Much has been written about how the recession has led to a transfer of power from Wall Street to Washington, and you might think this is a good thing if you are naive enough to think Washington is more democratic than markets. But Joel Kotkin points out something even more serious: power is shifting from all American cities to Washington.
Wall Street traders might have, for a time, captured a greater share of national wealth than they once did. But they never tried to tell the rest of us where to live, how to travel, or what kind of jobs can locate in your city. Washington is poised to do just that.
I’ve covered this before, but Kotkin — who is primarily a journalist, not an economist — looks at it from a new angle. Washington, he says, is becoming “the new Rome,” meaning a new center of absolute power. Many of the people who make decisions in Washington have never tried to run a small business, never had a job in a factory, and never had to meet a payroll from income earned from customers. They are becoming, to use Kotkin’s word, America’s aristocracy — or, to use a word from the late Soviet Union, the nomenklatura.
So, it is not different in any way except the chemical is used in samples of levitra it. Left unchecked, the symptoms can become debilitating, making it impossible to function normally, especially if you have a long history of high blood pressure and heart cialis stores attacks. They virtually deal with the administration of generic viagra order unica-web.com PDE5 enzymes from the male reproductive organ & thus it helps with the extensive supply of the blood along this region which supports with the efficient & undisturbed sessions of copulation & thereby provides relief from erectile issues. This may in some cases lead to the viagra canada cheap https://unica-web.com/OBITUARIES/hans-schober-en.html onset of stress related disorders which can affect your performance in bed.
That means the plans they want to impose on American cities are likely to benefit a few and cost everyone else a great deal. One of the nice things about a decentralized economy is that people with diverse tastes can choose to live in a diversity of neighborhoods and lifestyles. The New Urbanists rail against the supposed monotony of the suburbs, but then design neighborhoods that are just as, if not more, monotonous. Given the chance, imperial Washington is likely to order such monotony everywhere.
That might seem great if you are a New Urbanist and don’t share the Antiplanner’s cynicism of either government or urban planning. But what happens when the pendulum swings the other way and Washington bureaucrats start ordering that everyone live in suburbs on quarter-acre lots?
“what happens when the pendulum swings the other way and Washington bureaucrats start ordering that everyone live in suburbs on quarter-acre lots?”
They’ll be living closer to work?
Well, I like the ‘Rome’ analogy, as we clearly are in decline. Nonetheless, we don’t have the resources to put everyone on 1/4-ac lots. And in my view Wall St and Capitol Hill are colluding so there is no shift.
My 2¢
DS
Big corporations vs. big government.
When I sit down and really think about it, I can’t tell which is doing more harm.
As Beth Haynes stated in “The Fatigue of Central Planning”:
“A market economy is the result of an uncountable number of individual decisions and actions, coordinated through price signals which provide crucial information on the availability of every imaginable resource. Profit and loss calculations provide essential feedback on the relative efficiency with which a multitude of producers use those resources to meet the needs and desires of an even larger number individual consumers.
“Central planning consistently fails because it is impossible for a small number of individuals, let alone one man, to obtain the requisite information, create the necessary plans and subsequently attempt to implement them.”
Accordingly, in answer to hkelly1, I’ll take my chances with the corporations. At least with one of them, I can refuse to spend money on its product or service if I so choose. If enough people do likewise, that corporation will wither and die. I do not have that same freedom to refuse to pay for the government’s products or services, or to pay only for those products or services I actually use (protection of military, protection of police, roads, etc). I have to buy the entire bundle, including HBO, or else I go to jail.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> That means the plans they want to impose on American cities are
> likely to benefit a few and cost everyone else a great deal.
That is consistent with many other things done in Washington, frequently courtesy of the lobbyists that tend to congregate along K Street, N.W.
> One of the nice things about a decentralized economy is that people
> with diverse tastes can choose to live in a diversity of
> neighborhoods and lifestyles. The New Urbanists rail against
> the supposed monotony of the suburbs, but then design
> neighborhoods that are just as, if not more, monotonous.
Funny that by some metrics (including walkability and number of trees), the suburbs built by Levitt and so hated by the Smart Growth industry do rather well.
> Given the chance, imperial Washington is likely to order such
> monotony everywhere.
Though even in the District of Columbia itself, a large percentage of the housing stock is single-family detached!
> That might seem great if you are a New Urbanist and don’t share
> the Antiplanner’s cynicism of either government or urban
> planning. But what happens when the pendulum swings the
> other way and Washington bureaucrats start ordering that
> everyone live in suburbs on quarter-acre lots?
Funny that you mention that.
One of the reasons that many of the federal government agencies are housed in facilities far from the U.S. Capitol’s dome is to further “sprawl” for reasons of national security (and to make them less-vulnerable to a large attack on Washington)! The Central Intelligence Agency at Langley, Va., the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Md., the National Reconnaissance Office (which runs many U.S. spy satellites) at Chantilly, Va. (near Dulles Airport), the main computer center for the Internal Revenue Service at Martinsburg, W.Va., the Social Security Administraton at Woodlawn, Md. (just outside of Baltimore), the Bureau of the Census (and Naval Intelligence next door) in Suitland, Md., the USDA’s main research facilities at Beltsville, Md. and on and on and on.
Funny that by some metrics (including walkability and number of trees), the suburbs built by Levitt and so hated by the Smart Growth industry do rather well.
The smart growth ‘industry’ hates Levittown?! Do provide an example! The industry may have much to learn!
DS
ROT:“That might seem great if you are a New Urbanist and don’t share the Antiplanner’s cynicism of either government or urban planning. But what happens when the pendulum swings the other way and Washington bureaucrats start ordering that everyone live in suburbs on quarter-acre lots?”
ws:It certainly has already been in that direction in years before. There’s also no reason to believe that DC is dictating the planning will of cities and metro areas. So, the title Imperial Washington is an extreme exaggeration.
> The smart growth ‘industry’ hates Levittown?! Do provide an example!
Start here:
http://www.smartgrowthonline.org/news/bystate.asp?state=NY&res=1680
(once you pull up that page, please scroll down to the item entitled “Sen. Schumer Is Surprise Speaker at 2009 Vision Long Island Awards”)
Suburbs don’t have to be places, though some suburbs are better than others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN3rN59GlWw
CPZ, your claim was that the SG industry hates Levittown [emphasis added]. Can you tell us where in your link your claim is backed?
Thank you in advance.
DS
On the 26th we had a discussion on Density Vs Walking. As usual there are many different studies and different opinions. Try this one.
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/16
‘Contrary to prior research, the authors conclude that the effects of density and block size on total walking and physical activity are modest to non-existent, if not contrapositive to hypotheses. Divergent findings are attributed to this study’s sampling design, which tends to mitigate residual confounding by socioeconomic status’.
The highwayman said: “…some suburbs are better than others.”
Here’s an example of a suburb being “better”, at least architecturally, than others. It might be government planned, but the walkability is attractive, especially to someone like me who has taken a big pay cut and cannot afford car payments, full coverage insurance, and owns a 10 year old car that might die at any moment; being able to walk to work and a short distance through a nice neighborhood to Target for food is a big bonus.
Comments on comments (1st):
rk166, You mentioned about Randal saying that DC could be “ordering†people on mid-size lots.
Well, loosely beyond people choosing high-density if they want [& not being able to choose medium density]; I’m not sure what he meant. However, your supposed conclusion: “closer to workâ€Â: well, lives like those lobbyists & others, sucking ass to Congressmen or work at Langley (protecting us) or wherever, it’s their decision to locate.
Dan, all households at 4DU/acre puts it at 3% of US land (not incl,Alsk), vs ~2.7% urbanization today. There are difs, for non-residential use & rural & clusters. And don’t forget that many don’t want or can afford that low density. Point is!!!: some want large lots & it’s not a drain. Those wanting to “restrict, make it a drain.â€Â.
hkelly, Business is to blame for some, but gov more so, for getting in the way & pushing, disallowing (often gov allowed “specialtiesâ€Â, rather than regular prevention of fraud, slander, favoritism & such); there are flaws, gov enhance those & make other factors worse.
Look at this way: Basically, we need protection from gov: rights, fire, police, force, contracts, etc.
We need about all products & services & from the private industry.
CPZ: DC is about #5 for most dense UA. How many new bureaucrats want to work close to place of employment? Why not? Be the judge, or not, w/out enough info? Cram more people in—what a solution.
next, (late):
Levittown—? Smart growth, either way? Redefine?
Expanding discussion ,for optimal density (20-100DU/acre?), well, if you like apartments, fine, if you a house on only a 1/10 (or even 1/6) acre lot, that’s a victim of the market (&income), & disgustingly small.
Anyway, Levittown is seen as sprawl. Transit closeness, frequency? Drive to station, still.
Walk to most places? Get real! Density of ~50,000+ is needed. All the nation can live in an area of that size ( 20,000 sq .mi), the County San Bernardino, at that rate (actually less=to SF, city, by density).
Who cares about DC? What if it “evaporated� Not a call to arms, yet…That’s not a call to mourn its destruction or the loss of those people who control our lives/budgets, etc (more than you know) What if? Life goes on. Services go. Localities continue. Municipalities tell us shit not to do. Hey, “kill†the criminals, those who force to take from others, literally.
lgrattan, thank you ever so much for finding a single study that supports your worldview!!! What is the conclusion of the rest of the literature?
DS
Density Vs Walking
Dan, you are the expert….criticize the study! What are the facts?
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/16
‘Contrary to prior research, the authors conclude that the effects of density and block size on total walking and physical activity are modest to non-existent,
lgrattan:
I have read through your link, but while it is interesting, it simply is lacking. Here are some points:
1) If you look at the map they used, they studied neighborhoods that mostly had connected street networks. I do not see any mention of cul-de-sac type neighborhoods. Their issue with connectivity was either large block or small block. It further did not assess “mixed-use” neighborhoods, etc. etc.
2) The methodology, from what I have read, does not give a definition of “density”. What equates to low density and high density? How many DU/acre?
3) On average, people living in the low density areas large block study had the highest incomes. BMI is definitely affected by income.
4) Their conclusions stated: “Results indicate that high density areas have twice the odds of increased travel walking as low density areas, but block size has no similar effect, unless one discounts the interaction term’s imprecision. Density seems to have no discernable impact on leisure walking, but larger blocks seem to increase odds ratios for leisure walking by about 40%.”
Remember, leisure walking rates in this report might be the result of a nicer looking neighborhood and higher average income = more time to walk, etc.
Lastly, I gave this link to you a few posts ago:
http://www.act-trans.ubc.ca/smartraq/pages/
This report is really intensive, 300 pages long. After reading parts of SMARTRAQ and comparing to this report, the errors in their methodology become apparent.
The facts are, lgrattan, that it is one study amongst many. The majority of studies find differently, performed both before and after this one you prefer. This is how we tell partisan op-eds from even-handed op-eds: is there reliance on one, or has some work been done to determine the findings of the literature? Nonetheless, to the question:
My issue with this particular study, as opposed to the SMARTRAQ studies – is the same with another critique I wrote to an author of an air quality study by land use in New York – there is no time of residence in the study. That is: did these residents in this study self-sort to this already highly-connected area so they could walk?
Plus, we have no idea of what was the walking activity – where are the choices of their ability to walk to somewhere (meaning, if there are few destinations, then the likelihood of walking is lower, esp as whites are self-directed in their activities)? The Pearson’s being so low on this issue is a clue to the usefulness of their findings.
That is – this paper tells us little, as evidenced by the paucity of people citing it. We just know they travel or leisure walked. We don’t know if some or all had the ability to travel walk, nor do we know the distances to travel walk (allowing us to make a ‘difficulty factor’ for such activity).
HTH.
DS
I should have said about time of residence: housing tenure is not a _factor_ in the analysis – that is: no attempt to determine neighborhood self-sorting.
Hope that is more clear.
DS
ws,,
the study gives a persons/ha for density. But the block size IS an important correlate, as we know: there are good models out there – that have contributed to KingCo’s bus service models and the WalkScore models – that tell us what needs to happen for people to feel comfortable walking. One is small block size, for route choice and lower tortuosity. IIRC Larry’s work relies heavily on Anne Vernez-Moudon’s and Chanam Lee’s work (as does mine as we were all her students) and the pedometer and BMI numbers bear this out. Another is destinations (the WalkScore premise) – and we know that properties with a higher WalkScore are worth more on the market.
DS
You’re right it did give a definition of density. I must have missed that in the text somehow.
Dan:“One is small block size,”
ws: I think small block sizes are overrated. Yes, they can lead to better pedestrianism and more connections, but even Portland’s very small 200′ x 200′ foot blocks does not equate to more people walking than any other city according to census data. Certainly, Portland’s footprint is much better than some of NY’s 900′ x 200′ blocks. But even so, small blocks also reduce the ability for very large skyscrapers to be built – which can be good or bad depending on how you look at it.
~300′ x ~550′ (in my opinion of course) is an ideal block as it decreases the # of stops/intersections for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians and reduces the total length of infrastructure needed.
I really find some of the NU neighborhoods to have absolutely way too of small block sizes that lead to excessive roadways/infrastructure, too many intersections, and an overall “Disney” like feel. But that’s what happens when developments at least try to create a walkable environment in an auto-topic moonscape – they overcompensate for walkability within their development because it certainly is not going to be enhanced by any adjacent developments – that’s for sure.
Washington is not becoming the new Rome. It has been the new Rome since U.S. Army divisions settled permanently in Germany and Japan. That’s when the program of national suburbanization began. Federal highway construction funds literally paved the way to the suburbs. Federal power was so absolute that it could dictate the legal drinking age by threatening to deny highway funds.
When an upper level of government can directly tax the citizens of the lower level, there is no real decentralization. The lower levels of government are just vassals who can be bribed with their citizens’ money. We are now witnessing the ultimate stage of this vassalization. It is not taxation that is the driving force, but central banking. Every municipality, region, state, business and corporation is bankrupt, and the Federal Government is even more bankrupt. But the Federal Reserve can print money and decide who will live and who will die. It can save its favorite investment banks and of course it can impose its favorite urbanization pattern.
mathieuhelie wrote:
> Washington is not becoming the new Rome. It has been the new
> Rome since U.S. Army divisions settled permanently in Germany
> and Japan.
Though we have less in the way of military resources in Germany and Japan than we did prior to 1989.
> That’s when the program of national suburbanization began.
Though there were plenty of suburbs in the U.S. before 1946.
> Federal highway construction funds literally paved the way to the
> suburbs.
Many claim that the Interstate Highway System “caused” suburban “sprawl.” I do not agree with such assertions. Suburbanization began long before 1956.
> Federal power was so absolute that it could dictate the legal
> drinking age by threatening to deny highway funds.
That was in the 1980’s. One of the worst accomplishments of the presidential administration of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Scott wrote:
> DC is about #5 for most dense UA. How many new bureaucrats want
> to work close to place of employment? Why not? Be the judge,
> or not, w/out enough info? Cram more people inâ€â€what a
> solution.
The amount of density that can be crammed into D.C. is limited by the following:
(1) Thanks to federal law, no building can exceed about 12 stories.
(2) Large parts of the District of Columbia are national parks and are not likely to be developed, now or in the future.
(3) Very large parts of residential areas of D.C. are (as I said above) zoned for single-family detached housing, and I do not think that the residents of those areas will tolerate any attempts at densification.
The population of DC is limited by the fact that every person in SE, NE and SW, who can afford to leave DC, moves out of DC.
Seems like this posting on Newgeography.com could be relevant:
Redesigning Suburbia
Borealis wrote:
> The population of DC is limited by the fact that every person
> in SE, NE and SW, who can afford to leave DC, moves out of DC.
There’s some truth to this – or at least there was from 1950 to 2000, when the District of Columbia’s population crashed – from an all-time peak of just over 802,000 in 1950 to about 572,000 in 2000.
From 2000 to 2008, the Census Bureau estimates that D.C. population has risen to almost 592,000, compared to the 50 years from 1950 to 2000, this is a huge increase. But is the D.C. population going to increase back to 800,000 or more in the future? I doubt it.
C. P. Zilliacus said:
mathieuhelie wrote:
> That’s when the program of national suburbanization began.
Though there were plenty of suburbs in the U.S. before 1946.
THWM: Indeed, that’s why there are things like suburban trains, though they just weren’t the auto dependent types.
Mass transit is not at conflict with “the American Dream” of a house with a backyard.
CPZ:> Federal highway construction funds literally paved the way to the
> suburbs.
Many claim that the Interstate Highway System “caused†suburban “sprawl.†I do not agree with such assertions. Suburbanization began long before 1956.
THWM: In the current sense of “suburban sprawl” it really did start with the Interstate Highway System. With spreading things out much further, throw in zoning and things become even more distant.
If transport policy really only caters towards cars, like how it’s been for the past 50-90 years, then you know what the out come is going to be.
It’s a real paradox to see people that call them selves “libertarian” to defend so much regimentation over other peoples lives.
“3) On average, people living in the low density areas large block study had the highest incomes. BMI is definitely affected by income.” –ws
Issues of BMI is a crap measurement of health aside, there’s a correlation but causation? I haven’t seen that. Keep in mind higher incomes tend to be higher as people age. And people tend to put on weight as they get older. Any chance you know of a study that at least shows that people age 25-35 living in the core central city have a lower BMI than those in the exubrbs? How about those with higher than average incomes and in the central city versus those with lower?
Many claim that the Interstate Highway System “caused†suburban “sprawl.†I do not agree with such assertions. Suburbanization began long before 1956.
Suburbanization is not sprawl, despite what polemicists like Breugmann want you to believe.
Issues of BMI is a crap measurement of health
Individual-level measurements are not societal-level measurements despite what dissemblers on the op-ed pages want you to believe.
——————
Lastly, I’m glad to see that CPZ is unable to support his ‘haydurz’ assertion above. Because it was not true.
DS
Dan:“Suburbanization is not sprawl, despite what polemicists like Breugmann want you to believe.”
ws:Weren’t 1920s streetcar suburbs connected by large, elevated cloverleaf freeways?
that was a joke, btw.