Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

NYC 20-Somethings’ Stagnant Wages and Higher Cost of Living

I need help with this one. Is this a phenomenon of statistical cherry-picking or a true trend that should worry us? New York Observer – A Yoke for the White Collar New York’s college grads now hustle for jobs paying 1970s wages. Meet their coping mechanism—massive debt! A younger New Yorker could be forgiven for running up debt: Real wages for 20-something professionals in New York haven’t changed since the early 1970s. At the same time, the number of college grads competing for white-collar jobs has increased—as has the cost of everything from real estate to beer to MetroCards. image from article: Nigel Holmes: Source: Gotham Gazette, June 19, 2007 In 1970, 19.5 percent of New Yorkers in their 20s had college degrees, according to the analysis. By 2005, that percentage had more than doubled. By 2006, roughly one in three New Yorkers 25 and older had at least a college degree, according to N.Y.U.’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. For younger college grads, the job market has become ever more competitive and the monetary rewards stagnant. And yet they come. Something doesn’t seem right and I can’t put my finger on it. The statistics seem a little cherry-picked, but I have suspicion that some important demographic trend is being neglected. Sure, I can see where wages are stagnant, but as more college educated young people have moved to New York? Have shifts in immigration trends caused this? Or perhaps loss of manufacturing jobs that paid relatively well for young native New Yorkers? I think it’s safe to say that many more college students have flocked to New York in the past decade, and many college students are taking longer to graduate. Could part of it be that more 20-somethings in New York are spending more time […]

Subsidies and Taxes Favor Owning Over Renting

Paul Krugman asks a question that has been addressed at Market Urbansim: But here’s a question rarely asked, at least in Washington: Why should ever-increasing homeownership be a policy goal? How many people should own homes, anyway? Listening to politicians, you’d think that every family should own its home — in fact, that you’re not a real American unless you’re a homeowner. “If you own something,” Mr. Bush once declared, “you have a vital stake in the future of our country.” Presumably, then, citizens who live in rented housing, and therefore lack that “vital stake,” can’t be properly patriotic. Because the I.R.S. lets you deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income but doesn’t let you deduct rent, the federal tax system provides an enormous subsidy to owner-occupied housing. On top of that, government-sponsored enterprises — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks — provide cheap financing for home buyers; investors who want to provide rental housing are on their own. (Krugman neglects to mention that landlords also deduct mortgage interest, passing some of the savings to tenants. However, landlords pay taxes on income and gains, which the homeowner usually does not.) Krugman then gives 3 downsides to society of encouraging ownership: First of all, there’s the financial risk. Although it’s rarely put this way, borrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake. I agree, sometimes these risks are better absorbed by the capital markets if the risks cannot be properly diversified through an individual’s portfolio. Owning a home also ties workers down. Even in the best of times, the costs and hassle of selling one home and buying another — one estimate put the average cost […]

Should Government Own Wilderness?

I found a link to a great article at FreeColorado.com. It doesn’t apply to urbanism specifically, but conceptually deals with privatization of publicly owned land. Free Colorado – Should Government Own Wilderness? The original article was from Grand Junction Free Press – Armstrong Column: Should the government own, manage wilderness? here’s a few quotes I enjoyed: Just how far do we want to push our free-market agenda? The short answer is all the way. A free market means that people’s rights to control their resources and associate with others voluntarily, so long as they don’t violate the rights of others, are consistently protected. It means that the initiation of force is outlawed. The alternative is coercion: taking people’s resources by force and and threatening them with jail for not doing what you want. We refuse to sanction the mixed economy, the current blend of some liberty and some socialist controls. We advocate liberty, all the time, without exception. Politically, of course, it’s usually easier to stop the government takeover of something new (such as a recreation facility) than to restore a government-controlled entity to the free market. Even though there’s no reason whatever for the national government to run trains or deliver the mail, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the United States Post Office have resisted market reforms. Trains and mail remain largely socialized industries. It seems that organizations like the Sierra Club complain most loudly about federal wilderness management. Therefore, we suggest simply giving many federal lands to the Sierra Club or similar groups. We’re confident they would do a good job managing the land, and they’d be more open to charging fees for use and even drilling to pay for land management. The rest could be transferred to a privatized Forest Service or sold, with the […]

Could a Private Street Look Like This?

photo at Brooklyn Paper was attributed to Montague Street Business Improvement District Stephen at rationalitate occasionally brings up that truly privatized streets could be converted to other uses. I think it would be inevitable that on streets with many shops and cafes, such as Montague Street in Brooklyn, the shops may get together to form some sort of association to own the street. Perhaps on weekdays, the association who own the street would allow commercial traffic which benefits their businesses, and on nights and weekends close off the street for seating and pedestrians. I guess we’ll never know until some city is bold enough to try it. Brooklyn Paper – Montague on grass! The grassy plazas would not cut off traffic on the busy side streets. As such, the bike advocacy group Transportation Alternatives said that the plan would not wreck havoc on car traffic. In fact, it would bring more people to the street, mostly by subway, foot or bike. “It will also encourage Sunday sales for our merchants,” said BID Executive Director Chelsea Mauldin. “People can come out, pick up a coffee, read the paper, and enjoy the sunshine.”

Gramercy Park: Private Open Space

photo by flickr user wallyg Back in the days in the Wild Wild East of private land ownership and limited land-use restrictions, parks were actually created by market forces. The same forces that created and preserved Gramercy Park could easily be used to preserve Historic Landmarks and low density “neighborhood character”. NY Times – The Guardian of Gramercy Park Indeed, while a key to Gramercy Park — or, more precisely, an address that entitles one to such a key — is among the most coveted items of New York real estate, under Ms. Harrison’s stewardship, the park has become perhaps the least-used patch of open space in the city. Most days, in nice weather, one would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people in the park at once, and few linger. Gramercy is one of two private parks in New York City (the other, in Queens, is Sunnyside Gardens Park), and a key is required not only to enter, but to leave through a gate in its wraparound wrought-iron fence. Each of the 63 lots on which the current 39 buildings sit gets two keys, which residents (and guests at the Gramercy Park Hotel) may borrow from their doormen. In addition, residents of those buildings — but only those — may purchase keys for $350 per year; the keys are all but impossible to copy and cost $1,000 to replace. About 400 people now have keys, but many of them apparently sit unused in junk drawers in the grand foyers in the apartments overlooking the park. One sunny morning last week, as Ms. Harrison chatted with the Rev. Thomas F. Pike, rector of Calvary-St. George’s Church, there were three others in the park: a woman checking her BlackBerry, a custodial worker and a jogger. On a Saturday […]

Demographics + Transportation Costs + Lower Crime = More Urbanization

WSJ: Suburbs a Mile Too Far for Some Demographic Changes, High Gasoline Prices May Hasten Demand for Urban Living Messrs. Boseman and Wells embody trends that are dovetailing to potentially reshape a half-century-long pattern of how and where Americans live: The drivable suburb — that bedrock of post-World War II society — is for many a mile too far. In recent years, a generation of young people, called the millennials, born between the late 1970s and mid-1990s, has combined with baby boomers to rekindle demand for urban living. Today, the subprime-mortgage crisis and $4-a-gallon gasoline are delivering further gut punches by blighting remote subdivisions nationwide and rendering long commutes untenable for middle-class Americans. Peter Gordon contends that urbanism correlate less with gas prices than crime rates: Harry Richardson and Soojung Kim and I presented a conference paper earlier this year where we looked at the cycles of suburbanization-exurbanization since 1969. Our Figures 2a-2g and Tables 3-4 and 3-5 show the “rural renaissance” of the early 70s and how that reversed as the price of gasoline spiked in the early 1980s. But the following cycles of reversal of reversal and so forth did not track gasoline prices. The largest metros came back again in the late 1990s when gas prices were very low. The suburbanization-exurbanization-ruralization cycles that we found tracked the ebb and flow of crime rates better than gasoline prices. It makes sense to me. Those who prefer urban living had possibly been discouraged by higher urban crime rates of the past. Nonetheless, gas prices will have some long-term effect on where rational people choose to live. If crime continues to subside, could this be the perfect storm? Demographics + higher transportation costs + low crime –> high degrees of urbanization over the next decade. Let’s hope cities welcome the […]

EcoDensity: Scary Name, but Not-so-Bad

Vancouver’s City Council has approved an “EcoDensity” policy. How is EcoDensity different from regular density, which already comes pre-equipped with environmental benefits? Well, its just an environmental-sounding catch-prefix and comes with less bureaucracy for green developments. Planetizen – EcoDensity Approved in Vancouver Amongst the additional actions, Council has approved in principle the development of bylaws that could allow lane-oriented housing (coach houses and apartments above garages) potentially throughout the city (what we’ve called “hidden” density); new secondary suite options in every housing type (what we’ve called “invisible” density – Vancouver currently allows one secondary suite in single-detached housing, but not in other housing forms such as rowhouses and apartments); exploration of new mid-rise building typologies and associated zoning; a new “Green means Go” priority approval system for exemplary sustainable projects; the removal of numerous existing regulatory disincentives to green design approaches; EcoDensity demonstration projects on city-owned land; the development of new amenity and services funding tools to support quality density; and so on. One action in particular will represent the culmination of much of our thinking – the development over time of a new EcoCityPlan, respecting and building on the highly successful and influential CityPlan developed in the mid-90’s with incredible public engagement. It’s interesting how they are able to make an environmental case to make the bureaucratic approval process not seem so bad. “Hey, if you make it green, we’ll actually try not to slow you down as much as we usually do.” Why can’t all projects be given a speedy approval process? All-in-all, this seems like a good example of how market liberalization (while only incremental here) can be made to appeal to typically anti-market progressives. I guess all you have to is add the “Eco” prefix. How about “EcoProfits”, “EcoTrade”, “EcoPrivatization” or “EcoTaxCut”?

Socialist Cities

So, you think the planners in your area are taking something a little too far? Be glad you aren’t in Venezuela… I wish I could link to the article by Michael Mehaffy in The Urban Land Institute’s May edition of Urban Land titled “Venezuela’s New Socialist Cities”, but ULI doesn’t provide the online edition to non-members. However, I have been able to find some related articles online, which I can share with you. Development of Caminos de Los Indios, the first of five “Socialist Cities” has begun south of Caracas. In his 2007 inaugural speech, Hugo Chavez said, “We need to a system of cities based on federations, federal regions. We need to build communal cities, Socialist Cities.” “Economic power needs to be transfered to these local bodies (“councils of popular power”) – so that we can work toward the communal and social state and move away from capitalism.” The concept is tauted by the government as a way of empowering locals and creating sustainable places for the 1/2 million residents. In Nov 17, 2007’s Washington Post, Ramón Carrizales, Venezuela’s housing minister is quoted “A city that’s self-sustainable, that respects the environment, that uses clean technologies, that is mostly for use by the people, with lots of walking paths, parks, sports areas, museums and schools within walking distance.” However, many environmentalists are appalled, since these cities will be build in the wilderness, requiring roads and infrastructure to these newly deforested locations. Not only that, many rural residents will be forced to resettle into the “Socialist Cities.” The history of these sort of projects are dismal. From the Washington Post article Chávez’s ‘Socialist City’ Rises: “The majority of socialist cities that were built in socialist countries failed,” said Maria Josefina Weitz, an urban planner in Caracas. “When you create something by […]

CTA “Super Station” Mothballed

Photo by flickr user mss2400 Thanks, DBM for the tip: Faced with runaway costs, the CTA and City Hall slammed the emergency brakes Wednesday on ambitious plans to build a “super station” in downtown’s Block 37 to speed express trains to both Chicago’s airports. A combined $213 million has been spent on the project, yet there is not much more than a massive hole in the ground to show for it. At least an additional $100 million would be needed to complete the subterranean station, the CTA estimated. “The Block 37 curse continues,” said Joseph Schwieterman, a transportation and urban planning professor at DePaul University who has for years doubted the viability of the transit project. read the Chicago Tribune article here: CTA ‘super station’ in a hole Damn. I was really looking forward to the express connection to the airports. Had I not gone back to grad school, I would have worked on the subway station and tunnel design. But, I was always suspicious of how/if trains would actually be express without adding significant amounts of track and switching. With any major Chicago public project, always be suspicious that it will cost what the politicians say. The common joke is that there is a factor of 2.5: actual cost / original announced cost. The funny thing is that the factor seems pretty close to accurate. I wonder if there is any real data on that. I definitely recommend reading Here’s the Dealby Ross Miller, to learn the long history of Block 37 and political meddling in Chicago’s downtown.

Quinn Proposes to Revamp Rent Control ‘Freakshow’

Curbed NY – Christine Quinn, Hands Off Our Freakshow! Fact: The biggest joke in New York is the Rent Guidelines Board. Every year this nine-member panel gathers to hold a series of circus-like public hearings on rent increases (or, heh, decreases) for stabilized apartments. Every year, tenant groups demand a rent freeze, and landlord groups demand double-digit increases. Every year, the increases fall somewhere in the middle (this year is a little high, though), following lots of shouting, some impromptu jam sessions and occasional nudity. But here’s the thing: it’s only now, when this annual theater is suddenly threatened, that we realize how much we’d miss the damn thing. Quinn (City Council Speaker) is supporting a state bill that would restructure the board (which is appointed by the mayor and includes two members representing tenants, two representing landlords, and five representing the “general public”), deny rent increases for one year on buildings with serious violations, and require the use of a tenant’s income and expenses in determining whether an increase is warranted. So, owners would be subject to the needs of their tenants? I doubt the “general public” she refers to includes the interests of the renters moving to New York or market rate renters… Also: NY Sun: Speaker Quinn Urges Overhaul of Rent Board

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire