Tag Archives: cities

Shrinking cities: a quick guide

Posted on by

The Boston Globe summarizes some of the planning to shrink cities such as Detroit and other Rust Belt cities:

The resulting cities may need to look and feel very different — different, perhaps, from the common understanding of what a modern American city is. Rather than trying to lure back residents or entice businesses to build on vacant lots, cities may be better off finding totally new uses for land: large-scale urban farms, or wind turbines or geothermal wells, or letting large patches revert to nature. Instead of merely tolerating the artist communities that often spring up in marginal neighborhoods, cities might actively encourage them to colonize and reshape whole swaths of the urban landscape. Or they might consider selling off portions to private companies to manage.

As the article mentions, some of these plans are beginning to get off the ground. However, I suspect it will be a while before these cities start to look different than they do today. These sorts of plans are usually mentioned for cities that have already “failed,” meaning they can’t find better uses for this vacant or underutilized land. It will take quite a bit of political will (and capital) to admit this and get to a point where residents, business interests, and politicians want to truly pursue contraction.

A course on strangers: Stranger Studies 101

Posted on by

For a number of early sociologists, the city was a fascinating place. Of particular interest was the changing nature of human relationships – instead of primary group relationships formed in small villages or towns, more and more people were flooding into cities were relationships were characterized by indifference and blase attitudes.

Professor Kio Stark has picked up on these themes in what he calls “Stranger Studies.” At Atlantic, Stark has laid out a brief syllabus for what Stranger Studies 101 might look like.

This looks like a fascinating course. And Stark’s conclusion is humorous “Although I do not recommend it, by the end of the semester my students could likely launch successful careers as grifters.”

Male/female wage gap reversed for “unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities”

Posted on by

The gap between male and female earnings has been a persistent feature in American society for decades. However, recent research suggests that a certain group of women are now outearning men:

[A]ccording to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises.

Here’s the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it’s known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don’t live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.
The article discusses the main causal factors identified by authors: “a growing knowledge-based economy, the decline of a manufacturing base and an increasing minority population.”
At first glance, this may not be that surprising considering the number of women enrolling in and earning degrees at college. Additionally, the restructuring of the American economy away from manufacturing jobs and toward a service/knowledge economy has hit male dominated fields hard.
This bears watching.

The return of electric streetcars to American cities

Posted on by

USA Today reports that electric streetcars may be on the comeback in American cities. Because of a successful line introduced in Portland in the early 2000s, other cities, such as Dallas, Cincinnati, and Charlotte, are looking to build new streetcar lines with the help of federal dollars.

The irony of these new streetcar lines is that many American cities had effective electric streetcar systems in the past. The article provides a little of the history:

Horse-drawn streetcars appeared on urban streets in the early 1800s and were replaced by electric versions in the 1880s and 1890s, says Jerry Kelly of the Baltimore Streetcar Museum. In the 1930s, when the Great Depression put many people out of work, ridership fell. After a brief revival during World War II, affordable automobiles and cheap gas prompted many cities to pave over streetcar tracks, he says.

According to Kenneth Jackson in Crabgrass Frontier, the streetcars declined rapidly for several reasons:

1. The rise of the automobile, particularly in the 1920s. Millions of Americans bought cars.

2. Many streetcar lines were locked into cheap fares. Because many of the lines had been granted government licenses to operate, the fares were locked in for long periods. By the 1920s, many lines could only charge five cent fares when the costs of operating had risen. This led to less profit for the streetcar operators.

3. Public opposition to public subsidies for electric streetcar lines. While roads were viewed as a public good and deserving of government money, electric streetcars were viewed as private enterprises.

4. General Motors bought up a number of bankrupt or near bankrupt lines in the 1930s-1940s and replaced the streetcars with buses. While some see this as a conspiracy against mass transit, Jackson suggests streetcar lines were already in serious trouble and GM hastened their demise.

Overall, Jackson suggests the declining ridership plus the low fares and lack of government money meant that streetcar lines could not keep up: less riders meant less profit which meant fewer modernization efforts which lowered ridership further and so on.

Planning animal-shaped communities

Posted on by

The government of Southern Sudan has plans to create new cities in the shape of animals. The picture at the top of the news story of a city planned in the shape of a rhino is fascinating.

But there are some problems with this plan:

The $10.1 billion multi-decade project to re-create Southern Sudan’s 10 state capitals into elaborately-shaped dream towns may sound Dubai-esque — only Southern Sudan is no Dubai.

Actually, it is one of the poorest places on earth.

The undeveloped region — which lacks any paved roads outside its three main cities — is part of Africa’s largest nation, Sudan, which is ruled by the Khartoum government South Sudanese fought against for most of the past half century in two long civil wars.

But Southern Sudan expects to achieve independence next year through a January secession referendum promised in a 2005 peace deal that granted the war-torn region self-rule until the vote.

Even without the unique city designs, the multi-billion dollar price tag alone was sure to turn heads. Southern Sudan’s total budget for 2010 is less than $2 billion, 98 percent of which comes from the oil revenues it hopes will fund its postwar re-construction.

If Dubai can construct islands in the shape of palms, can a currently non-existent government build cities in the shape of giraffes? It sounds like there are a lot of hurdles to clear before these development plans become reality.

Will the future be ruled by cities or suburbs?

Posted on by

Two commentators disagree in a special issue of Foreign Policy on global cities: one says cities are the places of the future while another says suburbs are key.

1. In Foreign Policy, Parang Khanna discusses global cities, a concept developed by sociologist Saskia Sassen. Khanna suggests such cities are growing to a point where they exceed the ability for nations or the United Nations to control them. The conclusion is that cities are quite important:

What happens in our cities, simply put, matters more than what happens anywhere else. Cities are the world’s experimental laboratories and thus a metaphor for an uncertain age. They are both the cancer and the foundation of our networked world, both virus and antibody. From climate change to poverty and inequality, cities are the problem — and the solution.

2. Joel Kotkin responds and claims a more dispersed population, in suburbs, can lead to better outcomes in areas like generating wealth, less inequality, and a cleaner environment. He suggests this is particular an issue if we encourage large cities in the developing world:

The goal of urban planners should not be to fulfill their own grandiose visions of megacities on a hill, but to meet the needs of the people living in them, particularly those people suffering from overcrowding, environmental misery, and social inequality. When it comes to exporting our notions to the rest of the globe, we must be aware of our own susceptibility to fashionable theories in urban design — because while the West may be able to live with its mistakes, the developing world doesn’t enjoy that luxury.

An interesting debate – both places have their own issues.  One could ask what residents would prefer to live in (both in the developed and developing world): the wealthy and glamorous megacity or the comfortable and affluent suburbs? Or perhaps different nations could have different planning and policy goals? Or perhaps we need some of both cities and suburbs…

The first Target arrives in Manhattan

Posted on by

Ariel Kaminer writes in the New York Times about shopping at the first Target in Manhattan which is located in East Harlem:

It is a sharp contrast to hopping from store to store for kitchen tools here, socks there, electronics in yet another place… That dominant New York shopping model has its charms, but really, remind me what they are. I like local merchants as much as the next New York nostalgist, but on a torpid summer day there is much to be said for the suburban efficiency of one-stop shopping…

It all seems so convenient (and cheap) that you start to think you should just buy everything then and there, to have on hand when you need it.

But what did I need? … Four Riedel wine glasses ($39.99)? (When the same brand is available at Target and Tiffany, it’s time to re-evaluate the distinction between mass and class.)…

After several hours, I found myself wandering through the aisles with my shopping cart, glassy-eyed from the sheer glut of choices, idly reaching for things that I felt no special connection to. It was time to go.

Kaminer appears to be thinking through the implications of  of big box shopping stores that offers consumers many cheap options (and even some high-end fare). Granted, this one-stop shopping has not just been the domain of suburbanites: it has been available in department stores for a long time. But the experience of going to a downtown Macy’s or Marshall Field’s still seems quite different than going to Target. Those department stores were and still are more of an experience and you pay for that experience as opposed to a Target or Wal-Mart or Home Depot where the goal is primarily efficiency and low prices.

Additionally, the construction of urban malls and shopping centers (but usually lacking the abundant parking lots) really lowers the walls between the urban and suburban shopping experience. This Target is located in “the first retail power center in Manhattan” that also features Best Buy, Old Navy, and Costco. Though it is mainly accessible by subway, the dominant world of American shopping – malls and big box stores – is now available to Manhattanites.

Quick Review: The Stepford Wives (1975)

Posted on by

I recently watched the original version of this film from 1975 as opposed to the 2004 version with Nicole Kidman and others. The movie starts with a family of four moving from New York City to the suburbs where the mother, Joanna, starts uncovering some of the secrets of Stepford. The film attempts to make some pointed commentary in two main areas: gender relations and suburbia. Some quick thoughts:

1. On gender relations. Released in the mid 1970s (and based on a book published in 1972), the movie clearly draws upon a growing feminist movement. The heroine is married to a lawyer and has two children but also has dreams of becoming a recognized artistic photographer. Her husband seems sympathetic but then is drawn into a secretive men’s club in Stepford. Many of the women in town are supposedly what men want in wives: women who clean, cook, care for the children, and generally aim to please their husbands in all they do. Of course, Joanna eventually finds why the women are this way and is horrified.

2. Closely tied to these ideas about gender is the setting. In the city, Joanna seems to find life but feels trapped in the suburbs and comments on the lack of noise. In Stepford, the men do the important work while the women are expected to do traditional female tasks. New York City represents freedom and choices; Stepford is about repression and servitude. The film is clear: suburbia may be good for men (particularly those who high-status jobs) and children but it certainly bodes ill for women.

3. The ending is not very hopeful. I imagine the filmmaker (and book author) thought the suburbs were dragging down life across America. Of course, this film is not alone in these thoughts; there are plenty of books(fiction and non-fiction), TV shows, movies, and more that present a similar perspective. It is not too far of a leap from this film to the world of Desperate Housewives.

4. I was reminded by this film how far movies have come since the mid 1970s. The pace of the film was rather slow with some longer scenes and many took place without any music in the background. (It is hard to find movies these days that are conservative with their use of music – today, it generally seems to be amped up in order to enhance the emotional pull.) The camera shots and angles seem primitive and some of the zoom-ins were clunky. The story still comes through but the presentation these days is much smoother and manipulative.

Though the film is clunky at points, it is interesting for its attempt at commentary in the mid 1970s.

Differences in fashion tastes across American cities

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal reports on fashion differences across large American cities. The findings are based on the analysis of luxury spending by several different retailers. Some of the findings:

Southerners bought more white, green, and pink than other regions’ residents, for instance, according to data from private-sale site Hautelook.com, which caters to young, urban professional women…

Though Dallas has a flashy, big-spending image, the average woman there spends less on fashion than one in notoriously frumpy Washington, D.C., according to fashion website ShopItToMe.com…

And despite the fashion press’s obsession with J. Crew, the company is among the top five brands only in New York City and Boston…

So while there are national media outlets and national retail stores that promote their own tastes and lines, there are also regional tastes that shoppers follow. Who sets these regional tastes? Who or what, for example, helps shoppers make decisions in places like Detroit and St. Louis so that their fashion tastes differ from New York or Chicago? Local culture plays some role but how does it translate into fashion choices?

Learning from Flint, Michigan

Posted on by

An article from Slate about Dan Kildee, a former politician in the Flint area and recent co-founder of a nonprofit dedicated to helping cities in trouble, and his ideas about turning around this hard-luck Michigan city. The general idea as the journalist describes it: “manifest-destiny-in-reverse for urban areas.”