crisis. In a recent edition of the London-based Daily Telegraph, a striking contrast is made between Chester in north-west England – which is suffering from the decline of its relatively narrow economic base and Totnes in south-west England, which with its longstanding interest in alternative living, and more localised economy, seems to be weathering the situation much better. The underlying message from the article is that small is good – particularly for businesses not overextended in their borrowing, and familiar enough with their immediate context to be able to adapt to a changing economy.

    The New Economics Foundation think-tank, has been for several years campaigning against Clone Town Britain (namely, the over preponderance of chain stores at the expense of small chains and independent stores). Past criticism of the foundation for having an overly romantic notion of what constitutes a successful town centre may still continue, but there may also be some economic logic to a more locally oriented town centre strategy.

    Perhaps the best approach is to avoid either free-market efficiency ideology, on the one hand, or a strict local-only approach. It seems clear from other recent research into successful suburban town centres that a combination of national chains and good quality independents makes for the best mix to ensure long-term economic sustainability.

    This issue, like perhaps too much else in Britain, is currently subject to government action. The new Sustainable Communities Act now makes it mandatory for the UK government to assist local councils and community ‘stakeholders’ in drawing up local sustainability strategies for enabling independent businesses to survive in the increasingly cut-throat high street (the equivalent of the US ‘main street’).

    Yet as usual the government seems to overlook where most people live: the word suburb or suburban is nowhere in the Act. Possibly this is not surprising as the main focus is on large scale, infrastructure projects, but the continuing lack of attention in policy terms to the suburbs should be a matter of concern to those who believe a diffuse network of connections is essential to the continuing sustainability of the economy.

    It is equally worrying to see that the influential group set up by London’s Mayor Boris Johnson to focus on the outer London suburbs (which are cited as being his main source of political support in the mayoral elections) continues the pattern of focusing on the larger metropolitan centres at the expense of the smaller suburban centres in the capital. At an ‘Outer London Summit’ held on 11th June, Mayor Johnson made it clear that the policy focus continues to be on strengthening a constellation of “growth hubs” of economic activity, such as the metropolitan centre of Croydon in south London, despite the clear evidence demonstrating how smaller centres have an important role in making suburbs more sustainable.

    Within the next 20 years, most housing growth in England and Wales is predicted to occur in suburban settlements. This development is expected to be sustainable economically and environmentally, which means that suburbs will increasingly be required to provide local economic activities in order to minimise travel and to support cohesive and vibrant communities.

    The Towards Successful Suburban Town Centres research project at University College London has investigated the strategic contribution of Greater London’s smaller and district centres to the sustainability of the metropolitan region. ‘Sustainability’ in interpreted by the project team as referring to conditions favourable to local concentrations of long-lasting socio-economic and cultural activity.

    The research also has found that the widespread perception of suburbia as synonymous with social and architectural homogeneity belies its spatial, social, ethnic and economic diversity. With pressure to build large numbers of new homes increasing, there is a real danger that such perceptions become self-fulfilling.

    Initial findings suggest the success of local centres depends on the ability of their built environments to adapt to social and economic change by allowing pedestrian movement around an extended central area, balanced with accessibility to vehicular and public transport at larger scales of movement. Centres that support a wide range of locally generated activity are likely to be more resilient in the face of change than retail or purely residential monocultures. The results show that spatial variety and economic adaptability are both crucial to economic sustainability.

    This adaptability inherent to the suburban built environment needs to be more widely understood and promoted. The Towards Successful Suburban Town Centres project has found that where the town centre supports a diverse range of activities it benefits from increased by-product movement, where people do more than what they deliberately came to do during their visit to the centre. People visiting local town centres such as Surbiton (made famous by the 1970s BBC sitcom The Good Life), are not like shoppers at a ‘power centre’ dominated by a Wal-Mart. They don’t just shop for a specific item; they linger, eat lunch, drink coffee, research local cultural activities and indeed might be there for a business meeting. Surbiton, like many of London’s smaller town centres, has close links to larger centres such as Kingston, which alongside retail, offices and a university, boasts the new Rose Theatre led by Sir Peter Hall.

    The benefits here go well beyond the strictly economic. More time spent locally leads to a more vibrant mix of people on the streets and helps enliven the town centre throughout the day. This street network potential provides a critical element for sustaining the vitality of suburban and small town centres. The extensive and varied activity in lively areas enables complex routine daily and weekly movement patterns to emerge, thereby furthering the engagement of individuals with their locality.

    With the closure of chains such as Woolworths, however tragic for long-time customers and employers, the economic downturn also opens up opportunities for alternative high street activities. In one example, Art Space + Nature, an avant-garde Scottish art collective, have produced plans to bring new activities to empty shop fronts by putting on art exhibitions. The Institute of Community Cohesion is working on plans to create new indoor markets for local communities in closed business units.

    These and many other grassroots initiatives are localist at heart. The key may be in making sure that these attempts remain grassroots, and not too impacted by either large governmental units or major non-profits. To succeed, localism must be properly bedded in the community. Economic trends, as well as history, demonstrate that a bottom-up approach to creating lasting viable communities works not only in cities, but in suburbs as well.

    Laura Vaughan is a Senior Lecturer in Urban and Suburban Settlement Patterns and the Director of the MSc in Advanced Architectural Studies at the Bartlett, University College London and a member of UCL’s Space research group.

  • The Geography of Class in Greater Seattle

    Most readers may not be initially very interested in the detailed geography of “class” in Seattle, but it actually matters not only for our area but for the whole debate over the shape of the urban future. Academics, perhaps Americans in general, are loath to admit to class differences, yet they remain very crucial to the understanding of how cities and regions evolve.

    Seattle is a great example of the transformation of a 20th century model of the American metropolis to a 21st century-cum-19th century “old World” model of metropolis. It is often held up as one of the role models for other cities, so its experiences should be considered seriously not only for American cities but for regions throughout the advanced world.

    Many readers, including those afflicted with political correctness, probably many upper and lower class folk uncomfortable with their home areas being labeled as of a particular class, or others, might feel that class is an obsolete Marxist term. They may prefer I use the safer term “socio-economic status” rather than “class.” Let’s admit it: “class” is used widely, as in “the middle class is getting squeezed” or the “tax burden on the lower classes.” As it has been for hundreds of years, class remains a meaningful descriptor of areas of obviously differing well-being.

    We should understand by identifying upper or middle or lower classes this does not imply “better than.” Class simply reflects the mix of inheritance, education, biology, experience, discrimination, and life events that lead to variability in economic well-being. Class is real. But there is certainly a legitimate concern with the identification of heterogeneous areas like census tracts as of a particular class, based on average or median values for the in fact diverse households in a tract. This method is far from perfect but nevertheless we and others find such generalization common, meaningful and useful.

    This map plots “factor scores,” a statistically constructed variable or index divided into six levels of “class:” two upper, two middle and two lower. It is timely to do this, since it was 50 years ago when Calvin Schmid, demographer in Sociology at the University of Washington, and my early mentor, performed a pioneering factor analysis of crime in Seattle – and this was before modern computers! The derived scores most reflect high weighting of the variables: percent of adults with a BA or more, percent in professional versus laboring occupations, median house value and median household income.

    As you look at the map, it’s clear how Seattle reflects very strongly what is generally described as gentrification. This means the reclaiming of the central core by the highly educated and professional, eschewing the suburban metaphorical desert. In the case of Seattle, this process occurring between 1985-2005 resulted in the displacement of over 50,000 less affluent and often minority households to south King county. The city begins to resemble the historic pattern of the rich and important occupying the vibrant core of the city, relegating the working poor to the suburbs, with poor access and inadequate services. Indeed, even now I am involved in a project to assess the lack of access of poor children, often minority or foreign born, to health care in south King county.

    The dominant “upper class” area is the Eastside, east of Lake Washington, and location of the affluent “edge city” of Bellevue, home of the Microsoft campus. A second set of upper class areas are waterfront and view neighborhoods, taking advantage of the Seattle area’s broken topography. The third is simply the University of Washington immediate hinterland. I suspect the location of a large research university with 42,000 students and 22,000 staff increasingly propels Seattle’s unusually high status, income and popularity. I think this is increasingly more important a factor than the presence of an increasingly less important downtown Seattle business center.

    Conversely, lower class areas include traditional zones of mixed housing, industry and transport, such as south Seattle, the older satellite cities of Everett (north), Bremerton (west), and especially Tacoma (south). The largest area of lower class neighborhoods extends from south Seattle through south King county to Tacoma, marked by historical development, displacement from Seattle and high minority population. The second large zone of lower class settlement is the rural fringe, especially in Pierce (south) and Snohomish (north) counties, and may surprise those who think all rural areas are the home of rich estates.

    Then there is the middle class. This is where the suburbs matter most. On the map, middle class areas (yellow and green) are intermediate in location as well and dominate the outer suburban areas as well as some older inner neighborhoods of Seattle and Tacoma. It is unfortunately true that race, ethnicity and class remain highly correlated especially within the core cities of Seattle and Tacoma, reflecting the continuing history of unequal education and job preparation and prospects.

    This analysis suggests one possible future of urban development following something of a European model, with most middle class people in the suburbs, while the rich and poor concentrate either in the urban core or in selected locales in the periphery. As for the city itself, it’s clear that the total landscape is not simply becoming wealthier but increasingly bifurcated between the affluent and the long-term poverty population. And suburbia, home to the vast majority of the region’s population remains the predominant home of the middle and working classes, with pockets of both wealth and poverty.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist)