New Geography

Category: Urban Issues

  • The Costs of Climate Change Strategies, Who Will Tell People?

    Not for the first time, reality and politics may be on a collision course. This time it’s in respect to the costs of strategies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill still awaits consideration by the US Senate, interest groups – mainly rapid transit, green groups and urban land owners – epitomized by the “Moving Cooler” coalition but they are already “low-balling” the costs of implementation.

    But this approach belies a bigger consideration: Americans seem to have limits to how much they will pay for radical greenhouse emissions reduction schemes. According to a recent poll by Rasmussen, slightly more than one-third of respondents (who provided an answer) are willing to spend $100 or more per year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. About 2 percent would spend more than $1,000. Those may sound like big numbers, but they are a pittance compared to what is likely to be required to meet the more than 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that the Waxman-Markey bill would require. Even more worryingly for politicians relying on voters to return them to office, nearly two-thirds of the respondents would pay nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    If we do a rough, weighted average of the Rasmussen numbers, it appears that Americans are willing to spend about $100 per household per year (Note 1). This includes everyone, from the great majority, who would spend zero to the small percentage who would spend more than $1,000. At $100 per household, it appears that Americans are willing to spend on the order of $12 billion annually. This may look like a big number. But it is peanuts compared to market prices for greenhouse gas emissions. This is illustrated by the fact that the social engineers whose articles of faith requires building high speed rail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would spend $12 billion to construct just 150 miles of California’s proposed 800 mile system.

    Comparing Consumer Tolerance to Expected Costs: At $100 per household, Americans are prepared to pay just $2 per greenhouse gas ton removed. All of this is in a policy context in which the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that $20-$50 per greenhouse gas ton is the maximum that should be spent per ton. The often quoted McKinsey/Conference Board study says that huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved at $50 or less, with an average cost per ton of $17. International markets now value a ton of greenhouse gas emissions at around $20. At $2 per ton, American households are simply not on the same “planet” with the radical climate change lobby as to how much they wish to spend on reducing greenhouse gases.

    International Comrades in Arms? This is not simply about Americans and their perceived differences from others who are so often considered more environmentally sensitive. France’s President Sarkozy has encountered serious opposition in proposing a carbon tax on consumers to discourage fossil fuel use. He is running into problems not only among members of the opposition, but concerns have also been expressed by members of his own party. It appears that many French consumers (like their American comrades) are more concerned about the economy than climate change at the moment.

    China, India and Beyond: If only a bit more than one-third of American households are willing to pay much of anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it seems fair to ask what percentage of households in China, India and other developing nations are prepared to pay anything? A possible answer was provided recently by India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, who released a report predicting that India’s greenhouse gas emissions would rise from the present 1.2 billion tons to between 4 and 7 billion tons in 2030. The minister said the “world should not worry about the threat posed by India’s carbon emissions, since its per-capita emissions would never exceed that of developed countries.” . At the higher end of the predicted range, India would add more greenhouse gas emissions than the United States would cut under even the proposed 80 percent reduction scheme. Suffice it to say that heroic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions seem unlikely in developing countries so long as their citizens live below the comfort levels of Americans and Europeans.

    Lower Standard of Living not an Option: I have been giving presentations on this and similar subjects for some years. I have yet to discern any seething undercurrent of desire on the part of Americans (or the vast majority anywhere else) to return to the living standards of 1980, much less 1950 or 1750. Neither Washington’s politicians nor those in Paris or any other high income world capital are going to tell the people that they must accept a lower standard of living. Nor is there any movement in Washington to let the people know that their tolerance for higher prices could well be insufficient to the task.

    For Washington, the dilemma is that every penny of the higher costs will hit consumers (read voters), whether directly or indirectly. There could be trouble when the higher utility bills begin to arrive and it could mean difficulty in delivering on the primary policy objective of virtually all governments, which is to remain in power. This is not to mention the unintended consequences of higher prices on many key industries, notably agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation.

    There is an even larger concern, however, and that is the stability of society. Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman, in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth suggested from an economic review of history that economies that fail to grow lapse into instability.

    A Public Policy Collision Course? A potential collision between economic reality and public policy initiatives could be in the offing. Many “green” proposals are insufficiently sensitive – even disdainful – towards the concerns of everyday citizens. This suggests that politically there should be an emphasis only on the most cost effective strategies. In a democracy, you must confront to the reality that people are for the most part more concerned about the economy than about strategies meant to slow climate change.

    The imperative then is not to ignore the problem, but to focus on the most rational, low-cost and effective greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. Regrettably, it does not appear that Washington is there yet. The special interests whose agendas are to cultivate and reap a bounteous harvest of “green” profits or to convert the “heathen” to behaviors – such as riding transit and living in densely packed neighborhoods – that they have been advocating long before the climate change issue emerged.

    Those concerned about the future of the environment also have to pay attention to reality. Reducing greenhouse gases is not a one-dimensional issue. Environmental sustainability cannot be achieved without both political and economic sustainability.

    Note 1: The Rasmussen question was asked of individuals. It is assumed here, however, that the answers related to households. One doubts, for example, that a queried mother answered with an assumption that she would pay $100, her husband would pay $100 and each of the kids would pay $100, but rather meant $100 for the household, since, to put it facetiously, few households devolve their budgeting to the individual members.

    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.”

  • Florida Drifts Into the Morass

    By Richard Reep

    Regarding Florida’s new outmigration, “A lot of people are glad the merry-go-round has finally stopped. It was exhausting trying to keep up with 900 new people a day. Really, there is now some breathing room,” stated Carol Westmorland, Executive Director of the Florida Redevelopment Association at the Florida League of Cities. Now that surf and sand are officially unpopular, the urban vs. suburban development debate has caught developers and legislators in a freeze frame of ugly and embarrassing poses at local, regional, and state levels.

    In South Florida, Miami’s city commissioners narrowly defeated a move to institute a form-based code on August 7, which would have increased regulation in the most populous city in the state. This code would have rigidly set Miami’s density levels and regulated building form all the way down to the location of the front door. It constituted a surprising hometown defeat for Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberg, originators of the New Urbanism movement and the prime consultants hired to create the code. Commission Chairman Joe Sanchez, worried about restricting people’s use of property, stated that Miami 21 “exposes us to tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits from loss of property value.” Not ready to throw in the towel, however, the New Urbanists are appealing the vote in two public hearings. “We’re confident that the issues can be resolved,” stated Maria Mercer, who works for DPZ. The commissioners may be worried about lawsuits. The people seem to be even more concerned about Big Brother fussing about their property, judging from the public input on the code’s website.

    Of course, the press has decried this as a vote for “sprawl,” rather than a vote for common sense. By now, the language of growth management has become so riddled with red-baiting words such as “sprawl” posed against lofty ideals such “smart growth” that the public can make no real sense of development proposals anymore. It is easy to see why New Urbanism was so seductive, for it seems to solve every problem once and for all – this goes here, that goes there – and there would be no more debate…unless, of course, the Master Planner made an error somewhere. But, like most consultants, the Master Planner has moved on to the next job and isn’t in charge of living with his plan. If he labels low-cost development “sprawl”, then so be it. And if he deems high-cost development “smart growth,” then so be it. Just like Ramses in The Ten Commandments, “So let it be said – so let it be done.”

    Blackballing suburbs with words such as “sprawl” is dissonant to most voters who, after all, live in these supposedly awful places; likewise words like “walkable urban cores” often conjure up the reality of parking and traffic nightmares. Then there’s something called the marketplace. Florida is becoming less about retirees, and more about families. The much ballyhooed flurry of high-density urban projects doesn’t seem to fit the lifestyle of cars and kids and soccer practice too well.

    Then there’s the other downside of new urbanist growth, which is its cost. Young, single service workers and retirees – a natural market for these urban villages – cannot afford either the pricey real estate or the stiff maintenance fees. On the other hand, Florida’s upwards of about 300,000 empty single-family homes, by the Orlando Sentinel’s count, could provide a natural lure to families, more so than the 65,000 or so condominium units on the market in the state. This so-called “overhang” of 3 to 5 years of unsold inventory only serves to terrify homeowners who remain in the state and have to deal with depreciating property values for some time in the future.

    Clearly more density has been no more successful than the most mindless sprawl. The New Urbanists’ often shrill rhetoric has frightened many planners into pushing density on Florida’s fleeing population. The disaster that is Miami’s downtown and beachfront may be the best known, but throughout the state Florida’s high density developers and landowners are facing foreclosures, fading credit, and loss of business on an unprecedented scale. Those who came late to the party – witness poor Hollywood, Florida, a city which finally got its act together and aggressively redeveloped its downtown – look like empty movie lots. Elsewhere in cities across the state, vast tracts have been razed, rezoned for high density and now lie fallow or unfinished, giving the face of Florida a remarkably post-apocalyptic quality.

    Neil Fritz, Hollywood’s Economic Development Director, is sanguine about the dire straits of his town. “Oh, the urban areas will come back before the suburbs,” he stated recently. But in reality, downtown condominiums are a latecomer to the Florida scene, and are a forced market. They were viable largely because they compared favorably to single family detached dwellings in terms of price and convenience.

    In fact, quite the opposite is likely to occur, with the single family suburb – particularly those located near jobs – rebounding first as people’s natural preference, as it has been for over a hundred years. This might chagrin the New Urbanists, who spent a great deal of effort inventing such earnest fantasies as a “sprawl repair kit”, even though safety, mobility and open space remain deeply ingrained in the American lifestyle. Also, the high-density movement was fed by investors and owners of second homes – rare commodities in this post-crash world.

    Overdevelopment is easy to blame on poor government, which allowed developers to overbuild on credit, but as with the financial crisis in general, there is enough blame to go around. What municipality would not like dense urban cores full of affluent taxpayers enjoying lattes on the boulevard? This dream sadly has turned to the reality of empty storefronts, condos being converted into low-income rentals, or worse yet, empty lots being assessed at their lowest possible taxable value. The fringes of most urban areas continued to be developed at low density, and while they are suffering the same fate as the denser areas now, the effect is less profound since it is more spread out.

    Florida’s government just has no place to turn for more revenue, and relies mostly on property taxes and fees. Its main economic engine is development. Local governments, increasingly unable to pay for services, naturally encouraged density as a way to levy more and more property taxes, largely ignoring the long-term economic viability of specific developments. So-called “smart growth” indeed seemed pretty smart to cities and counties needing the taxes that they believed dense urban cores might someday generate.

    The best hope for Florida lies neither in the God-like precepts of the New Urbanist movement, nor in the hands of the developers, but rather in the hands of intelligent, humanistic conversation revolving around a sense of shared community and deeper values. With the internet as a tool, cities could be encouraging citizen input in advance of a proposal, rather than the old, 20th century tool of public meetings. This conversation is necessary as our legislators and developers dance their kabuki dance around imagined future prosperity. Florida seems to be drifting aimlessly, as no one at the state level seems to be concerned about the loss of population, instead congratulating themselves on creating the next boom.

    The cities and counties of Florida would do well to use this interregnum to retool their public process to give people more access to the right information up front. By allowing internet-based review and participation, people can provide intelligent input into development proposals. Armed with the right information, Americans historically have made excellent decisions, and Florida can become an example in how to better manage its single most important industry. In the meantime, the leadership of Florida would do well to examine the negative connotations of “sprawl” when describing the native habitat of their voters and taxpayers, and examine the consequences of encouraging density for a market that has yet to exist, and may not exist for some time to come.

    Richard Reep is an Architect and artist living in Winter Park, Florida. His practice has centered around hospitality-driven mixed use, and has contributed in various capacities to urban mixed-use projects, both nationally and internationally, for the last 25 years.

  • Positively Fifth Street

    The title of this essay is taken from a book by Jim McManus about his adventures as a poker player. The lingo for Texas Hold ‘Em mirrors Vegas geography: three cards are placed face up – together called “the flop” – and betting ensues. Then comes the “turn” card, otherwise known as Fourth Street. Finally one gets to “The River”, or Fifth Street, after which it is payday for somebody.

    Of course in most towns, the River is adjacent to First Street, not Fifth. And more, Las Vegas doesn’t have a river; it has a railroad, which as we’ve pointed out in Part 1 serves as a good substitute (best you’re going to get in a desert). So the analogy isn’t perfect, but there is a neat connection.

    As this 1952 map of Las Vegas shows, Main St. (then US 91) runs directly along the tracks. The train station was where the Golden Nugget casino is today. Parallel to Main St. are First, Second and Third Streets (should we call them “Flop Streets?”). These are followed by Fourth St. and Fifth St., and so on, as one might expect. But Fifth is significant because it is the next important N-S traffic thoroughfare.

    To be a N-S traffic thoroughfare in Las Vegas in 1952 meant that you somehow had to connect up with Main St. And sure enough, in the North the two meet at Harrison (now Owens). The southern intersection occurred at St. Louis Ave., where it still is.

    Now pay attention to the inset in the upper left corner of the map. Here we see the incipient “Strip” – “continuation of S. 5th St., US Highway 91, or LA Highway.” A pretty pathetic Strip by today’s standard, but surely it needed a better name than “continuation of S. 5th St.”

    Positively Fifth Street my rear end! Positively Las Vegas Blvd. (LVB) is much more like it. Payday, big time. And today, LVB runs the entire city from the Motor Speedway in the northeast, to Jean in the far south – about 40 miles. Main St., a mere shadow of its former self, only extends for about 3 miles. I don’t know when Fifth Street was renamed, but it can’t be long after this map was made.

    There is absolutely, positively no Fifth St. in Las Vegas.

    The Strip was built before the city grew up around it, and it made sense to name the major cross streets after the casinos of the day: Sahara, Sands/Spring Mtn., Desert Inn, Flamingo and Tropicana. Then comes the I-215 freeway, followed by Russell and Warm Springs. These are each about a mile apart.

    At Flamingo, LVB no longer follows the railroad, but instead heads due south. For the southern half of the Valley, LVB and Main St. constitute the meridian from which house numbers are measured. North of downtown the road angles too far to the northeast to be an effective meridian. As best I can tell, Commerce St. in North Las Vegas serves that purpose.

    West of Main St., the baseline is Bonanza Road, or it would be if the street went through. But Bonanza has mostly been replaced by the US 95 freeway, which is convenient. Effectively, US 95/Summerlin Pkwy serves as the baseline. East of Main St., Fremont St. is a lousy baseline downtown, but for most of the east side, Charleston Blvd. does a perfectly good job. In my own mind (since I rarely use freeways) I’ve always thought of Charleston as dividing north and south.

    For all practical purposes, the Las Vegas zero-point is the I-15 exit 42. House numbers count from there. That’s just across the tracks (west) from the corner of Main & Bonanza.

    There is no rush hour in Las Vegas, there being no 9 to 5 industry of any note. However, LVB along the Strip is very busy at all times except early morning. The key to getting around by car is to avoid crossing or driving along the Strip.

    Avoid Spring Mtn., Flamingo and Tropicana at all costs! Sahara, at the northern end of the Strip, works pretty well. But the best is Desert Inn, which no longer intersects the Strip, but instead passes as a viaduct underneath. It also goes under the interstate and the railroad tracks – it will take you from Paradise Road (west of the Strip) to Valley View (a mile to the east) nonstop. It’s the best way across town. Otherwise take the freeway if you must.

    Industrial Road, directly along the railroad tracks and parallel to the strip to the west, is an excellent thoroughfare from Charleston to Flamingo. (Quiz: why doesn’t it work well south of Flamingo?). On the east side, Paradise Rd. starts at McCarran Airport (Tropicana), about a mile from LVB. Paradise goes due north, and thus would intersect LVB at about Charleston; in practice, the street ends at St. Louis. Still, this is the best way north on the east side.

    On the west side, the main streets (about a mile apart) are Valley View, Decatur, Jones, Rainbow, Buffalo and Durango. They all go through except where River Railroad interferes. Hence Valley View ends at Flamingo, and Decatur won’t get you past Tropicana.

    On the east side one has Paradise, Maryland Pkwy, and Eastern. Boulder Highway is the main thoroughfare east of that.

    The Strip is great for walking at any time of the day or night. There is a monorail on the east side of the Strip. I’ve never ridden it – doesn’t seem to be very convenient unless you’re starting at the Convention Center (Paradise & Sahara).

    China Town Plaza is on Spring Mountain, just west of Valley View. We especially enjoyed Sam Woo’s Barbeque – cash only. There is a good Filipino restaurant, Pinoy Pinay, on the NE corner of Sahara and Maryland Pkwy. For my money (I’m cheap) the best all-you-can-eat buffet is at Sam’s Town, on Boulder Hwy near Tropicana. There are good Japanese restaurants everywhere, but we ate at one on Maryland Parkway – at Flamingo if memory serves. Bottom line: once you know your way around, there’s no reason to stay on the Strip for food.

    I hear that some casinos loosen their slots to attract and retain customers on certain days of the week. It is probably possible to find out which casino has the loosest slots on any given day. For this, I have a hot tip that will save you a lot of money:

    Stay home.

  • China’s Metropolitan Regions: Moving Toward High Income Status

    Changsha, Hunan (China): Over the past 30 years, China has eradicated more poverty than any nation in the world’s history. The reforms instituted by Deng Xiaopeng have not only created a large, new middle class in China, but have also produced some of the largest and architecturally most impressive urban areas in the world. There is still poverty in China, but the most extreme poverty is in the rural areas. The expansive shanty-town poverty found in Manila, Jakarta, Mexico City, Sao Paulo or Mumbai is absent in the large Chinese urban areas.

    While China as a nation is growing slowly, the same cannot be said of its urban areas. Perhaps the greatest migration in human history is underway, as rural residents move to the urban areas. United Nations population projections indicate that China will add 310 million people to its urban areas over the next 25 years, a figure equal to the population of the United States.

    Gross Domestic Product in Chinese Cities: China has seen its incomes and gross domestic product increase markedly. Urban economic growth has been even greater than that of the country as a whole. This article contains the latest available information on gross domestic product for the largest prefectural and provincial level cities in China, derived from annual yearbooks (see Table). It needs to be understood that “cities” are much different in China than anywhere else.

    The Differing Definitions of “City”: The most commonly used definition of a city in China is more akin to a large metropolitan region in the United States or Europe. Some cities, like Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin and Chongqing are the equivalent of provinces, while other cities are “prefectural level,” administering large areas within provinces (Note 1). Each of these “cities” is comprised by smaller jurisdictions that go by at least 8 names, including city districts and “county level cities,” which are cities within the city, but not the main urban areas. Much of the land area in county level cities and even inside some city districts is rural rather than urban. As a result, analysts who should know better often make downright silly comparisons between Chinese cities and other cities in the world, simply because they do not understand the differing meaning of the term. Nearly all of China, urban and rural is broken into prefectural or provincial cities, just as nearly all of the United States is divided into counties.

    The large rural areas within the cities reduce the overall GDP per capita because incomes are generally so much lower outside the urban areas.

    Geographical Distribution of Wealth: China purposefully began its most significant reforms on the east coast, which is where much of the wealth of the nation is concentrated. All 25 of the most affluent metropolitan regions are on the east coast and 14 of the richest 20 metropolitan regions in China (measured by GDP per capita) are in the two river delta mega-regions, the Pearl and the Yangtze.

    The Pearl River Delta: China’s richest area is the Pearl River Delta, home of formerly British administered Hong Kong, Deng Xiaopeng’s megacity Shenzhen and historic Guangzhou (Canton). The area is one of the world’s great mega-regions, with a population of more than 50 million, in 8 virtually adjacent urban areas, tied together by a modern freeway system. Altogether the Pearl River Delta urban areas have more people than the world’s largest single urban area, Tokyo, and an overall higher density.

    Hong Kong, which remains outside the normal provincial governance structure, had the highest GDP per capita in the nation at $42,200 (purchasing power parity) in 2007, slightly more than 90 percent of the United States. Hong Kong and formerly Portuguese Macau have both achieved first world economic status, though Macau does not make the 1,000,000 urban area population threshold for inclusion on the present list.

    Shenzhen, on Hong Kong’s northern border ranks 4th in the nation at $22,100 and Guangzhou 5th, at $19,900. Two other Pearl River Delta metropolitan regions, Foshan, Zhuhai, have GDPs per capita greater than $15,000, which by some accounts qualifies them for entry into the high income world. The remaining large Pearl River Delta metropolitan regions, Dongguan, Zhongshan and Jiangmin each have GDPs per capita exceeding $10,000.

    The Yangtze River Delta: The Yangtze River Delta is another great mega-region, with more than 30 million people. It, however, covers much more land area than the Pearl River Delta and has much greater expanses of rural territory. The Yangtze River Delta metropolitan region of Suzhou, the city of canals, and neighbor of Shanghai, has the highest GDP per capita outside Hong Kong, at $25,500. One county level city within Suzhou, Kunshan has a GDP per capita of more than $28,000 (Note 2). Suzhou’s neighbor on the way to Nanjing, Wuxi, is next at $23,300. Shanghai, China’s largest metropolis, ranks 6th in GDP per capita at $18,400. Other Yangtze Delta metropolitan regions have GDPs per capita between $10,000 and $15,000, including Nanjing, Hangzhou, Changzhou and Ningbo.

    The Beijing Metropolitan Region: China’s third mega-region is around Beijing, the national capital. Altogether, this region has nearly 25 million people, but like the Yangtze River Delta, the Beijing megaregion has large swaths of rural territory. Beijing itself has a GDP per capita of $16,200, while Tianjin and Tangshan (site of the 1976 earthquake, one of history’s worst, which killed at least 250,000 people) have GDPs per capita of between $10,000 and $15,000.

    Outside the Megaregions: While the wealth is concentrated in the three large megaregions, prosperity has come to other metropolitan regions as well. One of Deng Xiaopeng’s original special economic zones, along with Shenzhen, was Xiamen, which is the richest metropolitan region outside the three large megaregions.

    Prosperity Comes to the West: The interior metropolitan regions are now well on their way to sharing the prosperity of the east. Changsha, from where I write, is now served by the nation’s “interstate” highway system in all directions. At the end of 2008, this system had expanded to 37,000 miles. Eventually, 53,000 miles are planned, which would make it longer than the present 46,000 mile US interstate system. This national expressway system is a pivotal factor in bringing prosperity to the interior. Now, trucks can reach Pacific Coast ports such as Guangzhou, Fuzhou or Hangzhou in six to nine hours of driving. This makes it possible for manufacturing businesses to locate in Changsha, Xi’an or Wuhan and a number of other metropolitan regions that are well inland.

    This should be of inestimable help as the nation seeks to decentralize its urban growth to the interior urban areas. Changsha, itself, has moved strongly into middle income status, with a GDP per capita closing in on $10,000. Moreover, local officials are planning for a near doubling of the current 2.5 million population in the next two decades. At least three major new towns under construction on the urban periphery and another will be built where the borders of three prefectural cities meet: Changsha, Zhuzhou and Xiangtan which is the birthplace of Chairman Mao Zedong (about 50 miles from Changsha, just off the Shangrui Expressway).

    Chongqing (formerly known in the west as Chungking), one of the four provincial level municipalities, has low GDP per capita of less than $5,000. However, this figure is skewed low by the fact that the urban area itself accounts for approximately one-sixth of the provincial city’s population, with the bulk of the population in the far lower income rural areas. Chongqing provides the ultimate evidence that cities in China are like nowhere else in the world. The “city” of Chongqing has a population of more than 30 million, in a land area the size of Austria or Indiana. The actual urban area, however, covers less area than the Indianapolis urban area and only 1.5 times the area of the Vienna urban area.

    Toward a High Income Nation: The urban areas of China still have poverty, but the commercial and residential development (both high rise and detached “villas”) make it clear that a great many people are doing “very well.”

    China is moving hard toward high-income world status. I specifically avoid the term “first world,” because metropolitan China already feels first world, regardless of its income status. However, should current growth rates continue relative to the high income world, metropolitan regions such as Suzhou and others could move into the list of the world’s 100 most affluent metropolitan areas within a decade. It cannot happen too soon.

    Note 1 : This includes sub-provincial level cities, which have jurisdiction over virtual prefectures within provinces, however have more administrative independence than prefectural level cities.

    Note 2: GDP per capita data is not widely available for divisions within prefecture and provincial level cities

    China Metropolitan (City) Regions Gross Domestic Product: 2007
    Provincial, Sub-Provincial & Prefectural Level Cities
    Purchasing Power Parity (US$)
    RANKED BY GDP/CAPITA GDP/Capita
    Rank Metropolitan (City) Regions ¥ (RMB) US$ PPP
    1 Hong Kong $42,200
    2 Suzhou, JS ¥91,900 $25,500
    3 Wuxi, JS ¥83,900 $23,300
    4 Shenzhen, GD ¥79,600 $22,100
    5 Guangzhou, GD ¥71,800 $19,900
    6 Shanghai, SHG ¥66,400 $18,400
    7 Zhuhai, GD ¥61,700 $17,100
    8 Foshan, GD ¥61,200 $17,000
    9 Beijing. BJ ¥58,200 $16,200
    10 Xiamen, FJ ¥56,200 $15,600
    11 Nanjing, JX ¥53,600 $14,900
    12 Changzhou, JS ¥52,800 $14,700
    13 Hangzhou, ZJ ¥52,600 $14,600
    14 Handan. HEB ¥51,900 $14,400
    15 Dalian, LN ¥51,600 $14,300
    16 Ningbo, ZJ ¥50,500 $14,000
    17 Zhongshan. GD ¥49,500 $13,700
    18 Tianjin. TJ ¥46,100 $12,800
    18 Dongguan. GD ¥46,000 $12,800
    20 Shenyang, LN ¥45,600 $12,600
    20 Qingdao. SD ¥45,400 $12,600
    22 Tangshan. HEB ¥44,700 $12,400
    23 Zibo, SD ¥43,500 $12,100
    24 Yantai, SD ¥41,300 $11,500
    25 Huizhou, GD ¥41,000 $11,400
    26 Baotau, NM ¥40,400 $11,200
    26 Shijiazhuang. HEB ¥40,300 $11,200
    28 Jinan, SD ¥39,300 $10,900
    29 Anshan, LN ¥38,400 $10,700
    30 Jiangmen, GD ¥37,800 $10,500
    31 Taiyuan. SAX ¥36,400 $10,100
    32 Wuhan. HUB ¥35,600 $9,900
    33 Hohhot, NM ¥34,900 $9,700
    34 Zhengzhou, HEN ¥34,100 $9,500
    35 Changsha. HUN ¥33,700 $9,400
    36 Urumqi, XJ ¥31,100 $8,600
    37 Nanchang, JX ¥30,500 $8,500
    38 Fuzhou, FJ ¥29,500 $8,200
    39 Changchun, JL ¥28,100 $7,800
    40 Hefei. AH ¥27,600 $7,700
    41 Wenzhou. ZJ ¥27,500 $7,600
    42 Baoding, HEB ¥27,100 $7,500
    43 Haikou, HA ¥26,700 $7,400
    43 Chengdu, SC ¥26,500 $7,400
    45 Lanzhou, GS ¥25,600 $7,100
    46 Luoyang. Hen ¥25,100 $7,000
    47 Harbin, HL ¥24,700 $6,800
    47 Fushun, LN ¥24,500 $6,800
    49 Jilin, JL ¥23,300 $6,500
    50 Xiangfan, HUB ¥22,500 $6,200
    51 Xi’an, SAA ¥21,300 $5,900
    52 Liuzhou, GX ¥20,700 $5,800
    53 Guiyang, GZ ¥19,500 $5,400
    54 Xuzhou, JS ¥19,200 $5,300
    55 Kunming, YN ¥18,800 $5,200
    56 Shantou, GD ¥17,000 $4,700
    57 Linyi, SD ¥16,300 $4,500
    58 Nanning, GX ¥15,800 $4,400
    59 Datong, SAX ¥15,600 $4,300
    59 Huiayn, JS ¥15,500 $4,300
    61 Chongqing, CQ ¥14,700 $4,100
    62 Qiqihar, HL ¥10,000 $2,800
    Sources: Annual statistical reports, generally from http://www.chinaknowledge.com
    GDP PPP calculated from 2007 International Monetary Fund data
    Caution: In some cases, GDP per capita may exclude temporary residents
    Includes all provincial, prefectural level and sub-provincial level cities and special economic regions on the mainland with a core urban area of more than 1,000,000 population (see http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf).
    Note: Cities in China are substantially different in definition than in other nations. See: http://www.demographia.com/db-define.pdf.
    Provincial abbreviations at db-china-abbr.pdf

    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.”

  • World Capitals Of The Future

    For most of those which were great once are small today; And those that used to be small were great in my own time. Knowing, therefore, that human prosperity never abides long in the same place, I shall pay attention to both alike

    –Herodotus, Fifth Century B.C.

    If the great Greek chronicler and “father of history” Herodotus were alive today, he would have whiplash. In less than a lifetime, we have seen the rapid rise of a host of dynamic new global cities – and the relative decline of many others. With a majority of the world’s population now living in cities, what these places do with their new wealth ultimately will shape this first truly urban century.

    Just 25 years ago, when you walked down the Bund in Shanghai, there were few cars and no modern towers. The rough sidewalks expanded into the streets to accommodate a mass of poorly dressed pedestrians. A decade later, Moscow was in the midst of a particularly grungy interlude, filled with stolid people waiting in lines for shoddy consumer goods. You could hail a cab, and pay for it, with a pack of Kents.

    Today, these two cities have emerged from their socialist shackles with scores of high-rise projects either already up or on the drawing board. This, of course, has come with a price; Moscow hotel accommodations – cheap if dingy a quarter century ago – last year ranked as the world’s most expensive. Shanghai, meanwhile, has bustling traffic, a new subway and a 100-story office tower; it is about to begin construction on another that tops out at 121 stories.

    Also remarkable: the rise of other great cities – Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad in India; Beijing; Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Dubai – that a quarter century ago were either obscure or better known for their destitution than their rapid construction.

    Of course, none of these cities’ wealth or economic power have passed leading global centers like Tokyo, London, Paris, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seoul, Singapore and Hong Kong. But our list of emerging global cities is clearly gaining on them – and with remarkable speed.

    The main reason lies in economic fundamentals. Over the past 25 years, per capita income, based on purchasing power parity, grew by over 400% in India and a remarkable 1,500% in China. The bulk of that wealth came from urban centers like Mumbai and Shanghai, while the largest concentrations of poverty remained in the countryside. In that same period, U.S. per capita income grew by 245%; growth in most Western European nations was less than that.

    The nascent recovery in the world economy will certainly amplify these trends. China, as opposed to the U.S., is leading the economic resurgence, drawing in commodities from its rising business partners in all continents.

    For the most part, basic industries lead the way. Manufacturing has propelled the rise of the great Chinese cities. In Brazil, Sao Paulo’s growth spans everything from shoes and aerospace to technology. The city also dominates Brazil’s growing energy sector, both renewable and traditional. Energy – overwhelmingly of the fossil fuel variety – has powered the rise of Moscow and Dubai. It’s not always pretty. As the old Yorkshire saying has it, where there’s muck, there’s brass.

    Of course, the past year’s drop in oil prices has set back things a bit. California real estate investor Bob Christiano notes that more than half of the construction projects in the United Arab Emirates – worth $582 billion total – were put on hold in 2008. But now that the price of oil seems back on the rise, you can expect things to perk up in places like Dubai, Moscow and Sao Paulo.

    Not all our emerging cities are in the developing or former Communist world. North America boasts at least three genuine emerging world cities: Calgary, in Canada, and Houston and Dallas. These regional economies have been built around energy and expanding industrial power. They also have enjoyed rapid population growth. Last year, Houston and Dallas grew more than any other metropolitan region in the country; over the past decade, their populations have increased six times more rapidly than New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or San Francisco.

    But it’s not all a demographic game; cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas have similarly enjoyed rapid growth but do not fit on the rising global cities list. The key difference lies in the Texan cities’ rising corporate power. Houston, with 27 Fortune 500 firms, has passed Chicago in the number of Fortune 500 companies, while Dallas, with 14, ranks third. Together, the two Texan cities account for about as many Fortune firms as New York, once home to almost a third of the nation’s largest companies.

    Similarly, Calgary has become Toronto’s main challenger for corporate headquarters in Canada, a move sparked not only by oil wealth but lower taxes and regulation. The region now easily boasts the highest per capita income in the country. Its long-term main rival in growth may prove to be provincial cousin Edmonton, which sits closer to Alberta’s massive oil sands deposits.

    In Australia, Perth, located on the Indian Ocean and close to critical commodities such as iron ore, has also emerged in a big way. Australia’s richest city has become a major urban threat to long-established Sydney and Melbourne, with growth driven both by domestic as well as foreign migration and development.

    These emerging world cities also have survived the housing crisis much better than their national competitors. The growth of India and China has created an ever-richer market for commodities, as well as expertise residing in places like Perth, Calgary, Dallas and Houston, much of it built around commodity and resource extraction. The evolving ties between burgeoning world cities also spill over into the growing tourism industry in Perth and the expanding medical service complex in Houston.

    Another group flocking to the developing world’s super-stars: architects and civil engineers, many of them from more established first-world cities like New York, London, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Over the past 25 years, most of the biggest rail, road, airport and sanitation systems have been built not in Europe or America, but in East and South Asia, the Middle East and Brazil. Even as the West tries to work through its housing crisis, residential real estate prices are on the rise in cities like Mumbai, Bangalore, Beijing and Shanghai.

    The lure is irresistible, particularly for the young and ambitious. Just last month, Adam Mayer, a 20-something formerly employed architect from San Francisco, relocated to Beijing. He sees the chaos around him, but has plunged into the opportunity. “As I wait for our economy to recover,” he told me, “I am enjoying the ride as I witness perhaps one of the most compelling urban development stories of the 21st century.”

    High-rise office buildings have emerged as the biggest signs of the new order among global cities. Shanghai is already the fourth-tallest city in the world, with 21 buildings over 700 feet. Of the world’s 10 tallest buildings, only one – the former Sears (now Willis) Tower in Chicago – resides in the U.S. or Europe. There are now more tall buildings in Asia than in North America, and of the tallest 10 completed in 2006, four were in China and four in the Middle East. When completed, the Burj Dubai will stand as the world’s tallest.

    Although less awesome, the shift in skylines can also be seen in Russia. Until recently, Moscow had no buildings higher than the 787 feet of Moscow State University. Now, the Kremlin city has 14 towers complete or on the way, including one that will replace the current Naberezhnaya Tower; it will be Europe’s tallest building. Another project, a billion-dollar Chinatown, is being proposed with investors from China.

    Even with their rapid growth and increasingly modern gloss, these cities don’t tend to make the usual lifestyle-based “best cities” lists. Munich, Zürich, Copenhagen and Vancouver may be somnolent compared to Beijing or Bangalore, but they tend to be far wealthier, better organized, cleaner and safer – and they have far less poor people. Even our current global metropolises like Tokyo, London and New York have been able to hone the cultural amenities that make for a gracious urbanity.

    In contrast, by their very nature, boomtowns often give shorter shrift to the environment, the aesthetics of place and the more important aspects of community. Shaghai’s “tofu like” soil may not be ideal for massive high-rise buildings, just as some of Dubai’s buildings, some believe, may be helping to erode the Persian Gulf coastline.

    These upstarts are often too busy building and trying to impress the rest of the world to focus on architecture or plan niceties to make the heroic routine of everyday life more pleasant, notes London-based architect Eric Kuhne, who has worked on major projects in Moscow, Dubai and other Persian Gulf cities. Such places tend to be “abrupt and rude” in their development, but also “honest in every way” – they are the new kids on the block, with more money and power than seasoning.

    Like parvenus throughout history, Kuhne adds, these burgeoning power centers harbor “a desire to be seen as relevant, as ‘modern’, as shockingly new. In the stampede for a shining presence on the horizon, they both have been mesmerized…perhaps hypnotized…by their own profligacy of uncontrolled development.”

    Yet, Kuhne reminds us, you could have said the same thing about now-reigning world capitals like New York, London, Tokyo, Chicago or Los Angeles. These cities also “experienced a similar riot-panic in the post-war boom years of the ’50s. We destroyed the intricacy of centuries of urbanism [and] sacrificed community and family fabric for home ownership and autonomy.”

    Ultimately, the salvation for these cities may lie, Kuhne suggests, not in mimicry of Western ways but in drawing inspiration from their own ancient traditions. After all, Chinese, Arabs and Russians are not newcomers to city-building. But however they decide to build their new cities, these countries will be providing the blueprint for all of our urban futures.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

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

  • Beijing is China’s Opportunity City

    “What the Western fantasy of a China undergoing identity erasure reveals is a deep identity crisis within the Western world when confronted by this huge, closed, red alien rising. There is a sense that world order is sliding away from what has been, since the outset of industrialization, an essentially Anglo-Saxon hegemony, and a terrible anxiety gathers as it goes.” – Adrian Hornsby, “The Chinese Dream: A Society Under Construction”.

    One year after the conclusion of what may have been the most bombastic Olympic Games ever staged, the host city of Beijing has solidified its position as a growing influential global metropolis. While the rapid pace of change and development in China is well-documented by the Western media, the foreign consensus regarding The Middle Kingdom’s ascendancy to global super power remains decidedly ambivalent. Yet a closer look at China’s second largest city may yield a different, more promising outlook for this gigantic yet mysterious country.

    Much like London was to England in the 19th Century and Los Angeles was to the U.S. in the 20th Century, Beijing is today ground zero for opportunity in China. Shanghai holds on to its reputation as the country’s most cosmopolitan city and banking center, but Beijing continues to strengthen its role as political and cultural hub of China.

    To call Beijing an ‘opportunity city’ is counterintuitive based on its monumental physical characteristics and history as imperialistic capital. Home to the massive Forbidden City and the adjacent Tiananmen Square, the city is defined by a tradition of architectural pomposity. Continued today in buildings like the Olympic Bird’s Nest Stadium and the ominous CCTV Building, subtlety and grace are not Beijing’s strongest suits. Yet underlying these iconic structures is a restless population of 17 million, including many newcomers eager about the prospect of upward mobility.

    As construction of new buildings came to a screeching halt in the U.S. late last year, I also heeded the call of opportunity and headed to Beijing myself. My story is not unique in this regard as the phenomenon of recent American graduates moving to China for jobs was documented earlier this month in an article from the New York Times. Now working with a young, up-and-coming Chinese architecture firm, I am bearing first-hand witness to phenomenal changes.

    Problems exist of course, but criticizing Beijing or the rest of China from afar for its poor air quality or the rampant destruction of its old neighborhoods is too easy. The reality underlying these problems is much more complex, much of it depending on varying perspectives of how Westerners as opposed to Chinese view the country’s direction.

    For instance, Western planners and architects lament the razing of the charming alley and courtyard Hutong neighborhoods as significant losses of urban history. Yet most Chinese people view the process of destruction and rebuilding as a necessary piece of the modernization of their country. As 21-year-old film student and native Beijinger Ashley Zhang observes, “Although the loss of the Hutongs is sad, the reality is that most people would prefer to live in modern buildings where they do not have to go outside and use a shared bathroom or live in an old structure where they are going to be cold during the winter.”

    Other Beijingers have noted how owners of homes in Hutongs are more than willing to trade in their digs for large paydays. Ms. Zhang went on to explain to me that a “change in accommodations will not necessarily alter the spirit or the culture of the Chinese people”. This presents a markedly different perspective from the Western view on the relative importance of permanence in the built environment.

    It could be argued that a true sense of Chinese-ness exists more in the tradition of language and cuisine than in the built form. As such, the new and prolific building and infrastructure projects of China represent more a desire to join the modern world rather than to celebrate its architectural history.

    Yet to say that there is no urban planning in Chinese cities would be off the mark. As put forth by the Beijing Municipal Commission of Urban Planning in 2004, the ‘Beijing 2020 Masterplan’ calls for high intensity development eastwards towards Tianjin and low intensity development westward towards the mountains. The ‘Two Axes, Two Corridors – Multicenters’ Plan’ aims at relieving congestion towards the historic center of Beijing by strengthening outlying polycenters.

    Lisa Friedman of the New York Times recently lambasted the city’s development pattern as Beijing locking itself into a pattern of Los Angeles-type sprawl. In fact, Beijing’s polycentric development can be attributed to the fact that the historic core of the city is already well defined and remains off-limits to new development.

    Also, contrary to most American cities, the designated ‘Central Business District’ lies east of the center of the city. Concentrations of jobs form other business ‘nodes’ in all directions around Beijing. This is not due to any desire to copy Los Angeles per se but rather because the city is gaining tremendously in population and must ‘sprawl’ in order to accommodate these newcomers. In addition, businesses prefer to set up shop in places where land is cheaper.

    Detractors of rapid urban development like to note how sprawl creates unbearable automobile traffic. Yet they forget that the first great exemplars of “sprawl” – London and Los Angeles – did so with massive commuter rail systems long before the rise of LA’s freeway system or London’s ring roads.

    In fact what you have in Beijing is sprawl abetted by a Metro system that would be the envy of American public transportation enthusiasts. There are currently six subway lines operating in the city and in addition, 10 new lines which are under construction are all slated to be completed by 2015. In the end, Beijing’s rail network will constitute 350 miles of track. Compare that to Los Angeles, which destroyed its own huge rail system in favor of buses, where a planned ‘subway to the sea’ consisting of a mere 14 miles of rail is estimated to not be completed until the year 2036.

    Beijing is well on its way to ‘megacity’ status. Along with the city of Tianjin, about 70 miles southeast of Beijing, the Beijing-Tianjin mega-region will be one of the largest in the world. Tianjin, as the fifth-largest city in China and boasting a population of about 11.5 million residents, is going through a building boom of its own. Acting as Beijing’s main port, the two cities together form an economic powerhouse. The marriage between the two cities was consummated a year ago with the opening of the 350 km/h (217 mph) Beijing-Tianjin Intercity Rail – reducing travel time to a mere 30 minutes. I rode this train myself recently and had to cover my eyes from the constant flashbulbs going off recording the speedometer on the monitor in the front of our car.

    China has come a long way since the days of Chairman Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward’. Although still ‘Communist’ in terms of a political system of one-party rule, traversing the streets of Beijing gives the impression that China may in fact be the most capitalist place on earth. From weather-worn women selling fruit to crafty young men hawking fake watches and pirated DVDs, no piece of the city is off-limits to commerce.

    There’s a huge generation gap between the younger generations and those who were unfortunate enough to have lived through the Cultural Revolution. But I would warn Westerners to not be fooled into thinking that China will forever be just a ‘cheap place to manufacture things’. The country is still very young, and as more young people get educated and travel abroad, China will evolve into an important player in everything from architectural design to green technology and the arts. At that point in time, sadly, there will no longer be any need for ‘Western experts’ like me. But for the time being, as I wait for our economy to recover, I am enjoying the ride as I witness perhaps one of the most compelling urban development stories of the 21st Century.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in Silicon Valley, he developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. Adam attended the University of Southern California in Los Angeles where he earned a Bachelor of Architecture degree. He currently lives in Beijing, China where he works in the architecture profession.

  • Three Roads and a Railroad

    For most visitors, Las Vegas is a one-dimensional town. One either walks up the Strip, or down (though for compass-challenged tourists, even that can be confusing). An adventurous minority will go downtown to Fremont Street, a few short blocks of casinos and souvenir shops that I liked better before they roofed it.

    It turns out that naïve tourists have stumbled onto the truth: there are no east-west highways in Las Vegas. And therein lies the tale.

    There are three US highways: 91, 93 and 95. All run from Canada to Mexico (except for 91, which only got as far south as Long Beach). They all intersect in Las Vegas.

    If you think of Nevada as a wedge pointed south, then US 95 roughly parallels the western boundary of the state, and is the main road between Reno and Las Vegas.

    US 93 parallels the eastern boundary of the state, and connects Elko and Ely with Las Vegas.

    US 91 is no longer marked in Nevada, and has been replaced by I-15, which really does go from the Canada to the Mexican border at San Diego. In Las Vegas, it is signed as northbound to Salt Lake City, and southbound to Los Angeles, reflecting the route of the original 91. And then there are the Union Pacific tracks, which run through town northbound heading 30 degrees, and southbound at 210 degrees. North of the city they curve to the east (45 degrees). A 1955 map of Nevada shows all of this in its original glory.

    The three roads meet in downtown Las Vegas. To understand why it is the way it is, we need to go back in time and see the way it was. This 1952 map of Las Vegas is helpful.

    Main St. parallels the tracks. Intersecting Main St., where the Golden Nugget Casino is today, is Fremont St., which heads 120 degrees southeast. Streets parallel to Main St. were numbered, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., with the next major N-S thoroughfare being 5th St. Let’s trace the routes of the three highways through town.

    US 91 is the simplest – it simply followed Main St. from north to south. South of town it was known as the LA highway.

    Fifty miles north of the city (today only about 20 miles), US 91 and US 93 joined forces and shared the same road alongside the tracks to Las Vegas. They both entered Las Vegas along Main St., to the center of town. They parted ways when US 93 turned southeast along Fremont. After passing Charleston Blvd., then the southern city limit, US 93 was known as the Boulder Highway – the name it still has today – as it goes to Boulder City.

    US 95 was the most complicated. It approached Las Vegas from the northwest along Rancho Drive.

    The railroad tracks are like a river – for just as with a river, one needs a bridge to cross (or at least a crossing). There were only four streets that crossed the tracks in 1952: Harrison Ave. (now called Owens), Bonanza Rd., Charleston Blvd., and San Francisco Ave. (now Sahara Ave.). To avoid the tracks, Rancho Drive turned south (today it ends at Sahara, just as it did then). But US 95 headed east on Bonanza, crossed the tracks, and then joined up with 91 and 93 at Main St. For five blocks along Main St., from Bonanza to Fremont, US Highways 91, 93 and 95 all shared the same road.

    At Fremont, US 95 turned east, coincident with US 93. They diverge (then and now) 23 miles south of town (about 3 miles short of Boulder City). US 93 continues on through Boulder City and then over the Hoover dam (a new road and a beautiful new bridge are currently under construction). US 95 heads due south, toward Searchlight and Needles, leaving Nevada right near the southern tip of the wedge.

    So what does it look like today? US 91 has been replaced by I-15. Like its predecessor, the interstate follows the railroad, but now lying west of the tracks through the central city. I-15 is the major N-S traffic artery through town.

    At exit 42 – today the very center of Las Vegas where all three highways meet – I-15 intersects a freeway that has become the primary E-W artery. The new freeway has replaced Bonanza Road as the major route across the railroad tracks. Heading west the freeway is labeled US 95 North, with signage to Reno. It goes due west for about five miles to Rainbow Blvd, and then turns due north until it intersects Rancho Drive. From there it follows the original US 95 route (the freeway ends just past Durango).

    If you want to continue west past Rainbow Blvd., then you have to exit US 95 onto Summerlin Pkwy, which continues west to the mountains at the edge of the valley.

    Heading east, the freeway has three labels: I-515 South, US 93 South, and US 95 South. It heads east initially parallel to Fremont, and then due east parallel to Charleston. It goes east to the mountains at the valley’s rim, and then turns south, crossing Boulder Hwy, only to eventually end at Boulder Hwy south of Henderson, a few miles north of the 93-95 split.

    At exit 34, another E-W artery intersects I-15. Follow I-215 South to go east towards Henderson. Follow Nevada State highway 215 North to go west (and then north) towards Summerlin.

    Point proven: there are no E-W highways in Las Vegas. But it really isn’t that hard to find your way around: just ignore the compass markers on the freeways. Reno is to the west, Los Angeles is to the south, Henderson-Boulder City is to the east, and Salt Lake City is to the north. You won’t go wrong (as long as you remember the Summerlin Pkwy exit if you want to keep going west).

    In part 2 we’ll talk about Vegas surface streets, and I’ll drop a few hints for tourists. In some future post, I’ll even answer the vexing question of where Las Vegas really is.

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

  • Warning on Road to Recovery: Beware of dumbdowntown.com

    Big cities will eventually get through the recession.

    How much help they’ll get from the design-obsessed bloggers who are so anxious to shape urban life is open to question.

    Consider the blogosphere in Los Angeles, which bubbled with reports of decapitated chickens turning up all around town earlier this year.

    Some bloggers speculated that chickens were being killed in rituals of the Santeria cult, which has roots in Latin America. The speculation seemed on the way to becoming an urban legend.

    The Garment & Citizen suggested that the bloggers buzzing around the story—a bunch that was mostly European/American —might be leaping to some wayward conclusions.

    The blogosphere railed against the Garment & Citizen, claiming that we had played the “race card” by even suggesting that some white bloggers might be too quick to attribute exotica to folks a few shades darker.

    Then the story died, an urban legend stopped cold. Whoever had been killing the chickens and leaving their headless carcasses in public places had apparently left town quite suddenly.

    Or could it be that the whole matter had been made up by bloggers who figured that a bizarre and bloody tale with shadowy suspects would be just the thing to drive traffic to their echo chamber?

    There’s no telling when it comes to the blogosphere.

    That’s precisely our point.

    We don’t spend a lot of time looking at blogs, but we generally get word when one of them is railing against the sort of well-reasoned reporting and analysis that readers expect from the Garment & Citizen.

    That’s what happened after we noted last year’s closure of a Rite-Aid at 7th and Los Angeles streets as a sign that the red-hot run of Downtown development had ended. It wasn’t a tough call, by the way, given economic indicators at the time.

    Yet A number of those who blog Downtown twisted themselves in knots over that one, claiming a greater understanding while denying that the closure had anything to do with the souring economy—which soon crashed, by the way.

    Another piece in the Garment & Citizen sometime later mentioned the deterioration of the retail landscape on Broadway.

    Downtown bloggers got all bunched up over that one, too, going on about the many committee meetings held by members of the Bringing Back Broadway Initiative.

    Awhile later came word that the owners of Clifton’s Cafeteria on the 600 block of Broadway plan to sell the building as they fight to keep the place in business. A key to their struggles, according to reports, is the high vacancy rate for retail along the street. Fewer stores mean fewer customers coming to Broadway—and fewer diners stopping for a bite at Clifton’s, a bellwether for the thoroughfare.

    There’s no telling whether local bloggers bark so loud about any point of view that diverges from their own because they lack reporting and analytical skills. It could be that some function as boosters who see the truth as optional when it comes to promotional pitches.

    Keep that in mind if the Downtown blogosphere reaches you with talk about how some art galleries in the area of 5th and Main streets are closing because their landlord is ditching them in favor of higher-paying tenants. That outlook would seem to prop up the notion of a hot market for retail, as though there’s a waiting list of businesses willing to pay a premium for ground-floor space at 5th and Main despite the recession.

    That just doesn’t sound right, based on a street-level view of current conditions.

    Whatever is going on, watch out for bloggers who seem bent on telling a story about Downtown and the rest of our city that doesn’t match the facts on the ground.

    The truth is that the economy remains very slow, the real estate market is a long way from full recovery, and it will be more than a few months before the local job market perks up.

    It’s also true that our city, state and nation will eventually recover. Times are tough, but there are plenty of folks committed to getting through this downturn (see related photo and caption, “No Quit,” and Local Hero, both home page). They’ll need the accurate information and reasoned analysis—the truth, in other words—to chart a course to better days.

    So look for signs of progress and silver linings, which are the building blocks of momentum and economic recovery.

    Just beware of those who would show you nothing else.

    Jerry Sullivan is the Editor & Publisher of the Los Angeles Garment & Citizen, a weekly community newspaper that covers Downtown Los Angeles and surrounding districts (www.garmentandcitizen.com)

  • New Feudalism: Does Home Ownership Have a Future?

    In mid August, as we were beginning to feel a pulse in the nation’s housing market, an academician and housing expert from the University of Pennsylvania named Thomas J. Sugrue wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal proposing that, for many people, the new American Dream should be renting.

    Sugrue is writing a book on the history of real estate in America, a tome I cannot wait to read because it will apparently illustrate how epic events in our nation’s history have shaped and molded our real estate market, hence our lives. He quotes builder William Levitt, considered the father of affordable suburban mass housing, saying “no man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist.”

    That was said during the Cold War and McCarthy era: Levitt was marketing his wares, playing off the public’s fears like any good salesman. And for many politicians – from Herbert Hoover to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – expanding ownership of homes remained critical to the nation’s identity.
    But is all this changing? The Obama Administration seems at best ambivalent about homeownership. It seems determined to put more resources into rental housing while promulgating policies that may coerce Americans out of the suburban single family homes and back into dense, multifamily urban housing.

    This would mark a major change in what we usually consider the American dream. Enabling home ownership is like crack cocaine for politicians: the impetus for the Great Recession of 2008 may well have been formed on the day President Bill Clinton launched National Homeownership Day in 1995. And I remember sitting terrified in front of the television post 9/11 when President George W. Bush reassured us that America was strong and would recover. Our housing market is strong, he said, a theme that would echo throughout his presidency. Seeing two by fours go up and mortar flying gave Americans a sense of calm, of rebuilding.

    The attacks of 9/11 almost brought down our economy. The housing market helped prop it up.

    Most of us still love our homes. Sugrue quotes a Pew survey that faintly echoes the national health care debate: nine out of ten homeowners view their homes as a comfort in their lives. He seems to argue we should change everything for ten percent. To be sure, as he suggests, for some home ownership has become a source of panic and despair: 53,000 people packing a Save the Dream fair at Atlanta’s World Congress Center. Georgia’s housing market has been hit hard – 338,411 homes went into foreclosure in May and June, 2009.

    But it’s not just Georgia. Since the second quarter of 2006, housing values across the nation have plummeted to values roughly equivalent to post 9/11. We are not immune even here in Texas, with one of the nation’s strongest large state economies: our prices are soft, down anywhere from five to 20%, and buyers want deals. Go north to Little Elm; you might think you are in Atlanta. Homes may not be selling for thirty cents on the dollar as they are in Phoenix, but a house in the trophy community of University Park listed for $999,000 recently, sold in the mid $800s. The owner of a Preston Hollow mansion not too far from George W. Bush turned down a $38 million dollar offer two years ago, insulted. He recently sold his nine-plus acre property for $28 million.

    And just one week ago I spoke with an Allen, Texas home builder who told me that current tough love lending standards were keeping a lot of people out of the jumbo market – that is, halting them from buying million dollar homes. When you have to put down 30%, he said, that’s $300,000 on a million dollar home. If homes are not appreciating, he said, smart people say, why do we want to tie up that much money in our homestead?

    Yet we have been here before. Half of all U.S. mortgages were in default during The Great Depression, although it’s true far fewer people owned homes. This is when Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt created government programs to help save homeowners from foreclosure. I remember my grandmother telling me how Mr. Roosevelt saved her home in 1932 – she voted Democratic in every election because of it until the day she died in 1966. In 1938, Fannie Mae was created to buy mortgages on the secondary market, an effort to stimulate credit.

    After World War II, when the government made home loans accessible for thousands of GIs returning from the wars, home ownership rates climbed like the staircases in a suburban colonial. Now more than two-thirds of Americans own their homes.

    The government’s role in shaping this industry has been pretty explicit. Government programs gave us those first FHA loans that got many of us on the housing track, out to the suburbs, allowing people to leave more congested, and often dangerous, inner cities. Government is the hand that keeps the mortgage industry in motion, like a giant conveyor belt of money. But the hand might be pushing us where we shouldn’t go.

    This is certainly true for many in the communities traditionally underserved in the housing market. The government tried to fix this through creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and by pushing Fannie Mae to underwrite loans to “riskier” buyers. The result: in 2006, Sugrue writes, almost 53% of blacks and more than 47% of Hispanics got sub-prime mortgages.

    Those were the loans that were packaged to spread the risk, and sold off as securities. Very lucrative for banks, who always make out like bandits either way, our federal government stood in the background as a silent backer. An appraiser I interviewed recently told me that Fannie Mae will now be ordering appraisals on loans before they buy them.

    You mean, I said, they weren’t doing this before?

    Then there’s the former sub-prime mortgage lender, now turned real estate agent. You, I scolded, how could you approve a school teacher for a loan on a $400,000 house? Shame on you. Well, he told me, if I would have denied her the loan, she could have come back at me for discrimination, or she would have just gone to someone else. So I made the loan and took my commission.

    Yet for all this, I am bullish on home ownership. I think it gives homeowners a sense of security, a blanket of protection that may or may not be a mirage. Economists, who see the world in a “cash nexus”, do not understand this; planners, believing they know a better way, don’t realize that a rental apartment in a dense development does not usually provide our peaceful havens from the cruel world like a single family home or a townhouse that we have a stake in.

    Homeownership may be precarious, but it does provide a greater sense of permanency for families and communities. Home ownership also stimulates the economy. Consumers never buy as much as they do the first few days in a new home – countless trips to Lowes, Home Depot, Bed, Bath & Beyond, the Container Store. A tenant or landlord may buy for their place, but perhaps never with the care and fervor that comes with homeownership. Apartments are built with, at the most, 30 year life spans. I’ve seen enough Section 8 housing to tell you – you don’t want to live in them at the end of their life-cycle. Apartments are considered temporary, places for people who are in transition or not really sure they are going to stay, one reason why they drive higher crime rates.

    Homes are more permanent. Children thrive with structure and feel more secure coming home to a familiar place day after day. Children who live in homes score higher on standardized tests. They may eventually move from one home to another, but will always come back to it and show a friend – that is the house where I grew up.

    Home ownership also forges financial security. Mortgages are like forced savings accounts. Pay your mortgage and in 30 years you’ll have an asset that could cushion your retirement. Either you will own your home outright, or you will have equity to supplement your income when you sell and downsize. The problems came when we started using our homes as slot machines or banks. Home equity lines of credit were illegal in Texas until 1997 as a consumer protection, and the banking industry led the charge to loosen that law with a constitutional amendment. In Texas, the total of all mortgage debt on your home (including HELOCs) is limited to 80% of the home’s fair market value, among other stipulations.

    What we need now is not to move against homeownership but return to more basic fundamentals that seemed to work just fine for 50-plus years. The cost of a house should reflect more of people’s ability to pay. But do we want to be a nation of renters? My bet is no.

    Candace Evans is the Editor of DallasDirt, a Dallas-based real estate blog for D Magazine Media Partners.

  • Rome Vs. Gotham

    Urban politicians have widely embraced the current concentration of power in Washington, but they may soon regret the trend they now so actively champion. The great protean tradition of American urbanism – with scores of competing economic centers – is giving way to a new Romanism, in which all power and decisions devolve down to the imperial core.

    This is big stuff, perhaps even more important than the health care debate. The consequence could be a loss of local control, weakening the ability of cities to respond to new challenges in the coming decades.

    The Obama administration’s aggressive federal regulatory agenda, combined with the recession, has accelerated this process. As urban economies around the country lose jobs and revenues, the D.C. area is not merely experiencing “green shoots” but blossoming like lilies of the field.

    To be sure, the capital region has been growing fat on the rest of America for decades, but its staggering success amid the recession is remarkable. Take unemployment: Although the district itself has relatively high rates, unemployment in Virginia and Maryland – where most government-related workers live – has remained around 7% while the nation’s rate approaches 10%.

    The reason is obvious: an explosion of government amid a decline in the private sector. Factories may be closing in Michigan, tech jobs and farms may be disappearing in California, but the people who grease the skids of the ever-expanding federal machine seem to be doing just fine.

    This is most evident at the top of the job market. The capital region now boasts the healthiest technology employment picture in the nation. Virginia has the highest proportion of tech workers in the nation. Maryland ranks fifth, and the district itself is seventh.

    The area also continues to enjoy continued growth in the lucrative professional and business service jobs category. Over the past year, according to latest estimates by www.jobbait.com, the D.C. area was the only region in the nation to enjoy growth in this field.

    Signs of Washington’s ascent abound. The local real estate market appears to be on the mend even as others suffer continued strong declines in values and rising foreclosures. Hotel prices, dropping virtually everywhere else, look to be rising as well.

    Occupancy rates, falling in most places, actually increased during the first half of 2009, as did revenues, which have taken a nosedive elsewhere. In New York prices have plunged – even the mighty Waldorf has been slashing rates.

    In many ways, the economic disasters in New York and other cities have proved a boon for Washington. Wall Street’s demise, for example, has been D.C.’s gain as the locus of financial power leaves New York for the Treasury, Fed, White House and the finance-related congressional committees. K Street is the new Wall Street, where you play for the really big stakes.

    This shift may soon spread beyond the financial sector. Want to get into the energy business? You can bypass Houston and head to the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency – they are the ones handing out subsidies and grants to “deserving” applicants. Thinking of expanding your city to accommodate new middle-class families? The people at the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development have their own ideas on how your cities and regions should grow.

    Manufacturing might be important to your economy, but Washington – a region with virtually no history of productive industry – generally regards factories as polluters, greenhouse gas emitters and labor exploiters. If you have enough lobbyists you might be able to hang on, but don’t really expect much in the way of positive help.

    Some “progressives” may like this model – after all, it originated in Europe, the supposed fount of all that is enlightened. Since the 18th century, Europe’s urban history has been largely dominated by great imperial centers – London, Paris, Moscow and Berlin – that treat other cities like something akin to poor relations.

    Even today European cities and localities tend to have far less control over their destiny than in the U.S. Zoning, planning decisions and even economic strategy often originate from the center, as does the power to tax and spend. For decades, Europe’s legacy of ancient urban privilege – so critical in emerging out of the dark ages – has ebbed before the increasing power of the national capitals. More recently the super-capital of Brussels, like Washington, thrives in hard times that are decimating other European urban economies.

    The great European capitals rose largely because they also served as the domicile of princes, bureaucrats and, until recent times, the clerical establishment. Other cities might have enjoyed a boom – such as Manchester during the industrial revolution – but, ultimately, hierarchy served to concentrate power in the great capital cities.

    In contrast, American cities and communities traditionally have retained control over planning, development and other critical growth factors. Equally important, American cities, noted the great sociologist E. Digby Baltzell, were not dominated by aristocracy but were “heterogeneous from top to bottom.” Urban growth came primarily not by central design but as a result of the often ruthless schemes and lofty aspirations, often ruthlessly expressed, of local political and business leaders.

    For example, the quintessential American city, New York, started as a commercial venture. As early as the mid-17th century 18 languages were spoken on Manhattan Island (population of 1,000) and numerous faiths practiced. In early New Amsterdam, the counting house, not the church or any public building, stood as the most important civic building.

    Even after the Dutch were pushed out by the more powerful British military, the bustling island city – renamed New York – retained its fundamentally commercial character. It served briefly as the nation’s capital, but its power grew from its port and its immigrants. The city’s entrepreneurial spirit and social mobility startled many Europeans. As the French consul to New York complained in 1810, “The inhabitants…have in general no mind for anything but business. New York might be described as a permanent fair in which two-thirds of the population is constantly being replaced; where huge deals are being made, almost always with fictitious capital; and where luxury has reached alarming heights.”

    This entrepreneurial pattern also drove the growth of New York’s many competitors – first the great industrial cities such as Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit and, later, West Coast metropolises like Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay area and Seattle. More recently, there has been a similar spectacular rise of formerly obscure places like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Miami.

    Through much of this time Washington barely registered among the ranks of American urban centers. Despite early expectations that Washington would become “the Rome of the New World,” it lagged behind other American cities through much of the 19th century. The city was widely reviled as a fetid, swampy place with atrocious cuisine – hog and hominy grits were its staples – that offered little in the way of commerce, industry or culture. Even its great buildings were compared to “the ruins of Roman grandeur.”

    The First World War, the Depression and then the Second World War each boosted Washington’s status but hardly into the first rank of cities. Few entrepreneurs were attracted to a city dominated by regulators, clerks and lawyers. The cultural center lay in New York and Boston – and later Los Angeles. The Bay Area, Massachusetts and later Texas evolved into the primary technological centers.

    Not until the 1960s did Washington begin to emerge as something like a traditional national capital, with a large permanent population of well-educated and cultured citizens as well as a robust economy based on the defense industry and the expanding welfare state.

    But the financial crisis of 2008 has set the stage for an unprecedented growth of the region, with a Democratic president and majority seemingly determined to expand federal mandates into every crevice of community life. There is an eagerness to use federal authority in unprecedented ways that could bring federal influence into virtually every minute decision made in an urban area.

    This concentration of power is also bad news for urban economies, including New York’s. As New York University’s Mitchell Moss has observed, Gotham may be losing its perch as the true national financial center. But other cities also should take note of the trend. Polycentric sprawling cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix and Atlanta soon may find themselves forced to reorganize themselves along lines preferred by federal urban “experts.” Hard-pressed industrial cities may find new environmental restrictions on ports and other key infrastructures an impediment to a much-needed renaissance.

    American cities are at a critical moment. Our competitive, commercial urban tradition certainly has its flaws, but it also has produced the advanced world’s most dynamic roster of modern cities and regions. Ceding the power of urban planning to Washington will cripple the American city – except, of course, for the one that reigns as locale for imperial control.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

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