This is a pretty amazing video of how waste from San Diego is recycled in neighboring Tijauna for housing and infastructure.
Friday, January 30, 2009
L.A. Sprawl
Years ago, one of my Urban Studies Professors challenged the current notions of sprawl by stating that Philadelphia has more sprawl then L.A. The professor stated that the Philadelphia suburbs consume more square miles of countryside given Philadelphia's size when compared to Los Angeles and it's suburbs.
Could this be true? Do east coast cities actually generate more sprawl then auto-dependent L.A.? Well, it depends on how you calculate density. The popular myth of East Coasters when they think of L.A. is that it is a giant collection of suburbs when in fact it is a densely populated city.
But how dense is dense? While L.A. is undoubtedly urban is it as dense as Philadelphia? The answer to that question is no. Philadelphia is the most compact city in the county, even more so then New York City. So if one city is denser then another but it's suburbs consume more land, how would you calculate which is more sprawled?
Fast forward to a book review I ran across recently in Metropolis Magazine about Robert Bruegmann’s book, Sprawl: A Compact History. The book which advocated that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is more densely populated than New York’s, set off a whirlwind of debate between planners. While most planners believe in traditional regulation of development, found most prominently in the east coast, there is a rising faction of planners that believe in minimal regulation and allowing the market to dictate development. Bruegmann's book about sprawl and density seem to ignite both camps of planners.
The book review was not favorable to Bruegmann's claim that L.A. was statistically more populated then New York and sought to disprove this notion. The review poked a major hole in Bruegmann's theory by detailing that the units of measurements that was used to compare L.A. and New York were not the same. The article quotes:
"The UCLA study, which appears on the Livable Places Web site, concedes that Bruegmann is technically right since he merely claims that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is denser than New York’s urbanized area. As a unit, the greater Los Angeles metro area boasts 7,009 people per square mile, far in excess of the New York metro area’s paltry 5,239, according to the 2000 census. But just what is an urbanized area? And are they really enough alike to bother comparing?
As the UCLA group discovered, the census bureau’s official statistical units vary considerably in size and character. The land mass of New York’s urbanized area—defined as the city and the suburban counties within its gravitational pull—is twice the size of Los Angeles’s. New York’s statistical unit also has a third more people. Thus the two units are the proverbial apples and oranges. 'We believe comparing density by urbanized area is deceptive,' the UCLA group wrote."
That is a major hole to Bruegmann's article. To try to prove that L.A.'s miles of low rise housing is denser then New York's miles of high rises and skyscrapers not only goes against conventional wisdom it goes against common sense by just looking at the two cities. The review later goes onto show that L.A. and the cities that have followed it's growth patterns such as Phoenix and Atlanta have very low urban densities, which further my beliefs that few major cities in the south and west are actually urban. Phoenix and Houston have overtaken Philadelphia as being in the top 5 largest cities despite Philadelphia being in Phoenix case, over 10 times as dense. The article quotes:
"Even a modestly congested place like Philadelphia, where people cherish their single-family row houses and postage-stamp gardens, packs in 11,000 people per square mile, in contrast to L.A.’s 7,828. As for Phoenix and Atlanta, the cities that most closely mimic Los Angeles’s land-use patterns, the density barely hits 1,700 per square mile—hardly an indication of efficient, or environmentally sustainable, land use."
So back to the original question, does Philly have more sprawl then L.A. Technically yes if you just compared the two cities sizes in comparison to the size of their suburbs. However, the lower density of L.A. allows the city to consume more square acreage then Philly. So one can easily make the argument that there is sprawl even inside the city boundaries of L.A. given it's density. On top of that many Philadelphia suburban townships mimic Philadelphia development which would make them denser then the city of Los Angeles. Which means the answer that would be most correct is the Los Angeles Metropolitan region has more sprawl then the Philadelphia region.
Your thoughts?
Could this be true? Do east coast cities actually generate more sprawl then auto-dependent L.A.? Well, it depends on how you calculate density. The popular myth of East Coasters when they think of L.A. is that it is a giant collection of suburbs when in fact it is a densely populated city.
But how dense is dense? While L.A. is undoubtedly urban is it as dense as Philadelphia? The answer to that question is no. Philadelphia is the most compact city in the county, even more so then New York City. So if one city is denser then another but it's suburbs consume more land, how would you calculate which is more sprawled?
Fast forward to a book review I ran across recently in Metropolis Magazine about Robert Bruegmann’s book, Sprawl: A Compact History. The book which advocated that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is more densely populated than New York’s, set off a whirlwind of debate between planners. While most planners believe in traditional regulation of development, found most prominently in the east coast, there is a rising faction of planners that believe in minimal regulation and allowing the market to dictate development. Bruegmann's book about sprawl and density seem to ignite both camps of planners.
The book review was not favorable to Bruegmann's claim that L.A. was statistically more populated then New York and sought to disprove this notion. The review poked a major hole in Bruegmann's theory by detailing that the units of measurements that was used to compare L.A. and New York were not the same. The article quotes:
"The UCLA study, which appears on the Livable Places Web site, concedes that Bruegmann is technically right since he merely claims that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is denser than New York’s urbanized area. As a unit, the greater Los Angeles metro area boasts 7,009 people per square mile, far in excess of the New York metro area’s paltry 5,239, according to the 2000 census. But just what is an urbanized area? And are they really enough alike to bother comparing?
As the UCLA group discovered, the census bureau’s official statistical units vary considerably in size and character. The land mass of New York’s urbanized area—defined as the city and the suburban counties within its gravitational pull—is twice the size of Los Angeles’s. New York’s statistical unit also has a third more people. Thus the two units are the proverbial apples and oranges. 'We believe comparing density by urbanized area is deceptive,' the UCLA group wrote."
That is a major hole to Bruegmann's article. To try to prove that L.A.'s miles of low rise housing is denser then New York's miles of high rises and skyscrapers not only goes against conventional wisdom it goes against common sense by just looking at the two cities. The review later goes onto show that L.A. and the cities that have followed it's growth patterns such as Phoenix and Atlanta have very low urban densities, which further my beliefs that few major cities in the south and west are actually urban. Phoenix and Houston have overtaken Philadelphia as being in the top 5 largest cities despite Philadelphia being in Phoenix case, over 10 times as dense. The article quotes:
"Even a modestly congested place like Philadelphia, where people cherish their single-family row houses and postage-stamp gardens, packs in 11,000 people per square mile, in contrast to L.A.’s 7,828. As for Phoenix and Atlanta, the cities that most closely mimic Los Angeles’s land-use patterns, the density barely hits 1,700 per square mile—hardly an indication of efficient, or environmentally sustainable, land use."
So back to the original question, does Philly have more sprawl then L.A. Technically yes if you just compared the two cities sizes in comparison to the size of their suburbs. However, the lower density of L.A. allows the city to consume more square acreage then Philly. So one can easily make the argument that there is sprawl even inside the city boundaries of L.A. given it's density. On top of that many Philadelphia suburban townships mimic Philadelphia development which would make them denser then the city of Los Angeles. Which means the answer that would be most correct is the Los Angeles Metropolitan region has more sprawl then the Philadelphia region.
Your thoughts?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Secretary of the Arts?
The L.A. Times recently ran a brief article about Quincy Jones lobbying President Obama to create a Secretary of the Arts as a cabinet position. Those familiar with this blog know that I am big proponent of art, which I feel is an essential element to a city's culture.
There is currently a position to create a Secretary of the Arts, I encourage you to sign the petition. From the article:
"Last November, music producer and songwriter Quincy Jones mentioned to John Schaefer during an interview on the New York radio program “Soundcheck” that he thought President-elect Barack Obama should create a Cabinet-level position of secretary of the Arts. “One of the next conversations I have with President Obama is to beg for a secretary of the Arts,” he told the WNYC talk-show host.
Jaime Austria heard about Jones' comments and thought that was a great idea. So Austria launched an online petition. So far, more than 63,000 people have signed, with 'spread the word' e-mails recently making the rounds on the Left Coast."
There is currently a position to create a Secretary of the Arts, I encourage you to sign the petition. From the article:
"Last November, music producer and songwriter Quincy Jones mentioned to John Schaefer during an interview on the New York radio program “Soundcheck” that he thought President-elect Barack Obama should create a Cabinet-level position of secretary of the Arts. “One of the next conversations I have with President Obama is to beg for a secretary of the Arts,” he told the WNYC talk-show host.
Jaime Austria heard about Jones' comments and thought that was a great idea. So Austria launched an online petition. So far, more than 63,000 people have signed, with 'spread the word' e-mails recently making the rounds on the Left Coast."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Baltimore's Billion dollar "Shadow Economy"
The Baltimore City Paper recently ran a great in-depth article called "Shadow Players" about Baltimore's shadow drug economy and how it permeates throughout the city. The shadow economy is as big or bigger then the city's hotel & restaurant trade which provides thousands of jobs to the city. The article points out that the shadow economy also provides jobs dealing with drug enforcement and ironically help funds non-profits groups and city development agencies.
To quote the great character Lester Freeman from "The Wire" a show about "fictional" Baltimore police wiretaps on city drug dealers, "...you follow the drugs, it leads to the major drug players. You follow the money, you don't know where it will lead."
Here are a couple quotes from the article, which everyone should read:
"Three years ago Baltimore Health Department Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein estimated the number of Baltimore addicts at 50,000...Assuming he's in the ballpark, and assuming each drug-dependant individual must raise $50 each day to pay for drugs...Baltimore's heroin and cocaine market would be worth $912 million annually. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2002 "accommodation and food service sales" in Baltimore were worth about $1 billion."
"In other words, the drug trade generates a revenue stream comparable to the city's hotels and restaurants, an industry so important politically that the city government pledged $305 million in revenue bonds to build a downtown hotel that opened last year."
To quote the great character Lester Freeman from "The Wire" a show about "fictional" Baltimore police wiretaps on city drug dealers, "...you follow the drugs, it leads to the major drug players. You follow the money, you don't know where it will lead."
Here are a couple quotes from the article, which everyone should read:
"Three years ago Baltimore Health Department Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein estimated the number of Baltimore addicts at 50,000...Assuming he's in the ballpark, and assuming each drug-dependant individual must raise $50 each day to pay for drugs...Baltimore's heroin and cocaine market would be worth $912 million annually. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2002 "accommodation and food service sales" in Baltimore were worth about $1 billion."
"In other words, the drug trade generates a revenue stream comparable to the city's hotels and restaurants, an industry so important politically that the city government pledged $305 million in revenue bonds to build a downtown hotel that opened last year."
To put 50,000 addicts in context, the total city population is 650,000. So that means 7% of all residents are addicts. The number of people trafficking drugs in the city is unclear but if you included the number of dealers and addicts together and they would probably represent over 10% of all city residents. Add in related activities such as prostitution, con-man, and thieves and legal businesses such as bail bonds man and the percentage of residents in the shadow market grows larger.
The article also shows that those who control the market or the shadow economy want order instead of violence. In a strange but very practical twist, dealers will assist cops with information to take down rival crews to preserve order for the sake of business. The article quotes:
"...using a hypothetical example, 'the question in Baltimore is, if Joe Blow takes over 40 percent of the market, why is that significant? And it's significant if it's actually having some impact on the supply of drugs in the city . . . or if this person actually has some impact outside the drug market. Does this person have any influence on the legitimate world of business and politics? That would be interesting.'"
Operators at that level, Nadelmann says, have an interest in ratcheting down the violence and working with police to shut down rivals. 'If you have anyone who's in a big enough position to think like a businessman, he wants to reduce the likelihood that people are dying," Nadelmann says. "It goes back to the idea of why were the cops working together with the mob in the old days--there was a payoff, but they also had similar interest in public order.''
The flip side to the violence, destruction and decay that the shadow economy brings to city neighborhoods is the amount of funding that the city of Baltimore receives from the Federal government to combat the war on drugs which in return creates hundreds of city jobs. This is not to imply that the ends justify the means but it does show how much impact the shadow economy has on the standard economy. Over 10% of city residents are either contributing or dependent on the shadow economy but this same economy produces even another segment of residents who work to combat it.
"This is perhaps not surprising in a city so dependent on the money generated by drug sales--and the money allocated to counteract drugs. Charitable foundations and the federal government spend $1 million per week in Baltimore on drug treatment programs, creating hundreds of additional jobs--many of them for recovering addicts--which depend on an amorphous, uncountable addict population. City police draw overtime and seize millions of dollars worth of cars, real estate, and cash every year, leaching wealth from the city's drug economy but never really wounding it."
I encourage everyone to read the whole article because the shadow economy does not just affect those who are within it but everyone in the city and it's surroundings. The 10% of residents involved in the shadow economy are not just state and numbers but family members, friends, classmates and even co-workers. Their impact can potentially affect every person and almost any family across all social and class lines.
The other important aspect of this article is the money generated by the shadow economy. The social cost that drugs cost cities is immeasurable...but if drugs went away tomorrow, how would more than 10% of city residents support themselves? The unemployment rate in Baltimore City is well over 7% and is probably higher since most of the people involved in the shadow market have been out of the job market for so long that they no longer count when calculating the unemployment rate. If drugs went away tomorrow, potentially 10% of city residents who most likely lack any traditional skill and formal education would need employment.
How would Baltimore city combat that? How could Baltimore city help it's residents. Almost everyone wants the end of the cycle of drugs and violence in our inner-city communities but have we gone so long with allowing this shadow economy to exist that cities can no longer afford to live without it?
What are your thoughts?
Obama calls DC soft
NBC Chicago reports that President Obama is telling DC to toughen up when it comes to dealing with snow.
The article reports:
"So, it's good to see you guys. Can I make a comment that is unrelated to the economy, very quickly? And it has to do with Washington. My children's school was cancelled today because of what? ..... Some -- some ice?
"... As my -- as my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never cancelled. In fact, my seven-year-old pointed out that you'd go outside for recess in weather like this. You wouldn't even stay indoors. So it's -- I don't know. We're going to have to try to apply some flinty Chicago toughness to this town."
As someone who grew up in the Mid-Atlantic, I have to agree with the Prez. Although I will say that the Mid-Atlantic has not had a bad winter for 6-7 years now, so the first suspicion of snow makes everyone panic now. I remember during bad winters it would take at least 6 inches to close schools down...but that was more due to the fact the school system could not afford to take any more school days off for weak snow storms.
The article reports:
"So, it's good to see you guys. Can I make a comment that is unrelated to the economy, very quickly? And it has to do with Washington. My children's school was cancelled today because of what? ..... Some -- some ice?
"... As my -- as my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never cancelled. In fact, my seven-year-old pointed out that you'd go outside for recess in weather like this. You wouldn't even stay indoors. So it's -- I don't know. We're going to have to try to apply some flinty Chicago toughness to this town."
As someone who grew up in the Mid-Atlantic, I have to agree with the Prez. Although I will say that the Mid-Atlantic has not had a bad winter for 6-7 years now, so the first suspicion of snow makes everyone panic now. I remember during bad winters it would take at least 6 inches to close schools down...but that was more due to the fact the school system could not afford to take any more school days off for weak snow storms.
Monday, January 26, 2009
New Urbanism
The Pros and Cons of New Urbanism. As great as it is to have New Urbanist principles to suburban development, there still remains an emptiness and a feel of exclusiveness that make these New Urbanist developments feel suburban despite their densities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)