Mid-City Delusions

This Cincinnati Enquirer piece neatly sums up the delusions of mid-sized cities, which always think they are one or two big "development" projects away from salvation. (Why is it that they never think to come up with novel, cost-effective solutions to say, improving schools or lowering taxes and regulations?)

It's about Stephen Leeper, who in April will become the head of the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp., a private development group that includes representatives from all the local power brokers in the Queen City, including Procter & Gamble, Chiquita, etc). (Don't be fooled by its being a private-sector group: One of its main goals is to getl public-sector money and breaks for private businesses).

Leeper is touted as a wonder boy who was responsible for a remarkable string of successes in Pittsburgh (along with Buffalo, the only major metro area that lost population between 1990 and 2000). Yet the article itself--breathlessly positive about the guy--points out that most of the projects didn't pan out. And a sidebar raises further questions about Pittsburgh's future.

Comments

[Walter Wallis]

But it is sooooo much fun to spend other people's money.

[Linda]

It's good to know about these types of things.

I've done some preliminary scouting of the cities that my husband is considering for residency, but I haven't detailed the search. This makes me think that I should, considering that we want to move somewhere that we would potentially like to stay after residency.

Dayton is one of those cities and is close enough to Cinci for this article to be relevant...since we would likely live somewhere in between to get the benefit of both.

Thanks for posting this, Nick. Very enlightening.

[James]

It's funny how all these development gurus manage to blow town for another gig just before buyer's remorse sets in. The new consultant will shake his head sadly and propose a new set of schemes that will set everything right again...and the grim slide will continue.

Even funnier is how the city government expresses disappointment in its current populace and consciously tries to attract a younger, hipper electorate, rather like a man in his forties buying a sports car and a hairpiece in hopes of picking up younger girls.

Maybe if they spent all that development money on improving traffic and the schools, painting over graffiti, reducing crime, or, god forbid, cutting taxes they might actually start looking like a decent place to live. Maybe if they looked out for their current residents instead of trying to lure new ones, people wouldn't be leaving. Maybe the politicians should simply move to the younger, hipper city they really want to live in and let Cincinatti be Cincinatti.

Nah. Let's just run up a huge bond debt and beg the state legislature to bail us out.

[J]

James said:
"It's funny how all these development gurus manage to blow town for another gig just before buyer's remorse sets in. The new consultant will shake his head sadly and propose a new set of schemes that will set everything right again...and the grim slide will continue."

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where a shyster convinces Springfield it needs a monorail, and they eventually find out that he's turned three other cities into ghost towns with similar projects. After the monorail busts, Springfield decides to build a huge outdoor escalator to nowhere....

"What about us drunken slobs?"
"You'll be given cushy jobs!"

[kuros]

i lived in st. louis missouri and it was and still is a mess
the schools, streets, public housing,pollution, crime is terrible and life in general is grim
yet they are planning on building a new baseball stadium and the main highway (40) through the center of the city is where any and most construction is taking place (lots of strip malls)
i was very glad to get out

[dj of raleigh]

Things are NOT going well at home, the kids, the wife
they just want to leave, get out of here.

So, put some plastic to use, buy, buy, buy,
and suddenly everything is rosey and everybody happy,
but sooner or later, in comes the bills,
and the new has lost it luster, and guess what,
you're in a deeper hole than before.
It is a gamble, a sporting bet, on consumerism.

Are they really asking people what is wrong with downtown??

[Ruthless]

Just the day for Leeper to appear in my fish-wrap: Feb. 29.

Mayor Quisling and his Clown-cil persons ceaselessly spend my money to lavishly reward "experts" for residing "out of town."

Sinincincinnati urban pioneer/gentrifier.

[Ron Hardin]

Move out when they expand the airport. That's Hardin's Law of metro-area residency.

If people walk out to the planes on tarmac, everything's still okay.

[Nicholas Rosen]

I was on a tour of Pittsburgh two and a half years ago. A local pointed out the expensive new stadiums, and talked about the zillions of dollars that the leaders of the community had put the city in debt for, to subsidize those stadiums, when the old one wasn't even paid for. If this is the kind of thing that Mr. Leeper is planning to bring to Cincinnati, head for the hills!

[Gilbert Martin]

"And Kent, the abandonment of central cities by capital and residents was not a market-driven phenomenon. The government- and monopolist-imposed distortion of the development industry after WW2 is laid out well in a libertarian book titled "The Geography of Nowhere.""

Well there he goes again.

Sure Joe, it was all due to govt engineering. Nobody REALLY wanted to live in the suburbs. Nobody REALLY likes to drive cars - they would all rather be living in downtown New York City type environment where they have to walk everywhere or take the subway or a cab.

Get a grip.

[Jason Ligon]

In a free society, people choosing to live elsewhere is not a problem. It isn't as though they are bemoaning the loss of the vibrant center that was The Village (presumably the one required to raise their children), and are committing suicide in droves. People are moving away.

This only begins to sound like a problem when we ascribe personhood to the city itself and say that it is "dying". Dying is certainly bad if you are talking about an individual, but since the city only ever has value as the sum of individual choices, the death of a city is a not a moral event any more than is people choosing Coke over Pepsi.

As several folks have pointed out above, what is really dying is concentrated public coffers and municipal authority. Somehow, I can't get worked up about it.

[developer]

'what is really dying is concentrated public coffers and municipal authority.'

The public coffers are now controlled mostly by state and especially since WWI, federal authorities. maybe you shouldget worked up about it.

It's not coincidence that city decay has coincided with the expansion of the federal government. Look at the authorities over the roads. In the older cities, the busier roads are usually under city authority. In most suburbs, nearly every major artery is a state or federal road.

[joe]

Phoenix-style sprawl or "downtown New York" Yup, Gil, you've pretty much summed up the choices right there. You've discoved you can make an argument look weaker by promiscuously using the words "all" and "nobody." Congratulations, Plato. Good to see you engaging the issue which such depth and honesty.

[KentInDC]

Joe,
You actually seem to be making the libertarian case: Hong Kong has always been successful and the flight from the cities was caused by government intervention. Do you really think another government boondoggle is the solution to what you perceive as a problem in the cities.

Joe and Developer,
I am somewhat familiar with Kunstler's arguments. I would love to see roads privatized and their use metered as phone service is. That would certainly reduce traffic congestion and shift a lot of freight movement to rail. It might also result in a move back to cities or other more concentrated population centers. However, I don't think the fact that automobile transportation may have historically been subsidized implies that we now need to subsidize the cities to balance things out. Why not stop all the subsidization (roads, stadiums, etc.), institute the discipline of the market, and see how things fall out?

Jason,
Excellent point about cities existing for the sake of those who choose to live there rather than vice versa.

[Jason Ligon]

developer,

Good point, but that strikes me as a different argument. Revitalization efforts do not retake power from the Feds, they simply add to the public expenditure black hole that people have to fund. They are also notoriously prone to imminent domain abuses.

On a gut level, I listen to to people talk about an ideal state for city living, and I simply don't understand the appeal. I know there is a body of urban literature and poetry, but it doesn't really speak to me. I read (okay, skim in the bookstore) books like Bowling Alone, I read comments by folks like joe, and I can't help but think that agoraphobia must be a genetic condition carried on the same gene as the predisposition to liberalism.

To me, there is no amount of park projects that can compensate for having large open spaces minutes from my front door, and there is no amount of community flavor that compensates for the overwhelming crappiness of high population density. The effort to increase density is not something I understand in my gut.

[developer]

"Why not stop all the subsidization "

If it were just one faucet I'd be willing to try it, but it's not that simple. Most of the subsidization is at the federal level, and it isn't necessarily roads. Turn off the federal dams and other water projects at the same time, the federal energy subsidies, the bogus agricultural breaks which many suburbs use to their advantage, environmental policy...

Even older suburbs are in the same bind as cities, built before the federal subsidization of development they have roughly the same problems. I can't chalk it all up to one grand government engineering scheme, it's hundreds of them. Some of those schemes create asinine "urban renewal" projects which don't renew anything. But when the game is "get your share of the government tit" everyone takes whatever they can grab, whether it's actually meets a need or not. Like refugees grabbing for food packets.

[KentInDC]

developer,
I know what you mean about there being so many subsidies. I think that is all the more reason to not create new programs. I know it is not that simple to end all the subsidies, but let's at least not add to the problem.

I understand that New Zealand actually ended most of their farm programs, so maybe there is hope. Maybe someday the Democrats will make an effort to end farm programs because the farm states vote Republican? Maybe the Republicans will retaliate by cutting off the urban subsidies because the cities go Democratic? Unlikely (something about honor among thieves), but who would have thought Sweden would privatize their social security system?

[joe]

"Perhaps they "linger on" because politicians who are accustomed to being important mayors of big cities refuse to let them go away."

Or perhaps is has something to do with the $billions in costs that the private and public sectors have sunk into existing cities, the availability of cheap housing options that suburban sprawl can't provide, the complex webs of relationships among people that make them want to keep their communities intact...

Cities don't go away, unless there is a natural or manmade disaster that makes them physically uninhabitable (like an earthquake, or a series of Public Housing projects designed by IM Pei). Even if you hate cities as much as Jason, your options are not "cities of no cities." They are "good cities vs. lousy cities." And I'll tell you, making a city good than letting it carry on is a lot cheaper than keeping a city lousy.

[Warren]

The Pittsburgh example always gets me especially angry. Unfortunately, lots of cities manage to flush lots of money down the develpment project rathole - just look at all those football and baseball palaces that have been built.

Pittsburgh however was always a strong advocate of the condemn your business and give the land to someone else development method. They were very aggressive users of immenent domain, using it not on abandoned properties but ones with healthy businesses - businesses that were, however, not the ones the planner wanted to see there. This sort of arrogance really appals me.

By the way, in defense of Phoenix, I live in N. Phoenix and love it. I won't say we have sprawl, only becuase no one can ever define it for me, but we are spread out. Any yes, we don't historically have a lot of planning. You know what, though, its nice here. And, traffic is not nearly as bad here as other cities the same size, or even than other smaller cities that pride themselves as planners (Portland, Seattle). We have beautiful parks right in the middle of the city large enough that you can't see another building around you.

[developer]

Kent,

I don't advocate more subsidies, just saying that susidies beget subsidies. Unfortunately, large cities are large enough to sort of create their own when they "lose" on the federal ones, but they aren't large enough to overcome the fact that most of them are deleterious.

Jason, I'm not trying to make any arguments about one lifestyle over another. To each his own on that point. But I know of many "city" neighborhoods that are a lot more open than many dense suburban developments. City/suburb arguments often boil down to things like schools, taxes, crime, amenities, etc. When people choose dense suburbs over open-space city areas, that's where you know something else is going on.

[developer]

I'll also add that eminent domain is used for road projects more than any other development.

[joe]

Warren,

What do families that can't afford a car or two do?

[mayor of N Phoenix]

joe, they live elsewhere. That's called keeping the riff raff out.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Phoenix-style sprawl or "downtown New York" Yup, Gil, you've pretty much summed up the choices right there. You've discoved you can make an argument look weaker by promiscuously using the words "all" and "nobody." Congratulations, Plato. Good to see you engaging the issue which such depth and honesty."

The only one with a weak argument is you - claiming that people were "socially engineered" by government into moving to the suburbs rather than them primiarily desiring that type of living environment on their own - which is actually the case.

[Liberty Lover]

NYC 'planners' suffer from the same delusions.

They should try another way that Nick suggested: To paraphrase: "If you cut them, they will come". Taxes and regs, that is.

[Ruthless]

joe says:
"That's not the situation in the US; we have a lot of cities that are unattractive for private investment, and have neighborhoods and business districts suffering from long term disinvestment, to the point where the rundown condition itself is deterring new investment - a viscous cycle."

... a vicious viscous cycle! Way to go joe!

However, joe, looking at cities or urban conglomerations, whatever, from an anarchist's eye, while some place will always be better than another, the better places will be the anarchic places: lower taxes and regulations. More, better vice. Fewer Clown-cil persons.

Sinincinnati's greatest handicap may be its Citizens for Community Values, Phil Burr-ass, in quiet solidarity with its west side of conservative German Catholics.

Viscous, thy name is the Queen City! What's the word for viscous in German?

[Geotech]

No amount of government subsidies are going to make want me to stay in this rathole of a city that is New Orleans. Suburban Phoenix sounds nice.

[joe]

Could somebody please point me to the shining example of urban revitalization through libertarian governance?

Methinks you're better critics than performers.

[Eric]

St. Louis is definitely in the same boat as both Cincy and Pittsburgh.

(1) They lost their football team in the 80s because nobody was coming, so what do they do? Build a new publicly-funded - domed, no less - stadium and convention center. They then offer all possible breaks and promises to the Rams to get them to move. Before the Rams become a good season, they play 4 seasons of bad football with dwindling attendance. The people will stop going (again) the next time the team inevitably hits mediocrity.

(2) They built an uber-expensive light-rail line that was (of course) overbudget and off schedule. For the first several years, the thing was literally one line that went from East St. Louis (at the easternmost point) to the airport (at the westernmost point). It was handy if you ever needed to go from one point on the line to another, but pretty much useless otherwise. They are now spending money to expand the scope. The project is, of course, overbudget and off schedule.

(3) The mayor and downtown planners consistently believe that they are always one novelty project away from a complete reversal of decades-long decline and flight from the city. It is, alternatively, (a) a man-made lake in the middle of downtown; (b) a giant rehabilitation project along the riverfront (bars, restaurants, etc. and a long footpath up and down the Mississippi); (c) widening the sidewalks on one 10-block strip of a niche hipster street; (d) building a huge hotel across from the convention center; (e) lighting up the Arch at night; (f) building a huge shopping mall in the middle of downtown (this was done and the place is now 2/3 empty); (g) rehab an old boat and make it a family attraction with food and puppet shows and arcades and stuff (this was done too; the boat was out of business in a year and is now a casino). It's always something.

It's sad, because I always believed that it was going to happen. THIS is the one that will do it for us, I thought. Then, when one of the projects was finished, we'd all drive from suburbia to the attraction. Having seen it, we'd drive back to suburbia and promptly forget about it.

On a saturday or sunday afternoon, if there are no sports teams in town, the city is just about dead. It's really sad.

I feel like just ONE of these cities needs to do it the right way, and when the others see the success, they'll do the same thing. Probably wishful thinking.

[Ruthless]

joe,
Libertarian governance is the milder version of anarchic governance: both oxymorons/unicorns.

[KentInDC]

Thanks, Ruthless. I wonder if Joe has heard of Hong Kong - a fairly vibrant city with a history about as libertarian as any major city in the world.

Also, could it be that the decline of many cities is just an example of creative destruction? Most cities were built before cars were commonly owned and the 'burbs have a lot more parking spaces. I'm guessing that someone will argue that the movement from the cities made car ownership more necessary, and that we'd all be riding the bus or light rail (making us as vulnerable to transit strikes as European cities) instead of owning cars if we had only built lots of subsidized sports stadiums and stayed in town.

[el jefe]

Amen to all the STL comments ... I just moved from there, and found that returing (if only for a weekend) was an incredibly depressing experience.

Add to those comments above that it's about the most unfriendly area around -- each small, rich, exclusive suburb doesn't give a damn about anything else that goes on in the region unless it directly impacts them.

St. Louis is all about old money, contacts and "the way Daddy did things" ... that city will never rise above its distorted idea of itself.

[joe]

Hong Kong never needed revitalization. It has been vibrant and successful since its birth. That's not the situation in the US; we have a lot of cities that are unattractive for private investment, and have neighborhoods and business districts suffering from long term disinvestment, to the point where the rundown condition itself is deterring new investment - a viscous cycle.

"Also, could it be that the decline of many cities is just an example of creative destruction?" When cities decline, they aren't destroyed and go away, they linger on as lousy places to live and do business, and function as black holes on the economy and quality of life of their surrounding metropolitan areas.

Can anyone do better than defining the problem as a good thing?

[joe]

And Kent, the abandonment of central cities by capital and residents was not a market-driven phenomenon. The government- and monopolist-imposed distortion of the development industry after WW2 is laid out well in a libertarian book titled "The Geography of Nowhere."

[David Nieporent]

Joe:

Could somebody please point me to the shining example of urban revitalization through libertarian governance?
Methinks you're better critics than performers.

Methinks the question begs the question. Before you can ask "how," you need to ask "whether." I don't think a libertarian would say that "libertarian governance" would necessarily lead to "urban revitalization." A libertarian would say that if urban revitalization is going to happen, it'll happen without Big Government; iif it isn't, it's not going to happen even with Big Government. The best thing government can do is stay out of the way and not pour other people's money down a sinkhole.

When cities decline, they aren't destroyed and go away, they linger on as lousy places to live and do business, and function as black holes on the economy and quality of life of their surrounding metropolitan areas.

Perhaps they "linger on" because politicians who are accustomed to being important mayors of big cities refuse to let them go away. All the news stories on these subjects discuss the declining population of these cities, and politicians are always desperate to reverse the decline instead of letting it happen.

As for your latter claim, what evidence is there that the quality of life of their metropolitan areas is harmed by the decline of the city centers? I currently live in New Jersey, where the major urban areas -- Camden, Newark, Trenton -- are disaster areas, but where the suburbs are thriving.

I previously lived in the Baltimore area; that's another terribly declining city which doesn't seem to hinder the thriving suburbs. (It's also an example of the redevelopment myth. Ignorant people cite Camden Yards as the cause of the revitalization of the Inner Harbor; in fact, Camden Yards came long after the Harbor was revitalized. But the revitalization of the Harbor was supposed to lead to the revitalization of the city; it hasn't, any more than any of these other projects have in their respective cities. Go two blocks away from the Inner Harbor in any direction, and you've got urban blight. And we've got a Convention Center there and everything!)

[KentInDC]

Geotech,
That is the great thing about the market. I wouldn't mind living in the New Orleans area again. However, I lived on the lake in Kenner instead of New Orleans proper. Different strokes for different folks.

[joe]

I understand, Geotech. Nobody wants to live in a rathole. But there is a correlation in this society between urban/rathole and sprawling/nice, that has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of cities and suburbs, and everything to do with specific policies that have harmed cities and uplifted suburbs. In Paris, the central city is nice and the suburbs are ratholes. In parts of Los Angeles, there are sprawly suburban areas (single family homes on lots of at least 1/4 acre) that are ratholes.

My point is, the appeal of suburbs vs. cities in this country does not so much reveal a preference for strict zoning and lack of pedestrian access, so much as a preference for clean, safe, well maintained places with good schools.

Neat, clean, safe, well maintained city neighborhoods, like Park Ave, Beacon Hill, or Georgetown, are the most desired real estate in America.

[Kevin Carson]

Ron Hardin,

You sure got THAT right. Here in Northwest Arkansas, we got a regional cargo airport (with some passenger facilities added to the plan at the last minute to assuage the FAA) built to serve Wal-Mart, J.B. Hunt, and Tyson Foods. In the five years since it was built, population has increased drastically, with rents and property taxes skyrocketing along with it. Since money has to be paid up front to extend utilities to new housing, that means people who already lived here get their rates jacked up (they wouldn't make real estate developers actually pay the costs of the services they used--that would be WRONG). And traffic congestion is horrible, with increased taxes to expand the volume of the highway system.

But hey, if your name is Walton, Tyson or Hunt, things are super. As Dick Cheney said, the government never made anyone rich.

[Gilbert Martin]

"My point is, the appeal of suburbs vs. cities in this country does not so much reveal a preference for strict zoning and lack of pedestrian access, so much as a preference for clean, safe, well maintained places with good schools."

Says you.

No one appointed you as the spokesman for what the millions of people who live in the suburbs "really" prefer. You're just trying to project your spin onto them.

I'd rather live in a well maintained place with a big yard than a well maintained urban apartment or condo anyday.