New Geography

Category: Urban Issues

  • A Canadian Autobahn

    Canada is the largest high-income nation in the world without a comprehensive national freeway (autobahn, expressway or autoroute) system. Motorways are entirely grade separated roadways (no cross traffic), with four or more lanes (two or more in each direction) allowing travel that is unimpeded by traffic signals or stop signs.

    The Economic Advantages of Motorways: Motorways have been associated with positive economic and safety impacts. For example, a synthesis of research by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) noted the positive impact of US motorway system:

    The Interstate Highway System represented an investment in a new, higher speed, safer, lower cost per mile technology which fundamentally altered relationships between time, cost, and space in a manner which allowed new economic opportunities to emerge that would never have emerged under previous technologies.

    In particular, the AASHTO synthesis indicated that motorway

    …investments have lowered production and distribution costs in virtually every industry sector.

    It is a well known fact that motorways are by far the safest roads. We estimated that 187,000 fatalities had been averted due to the transfer of traffic from other roads to motorways between 1956 and 1996.

    A World of Motorways: Truckers in Japan, Europe (the EU-15) and the United States can travel between virtually all major metropolitan areas on high quality motorways.

    Further, motorway systems have and are being built in developing nations. By far the most impressive is China, which now has approximately 65,000 kilometers of motorway, not including motorways administered at the municipal level (as in Shanghai and Beijing). Only the United States has more, at approximately 85,000 kilometers. China’s plans call for the US figure to be exceeded within a decade. These roads are being built not only throughout populous eastern and central China, but also to the Pamirs at the Kazakh border and to Lhasa, in Tibet, across some of the most desolate and sparsely populated territory in the world. Mexico, a partner with Canada and the United States in the North American Free Trade Agreement also has an extensive motorway system.

    Motorways in Canada: Canada, however, is an exception. Only a quarter of metropolitan areas are connected to one another by motorways. Edmonton and Calgary are among the few metropolitan areas in the developed world that are not connected to comprehensive motorway systems (Vancouver is connected to the US system, but not to the rest of Canada).

    For many trips between Canadian metropolitan areas, it takes less time to travel through the United States on its motorways than on the Canadian roads (such as between Winnipeg or Calgary and Toronto). The principal problem is the long, crowded, slow, two-lane stretch of roadway through the northern Great Lakes region between the Manitoba-Ontario border and between Sudbury and Parry Sound. There is also a long section of roadway in the British Columbia interior that a Calgary talk show host referred to as a “stagecoach” trail. Canada pays an economic price for this lack of a world-class highway system, both in terms of manufacturing and tourism.

    However, parts of Canada are well served by motorways. Much of central and eastern Canada is connected by motorways, with routes from Windsor, Ontario, through Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec to Halifax. This route includes only a short segment that is not motorway standard in the province of Quebec as it approaches the New Brunswick border.

    Moreover, despite its reputation to the contrary, the largest Canadian urban areas have world class freeway systems. Few, if any, urban areas in the United States or the developed world have more kilometers of motorway or motorway lanes in relation to their urban area size as Toronto and Montreal.

    A Canadian Autobahn: In cooperation with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, we proposed a world class highway system for Canada. In a report entitled “A Canadian Autobahn: Creating a World Class Highway System for the Nation” we proposed:

    1. Upgrading the entire transcontinental route from Halifax, through Toronto to Vancouver to motorway standards. These improvements should be completed within 10 years and would cost approximately $28 billion (2009$).
    2. Upgrading other principal routes to at least pre-motorway standard, which would require “twinning” (four-lanes) and minimizing the number of grade crossings. The longest of these additional highways is the Yellowhead route: Edmonton and Calgary to the Canada-U.S. border; Ottawa to Sudbury; and across the island of Newfoundland. These improvements should be completed within 15 years and would cost approximately $33.5 billion).

The transcontinental route would provide a long overdue economic stimulus to urban areas such as Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. The improved Yellowhead route would provide far better access to the new deepwater, superport at Prince Rupert (British Columbia), which is the closest North American port with connections to major Asian markets. This could materially improve Prince Rupert’s competitiveness relative to larger ports on the US West Coast, such as Los Angeles and Long Beach (which have become much less competitive themselves in the last decade). The improved roadway would make it possible to effectively serve the markets of the US Midwest, South and East through a connection to I-29 in North Dakota.

The report was unveiled at a Calgary event on October 29 and was covered by media across the nation.

What About Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A question was raised about the advisability of expanding highways at a time that the world is attempting to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such a strategy would seem to be at odds with the popular perception that we shall all have to abandon our cars and move into flats in the central city. This perception presumes that people are prepared to return to the standards of living and lifestyles of 1980, 1950 or even 1750. In all of my presentations on similar issues I am yet to uncover any groundswell of support for the lifestyles of yesterday.

It needs to be recognized that the international commitment to reducing GHGs is based upon an assumption of minimal impact on the economy. GHG reductions will be achieved only if they are acceptable to people, which requires acceptable costs (research by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change suggests an upper bound of $50 per ton). Cost effectiveness is necessary to not only prevent a huge increase in poverty, but also to allow continued progress toward poverty alleviation and upward mobility. In fact, as recent US research indicates, there is scant real world potential to reduce GHGs from reduced levels of driving.

Given the strong association between economic growth and personal mobility, there is a single realistic path to substantial GHG emission reduction: better technology. Fortunately, developments suggest that technology is, indeed, the answer.

The question, thus, comes down to whether jobs in the northern Great Lakes region (and elsewhere) are more important than strategies that are politically correct, but comparatively ineffectual with respect to materially reducing GHG emissions. It seems likely that people will place a priority on jobs.

Finance: Because of the importance of tying the nation together, it would be appropriate to spend federal and provincial funds on the Canadian Autobahn. User fees, such as a dedicated gasoline tax (as in the United States) or tolls (as in France, China and Mexico) could finance the expansions, using public-private partnerships or “arms-length” government corporations.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley. He is the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

  • Reducing Carbon Should Not Distort Regional Economies

    A pending bill in Congress to reduce carbon emissions via a “cap and trade” regime would have significant distorting effects on America’s regional economies. This is because the cost of compliance varies widely from region to region and metro to metro. This is all the more important since such legislation may do very little to reduce overall carbon emission according to two of the EPA’s own San Francisco lawyers.

    The Brookings Institution recently calculated the projected cost of compliance under the cap and trade plan on a metro by metro basis and produced the map below for The New Republic:

    The costs of compliance are highest in the lower Midwest through to the Mid-Atlantic and in the South. New England, the Upper Midwest, and the West are the winners from a cost standpoint.

    The actual costs vary from a high of $277 per household per year in 2020 in Lexington, KY to a low of $96 in Los Angeles among the 100 largest metros. Other hard hit metros include Washington, DC ($250), Indianapolis ($246) and Kansas City ($228). Among the winners are Portland ($107), San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont ($119) and Chicago ($135).

    In aggregate, this adds up to a significant amount of money. The Cincinnati metro had 815,000 households in 2008. Brookings did not include their household estimates for 2020, but even with no population growth at all, at $244 per household that still adds up to about $200 million per year in compliance costs. To put that in perspective, Cincinnati is proposing to construct a new downtown streetcar system for that same amount of money. It could conceivably build a new streetcar line every single year in perpetuity for the cost of compliance. Portland has 835,000 households, for an annual compliance cost of $90 million. Though they are about the same size regions, Cincinnati will be paying over $100 million more per year compliance costs. This creates a $100 million disincentive to live or locate a business in Cincinnati vs. Portland.

    In short, cap and trade creates disparities between metros. As the New Republic put it, “place matters” on cap and trade. And because the effects are geographically clustered, these disparities aren’t just local, they are regional. This is enough to immediately prompt the question as to whether or not this was an implicit design goal of the system.

    Among the biggest beneficiaries of cap and trade is California. Its large metros are clustered together at the bottom of the list. I noted previously how California is placing a huge bet on the green economy as its engine of economy renewal. In fact, beyond legacy industries such as high tech, agriculture, and entertainment, California’s political leaders are betting their entire future on green. With so much on the line for California, it should come as no surprise that the state would seek to federalize its policies and institutionalize the advantages it has in this arena through its state level climate regulations. One might even better name this bill “The California Economic Recovery and Competitor Hobbling Act of 2009”.

    This reality isn’t lost on Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. With Indianapolis the fifth hardest hit metro in the country, it is no surprise he denounced the plan in a Wall Street Journal editorial, saying, “Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers – California, Massachusetts and New York – seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies.”

    It is clear that getting a bill out of Washington is not just a matter of cost, but of states and regions jockeying for position. The significant regional disparities in impact grind the legislative gears and might ultimately imperil getting legislation passed. Reducing regional disparities could help improve the chances of action on carbon.

    But shouldn’t places that implemented what is considered good policy be rewarded? To some extent, yes. Many places actually voted to cause economic pain for themselves for the sake of a better environment. Other places have fought environmental regulation every step of the way. Clearly, we do want to provide incentives for good behavior, and certainly not reward bad.

    On the other hand, not all the differences in current carbon emissions or abilities to reduce them are the result of good policy. Quite a bit of them are the result of simple good luck. Some places have climates that reduce the need for heating and air conditioning. Other places face more extreme weather.

    Plentiful clean energy sources are unequally spread throughout the country. Not every place has access to large amounts of solar, wind, or hydro power sources. Much of the Midwest and South built coal fired power plants due to plentiful coal supplies in the region. Technology and transportation costs made other sources cost prohibitive. Carbon emissions were not on anyone’s radar then. Some places like Chicago were fortunate to build nuclear plants, which were bitterly opposed by environmentalists at the time, but now are praised by some as a source of low carbon power.

    In short, much of the inequality in carbon emissions results from accidents of geography or history, not deliberate bad choices. People shouldn’t be punished for practices that were rational at the times. As Saul Alinksy put it, “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.” And while one could say perhaps regions whose climates require excessive heating and cooling shouldn’t be favored places to live, one could say the same about much of the West, including California, whose existence depends on a vast edifice of what many consider environmentally destructive water works.

    To actually get action on carbon – the true imperative – we should adopt the following policy guiding principles:

    1. The goal is carbon reduction, full stop. Encumbering it with additional regional economic gamesmanship, or becoming overly enamored with particular means to that end should be avoided.
    2. Reducing carbon emissions will come with an economic cost. It isn’t realistic to expect that we will get away with pain free reductions. Obviously we should seek to get the best blend of costs and benefits, but let’s not pretend we can have our cake and eat it too, holding carbon action hostage to a standard that can never be met.
    3. The carbon reduction regime should not create significant regional cost disparities. As a purely practical matter, this helps ease passage and should be embraced. Complete equality is never realistic, but when some regions will pay twice as much as others, that by itself creates oppositional voting blocs. If a cap and trade scheme is the preferred approach, then perhaps assistance to high compliance cost areas should partially fund the transition away from coal and towards less polluting sources.
    4. The carbon reduction regime should not encourage business to migrate offshore. We should also not take action that reduces the attractiveness of America as a place to do business and especially to manufacture. Regulatory arbitrage already provides an incentive to move to China, where you can largely escape environmental rules, health and safety regulations, and avoid the presence of independent, vigorous unions. An ill chosen carbon regime could simply enhance China’s allure as a “carbon haven”. Again, this skews manufacturing regions and labor interests against action on carbon, while shifting production to areas with only minimal regulatory restraints.

    In short, action on carbon reduction may well be a good policy goal. But we shouldn’t embrace any means to that end uncritically if it creates huge distortions in regional economic advantage or further damages America’s industrial competitiveness.

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

  • Bowling Alone or Bowling Along?

    It has long been cultural sport to mock or to misunderstand the social life of suburbs. More recently, however, sport itself has been identified as a major arena for social decline in suburbia.

    In his Bowling Alone, published with an almost apocalyptic sense of timing at the beginning of the present century, the esteemed social scientist Robert Putnam focused upon the decline of the American bowling leagues as symptomatic of a lost America. League bowling took off during the fifties and peaked during the sixties before its decline set in after 1970. From this downward trajectory, Putnam widens his analysis to raise serious and important questions about the culture of civic engagement in the USA. In other works, Putnam has also viewed the localised politics of northern Italian towns in a more favourable light than the sprawling suburbs of the USA.

    Putnam worries that both community involvement and church attendance is lower in the central cities and suburbs of major metropolitan areas than in the smaller towns of the USA of which he is clearly enamoured. He places this in the wider context of the more mobile, privatised and suburban way of life that has developed in America and other countries, including Britain, since the fifties. Somewhat ironically, perhaps, the decade that was once diagnosed as bringing about the Organisation Man and the Lonely Crowd of tract suburbia, is now viewed as a decade of suburban neighbourliness. What Putnam terms the ‘compulsive togetherness’ of the fifties has been eroded, apparently, by atomised isolation, self-interest and ever widening widths of commuting and social connectivity.

    Yet Putnam’s own statistics do not support the widely cited assertion of declining suburban sociability as compared to urban centers. In his argument that “community involvement is lower in major metropolitan areas” we find from tables in Bowling Alone that in the central areas of cities with one million or more people, about 7 per cent had served in a local community group, and almost 9 percent had attended a public meeting on town or school affairs. In the suburbs of that same-sized metropolis, over 10 per cent had served in a local community group, and over 15 percent had attended a public meeting on town or school affairs.

    In communities between 250,000 and 1 million people – quite a range of cities – again the suburbs manifest higher levels of civic engagement than the city centres. In the town of 50,000 to 250,000 however, we find a slightly more mixed picture: 14 percent living in central areas had served in a local community group compared to 13 percent in the suburbs. This is a paltry differential. However, whereas over 15 percent in central cities of this size had attended a public meeting on town or school affairs, it was over 20 percent in the suburbs, a much wider gap.

    When Putnam analyzes church attendance, his findings tend to exonerate suburban living. In the ”major metropolitan area of more than 2 million”, the “non-central city” manifests higher levels of regular church attendance than the central city. Yet in smaller metropolitan areas and towns both central and non-central areas have almost identical levels of church attendance.

    Surely this all raises a significant questions about the common notion that suburbanisation is bad for local community life. Of course, these figures may also be qualified by ethnicity, gender, occupational class and tenure. For example, home owners tend to be more rooted than renters, says Putnam. But most people living in the American suburbs are home owners, whereas rental levels are higher in downtown areas. Perhaps there is a weaker relationship between faith and tenure than between tenure and community participation?

    So what about sports? Over time-spans of decades, people learn to like other sports, or new ones, and the younger generation does not always emulate the interests of its parents or grandparents. Interests and disposable income are shifted onto other pursuits. Baseball leagues and American football may be declining, but Putnam pays only lip service to the growing popularity of sports such as skating, snowboarding, fitness walking and going to the gym. These are sports that now bind young people together via discussion on social networks and in media like fuel.tv in terms of fashion and popular events.

    For his part, Putnam sees these as symptomatic of a modest demise in team sports as more individualised pursuits become increasingly common. Yet he may be missing the social aspects of the new “extreme” sports.

    He also seems oblivious to the growing social role of soccer, particularly in the suburbs. He gives it three mentions in Bowling Alone. Relative to other countries, soccer may be a relatively small team sport in the USA, encouraged by immigration from soccer-loving countries, and cheered on by the soccer moms of America. But more important is the expansion of amateur soccer which attracts more young people. I would argue that the relative vitality of local soccer leagues is more important than the success of the professional leagues. After all, the issue is grassroots, volunteer social interaction, not mass behavior.

    Soccer was originally born in England, and remains a vital force of social cohesion, particularly in suburban working-class council estates. The Old Left thinkers, many of whom have embraced Putnam’s ideas remain woefully ignorant of the energy and diversity of working-class suburban life.

    Soccer remains the working-class sport that has refused to die, even when the English working class has been diagnosed with terminal decline. Whether at grassroots amateur level, in the lower professional leagues, and in the glamorous world of the Premier League and international competitions, the game continues to draw people together in parks, at football stadiums, around their television sets, and in a million and more websites dedicated to the sport.

    The internet brings people together not just across the world but also in a local context. Online communities, and formal and informal emailing, are mechanisms not of isolation but of interaction. For example, in some research I have been doing on a poor suburban council estate in Southern England, the local tenants’ groups have established and maintain websites. And local amateur soccer in the English provinces has no shortage of websites dedicated to the sport and the teams who play it. And poorer working class areas are currently viewed by politicians and cultural commentators as possessing historically low levels of social capital.

    Ultimately, Putnam is saying little that is new. In both England and the United States of America writers, film directors and metropolitan journalists have long played the game of bashing the suburbs. This elitist lineage can be traced back from the late-Victorian Diary of a Nobody to the nobodies at The Office, and from Babbit to American Beauty. The message takes on different emphases and tones but at its heart is contempt or faux sympathy for the allegedly alienated and privatised suburbanite. Films such as Backfield in Motion or Bend it Like Beckham give us a different take, but they aren’t as widely popular as American Beauty. Why is that? Perhaps their message is too optimistic. The chattering classes continue to want to paint suburbs as bastions of privatism rather than as a flexible and sociable context for community and association. The fact that they are, on the whole, woefully wrong is likely not to change their opinions, but should inform those who have not yet closed their minds.

    Mark Clapson is a social historian, with interests in suburbanisation and social change, new communities in England and the USA, and war and the built environment.

  • Obama Still Can Save His Presidency

    A good friend of mine, a Democratic mayor here in California, describes the Obama administration as “Moveon.org run by the Chicago machine.” This combination may have been good enough to beat John McCain in 2008, but it is proving a damned poor way to run a country or build a strong, effective political majority. And while the president’s charismatic talent – and the lack of such among his opposition – may keep him in office, it will be largely as a kind of permanent lame duck unable to make any of the transformative changes he promised as a candidate.

    If Obama wants to succeed as president he must grow into something more than movement icon, become more of a national leader. In effect, he needs to hit the reset button. Here are five key changes that Obama can implement to re-energize and save his presidency.

    1. Forget the “Chicago way.” The Windy City is a one-party town with a shrinking middle class and a fully co-opted business elite. The focused democratic centralism of the machine – as the University of Illinois’ Richard Simpson has noted – worked brilliantly in the primaries and even the general election campaign. But it is hardly suited to running a nation that is more culturally and politically diverse.

    The key rule of Chicago politics is delivering the spoils to supporters, and Obama’s stimulus program essentially fills this prescription. The stimulus’s biggest winners are such core backers as public employees, universities and rent-seeking businesses who leverage their access to government largesse, mostly by investing in nominally “green” industries. Roughly half the jobs saved form the ranks of teachers, a highly organized core constituency for the president and a mainstay of the political machine that supports the Democratic Party.

    The other winners: big investment banks and private investment funds. People forget that Obama, even running against a sitting New York senator, emerged as an early favorite among the hedge fund grandees. As The New York Times’ Andrew Sorkin put it back in April, “Mr. Obama might be struggling with the blue-collar vote in Pennsylvania, but he has nailed the hedge fund vote.”

    At best, the president’s policy seems like Karl Rove in reverse, essentially smooching the core and ignoring the rest. This is a formula for more divisiveness, not the advertised “hope” Americans expected last November.

    2. Focus on Real Jobs, Not Favored Constituencies . The Chicago approach works better in a closed political system controlled by a few powerbrokers than in a massive continental economy like the U.S. Health care and education, which depend on government largesse, are surviving. But the critical production side of the economy that generates good blue-collar jobs – like agriculture, manufacturing and construction – is getting the least from the stimulus.

    These industries need more large-scale infrastructure spending, as well as more focused skills training and initiatives to free capital for politically unconnected entrepreneurial businesses. Instead, productive industries face the prospect of more regulation while capital for small businesses continues to dry up.

    Those in post-industrial bastions tied to speculative capital – think Manhattan and the Hamptons – are the ones most benefiting from Obamanomics. College towns like Cambridge, Mass., Madison, Wis., Berkeley, Calif., and Palo Alto, Calif., will also prosper, becoming even richer and more self-important. It seems, then, that Obama has done best for elite graduates of Harvard and Stanford and other members of the “creative class.”

    The rest of America, however, is still waiting for a real sustained recovery. Industrial and office properties remain widely abandoned not only in Detroit but Silicon Valley. The future sustainability of our economy depends mostly on what happens to those who previously staffed these facilities – those who produced actual goods and services – not just on a relative handful of people working at Google or the national laboratories. In other words, we need jobs for machinists, welders and marketers as well as scientists with Ph.D’s.

    3. Step on the Gas. Providence has handed America – and Obama – an enormous gift in the now recoverable deposits of natural gas found across the continent. Proven levels have been soaring and now amount to 90 years’ supply at current demand. More will be found, and across a wide section of the country.

    Natural gas may be a fossil fuel, but it is relatively clean and thus the perfect intermediate solution to our energy problems. The problem: The president’s green advisers will seek to prevent developing these resources.

    Although Obama should support strong environmental controls on gas extraction, the greens should not be allowed to block this unique and historic opportunity to shift economic power back to North America. Along with modest increases in domestic and Canadian oil, natural gas could end our dependence on fossil fuels from outside North America. This would relieve our military from the onerous task of defending other people’s oil supplies. But most important, the new energy sources could expand our industrial and agricultural economies so they can capitalize on the huge potential growth from markets at home and in the developing world.

    The natural gas era could then finance continued research and deployment of renewable fuels. Let’s give it the 10 or 20 years that great transformations require. Quick fixes will lead us to subsidize the purchase of rapidly dated technology from China or Europe; we should aim at the energy equivalent of the moon shot, helping forge a huge technological advantage.

    4. Rediscover America. As a candidate, Obama spoke movingly about his Kansas roots, but lately he seems to have become all big city all the time. This administration offers very little to people who live in places like Kansas, as many of my heartland Democrat friends complain.

    Urbanites often forget that this is an enormous country. Crowded into dense cities themselves, they fail to look down from the window when crossing the country by plane. The vast majority of America is, well, vast – sparsely settled, if settled at all.

    Moreover, Obama’s people need to understand that 80% of America live in suburbs or small towns. They do not want to live in dense cities or realize a move there would mean living in less than idyllic conditions. If Obama wants to shape a green America, he must find ways that work with the majority’s preferences.

    But so far the president’s housing, transport and planning advisers seem to be pushing the death of suburbia and promoting ever more densification. It’s hardly surprising, then, that suburbs and small towns feel left out. After finally starting to inch toward the Democrats, they are now turning again to the right. If Democrats want to retain their majority, they need the strong support of these constituencies – without it the Congressional majority will be gone by the end of the second term, if not the first.

    5. Chuck the Nobel; Embrace Exceptionalism. Many progressives love Obama because they see him as one of them in the struggle with what the immortal Bill Maher calls “a stupid country.” But the president should remind himself that the country may not be quite as dumb as it sometimes looks from Oslo – or from Dupont Circle, Cambridge or Soho.

    Being smart was part of the reason the Republicans lost the majority. The voters understood the country was wasting resources – and young people – on internecine conflicts for energy that we could produce at home. The Bush years also undermined any GOP claim to fiscal responsibility.

    Initially Obama allowed us to redefine American exceptionalism as something more than monomaniacal use of force and overconsumption. He spoke to our traditions of inclusiveness, adaptability and idealism. He offered the perfect vehicle because he and his story are so exceptional. Yet Obama sometimes seems more interested in serving as the apologizer rather than as commander in chief. His vision appears less American than pseudo-European.

    This is not the path to success for American presidents. Whether Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman or even Bill Clinton, a president has to be a spokesman for his country. Right now, on the world stage, Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter.

    I suggest these things because, for all his missteps over the past year, Barack Obama is my president and I want him to succeed. But to do so, first he needs to hit his own reset button – and the sooner the better. Unlike some, I do not believe the Obama presidency is already doomed. Presidents often grow in office: Despite his exceptionalism in other areas, let’s hope that Obama proves the norm here.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin Press early next year.

    Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

  • Urban Youth Deserve Chance to Hear About Service Academies

    Here’s a disturbing thought as Veterans Day approaches: Some teachers and administrators of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) refuse to allow visits to high school campuses by representatives of the service academies that train young officers.

    The service academies have all earned reputations as fine academic institutions that go further on training future officers. There is the U.S. Military Academy; the U.S. Naval Academy; the U.S. Air Force Academy; the U.S. Coast Guard Academy; and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. They all offer full scholarships and require five years of service after graduation.

    Candidates must meet demanding standards on academics, physical fitness, and extra-curricular activity. They are generally required to secure a nomination from a member of the U.S. Congress, the president, or the vice president.

    The merit involved in gaining a nomination, along with the geographic apportionment by Congressional districts, offers the chance to draw candidates from across the socio-economic spectrum. Graduation from a service academy offers young officers from every corner of society the chance to reach significant rank.

    Measure that against the LAUSD teachers and administrators who deem a career as a military officer to be unworthy of a hearing at high school campuses. Some will tell you that they object because our wars are fought by too many young persons of color. Others view the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military as contemptible prejudice.

    These objections are absurd. Our civilian leadership decides the actions and policies of the military. War or peace? That’s in the hands of the president and Congress. Gays in the military? Same story.

    It’s true that our military stands ready for war if so directed by the civilian leadership of our democracy. It’s also notable that never in the course of history has any institution possessed the war-making might of the U.S. military. And never has an institution in such a position yielded so loyally to the will of unarmed leadership. This sense of duty has lasted through good and bad, gallant victories and horrific mishaps. Never has there been a serious challenge to civilian oversight.

    All of that is overlooked by LAUSD teachers and administrators—and their boycotts have an effect. Some members of Congress who represent Los Angeles have chronic difficulty in filling the number of nominations they are allowed to make to the service academies each year. They aren’t coming up short on qualified candidates. They can’t even get that far—not enough young achievers know about the possibilities of the service academies.

    It’s time that someone gave these alleged educators who forbid any discussion of service academies a lesson on the honorable history of our military. They should also be reminded that it will require representatives from throughout our society—rich and poor, all colors and creeds, town and country—to keep this line of honorable service intact.

    Keeping knowledge of the service academies away from youngsters in our city is nothing short of demographic censorship. It is time for LAUSD to put an end to the practice.

  • A Slow Job Recovery in Silicon Valley

    Although job growth is gradually returning to Silicon Valley, don’t break out the champagne quite yet.

    Lucia Mokres moved to the area five years ago. Last year, when she was working at a contract engineering and manufacturing firm, she saw several clients lose their jobs, as well as both large and small companies go under in the economic crunch. She remembers one conference vividly. While manning the event booth, instead of seeing people pitch work they had for her firm, they instead passed out resumes, asking her team for work.

    Soon after, her job was cut back from 5 days per week to 4 days, which included a 20% pay cut. Mokres said, “That was really hard, as my rent and student loans did not also get cut 20%.”

    She persisted over “many months” to find a better position, which ultimately resulted in a higher salary and better benefits as a clinical scientist in a medical device company based in Menlo Park, Calif. Looking ahead now, Mokres feels optimistic about her future in Silicon Valley and said, “I am in the medical industry, and there will always be a demand for medical technology and healthcare.”

    “There are worse places to be,” she added. “I’m in one of the top two biotech hotspots in the country. Silicon Valley breeds innovation, and therefore will survive.”

    Harold Lee* feels less cheerful. He was the class president at a tier one university several years ago, and since graduating in 2004, he has worked at several of the top companies in Silicon Valley. He is now a product manager at a social networking startup based in Mountain View, Calif. While he couldn’t imagine leaving the area, he summarized his long-term prospects in one word: “limited.”

    Lee counts himself lucky to have a job at a popular startup, when the signs around him are still troubling. “There’s definitely a palpable feeling of companies scaling back,” he said. “Free lunches are no longer free, snacks are rationed out a bit more, and there’s a lot more focus on measured productivity.”

    Reports from friends and peers, particularly those who have been laid off in the last year, have not lifted the gloom. Said Lee, “Things have settled down to the point where people aren’t frightened, but I doubt anyone would be surprised if they got a pink slip tomorrow.” He added, “Trying to get a job is immensely difficult. I have friends who returned to get their graduate degrees in business, who now can’t land anything.”

    The lagging indicator in economics is jobs, which, for the average worker, has the biggest personal impact. Over the last year, California lost 732,700 jobs, the worst hit of all U.S. states, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    The job situation in Silicon Valley has not rebounded as quickly as hoped. The area’s jobless rate is nearly double what it was a year ago, according to the state’s Employment Development Department. Nearly three times as many people are actively looking for work, versus during the dot-com bust, when the jobless rate peaked at 9.2 percent in early 2003. The recent number of unemployed is 110,900, representing an 87 percent increase from the prior year, according to the EDD.

    The technology industry has continued to take a beating in the past six months. Cisco cut 700 local jobs in July, and Lockheed Martin slashed nearly 500 local jobs in August, based on state filings. Most recently in October, Sun Microsystems Inc. announced that it would eliminate up to 3,000 jobs across all sites, or 10 percent of its worldwide work force through the new year, due to the takeover by Oracle Corp.

    The larger question is if the recovery in Silicon Valley will be technology-led. Many believe that the tech industry, which dominates local economics, will lead other companies out of the recession. Does a rising tide lift all boats? Due to the slower return of jobs, it will likely take more time for tech companies to generate the tax revenue needed to support the service sector and other programs again.

    However, local leaders and economists feel that the worst has passed. The usual suspects are optimistic. Stanford University recently hosted its fourth annual roundtable, and the panel discussion dove immediately into the economic crisis. Moderated by television host Charlie Rose, the panel included Eric Schmidt, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Google; Penny Pritzker, who serves on President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; Guillermo Ortiz, governor of the Bank of Mexico; Stanford Economics Professor Caroline Hoxby; Garth Saloner, dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Business; and Stanford President John Hennessy.

    Google’s CEO Schmidt told the audience: “We know that things are improving. We’re seeing everyone come up at the same time, which is a good sign.”

    Other experts, who track economic growth, echo similar sentiments. The perennially optimist Stephen Levy of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy has told press that, while Silicon Valley will continue to lose some jobs, revival signs are encouraging. He said, “We’re on the road to recovery.”

    Not everyone has the same rosy forecast. Job growth in the Valley has not been creating net jobs for over a decade. Some individuals have done well, but the path to upward mobility may not be as cheery as the professional boosters and Valley insiders suggest. While the information sector for the three major Valley cities – specifically the cluster of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara – grew the fastest of all nonfarm sectors at nearly 31 percent since 2003, overall employment has actually dropped by 6 percent over the last 12 years, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Judy Huang has learned this lesson the hard way. After working nine years with local technology companies, she has returned to job hunting and found that the road to recovery is much rockier up close. After witnessing several friends struggle similarly, she set up a community group called “Yes We All Can” to support other job seekers with emotional support and job tips. Huang explained, “We have more fun doing it with a little help from our friends.” Since she started the group in May, roughly a quarter of group members have found job positions.

    Hiring specialists have also seen slow growth. Andrew Adelman has not seen any particular sector bounce back yet in Silicon Valley, although he thinks that the recovery will likely start with companies that focus on efficiencies in operations. Adelman directs CoreTechs, Inc., a temporary contract staffing firm that specializes in technical and accounting positions. He noted, “Most companies we speak to are on freezes until they feel confident in either maintaining their current revenue or some pick up. Until they have that confidence, nothing is going to change.”

    He felt that the last economic crash was focused mainly on Internet companies and supporting services. In his view, the current downturn is much more widespread. Many companies outside the tech industry have had to face staff cutbacks and shrinking revenue, and their paranoia feeds a deeper dread. He said, “The fear this time around is much more pervasive and thus much more damaging in the stagnation it causes. Once the fear starts to wane will be when a true recovery starts to take hold.”

    Lei Han agrees. Based in San Francisco, she started a blog, “Career Coach – I am in your corner,” in February, which allows her to mentor and encourage individuals on a broader scale. From the worker’s perspective, she said, “They are all worrying more about their careers and jobs. Almost everyone I know knows someone who has been laid off.”

    She added, “Ironically, people who have a job are also worried. There is a bit of survivor guilt, as well as survivor nonchalance.”

    Despite recent challenges, there are several reasons for workers to be optimistic. At the top of the list, Silicon Valley still remains the world’s hotbed of innovation.

    John Lekashman, an engineering executive who has lived in Silicon Valley since 1983, has seen the region survive many downturns. He laughed, “We have been iron oxide valley, and silicon valley, and software valley, and social media valley and biotech valley, and solar valley, and nanotech valley, and any of a bunch of other random new ideas that fly.”

    From his experience, workers in Silicon Valley persevere. The region fosters a culture of renewal and failure, which will provide an economic buffer until the jobs become plentiful again.

    * Not his real name

    Tamara Carleton is a doctoral student at Stanford University, studying innovation culture and technology visions. She is also a Fellow of the Foundation for Enterprise Development and the Bay Area Science and Innovation Consortium.

  • It’s Crowded Out Here

    Do you know that where I’m sitting right now, the population density is 2,787,840 people per square mile?

    And here are two other numbers (from Wikipedia) that you shouldn’t believe: The population density of Manhattan is 71,201/sq mi. And of Australia: 7.3/sq mi.

    And now a number that might just be credible: Hong Kong has 2,346.1/sq mi.

    My personal population density I got by allotting myself 10 square feet, and then extrapolating to a square mile. True, as far as it goes, but this must be what Mark Twain meant by “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

    Population densities (PDs) have meaning only if averaged over some relevant space. The size of that space is a matter of geographical judgment, and cannot simply be left to the statistician’s computer.

    Australia’s is easy to discredit: 90% of the country is empty desert. The habitable land (on which the population survives) is much smaller, and the relevant population density must therefore be (a still low) 70-80 people per square mile.

    So let’s consider some relevant spaces. We’ll start in Indiana, come back to New York, and end up in Hong Kong.

    Indiana is a state where the population is fairly evenly dispersed: there are no large uninhabited spaces, and likewise, no megacities of enormous density. The PD is 169.5/sq. mile.

    In Table 1, I have taken 2000 census data and ranked Indiana counties by population, reporting also the land area and the density.

    		Geographic area

    Population

    Land
    area
    Pop.
    Density/sq.
    mi of land

    Cumulative Population
    Cumulative area
    Cumulative Density
    Anti-cumulative Density
    		 
    		Indiana
    6,080,485
    35,867
    169.50
    		 
    #
    		 COUNTY
    1
    		 Marion County
    860,457
    396.25
    2,171.50
    860,457
    396.25
    2,171.50
    169.53
    2
    		 Lake County
    484,556
    496.98
    975.00
    1,345,012
    893.23
    1,505.79
    147.16
    3
    		 Allen County
    331,846
    657.25
    504.90
    1,676,858
    1,550.48
    1,081.51
    135.40
    4
    		 St. Joseph County
    265,577
    457.34
    580.70
    1,942,435
    2,007.82
    967.43
    128.32
    5
    		 Elkhart County
    182,788
    463.81
    394.10
    2,125,223
    2,471.63
    859.85
    122.21
    6
    		 Hamilton County
    182,734
    397.94
    459.20
    2,307,957
    2,869.57
    804.29
    118.44
    7
    		 Vanderburgh County
    171,916
    234.57
    732.90
    2,479,873
    3,104.14
    798.89
    114.33
    8
    		 Tippecanoe County
    148,937
    499.79
    298.00
    2,628,811
    3,603.93
    729.43
    109.90
    9
    		 Porter County
    146,798
    418.11
    351.10
    2,775,609
    4,022.04
    690.10
    106.99
    10
    		 Madison County
    133,378
    452.13
    295.00
    2,908,987
    4,474.17
    650.17
    103.78
    11
    		 Monroe County
    120,553
    394.35
    305.70
    3,029,540
    4,868.52
    622.27
    101.03
    12
    		 Delaware County
    118,774
    393.29
    302.00
    3,148,314
    5,261.81
    598.33
    98.42
    13
    		 Johnson County
    115,204
    320.19
    359.80
    3,263,518
    5,582.00
    584.65
    95.81
    14
    		 LaPorte County
    110,136
    598.24
    184.10
    3,373,654
    6,180.24
    545.88
    93.02
    15
    		 Vigo County
    105,864
    403.29
    262.50
    3,479,518
    6,583.53
    528.52
    91.18
    16
    		 Hendricks County
    104,099
    408.39
    254.90
    3,583,616
    6,991.92
    512.54
    88.82
    17
    		 Clark County
    96,460
    375.04
    257.20
    3,680,077
    7,366.96
    499.54
    86.47
    18
    		 Howard County
    84,961
    293.07
    289.90
    3,765,038
    7,660.03
    491.52
    84.23
    19
    		 Kosciusko County
    74,068
    537.5
    137.80
    3,839,105
    8,197.53
    468.32
    82.09
    20
    		 Grant County
    73,408
    414.03
    177.30
    3,912,513
    8,611.56
    454.33
    81.01
    21
    		 Bartholomew County
    71,441
    406.84
    175.60
    3,983,954
    9,018.40
    441.76
    79.54
    22
    		 Wayne County
    71,109
    403.57
    176.20
    4,055,063
    9,421.97
    430.38
    78.09
    23
    		 Floyd County
    70,818
    148
    478.50
    4,125,881
    9,569.97
    431.13
    76.59
    24
    		 Morgan County
    66,702
    406.47
    164.10
    4,192,582
    9,976.44
    420.25
    74.33
    25
    		 Hancock County
    55,377
    306.12
    180.90
    4,247,960
    10,282.56
    413.12
    72.92
    26
    		 Warrick County
    52,387
    384.07
    136.40
    4,300,347
    10,666.63
    403.16
    71.63
    27
    		 Henry County
    48,527
    392.93
    123.50
    4,348,874
    11,059.56
    393.22
    70.64
    28
    		 Noble County
    46,291
    411.11
    112.60
    4,395,165
    11,470.67
    383.17
    69.80
    29
    		 Dearborn County
    46,117
    305.21
    151.10
    4,441,282
    11,775.88
    377.15
    69.08
    30
    		 Boone County
    46,091
    422.85
    109.00
    4,487,372
    12,198.73
    367.86
    68.04
    31
    		 Lawrence County
    45,915
    448.83
    102.30
    4,533,288
    12,647.56
    358.43
    67.31
    32
    		 Marshall County
    45,138
    444.27
    101.60
    4,578,426
    13,091.83
    349.72
    66.63
    33
    		 Shelby County
    43,451
    412.64
    105.30
    4,621,877
    13,504.47
    342.25
    65.95
    34
    		 Jackson County
    41,356
    509.31
    81.20
    4,663,233
    14,013.78
    332.76
    65.23
    35
    		 Cass County
    40,915
    412.87
    99.10
    4,704,148
    14,426.65
    326.07
    64.85
    36
    		 DeKalb County
    40,280
    362.88
    111.00
    4,744,428
    14,789.53
    320.80
    64.19
    37
    		 Dubois County
    39,654
    430.09
    92.20
    4,784,082
    15,219.62
    314.34
    63.39
    38
    		 Knox County
    39,255
    515.83
    76.10
    4,823,337
    15,735.45
    306.53
    62.79
    39
    		 Huntington County
    38,068
    382.59
    99.50
    4,861,404
    16,118.04
    301.61
    62.45
    40
    		 Montgomery County
    37,636
    504.51
    74.60
    4,899,041
    16,622.55
    294.72
    61.73
    41
    		 Miami County
    36,097
    375.62
    96.10
    4,935,138
    16,998.17
    290.33
    61.39
    42
    		 Putnam County
    36,023
    480.31
    75.00
    4,971,161
    17,478.48
    284.42
    60.70
    43
    		 Wabash County
    34,954
    413.17
    84.60
    5,006,115
    17,891.65
    279.80
    60.33
    44
    		 LaGrange County
    34,920
    379.56
    92.00
    5,041,035
    18,271.21
    275.90
    59.77
    45
    		 Harrison County
    34,305
    485.22
    70.70
    5,075,340
    18,756.43
    270.59
    59.07
    46
    		 Clinton County
    33,866
    405.1
    83.60
    5,109,206
    19,161.53
    266.64
    58.74
    47
    		 Adams County
    33,631
    339.36
    99.10
    5,142,837
    19,500.89
    263.72
    58.14
    48
    		 Steuben County
    33,218
    308.72
    107.60
    5,176,055
    19,809.61
    261.29
    57.29
    49
    		 Greene County
    33,154
    541.73
    61.20
    5,209,209
    20,351.34
    255.96
    56.33
    50
    		 Gibson County
    32,504
    488.78
    66.50
    5,241,713
    20,840.12
    251.52
    56.15
    51
    		 Jefferson County
    31,692
    361.37
    87.70
    5,273,405
    21,201.49
    248.73
    55.82
    52
    		 Whitley County
    30,700
    335.52
    91.50
    5,304,105
    21,537.01
    246.28
    55.03
    53
    		 Jasper County
    30,065
    559.87
    53.70
    5,334,170
    22,096.88
    241.40
    54.18
    54
    		 Daviess County
    29,802
    430.66
    69.20
    5,363,972
    22,527.54
    238.11
    54.20
    55
    		 Wells County
    27,599
    369.96
    74.60
    5,391,571
    22,897.50
    235.47
    53.71
    56
    		 Jennings County
    27,537
    377.22
    73.00
    5,419,108
    23,274.72
    232.83
    53.12
    57
    		 Randolph County
    27,396
    452.83
    60.50
    5,446,504
    23,727.55
    229.54
    52.52
    58
    		 Washington County
    27,213
    514.42
    52.90
    5,473,717
    24,241.97
    225.80
    52.23
    59
    		 Posey County
    27,043
    408.5
    66.20
    5,500,760
    24,650.47
    223.15
    52.20
    60
    		 Clay County
    26,571
    357.62
    74.30
    5,527,331
    25,008.09
    221.02
    51.69
    61
    		 Ripley County
    26,514
    446.36
    59.40
    5,553,844
    25,454.45
    218.19
    50.94
    62
    		 Fayette County
    25,580
    214.96
    119.00
    5,579,425
    25,669.41
    217.36
    50.58
    63
    		 White County
    25,262
    505.24
    50.00
    5,604,687
    26,174.65
    214.13
    49.14
    64
    		 Decatur County
    24,554
    372.6
    65.90
    5,629,241
    26,547.25
    212.05
    49.09
    65
    		 Starke County
    23,569
    309.31
    76.20
    5,652,810
    26,856.56
    210.48
    48.42
    66
    		 Scott County
    22,961
    190.39
    120.60
    5,675,772
    27,046.95
    209.85
    47.46
    67
    		 Franklin County
    22,156
    386
    57.40
    5,697,928
    27,432.95
    207.70
    45.89
    68
    		 Owen County
    21,801
    385.18
    56.60
    5,719,729
    27,818.13
    205.61
    45.36
    69
    		 Jay County
    21,791
    383.64
    56.80
    5,741,520
    28,201.77
    203.59
    44.82
    70
    		 Sullivan County
    21,734
    447.2
    48.60
    5,763,254
    28,648.97
    201.17
    44.22
    71
    		 Fulton County
    20,526
    368.51
    55.70
    5,783,780
    29,017.48
    199.32
    43.95
    72
    		 Spencer County
    20,373
    398.69
    51.10
    5,804,153
    29,416.17
    197.31
    43.32
    73
    		 Carroll County
    20,176
    372.26
    54.20
    5,824,329
    29,788.43
    195.52
    42.84
    74
    		 Orange County
    19,297
    399.52
    48.30
    5,843,626
    30,187.95
    193.57
    42.14
    75
    		 Perry County
    18,917
    381.39
    49.60
    5,862,543
    30,569.34
    191.78
    41.71
    76
    		 Rush County
    18,250
    408.28
    44.70
    5,880,793
    30,977.62
    189.84
    41.14
    77
    		 Fountain County
    17,964
    395.69
    45.40
    5,898,758
    31,373.31
    188.02
    40.84
    78
    		 Parke County
    17,257
    444.77
    38.80
    5,916,015
    31,818.08
    185.93
    40.44
    79
    		 Vermillion County
    16,801
    256.89
    65.40
    5,932,815
    32,074.97
    184.97
    40.62
    80
    		 Tipton County
    16,587
    260.39
    63.70
    5,949,402
    32,335.36
    183.99
    38.94
    81
    		 Brown County
    14,957
    312.26
    47.90
    5,964,359
    32,647.62
    182.69
    37.12
    82
    		 Newton County
    14,547
    401.85
    36.20
    5,978,906
    33,049.47
    180.91
    36.07
    83
    		 Blackford County
    14,050
    165.1
    85.10
    5,992,956
    33,214.57
    180.43
    36.05
    84
    		 Pulaski County
    13,748
    433.68
    31.70
    6,006,704
    33,648.25
    178.51
    33.00
    85
    		 Pike County
    12,842
    336.18
    38.20
    6,019,546
    33,984.43
    177.13
    33.25
    86
    		 Crawford County
    10,729
    305.68
    35.10
    6,030,275
    34,290.11
    175.86
    32.37
    87
    		 Martin County
    10,353
    336.14
    30.80
    6,040,629
    34,626.25
    174.45
    31.84
    88
    		 Benton County
    9,426
    406.31
    23.20
    6,050,055
    35,032.56
    172.70
    32.13
    89
    		 Switzerland County
    9,068
    221.18
    41.00
    6,059,123
    35,253.74
    171.87
    36.47
    90
    		 Warren County
    8,429
    364.88
    23.10
    6,067,552
    35,618.62
    170.35
    34.84
    91
    		 Union County
    7,351
    161.55
    45.50
    6,074,903
    35,780.17
    169.78
    52.09
    92
    		 Ohio County
    5,619
    86.72
    64.80
    6,080,522
    35,866.89
    169.53
    64.37

    There are big differences from one part of the state to another. Marion County (Indianapolis) is the most populous, with PD = 2171. At the other extreme, Warren County has the smallest density (90 of 92 by population), with PD = 23.1, or 100-fold smaller. Does averaging these numbers make any sense?

    I have calculated what I call the Cumulative Density (CD). For Marion County, being the most populous, the CD is simply the PD for that county. For Lake County (Gary-Hammond, and #2 in population), the CD is the sum of the populations of the two counties, divided by the sum of their land areas, and so on. For Ohio County (smallest by population) all populations and all land areas are added, and CD = PD for the state.

    Similarly, I have calculated the Anti-cumulative density (aCD), which is the same thing, but now starting at the bottom of the table. The aCD for Ohio County equals the PD for Ohio County, whereas the aCD for Marion County equals that for the state as a whole.

    So what does this mean in terms of observables? Consider the drive from Indianapolis to St. Louis, westbound on I-70. This is a heavily traveled road, with lots of truck traffic. The largest city along this stretch is Terre Haute, in Vigo County.

    Now consider an alternate, parallel route: the four-lane highway – US 40 (known for much of its stretch as the National Road). This has very little traffic, and almost no truck traffic. Why?

    The interstate connects metropolitan areas, and hence traffic on the interstate will reflect the cumulative density. The parallel side roads such as US 40 carry mostly local traffic, and thus traffic should be proportional to the anti-cumulative density.

    So the cumulative density for Vigo County is 528/sq mile, a number that averages in Indianapolis and its collar counties. On the other hand, the anti-cumulative density is 91/sq mile, or approximately 6 times smaller. Indeed, a factor of six is probably a good estimate for the traffic difference between I-70 and US 40. So for a more relaxing trip to Indy – if somewhat slower – take US 40.

    The population density of Manhattan is almost as absurd as my personal population density. Manhattan is not an appropriate average: one needs to include reasonable hinterland space from which the island draws its food, water and labor. The metropolitan area does just fine.

    Table 2 shows census data for Downstate New York, defined as the metro area most generously understood. This includes much of the Catskill Park from which the City gets its water. This area has 12.9 million people spread over 5100 square miles, for a PD of 2,530. (Including relevant parts of NJ reduces this number to 2140.)

    Geographic area
    Population
    Land
    area
    Pop. Density    		 Cumulative Population Cumulative area Cumulative Density Anti-cumulative Density
    New York 18,976,457 47213.79 401.90
    Upstate New York 6,109,043 42128.85 145.01
    # COUNTY
    1 Kings County 2,465,326 70.61 34,916.60 2,465,326 70.61 34,914.69 2,530.49
    2 Queens County 2,229,379 109.24 20,409.00 4,694,705 179.85 26,103.45 2,074.47
    3 New York County 1,537,195 22.96 66,940.10 6,231,900 202.81 30,727.77 1,666.17
    4 Suffolk County 1,419,369 912.2 1,556.00 7,651,269 1,115.01 6,862.06 1,359.14
    5 Nassau County 1,334,544 286.69 4,655.00 8,985,813 1,401.70 6,410.65 1,313.91
    6 Bronx County 1,332,650 42.03 31,709.30 10,318,463 1,443.73 7,147.09 1,053.86
    7 Westchester County 923,459 432.82 2,133.60 11,241,922 1,876.55 5,990.74 700.03
    8 Richmond County 443,728 58.48 7,587.90 11,685,650 1,935.03 6,039.00 506.64
    9 Orange County 341,367 816.34 418.20 12,027,017 2,751.37 4,371.28 375.17
    10 Rockland County 286,753 174.22 1,645.90 12,313,770 2,925.59 4,208.99 360.13
    11 Dutchess County 280,150 801.59 349.50 12,593,920 3,727.18 3,378.94 256.39
    12 Ulster County 177,749 1126.48 157.80 12,771,669 4,853.66 2,631.35 201.43
    13 Putnam County 95,745 231.28 414.00 12,867,414 5,084.94 2,530.49 413.98
    Total Downstate New York 12,867,414 5084.94 2,530.49
    New Jersey 6,208,552 3838.53 1,617.43
    Total Metro 19,075,966 8,923 2,137.73

    This isn’t Indiana anymore! Metro New York City really is more densely populated than the Hoosier state – by about a factor of 10. The aCD where I live (Ulster County) is double that of Vigo County, and indeed, my local highways are at least twice as busy.

    But it would be a mistake to average in all of New York State into a single PD number. The census tells us that NYS has 401/sq. mile, but that is Mark-Twain-land. Upstate New York – beyond the political – has only tenuous connections with the City.

    Table 3 shows the census data for all upstate counties in New York – the PD is 145/sq mile, or sparser than Indiana. Indeed, Hamilton County, entirely within the Adirondack Park, only has 3/sq. mile! I once lived in Chautauqua County (aCD = 71), and can compare upstate NY, Indiana, and downstate NY; my car insurance rates have varied proportionally to the aCD.

    Geographic area Pop.
    Land
    area
    Pop. Density    		 Cumulative Population Cumulative area Cumulative Density Anti-cumulative Density
    Upstate New York 6,109,043 42128.85 145.01
    # COUNTY
    1 Erie County 950,265 1044.21 910.00 950,265 1,044.21 910.03 145.01
    2 Monroe County 735,343 659.29 1,115.30 1,685,608 1,703.50 989.50 125.56
    3 Onondaga County 458,336 780.29 587.40 2,143,944 2,483.79 863.17 109.42
    4 Albany County 294,565 523.45 562.70 2,438,509 3,007.24 810.88 100.01
    5 Oneida County 235,469 1212.7 194.20 2,673,978 4,219.94 633.65 93.82
    6 Niagara County 219,846 522.95 420.40 2,893,824 4,742.89 610.14 90.61
    7 Saratoga County 200,635 811.84 247.10 3,094,459 5,554.73 557.09 86.00
    8 Broome County 200,536 706.82 283.70 3,294,995 6,261.55 526.23 82.42
    9 Rensselaer County 152,538 653.96 233.30 3,447,533 6,915.51 498.52 78.46
    10 Schenectady County 146,555 206.1 711.10 3,594,088 7,121.61 504.67 75.58
    11 Chautauqua County 139,750 1062.05 131.60 3,733,838 8,183.66 456.26 71.84
    12 Oswego County 122,377 953.3 128.40 3,856,215 9,136.96 422.05 69.97
    13 St. Lawrence County 111,931 2685.6 41.70 3,968,146 11,822.56 335.64 68.28
    14 Jefferson County 111,738 1272.2 87.80 4,079,884 13,094.76 311.57 70.64
    15 Ontario County 100,224 644.38 155.50 4,180,108 13,739.14 304.25 69.89
    16 Steuben County 98,726 1392.64 70.90 4,278,834 15,131.78 282.77 67.94
    17 Tompkins County 96,501 476.05 202.70 4,375,335 15,607.83 280.33 67.79
    18 Wayne County 93,765 604.21 155.20 4,469,100 16,212.04 275.67 65.37
    19 Chemung County 91,070 408.17 223.10 4,560,170 16,620.21 274.37 63.28
    20 Cattaraugus County 83,955 1309.85 64.10 4,644,125 17,930.06 259.01 60.72
    21 Cayuga County 81,963 693.18 118.20 4,726,088 18,623.24 253.77 60.54
    22 Clinton County 79,894 1038.95 76.90 4,805,982 19,662.19 244.43 58.84
    23 Sullivan County 73,966 969.71 76.30 4,879,948 20,631.90 236.52 58.00
    24 Madison County 69,441 655.86 105.90 4,949,389 21,287.76 232.50 57.18
    25 Herkimer County 64,427 1411.25 45.70 5,013,816 22,699.01 220.88 55.64
    26 Livingston County 64,328 632.13 101.80 5,078,144 23,331.14 217.66 56.37
    27 Warren County 63,303 869.29 72.80 5,141,447 24,200.43 212.45 54.84
    28 Columbia County 63,094 635.73 99.20 5,204,541 24,836.16 209.55 53.97
    29 Otsego County 61,676 1002.8 61.50 5,266,217 25,838.96 203.81 52.31
    30 Washington County 61,042 835.44 73.10 5,327,259 26,674.40 199.71 51.74
    31 Genesee County 60,370 494.11 122.20 5,387,629 27,168.51 198.30 50.59
    32 Fulton County 55,073 496.17 111.00 5,442,702 27,664.68 196.74 48.22
    33 Tioga County 51,784 518.69 99.80 5,494,486 28,183.37 194.95 46.07
    34 Chenango County 51,401 894.36 57.50 5,545,887 29,077.73 190.73 44.07
    35 Franklin County 51,134 1631.49 31.30 5,597,021 30,709.22 182.26 43.15
    36 Allegany County 49,927 1030.22 48.50 5,646,948 31,739.44 177.92 44.84
    37 Montgomery County 49,708 404.82 122.80 5,696,656 32,144.26 177.22 44.48
    38 Cortland County 48,599 499.65 97.30 5,745,255 32,643.91 176.00 41.30
    39 Greene County 48,195 647.75 74.40 5,793,450 33,291.66 174.02 38.35
    40 Delaware County 48,055 1446.37 33.20 5,841,505 34,738.03 168.16 35.71
    41 Orleans County 44,171 391.4 112.90 5,885,676 35,129.43 167.54 36.20
    42 Wyoming County 43,424 592.91 73.20 5,929,100 35,722.34 165.98 31.91
    43 Essex County 38,851 1796.8 21.60 5,967,951 37,519.14 159.06 28.09
    44 Seneca County 33,342 324.91 102.60 6,001,293 37,844.05 158.58 30.61
    45 Schoharie County 31,582 622.02 50.80 6,032,875 38,466.07 156.84 25.15
    46 Lewis County 26,944 1275.42 21.10 6,059,819 39,741.49 152.48 20.80
    47 Yates County 24,621 338.24 72.80 6,084,440 40,079.73 151.81 20.62
    48 Schuyler County 19,224 328.71 58.50 6,103,664 40,408.44 151.05 12.01
    49 Hamilton County 5,379 1720.39 3.10 6,109,043 42,128.83 145.01 3.13

    And finally, a word on Hong Kong. I’ve never been there, and haven’t looked up any statistics other than the Wikipedia number, but I tend to believe that. It seems remarkably close to the New York metro number, which I hypothesize is a reasonable density for any large mega-city in the world.

    Do you know that where I’m sitting right now, the population density is 2,140 people per square mile?

    Now that’s a number you can believe in.

    Daniel Jelski is Dean of Science & Engineering State University of New York at New Paltz.

  • Police Pensions and Voodoo Actuarials

    A key argument that public-safety officials use to justify their absurdly high pension benefits –- i.e., “3 percent at 50” retirements that allow them to retire with 90 percent or more of their final year’s pay as early as age 50 — is this: We die soon after retirement because of all the stresses and difficulties of our jobs. This is such a common urban legend that virtually every officer who contacts me mentions this “fact.” They never provide back-up evidence.

    Here is one article I’ve been sent by police to make their point. It was written in 1999 by Thomas Aveni of the Police Policy Council, a police advocacy organization. Here is the key segment: “Turning our attention back towards the forgotten police shift worker, sleep deprivation must be considered a serious component of another potential killer: job stress. The cumulative effect of sleep deprivation upon the shift-working policeman appears to aggravate job stress, and/or his ability to cope with it.

    “Even more troubling is the prospect that the synergy of job stress and chronic sleep indebtedness contributes mightily to a diminished life expectancy. In the U.S., non-police males have a life-expectancy of 73 years. Policemen in the U.S. have a life expectancy of 53-66 years, depending on which research one decides to embrace. In addition, police submit workman’s compensation claims six times higher than the rate of other employees …”

    I don’t doubt that police work can be very stressful, but many jobs are stressful, many have long hours, many are more dangerous, many involve sleep deprivation. As intelligent adults, we all need to weigh the risk and benefits of any career choice. Aveni uses the high amount of workers compensation claims as evidence of the dangers of the job, but given the tendency of police and firefighters to abuse the disability system – miraculously discovering a disabling injury exactly a year from retirement, thus getting an extra year off and protecting half the pension from taxes – I’m not convinced this proves anything. Given the number of officers who are retired based on knee injuries, back aches, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, etc., this suggests that police game the system and know their fellows on the retirement board will approve virtually any disability claim.

    There are so many legal presumptions (if an officer develops various conditions or diseases it is legally presumed to be work related, whether or not it actually is work related) that bolster the scam. “Disabled” officers often go right out and get similar law enforcement jobs, which calls into question how disabling the injury really is. Regarding sleep deprivation, police and firefighters have secured schedules that minimize the long hours; then the officers often choose to work overtime for double salary, which perhaps is the real cause of sleep problems.

    The big whopper in the Aveni article, however, is the claim that officers live to be 53-66. If that were so, there would be no unfunded liability problem because of pension benefits. Police officers would retire at 50-55, then live a few years at best.

    But, for example, according to the state of California pubic employees’ retirement system (CalPERS) actuary, police actually live longer than average these days, which isn’t surprising given that the earlier people retire and the wealthier they are, the longer they tend to live. And according to a 2006 report to the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System, these are the age-60 life expectancies for the system’s workers (meaning how many years after 60 they will live):

    — Police and fire males: 22.6
    — General service males: 23.4
    — Police and fire females: 25.7
    — General service females: 25.7

    So we see that police and firefighters who retire at age 60 live, on average, well into their 80s. That’s real data and not the hearsay used by apologists for enormous police pensions.

    CalPERS actuary David Lamoureux sent me a CalPERS presentation called “Preparing for Tomorrow,” from the retirement fund’s 2008 educational forum. The presentation features various “pension myth busters.”

    Here is Myth #4 (presented as part of a Power Point presentation): “Safety members do not live as long as miscellaneous members.” CalPERS officials explain that “rumor has it that safety members only live a few years after retirement.” Actuarial data answers the question: “Do they actually live for a shorter time?” The presentation considers the competing facts: “Safety members tend to have a more physically demanding job, this could lead to a shorter life expectancy. However, miscellaneous members sit at their desk and might be more at risk to accumulating table muscle!” Fire officials, by the way, make identical claims about dying as early as police officials.

    For answers, CalPERS looked at an experience study conducted by its actuarial office in 2004. It looked at post-retirement mortality data for public safety officials and compared it to mortality rates for miscellaneous government workers covered by the CalPERS system.

    Here are the CalPERS life expectancy data for miscellaneous members:

    — If the current age is 55, the retiree is expected to live to be 81.4 if male, and 85 if female.
    — If the current age is 60, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82 if male, and 85.5 if female.
    — If the current age is 65, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82.9 if male, and 86.1 if female.

    Here is the CalPERS life expectancy data for public safety members (police and fire, which are grouped together by the pension fund):

    — If the current age is 55, the retiree is expected to live to be 81.4 if male, and 85 if female.
    — If the current age is 60, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82 if male, and 85.5 if female.
    — If the current age is 65, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82.9 if male, and 86.1 if female.

    That’s no mistake. The numbers for public safety retirees are identical to those of other government workers. As CalPERS notes, average public safety officials retiree earlier than average miscellaneous members, so they receive their higher level of benefits for a much longer time.

    Here is CalPERS again: “Verdict: Myth #4 Busted! Safety members do live as long as miscellaneous members.”

    The next time you hear this “we die early” misinformation from a cop, firefighter or other public-safety union member (most of them probably believe it to be true, given how often they have read this in their union newsletters), send them to CalPERS for the truth!

    I expected these numbers for the recently retired, given the pension enhancements and earlier retirement ages, but it seemed plausible that police in particular might have had a point about mortality rates in earlier days. But even that’s not true. A 1987 federal report from the National Criminal Justice Reference Center, “Police Officers Retirement: The Beginning of a Long Life,” makes the following point:

    “’The average police officer dies within five years after retirement and reportedly has a life expectancy of twelve years less than that of other people.’ Still another author states, ‘police officers do not retire well.’ This fact is widely known within police departments. These statements (which are without supporting evidence) reflect a commonly held assumption among police officers.

    “Yet, a search of the literature does not provide published studies in support. Two suggested sources, the Los Angeles City Police and Massachusetts State Police, have provided data which also appears to contradict these assumptions. Reported in this paper are results from a mortality study of retired Illinois State Police (ISP) officers. It suggests that ISP officers have as long, if not longer, life expectancy than the population as a whole. Similar results also arise when examining retirees from the Ohio Highway Patrol, Arizona Highway Patrol, and Kentucky State Police.”

    The report also casts doubt on the commonly repeated statistic that police have higher rates of suicide and divorce than other people. The federal report found the divorce rates to be average and suicide rates to be below average. This is important information because it debunks a key rationale for the retirement expansions, although more recent data need to be examined on divorce/suicide rates.

    Police have an oftentimes tough job, but many Americans have oftentimes tough and sometimes dangerous jobs. This needs to be kept in perspective. Public officials need to deal in reality rather than in emotionally laden fantasy when considering the public policy ramifications of pensions.

    This article was excerpted from Greenhut’s forthcoming book, “Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives And Bankrupting The Nation” to be published by The Forum Press in November.

  • Congress and the Administration Take Aim at Local Democracy

    Local democracy has been a mainstay of the US political system. This is evident from the town hall governments in New England to the small towns that the majority of Americans choose to live in today.

    In most states and metropolitan areas, substantial policy issues – such as zoning and land use decisions – are largely under the control of those who have a principal interest: local voters who actually live in the nation’s cities, towns, villages, townships and unincorporated county areas. This may be about to change. Two congressional initiatives – the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill and the Oberstar Transportation Reauthorization Bill – and the Administration’s “Livability Partnership” take direct aim at local democracy as we know it.

    The Boxer-Kerry Bill: The first threat is the proposed Senate version of the “cap and trade” bill authored by Senator Barbara Boxer-Kerry (D-California) and Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts). This bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), would require metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop greenhouse gas emission reduction plans. In these plans, the legislation would require consideration of issues such as increasing transit service, improvements to intercity rail service and “implementation of zoning and other land use regulations and plans to support infill, transit-oriented development or mixed use development.” This represents a significant step toward federal adoption of much of the “smart growth” or “compact development” agenda.

    At first glance, it may seem that merely requiring MPOs to consider such zoning and land use regulations seems innocent enough. However, the incentives that are created by this language could well spell the end of local control over zoning and land use decisions in the local area.

    True enough, the bill includes language to indicate that the bill does not intend to infringe “on the existing authority of local governments to plan or control land use.” Experience suggests, however, that this would provide precious little comfort in the behind-the-scenes negotiations that occur when a metropolitan area runs afoul of Washington bureaucrats.

    The federal housing, transportation and environmental bureaucracies have also been supportive of compact development policies. As these agencies develop regulations to implement the legislation, they could well be emboldened to make it far more difficult for local voters to retain control over land use decisions. There could be multiple repeats of the heavy-handedness exercised by the EPA when it singled out Atlanta for punishment over air quality issues. In response, the Georgia legislature was, in effect, coerced into enacting planning and oversight legislation more consistent with the planning theology endorsed by EPA’s bureaucrats. No federal legislation granted EPA the authority to seek such legislative changes, yet they were sought and obtained.

    There is also considerable support for the compact development agenda at the metropolitan area level. The proclivity of metropolitan and urban planners toward compact development is so strong as to require no encouragement by federal law. The emerging clear intent of federal policy to move land use development to the regional level and to densify existing communities could encourage MPOs to propose plans that pressure local governments to conform their zoning to central plans (or overarching “visions”) developed at the regional level. Along the way, smaller local jurisdictions could well be influenced, if not coerced into actions by over-zealous MPO staff claiming that federal law and regulation require more than the reality. It would not be the first time. Further, MPOs and organizations with similar views can be expected to lobby state legislatures to impose compact development policies that strip effective control of zoning and land use decisions from local governments.

    Surface Transportation Reauthorization: The second threat is the Surface Transportation Authorization Act (STAA or reauthorization) draft that has been released by Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minnesota) of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This bill is riddled with requirements regarding consideration of land use restrictions by MPOs and states. Unlike the Boxer-Kerry bill, the proposed STAA includes no language denying any intention to interfere with local land use regulation authority.

    Like the Boxer-Kerry Bill, the Oberstar bill significantly empowers the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency and poses similar longer term risks.

    The Administration’s “Livability Agenda:” These legislative initiatives are reinforced by the Administration’s “Livability Agenda,” which is a partnership between the EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Among other things, this program is principally composed of compact development strategies, including directing development to certain areas, which would materially reduce the choices available to local government. Elements such as these could be included in an eventual STAA bill by the Obama Administration.

    The Livability Agenda: Regrettably, the Boxer-Kerry bill, the Oberstar bill and the “Livability Agenda” will make virtually nothing more livable. If they are successful in materially densifying the nation’s urban areas, communities will be faced with greater traffic congestion, higher congestion costs and greater air pollution. Despite the ideology to the contrary, higher densities increase traffic volumes within areas and produce more health hazards through more intense local air pollution. As federal data indicates, slower, more congested traffic congestion produces more pollution than more freely flowing traffic, and the resulting higher traffic volumes make this intensification even greater.

    There are also devastating impacts on housing affordability that occur when “development is directed.” This tends to increase land prices, which makes houses more expensive. This hurts all future home buyers and renters, particularly low income and minority households, since rent increases tend to follow housing prices. It is particularly injurious to low income households, which are disproportionately minority. The large gap between majority and minority home ownership rates likely widen further. So much for the American Dream for many who have not attained it already.

    The Marginal Returns of Compact Development Policies: These compact development initiatives continue to be pursued even in the face of research requested by the Congress indicating that such policies have precious little potential. The congressionally mandated Driving and the Built Environment report indicates that driving and greenhouse gas emissions could be higher in 2050 than in 2000 even under the maximum deployment of compact development strategies.

    Local Governments at the Table? The nation’s local governments should “weigh in” on these issues now, while the legislation is being developed. If they wait, they could find bullied by EPA and MPOs to follow not what the local voters want, but what the planners prefer. Local democracy will be largely dead, a product of a system that concentrates authority – and perceived wisdom – in the hands of the central governments, at the regional and national level.

    Even more, local citizens and voters need to be aware of the risk. It will be too late when MPOs or other organizations, whether at their own behest or that of a federal agency, force the character of neighborhoods to be radically changed, as Tony Recsei pointed out is
    already occurring in Australia.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley. He is the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

  • Detroit: Urban Laboratory and the New American Frontier

    The troubles of Detroit are well-publicized. Its economy is in free fall, people are streaming for the exits, it has the worst racial polarization and city-suburb divide in America, its government is feckless and corrupt (though I should hasten to add that new Mayor Bing seems like a basically good guy and we ought to give him a chance), and its civic boosters, even ones that are extremely knowledgeable, refuse to acknowledge the depth of the problems, instead ginning up stats and anecdotes to prove all is not so bad.

    But as with Youngstown, one thing this massive failure has made possible is ability to come up with radical ideas for the city, and potentially to even implement some of them. Places like Flint and Youngstown might be attracting new ideas and moving forward, but it is big cities that inspire the big, audacious dreams. And that is Detroit. Its size, scale, and powerful brand image are attracting not just the region’s but the world’s attention. It may just be that some of the most important urban innovations in 21st century America end up coming not from Portland or New York, but places like Youngstown and, yes, Detroit.

    Let’s refresh with this image showing the scale of the challenge in the city of Detroit proper:


    There are zillions of pictures to illustrate the vast emptiness in Detroit. Kaid Benfield at NRDC posted these:


    This phenomenon prompted someone to coin the term “urban prairie” to capture the idea of vast tracts of formerly urbanized land returning to nature. The folks at Detroit’s best discussion site, DetroitYES, posted this before and after of the St. Cyril neighborhood. Before:


    After:


    A site named “Sweet Juniper” recently had a fantastic photo of the spontaneous creation of “desire line” paths across all this vacant land. You should click to enlarge this photo.


    One natural response is the “shrinking cities” movement. While this has gotten traction in Youngstown and Flint, as well as in places like Germany, it is Detroit that provides the most large scale canvas on which to see this play out, as well as the place where some of the most comprehensive and radical thinking is taking place. For example, the American Institute of Architects produced a study that called for Detroit to shrink back to its urban core and a selection of urban villages, surrounded by greenbelts and banked land. Here’s a picture of their concept:


    It seems likely that this will get some form of traction from officialdom, as this article suggests, though implementation is likely to be difficult.

    Detroit is also attracting dreams of large scale renewal through agriculture, as Mark Dowie writes in Guernica (hat tip @archizoo).

    Were I an aspiring farmer in search of fertile land to buy and plow, I would seriously consider moving to Detroit. There is open land, fertile soil, ample water, willing labor, and a desperate demand for decent food. And there is plenty of community will behind the idea of turning the capital of American industry into an agrarian paradise. In fact, of all the cities in the world, Detroit may be best positioned to become the world’s first one hundred percent food self-sufficient city.

    This isn’t just a crazy idea from some guy who lives in California. He documents several examples of people right now, today growing food in Detroit. It wouldn’t surprise me, frankly, if Detroit produces more food inside its borders today than any other traditional American city.

    About five hundred small plots have been created by an international organization called Urban Farming, founded by acclaimed songwriter Taja Sevelle. Realizing that Detroit was the most agriculturally promising of the fourteen cities in five countries where Urban Farming now exists, Sevelle moved herself and her organization’s headquarters there last year. Her goal is to triple the amount of land under cultivation in Detroit every year. All food grown by Urban Farming is given free to the poor. According to Urban Farming’s Detroit manager, Michael Travis, that won’t change.

    The fact that Urban Farming moved to Detroit is exactly the effect I’m talking about. To anyone with aspirations in this area, it is Detroit that offers the greatest opportunity to make your mark. It is the ultimate blank canvas. For urban agriculture and many other alternative urban dreams, it is Detroit, not New York City that is the ultimate arena in which to prove yourself.

    It’s not just farmers; intellectuals and artists of various types are drawn to Detroit, both to study it and pursue ideas about the remaking of the city:

    Detroit has achieved something unique. It has become the test case for all sorts of theories on urban decay and all sorts of promising ideas about reviving shrinking cities.

    “It’s unbelievable,” said Sue Mosey, president of the University Cultural Center Association, who has been interviewed recently by two separate PBS crews and an Austrian journalist writing about Detroit.

    “All of us have been inundated with all of these people who somehow think that because we’re so bottomed out and so weak-market, that this is this incredible opportunity,” Mosey said.

    Robin Boyle, a professor of urban planning at Wayne State University who has been interviewed by numerous visitors, echoed that sentiment.

    “They realize that there is an interesting story to tell, that has real characters, but even more, they discover a place that is simply not like everywhere else,” he said.

    Toby Barlow wrote in the New York Times about out of towners buying up $100 houses, moving to Detroit, and doing all sorts of interesting things with them:

    Recently, at a dinner party, a friend mentioned that he’d never seen so many outsiders moving into town…Two other guests that night, a couple in from Chicago, had also just invested in some Detroit real estate. That weekend Jon and Sara Brumit bought a house for $100.
    ….
    A local couple, Mitch Cope and Gina Reichert, started the ball rolling. An artist and an architect, they recently became the proud owners of a one-bedroom house in East Detroit for just $1,900. Buying it wasn’t the craziest idea. The neighborhood is almost, sort of, half-decent. Yes, the occasional crack addict still commutes in from the suburbs but a large, stable Bangladeshi community has also been moving in.

    So what did $1,900 buy? The run-down bungalow had already been stripped of its appliances and wiring by the city’s voracious scrappers. But for Mitch that only added to its appeal, because he now had the opportunity to renovate it with solar heating, solar electricity and low-cost, high-efficiency appliances.

    Buying that first house had a snowball effect. Almost immediately, Mitch and Gina bought two adjacent lots for even less and, with the help of friends and local youngsters, dug in a garden. Then they bought the house next door for $500, reselling it to a pair of local artists for a $50 profit. When they heard about the $100 place down the street, they called their friends Jon and Sarah.
    ….

    But the city offers a much greater attraction for artists than $100 houses. Detroit right now is just this vast, enormous canvas where anything imaginable can be accomplished. From Tyree Guyton’s Heidelberg Project (think of a neighborhood covered in shoes and stuffed animals and you’re close) to Matthew Barney’s “Ancient Evenings” project (think Egyptian gods reincarnated as Ford Mustangs and you’re kind of close), local and international artists are already leveraging Detroit’s complex textures and landscapes to their own surreal ends.

    In a way, a strange, new American dream can be found here, amid the crumbling, semi-majestic ruins of a half-century’s industrial decline. The good news is that, almost magically, dreamers are already showing up. Mitch and Gina have already been approached by some Germans who want to build a giant two-story-tall beehive. Mitch thinks he knows just the spot for it.

    It’s what Jim Russell likes to call “Rust Belt chic”, and Detroit has it in spades.

    This piece also highlights the absolutely crucial advantage of Detroit. It’s possible to do things there. In Detroit, the incapacity of the government is actually an advantage in many cases. There’s not much chance a strong city government could really turn the place around, but it could stop the grass roots revival in its tracks.

    Can you imagine a two-story beehive in Chicago? In many cities where strong city government still functions effectively, citizens are tied down by an array of regulations and permits that are actually enforced in most cases. Much of the South Side of Chicago has Detroit like characteristics, but the techniques of renewal in Detroit won’t work because they are likely against code and would be shut down the minute someone complained. Just as one quick example, my corner ice cream stand dared to put out a few chairs for patrons to sit on while enjoying a frozen treat on a hot day. The city cited them for not having a license. So they took them away and put up a “bring your own chair” sign. The city then cited them for that too. You can’t do anything in Chicago without a Byzantine array of licenses, permits, and inspections.

    In central Indianapolis, which is in desperate need of investment, where the city can’t fill the potholes in the street, etc., the minute a few yuppies buy houses in an area and fix them up, they immediately petition for a historic district, a request that has never been refused, ensuring that anyone who ever wants to do anything will be forced to run a costly and grueling gauntlet of variances, permits, hearings, etc. Only the most determined are willing to put up with that.

    In most cities, municipal government can’t stop drug dealing and violence, but it can keep people with creative ideas out. Not in Detroit. In Detroit, if you want to do something, you just go do it. Maybe someone will eventually get around to shutting you down, or maybe not. It’s a sort of anarchy in a good way as well as a bad one. Perhaps that overstates the case. You can’t do anything, but it is certainly easier to make things happen there than in most places because the hand of government weighs less heavily.

    What’s more, the fact that government is so weak has provoked some amazing reactions from the people who live there. In Chicago, every day there is some protest at City Hall by a group from some area of the city demanding something. Not in Detroit. The people in Detroit know that they are on their own, and if they want something done they have to do it themselves. Nobody from the city is coming to help them. And they’ve found some very creative ways to deal with the challenges that result. Consider this from the Dowie piece:

    About 80 percent of the residents of Detroit buy their food at the one thousand convenience stores, party stores, liquor stores, and gas stations in the city. There is such a dire shortage of protein in the city that Glemie Dean Beasley, a seventy-year-old retired truck driver, is able to augment his Social Security by selling raccoon carcasses (twelve dollars a piece, serves a family of four) from animals he has treed and shot at undisclosed hunting grounds around the city. Pelts are ten dollars each. Pheasants are also abundant in the city and are occasionally harvested for dinner.

    This might sound awful, and indeed it is. But it is also an inspiration and a testament to the human spirit and defiant self-reliance of the American people. I grew up in a poor rural area where, while hunting is primarily recreational, there are still many people supplementing their family diet with wild game. Many a freezer is full of deer meat, for example. And of course, rural residents have long gardened, freezing and canning the results to help get them through the winter. So this doesn’t sound quite so strange to me as it might to you. The fate of the urban poor and the rural poor are more similar than is often credited. And contrary to stereotypes the urban poor often display amazing grit and ingenuity, and perform amazing feats to sustain themselves, their families and communities.

    As the focus on agriculture and even hunting show, in Detroit people are almost literally hearkening back to the formative days of the Midwest frontier, when pioneer settlers faced horrible conditions, tough odds, and often severe deprivation, but nevertheless built the foundation of the Midwest we know, and the culture that powered the industrial age. No doubt in the 19th century many of those sitting secure in their eastern citadels thought these homesteaders, hustlers, and fortune seekers crazy for leaving the comforts of civilization to head to places like Iowa and Chicago. But some saw the possibilities of what could be and heeded the call to “Go West, young man.” We’ve come full circle.

    More Detroit

    Detroit: Do the Collapse
    Detroit: Not the Future of the American City
    For talent – good jobs, cools places, new narrative (Crain’s Detroit Business – featuring Yours Truly)

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