What Makes Cities Great

Edward Glaeser, a Harvard economics professor recently posted a blog on the NY times entitled "What Makes Cities Great". For those communities who rest too much on a single laurel, there are some lessons to be learned here. The text of the blog is below along with the original links.

Was coal a curse to Pittsburgh? Did cars destroy Detroit? Does the dominance of a single industry destroy the innovation and entrepreneurship of a region?

If it does, then the economic crisis may have actually helped New York by enabling the city to avoid an over-concentration in finance.

For decades, economists have debated the “ Dutch Disease” and other ailments associated with too much success. The discovery of natural gas in the North Sea supposedly helped to de-industrialize the Netherlands by raising exchange rates and making Dutch manufacturing less competitive internationally. Almost 15 years ago, Jeffrey Sachs found a negative correlation between resource abundance and economic growth in the developing world, perhaps because those resources fueled conflict and enabled dictators.

Can some types of prosperity imperil cities as well as countries?

The American Rust Belt is full of places like Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit that became rich a century ago because of access to natural resources and that are now less prosperous. But the examples of cities that were once richer than they are today proves only the vicissitudes of urban fortunes, not that resources lead to poverty.

Still, Benjamin Chinitz’s comparison of New York and Pittsburgh, which I referenced two weeks ago in a post on cities and entrepreneurship, suggested that Pittsburgh’s abundance of coal led to large, vertically integrated steel companies that proved to be incompatible with small-scale entrepreneurship. Chinitz claimed that an absence of entrepreneurs was responsible for Pittsburgh’s mid-20th century stagnation.

Was Chinitz right? Did an abundance of natural resources in the industrial age lead to manufacturing giants that crowded out smaller, more innovative start-ups?

There are myriad theories that could explain a negative connection between natural resources and subsequent urban innovation.

In my post two weeks ago, I described the evidence connecting employment growth with an abundance of small firms, rather than a few large establishments. Too much coal can, as it did in Pittsburgh, lead to the establishment of a few dominant companies, like the vast enterprises managed by Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick.

The problem of big companies becomes more severe if they are vertically integrated.

William Kerr and I examined the distribution of manufacturing start-ups and found that new establishments were particularly common in places with plenty of independent suppliers. If abundant natural inputs lead to vertical integration — a steel company combining with a coking operation, for example — then this can also crowd out subsequent innovation.

A resource curse can also occur if success of one sector eliminates industrial diversity.

Forty years ago, Jane Jacobs wrote “The Economy of Cities.” In it, she argued that new ideas that come from combining old ideas, and places with plenty of diverse old ideas are more likely to come up with big breakthroughs.

Michael Bloomberg’s success as an entrepreneur, for example, came from combining technological know-how and insights into the needs of financial services professionals. That combination was easier in New York City, which had both sectors, than in Silicon Valley, where computing innovators were more isolated. Twenty years ago, I was an author a paper that suggested that such cross-industry connections were important for growth.

Natural resources can also deter growth by lowering levels of education. Edinburgh is more prosperous today than Glasgow, in part, because it was less successful as an industrial town and therefore attracted fewer less-skilled workers.

An abundance of natural resources can also increase the opportunity cost of schooling. Two economists who looked across American states found that resource-rich states have done poorly, partially because of less investment in schooling.

As my colleagues Larry Katz and Claudia Goldin have shown, natural resources, like the rich black soil of Iowa, can lead to more schooling, especially when there is little work for children to do over winter months. But they also found that humming industrial cities were laggards in the American high school movement, at least until the Great Depression left their teenagers with little to do except for going to school.

The most important natural resources possessed by every old American city were waterways. Before the 20th century, the costs advantages of boats were so extreme that the location of all of America’s 20 largest cities from the oldest, like New York and Boston, to the youngest, Minneapolis, was determined by flows of water. Those waterways ultimately provided connections and connections were and are valuable.

New York was certainly not cursed by its harbor that gave it worldwide connections and that led to the growth of the garment industry, printing and publishing and financial services.

I’ve always thought that the resources aren’t really a curse, but relying on them too much is a mistake. As we look forward, it always worth remembering that America does not prosper because of its “amber waves of grain” but because the nation’s human capital, especially in its “alabaster cities,” thrives in a connected world.

Obesity and Urbanism

Richard Florida recently published an entry on his Creative Class blog entitled The Geography of Obesity. It further underscores the real health crisis that we are facing as a nation. Climate change continues to get all the attention but its effects are negligible compared to deaths caused by obesity and automobile accidents in the United States. Both of these are impacted in large part by the design of our communities. It's interesting that the south and west, with their 20th century sprawling patterns of development are also home to the highest rates of obesity. Even if diets changed, people would still face a largely hostile environment when they left their homes to exercise. Walkable urbanism...it's what you do after (a healthy) dinner.

"Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in America. More than 72 million American adults are obese, according to estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics. But obesity varies greatly by state. The map below, from the Centers from Disease Control (CDC), shows the obesity rate for the 50 states, measured as the share of people with a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30 which the CDC classifies as “obese.”

It should come as little surprise that states with higher levels of obesity have significantly higher rates of death from cancer, heart disease, and cerebrovascular diseases like hypertension. There is a significant correlation between obesity and death rates from cancer (.7), heart disease (.7), and cerebrovascular disease (.7)."

Housing After the Fall: What Will Be the New Market?

The October 2009 edition of Urban Land magazine, the official publication of the Urban Land Institute included an article by John McIlwain entitled, "Dialogue Housing - After the Fall: What Will Be the New Market?" In it, McIlwain opines on the future of housing in our communities. Among the many interesting observations he notes that the trend towards more urban living is likely to continue and that this trend is fueled by a convergence of demographics, housing production, and an analysis of historical trends:

"Will this urban shift continue once the housing market rebounds? This depends in part on whether people believe that the price of gasoline will stay at or below $2 a gallon or whether it will rise back to $4 a gallon or more. The more sensitive people are to the price of gasoline, the more they will pay to live in closer, more urbanized locations. Keep in mind, too, that studies of past crises suggest that trends emerging prior to the event were not changed afterward, but rather accelerated.

...there is growing demand for new homes and apartments, demand that is constrained by unemployment, cost, income, and tight credit. Demand for more urbanized living is growing, too. The paradox is that urban housing is more expensive and takes longer to build than homes on undeveloped greenfields due to the lack of available sites, tougher building codes, and intense resistance to development in existing neighborhoods. Will local governments ease the process of development and expand opportunities for infill development? Will the industry produce sufficient housing in urban and suburban infill markets to meet the pent-up demand and keep prices within reach of today’s price-constrained echo boomers? Or will this generation chose to—or have to—either rent in the central city and suburban town centers or buy their first home on the outer edges as generations before have done?"

The full text of the article is below:

Now that green shoots are beginning to appear in the economy—even the housing market appears as if it may be at or nearing the bottom of its fall—it is a good time to look at what the housing market may become as it rebounds over the next few years. What will sell—and where will the strong markets be?

The first factor he noted to consider is demographics:

• The U.S. population is growing at a rate of 2.5 million to 3 million people a year. The average U.S. household comprises 2.6 persons—and is shrinking, which suggests the nation needs some 1.2 million new homes per year, plus additional homes to replace those lost to decay, fire, and the like.
• The actual number of new homes needed is probably higher since the top half of the echo boomers—those born between 1980 and 1994, and the largest demographic tranchein U.S. history—have now reached their mid- to late 20s, the prime age for forming new households. An analysis conducted earlier this year by Fannie Mae based on data from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies predicts there will be 14.6 million net new households formed in the United States between 2005 and 2015, an average of 1.46 million a year.

Compare this with the current rate of housing production:

• In 2008, only 485,000 new homes were sold, and at year-end there was an unsold inventory of 353,000, for a total of 838,000 new homes. Add to that the 275,752 new rental units started and the total production of new units was around 1.1 million, a shortfall of 350,000 units needed just to meet new household formation.
• At present, new housing production is trending around 500,000 per year—again, well below the rate needed to meet new household formation.

Thus, the potential demand for rental and for-sale housing is high and growing, but is constrained by rising unemployment, tight credit, and uncertainty about housing prices. Indeed, first-time homebuyers will continue to find buying their first place challenging for years to come—especially if the first-time homebuyer credit is not extended beyond November 30—and the expectation is that they will rent for longer than past generations had, either by choice or necessity.

To help this large group buy a home, homebuilders will need to offer starter homes at low prices, meaning smaller, simpler homes on smaller lots. This is easier said than done, of course, except in the outer suburbs, where home prices have fallen mostly due to high foreclosure rates. That said, it is too soon to know whether these outer neighborhoods will again attract large numbers of people who want to buy and live in them.

Therefore, it is an open question whether the rapid housing development on the outer edges of metropolitan regions witnessed over the past six decades will continue. Planners and pundits have been arguing about this for years, but there are emerging trends to watch closely.

A recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study titled “Residential Construction Trends in America’s Metropolitan Regions” shows that there has been a striking move back to the urban core in many markets. In other markets, this reurbanization is small but growing; elsewhere it has been negligible. The study looked at the 50 largest metropolitan regions in the United States from 1990 to 2007 and concluded that “. . . in roughly half of the metropolitan areas examined, urban core communities dramatically increased their share of new residential building permits.” For example:

• In 15 regions, the central city more than doubled its share of permits.
• In the early 1990s, New York City issued 15 percent of the residential building permits in the region. Over the past six years, it has averaged 44 percent.
• Chicago saw its share of regional permits rise from 7 to 23 percent over the same period. Portland, Oregon, went from 9 to 22 percent. Atlanta went from 4 to 13 percent.
• The increase has been particularly dramatic over the past five years.
• Data from 2007 show the shift inward continuing in the wake of the real estate market downturn.

The report concludes that this acceleration of residential construction in urban neighborhoods reflects a fundamental shift in the real estate market. In fact, if core urban suburbs are included—i.e., those closest to the central city—more than one-half of all residential permits in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles were in the urban core in 2007. There were, of course, those urban areas where little or no shift occurred, among them cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Dallas.

Will this urban shift continue once the housing market rebounds? This depends in part on whether people believe that the price of gasoline will stay at or below $2 a gallon or whether it will rise back to $4 a gallon or more. The more sensitive people are to the price of gasoline, the more they will pay to live in closer, more urbanized locations. Keep in mind, too, that studies of past crises suggest that trends emerging prior to the event were not changed afterward, but rather accelerated.

Today, the weakest housing markets are in the outer suburban edges, where declines in housing prices have been most dramatic. Urban markets by and large have been stronger; home prices have held up better, and foreclosure rates have been lower except in certain lower-income but previously gentrifying neighborhoods.

Over the past years, baby boomers have shown increasing interest in urban living as they age. They are finished with moving to the suburbs, and are moving to the city or the sun when they look for their next home. While the jury is still out on the echo boomers, anecdotal evidence suggests they are a more urban, environmentally sensitive generation. However, it won’t be known if they will shy away from the outer suburbs until they have school-age children.

In short, there is growing demand for new homes and apartments, demand that is constrained by unemployment, cost, income, and tight credit. Demand for more urbanized living is growing, too. The paradox is that urban housing is more expensive and takes longer to build than homes on undeveloped greenfields due to the lack of available sites, tougher building codes, and intense resistance to development in existing neighborhoods. Will local governments ease the process of development and expand opportunities for infill development? Will the industry produce sufficient housing in urban and suburban infill markets to meet the pent-up demand and keep prices within reach of today’s price-constrained echo boomers? Or will this generation chose to—or have to—either rent in the central city and suburban town centers or buy their first home on the outer edges as generations before have done?

John McIlwain is a senior resident fellow at ULI and the ULI/J. Ronald Terwilliger Chair for Housing.

The End of Greenfield Sprawl One Parking Lot at a Time

The National Trust for Historic Preservation recently picked up on a story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that featured the orange giant, Home Depot, and their effort to make better use of their property. Home Depot, as many people know, is one of the nation's largest home improvement warehouse with stores approximately 130,000 square feet on lots that average 12-14 acres, most of which are underutilized parking lots. It turns out that Home Depot officials are looking at these grayfields - cleared, graded, and paved areas - as opportunities for new revenue. As it was reported,

“A number of stores have barren asphalt, and it’s not in anyone’s best interest to leave it sitting there,” said Mike LaFerle, Home Depot’s vice president of real estate.

So the Atlanta-based chain has a new strategy: Sell chunks of its parking lots to fast food chains, pet stores or auto parts outlets.

Home Depot has identified marketable portions of lots at hundreds of stores — including about 25 of Georgia’s 90 stores, according to a list the company handed out to potential buyers and brokers at a recent meeting of the International Council of Shopping Centers in Atlanta.

With the diminishing desire to return to the over-leveraged, land-consumptive period (pre-2008) that was typified by massive retail expansion of national brands both big and small, Home Depot's real estate office is now coming to a new level of awareness. All of these parking lots, often built to excessive local zoning standards, even by shopping center industry standards are now primed to receive the next wave of growth. To do this will take two key ingredients.

First, local governments need to radically reduce their parking requirements. Far too often I open a zoning ordinance that requires parking spaces at a rate of 5 cars or more for every 1000 square feet of retail space. And for shopping centers, these ordinances often require that every store in a center be able to comply independently of each other with no permission for shared parking arrangements. The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) has regularly surveyed their members and found that the actual need for many of these so-called "power centers" is actually between 4 and 4.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space - nearly 20% less than many local government requirements.

In the face of this evidence, why do many local governments still cling to excessive standards? The answer is likely just simple apathy. Many zoning ordinances are based on national model codes or whatever the next town over just adopted. And unfortunately, too many of these standards are never researched properly. So not only are many communities requiring the unnecessary installation of parking spaces, they are complicit with the environmental degradation that these parking spaces bring. Increased heat island effect, increased storm water runoff and not to mention the deforestation required to mass grade accessible parking spaces.

But even if local governments all wake up tomorrow and lower these artificially high standards, or perhaps even did away with all parking standards altogether and let the market decide what they need, we would still have another hurdle. These parking areas are still private property and are often encumbered with legal easements that preclude their use for anything other than unused black asphalt. As someone who has been advocating for redevelopment of these grayfields for more than a decade, it is heartening to see a retailer waking up and seeing these areas are potential redevelopment assets.

In fact, I suspect that if we were to add up all of the currently underutilized properties in each of our communities that we may have little need to develop commercial property in the greenfields. When we add up all of the excess parking lots with the now-closed malls, big box stores, and auto dealerships, the amount of potentially available property is staggering. (Hint to any graduate students in need of a thesis project - we need a good GIS inventory!)

Now some will argue that the continued parcelization of these sites for additional auto-oriented stores still is a step a backward. Perhaps. But isn't it a step forward for these large landowners to consider that maybe, just maybe, that there is a better use for their property. Even if it is simply a better economic return, that will help both the property owner as well as the local government. And once they get beyond the hurdle of making that property available, it is incumbent upon the local government and our DOTs to do a better job at creating more walkable, urban corridors. Because unless the characteristics of the fronting thoroughfare are radically changed, don't expect the development on the private side to be much different.

Without a doubt, property owners are looking these days on how to better maximize returns on their investments. It's too early to tell whether this will represent a sea change or simply an isolated experiment but every owner would be neglilgent if they didn't consider it. The results could benefit the financial bottom line and the environmental bottom line as well.

Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2010 Now Available

Every year, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Urban Land Institute put out a compendium of their recommendations for real estate investment in the coming year. The following is a summary of the report that appears on the ULI web site. Not surprisingly, the highlights include low leverage (low debt), smaller projects in secure, employment-oriented markets. Also interesting is their recommendation of places to shy away from:

Avoid:

• Midwest manufacturing centers—automaker travail deflates interest to new lows;
• Secondary and tertiary cities—anywhere you can’t fly direct to from the global pathway centers;
• Hot-growth bubble-burst markets, which collapsed under plunging housing prices; and
• Fringe areas—the exurbs and places with long car commutes or where getting a quart of milk means taking a 15- minute drive.

Highlights from Emerging Trends in Real Estate® 2010

Commercial real estate industry investors and professionals remain decidedly negative, colored by distress over prospects for an extended period of anemic demand and costly de-leveraging, according to respondents of the Emerging Trends in Real Estate® 2010 report, released today by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the Urban Land Institute (ULI).

Survey respondents predict that commercial real estate vacancies will continue to increase and rents will decrease across all property sectors before the market hits bottom in 2010 and projects value declines of 40 percent to 50 percent off 2007 market peaks. Survey participants also believe that 2010 and 2011 will present generational opportunities for investors to buy at or near cyclical lows.

“Our report participants find that a sense of nervous euphoria is growing among liquid investors who can make all-cash purchases,” said ULI Senior Resident Fellow for Real Estate Finance Stephen Blank. “Those that are patient, daring and selective could score generational bargains on premium properties from both distressed sellers and banks that are clearing out unwanted bad loan and real estate owned portfolios. However, once the property market recovery begins and gains traction--likely before 2012--any rebound could be restrained by a lackluster economy and rising interest rates.”

Capital will begin to flow back into commercial real estate by the end of 2010
The survey data also indicates that investors believe that capital will slowly begin to flow back into commercial real estate markets by the end of 2010, led by all cash investors seeking quality assets. The debt markets will start to rebound too, but remain “far from normalized” in the wake of unprecedented de-leveraging. Any lending will be conservative, expensive, and extended only to the most-favored banking relationships. REITs, private equity funds, and even refashioned mortgage REITs will start to provide loans to battered borrowers but at a steep price.

“For 2010, our report finds that investors will need to time the cycle and only cash-buyers will benefit from the emerging opportunities,” said Tim Conlon, partner and U.S. real estate sector leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers. “Investors will need to be patient and transaction trigger points will be improving job numbers, visibility into asset pricing and stepped up tenant deals. Equity investors will need to focus on quality assets and expect to hold for at least a five to seven year period during the recovery, allowing fundamentals to slowly improve.”

Respondents to the Emerging Trends cite the best investor bets for 2010 which include:

• Deal with cash – Cash is the only way to operate and only the most liquid can take advantage of the emerging opportunities.
• Patience will be rewarded - Early is the new wrong as the economic uncertainty will hamper the recovery and absence of ready refinancing in comatose debt markets adds more risks.
• Focus on quality and be selective – Seek irreplaceable Class A properties with debt maturity in places like New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC.
• Stick to global pathways where recovery will happen more quickly.
• Buy cash flow and real yield – Anticipate creating value by filling vacancy and increasing rents over time.
• Provide financing as three to five year loans can deliver low teen returns.
• Implement asset management triage – Focus capital and resources on retaining and attracting tenants in properties with better long-term value.

A snapshot of the top five markets:

• Washington D.C. scores the highest marks during a recession. While hard-pressed lenders pull back in most cities, major insurers and big banks have taken a long term view and are actually providing financing for new deals. Bethesda, home to the National Institutes of Health, should benefit from increased bio-medical spending and Virginia markets, inside the Beltway, are expected to suffer only modest erosion relative to past downturns. Survey respondents expect suburban vacancies to advance well into the high teens further out.
• San Francisco: Despite its formidable barrier to entry attributes, this 24-hour gateway will take investors on a ride of volatile pricing, occupancies, and rents. An expanding regional tech industry, fed by nearby Silicon Valley, should help. The report ranks this city one of the top buys for apartments, warehouse, office and hotels.
• Austin, Texas: A growth bastion, Austin’s low state taxes and a pro business environment are expected to contribute to future growth and continuing corporate relocations. Austin fits the “brainpower” model with its state capital, large state university, and offshoot tech and software businesses.
• Boston is a solid market as compelling economic drivers—premier educational institutions, life science companies, and high tech business—reinforce investors’ long-term conviction. Downtown apartment vacancies remain well under 10 percent and condo/house pricing “remains stiff.”
• New York offers savvy investors opportunity and more affordable costs over the long term. Midtown availability rates are predicted to skyrocket from mid single digits into the mid-teens as office rents plummet 40 percent or more. Co-op pricing is expected to sink 25 percent and a shakeout continues among condo developers who built million dollar plus apartments in fringe districts— sales of those units likely won’t close without substantial markdowns. The pace of market recovery depends on the hammered banking industry, the report cites.

Who is Going to Buy Your House?

Many of us have long questioned whether the exponential growth in the suburban single family lot is, in fact, socially sustainable. Beyond the environmental and economic challenges that many suburban areas pose, is there enough market in the future to ensure their long-term viability?

Harrison Marshall, a colleague and bulk emailer (reformed) of planning news sent around a link about two years ago (before the crash) to an article in the Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2008, entitled Who’s Going to Buy Your House? Facing the Consequences of the Generational Housing Bubble. Being a student of both policy policy and urban design I was in intrigued as to the implications of this aging trend on growth and development in our urban areas.

They posited that the coming "generation housing bubble" caused by the graying of the 78 million baby boomers will result in a massive sell-off of homes to younger generations that aren't large or wealthy enough to absorb the supply.

And now, more than a year after the house of cards tumbled, I re-read this article to see if it again held water. In fact, it seems more timely than ever.

Newly estimated data reported in this article show that roughly 2% of people of all ages younger than 70 sell homes each year, but the selling rate climbs far higher after age 75. Meanwhile, the percent buying homes peaks at a much younger age, 30 to 34 (3.6%), before declining steadily into older ages.

After three decades of relative stability, the ratio of seniors to working age adults nationwide will increase by a total of 67% in the next two decades (2010 to 2030). After 2010 the leading edge of the 78 million strong boomer population will pass age 65 and growth among the elderly population will substantially exceed that of younger adults, an unprecedented social and economic development that is expected to impact every state in the U.S.

I recently participated in a panel presentation on retrofitting suburbia at the North Carolina Planning Conference with Mitchell Silver, the Planning Director for the City of Raleigh, NC and Kathryn Lawler, the Chief of Staff for the Atlanta Regional Commission. Mr. Silver outlined an analysis of the low density suburban growth patterns in Raleigh that have been largely driven by non-Hispanic white, middle and upper income families. A fact that recently forced a dramatic changeover in their local school board when the previous board elected to continue the busing policy that precludes a true neighborhood school model. Ms. Lawler then gave an eye-opening presentation on aging trends. Specifically she noted that the senior population (defined as those over 55) is expected to grow from 20% of the current population (2000 census) to nearly 1 in every 3 people by 2030 in states like North Carolina and Georgia. 1 in every 3! Of course, the graying of our population is only one of at least two other key demographic trends that will have significant impacts on how we grow our communities.

The next issue is our current fertility rate. It is widely accepted that 2.11 births/woman is the needed replacement rate to ensure a stable population. According to the US Census Bureau-National Center for Health Statistics the fertility rate of our white and black populations hovers in the 2.06 births/woman range. Only when you include the current Hispanic fertility rate of almost 3 births/woman does our current population growth curve approach the replacement rate. In 2006, it was estimated at 2.10 births/woman. Non-hispanic whites, currently 75% of the population, are expected to be in significant decline by 2030 because of declining birth rates while Black populations are expected to double its present size in the same period. Source: US Census Bureau National Projections.

So how does our country keep growing? Very simply - immigration. Immigration accounts for nearly a third of our current population. Not surprisingly, the largest immigrant group is Hispanics who have grown from 12.5% of the population in 2000 to almost 15% in 2006. In 2030, Hispanics are estimated to comprise nearly 1 in 5 Americans, more so in many counties particularly in the southeast and the west where they are expected to comprise 50% or more of the population. From 2000 - 2006, Hispanic growth accounted for 50.4% of the total population increase! Source: Hispanic Population Projections, US Census Bureau.

What do these changes have in store for American communities. There are a number of potential impacts that will be explored in subsequent posts but the fact remains that in 2030 the face of the average American will be much different from what it is today. These changes are likely to have very significant impacts on a myriad of issues include growth patterns in our communities, our social service network, and our education system.

The baby boom generation, long the driver of housing and other community growth patterns will be slowly replaced with new groups whose values will likely be different. The non-Hispanic white majority is being rapidly replaced by a more diverse face that may or may not accept the suburban ideal. Will the new immigrant family endure long commutes for a large house on a large lot. If history is any precedent, the numbers point to an even greater sell-off of the suburbs in the years to come.

Why Climate Change Won't Matter

It seems that we can't turn a corner without climate change being attributed to some problem or something that we are doing having an impact on climate change. Wait, wait. Before you click away and think that this is some skeptic panning the latest report, fear not. If anything this report is one of climate agnosticism. In some regards, I don't know if I care or not about climate change. The reason is because climate change has usurped nearly every other issue.

While scientists and environmentalists fight over how soon the sea level will rise 4 inches, millions of children and adults will face increasing obesity-related illnesses; our seniors will become more isolated and institutionalized; thousands more will die in auto-related accidents, and our cost of living will spiral because of our insatiable demand for cheap oil will be surpassed by the growing third world.

These are the really pressing issues of the next decade. Saving energy with compact florescent lightbulbs and driving a Prius (of which I do both) will have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon-based energy usage if we continue to build our communities in ways that only further necessitate travel by automobile. As so many others are starting to loudly point out, we can't greenwash our way out of our excess using more consumable gizmos.

“…if sprawling development continues … the projected 48% increase in (VMT) between 2005 and 2030 will overwhelm expected gains from vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels.

Even if the most stringent fuel-efficiency proposals under consideration are enacted, vehicle emissions still would be 34% above 1990 levels in 2030 – entirely off-track from reductions of 60-80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 required for climate protection.”
Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change" by Reid Ewing, Arthur C. Nelson, and Keith Bartholomew

The truth is that none of the popular solutions being discussed have anything to do with the actual urban form of our communities. Perhaps that is the inconvenient truth. Perhaps the truth is that the anthropogenic impact on our climate is in fact irreversible and changes are inevitable. Which areas are better suited to manage change - the cities or the suburbs? I will continue to argue that the cities must be nurtured and supported because they will not only be havens for resilience in the new economy but they are uniquely positioned to accommodate the human condition regardless of the climatic condition. Lest we not forget that cities have long been the centers of civilization in varying geographies and climates, and during a wide range of economic times. Suburbs, conversely, are generally a monoculture (which as my friend Tony Sease recently pointed was in itself an oxymoron). As such they are predicated on highly leveraged, isolated developments tied together by predominately auto-oriented transportation networks. And like monocultures in nature, they are less resilient to change. One small jump in the price of gas in the summer of 2008 began to unravel the sweater.

Until we start to really address the fundamental issues of community growth and development, our gizmos will remain on the fringe of making any difference. This means that we must begin to radically rethink how we do business. Far too often, we have been forced into a one-sided solution created by a specialist with little regard to the larger picture. Sure, greenways are great, but are they built at the expense of a basic sidewalk network that can be used to walk to a store? Do our stormwater management practices actually encourage more sprawling development patterns at the behest of water quality. Do we build large schools in far flung locations because of land cost and generalized standards? Are we funding road widening and highway expansion because they are shovel-ready? And do we fund transportation improvements along a single corridor rather than seeking out more comprehensive solutions across the network because of short-sighted funding and policy directives.

I firmly believe that sea level rise, variable rainfall, and variable extreme temperatures can all be adapted to by our cities. Cap and trade will not ensure a walkable neighborhood in which our graying population can remain active in through their retirement years. Nor will it prevent obesity and its various illnesses including heart disease and diabetes. According to the March 10, 2004 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol 291, No. 10), the number two cause of death in the United States was poor diet and physical inactivity (just slightly behind tobacco) but it represented a larger percentage change from the previous decade - a nearly 33% increase. Interestingly, the second most rapidly growing cause of death is death by automobile which has recorded a nearly 72% increase from 1990 to 2000 growing from 25,000 to 43,000 deaths each year.

We are on track to kill more people with our poorly built communities than with sea level rise and I suspect that driving hybrid cars will have little impact on either of these trends in the next two decades. It's time that we start to have a frank discussion about the realities of today rather than the scientific speculation of tomorrow and let our policies flow from more mutually beneficial solutions. Walkable urbanism is capable of resilience in any climate. And it is better suited to improving the human habitat as well. But, if climate change is due to truly impact us, I firmly believe a city will be the preferred development pattern.