New Geography

Category: Policy

  • Questioning Conventional Wisdom: Should Poor Folks Stay Put?

    There is reason to think again about the now-current idea of dispersing the population of poor folks in the Skid Row district of downtown Los Angeles and similar precincts in other cities across the U.S.

    There’s cause to pause over notions such as mixing “affordable housing” that’s priced in the range of working-class or poor folks alongside spiffy market-rate units.

    There’s some research going on that combines data analysis in the law-enforcement profession with efforts in the social sciences, and it’s far enough along to raise questions about some commonplace assumptions among policy makers.

    One questionable assumption is the notion that it’s best to do away with old-fashioned, densely developed centers of subsidized housing – places such as Skid Row, or the many areas of cities across the U.S. known as “the projects.” Conventional wisdom currently holds that such clusters on the low end of the socio-economic scale are best relegated to history and replaced with scattered sites.

    Here’s a simpler way of putting it: Recent years have seen government authorities ditch the old “projects” model – literally blowing them up, in some cases – in favor of programs that shift poor residents from the inner city to residences in outlying areas. They don’t bunch the poor folks together, at least not in the cheek-by-jowl way of the old neighborhood. The idea is to mix things up and put a relatively small number of poor folks into any given middle-class neighborhood that is safer and has better schools. The presumption is that spreading poverty out will give the poor a greater chance to work their way up the socio-economic scale.

    Such thinking bears a similarity to efforts by some public officials in Los Angeles who aim to make similar shifts possible based on regulations requiring builders to subsidize lower rents for certain numbers of units in their developments.

    It’s not exactly the same, and you can argue the finer points. But the truth is that the efforts to change the residential patterns of poor folks – and the talk of dispersing the social service agencies that serve low-income residents of neighborhoods such as Skid Row – aim for a goal that’s similar to the top-down approach of blowing up the projects and moving folks to places beyond the city’s center.

    Also similar is the reason behind some of the efforts to move poor residents out of the downtown areas of many cities: gentrification. Cities want to spruce up their historic cores. They want new retail and residential developments that will generate more tax revenue than any densely populated housing project or collection of low-rent residence hotels will ever provide. Public officials have often presented such efforts with a two-birds-with-one-stone argument – poor folks get to go off to nicer, safer neighborhoods and the city gets a shiny new trophy in a redeveloped downtown.

    There’s an article in the current issue of the Atlantic that looks at recent developments in Memphis, Tennessee, where sociological researchers have been comparing law-enforcement data on crime trends to recent programs to relocate poor folks from the inner city to outlying areas. Some of the findings have the researchers leaning toward a different two-birds-with-one-stone argument on subsidized housing. They think it might just be that both the folks who were shifted from those hard-pressed areas and their new neighbors far away from the inner city are worse off for all the manipulations.

    The research has not reached any definitive conclusions, and there are plenty of variables that must be considered with care. Still, there seems to be enough to raise serious questions about a trend in urban planning and public policy that has gone nearly unexamined for some time.

    The Garment & Citizen yields to the Atlantic on this matter, urging anyone who is interested to give careful consideration to the piece, “American Murder Mystery.”

    We also urge all involved in the debate to ask themselves a few questions:

    What is a neighborhood? Do common economic circumstances bring a sense of community that is necessary to any neighborhood? Is a poor neighborhood necessarily a bad neighborhood? If so, why?

    Jerry Sullivan is the Editor & Publisher of the Los Angeles Garment & Citizen.

  • The Entrenchment of Urban Poverty

    How high urban housing costs and income inequality have exacerbated urban poverty

    A few years ago, on a drive from New York to Washington, I turned off I-95 in Baltimore to see H.L. Mencken’s home. Abandoned row houses lined the street, some boarded up with plywood, others simply gutted. Signs offering fast cash for houses and a number to call for unwanted cars outnumbered pedestrians. It was a landscape of rot and neglect with few signs of renewal and investment.

    Writers have expended vast amounts of ink about the recent resurgence of cities, yet pockets of great poverty like West Baltimore have proven disturbingly resilient. Maryland has one of the nation’s lowest poverty rates, but is one of eight states where 70 percent of the poor are concentrated in one city. In most of the city’s schools, close to 50 percent of students qualify for federally assisted meals.

    Looking at data from the 2006 US Census American Community Survey, many urban cities have poverty rates that far exceed the national level of 13.3 percent. Bronx County tops the list at 29.1 percent. The city of St. Louis and Baltimore as well as Philadelphia, Wayne (Detroit), Kings County (Brooklyn) and Denver counties all have poverty rates hovering between 19 and 27 percent.

    The poverty in these communities testifies to a widening schism of income inequality distressingly common across America but most pronounced in the nation’s cities. Cost of living in cities is one key factor. The federal poverty threshold for a family of four in 2004 was only $19,157, but this number does not make an adjustment for the high rents that low-wage workers must pay to live in an urban environment.

    Deborah Reed of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the poverty rates in wealthy cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles were actually significantly higher than the official rate. In San Francisco, the poverty rate was 19 percent adjusted for housing costs compared to the official ten percent; Los Angeles had a 20 percent poverty rate with the factored adjustment compared to the 16 percent official number.

    Furthermore, numerous studies have documented the “high cost of being poor” in many urban areas. Low-income neighborhoods like Compton in Los Angeles (where one third of the residents are in poverty) or the Tenderloin in San Francisco suffer from a paucity of services that are plentiful in surrounding communities. Manhattan Beach has one bank for every 4,000 residents. Residents of Compton, on the other hand, can access barely one for every 25,000. Residents must make do with corner stores that sell inferior food goods at higher prices and check cashing outlets that often deduct three percent of the customer’s paycheck.

    What is all this leading to? The unsettling contrasts between rich and poor of John Edwards’ “Two Americas” narrative is all too real in many American cities. Walking down Minna Street in San Francisco this week, I saw a homeless man drying his socks in the sun, just twenty yards from restaurants with $30 entrees and nightclubs so discrete in their hipness they need only signify their sign with a small letter.

    And although often more startling in affluent, white-collar havens like San Francisco, this contrast exists in almost every city. In Baltimore the gap between high-earning skilled professionals living in gentrified neighborhoods with waterfront view and a procession of hard-pressed, violence-plagued communities nearby is equally striking.

    The celebratory accounts of gentrification of small parts of cities like Baltimore – or large parts of sections of San Francisco or Chicago – needs to be balanced with a far greater concern with creating upward mobility for those large populations left behind. These lower income populations need to be treated as potential assets that will require investments in skills training and childcare subsidies, all the while nurturing high wage blue collar industries and improving basic public infrastructure.

    In the past, poverty reduction never stuck around long enough to become a major issue in the presidential campaign, partly because voter turnout in these communities is low and, as we suggested earlier this week, there is little doubt which party will win urban voters.

    But there is some reason, perhaps, to feel more optimistic this year. Senator Obama’s community organizing background in Chicago’s South Side has led him to adopt a broad anti-poverty platform targeting greater federal resources for working parents and low-income children. The presumptive Democratic nominee also proposes tripling the popular Earned Income Tax Credit that supplements low-income workers and supports pegging the minimum wage to the cost of living. Interestingly, Obama has also voiced support for creating a White House Office of Urban Policy.

    Coming from a party skeptical about increasing poverty spending, McCain has supported tax credits being used to attract businesses to low-income neighborhoods and also favors increasing childcare subsidies for low-income families.

    Mencken once wrote that his house in Baltimore “is as much a part of me as my two hands. If I had to leave it I’d be as certainly crippled as if I lost a leg.” However, given its current condition, it is highly unlikely today he would linger in his old neighborhood for long. Hopefully, after November, there may be reason to reassess that assumption.

    Andy Sywak is the articles editor for Newgeography.com.

  • Suburbs Will Adapt to High Gas Prices

    Will high gas prices doom the suburbs? The short answer is no. America’s investment in suburbia is too broad and deep and these will drive all kinds of technological and other adaptations. But the continued outward growth of new suburban housing tracts and power centers is unsustainable.

    It is, of course, risky to predict anything, particularly the future. No one can predict with certainty the direction of gas prices, let alone how they will reshape our landscape. While the long-term trend for oil and gas is almost certainly rising prices, volatility will continue to make short-run bets risky either way.

    But whether gas prices plateau, spike or even decline in the next five years, larger forces will reinforce the shift to greater reinvestment in older urban areas – and towards reinvention of existing suburban areas, particularly those with strong economies.

    There will still be some “greenfield” peripheral development, but unplanned “sprawl” will wither. New development will be look more like New Urbanist new towns. There will be a revival of the integrated planned community, like Reston in Virginia, the Woodlands near Houston or Valencia and Santa Margarita in Southern California.

    The forces converging to curb sprawl go beyond gas prices. There will be regulatory and market pressure to cut carbon emissions to address global warming, but the most serious threat to outward sprawl will be the private and public shortage of financing for new infrastructure, which is likely to be chronic. Given the deepening crisis in the housing and lending industries, in the long interval building resumes, new development will be very different from what we’ve seen in the past fifty years of most conventional suburbia.

    Of course, even if we adopted a universal program of “smart growth” across America tomorrow, it would be decades before we had repaired and reshaped our landscape and economy to a more sustainable model. In the meantime, there will be tremendous pressure to exploit existing and new energy sources to maintain the suburban model we live in. But we can’t ignore the pragmatic economist Herb Stein who first observed, “Things which can’t go on forever, don’t (known as Stein’s Law).”

    In part, because of legislation such as AB 32, the “Global Climate Solutions Act,” California may be one of the first test cases of this transition. Whether you think this is the greatest threat to our planet in human history or you think this is environmental hysteria, global warming legislation is now a political reality.

    We can’t meet reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 – the fundamental goal of the legislation – without reducing vehicle miles traveled. With transportation producing 40 percent of the problem, improved fuel efficiency will help – and so will switching to alternative fuels and increased telecommuting. But those gains will be essentially wiped out by the offsetting increases in population and mileage that people are traveling.

    While the costs of retooling new growth to be more sustainable will be significant, so are the opportunities. This year alone, according to the Economist, the oil importing nations will transfer two trillion dollars to the oil exporting nations. That’s money that will not be go to improve our infrastructure, protect our environment or educate our youth. It goes out our tailpipes.

    Here in California, the $20 billion transportation bond that voters approved in 2006 comes nowhere near to closing the $100 billion dollar gap in transportation infrastructure needed to address auto congestion and goods movement by truck. There is no way California’s government or economy can afford to continue to pay that cost. But it has taken gas at nearly $5 a gallon for people to wake up and smell the fumes.

    But halting sprawl is not the same as reversing it. Gas prices, AB 32 mandates, highway spending deficits and environmental concerns all conspire against more red-tiled roof subdivisions in Palmdale and Victorville. Yet growth pressures will fuel new demand down the road, so older suburbs and cities have to find ways to develop family-friendly housing and attract jobs that have been flowing to the suburban edge.

    These are two different, but related challenges. Older suburbs have to find a way to gracefully urbanize by strengthening or creating walkable centers and adding more population along commercial/transit corridors. They need to transition from auto-dependence to a wider range of real transportation alternatives. Above all, they face the challenge of persuading residents that reinvention of the suburbs can improve their quality of life and standard of living.

    Planners make a mistake if they try to tell suburban residents to give up what they like about suburbia in terms of space, privacy and safety. Acceptance of higher densities in existing suburban communities will only come if design of more urban housing improves and new development offers residents tangible improvements in amenities such as pedestrian-friendly districts, parks, bikeways and opportunities to work close to home.

    Older cities, on the other hand, already have much of the physical framework in place, but need to improve their parks, schools, libraries and neighborhoods. They must make themselves attractive to retain working and middle-class households, especially families with children. The key challenge will be to overcome the entrenched special interests that dominate urban politics to focus on the efforts that make a city hospitable to residents and businesses and be less dominated by the interests of developers and public employee unions.

    All across the state there are promising examples that suggest suburban and urban communities are getting the point. in the short run, the weak economy and awful financial market, both for public and private sectors, will slow change. But California has shown incredible resilience over the past 150 years. Our growing population and changing demographics will open up a huge market for reinvesting in our older communities.

    Now is the time to prepare for that time. Remember during the last deep real estate downturn, former Governor Pete Wilson abandoned his promise to tackle statewide growth management. His excuse was, “I wish I had some growth to manage.” The tragedy of that missed opportunity was that it wasn’t long before growth again overwhelmed our capacity.

    What if we’d not only put in place a coherent growth management strategy like Oregon, New Jersey or Maryland – but we’d established the collaborative regional structures in place like in metro Denver, Salt Lake City or Portland? Today, we’d be finishing the Subway to the Sea, the Gold Line extension to Ontario Airport and we’d have regular commuter rail between Ventura and Santa Barbara. Maybe then, $5 gas would be a little less painful.

    For too long, we’ve viewed cities and suburbia as natural antagonists. But the future may lie with greater convergence. Cities can become greener and more attractive to population growth. Suburbs can begin to urbanize in graceful and sustainable ways. Both are due for reinvention and reinvestment. The challenges we face will give us the opportunity – and the necessity – for doing just that.

    Rick Cole is the City Manager in Ventura, California, where he has championed smart growth strategies and revitalization of the historic downtown. He previously spent six years as the City Manager of Azusa, where he was credited by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune with helping make it “the most improved city in the San Gabriel Valley.” He earlier served as mayor of Pasadena and has been called “one of Southern California’s most visionary planning thinkers by the LA Times.” He was honored by Governing Magazine as one of their “2006 Public Officials of the Year.”

  • Is Narcissus also a success story?

    In sharp contrast with its arch-rival, Los Angeles, San Francisco historically has won plaudits from easterners. Writing in his 1946 landmark work, Inside USA, John Gunther compared “tranquil and mature” San Francisco with LA, a city he loathed as “the home par excellence of the dissatisfied.” The City by the Bay, he wrote, “possesses a incomparable quality of charm” unsurpassed by any American city.

    But no group extols San Francisco’s virtues more than San Franciscans. Indeed when journalist Neil Morgan wrote about the place he labeled it “Narcissus of the West.” Perhaps nothing exemplified this self-reflecting modality than the old tendency to refer to the place simply as “The City,” as if, in real terms, there was no other.

    Over the past few decades, this combination of urban charm and narcissism has transformed San Francisco. The city I got to know as a young journalist in the early 1970s working for the alternative weekly San Francisco Bay Guardian was already changing. Areas once habituated by old-fashioned bohemians (i.e., those without trust funds) – North Beach, Union Street – already were being displaced by new age enthusiasts, investment bankers and young corporate executives.

    But still, in the 1970s, San Francisco remained very much a city of neighborhoods, each one very much a world unto itself. If the east face of the city – North Beach, Russian Hill, Downtown, Chinatown, Fisherman’s Wharf – was being transformed into a kind of high-end theme park, much of the western ends of the city, as well as places such as the Mission and Potrero Hill, remained bastions of ethnic diversity, middle and working class families.

    As our articles editor Andy Sywak, who is also editor of the Castro Courier neighborhood newspaper, points out in his first rate analysis, this San Francisco still exists, although it may be holding on for its life. Demographically, San Francisco has changed in ways that may well signal the future for at least a series of American urban geographies – Portland, Seattle, Boston, DC and even Manhattan come to mind – that although quick to celebrate diversity are in many ways becoming increasingly less so.

    In some ways, this may be the curse of too-good looks. Ever since Haight-Ashbury caught on as the epicenter of the 1960s hippy movement, San Francisco has lured ever more affluent and well-educated people. In the process, the price of real estate has skyrocketed, making the city virtually unaffordable for almost everyone outside the upper middle class. Once known as a rough, brawling union town, San Francisco likely now boasts the highest percentage of people living off wealth – rents, dividends, interest – of any major American city.

    A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that virtually every income group from households making $50,000 to $150,000 a year dropped between 2002 and 2006. In contrast, households making between $150,000 and $200,000 surged 52 percent and those earning even more expanded by 40 percent. Housing prices, although slightly off last, have more than doubled since 2002 to nearly $800,000; it takes an income near $200,000 to afford a median priced home.

    This upper class shift has fostered, indeed encouraged, a strange form of ultra-liberal politics. Perhaps no major American city wears its leftism on its sleeve more than San Francisco. When it comes to imposing “green” controls and standards, as well as any embracing gender and cultural liberalism, The City is not to be outdone.

    But such lifestyle liberalism should not be confused with traditional urban reform, which focused on how to expand the benefits of urban life and economy to broad sections of the population. To maintain and even expand this largely childless city – San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children per capita of any major American city – major reform of city institutions, notably schools, no longer commands priority. Instead, efforts can be concentrated in consolidating what University of Chicago urban theorist Saskia Sassen calls “the urban glamour zone.”

    In this sense, San Francisco is a place that combines the characteristics of an exclusive resort, with extremely expensive real estate and concentrations of high-end amenities, with an exclusive economy based on elite services fields such as finance, media and design. Even in hard times, its real estate economy can be propped up by purchases by the wealthy, both full and part-timers, who wish to imbibe The City’s urban charms.

    Increasingly – and likely more the case in the future – these wealthy people (and their progeny) will settle in San Francisco more for lifestyle than purely economic reasons. Instead of nurturing the traditional middle class, the city can depend on the kind of young temporary sojourners (remarked upon by our Adam Mayer, who recently moved back to the Bay Area) to provide relatively low-cost skilled labor as well as the legions of waiters, toenail painters, dog walkers, performance artists and the like.

    Such an urban economy, of course, also requires people willing to do very hard labor – busboys, janitors, cleaning ladies, gardeners – many of whom will have to commute from distant locales to service the “needs” of the cognitive elites. The one impoverished constituency tolerated in the new order, the homeless, will incongruously now share the glamour city with the glitterati. This is why, notes the great California historian and San Francisco native Kevin Starr, The City has become “a cross between Carmel and Calcutta.”

    Can such a society work, and, if so, is its model applicable elsewhere? Certainly you must be a place with inherent attractions to the wayward and affluent. Seattle, Portland, Boston as well as Manhattan could also evolve in this direction, and may already being doing so. It’s difficult, however, to see such an economy working out so well in other less powerfully attractive urban centers, particularly those with large concentrations of poverty.

    But for a lovely place like San Francisco the trajectory is not entirely negative. As the country’s population expands to 400 million in 2050, there will be a growing, albeit small niche, for high-cost places that appeal to those with requisite high-end skills or at least the right heredity.

    We can see this with the economy. Even as it has lost corporate headquarters, manufacturing and other generators of middle-class jobs, San Francisco’s appeal to high-end workers and as an entertainment center – Dr. Starr dubs his hometown “a theme park for restaurants” – has helped secure its position as kind of PR office, party town and alternative hip location for the far less charming, if more productive, nerdistan further south.

    San Francisco already has twice successfully hitched itself to the Valley’s surge, first in the late 90s dotcom surge and more recently in the Google-centric 2.0 boom. The city’s total jobs likely have not recovered their 2000 levels, but there has been a notable improvement over the last two years.

    The future progress, however, may prove more difficult. Although the administration of Mayor Gavin Newsom has trumpeted what it claims as a major economic as well as demographic turnaround, the inevitable popping of the 2.0 bubble could wreak some damage. Already layoffs in the hard-hit financial sector – some of it tied to the venture capital industry – last quarter saw tenants give up almost a Transamerica Pyramid’s worth of space.

    The picture is at least murky on the demographic side. Yet although state population numbers record a return to population growth, the census numbers, which we rely on at NG, are less impressive, recording a loss of roughly four percent since 2000.

    These competing claims will not be fully resolved until after the 2010 census. But population growth may be somewhat beside the point. San Francisco’s emerging identity is not as a bustling, growing city that attracts middle class families. Instead, its destiny – or karma as locals may prefer to see it – may be to lure the wealthy, the well-educated and talented to the communal self-celebration that long has stood the trademark of the place they call The City.

  • Heartland Development Strategy

    From its inception as a nation, America’s great advantage over its global rivals has stemmed largely from the successful development of its vast interior. The Heartland has been both the incubator of national identity and an outlet for the entrepreneurial energies of both immigrants and those living in dense urban areas.

    The term “Heartland” is commonly used to describe the region west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains. This region constitutes the primary focus of this report, although we believe our policy prescriptions also apply to other parts of the country that are culturally similar to the Great Plains and the Midwest, including the inland valleys of the Pacific Northwest and California, as well as parts of central Florida and Pennsylvania.

    Historically, and with some exceptions — notably the South — the Heartland was dominated by capitalist principles and shaped by the forces of innovation, competition, and a continuous search for maximum economic return. The Heartland contributed significantly to America’s development as a global economic power. Over the past century, however, the role of the Heartland declined, as the United States evolved from a primarily agricultural to an industrial and finally an information-based economy. With the move toward manufactured goods and high-end services, the focus of economic development shifted from the agricultural interior toward the great metropolitan regions.

    Download “Rebuilding America’s Productive Economy: A Heartland Development Strategy” Report commissioned by the New America Foundation.