A Level Playing Field for Cities

Boston’s resurrection from the snail’s pace construction of the Big Dig, as noted earlier this week, has put the city back in the spotlight. With the cranes gone, traffic reduced, a shiny new tunnel, and a fresh cut lawn, Boston can once again be considered along with the other major players for its quality of urban life.

Appropriately, Boston is hosting a conference on green cities sponsored by the Harvard Center for the Environment, Rappaport Institute, and Mayor Thomas Menino’s office.

Courtesy of Real Estate Bloggers.

As a precursor, Rappaport Institute Director Ed Glaeser positions urban living as a more sustainable pattern for growth in American cities. As an economics professor at Harvard, he has the ability to tap into the fair allocation of resources and due burden.

If only for the following passage, Ed Glaeser’s article should be read by everyone to understand the benefits of urban living.

In the past, urban creativity was an interesting sideshow, not the main economic event, but today, the rebirth of Boston and New York and London has been built on the increasingly important urban edge in connecting innovative people. The same economic forces that did so much to harm industrial cities in the 1970s - globalization and technological progress - also increased the returns to being smart and you become smart by being around other smart people. We are in a great urban age, because urban connections forge human capital and create innovation.

Being a New York resident myself, I live the notion presented here and very much appreciate the ability to tap into an endless network of creative energy. Ok, so why not live in the suburbs and have that backyard with barbecue grill I crave, and just tap into the resources of a city when needed?

Map of neighborhoods in Manhattan. Courtesy of Strange Maps.

The selfish answer is because I just enjoy living in cities. Having all these resources close at hand means I’ll actually take advantage of them.

The political answer is because it’s not a sustainable lifestyle, outlined in more depth by Ed Glaeser below. I no longer own a car. I take the subway to and from work. I am promoting density by being a part of it. The list could go on from here, just based on living in a dense city.

Life must be good then. People are moving back into cities. The general public is becoming more aware of sustainable issues. Anything “green” is now hip. Wrong.

According to Ed Glaeser, the current momentum of urbanism has limits…

…cities shouldn’t have to face a policy deck stacked against urban living. Urban firms and residents shouldn’t have to pay a disproportionate share of the taxes needed to care for disadvantaged Americans. Suburbanites shouldn’t get a free pass on the environmental damage created by a car-based lifestyle…

Urban poverty does not reflect urban failure, but rather the enduring appeal of cities to the less fortunate. Poor people come to cities because urban areas offer economic opportunity, better social services, and the chance to get by without an automobile…

When we ask urban residents to pick up the tab for educating the urban poor, then we are imposing an unfair tax on those residents. That tax artificially restricts the growth of our dynamic cities.

The big question becomes, how do we change the tax structure with regard to these urban issues?

An editorial in the NY Times suggests it’s holding the presidential candidates accountable. The article argues that cities, and their respective mayors, have already been doing their part. Yet, they continue to be stifled by a lack of support and/or interest at the federal level.

72 people transported by car, bus, and bicycle. Courtesy of the Press-Office City of Munster.

Maybe it’s a targeted campaign, such as the bicycling campaign in Munster, Germany. The poster above illustrates the spatial requirements for 72 people transported by car, bicycle, and bus. It becomes quickly and graphically apparent that large changes can be caused by simple differences. This city has carried the title of “Most Livable City” since 2004 for cities with 200,000 to 750,000 inhabitants. So, maybe there is something we could learn from them.

Or is it as simple as getting main stream media coverage? CNN recently did a report on the impacts of gas prices to individuals’ budgets.

• James, of Illinois, sees customers at his pizza shop ordering medium pizzas when the majority used to order larges
• Marcia, of Texas, is cocooning by shopping online, not going out for entertainment, and not visiting family
• Fred, of Arizona, almost changed jobs, but has found a carpool for the time being
• Greg, of Maryland, sold his SUV, works closer to home, and will start a garden this year to start growing some of his own food
• Kevin, of Oklahoma, and his family now go to church 20 miles away once or twice a week instead of 3-4 times
• Christine, of Missouri, sold her house and now rents an apartment closer to work

These people are being forced to change on their own habits and routines due to recent changes in the economy, but what will it take to change the system?

A level playing field requires that urbanites should not bear an undue burden of caring for the poor and that suburbanites should pay for the environmental costs of energy-intensive lifestyles.

-Edward Glaeser

Article
A Level Playing Field for Cities, Edward L. Glaeser

Event
Green Cities: Lessons From Boston and Beyond

via Environmental and Urban Economics

If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Powered by Wordpress | WP Premium theme by WP Remix
Copyright 2007. agents of urbanism. All rights reserved

• Home
• About
• Archives
• Glossary
• Poll Archive
• Sitemap