Providence Shows the Limits of Metropolitan Governance

Regionalism and metropolitan government are urban planning orthodoxy. The idea is that we need to have region-wide planning to meet the actual regional needs, which transcend boundaries. And also to have an equitable financing structure.

So entities like Portland’s Metro (a directly elected layer of regional government on the Oregon side of that metro area) and the Twin Cities’ Metropolitan Council and region-wide tax sharing system are lauded.

Because these regions have been fairly successful and seem to function well, their regional government structures are seen as beneficial.

However, there’s a much stronger case of metropolitan government that shows the other side of the coin: Providence, Rhode Island.

Providence is a metro area of 1.6 million people, of which a million live in the state of Rhode Island and the remainder in Massachusetts.

Because all of Rhode Island is part of the metro area, the state of Rhode Island itself is a functional metropolitan government layer for Providence, similar to Portland’s Metro.

The difference is that Rhode Island is a state, making it a sovereign entity. It has unlimited taxing and legislating power, making it not only a metropolitan regional government, but also the ultimate case of local control in a metro area context.

Now Rhode Island does still have 39 cities and towns. (Counties exist as lines on a map but don’t have governments). However, this is not unlike the other examples I have. Portland’s Metro covers 24 cities and three counties.  It appears that the Twin Cities’ Met Council sits over 187 municipalities.

So Providence has a comparable regional government but one with all the powers accruing to a state. This should in theory be an even better case for regional governance, right?

Also, no. There are a lot of good things about Providence, but good governance isn’t one of them. Quite the opposite in fact. The state is famous for corruption, fragmentation, high taxes, concentrated poverty, and fiscal distress.

In other states, urban core dwellers love to rail at the state legislature. In Providence, they love to do the same.

That’s not to say there are no positives. Uber is regulated at the state level, and so was permitted to operate statewide with a single regulatory scheme. This wasn’t a case of local pre-emption, but how things were set up originally. It’s similar with the statewide transit system RIPTA.

But on the whole, being “the city-state” hasn’t seemed to have had much benefit to Providence, although it’s the holy grail for many “if mayors ruled the world” types.

One might argue that a true regional government would consolidate all municipalities. That hasn’t been viewed as a panacea for Toronto. In fact, many blame amalgamation there for the rise of Rob Ford. (In the long run, we’ll see. NYC’s five borough consolidation turned out all right).

I’m not arguing that Providence’s government structure made things worse. But it does indicate that lines on a map and forms of governance may be less influential than we think. You can’t solve political divisions or social and economic changes with just new org charts. You actually have to do the hard work of dealing with them.

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/30/providence-shows-the-limits-of-metropolitan-governance/

Seattle Booms in Latest Census City-Level Estimates

Seattle. Photo Credit: Rattlhed at Wikipedia – Public Domain

Seattle tops the growth charts among the top 25 cities in the Census Bureau’s latest release of 2016 city and town population estimates.

Seattle, a land-locked (no annexation) city in the Pacific Northwest with a limited history of high density, managed to add 20,847 people last year, a growth rate of over 3% – tops among the 25 largest cities.  Seattle has added about 94,000 people just since 2010. That’s over 15% growth. The total population growth in Seattle last year was about the same as that in New York City. Even if you rank by total change instead of percentage, Seattle would still be 5th out of the top 25 – ahead of some much larger places and some much sprawlier places.

Seattle’s urban and regional population growth are strong.  It is a national bright spot for transit growth. Its tech economy is nova hot. I haven’t been there in a while, but it seems to me that Seattle is a city undergoing a significant transformation to the next level.

All but three of the top 25 cities posted growth in population, showing that there’s definitely central city growth happening in many places, even if the preponderance of national growth is suburban. The older cores of NYC, SF, DC, Boston, and Philly are all growing. Even the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth grew nicely. Only Chicago, Detroit, and Memphis lost population. Houston, a geographically gigantic central city, posted fairly weak growth compared to what one might have expected.

In the Midwest, Columbus passed Indianapolis to become the 14th largest city in the country. Detroit, despite enormous population loss, is still about the same population as Boston and Washington, DC.

Here are the 25 largest cities in the country in 2016, ranked by year over year population growth rate:

Rank City 2015 2016 Total Change Pct Change
1 Seattle city, WA 683,505 704,352 20,847 3.05%
2 Fort Worth city, TX 834,171 854,113 19,942 2.39%
3 Phoenix city, AZ 1,582,904 1,615,017 32,113 2.03%
4 Denver city, CO 680,032 693,060 13,028 1.92%
5 Austin city, TX 930,152 947,890 17,738 1.91%
6 Charlotte city, NC 826,395 842,051 15,656 1.89%
7 San Antonio city, TX 1,468,037 1,492,510 24,473 1.67%
8 Washington city, DC 670,377 681,170 10,793 1.61%
9 Dallas city, TX 1,297,327 1,317,929 20,602 1.59%
10 Jacksonville city, FL 867,164 880,619 13,455 1.55%
11 Columbus city, OH 850,044 860,090 10,046 1.18%
12 San Diego city, CA 1,390,915 1,406,630 15,715 1.13%
13 Boston city, MA 665,984 673,184 7,200 1.08%
14 San Francisco city, CA 862,004 870,887 8,883 1.03%
15 Nashville-Davidson metropolitan government (balance), TN 654,078 660,388 6,310 0.96%
16 Houston city, TX 2,284,816 2,303,482 18,666 0.82%
17 Los Angeles city, CA 3,949,149 3,976,322 27,173 0.69%
18 El Paso city, TX 678,570 683,080 4,510 0.66%
19 Indianapolis city (balance), IN 852,295 855,164 2,869 0.34%
20 San Jose city, CA 1,022,627 1,025,350 2,723 0.27%
21 New York city, NY 8,516,502 8,537,673 21,171 0.25%
22 Philadelphia city, PA 1,564,964 1,567,872 2,908 0.19%
23 Memphis city, TN 654,454 652,717 -1,737 -0.27%
24 Chicago city, IL 2,713,596 2,704,958 -8,638 -0.32%
25 Detroit city, MI 676,336 672,795 -3,541 -0.52%

And here are the top 25 ranked by the 2010-2016 growth rate.

Rank City 2010 2016 Total Change Pct Change
1 Austin city, TX 815,587 947,890 132,303 16.22%
2 Seattle city, WA 610,403 704,352 93,949 15.39%
3 Denver city, CO 603,329 693,060 89,731 14.87%
4 Fort Worth city, TX 748,719 854,113 105,394 14.08%
5 Charlotte city, NC 738,561 842,051 103,490 14.01%
6 Washington city, DC 605,183 681,170 75,987 12.56%
7 San Antonio city, TX 1,333,952 1,492,510 158,558 11.89%
8 Phoenix city, AZ 1,450,629 1,615,017 164,388 11.33%
9 Dallas city, TX 1,200,711 1,317,929 117,218 9.76%
10 Houston city, TX 2,105,625 2,303,482 197,857 9.40%
11 Nashville-Davidson metropolitan government (balance), TN 604,893 660,388 55,495 9.17%
12 Columbus city, OH 790,864 860,090 69,226 8.75%
13 Boston city, MA 620,701 673,184 52,483 8.46%
14 San Francisco city, CA 805,766 870,887 65,121 8.08%
15 San Diego city, CA 1,306,153 1,406,630 100,477 7.69%
16 San Jose city, CA 955,290 1,025,350 70,060 7.33%
17 Jacksonville city, FL 823,318 880,619 57,301 6.96%
18 El Paso city, TX 650,604 683,080 32,476 4.99%
19 Los Angeles city, CA 3,796,292 3,976,322 180,030 4.74%
20 New York city, NY 8,192,026 8,537,673 345,647 4.22%
21 Indianapolis city (balance), IN 821,659 855,164 33,505 4.08%
22 Philadelphia city, PA 1,528,427 1,567,872 39,445 2.58%
23 Chicago city, IL 2,697,736 2,704,958 7,222 0.27%
24 Memphis city, TN 652,456 652,717 261 0.04%
25 Detroit city, MI 711,088 672,795 -38,293 -5.39%

And the top 25 ranked by total 2016 population:

Rank City 2016
1 New York city, NY 8,537,673
2 Los Angeles city, CA 3,976,322
3 Chicago city, IL 2,704,958
4 Houston city, TX 2,303,482
5 Phoenix city, AZ 1,615,017
6 Philadelphia city, PA 1,567,872
7 San Antonio city, TX 1,492,510
8 San Diego city, CA 1,406,630
9 Dallas city, TX 1,317,929
10 San Jose city, CA 1,025,350
11 Austin city, TX 947,890
12 Jacksonville city, FL 880,619
13 San Francisco city, CA 870,887
14 Columbus city, OH 860,090
15 Indianapolis city (balance), IN 855,164
16 Fort Worth city, TX 854,113
17 Charlotte city, NC 842,051
18 Seattle city, WA 704,352
19 Denver city, CO 693,060
20 El Paso city, TX 683,080
21 Washington city, DC 681,170
22 Boston city, MA 673,184
23 Detroit city, MI 672,795
24 Nashville-Davidson metropolitan government (balance), TN 660,388
25 Memphis city, TN 652,717

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/25/seattle-booms-in-latest-census-city-level-estimates/

Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure

Boston Subway Line. Photo Credit: Pi.1415926535 CC BY-SA 3.0

President Trump promised a $1 trillion infrastructure plan during his campaign. Spending more money on infrastructure is something that has broad support among people of all political persuasions.

But as the case of Louisville’s $2.4 billion bridge debacle shows, not all infrastructure spending is good spending.

And as a judge’s ruling halting the Maryland Purple Line project to require more environmental study shows, many of our infrastructure problems have nothing to do with money.

I tackle these problems and more in a major essay on the rebuilding America’s infrastructure in the new issue of American Affairs. Some key themes include:

  • America’s infrastructure needs are overwhelmingly for maintenance, not expansion.
  • Infrastructure means much more than surface transport (highways, transit), but includes underfunded items like dams and sewers.
  • There is a mismatch between funding structures and infrastructure needs that must be fixed.
  • Politics and regulatory barriers are often a greater problem than money, and until we improve this, progress on fixing infrastructure will be limited.
  • Private capital alone will not solve the funding challenge and comes with big problems of its own. There’s no such thing as free money.
  • An initial sketch of what an infrastructure program should look like.

Here is an excerpt:

Yet there clearly are major infrastructure repair needs in America. We have not been properly maintaining the assets we have built. Levee failures notoriously caused much of the flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but America has yet to address the neglect of its dam and levee systems. For example, the recent possibility of an overflow or collapse at the Oroville Dam in California forced 180,000 people to be evacuated. Many dams, levees, and locks on our inland waterway system are in need of repair, often at significant cost. Examples include Locks 52 and 53 on the Ohio River. Built in 1929, their replacement cost is $2.9 billion. As the New York Times reported, this replacement has been botched, and it was originally supposed to cost only $775 million—still a lot of money.

Tens of billions of dollars are also needed simply to renovate America’s legacy transit infrastructure. The District of Columbia’s own Metro subway system has suffered several accidents that require emergency repairs to improve safety. It lost 14 percent of its riders last year, as they lost faith in the system. San Francisco’s BART rail system needs at least $10 billion in repairs. Boston’s transit system needs over $7 billion in repairs. New York’s subway signals still mostly rely on 1930s-era technology.

Similar maintenance backlogs affect other infrastructure types. America’s older urban regions need to spend vast sums of money on sewer system environmental retrofit—$2.7 billion in Cleveland and $4.7 billion in Saint Louis. The state of Rhode Island had to pay $163 million to replace its Sakonnet River Bridge because it had failed to perform routine maintenance on the old one. This is just a sampling of America’s infrastructure gaps.

But the poster child for American infrastructure problems is Flint, Michigan, where a water treatment error caused lead to leach into the water supply, rendering it unfit for human consumption. This caused then candidate Trump to say, “It used to be cars were made in Flint, and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint.” To be clear, Flint’s water crisis was caused by human error, but that was only possible because of the city’s old lead-pipe infrastructure. America’s water lines, in many cases, haven’t been touched since they were originally installed many decades ago. Some cities still have wooden water pipes in service. Syracuse mayor Stephanie Miner once said that if her city received the same $1 billion commitment from the state that Buffalo did, she would spend three quarters of it just to fix the city’s water lines.

While things are not uniformly dire, it is clear that there is a need to repair and upgrade America’s existing infrastructure. It is this rebuilding, not building—making America’s infrastructure great again—that the Trump administration should focus on.

Click through to read the whole thing.

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/23/rebuilding-americas-infrastructure/

Understanding Midwest Cities

It was great to get to meet the fantastic urban blogger Pete Saunders last week, when we were both together in Cleveland for a forum on the future of the American heartland. Pete’s post about the nine reasons why Detroit failed has been read over 40,000 times just since mid-2014 when I installed a new sitemeter (the post was originally put up in early 2012!) This is a good example of how compelling his insights on Midwest cities are.

Naturally I grabbed him for some conversation about cities and used part of it to record a podcast about Midwest cities and their future. Pete grew up in the city of Detroit, lived and went to school in Muncie, Indiana, and has lived and worked as a planner in the Chicago area for many years, doing work on projects around the country. If the audio player doesn’t display for you, click over to listen on Soundcloud.

Subscribe to podcast via iTunes | Soundcloud.

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/22/understanding-midwest-cities/

Louisville Spent $2.4 Billion on New Bridges While Traffic Fell Sharply

The initial figures are in and the new Louisville bridges are on track to be as big a failure as predicted.

I’ve written a lot about this $2.4 billion project to build two new bridges across the Ohio River. They are now open to traffic and collecting tolls.

You may recall that Indiana and Kentucky’s’ own traffic projections predicted that the old downtown I-65 bridge + the new downtown bridge + the new east end bridge combined would carry less traffic in 2030 than just the existing downtown bridge I-65 bridge did in 2007.

Source: Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Traffic & Revenue Study, Table 6.4, Page 87 (page 107 in PDF) and Table ES-2, Page ii (Page 6 in PDF)

The new downtown bridge was supposed to work in tandem with the old downtown bridge as one way pairs carrying I-65 across the river. Traffic on the combined bridges was projected to never again equal the 2012 traffic on just the original downtown bridge – at least not until the end of the forecast in 2054.

Source: Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Traffic & Revenue Study, Table 6.4, Page 87 (page 107 in PDF); Table ES-2, Page ii (Page 6 in PDF); Table 6.7, Page 91 (page 111 in PDF); and Table 5.17, Page 79 (page 99 in PDF)

The data released last month by RiverLink is consistent with these projections. They have average weekday traffic on the combined downtown spans at 72,872, a bit below the 2018 projected level. So it’s in the ballpark of projected levels (albeit radically lower projections than the inflated ones originally used to sell the project).

Traffic is still ramping up on these bridges so may actually somewhat exceed those forecasts, but the most important thing to note is that the combined old+new downtown bridge is carrying 63,000 fewer cars than just the old downtown bridge did in 2007 – that’s twice as much  bridge capacity but a 46% decline in traffic.

Adding in the East End bridge, where there was previously no way to cross the river, gives you another 16,616 cars for a total of 89,488 weekday vehicles. This is 46,500 fewer cars than just the old Kennedy Bridge alone carried in 2007 – a 34% decline.

Even the local media, historically cheerleaders for this project, have noticed that traffic has yet to return to pre-construction levels, despite a massive increase in capacity.

To get a sense for what this looks like, City Observatory screencapped some traffic camera images of the bridges at rush hour:

I-65 traffic (north and southbound feed to and from downtown bridges) at 5:07pm on a Tuesday.

Massive expense, big tolls, fewer cars than ever. Even if way down the road these bridges fill up, this project is a financial boondoggle of epic proportions.

 

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/17/louisville-spent-2-4-billion-on-new-bridges-while-traffic-fell-sharply/

“What Makes You Think You’re Better Than Anyone Else?”

Downtown Covington, Indiana. Photo Credit: J. Stephen Conn, CC BY-NC 2.0

Some experiences of life are so universally known that they’ve become cliches. Yet when they happen to us we still can’t avoid thinking of them as something remarkable, about which we must tell others as if we’ve made some new discovery about the human condition.

For example, “you can never go home again.” Conservative writer Rod Dreher surely knew this to be true, but he didn’t let it stop him from trying anyway. After leaving rural Louisiana for a writing career in DC and New York, he returned home after being moved by the community that surrounded his sister Ruthie when she died of cancer.

It did not go well.

A recent New Yorker profile of Dreher says:

Over dinner—Dreher, who was observing Lent, confined himself to oysters and crab cakes—I learned what happened when he moved back to St. Francisville. “The thing that I dreamed of and hoped for didn’t work out,” he said. “They just wouldn’t accept me—not my sister’s kids, and not my dad and mom. They just could not accept that I was so different from them. I worshipped my dad—he was the strongest and wisest man I knew—but he was a country man, a Southern country man, and I just wasn’t. All that mattered was that I wasn’t like them. It just broke me.” He fell into a depression and was diagnosed with chronic mono, then went into therapy and read Dante. When Dreher speaks, his emotions flow across his face with complete transparency, changing phrase by phrase. (His glasses, I realized, provide him with some emotional privacy.) As he told his story, he looked freshly wounded, as if it had all happened that morning.

Dreher is the classic misfit dreaming of greater things who leaves and ultimately finds them – but in the process discovers that he’s lost something important he can never regain. And that the things he achieved after leaving did not fully resolve the sense of disconnectness he’d felt growing up.

On the opposite site of the political spectrum, Millennial writer Caity Cronkhite wrote a lengthy polemic two years ago inveighing against the suppression of her educational ambitions that she’d been forced to fight through while growing up in the small Indiana town of Covington:

I returned to Covington Middle School that fall with a pit in my stomach. No one talked about AP classes anymore, because no one in my hometown knew what AP classes were. No one discussed their plans for college, because most of my friends’ parents had never earned any kind of degree past their high school diploma. No one encouraged me to take harder classes or do extra homework that would challenge me, because my teachers didn’t have time or resources to devote to a student who needed extra help. My teachers told me to stop raising my hand in class, because I was an annoyance to them and a distraction to the other students. No one wanted to hear what I had to say anymore.

My dad and I chattered over our dinner for several minutes before I noticed that my mother had said nothing. Her eyes were cast down as she pushed a pile of mashed potatoes around her plate, sitting in stony silence. I fell silent.

“You’re not going,” she said simply.

I didn’t understand, not right away. I looked at her, perplexed. “What do you mean?” I finally asked. I looked over at my dad, his mouth agape, staring across the table at my furious mother.

Her voice rose to a fever pitch. “You’re not going! No other kid does this—goes off and leaves when everyone else goes to a normal school and does normal things. It’s only you! You’re the only one who does this. You’ve only thought of yourself and you are not going.” Her face was red, and her tone was murderous. “You. Are. Not. Going.

Cronkhite eventually made it to Carnegie Mellon, and now lives in San Francisco. Her childhood experiences clearly left a bitter taste in her mouth. These are only two examples, but there are a large number of people with a high degree of alienation from the place they grew up. Luckily for me I never experienced any of this, but I know people who did.  These are particularly good stories to use as examples because they are already published in depth, Cronkhite’s the first person.

The easiest and most natural thing to do when reading stories like these is to critique the people telling them. Usually those who air these types of stories have their own quirks, as most of us do. But there’s no need to do that here, because you can read them for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. I’m more interested in what this pattern tells us about these smaller working class communities.

There’s been a lot written about the plight of working class towns, and how that fueled the rise of Trump. Many of their complaints about economic malaise, and how public policy has been explicitly set to benefit the already successful are true. But that doesn’t mean that these communities themselves don’t need to change. If they want things to be different, then they have to be part of the solution too.

I wrote last week about how pragmatism had helped undermine the Rust Belt and hosted a podcast with Dwight Gibson to explore the matter further.

Today I want to isolate one attitude that seems to underlie many of the experiences of people like Dreher and Cronkhite. It’s something that Cronkhite heard over and over: “What makes you think you’re better than anyone else?”

These small towns have a high degree of social order and social solidarity. Because they are small, the institutions that exist by and large are shared by the whole community. Almost everyone goes to the same school (save perhaps some in religious schools), shops in the same stores, attends the same festivals, etc.

Membership in the community thus becomes defined in terms of memberships in these institutions, rituals, and shared patterns of life. To opt for a different choice is seen as a rejection of the community, and also as a statement that a person thinks he’s better than the rest of the people in the community.

In short, these communities have a limited sense of multiple life tracks, diversity of social networks, etc. In bigger communities, one assumes there are overlapping communities, institutions, etc. and that the community as a whole is really a network of these formed by the overlaps. That’s much less the case in a small town or rural area.

I interviewed someone who was involved in attempting to start a charter school in a small town. There are some legitimate challenges with rural charter schools, but the key rationale of the broad based opposition they faced was that by seeking to start a charter school, they were perceived as declaring themselves better than the rest of the community. This was true even though most folks knew at some level the local public school was terrible and ill equipped to deal with any students outside the norm, like Cronkhite or Dreher.

Even just pursuing higher education can put you into the same category in some cases. That’s one reason there’s so much skepticism about college in these places. (And some parents also surely fear, and rightly so, that college means their kids will move away and rarely be seen again).

These towns need to find a way to move beyond that. Because people want different things out of life.  They also have different skills, aptitudes, personalities, etc.  So they need to be able to respond to those in building their life without being seen as a Judas.  A one size fits all model is just not going to work in the modern economy.

This has consequences because especially the people who go to college and leave are the ones who can be sources of intellectual capital, leadership talent, even future investments back into their hometown. They can also help connect and orient that community to the broader world, even if they don’t move back. There has to be something of value in Covington having a person from there who is now based in San Francisco. Unfortunately, given how things went down, they aren’t likely to be able to take advantage of it.

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/16/what-makes-you-think-youre-better-than-anyone-else/

Your Emerging Urban Issue List

Photo Credit: Jean-Christophe Benoist CC BY 3.0

About a month ago I put out a call for your input on the emerging urban issues you think are important. Since some requested it, I want to summarize some of the ideas people sent me.

  • The need to build more housing and commercial space.
  • Income inequality and creating middle class jobs. What does the local high school grad who doesn’t go to college do for a living? The rise of the robots, etc.
  • Unfunded pensions and crowding out of services to fund pensions. And fiscal challenges generally.
  • The debate over local powers and state pre-emption. (This includes the divide between Republican mayors and conservative thought leaders on this issue). More broadly, the urban-rural divide.
  • Challenges, including fiscal challenges, coming from the decline of bricks and mortar retail and the rise of online.
  • Corruption and the revolving door – the politico-real estate axis.
  • Will Millennials (or even Boomer retirees) leave the city over time?
  • Is there are strategy other then gentrification for neighborhood revitalization?
  • Future of the CDBG program under Trump, and the need for reform in this program regardless.
  • Public safety and police reform
  • Urban education challenges
  • What will happen to Sunbelt boomtowns when they hit the end of their growth era?

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/15/your-emerging-urban-issue-list/

Rosa Parks House Shows How Pragmatism Killed Michigan

Ryan Mendoza and family in front of Rosa Parks House in Berlin. Image via Gordon Welters/NYT

Did you know that in 1925 the marketing slogan of the city of Detroit was, “Detroit: Where life is worth living”?

Did you know the Rosa Parks House in Detroit is now in Berlin?

The former home of Rosa Parks in Detroit fell into severe disrepair. Her niece acquired the home but couldn’t find anyone locally to fund repairs. But when Berlin-based American born artist Ryan Mendoza found out about it, he raised the funds to transport the house to Berlin and re-erect and restore it there.

Dwight Gibson, the friend I quoted in my recent Governing column on pragmatism and the Rust Belt, uses this as an example of the differences in mindset between the Midwest and his home state of Michigan (he grew up in Saginaw), and creative capitals like Berlin.

Dwight joined me for a podcast to dig more into the idea of pragmatism, mass industrialization, the difference between management and exploration, and more. It addresses a number of the topics some of my commenters raised. This is must-listen material if you are in a Rust Belt community. If the podcast doesn’t display for you, click over to listen on Soundcloud.

Subscribe to podcast via iTunes | Soundcloud.

I linked above to the New York Times piece on the Rosa Parks house in Berlin. It’s a crazy story I hadn’t heard. Here’s an excerpt:

The project came about last year, when Rhea McCauley, Ms. Parks’s niece, met Mr. Mendoza in Detroit. As part of an art project that explored his own sense of home, as well as the American subprime mortgage crisis, Mr. Mendoza successfully transported an abandoned house from Detroit to Europe, winning the trust of Detroit community members along the way. Ms. McCauley told him she had managed to buy back the family house for $500, but she could not find anyone interested in saving it from demolition.

Mr. Mendoza, who makes his living as a fine-arts painter, agreed to help. He raised a little over $100,000 by selling some of his paintings, and set out for Detroit. There, he worked with a local team to take apart the house, which had fallen into extreme disrepair.

He then shipped the wooden exterior to Berlin, where he spent the winter painstakingly rebuilding it, mostly alone, by hand. “It was an act of love,” he said.

That the house had to be shipped to Berlin to be saved is extraordinary, said Daniel Geary, a professor of American history at Trinity College Dublin, given that, “in general, in the U.S., with public heroes, there is an attempt to preserve anywhere they lived.”

 

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/12/rosa-parks-house-shows-how-pragmatism-killed-michigan/

How the Pragmatic Mindset Undermines the Rust Belt

Sculpture of Joe Louis’ arm in Detroit. Image via Shutterstock.

“Pragmatism killed Michigan.”

When my consultant friend Dwight Gibson said this about his home state, I was taken aback. I always thought pragmatism was a good thing, and I think of myself as a pragmatic person in many ways. My first response to hearing somebody present an intriguing but nebulous policy idea is usually to say, “Yes, but what exactly am I supposed to do to make this happen?”

Pragmatism, which we like to identify as a quintessentially American trait, indeed is often a good thing. But as with many other good things, it comes with a dark side.

In what Gibson, who heads the Exploration Group, calls the “maker” cities and states of the Midwest and Northeast, people historically worked primarily with their hands. They were factory workers, carpenters, plumbers, engineers. They could interact with the physical world to make it do what they wanted.

That was powerful, but it brought negative baggage, such as the devaluing of other ways of interacting with the world. Political commentator David Frum once said of Detroit that a key reason it failed was a “defiant rejection of education and the arts.” To Frum, the statue of Joe Louis’ fist downtown is a powerful statement: “Here is a city ruled by brawn.” Manual workers often don’t really respect mental work (and vice versa). Hence the old refrain, “He might have book learning, but he doesn’t have any common sense.”

But there’s more to it than that. We all see problems though the lens of our own occupational backgrounds and skill sets. I often see the world as a consultant would, for example. Rust Belt places, steeped in a culture of working with their hands, view the world in that pragmatic way. The manual worker or tinkering engineer says, “What can I do with the things that are in my hands?” They are often quite ingenious and creative in making use of these, but they tend to think only in those practical terms. The key question is, “Does it work?” From there it is, “Does it work efficiently?” These are the values of industrial management articulated by Frederick Taylor a century ago.

The problem with this is that there’s no room for anything outside of the immediate and practical. In a pragmatic mindset, how do you make progress when you don’t see a practical path from point A to point B? You can’t, which is one reason why so many of these old industrial communities are stuck, even when you adjust for their legitimate structural challenges. Their world is limited to the possibilities that they hold, in a sense, in their hands. The people are gifted with their hands, but then end up being limited by them. The thinking goes something like, “If I can’t do it, it can’t be done.”

By contrast, the coasts and creative centers have very different ways of seeing and interacting with the world. Creative people from the Rust Belt who move to Silicon Valley or Austin or New York often describe a sense of relief or even exhilaration. This isn’t because of the physical environment, but because of a culture that sees and values possibilities rather than only practicalities.

We see this in the mantra of Steve Jobs, who thought that products needed to be “insanely great” and who built a company whose advertising slogan was “Think Different.” In Silicon Valley, people dream the impossible dream, one that is decidedly impractical, then sail off into the unknown to try to make it happen. This is very risky. It often flops badly. But the successes are what create the world we live in.

On the other coast, it wasn’t a pragmatic decision for Donald Trump to ride down that escalator and announce that he was running for president. He already had a great business. He had a lot to lose by getting involved with politics. As commentators routinely asserted, he didn’t have “a path to victory.” And yet he won anyway.

Trump is a lifelong New Yorker. His willingness to sail off on a difficult, audaciously ambitious journey without knowing if he could make it to the other side is a powerful, tangible example to the world of why New York has remained America’s and the world’s premier city for so long, even decades after its physical advantages, such as its port, have declined in value.

Sailing off into the dangerous unknown is what the explorers of old did. Gibson named his firm the Exploration Group to make the point that it is still possible for organizations and places to get to destinations when they aren’t sure how to get there or what they’ll find when they do. This is ultimately what the people in creative capitals do. They explore unknown territories without a map, even if they don’t think about it that way.

Rust Belt regions shouldn’t try to jettison their history and culture. That’s neither realistic nor desirable. Pragmatism itself is a powerful and necessary tool. It just can’t be the only one in the tool chest. If these communities want to bend the growth curve, they need to expand their repertoire of capabilities to include what appears to be the impractical and the decidedly non-pragmatic. That would do much more for their entrepreneurial ecosystems than any amount of gigabit fiber or venture capital funding ever will.

This column originally appeared in the May 2017 issue of Governing.

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/11/how-the-pragmatic-mindset-undermines-the-rust-belt/

Rail in Legacy Cities vs. Federal Funds to Poorer Markets

Photo Credit: Yuko Honda, CC BY-SA 2.0

Someone asked me to reconcile my recent paper on rail funding with my stance on Cal-Train electrification that the feds should prioritize funding towards poorer cities. Very good question because there is an apparent conflict there.

My recent paper was positioned as a response to Trump’s plan to completely eliminate rail transit grants while retaining the basic structure of federal transport funding. I think these grants should be retained, but routed to repairs on the core legacy transit system which have a very strong rationale. (I might advocate a difference if we were talking about broader reform ideas like block grants to states or devolution).

More broadly, my belief is that the creative class has gotten a lot of love over the last 15 years.  That’s understandable since cities who don’t capture at least some high income earners to help pay the bills are in trouble. But a lot of cities are well past that point. It’s time to shift into harvest mode on that and refocus our efforts on lower income residents (and cities with significant poverty challenges).

Hence I want to see federal infrastructure funding routed to items like sewer and water system repairs.

For transit, I would like to see a federal focus on sustaining a high quality basic bus network in places like Detroit. So I do support prioritizing funds to these regions for plain old bus service.

I do think wealthy regions like the Bay Area should pay for their own expansion projects because they generate significant value that can be captured to pay for it. Caltrain electrification makes sense to me as a project. This is one that you can make an argument about whether it’s really an updating of a legacy line vs an expansion. But in general, state of good service repairs should be prioritized, so this is not where I’d spend my federal money. (Though again, it’s not an objectively bad project).

It’s the same in DC, NYC, etc. Federal funds should go to repairs rather than expansion. Some projects like the Second Ave. Subway make sense from a demand perspective, so it’s not ridiculous if the feds funded them. But my preference would be to use federal funding for maintenance, with expansion projects funded locally.

The one expansion project of federal significance is the Gateway Tunnel, which service a major interstate regional rail corridor (although it also has local transit benefits).

In short, to the extent that we keep the same basic federal system, send rail capital grants to legacy city repair (potentially including systems in older cities like Cleveland that have a line or two that might need repairs). Cities should pay for their own rail expansion projects (at least until we significantly reduce our critical repair backlog). The feds should look at bus funding to figure out how to create better basic bus networks, focused on cities with significant poverty and fiscal stress. At a minimum, make sure they’ve got decent quality buses, depots, etc. There may be a limit to what the feds can accomplish here, but that’s my general view of where the priority should be: repairs to existing mission critical rail lines and helping distressed communities.

from Aaron M. Renn
http://www.urbanophile.com/2017/05/05/rail-in-legacy-cities-vs-federal-funds-to-poorer-markets/