Faithful Antiplanner ally Wendell Cox has recently written a series of papers on urban development that should be read by every city official concerned about the economic future of their city. First, for a blog about World Streets, Cox argues that those who are concerned about urban prosperity should focus on ends, such as eradicating poverty and spreading affluence, rather than means, such as increasing density.
Second, for Canada’s Frontier Centre, Cox argues that urban containment strategies do more harm than good. Again, he says (but with far more detail) “the focus should be on objectives, not means.”
Most recently, in an article in the Daily Beast co-authored by Joel Kotkin, Cox rates the nation’s most aspirational cities, meaning cities with a high quality of life and numerous economic opportunities. The best cities, they find, are those with “cultural amenities and attitudes of ‘progressive’ blue states but in a distinctly red-state environment of low costs, less regulation, and lower taxes.” The top five cities, they find, are Austin, New Orleans, Houston, Oklahoma City, and Raleigh.
It will also increase the feeling of excitement and boost the sex 100mg viagra drive. levitra australia online Water retention is another common side effect reported by users. For example, on the last day of menotropins. cialis 5mg no prescription Men, who are to canadian prices for viagra develop or maintain an erection may be compromised.
Cox’s (and Kotkin’s) approach contrasts sharply with those who claim that the path to urban prosperity is through more planning, land-use regulation, and subsidies. As Cox might predict, this report, for example, focuses more on means than ends, looking at whether cities are making investments in things like transit and bike paths rather than whether those investments are doing any good. My own analysis found that, in the United States, at least, urban growth is negatively correlated with more spending on transit.
In light of Detroit’s recent bankruptcy, a number of letter writers in the New York Times last week suggested that suburbs “help” the cities through “regionalization.” But, as Jane Jacobs once observed, a “region” is “an area safely larger than the last one to whose problems we found no solution.” Combining a city as badly managed as Detroit with its suburbs is more likely to bring down the suburbs than elevate the city.
The real solution for Detroit is to eliminate the regulation, corruption, and other institutions that have stifled growth and prosperity. That can’t happen by giving the city more money, whether from the regional, state, or national level. Instead, the real change has to come from within.
Urban density has always been a haven for the underprivileged. That’s why the immigrants came there to begin with. The cities were the job centers. Suburbs which were safer, cheaper, better in some respects bucked the classical trends. Urban prosperity is a double edged sword. If a neighborhood prospers it often includes a rise in living expenses which only alienate or oust it’s prior residents. In 100 years parts of Manhattan went from slums to penthouses. The reason, location, location, location.
“Cox argues that those who are concerned about urban prosperity should focus on ends, such as eradicating poverty and spreading affluence, rather than means,… the focus should be on objectives, not means.”
So big and grandiose, not attention to detail. And is this not a tacit approval for “the ends justify the means”? 😉
In all seriousness, I appreciate what Mr. Cox is trying to say, but to get from the declaration of your objectives to the achievement of your objectives, you use what ever “means” you have. When the means get confused for the ends is often where government planning often starts to turn south. It’s not that we shouldn’t give a lot of important attention to the means, it’s that we shouldn’t loose sight of the objectives or confuse the means with the objective.
An example in transit planning is “Coordination.” The FTA and many State DOT’s are gaga over the word coordination. Most require Coordinated Plans which require significant outreach with other transportation providers, human service agencies, schools, medical facilities, etc. to receive any capital, operational or planning grants. Coordination has become the focus. Coordination has become the objective.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/13093_8196.html
But this is wrong. Coordination, when appropriate, is a means to achieving the objective (to operate a safe and professional service that gets butts in seats). The truth is, most transit agencies that have withstood the test of time have been coordinated since before the concept grabbed the transit world by the junk. Also, if you run reliable, effective and professional service coordination pretty much takes care of itself.
My final thought is that if the public, elected officials and government administrators take Mr. Cox’s advice and focus on the “ends” I’m not sure he would like the outcome. Though he may have a different vision of what this would likely mean, the aforementioned cohorts will likely seek the solution in an increase of collectivist approaches.
Cox argues that those who are concerned about urban prosperity should focus on …eradicating poverty and spreading affluence…
Cox implies increasing gubmint intervention and regulation? Was that in The Onion or Daily Currant?!
DS