No need to build anymore McMansions...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-04-09-vacanthomes_N.htm

From Planetizen, Slate

Robots, Not RoadsThe Obama stimulus package should be spent on transformative investments, not bridges and buildings.

By Eliot SpitzerPosted Monday, Jan. 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM ET

The incoming Obama administration and Congress are planning a huge fiscal stimulus package. They hope that such a stimulus will catalyze an economic turnaround and be a cornerstone of a "New New Deal." If the early reports are reliable, the stimulus will include a huge tax cut and will fund projects like road-building and bridge repair, laying the infrastructure foundation for the economy of the future.

Yet two huge problems with this approach must be confronted. First, the capacity of even the U.S. government to affect the overall global economy is limited. Suppose the package is $800 billion over two years: $400 billion is less than 1 percent of the global economy and a mere 3 percent of the U.S. economy. In relative terms, $400 billion isn't all that much more than the $152 billion spent on the 2008 stimulus, which had nary an impact on the economy.

Here is where the New Deal analogies are instructive. The New Deal probably didn't pull us out of the Depression; World War II did that. What the New Deal did was redefine the social contract—perhaps just as important an outcome. The ultimate significance of the Obama package may be not its short-term demand-side impact but rather its capacity to transform our economy and, in turn, some of the fundamental underpinnings of our society. This introduces the second major problem: The "off the shelf" infrastructure projects that can be funded immediately and provide immediate demand-side stimulus are almost by definition not the transformative investments we really need. Paving roads, repairing bridges that need refurbishing, and accelerating existing projects are all good and necessary, but not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically.

This moment presents the administration with what is likely to be its best—and perhaps only—opportunity to have essentially unlimited capital (both fiscal and political) to spend on a transformative economic agenda. It is a unique moment to build a new foundation. It would be wise to ensure that a significant portion of the stimulus package is spent on new investments that may not be quite as ready to go but are surely more important to our long-term economic viability. There are many such critical investments, but here are a few for consideration. These are not, of course, the only ideas, and they may not be the best ideas. But they should spur discussion of how to use the fiscal stimulus not just to put people to work but also to build the over-the-horizon projects that will set the stage for the next great American economic miracle.

In the energy arena, two investments are critical. The first is smart meters. These would permit, with a smart grid, time-of-day pricing for all consumers, with potentially double-digit reductions in peak demand, significant cost savings, and consequential remarkable energy and environmental impacts. These declines in peak demand would translate into dramatic reduction in the number of new power plants. The problem with installation of smart meters has been both the cost and, often, state-by-state regulatory hurdles. Now is the moment to sweep both aside and transform our entire electricity market into a smart market.

Second, the most significant hurdle to beginning the shift to nongasoline-based cars is the lack of an infrastructure to distribute the alternative energy, whether it is electricity—plug-in hybrids—or natural gas or even hydrogen. Once that infrastructure is there, it is said, consumers will be able to opt for the new technology. If that is so, let us build that infrastructure now: Transform existing gas stations so they can serve as distribution points for natural gas or hydrogen, build plug-in charging centers at parking lots, and design units for at-home garages. These would, indeed, be transformative investments.

In health care, everybody agrees that electronic record-keeping is a universal win: errors reduced, public health gains from the ability to know what is actually being delivered, a dramatic improvement in primary care. But again, the cost has been prohibitive, because the upfront expenditure is enormous and the benefits are long term and hard to measure. We should condition state receipt of Medicaid bailout funds on a new infrastructure of electronic medical records. No single health care step would be more transformative.

America lags the world in Internet service and access. Our Internet backbone is worse than that of competing nations. We should spend to upgrade it.

In education—just as much a part of our infrastructure as bridges and roads—here is a small investment that is one of my favorites: Provide funding for robotics teams at every school. If you ever want to see intellectual competition in the arena that matters today—technological wizardry—visit the robotics competitions that now exist in some schools. Make these competitions as universal as football. Make it cool to design the next cutting-edge video game or iPod.

These are just a few possible infrastructure investments. The list is long, and the right infrastructure could provide the basis for a redirected economy. Long term, the most important investments are not on the easy list of "off the shelf" projects. Yes, good roads and bridges are important. But investing in the necessary public goods to support a post-hydrocarbon, information-based economy is a much better choice than using the stimulus to patch up the old economy.

Planetizen Article

http://www.planetizen.com/node/36822

Urban Agriculture

As cities grow, they generally fill in all open areas with development, or leave them as park space.  Agriculture remains on the exterior in rural areas, and may provide food and other resources to that specific city.  Urban agriculture is as simple as it sounds--agricultural practices in the urbanized area.  Rather than fill all areas in with development, or as lots are vacated, agricultural practices can remain.  

What is the value of urban agriculture?

It is still debatable, and likely always will be, if urban agriculture is the most efficient and economical use of land in an urbanized area.  But it is also very logical, and 'sustainable'.  

The general reasoning used for urban agriculture is to have food grown cl0ser to the population consuming it, thereby reducing costs for transporting the goods to the consumer.  In addition, urban agriculture has been toted as a community revitalization measure through community gardens, which can be run by local community members, which then sell their produce/goods at a local farmer's market.  Urban agriculture, if conducted sustainably, can also be good for the environment.  An agricultural area, for all intensive purposes, is a green space with a pervious surface.  Environmentally, and assuming it is done in sustainable ways, this is better than paving it with a parking lot, or building a structure that has an impervious roof.  The pervious surface allows rainwater to infiltrate into the soil, rather than be directed toward a storm sewer, which empties into the local streams.  This prevents flash flooding from occurring downstream, thereby lessening the harmful impact of flash floods on the stream cross-section.  It also prevents pollutants from rooftops or asphalt from reaching the stream ecosystem, and harming the aquatic life.  Ultimately, there is a need for more pervious surface in the urban environment.

In order to not be a successful, urban agriculture must have community support.  Its benefits must be accepted, or it will fail.  It will also likely require a land trust of sorts, or other government dedication of the land as community open space.  Otherwise, if the land is truly owned by an individual or organization, it could easily be resold for development purposes.  Urban agriculture must also use sustainable practices.  Fertilization methods should emphasize natural systems.  Plots should incorporate a variety of produce, so as to mimic the diversity of natural systems.  Crop diversity should also be practiced in rural agriculture, as monocropping is generally bad for nutrient cycles, insect issues, and competition.  

Several cities are beginning to value this concept, especially older rust-belt cities, and other industrial cities.  Detroit has experienced massive exodus of population over the past half-century, consequently leaving abundant vacant land within several miles of the city center.  The city has embraced this land, returning some of it to agriculture, while allowing other plants to regenerate as ecological systems.  Pittsburgh has also lost population and is embracing urban agriculture, and urban ecology.  

New ideas and concepts are emerging to urban agriculture as well.  That will come in another post though.

The Dark Night

As my counterpart Peanut Butter Jelly has pointed out, I have slacked in postings as of late (hence the title Dark Night).  In light of PBJ's recent posting regarding the housing crisis, I'd like to share a recent conversation with some friends of friends over the Christmas holiday.  First though, it bears mention that I have only had one economics class in college, and do not entirely understand all the lingo and current situation.  But from what I recall, when the supply exceeds demand, as it seems to now it many regions and cities of the country, then housing construction slows.  Prices on existing homes continue to drop until prices become affordable to those who were previously not demanding a new home/dwelling unit.  Then, demand begins to rise again, and new construction occurs.   

My conversation over the holidays was with a recently (within the last six months) married couple.  They had decided to build a new home in a subdivision on the outskirts of the city that, of course, requires the automobile.  The subdivision in which this couple decided to move ironically was the choice of another recently married couple, who also had a home built.  Yet, as I look in the Sunday classifieds at home foreclosures and sales and whatnot, there are many dozens of homes/dwelling units available every week, often with a new dozen joining the group each weekend.  Why build a new home?  Even more, why build a new home in a 4-6 dwelling unit/acre density subdivision with cul-de-sacs and disjointed street networks that require automobile use?  Should the laws of supply and demand at such a terrible economic time cause the prices of existing units to drop below the cost of purchasing land and constructing a new unit?  Well, logic tells me this reflects back on the governmental policies of the particular municipality.

With the above scenario, it would seem appropriate that municipalities with a desire to encourage both economic development and conservation, as this city claims to do, would create policies (short-term) that encourage those able and looking to relocate to do so into an existing dwelling unit.   This provides several benefits.  First, as has become apparent over the past 50 years in urban and regional planning theory and practice, the continual edge growth of cities causes a perpetual exodus of activity from and decline of the interior bulk of cities.  This is counterproductive to acheiving a good city.  Measuring economic success only on new construction, which primarily occurs on the outskirts of cities, is a major flaw.  To have a healthy, thriving, economically productive city, it is logical and desirable to maintain economic activity throughout an urban area, as opposed to around the edges, and possibly in the center city.  Acheiving this requires the development of policies that encourage residents to stay within the existing urban area, but also encourage businesses to remain in and anchor activity nodes throughout an urban region.  The activity nodes, over time, can form higher density pockets that support alternative transportation, have many community services, and serve a diverse population.  

A second benefit of policies that encourage both economic development and conservation through living in existing dwelling units is that it directly impacts how the exterior of the city grows onto rural or ex-urban lands.  These lands, in many instances, better serve a community by remaining farmland, and producing crops and other foods for the local economy, or by continuing to function as an ecosystem that produces animals for hunting, removes pollutants from the air and water, slows urban runoff troubles, etc.  In some instances, the land is of cultural importance, or people may move to a city because they value the beauty of the rural landscape, only to have that landscape succumb to new poorly thought out and approved residential subdivisions.  Certainly to the owner of that property, it may be much more desirable for him though to sell it to a developer.  Theoretically, this may be the root of the problem.

Ultimately, it seems counterintuitive in tough economic times to continue to encourage new home construction.  It will spread a city thin, allowing some areas to become blighted, thereby losing economic value, but also causing money to then be spent fixing those areas.  Yes, exterior growth will always continue to occur, but the internal processes must be understood, so as to prevent the continuation of poorly designed sprawl of development outward, and to keep the interior strong and intact.  

Two in a row!

The lead blogger here at Green Urbanism is really slacking. Bruce, you need to pick it up. Speaking of Bruce Wayne, should I change my pen name to Batman? Set up a little split personality dynamic for the blog?

Anyway, I just want to post a few really valuable reference materials on the current crisis in the housing markets, which is among the areas I'm most qualified to contribute to "the whole gamut" covered in this blog.

First of all, I highly recommend the Washington Post's coverage of the crisis, from all sorts of angles. They've already published a great overview of how the mortgage backed securities (MBS) market got out of balance ("Explaining the Crisis"). This week they have a similar three part series on how AIG got so intertwined in the market for credit and risk-hedging investments that it eventually needed to be bailed out. Both can be found here: Washington Post

Second, if you're feeling really ambitious, check out this pdf created by an investment firm called T2. It's a lot of information, and if you just want the conclusion, it's this: the subprime housing crisis is just just the tip of the iceberg, and the next year or two will have plenty more foreclosures and continuing declines in housing prices. Buckle your seatbelts and keep your arms inside the car.

Urban economics, rumors and government policy

Urban economics is a huge topic that I couldn't possibly do justice to in a blog post. A few blogs devoted entirely to the economics of cities do a pretty good job though. I highly recommend Ryan Avent, an economist who follows transportation and development issues in his blog The Bellows.

I just want to talk a little about a hot new topic: President-elect Obama's plan for a White House Office of Urban Policy. Now first of all, it is SUCH a relief to have a President who understands and appreciates the city--and the immense challenges and potential in America's cities. Unfortunately, these days, it's not often one sees the words "great" and "cities" in sequence. In 1961, a resident of New York City named Jane Jacobs published a book called "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". Until the resuscitation of the past decade, anyone who paid attention would have to say that the "Great American City" was dead. Anyone who didn't pay attention might forget that such a thing had ever existed. But thanks to a variety of factors--including demographic shifts making singles and empty-nesters the predominant American family type--cities are coming back.

I first saw Obama's suggestion of an Office of Urban Policy (OUP) way back in primary season, back when Clinton continued to insist "It's only a flesh wound", and people actually believed it. At the time, I was a bit skeptical. When we already have a Cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Development, what exactly would this OUP do except further bloat the bureaucracy? HUD sends around 4-7 billion dollars a year to cities for the purpose of providing housing, homeless assistance, and economic development. It spends another $30 billion or so on public housing and other housing assistance. A President sympathetic to cities could increase those numbers of course, but could also effect policy by simply redirecting it and guiding it to better uses.

But the more I thought about it, and the more I came to understand the limitations that HUD has (independent of money), the more I started to think that the OUP could be a great initiative. COULD be a great initiative. So here is why it could be good, and what it should do in order to be good.

First of all, the OUP will combine the efforts of the multiple departments that have a role to play in cities. The primary ones are HUD and the Department of Transportation. As long as the Federal Highway Administration and other highway funding mechanisms have a budget 5 times as large as the Federal Transit Administration, cities face an uphill battle. But even if the money doesn't change, if it can be coordinated with HUD grants and HUD-required planning efforts that local governments undergo, then we can make some progress. Other offices, like the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Health and Human Services, and the Small Business Administration can certainly be coordinated to better serve our cities. I'm focused on investing in the built environment though, rather than investing in human capital, so I won't address their potential--however, we need a President and Executive Branch leadership who does understand the roles of all these organizations and can tie them together.

The best candidate I've heard for OUP is Bruce Katz. Katz is a former Chief of Staff at HUD, and currently runs the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. Brookings is a truly elite think tank in DC (THE elite think tank, in my opinion), and their Metro Program is a high profile comprehensive effort to draw attention to the immense value created by America's Metro areas ("Metro areas", because our cities are no longer defined by central business districts). The Metro Program is staffed by some of the most brilliant minds working in housing, transportation, and economics, and Katz is the man who runs the show. For what it's worth, he's also on Obama's transition team for HUD, and has been spotted in the HUD building.

Now, even with Katz at the head of the new OUP, it will have challenges. What is the office's authority? Will it control any money? It's easy to say multiple Departments should coordinate--how will they make it happen? Perhaps most importantly, the Federal government does not control cities. Hell, even cities don't control cities--citizens do. No matter how eloquently President Obama speaks about cities, or how much money is funneled to them, cities will continue to face an uphill battle until the American public begins to think more critically about those things they have come to take for granted. We all need to be more realistic about the costs of transportation, about the costs of land, about the costs of energy. We need to realize that a neighborhood where people look different, have varying incomes, or live in close proximity does not make it a dangerous neighborhood--it makes it interesting. We all need to get out of our cocoons--our cars, our backyards, our air conditioned living rooms with big screen TVs and video games--and remember (or dream about) what it's like to live in a great American city.