New Geography

Blog

  • The Asian Urban Ascendancy

    Urbanization doubtlessly has been the most significant demographic trend in the world for at least a century and promises to become even more significant in the future. The trend began in the United States and Western Europe as people moved by the millions from the countryside to the urban areas, where employment and a better life were possible.

    World Urbanization: By 1950, approximately 30% of the world’s population lived in urban areas (that is they did not live in rural areas). The number has passed 50% in the last few years and the United Nations estimates that 60% of the population will live in urban areas by 2030. Today, China has approximately the same urban population share as did the United States 100 years ago (45%), and will reach 60% by 2030. Even with its slow population growth, China will add 270 million people to its urban areas by 2030. Only 30% of India’s population is urban, which will increase to 40% by 2030. This apparently modest increase will amount to 250 million new urban residents. Thus, combined, China and India will add about 60% more population to their urban areas than live in the United States today.

    As late as 1950, 10 of the world’s 20 largest urban areas were in the United States or Europe. Asia accounted for 6. There was only two “megacities” (urban area with a population of more than 10 million), New York and Tokyo. Over the next 50 years, Tokyo signaled the urban ascendancy of Asia, adding more than 20 million people, a larger population than lived in the second largest urban area in 2000.

    Demographia World Urban Areas: The continuing Asian urban ascendancy is illustrated in our 6th Annual Edition of Demographia World Urban Areas. This list includes all identified urban areas (Note) in the world with more than 500,000 population, and, unlike other lists estimates the urban land area and population density of each.

    Things have changed markedly since 1950. Now, 13 of the 20 largest urban areas in the world are in Asia. Only three are in the United States or Europe (New York, Los Angeles and Moscow). For the first time in at least 200 years, none of the top 5 urban areas in the world are in the United States or Europe. Now, all five of the largest urban areas in the world are in Asia. There are now 26 megacities, up from 2 in 1950. At current growth rates, there could be 39 megacities by 2030, only five of which will be in the United States or Europe (New York, Los Angeles, Moscow, Paris and Chicago)

    Tokyo remains the largest urban area (35.2 million) in the world, far larger than any other. Yet, with a slow growth rate, Tokyo is predicted to increase to only 36.0 million by 2030 and could be displaced by Jakarta.

    Jakarta is estimated to be the world’s second largest urban area, with 22.0 million people. This is a larger population than indicated on some lists, which fail to include all of the suburbs within the urban footprint. At currently projected growth rates, Jakarta could edge out Tokyo to become the largest urban area in the world by 2030, at 37.0 million. Jakarta is also unique in having adopted an official metropolitan area name, Jabotabek (taken from JAkarta, along with the large suburban municipalities of BOgor, TAngerang and BEKasi).

    Mumbai ranks third with a population of 21.3 million. Some demographers expect that Mumbai could become the largest urban area in the world eventually. The trends suggest that it will not even prevail as India’s largest urban area, falling to fifth in the world, behind Delhi. Currently projected growth rates indicate a population of 31.4 million by 2030.

    Delhi is the fourth largest urban area, with a population of 21.0 million. Like Jakarta, Delhi’s population is often under-estimated by limiting its urbanization to the National Capital Territory. However, the large, adjacent suburbs of Faridibad, Ghaziabad and Nodia add considerably to estimates. At projected growth rates, Delhi could have 32.8 million people by 2030 and be ranked as the fourth largest urban area in the world.

    Manila ranks fifth and is another urban area often characterized as having a smaller population than the reality. Various lists confine Manila to the National Capital District, which has about 11 million people. This is rather like thinking of the Toronto area as confined within the city limits of Toronto, missing half of the urban area population. In fact, the urban organism in Manila (and Toronto) extends to where the rural areas begin, and that gives Manila a population of 20.8 million. The currently projected growth rate indicates that Manila could reach 34.1 million by 2030, to rank third in the world.

    Predictions are Just Predictions: Of course projections are speculative and often do not come true. Before the 1985 earthquake, for example, many demographers expected Mexico City to become the largest urban area in the world. Since that time, Mexico City has grown, but not at the spectacular rate that was expected. In 1985, Mexico City was the third largest urban area in the world. Today Mexico City ranks 9th and could fall to 12th by 2030.

    New York, which had been the perennial leader from early in the 20th century to 1950, fell to 6th place in 2010 and looks likely to fall further, to 10th in 2030. London, which had led the world from the early 19th century until New York assumed the top position, fell from 3rd place in 1950, to 29th in 2010 and could fall to 46th by 2030.

    Urban Land Area: Housing and serving 10 million or more people takes a lot of space. The New York urban area covers the largest land area in the world, at 4,300 square miles (11,300 square kilometers), followed by Tokyo (3,400/8,700), Chicago (2,300/6,000), Los Angeles (2,200/5,800) and Boston (2,100/5,500). Another 17 urban areas cover more than 1,000 square miles or 2,500 square kilometers (such as Paris, Sao Paulo, Mexico City and Buenos Aires).

    Urban Density: Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, has been growing very rapidly and especially its high-density slum or shanty town population, which can reach densities as high as 2,500,000 per square mile (1,000,000 per square kilometer). Dhaka is estimated to be the densest urban area in the world, with more than 100,000 people per square mile (40,000 per square kilometer). The “historical accident” city-states of Hong Kong and Macao are in a virtual three way tie with Mumbai (65,000/25,000), followed by Surat (India) at 55,000/21,000. The highest US urban area density is in Los Angeles, at 6,400/2,500; while Western Europe’s highest urban area density is in Madrid, at 14,100/5,400.

    Of course, as the Dhaka case indicates, average densities can mask huge variations. The differences in density (density gradients) tend to be the greatest in developing world urban areas, where shantytown densities can be substantially greater than the Lower East Side of New York in 1910. However, average urban densities are the appropriate overall density measure for the urban organism, which includes everything from the core of the urban area, through the suburbs, ending at the countryside.

    Of Urbanization and Aspiration: Much has been written about the challenges of urbanization and it is clear they are accelerating. UN estimates indicate that virtually all of the population increase in the world will be in urban areas between 2010 and 2030. There is a simple reason for this. The urban areas are far better places to live, even for low income people, than rural areas. This is because urban areas have strong economies. If conditions were better outside the urban areas, then the millions who have migrated to the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo would long since have returned to their roots in northeastern Brazil. Jakarta and Karachi would be emptying out. Urban areas will continue to grow strongly, because people are driven by their aspirations, which are far better served in the urban areas.

    Note: An urban area is an urban agglomeration or an urban footprint (area of continuous development). An urban area is the organism of the “city” in its spatial dimension. A metropolitan area is the organism of a city in its economic dimension and includes labor market areas that extend beyond the urban area. Census authorities in a number of nations have adopted similar definitions for urban areas (Examples are United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Norway, Sweden and Australia). Demographia World Urban Areas uses national census bureau data for both population and land area estimates where it is available and estimates urban land area from satellite imagery for all others, applying the international urban area criteria to the greatest possible extent.

    Photograph: Suburban Manila

    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.”

  • Immigrants Key to Economy’s Revival

    In Washington on Sunday, the tens of thousands of demonstrators demanding immigration reform looked like the opening round of the last thing the country needs now: another big debate on a divisive issue.

    Yet Congress seems ready to take on immigration, which has been dividing Americans since the republic was founded.

    But identifying immigrants as a “them,” as both their advocates and nativists do, misses the point. Immigrants — and their children — are the people who will help define the future “us.” They are also critical to the revival of the U.S. economy.

    This is particularly true on the entrepreneurial frontier.

    Overall, some of the country’s highest rates of entrepreneurship are found among immigrants from the Middle East, Cuba, South Korea and countries of the former Soviet Union. These recent arrivals regularly build new businesses — from street-level bodegas to the most sophisticated technology firms.

    Immigrants started one-quarter of all venture-backed public companies between 1990 and 2005. In addition, large U.S. firms are increasingly led by executives with roots in foreign countries, including 14 CEOs of the 2007 Fortune 100.

    Nowhere is this contribution more critical than in our major cities, many of which would be economically destitute without these immigrant communities.

    In Los Angeles County, for example, the self-employment rate among immigrants is more than 10 percent — almost twice that for the native-born. Nationwide, according to the last economic census, the number of all Latino establishments increased by nearly three times the national average, while those owned by all Asians expanded by two times.

    Immigrant contributions extend across a range of activities, from retail and food to culture. Asian immigrants, like the Italians and Jews before them, have concentrated in specific niche markets and then expanded beyond historic ghettos.

    Asian Indians, who began emigrating in large numbers starting in the 1970s, specialized in hotels and motels across the country. South Koreans opened greengroceries in New York and Los Angeles. Vietnamese became known for nail parlors, and Cambodians for doughnut stores. Overall, Asian enterprises expanded at roughly twice the national average in the first years of the new century.

    Perhaps most remarkable has been the movement of Asian immigrants into technology. In California, they account for a majority of such firms. Regions at the center of the high-tech economy — including Silicon Valley, Orange County and parts of suburban Seattle — are now heavily Asian-American. Although most of these new companies are small, some have grown sizable. The founders of Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, AST Research and Solectron are all of Asian descent — and are largely immigrants.

    This immigrant experience, says John Tu, president and co-founder of Kingston Technologies, the world’s largest independent producer of computer memory, has forced them to think differently.

    “The key thing is,” Tu said, “being an immigrant makes you flexible. … IBM, Apple and Compaq were inflexible. They told the memory customers: Take it or leave it. We thought about the customer and the relationship with the employees. I guess we didn’t know any better.”

    Yet the immigrant contribution goes beyond high-tech. In the years ahead, these new Americans, nonwhites and the “blended” population could reshape the national marketplace. Taken together, purchases by Asians, African-Americans and Native Americans, according to the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia, have exploded, growing far more rapidly than the national average.

    Combined with Latinos, these minorities could account for more than $2.5 trillion by 2010 — nearly one in every $4 of U.S. consumer spending.

    Perhaps nothing better illustrates these changes — and immigrants’ effect on daily life — than the shifts in that most basic of industries: food.
    In the old paradigm, ethnic groups such as Italians might cook traditional foods, like pizza, for their compatriots. Then, in a generation or two, they would reach out to the mainstream population. Meanwhile, immigrants, and particularly their children, acclimated to “American fare” like McDonald’s.

    But today, the shift from ethnic niche to mainstream is rapid. In Houston, once dominated by Southern cuisine, nearly one in three restaurants — overwhelmingly small, family-run businesses — serves Mexican or Asian cuisine. They account for more establishments than all the hamburger, barbecue and Italian restaurants put together.

    Nationwide, while pizza, hamburger and other traditional fast-food restaurants have stagnated, new chains selling quick, inexpensive Asian or Mexican food have flourished. Consider the successful Panda Express, started and owned by immigrants.

    By embracing, and being embraced by, immigrants, America can continue to build on its diversity. This allows the nation to retain its youthfulness, tap the global market and provide critical new spurs to innovation.

    America increasingly resembles Walt Whitman’s description, “not merely a nation, but a teeming Nation of nations.” The mid-21st-century United States can reflect that description — and aspiration — to our substantial long-term benefit.

    This article first appeared at Politico.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

    Photo by SEIU International

  • A Big Company Recovery?

    After the release of the 2009 fourth-quarter GDP estimate, some forecasters are now predicting a rapid recovery in 2010. Certainly, the fourth-quarter growth rate was impressive, particularly following the modest pickup reflected in the third-quarter results and the terrible results of the previous several quarters. Implicitly, these optimistic forecasts are based on the assumption that the United States economy has been fundamentally unchanged by the recession.

    I suppose an assumption that the economy has been fundamentally changed in a good way could motivate a positive forecast, but I’ve not seen anyone make that argument. If someone does, I’d like the chance to debate them. We certainly haven’t addressed the too-big-to-fail problem, the bank health issue, or Fed-induced moral hazard problem created by Greenspan’s repeated easing in response to market declines.

    On the other hand, we are promised increased regulation for many sectors and higher taxes. I’d like to know which sectors, besides legal and accounting perhaps, were the winners, and how they are poised for imminent booms.

    If the economy is unchanged, we would expect to see economic growth in small businesses, and a recovery in real estate markets and construction. I don’t see how that happens. I have a hard time seeing how the flow of capital to small businesses can be restored soon, and imagining a near-term robust real-estate and construction recovery is even harder, while foreclosures are still climbing and homeownership rates still high.

    Given these facts, most forecasts these days are, unsurprisingly, more modest. Forecasts of tepid economic growth with slow job gains are typical. Some are more pessimistic, anticipating a new slowdown brought about by increasing taxes or new financial crises.

    Certainly, the United States faces continued economic challenges. When one looks more closely at the past-two-quarter’s GDP estimates, it is difficult not to conclude that they were elevated by temporary factors, such as home-buying incentives, auto buying incentives, and inventory changes.

    Other data compel one to even less sanguine conclusions. Bank charge-offs, driven by weak real estate markets and weak economic activity, are still climbing, hitting new records every quarter. Jobs are still being lost, albeit at slower rates than those disastrous rates we saw in 2009’s first half. Residential foreclosures are still climbing. Many commercial real estate markets appear to be collapsing. Normalized TED spreads, the cost of an incremental increase in risk, are still high, implying continued risk aversion among market participants.

    The human costs of this recession have been even greater. About 15 million Americans are unemployed, over half of whom have been unemployed for 19 weeks. That doesn’t include the almost-five-million discouraged workers who have left the job market, or the over-nine million who are underemployed, involuntarily working at jobs below their capabilities or part time.

    The employment numbers are sobering, but they don’t do justice to the personal costs those without gainful work are enduring. The average unemployment duration is now about 30 weeks. Many of our new workers and long-term unemployed will never see their careers recover. Instead, they will toil at jobs below their abilities, earning lower salaries than would have been the case without the recession.

    For the rest of us, these workers represent underutilized human capital, perhaps even a financial burden. They imply slower long-term economic growth and suggest our economy has undergone a fundamental change.

    The magnitude and duration of unemployment are not the only changes we’ve seen. It appears that, for the next decade at least, the potential growth of small business has changed, for the worse.

    Many of our banks are essentially zombies, existing, but incapable of serving an economic purpose, and I see no initiative to fix the banks. Small businesses need financial intermediation to grow. They cannot grow without an active and vigorous banking sector. Big business, with its direct access to capital markets, does not need financial intermediation. It can grow without an active and vigorous banking sector.

    Big business also operates, if it is big enough, with a free insurance policy against failure. Some big businesses are not big enough to be considered too big to fail, but many of them are large enough to attract or lobby for subsidies or government protection.

    Small businesses, on the other hand, are on their own. No one insures or subsidizes small business. Few even notice when a small business fails.

    Big businesses are also likely to benefit from an increased regulatory environment. Proportionately, the compliance burden is far less for larger businesses than small businesses. Regulation often serves as a tax on entrepreneurs, but a boon for big company bureaucrats.

    Yet we cannot expect big business to rescue or re-invent the economy since they have little stake in pushing the envelope on innovation. Big businesses tend to be bureaucratic and risk averse. They do not innovate.

    However, small businesses are key to economic innovation and growth. There is a reason that the computer business is dominated by relatively young firms such as Microsoft and Google, instead of IBM. There is a reason that the old, protected, United States automobile companies couldn’t compete when the younger and more nimble, Japanese manufacturers entered the market with the higher-quality and more fuel efficient products.

    If the balance between large and small companies has been changed, fundamentally and at least semi-permanently, we are in big trouble. As our small firms are being stymied, the fundamental potential United States economic growth rate has shifted down, and the “natural” unemployment rate has shifted up. That is, we can expect slower growth and higher unemployment that we have become accustomed to in the past-unless somehow economic policy again favors entrepreneurs over corporate and government bureaucracies.

    Bill Watkins is a professor at California Lutheran University and runs the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting, which can be found at clucerf.org.

    Photo by Angela Radulescu

  • Economic Developer

  • The Not-So-Lucky Country

    President Obama’s last-minute decision to postpone his homecoming to Indonesia and a trip to Australia expands the list of friendly countries–which include France, the U.K. and most of Eastern Europe–that have received a presidential snub. Yet in putting off his Australia trip, Obama will also miss an opportunity to commune with the politician whom he most closely resembles.

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, like Obama, symbolizes a distinct shift in his country’s politics. Replacing the rough-hewn but long-serving Liberal Party leader John Howard, Rudd offered sophisticated Australians a better reflection of their own savoir faire, much as Obama restored the self-image of America’s Bush-wracked educated classes. Like Obama, Rudd is widely seen as smart and worldly as well as perhaps a bit rude and arrogant.

    On a more serious note, Rudd reflects a shift from the country’s foreign policy orientation, which historically focused on British and, later, American ties. Like Obama, Rudd has little patience for the old ties to the English-speaking world. A confirmed sinophile, Rudd clearly sees the sun rising in the east–or in his case, the north. He has made no bones of his post-European perspective and his interest of aligning his country closer to Beijing.

    Indeed the affection of Rudd, a former diplomat fluent in Mandarin, for things Chinese worries some Australians, given the Middle Kingdom’s increasingly assertive authoritarianism.. His coziness with the Communist Party bosses has provided fodder for clever comic videos from down under.

    Also like President Obama, Rudd epitomizes the ascendancy of a new “progressive” educated class in Australia that has little allegiance to the traditional notions of what constitutes “the good life” for the vast majority of citizens. Down under–even more than in America–the “good life” generally means a suburban home with a backyard.

    In contrast, Rudd’s core supporters are disgusted by what they see as a wasteful, anti-social suburban sprawl. Like their counterparts here in North America, they have embraced a climate change agenda that, as part of its dogma, seeks to densify Australia’s cities.

    Although the Labour Party’s roots lay with the working class and private sector unions, New City co-editor John Muscat contends that the Rudd Labour Party has transformed into an instrument of the bureaucracy and “progressive” gentry. The latter includes academics, green activists, media stars and some prominent business interests well-positioned to flourish in a hyper-regulated state.

    The losers, Muscat notes, are the traditional middle- and working-class constituencies of the party. Where the Labour government has in the past sought to help people fulfill their quest for the “Australian dream,” the current leadership plans to make it difficult for them to achieve it. “Green planners,” Muscat says, “engage in a form of class discrimination. The costs of climate change are heaped on outer-suburban working people, who lose jobs, mobility and housing amenity, while the affluent emerge unscathed.”

    Such a result would seem to be unnecessary in a vast country with a population that in 2050 will be smaller than California’s today. Australia has often been called “the lucky country” since its prodigious natural resources and fertile agriculture have long afforded an astonishingly high quality of life for its citizens. This position has been made even stronger as demand for commodities has skyrocketed in recent years, paced largely by demand from China, India and other developing countries.

    Yet now, at precisely the time that the Australian “dream” would appear, if anything, more supportable, the administration and local state governments seem determined to wage war against the aspirations of its own citizens. Strict limits on developing land on the periphery–something supported both by oligopolistic property interests and greens–have been turning Australia from highly affordable to one of the least affordable places to buy a home in the English-speaking world.

    These changes are evident in Sydney, a city that 20 years ago was filled with charming tree-lined, relatively low-density neighborhoods. Strict land regulation has made homes more expensive by restricting new subdivisions further in the periphery; indeed the city is now the second most expensive major housing market, based on income, in the English-speaking world, behind only Vancouver.

    At the same time that suburban housing has been limited, Sydney has allowed the spread of high-rise apartments into formerly bucolic neighborhoods. To many natives it seems less like the very livable old Australia and more like the overcrowded, frenzied new China. Similar policies are infecting other Australian cities, including Melbourne and Perth. As the New City bloggers warn, “Enjoy your country while it still exists.”

    Not surprisingly, the agenda embraced by Rudd, like that of Obama, also has had negative political consequences. Rudd’s attempt to force a “cap and trade” system on his country is problematic given the country’s dependence on fossil fuel and mineral production as well as greenhouse-gas-gushing big agriculture. In December Rudd’s cap and trade proposal was blocked by opposition in the Australian Senate, much as Obama’s cap and trade legislation has been stymied by malcontents, including some in his own party, in the American Senate.

    When they do finally get together, Obama and Rudd could also commiserate on their falling poll numbers. Rudd’s 74% support last year has declined to a new low of 48%. He now runs neck and neck in surveys with the opposition leader, Tony Abbott. Rudd wants to run largely on the issue of climate change, a course that one suspects Barack Obama may not be so deluded as to pursue.

    Of course, Rudd’s gentry liberal politics still play well among Sydney’s media mavens and pundits, just as Obama’s does in similar circles here. But they both are running into strong opposition from voters, with whom their appeal is clearly weakening.

    Ultimately, these two very modern leaders will have to face the consequences of their own worldviews, which are shaped primarily by a belief in the superiority of the prescriptions favored by the highly educated classes .This defines their approaches in everything from foreign policy and climate change to governing how people should live.

    The problem with this philosophy is that neither the U.S. nor Australia functions along the lines of Plato’s Republic, where the enlightened get to rule unhindered by the hoi polloi. Despite the preferences of their betters, citizens in both countries still have a say over what happens to them. This is something that may not bother Rudd’s Chinese Communist allies, but it can prove troublesome for those politicians wishing to take their people places they may not want to go.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

    Photo by London Summit

  • Green Jobs Sink Down Under

    Remember when President Obama declared that insulation was sexy? In the wake of the global economic downturn, a “green jobs” formulation has been launched, not just here, but in every major world capital. While the White House’s financial and rhetorical commitments to the creation of green jobs are significant, no administration has made these policies as central to their government as that of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Australia. The results there should provide a cautionary tale for President Obama, whose trip “Down Under” is currently scheduled for June.

    The creation of “green jobs” fits a simple (if not simplistic) Keynesian/Van Jonesian paradigm: Let’s pay people to retrofit their homes and offices for greater energy efficiency, and in doing so drive down unemployment and green house gas emissions in one fell swoop.

    In Australia, a hastily assembled $2.7 billion(AUS) plan to insulate over two million homes started in July has led to thousands of lay-offs, the electrocution deaths of four insulation installers, almost 100 house fires, and the demotion of Australia’s Environment Minister – former “Midnight Oil” frontman Peter Garrett. It stretches the imagination to think of a national public policy going any more wrong.

    It all seemed so straightforward last summer. In a nation where around half the homes have little to no insulation (partially due to the country’s temperate climes) and emit a significant portion of overall green house gases, the idea of giving Australians a $1,600 credit towards insulating their houses made perfect progressive sense – both ecologically and politically.

    Rudd’s Administration made the insulation plan the centerpiece of a $4 billion “energy efficient homes” package. Treasurer Wayne Swan, in his first address after Australia’s stimulus bill was passed, trotted out Craig Langstone, the owner of a small insulation company. In disturbingly glowing terms, Swan predicted happy days with the green jobs program: “Thinking of Craig Langstone makes me think about what we can do together if we try, the jobs we can create and the jobs we can save.”

    Within a month of the program’s start, problems arose. At their root was a profound breaking of central economic tenets: the laws of supply and demand. The massive and immediate Federal intrusion into the insulation marketplace created significant shortages in supply of materials, as well as of qualified labor, with deadly results. Along with this, it incentivized a huge market for scamming (or “rorting,” as the Aussies say).

    Supplies of standard, paper-backed “pink” insulation sold out across the country, leaving installers to use the much more dangerous foil-based reflective insulation. Stapling this insulation into the tight and dark attics of older homes with exposed wiring became a cruel game of “Australian Roulette”. In October following the first electrocution death of an installer using foil insulation, Malcolm Richards, president of the nation’s Master Electricians Association, forecast more danger ahead based solely on the government program: “In the normal course of events, foil products would not be used,” but with the inflated demand, workers were “grabbing whatever they can lay their hands on.”

    Meanwhile, an international con operation emerged, prompted by the opportunity to earn a quick $1,600. Installers who couldn’t even spell insulation telephoned unsuspecting Australians, urging them to remove their insulation, even though many did not qualify for the program. The Herald Sun recently interviewed a resident of Mount Martha, who received a call from an offshore telemarketer who claimed to work with the Australian Government: “I could barely understand them. They just said they were authorized by the Government. I said I already had insulation, my home was only built in 1995. But they wouldn’t take no for an answer, they said it didn’t matter.”

    There have been hundreds of cases where predominantly older Australians have been duped into having good insulation removed, only to be replaced by an inferior – and, in some instances dangerous – product. Some of these “cowboy” installers paid for their shoddy work and inexperience with their lives, others paid with their “client’s” houses; nearly one hundred homes suffered electrical fires caused by the foil insulation. A recent Federal audit revealed that 16% of homes insulated under the program do not meet government standards, while at least 8% have been made “unsafe”.

    The Rudd government’s initial response to the debacle was deflection, blaming both the installers and even the installation process. After the third installer was electrocuted in early February, Minister Garrett laid the responsibility at the feet of the dead: “Metallic foil is conductive, and when installed incorrectly, without undertaking the mandatory risk assessments and in breach of clear program requirements, this product can be dangerous.”

    Another senior administration official, Robyn Kruk, testified: “With all respect, the strategies were put in place in an industry that has inherent risk,” adding, with words which perhaps deserved more serious deliberation last spring: “There is probably only one way of ensuring a risk free environment in this regard and that is not to go into ceilings to put in place insulation.”

    The fiasco has resulted in the program’s suspension with a possible re-authorization in June.

    And as for the green jobs? Experienced insulation installers have, ironically, been swept up in the program’s failure. Insulation company owners like Tony Arundell of Eureka Insulation in Sydney find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy, having horded evermore costly supplies, which now sit in warehouses, and hired dozens of workers who now must be laid off. In a recent interview for Australia’s ABC News, Arundell, who’s run the business for almost three decades, cited the debt he’s incurred due to the Federal program. “Now we’re held with stock and Yellow Pages commitments that we can’t get out of to the value of $250,000. It’s hit us pretty hard.” He and others have let go thousands of workers who may not be available if the program re-initiates in June.

    Most disturbing is that the full deleterious impact of the program – both in safety and financially – has yet to be realized. Environment Minister Garrett recently commissioned the inspection of thousands of newly insulated homes to assure their safety at the cost of tens of millions of dollars. It is believed that almost 1,000 homes may be unsafe. Joe Hockey, spokesman for the Opposition Treasurer forecast that government costs due to future lawsuits could top $1 billion.

    For the recently fired installers, Rudd has announced a new $41 million fund for re-training. Some are understandably suspicious. Michael Tempny – another insulation company owner, interviewed by Australia’s The Age newspaper , demurred, ‘‘If it was something that was going to help my employees then I would definitely look at it, but if it’s just a way that we can re-employ them to do nothing, then that doesn’t really work.”

    All this said, the story of the Rudd government’s insulation program is not simply one of incompetence – though it is certainly that – but a tale of how an ideology clouded the minds of senior government officials in the creation of the program itself, causing them to run through a number of red lights in the pursuit of “green jobs”. A singular theme of recent attacks on both the Prime Minister and Environment Minister has been criticism of their repeated dismissals of contrarian studies and voices leading up to the bill’s passage. Garrett’s job hangs in the balance because an April 2009 independent risk analysis which warned of “major fall-out” due the rushed launch date apparently didn’t make it to his desk until February.

    Rudd turned a deaf ear to industry experts who called for better accreditation guarantees for installers, and a more customized and focused approach to the program rather than the blanket $1,600.00 credit. Last October, Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt, accused: “It appears that his industry consultations made it absolutely clear that a figure of $1000 to $1100 would have been appropriate as a cap for the [insulation] rebate. Most significantly, he [Rudd] and Mr. Garrett appear to have been warned that if they over-inflated the price by fifty per cent, retailers would simply lift the price to the $1600 figure.” That’s exactly what happened.

    In light of these actions, it is difficult to view the Rudd government as anything other than a progressive bull in the policy china shop. To continue the bovine imagery, the implosion of the insulation program gores progressive oxen from Keynesianism to “green jobs.”

    But the principal of centralized decision-making must also come under severe inspection. Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for the right-leaning Australian puts it best: “Here is a textbook lesson in what happens when government throws money at industries they don’t understand and have no business being in. In short, we are learning that the bigger the government, the bigger the problems.”

    At each stage in the policy-making process, when administrative officials were presented with options, they leaned towards the most expensive, the broadest, and the fastest course with the least amount of local input or oversight. Maybe when President Obama steps off Air Force One in Sydney later this month his first words to the Australian Prime Minister should be, “Heckuva job Rudd-y.”

    Pete Peterson is executive director of Common Sense California, a multipartisan organization that supports citizen participation in policy-making (his views do not necessarily represent those of CSC). He also lectures on state and local governance at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy.

    Photo:

  • Ruining our Cities to Save Them

    Latching onto Kevin Rudd’s call for “a big Australia” and forecasts that our population will grow by 60 per cent to 35 million in 2050, urban planners are ramping up their war against suburbia. In paper after paper, academics across the country have been pushing the same line. Climate change, peak oil and the financial crisis mean we can’t go on driving and borrowing for low-density housing. Choices must be narrowed to buying or renting compact homes in high-density, multi-unit developments along public transport corridors, preferably rail lines.

    Underlying it all is a radical vision of suburban doom. “That is one of my themes”, said Professor Peter Newman, anti-car activist and head of Curtin University‘s Sustainable Policy Institute, “that we stop cities developing into eco enclaves surrounded byMad Max suburbs”.

    The alarming truth is that planners are blasé about prosperity, living standards and choice because they see them as second-rate issues. The point is to save us from eco-apocalypse.

    And their voice grows louder by the day. The mantra of green urbanism has long been heard on ABC radio programs like Background Briefing and Future Tense, but matters reached a crescendo in January when ABC TV’s 7:30 Report rounded up the usual suspects for a four-part series on preparing our cities for the population boom. Framed by scary graphics and a menacing soundtrack, the series delivered a stream of breathless dialogue from talking heads like Newman, who declared that “if we just roll out those suburbs one after the other, making a more and more carbon intensive world in our cities, then we’re stuffed.”

    This current of thought has always lurked beneath the Rudd Government’s “nation building” agenda. But last October it burst open when the prime minister announced his plans to wrest control of urban policy from the states.

    Rattling off tenets of the planning ideology, Mr Rudd said “we must ensure that communities are not separated from jobs and services”, that “increasing density in cities is part of the solution to urban growth”, that “forms of development need to be fully integrated with current and future transport networks”, that “climate change requires a whole of government response”, and that “we must make long-term investments in transport networks that minimise carbon emissions.” It’s all a question of government action, if he is to be believed.

    That too was the message from infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese at the recent launch of State of Australian Cities 2010. Little wonder that he appointed Newman to the board of Infrastructure Australia.

    Defying urban laws of gravity

    “Cities are an immense laboratory of trial and error, failure and success” said the great urbanist Jane Jacobs, but today’s planners seem to think they’re as pliable as dough. Just tweak a couple of variables, say transport modes and population densities, and everything falls into place.

    As a discipline, urban planning never emerged from behind Berlin Wall of command economics, albeit with a green face. Early hopes that the financial crisis would shift public sentiment in this direction have faded, and climate change hasn’t registered as an issue for commuters and home buyers.

    Despite this, planners show no sign of losing confidence in their power to abolish fundamental laws of supply and demand. They’re still apt to dream up grand schemes for zoning, development and infrastructure controls with barely a thought about the impact on land values and bid-rents, two price inputs with far-reaching implications for urban commerce.

    Nor have they managed to repeal the law of unintended consequences. Year after year, the Demographia housing affordability survey confirms the link between “more prescriptive land use regulation” and high median house prices. This is elementary economics. Restricting the supply of land for development, a starting point for all green planning, combined with rising demand from population growth, will ratchet up values, with knock-on effects for the whole economy. The survey continues to rank all of our capital cities, and some of our regional centres, in the “severely unaffordable” category. No amount of “cutting-edge design” or “more imaginative” planning can counter this effect.

    The claim that concentrating development in dense “activity centres”, “urban villages” or “transport corridors” will ease the problem is a sham. Development controls will always drive up the price of land. When planners talk about affordability in this context, they really mean inferior housing in terms of space, amenity and title, even if it’s dressed-up as “design innovation” or “green rated building”.

    But inferior quality may not be enough to compensate for escalating land values, so consumers get less housing for higher prices. And more are stuck renting instead of buying. Large numbers of low to middle income earners will be shut out of the housing market

    Interestingly, Perth appears in Demographia’s “severely unaffordable” category along with Sydney and Melbourne, despite having only around a quarter of the population. Newman neglected this detail while praising the city’s rail network on the 7:30 Report.

    Though Perth can fall back on the resources boom, south-eastern cities aren’t so lucky. They are service-based regions with very dispersed patterns of employment, even by world standards.

    Writing in a publication of the 2008 9th World Congress of Metropolis, Sydney University’s John Black observed that “apart from some noticeable peaks, employment density is quite uniform across the [Sydney metropolitan] region”. According to the NSW Department of Transport, only 12 per cent of Sydney’s jobs are in the CBD and second tier centres like North Sydney, Chatswood, Parramatta, Hurstville and Penrith have less than 2 per cent each. David McCloskey, Bob Birrell and Rose Yip of Monash University (demographers, not urban planners) report the same about Melbourne. The CBD hosts around 20 per cent of jobs and the rest are scattered all over the metropolitan region.

    Platitudes like “we must locate people close to where they work”, or “we must locate jobs close to where people live”, have little basis in reality. They infringe another immovable law of economics, relating to economic rents or bid-rents. This mechanism determines how industries and firms are distributed. Put simply, a parcel of land will go to whichever use delivers the highest profits. Centrally located land (near major transport or infrastructure hubs) commands high prices, and goes to the most profitable uses. Peripheral land goes to less profitable or marginal activities.

    Over the last thirty years, economic deregulation, flexible transport, advanced communications and population growth have raised up a sector in the latter category, extracting value from cheap outer-metropolitan land and low rents. It includes industries like transport and distribution, building and construction, food, consumer products, personal services, wholesale and retail. They depend on favourable location costs and proximity to urban markets and labour pools. According to the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board, “prime industrial land with direct access to transport infrastructure is 75% cheaper [in GWS] than other areas of Sydney”.

    Ultimately, green planning will phase out cheap urban land, undermining this sector and destroying jobs in the process. Breakthroughs in automotive and energy technologies offer the prospect of adaptation to a distant future of expensive oil. There’s no way to adapt to rising land values.

    Green rated chaos

    Many are in denial about this, recycling visions of the “concentric ring model” of urban form. This relic of pre-war sociology allocated industry to the core, or cores, and residences to the periphery. Take the Sydney Morning Herald sponsored Long Term Public Transport Plan, recently released with great fanfare. Authored by a committee of green-tinged experts and academics, the plan proclaims, according to a Herald feature, that “Sydney retains a strong centre-based structure, with nearly 40 per cent of the city’s jobs and most of its major retail, educational and entertainment facilities located within 26 key centres”. This is an essential precondition for the proposed network of denser rail infrastructure.

    But the plan’s own figures don’t add up to Sydney having a “strong centre-based structure”. A hefty 60 per cent of jobs aren’t centralised and the plan actually cites 33 “centres” flung all over the Sydney region, from Norwest Business Park in the north, to Penrith in the west and Hurstville in the south. Apart from the CBD with 12 per cent, none of the centres have more than 1.8 per cent of Sydney’s jobs.

    Concentrating housing in a city of dispersed jobs means horrendous traffic congestion, the costs of which loom large in State of Australian Cities 2010. Currently, around 72.3 per cent of Sydney’s people drive to work. No configuration of public transport will be efficient, leaving motorists to converge on dense localities. This is a city projected to explode from today’s 4.2 million people to 7 million in 2050. In Melbourne’s case, McCloskey, Birrell and Yip state plainly that raising densities along tram and train lines will end in chaos. Of the 1.4 million people who work outside central Melbourne, only 4.4 per cent use public transport.

    On the other hand, attempts to concentrate jobs will throw thousands onto the dole queues. At least this is a type of solution: the unemployed don’t commute.

    Ironically, some thriving “centres” in the Herald plan wouldn’t exist without the expansion of Sydney’s arterial road network. Examining the “edge city” phenomenon in Sydney, Peter Murphy and Robert Freestone conceded, way back in 1994, that the jobs-rich “global arc corridor” owed a lot to strategic road junctions like the intersection of Lane Cove Road with Epping Road in North Ryde and with the Pacific Highway in Gordon.

    “The most prestigious development has overwhelmingly favoured the middle-ring northern and north-western parts of Sydney in centres easily accessible by car …” say Murphy and Freestone, having explained that “there are now diversified employment centres in the suburbs which have grown up almost despite, rather than because of, traditional land-use planning policies”. These days the NSW Government bows to green intimidation, failing in its new Metropolitan Transport Plan to complete the highly successful Orbital Motorway Network, leaving M4 West, the F3 link and duplication of the M5 tunnel in limbo.

    Demands that at we reshape our cities to fight climate change are illogical. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that there’s a case to cut Australia’s 1.4 per cent contribution to global carbon. Even the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Consumption Atlas ranks urban settlement patterns well below the general level of consumption as a factor in emissions. And general consumption is a function of living standards, not urban form. Since the world is far from putting constraints on consumption, calls for a transformation of settlement patterns are baseless.

    But it’s worse. The Consumption Atlas and an analysis by Demographia’s Wendell Cox disclose that emissions across affluent inner-urban areas exceed those on the fringe. By focusing on settlement patterns rather than consumption levels, green planners engage in a form of class discrimination. The costs of climate change are heaped on outer-suburban working people, who lose jobs, mobility and housing amenity, while the affluent emerge unscathed.

    This article first apeared at The New City Journal

    Photo by Amit (Sydney)

  • Another Caution on California: Golden State’s Grassroots Are Dying

    The subject line on the recent e-mail got my attention: “The Speaker wants to talk with you.”

    The message referred to California State Assembly Speaker John Perez, a Democrat who represents the 46th District, which includes Downtown and nearby districts that are part of the Garment & Citizen’s circulation area.

    Perez has been in the Assembly for more than two years, and he’s gotten plenty of publicity for being the first openly gay person to become Speaker. Some folks are vaguely aware that he’s a cousin to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and a former city commissioner.

    Perez hasn’t been what you’d call a man about the district, though. Ask beyond tight circles of political operatives and special interests—inquire among regular folks who live or work or own small businesses in the 46th District—and you’ll likely find little familiarity with him or his staff.

    Not many can point out much good Perez has done as a public servant, either. A number of observers and constituents believe that his most significant piece of legislation amounts to a favor for the Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), owner of the LA Live development near the Staples Center—and also a big political contributor. Perez championed a law that granted AEG an exception on selling alcohol advertising at the Nokia Theatre at LA Live, a potentially lucrative concession.

    I still held out hope when I saw the subject line of the recent e-mail—but that evaporated when I read the message. It came from a group called Courage Campaign, and it aimed to orchestrate some sort of mass teleconference with Perez as the star attraction.

    Courage Campaign has been active in the push to make marriage legal for gay couples in California, and I’ve got no problem with those efforts. My problems arrive when leaders of the group claim to be a “multi-issue advocacy organization” that deploys “an online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots activists to push for progressive change and equality in California and across the country.”

    I grow wary when I see that Courage Campaign’s website on the Internet tosses tired chunks of red meat to the partisan political class, touting the organization’s efforts to help “kill” some proposal by Republicans. I get more concerned about a list of “partners” that includes assumed allies of the Democratic Party.

    The members of Courage Campaign are certainly free to engage in whatever politics they like—and so are all of their partners. So is Perez, for that matter. I just wish that all involved would be honest about “grassroots” and “netroots.” It’s obvious that Courage Campaign is part of the political power structure and the bickering that passes for government in California these days. That’s not a grassroots or netroots approach. Grassroots political movements challenge existing power structures. Courage Campaign is a cog in a political machine.

    Consider the appeal in the recent e-mail from the organization: “Hosting these special statewide calls can be very expensive. Can you help us cover the cost of this Courage Campaign Conversation with Speaker Perez? If you can contribute $10, $25 or $50, it will allow us to open this call to as many participants as possible.”

    I won’t begin to question the actual costs of hosting such conference calls. I’ll simply offer my suggestion on what Courage Campaign officials really meant:

    The Speaker wants to talk with you so he can convince you to give money to a political organization that will, in turn, provide him and his allies support in the future.

    Now here’s what I mean to say to members of the Courage Campaign and all of the other political operatives—liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican—who dilute and devalue the meaning of grassroots and netroots:

    You are all special interests, creatures of twisted system. Getting the Speaker of the California State Assembly to shill for your fundraising makes it obvious that you are part and parcel of a political culture that has failed. You might soon be just about the only ones left who don’t realize what you have become.

    We need a new approach, fresh ideas, and bold challenges to the old politics that have done so much damage to California.

    A pay-to-play teleconference with a politician who has yet to solve one problem amounts to nothing more than the same old problems.

    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)

    Photo by ZSasaki

  • Will a Dying City Finally Turn to Immigrants?

    Cuyahoga County Treasurer Jim Rokakis, who is based in Cleveland, estimates that new census numbers might show Cleveland’s population to be 325,000, a whopping 153,000 drop in 10 years! That would be an average of 15,000 people leaving Cleveland every year.

    That’s 1,250 people jumping ship every month,

    312 people fleeing the wreckage every week,

    45 people evacuating every day, or

    2 people running out of Cleveland every hour, 24/7, the whole year, for 10 straight years.

    Even conservative estimates have us losing 10 percent of our population this decade, the fastest rate of decline of any major American city (except New Orleans). And still, remarkably, we hear no alarm bells from City Hall, no calls of urgency, just a commitment to stay the course and manage the decline.

    While the extent of the exodus is debateable, it’s obvious that Cleveland, a city that once boasted 1 million residents, is not on the bright path to rebirth.

    Maybe we don’t really understand the problem.

    New York City and Chicago, like most major cities, see significant out-migration of their existing residents each year. What is atypical is that Cleveland does not enjoy the energy of new people moving in.

    Put simply, the city needs the fresh optimism and pluck of new immigrants, the most likely source of New Clevelanders.

    New immigrants are inherently mobile,and can move to Cleveland as part of secondary migration from New York City or other gateway cities. Many would be excited to pursue their American Dream right here on the shores of Lake Erie. In part due to the presence of immigrant language cable television and the internet, they can come to Cleveland and still retain ties to their native culture. Immigrants are moving to far more isolated places, such as Fargo, North Dakota.

    The great shame is that this was once proud city of immigrants (nearly 1/3 foreign-born in the early 20th century). But it now only 5% of its population is foreign-born, well-below the national average of 12%.

    But none of this impresses Mayor Frank Jackson who summarily dismisses immigrant-attraction initiatives like those in Philadelphia and those being discussed now in Detroit. Yet the basic reality is that immigration provides the only way for cities like Cleveland to generate the kind of numbers needed to make up for decades of mass out-migration.

    In numerous cities around the country, economic development professionals and foundations are looking at ways to tap the immigrant market. This will not only counter local depopulation and stabilize local the housing market, but will also attract a new wave of urban entrepreneurs, investors and consumers.

    They also realize that a globally diverse city would act as a magnet for the young, international and minority professionals leading the New Economy. These people could help catalyze a transformation to a more entrepreneurial, globally-connected and innovation-based local economy.

    Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter announced his plans to recruit 75,000 newcomers within five years to fill the city’s abandoned homes. And he’s targeting immigrant newcomers who have recently arrived in New York City.

    In Detroit, the New Economy Initiative (a $100 million regional fund for economic development), the Skillman Foundation, and the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce are conducting a community-wide discussion about ways to rebuild the city by attracting immigrants and international resources and promoting new intercultural partnerships for the benefit of all its citizens.

    Other cities consider immigrant-attraction strategies, but Cleveland City Hall ignores the very people most likely to move to Cleveland: immigrants looking to own their first homes and to start their new businesses.

    Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group conducted a study on Northeast Ohio’s economy and concluded that that the region is likely to suffer even after the rest of the country recovers from the recession. PNC’s Senior Economist and author of The Econosphere, Craig Thomas, found that attracting immigrants would help the region’s economy through investments in housing stock and start-ups.

    “As people leave, it really does take international folks to come in, open up stores and fill up neighborhoods,” Mr. Thomas told Crain’s Cleveland Business.

    But Mayor Jackson insists that efforts like those in Philadelphia and supported by economists like Mr. Thomas are not for Cleveland. As he began his second term, he said that he is positioning the City to compete in the global economy by building from within by using what he calls “self-help.”

    But not many are left to help. And by the time the policy is seen as a failure, even more will be gone.

    As people leave, so do businesses, from neighborhoods and many parts of downtown where vacancy rates have skyrocketed.

    As Cleveland’s downward spiral continues, the local leadership appears clueless on how to stop it.

    Richard Herman is the co-author of Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker) (John Wiley & Sons, 2009). Herman is the founder of an immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio, which serves a global clientele in over 10 languages. He is the co-founder of a chapter of TiE, a global network of entrepreneurs started in 1992 in Silicon Valley by immigrants from India. For more information on immigrant entrepreneurship and rust belt revival, see www.ImmigrantInc.com ; www.youtube.com/user/Immigrantinc2010 ; www.ohio.tie.org . Contact Richard at richard.t.herman@gmail.com or 216-696-6170.

    Photo by ScallopHolden.com

  • Profit Perspectives