New Geography

Category: Urban Issues

  • Questioning Conventional Wisdom: Should Poor Folks Stay Put?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Entrenchment of Urban Poverty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Andy Sywak is the articles editor for Newgeography.com.

  • Dayton, Ohio: The Rise, Fall and Stagnation of a Former Industrial Juggernaut

    What Dayton can tell cities about staying competitive in the global economy

    Few people would recognize Dayton, Ohio of 2008 as the industrial powerhouse it was less than one hundred years ago. Once a beacon of manufacturing success, Dayton claimed more patents per capita than any other U.S. city in 1900. Its entrepreneurial climate nurtured innovators such Charles Kettering, inventor of the automobile self-starter and air travel pioneers Wilbur and Orville Wright. As the U.S. economy took off after World War II, Dayton was home to the largest concentration of General Motors employees outside of Michigan.

    The city also nurtured companies that would became stalwarts on the Fortune 500, including National Cash Register (NCR), Mead Paper Company, business forms companies Standard Register and Reynolds and Reynolds, Dayco and Phillips Industries. To put this in context, just 14 U.S. cities could claim six or more Fortune 500 headquarters in 2007. Not a bad performance for an urban area that peaked as the 40th largest city in the U.S. in 1940.

    These early industrialists were more than just business men. They were also visionaries. The founder of NCR, John H. Patterson, is widely credited with laying the foundation for the first modern factory system, pioneering the basic principles that still drive much of modern advertising, and redefining the relationship between labor and management.

    NCR may also have been America’s first truly global business. “The cash register,” writes Patterson biographer Samuel Crowther, “is the first American machine which can claim that on it the sun has never set.” Even as Patterson was toiling away in a little shop in Dayton, cash “registers were being sold in England and Australia.” The company’s first non-US sales office was established in England in 1885 and its first European factory was established in Germany in 1903.

    It’s difficult to underestimate Patterson’s influence on American industry. By 1930, an estimated one-sixth of all U.S. corporate executives had either been an executive at NCR or been part of Patterson’s management training programs. Among NCR’s alumni were IBM’s visionary CEO Thomas Watson as well as the presidents of Packard Motor Car Company, Toledo Scale, Delco (now Delphi) and dozens of others.

    What may separate men like Patterson to their equivalents today in places like Silicon Valley was their intense civic involvement. Patterson was one of the first business leaders to try to apply scientific management to local government, testing out his ideas in rebuilding the city after a disastrous flood ruined downtown Dayton in 1913. He also helped create the Miami Conservancy District, one of the nation’s first flood control districts that still manages a system of low-level dams and levies that keep downtown flood-free to this day. Perhaps one of Patterson’s most prescient civic innovations was bringing the city manager form of local government to the first large city in the U.S.

    As significant as Patterson was as an individual, he was not alone. The Dayton area benefited from the entrepreneurial drive and civic commitment of hundreds of businessmen that built large companies, many publicly traded. Patterson was the most iconic of the icons.

    Dayton’s Economic Descent
    Today one would not expect such vision in Dayton, and you would be unlikely to find it. Since the early 1970s, nearly 15,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared at NCR. Automobile plants cut payrolls as the economy restructured toward services, and foreign competition outsold domestic manufacturers. As late as 1990, five General Motors plants employed more than 20,000 people regionally. Now, fewer than 12,000 work in these factories and Delphi is on the cusp of closing two more plants. NCR’s world headquarters employs fewer than 3,000 people. Mead Paper Company has merged with a competitor, becoming MeadWestvaco and its corporate headquarters has moved to Richmond, Virginia.

    As the economy has tanked, the city has shrunk. After peaking at more than 260,000 people in 1960, the city is barely clinging to a core city population of less than 160,000. In the 2000 census, Dayton ranked 147th in size nationwide. Its metropolitan area is now ranked 59th.

    Meanwhile, the suburbs have grown. Nearly 74 percent of Montgomery County’s population lived in Dayton in 1930. The growth of suburban cities shrunk that proportion to less than a third by the mid 1980s. Now, less than 20 percent of the metropolitan area’s population lives in the city of Dayton.

    Lessons for Other Cities
    Dayton’s early dependence on traditional manufacturing, with a particular emphasis on assembly line work, put the region at a competitive disadvantage as growing international trade and dramatically reduced transportation costs allowed for the global dispersion of factory work.

    Yet perhaps most remarkable is not the region’s decline, but its resilience. Despite the ongoing decline of manufacturing sector, the metropolitan area still knits together a population of over one million people. What accounts for this?

    First, the regional economy has diversified. Now, as in other metropolitan areas, the growth in employment is in services. Two local major health care networks – Premier Health Partners and Kettering Medical Network – employ 15,300 in facilities that are nationally recognized for their quality of care. Wright Patterson Air Force Base is a center for scientific research and development and employs another largely civilian workforce of 21,000.

    Second, some of the large industrial companies of the past have evolved to meet the needs of an information economy. NCR, while its presence has diminished, is now a high tech company. Reynolds & Reynolds, a former business forms manufacturer, now provides software in niche markets such as auto sales. The region is also home to the legal information services provider Lexus/Nexus, now a division of Reed Elsevier but originally a division of the Mead Paper Company’s investment in data management services.

    Third, core parts of the traditional manufacturing base literally retooled to become globally competitive. In the early 1980s, more than 600 machine shops employed nearly 20,000 people. As the 1990s unfolded, this number had fallen by half. As the 21st century got its start, the number of tool and die shops had revived and employment was rebounding close to 15,000. The shops remain small, but they are deeply invested in global trade. Productivity is up along with incomes.

    Fourth, the region remains at a strategic logistical and demographic location in the Midwest. The city of Dayton is at the cross roads of two major interstate highways – the major east-west link I-70 and the north-south connector of I-75. Combined with access to three major airports, the Dayton region can easily benefit from and tap into economic growth in nearby metropolitan areas such as Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis. Ironically, many of the highway improvements some believed would “empty” the downtown – the interstates plus a partial beltway, I-675 – ended up tying the city and suburbs to other larger urban areas and enhanced the region’s geographic importance.

    Dayton’s economy may no longer provide the flash and glitter of 20th century economic leadership, but the region has demonstrated a remarkable robustness that holds lessons for other cities striving to remain competitive in a global economy. All cities or economic regions pass through periods of growth and decline. The real question is whether they can adapt to changing economic circumstances.

    Dayton survived by building on the secrets of its past success. Its innovative manufacturing base has become more tech-centric and service-oriented. New areas of vitality such as health services have been enhanced. The city may no longer be what it was at its peak a century ago, but its future is far from grim.

    Sam Staley, Ph.d., is director of urban and land use policy at the Reason Foundation and teaches urban economics at the University of Dayton. He is a fourth generation native and current resident of the Dayton area.

  • Sacramento 2020

    Even in the best of times, Sacramento tends to be a prisoner to low self-esteem. The region’s population and economic growth have been humming along nicely for the past decade, drawing ever more educated workers from overpriced coastal counties, but the region’s leaders have often seemed defensive about their flourishing town.

    So perhaps it’s not surprising that the mortgage meltdown, which has hit the area hard, has sparked something of an identity crisis. Yet in trying to cope with hard times, it’s important that the region not lose its focus on what paced Sacramento’s past success: its ability to offer affordable, high-quality, largely single-family neighborhoods for middle class families.

    Sadly, the dominant narrative among many planners, politicians and developers in Sacramento today is to try to shed the family-friendly image. There’s a growing consensus that low-density neighborhoods are passé and that the region’s future success lies in retrofitting the region along a high-density, centralized model. Suburban areas like Rancho Cordova or Elk Grove, some believe, are destined to become the “the next slums” as middle-income homeowners, fleeing high gas prices, flock to the urban core.

    Although a healthier downtown with reasonable density is good for the entire region, the high-density focus does not make a good fit for a predominately middle class, family-oriented region such as Sacramento. Unlike an elite city like San Francisco, Sacramento’s growth has been fueled by an influx of educated, family-oriented residents – the populations that have been fleeing such high-priced places where the housing supply is constrained.

    Long-term demographic trends, and perhaps common sense, suggest that most people do not move to Sacramento to indulge in a “hip and cool” urban lifestyle. If someone craves the excitement, bright lights and glamorous industries of a dense city, River City pales compared with places like San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles.

    The fact Sacramento has fared far better than these cities over the past 15 years suggests the region’s recent problems lie not in a lack of downtown condos and nightlife, but with a housing market that, as in much of California, has been totally out of whack. Once a consistently affordable locale, by the mid-1990s Sacramento’s housing prices jumped almost nine times income growth, an unsustainable pace seen in a few areas such as Riverside, Miami and Los Angeles.

    As a result, the refugees from the coastal counties who had been coming to Sacramento for affordable housing stopped arriving. Net migration to the region, more than 36,000 in 2001, fell to less than 1,000 in 2006.

    Ultimately only a housing market correction will again lure the people who have come to Sacramento seeking single-family houses – the type of home favored by about 80 percent of Californians – back to the region. Evidence that these people, or current suburbanites, might flock back to the core city is thin at best. The failures of such high-profile projects as The Towers and the region’s stagnant rental market do not suggest a seismic shift toward denser living.

    One key reason has to do with patterns of job growth. Since 2000, suburban communities in the largest metropolitan areas have added jobs at roughly six times the rate of the urban cores.

    This pattern has had profound and often counterintuitive effects on commuting distances. Planners and journalists tend to think of cities in traditional concentric rings, with distance from the core as the key measurement of distance from jobs. But in most regions, the vast majority of employment is outside the core. Even in Sacramento, a state capital, only about 1 in 10 jobs are in the city center. Exurban employment growth since 2000 has been the fastest regionally, expanding at nearly twice the rate for Sacramento County.

    This means commuting distance – and thus exposure to higher gas prices – reflects more than proximity to the central core. In such diverse regions as Los Angeles and Chicago, the shortest average commutes exist both in the affluent inner-city neighborhoods and those suburbs and exurbs, where much of the employment growth has clustered. People who live in Irvine or Ontario in Southern California, or in the western suburbs of Chicago, for example, actually have shorter commutes than those residing in the barrios around downtown Los Angeles or in the Windy City’s fabled South Side.

    These trends suggest a radically different response to high gas prices than the knee jerk downtown-centric approach now widely supported. Instead of cajoling people downtown, perhaps it would make more sense to accelerate employment growth in those suburban and exurban areas where the region’s skilled work force is increasingly concentrated.

    These suburban nodes, both in and outside of Sacramento County, may very well become more important in the near future. With the state facing a perpetual budget deficit, state government – the dominant employer in the central city – may not expand and even could contract in years ahead. Perhaps a wiser approach would be to focus on the biotech, electronics and other firms, many concentrated in suburban areas, as the region’s best hope for the creation of new high-wage jobs.

    Does this mean the region should invite unbridled, uncontrolled growth to the periphery? Not in the least. Successful suburban communities – think of Clovis outside Fresno or Irvine or Valencia in Southern California – provide a high quality of life to their residents. This suggests the need for greater investments in such things as developing lively town centers, expansive parks, wildlife and rural preserves, as well as maintaining good schools, which are often the key factor for families deciding where to live.

    This vision focuses not on one selected geographic area but on a broad spectrum of places across the region. It concentrates not exclusively on dense urban neighborhoods but on fostering a series of thriving villages from close-in city neighborhoods to places like Folsom, Roseville and even Elk Grove. Ultimately the suburb needs not to be demonized, but transformed into something more than bedrooms for a central core.

    In terms of reducing vehicle miles driven, a greater emphasis on telecommuting, including by state employees, would likely also do more than an expanded, very expensive light-rail system. Although more than 12 percent of commuters to and from downtown take transit daily, less than 2 percent of those commuting elsewhere do so. Given the structure of the suburban regions, with multiple nodes of work and a weak bus-feeder system, notions of turning Sacramento into a transit mecca like New York or even San Francisco are far-fetched at best.

    The central city will continue to maintain important functions, not only as a state capital but as a physical and cultural hub. But there needs to be recognition that “hip and cool” dense urbanity does not constitute the core competence of this region. For the foreseeable future, Sacramento’s advantage against its coastal competitors will lie in providing affordable and highly livable modest-density neighborhoods for California’s increasingly diverse middle class.

  • Sacramento: A City on the Verge?

    Sacramento is a city on the verge. Over the last 20 years, I have watched it emerge from a “cow town” lassitude. This has been viewed as a well earned epithet by newcomers from either coast and a fond trademark to many long time Sacramento traditionalists. Although there was evidence of hyperbole in both camps, the city’s lack of cultural and intellectual activities, its dependence on an economy driven by agricultural and state government has contributed to creating an often torpid local environment.

    But much has changed in recent years. The city has grown both up, constructing several notably lofty skyscrapers, and out, growing ganglion like suburbs up and into the hills. The affordability of its housing has attracted entire towns of more cosmopolitan immigrants from the San Francisco area and beyond. This and a rising world class university at Davis have much enriched Sacramento society at all levels. Such emerging influences as the headquarters of Calpers and Calsters suggest a possible path to ascendancy as a serious financial capital of the west coast. Parallel to this, various other segments of the community, most prominently business, have taken a leadership role on land use, flood prevention and civic elevation in general.

    Recently, the area’s housing market, along with much of that for inland California, has gone bust. This ultimately may be beneficial, in that the rapid run up in housing prices threatened to subvert one of the region’s core competencies — affordable housing.

    What will make the difference will be whether Sacramento successfully capitalizes on its assets as an affordable, economically dynamic place. Quite simply, this is largely a matter of local leadership. All the other ingredients are present to achieve the region’s ascendancy. But this can not happen without a substantial change in the local economic and political leadership.

    Frank Washington is the Chairman/CEO of Tower of Babel LLC, which owns KBTV-CA, channel 8 in Sacramento, a multilanguage programming service carried throughout California’s Central Valley. He is also a past Chair of the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce and KVIE, Sacramento’s public TV station.

  • In Praise of Manufacturing & Industrial Zones

    My father made the huge piece of art that sits proudly on display at the entrance of the Daley Center Plaza in Chicago. Pablo Picasso designed this particular sculpture—or conceived it…or bent it with artistic vision…or however you want to put it.

    But my father made it.

    I’ve believed that since I was a small child. It’s a belief based mostly in filial pride, but there is some truth to it. Picasso, as I understand it, ordered the material for his untitled sculpture from the steel mill where my father worked at the time.

    My father handled the job as iron ore mixed with heat and sparks and sweat and swear words on the way to becoming steel. Picasso only took over after things had cooled down.

    I think of this as city planners ponder what to do with the industrial zone that sits on Downtown’s eastern edge. I can’t help but wonder why Los Angeles County’s role as the largest manufacturing center in the U.S., with approximately 470,000 jobs, so often goes overlooked.

    Sure, the manufacturing sector has shrunk over the years – and it will likely shrink some more in the future. But you could cut the local manufacturing sector in half and it would still be a giant engine of our economy. It gets bigger when you consider that manufacturing jobs tend to pay more than many service-sector jobs. That means the manufacturing jobs put more dollars in circulation to help finance a lot of those service-sector positions.

    Manufacturing also brings benefits that defy statistical analysis. Making things – objects or materials that can be touched, like the steel in a sharp sports car or the clothes on your back – is different than providing a service.

    Here’s what happens with services: The burger is made and consumed. The bed is made, slept in, and made again.

    Here’s what happens with manufactured products: The steel is used to build a grand cruise ship that steams into the harbor between trips to exotic ports and spills stories that will live for generations. The chair is purchased for some hearing room at City Hall and allows visitors to sit and gather their thoughts before standing up to take part in our democracy. The plastic is fabricated in a way that protects our astronauts as they set out on some historic mission of exploration.

    And here’s a simple fact: Making things makes people proud – and that’s the best thing you could hope for a city’s populace.

    I realize that the new lofts that have sprung about around Downtown – including some in the industrial zone – are pretty. I also understand why some land might be more valuable – at the moment, anyway – as a residential development instead of a metal-bending plant or a tool-and-die operation.

    I also believe, however, that Los Angeles is fortunate to have a major industrial center Downtown. I believe all involved in the current debate over its future should consider that seriously.

    Yes, manufacturers will continue to face challenges. One of the biggest will come from offshore markets with plentiful and cheap labor.

    But anyone who thinks industry is done in Los Angeles or the U.S. should keep Italy in mind. The Italians have been at a disadvantage on labor costs since somewhere around the 13th Century. Yet Italy has carried on as a manufacturing center, turning out everything from fine textiles to high-performance motorcycles. Italy long ago made a virtue of design and matched it with manufacturing processes that cannot be easily knocked off in low-wage markets thousands of miles away.

    It’s time for some enterprising city in the U.S to bring the same virtue to manufacturing – and Los Angeles is uniquely positioned to do exactly that. This will require some land – and history shows it will work best if various manufacturers are clustered together near a lively landscape with a plentiful labor pool and available housing stock.

    Sound familiar? I hope so – and I hope all involved will see the wisdom of maintaining a healthy and sizeable industrial zone Downtown. After all, some kid’s father might just make a famous artwork for City Hall someday.

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

  • Urban America: The New Solid South

    By Joel Kotkin and Mark Schill

    Ever since the 1930s, most urban areas have leaned Democratic. But in presidential elections, many remained stubbornly competitive between the two parties. As late as 1988, for example, Republican nominees won Dallas County and made strong showings in the core urban counties of Cook (Chicago), Los Angeles and King (Seattle).

    Today, America’s urban areas have evolved into a political monoculture that increasingly resembles the “solid South” that provided a base for Democrats from the late 19th century to the 1960s. Since 1972, the year of the Nixon landslide, the Democratic share has grown 20 percent or more in most of the largest urban counties.

    As a result, places where Republicans such as Ronald Reagan could once win a respectable share of the vote — including San Francisco, Philadelphia and New York City — by 2004 were delivering 80 percent or more to the Democrats. Even in the losing year of 2004, Democratic nominee John F. Kerry won almost every city of more than 500,000 people.

    This fall, Barack Obama, a resident of Chicago, can comfortably expect to triumph in virtually every major urban county, often by ratios of 2-to-1 or more. He can count just as much on cities in decline as he can on those that have been gentrified; he will rack up big margins both in heavily white core counties such as those around Minneapolis and Portland, Ore., as well as overwhelmingly minority Baltimore, Philadelphia and the Bronx, N.Y.

    Race and income levels do not explain the emerging urban mono­culture, because the cause lies elsewhere: in the evolution of cities over the past four decades. The shift began in the late 1960s, when urban regions, from financial centers such as New York and Chicago to old industrial cities such as Detroit and Cleveland, began to suffer a massive exodus of predominantly white, middle-class residents.

    This left behind an increasingly impoverished, highly minority population with very little proclivity to support conservative or even moderate Republicans. Today in some cities — mostly old industrial centers in the East and Midwest — this population remains dominant and is likely to vote in huge numbers for Obama. Most of these cities suffer poverty rates at least 50 percent higher than the national average.

    At the same time, some other cities — such as New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland — have done far better. They have done so by attracting a population of well-educated, white professionals. Pockets of this demographic, to be sure, also exist in some hard-hit industrial cities, but the new urban affluents tend to concentrate in cities with industries, such as financial services and media, that provide excitement and the prospect of high-wage employment in a glamorous setting.

    Many new urbanites tend to be students or professionals enjoying city life during their first, highly experimental years of adulthood. At this point, they are most open to liberal ideas and causes; they have yet to worry much about taxes and crime, issues that drive people to the center. As they grow older, marry and raise families, many in this cohort — particularly those who do not ascend into the upper classes — leave the urban core for the suburbs or other more affordable regions.

    Yet if the urban base — roughly 30 percent of the population — offers Obama a huge edge in the election, he must not identify too much as an urban candidate. In the past, the danger for Democrats lay in being perceived as paying too much heed to poor, minority voters. Fortunately, Obama, as an African-American, has little need to compete for their affections.

    More tempting, however, might be to embrace the emerging agenda of the benefactors of gentrification: powerful real estate interests and other groups. Among them are vocal constituencies who are openly hostile to people in suburbs and small cities. This ideology first emerged in 2004 in John Sperling’s “Retro vs. Metro” thesis, which envisioned the eventual triumph of a sophisticated urban population over backward-seeming rural, small town and suburban constituencies.

    An even clearer example of this urbanist ideology came in the wake of Kerry’s 2004 defeat, largely at the hands of rural, small-town and exurban “retro” voters. Editors of The Stranger, a Seattle alternative weekly, pointed out in an article that “if the cities elected our president, if urban voters determined the outcome, John F. Kerry would have won by a landslide.” Their solution was not to reach out to the other geographies, but to build an “urban identity politics” to counter Republicans’ hold over suburban and rural voters.

    “From here on out, we’re glad red-state rubes live in areas where guns are more powerful and more plentiful, cars are larger and faster, and people are fatter and slower and dumber,” The Stranger proclaimed. Given the editors’ uninhibited sense of superiority, they felt confident that in the emerging Darwinian struggle, the suburban and exurban Neanderthals would be forced to give way to the clear superiority of the urban Cro-Magnons.

    Since 2004, this ideology has become stronger, ironically bolstered by two bubbles fostered by President Bush’s fiscal policy: the boom in city condominium development and the rapid expansion of the financial services industry. Even as 80 percent to 90 percent of metropolitan growth redounded to the suburbs, the rising affluence of the urban cores persuaded the media that cities were not only back but were also reasserting their historic ascendance over the periphery.

    In recent months, the city-centered media such as CNN, The New York Times and National Public Radio have jumped on the urbanist bandwagon. They have promoted urban chauvinists’ contention that high gas prices and legislation to limit global warming would end the era of dispersion. This return to a more urbanized demography, some Democratic bloggers suggest, would assure a new liberal ascendancy.

    Whatever Obama may believe personally, he would be well-advised to distance himself from such sentiments. For one thing, identifying with people who celebrate the demise of other geographies may offend the majority of Americans who prefer to live in “retro,” lower-density environments. Suburb- and countryside-bashing may turn on editors and readers of The New York Times, but it hardly constitutes good politics.

    In terms of political strategy, Obama would be far better off stressing the commonalities between people in differing geographies. His time on the campaign trail should tell him that laid-off paper industry workers in central Wisconsin, hard-pressed suburban homeowners in San Bernardino, Calif., and struggling inner city residents in Brooklyn have ample cause to reject an extension of Republican rule. Why repeat the Bush tactic of dividing people from each other, this time based on where they choose to live, when the economic misery is so well-distributed?

    By displaying genuine empathy for Americans living in suburbs and small towns as well as in cities, Obama could achieve more than a small tactical victory, à la Karl Rove. With a strong showing in the other geographies as well as his inevitable landslide in cities, he could instead realize a historic triumph closer to Rooseveltian proportions.

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of www.newgeography.com. Mark Schill is the website’s managing editor and a community strategy consultant with Praxis Strategy Group.

    This article originally appeared at Politico.

    Other articles in the Three Geographies Series:
    The Three Geographies
    Rural America could bring boon to Dems
    Suburbs will decide the election

  • Cities are Changing, But Urban Living Remains Optional

    Starting with the first oil crisis in 1973, it’s become de rigueur for the press to accompany every spike in energy prices with a spate of stories explaining how the higher costs will inevitably lead to the revival of the long declining industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest. But don’t count on a boom in Baltimore or Cleveland anytime soon.

    This iteration’s model might be the June 25 New York Times article entitled “Fuel Prices Shift Math for Life in Far Suburbs,” neatly encapsulated in the photo caption, “As gas prices climb, people who once considered an exurban commute are now considering center-city living.”

    Such wishful thinking from news reporters, who live in cities, and urban planners, who have an even more direct stake in them, enhanced by the mortgage crisis and the presidential election, has obscured the fundamentals that will continue to determine where people choose to live and, by extension, which cities thrive. Job demand, tax levels, well-provided services — especially garbage, police, transportation infrastructure and schools — and a resilient and diversified job base remain key.

    In New York, for example, even as the economy has grown since 9/11, it still has less jobs than it did on September 10, 2001, meaning the city now depends on a relative handful of high-paying positions, and is at the mercy of a relative handful of large employers and very well-paid employees.

    As job growth continues to occur mostly on the periphery, where space is cheaper and taxes tend to be lower and the inclination is to fight to attract businesses, not see how much tax and fee money can be extracted from them without inspiring them to leave, people still have options. And despite the cries of the New Urbanists, it’s not always the easiest thing to go from, say, one part of Chicago to another. To the extent that job growth occurs mostly on the periphery, people still have options, and clustering in the exurbs seems more likely than a mass return to the center.

    While white flight seems to have stabilized, city life remains most appealing to the youngest and oldest members of the middle class — meaning those without children or whose children have left the home. In short, urban living remains an appealing, but optional mode of existence most appealing to the very poor, the very rich, young singles and older empty nesters.

    There are, though, a few new and relatively little-noticed developments in play that will have dramatic and unpredictable effects on the urban experience over the next several decades. Here are three worth tracking:

    • Telecommuting. High gas plays into it, but more generally there’s little reason to have many workers sharing a physical space, purchased or rented by their employers, for 40 hours a week. Expect a new model that compels many information workers, in the broadest definition, to show up for a day or two a week for face time, but otherwise to rent shared work spaces or to work from their homes. While this trend may have begun with freelancers bringing laptops and surge protectors into Starbucks, much more is coming, even if the trend has been retarded by the reluctance of managers to serve as early adaptors to the trend.

      The upshot will be a retrofitting of office space to residential use, which will serve as a countervailing pressure to sky-high residential rents in high-demand cities like New York and Chicago, while adding to the excess unoccupied inventory in shrinking cities. Purchasers will benefit from lower prices, but the repurposing of hundreds of millions of square feet should be a serious damper on the new construction industry and market.

    • Intelligent pricing (sunk costs raised). Bloomberg’s slap-dash congestion pricing plan may have happily gone down, but other more serious ones with elements like congestion parking and variable fees will emerge. The danger here can be seen in one early, if clumsy, example of this trend—smoking taxes, which were pushed through, as were smoking bans, through arguments about the sunk health costs smokers incur.

      The trouble, of course, is that any time fees are used both to influence behavior and to generate revenue, the need for money eventually trumps all other goals.

    • Continued reductions in privacy. London is again the model city here, but really this is a national and international trend. As governments are able to collect and store more information, they will, and information that can translate into imperative and immediate actions naturally consolidates in the executive branch. DNA databases, fingerprinting, security camera footage, phone record and even metrocards and EZ passes, along with storage and sifting of publicly accessible information, will redefine privacy downward, even as civil rights-and-liberties types fight a rear-guard battle against a technological fait accompli. Much as governments will always spend all of the monies available to them, they will collect and use such information.

    Working out safeguards — and reporting on already accomplished abuses — will be a major sport in years to come, and will likely bring down at least one national-profile big city mayor in the next decade.

    Harry Siegel is an editor for Politico.

  • Millennials: A Quick Overview

    Perhaps nothing will shape the future of the country more than the emergence of the so-called Millennial generation. They have already put their stamp on the election, as Carl Cannon suggests in his insightful article in Reader’s Digest, becoming a key driver for Senator Barack Obama’s Presidential run.

    But as Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, authors of the best-selling “Millenial Makeover,” point out, the Millennial generation — roughly those born between 1983 and 2003 — represent far more than a rerun of 60s’ generation liberalism. They share as well many traditionalist views about home, family and religion that may impact the nation’s geography and attitudes on everything from race relations to suburbia for decades to come.

    Not everyone is thrilled with the current celebration of Millennials. Some, like the insightful Lisa Chamberlain point out that many of the optimistic predictions made for her generation — the so-called Xers — turned out to be off target. She maintains that powerful outside influences, such as high energy prices, may constrain the normative optimism widely identified with the Millennials.

    But however they might turn out, one thing is certain: by the sheer weight of numbers the Millennials will shape the nation in profound ways. By 2010 this generation will be entering adulthood and will equal or surpass the boomers. They will become the new force in the housing market, forming the base for a new wave of homeowners.

    Although it is far too early to predict where they will settle, authors Winograd and Hais argue, the first groups of older Millennials appear to be following their predecessors to the suburbs. They point out that this group values homeownership even more than earlier generations, seems more amenable to living near their parents and have expressed strong interest in raising children.

    Of course, other factors, as Lisa Chamberlain argues, could force the Millennials to live more in dense urban areas. The imposition of draconian planning regimes — in part based on the idea that suburbs promote global warming — could leave them with little other choice. And finally land prices could force suburban developers to densify and all but eliminate the single-family residence.

    But history suggests none of this is likely. People will locate in those areas that provide quality of life, affordable housing and economic opportunity. Our snapshot of educated Millennials between 25 and 30, which may be considered the vanguard of that generation, shows a preference for the generally affordable Western and Sunbelt regions like Charlotte, Austin, Denver, Portland, Riverside-San Bernardino, Phoenix and Dallas.

    One place on balance the older Millennials are not going: the big metropolitan areas of California and the Northeast. In 2006, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston all lost more educated Millennials than they gained. As the impact of the financial meltdown shifts to these cities, particularly the financial centers, this trend could accelerate, particularly in the New York area.

    Yet in the end, predicting the future is a tricky business. In the hippy heyday of 1968 few people would have expected the Boomers to follow their parents into suburbia and, as a group, flock to the banner of Ronald Reagan and become the bulkwark of a great conservative resurgence. That’s why, while it’s always good to tap as much good data as possible, prognostication remains more as an art than a science.

    Joel Kotkin is Executive Editor of www.newgeography.com.

  • Which Cities Will the High Cost of Energy Hurt (and Help) the Most?

    A high cost energy future will profoundly impact the cost of doing business and create new opportunities, but not necessarily in the way most people expect.

    By Joel Kotkin and Michael Shires

    The New York Times, the Atlantic Monthly and the rest of the establishment press have their answer: big cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco will win out. Our assessment is: not so fast. There’s a lot about the unfolding energy economy that is more complex than commonly believed, and could have consequences that are somewhat unanticipated.

    On the plus side there are some undoubted winners — those areas that produce energy and those with energy expertise. What’s working for Moscow, St. Petersburg, Calgary, Edmonton, and Dubai is also working for the U.S. energy regions as well. Not surprisingly, many are located deep in the heart of Texas. This includes not only big cities like energy mega-capital Houston but a host of smaller ones, like high-flyers Midland, Odessa and Longview.

    But it’s not just Texas cities that are winning. A host of other places have strong ties to energy production and exploration — Salt Lake City, Denver, and the North Dakota cities of Bismarck, Fargo, and Grand Forks. And it’s not just oil: The U.S. Great Plains have also been described as “the Saudi Arabia of wind.” If the right incentives are put in place, a wind-belt from west Texas to the Canadian border could be produce new jobs, both in building mills and also for the industries — manufacturers, computer-related companies — that will harness the relatively cheap energy.

    Alternative renewal energy producers in biofuels, thermal, and hydro-electric will also become big business. The Sierra Nevada cities like Reno could benefit from thermal; the Pacific Northwest’s hydro-power gives places like Portland, Seattle, and a host of smaller communities — Wenatchee, Bend, Olympia — a great competitive advantage in terms of dependable, low cost and low carbon energy.

    How about the big cities and metros that consume less energy? It seems logical that San Francisco, D.C., Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and New York should have an advantage over other cities and their suburban hinterlands; these cities, especially New York, have higher than average transit use. San Francisco and Los Angeles enjoy milder climates requiring less air conditioning and heating.

    But these advantages are somewhat mitigated by the fact that these same cities often pay far more for energy than their rivals. Electricity in New York, notes an upcoming study by the New York-based Center for an Urban Future, costs twice the national average. California cities also suffer much higher prices — almost 50 percent higher than their counterparts in the Midwest. So even if you use considerably less energy, you might end up paying more. Being a big, dense city clearly has advantages, but they too often are squandered by aging infrastructure, lack of new plants and high business costs.

    One other problem for big Northern cities: colder regions will feel the ripple in local economies as the impact of high heating bills is felt next winter. A cold winter will push northeastern city-dwellers to join the chorus of complaints now voiced by drivers in auto-heavy Sunbelt states like Florida and California.

    Nor is it certain suburban areas will do so much worse in tough energy times. Studies of commuting patterns in Chicago and Los Angeles show that many suburbs thirty miles or more from their downtowns — places like Naperville, Illinois and Thousand Oaks or Irvine, California — have shorter commutes than most inner-ring urbanites. This is a result of the movement of jobs to “nodes” on the periphery over the past 30 years.

    Another kind of area that will do well are those that have well-developed telecommuter economies. In Los Angeles, notes California State University at Los Angeles geographer Ali Modarres, telecommuters are concentrated not only in places like Santa Monica, but also in sections of the San Fernando Valley (which has most of the region’s entertainment workers) as well as further out inu highly educated communities like Thousand Oaks and Irvine. In the long run, the best and most energy efficient commute is none at all.

    So who are the losers? Certainly some of the distant outer suburbs, like the high desert communities far east of Los Angeles, which lack jobs for their residents, and suffer longer than average commutes. Also hurt will be poorer inner city areas where workers have to commute, by transit or car, over great distances. Sadly, it’s many of the communities that have already suffered the most. The changeover to lower mileage vehicles will be particularly tough on those communities that produce SUVs and trucks — places like Flint, Michigan; Ft. Wayne Indiana; and Janesville, Wisconsin.

    But there are also some auto centers that are likely to do better. Just follow where low-mileage vehicles, particularly those built by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and the Korean makers, are either being built or planned. This is mostly a southern play — Tupelo, Mississippi; Nashville, Tennessee; and Georgetown, Kentucky, site of the largest Toyota plant outside Japan.

    Economic change has always impacted America’s communities. But with the current energy price surge, we may find that “creative destruction” may be sweeping through many communities even faster than we anticipated.

    Cities and Oil Prices: The Winners and The Losers

    For most places, it’s hard to tell what the long-term effect of the high cost of energy might be. But there are some fairly safe bets.

    Two kinds of areas tend to perform best in a harsh energy environment. One is the energy-producing cities, whose place at the top of this list should come as no surprise. Another, though it may take a bit longer to emerge, may be those cities that are sites for production of fuel-efficient vehicles. These tend to be located in parts of the country — Texas, the Southeast, and the Great Plains — that have lower energy costs and more favorable business climates.

    Winners:

    1. Houston: This is one town where $150 a barrel gasoline is viewed more as an opportunity than an atrocity. Not that Houstonians don’t drive — like other Texans, they tend toward the profligate in energy use. But prices are not terribly high by national standards and, more to the point, energy is producing lots of high wage jobs here for both blue- and white-collar workers. As headquarters to sixteen large energy firms — far more than New York, Dallas, and Los Angeles combined — Houston, which ranks No. 4 on our list of the best large cities to do business, provides an irresistible lure to hundreds of smaller firms specializing in everything from shipping and distribution of energy, to trading, exploration and geological modeling.
    2. Midland-Odessa, Texas: Houston is no longer the oil production center it once was, but the twin cities of Midland (No. 1 on our Best Cities list overall and among small cities) and Odessa (No. 4 on the list of small cities) certainly are. The two cities, only 20 miles apart in the energy rich Permian Basin, experienced hard times when energy prices dropped. Office buildings went empty, and people fled. But now the big problem is finding enough labor to keep the rigs going. Boomtimes are back — and only a dramatic change in the energy markets will slow them down.
    3. Bismarck, North Dakota: No. 30 on our Best Cities list of small cities, Bismarck may be in the early stages of a big time expansion. It’s the closest “big” city to the rapidly developing Bakken range — rich with oil and shale deposits — and already enjoys the advantages of being the capitol of a state that boasts a $1 billion surplus. North Dakota’s biofuels, wind, and coal industries also make the city a natural focal point for Great Plains energy. As in Midland-Odessa, the biggest constraint may well prove to be the availability of labor.
    4. The Mid-south Autobelt: The shift to smaller cars may seem dismal in Detroit, but it’s pure joy to much of the mid-South. Foreign companies specializing in energy efficient vehicles — Volkswagen, Kia, Honda, Nissan — are concentrated in a belt running from Nashville (No. 18 on the large metro list) and Chattanooga (No. 59 on midsize list) in Tennessee to Huntsville, Alabama (No. 5 on the midsize list). Local universities in the area are also getting into the act, with several cooperating in an automotive research alliance.

    Our list of losers is all too familiar. Basically, these are areas dominated by America’s weak automakers and are particularly wedded to the SUVs and trucks that are losing market share at an astonishing rate. Most fall in states that are strong union bastions, have relatively high energy prices, and get much of their energy from coal, a fuel that’s even less popular with environmentalists than oil is.

    Losers:

    1. Detroit: The center of the American auto industry ranks dead last, No. 66, on our big city list. The Motor City’s legacy as headquarters town for the former Big Three is now its biggest headache. It’s not just factory workers being hurt here; Detroit is where much of the technical, manufacturing, and design talent base of the U.S. auto industry resides. It’s also where ad agencies, law firms, and other high-end business service providers to the industry cluster. All have taken big hits over the last few years, which has led to increased out-migration, high rates of foreclosure and a deteriorating fiscal situation.
    2. Flint, Michigan: No. 171 on the small city list, just two from the bottom, Flint seems to make more and more of what Americans don’t want. In 2006, it made more than 170,000 pickup trucks; it’s doubtful it will see that level of production for a long time to come. And this is a place that was hurting even before gas prices went up. Over 40 percent of all manufacturing jobs disappeared between 2002 and 2007.
    3. Ft. Wayne, Indiana: Compared to Flint or Detroit, Ft. Wayne (No. 85 on the mid-sized list) is not doing too badly. Between 2002 and 2007 manufacturing employment dropped only 2.5 percent. The big problem is the future of the industrial sector. Ft. Wayne made 200,000 pickup trucks in 2006. It’s hard to see many of these jobs surviving if energy prices stay high.
    4. Janesville, Wisconsin: No. 92 on the small list, the Janesville plant manufactures GMC Yukon, the Yukon XL, the Chevy Tahoe, and the Suburban. Although more than 200,000 SUVs were produced at this plant in 2006, the plant will close by the end of 2010. The largest private employer in Janesville is Mercy Health Systems. Being in Wisconsin helps — the state is in better shape than Midwest neighbors such as Michigan and Ohio.

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of Newgeography.com.

    Michael Shires, Ph.D. is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.