Thursday, August 27th, 2015
If there’s one thing that’s a nearly universal anxiety among cities, it’s brain drain, or the loss of educated residents to other places. I’ve written about this many times over the years, critiquing the way it is normally conceived.
Since brain drain seems to be a major concern in shrinking cities, I decided to take a look at the facts around brains in those places. Looking at the 28 metro areas among the 100 largest that had objective measures of shrinkage – in population and/or jobs – between 2000 and 2013, I looked what what happened to their educational attainment levels.
My results were published today in my Manhattan Institute study “Brain Gain in America’s Shrinking Cities.” As the title implies, my key findings were:
- Every major metro area in the country that has been losing population and/or jobs is actually gaining people with college degrees at double digit rates.
- As a whole the shrinking city group is holding its own with the country in terms of educational attainment rates, and in many cases outperforming it.
- Even among younger adults, most shrinking cities are adding more of them with degrees, increasing their educated population share, and even catching up with the rest of the country in their college degree attainment levels.
The following chart of metro area population change vs. degree change for select cities should drive the point home.
Click through to read the whole thing.
In short, for most places, it looks like the battle against brain drain has actually been won. As people there can attest, thanks to many improvements public and private over the years, they are now viable places to live for higher end talent in a way they weren’t say 20 years ago. This means the attention and resources that have been devoted to this issue can now be put to more present day tasks such as repairing civic finances, rebuilding core public services, and creating more economic opportunity for those without degrees.
More commentary later perhaps, but for now please check out the report and share widely.
Friday, August 14th, 2015
St. Petersburg and Moscow are typical destinations in Russia, but if you’re looking for other places to visit, where do you go? I can’t claim to answer that question as I have not fully surveyed the realm, but I did visit the city of Kazan for a day, so want to share a few observations and photos.
Kazan is a city of a bit over a million people about 450 miles east of Moscow (a flight of around 1:20). It’s the capital of the Tatar Republic of the Russian Federation. The Tatars were a nomads of Turkish ethnicity who established an independent kingdom in the region before being conquered by Ivan the Terrible. They are very proud of their unique ethnicity and history, and have obtained a great deal of autonomy (at least as much as exists in Russia). Originally the province was called Tatariya, but they renamed it Tataristan. To locals, the “-stan” suffix suggests strength and independence on par with other fully independent republics in the region. While they can certainly choose whatever name makes them feel most proud, names ending in “-stan” certainly don’t inspire confidence in America. I don’t think they fully understand the negative brand equity in that term, but don’t let the name scare you off. It’s a modern and as far as I can tell perfectly safe city.
In fact, it’s extraordinarily modern and new. There’s been a vast amount of infrastructure investment, much of it done in conjunction with international sporting events. They hosted the 2013 Summer Universiade (an Olympics for students, I gather), and the 2015 World Aquatics Championship was underway while I visited. They’ve got a brand new airport, brand new freeway network, numerous new buildings, etc.
Looking at Kazan in fact, you might get the impression it’s a boomtown. But it’s not a boom of the type you’d find in the US based on private sector growth. Though the region boasts oil and gas reserves and several manufacturing operations, most revenues go to the federal treasury in Moscow, so it would appear that Putin has showered the region was cash and that is the reason for the construction boom. The difference vs. St. Petersburg, which appeared to be starved for money, was evident. Everything in Russia is more or less state directed, and this is no exception.
Having said that, the state could have invested in purely megalomaniacal projects as has happened in some other regional -stans. Instead a lot has gone into core infrastructure. Yes, some of it is tourist oriented, but the neighborhoods infrastructure I saw was in pretty good shape, and my cab driver said that the city had done a ton of upgrades to neighborhoods streets and such too. They also built a short metro system, though apparently it is under-patronized.
Putin has been favoring the region with money in part to highlight and reward what Russians described to me as “good Muslims.” The Tatar region is about 55% Muslim and 45% Russian Orthodox. The split is basically along ethnic lines (though there’s a segment of Tatars that converted to Christianity). The Muslims in the area have long been known for their moderate brand of Sunni practice, and religious relations have been good, including a high degree of intermarriage (or so I’m told). Google tells me there were some extremist attacks in 2012, so I’m not sure what the status of that is, but I personally wouldn’t let it stop me from visiting there.
The locals are really pushing the religious co-existence angle, which makes sense in a world that is looking for examples of Christianity and Islam getting along. That’s a shrewd marketing strategy.
They also have gone beyond the modern and have pushed historic preservation. While no one is going to confuse Kazan for St. Petersburg, they have tried to restore what they have and have focused on obtaining UNESCO certifications. They are also pushing the Tatar cultural angle. There are plenty of elements of regional cuisine and I thought the food was excellent. Of course they would send me to their best places, but since I was only there one day, that didn’t matter. Kazan also has an important university, so has some attributes of a college town. Several famous Russians spent time living in Kazan, including Leo Tolstoy and Maxim Gorky.
Is Kazan a must-see? No. But if you’re interested in checking out a Russian city other than the big two, it’s definitely worth a visit.
I’ll share a few photos. The one at the top is the main entrance to the Kazan Kremlin. (The term kremlin is an old word meaning “fortress”). Here’s the Russian Orthodox cathedral there:
There was originally a mosque in the kremlin that was destroyed when Russians conquered the area. Recently, a new mosque was built on the site to maintain the symbolic religious balance in the area. I think it’s a very nice building.
They have their own leaning tower.
The main street leading to the kremlin.
The kremlin has nice views. There are several rivers and lakes in the area, including the Volga, and plenty of nice vistas.
Take a nice stroll along the lake.
Renovated buildings in the old Tatar Quarter
There’s a bit too much hardscape on that redone street for my taste. But it’s interesting because they took out a streetcar and pedestrianized the street. Apparently the vibrations were causing problems with the old buildings in the area, so they wanted to eliminate all vehicles.
Not sure what this is, but it’s in my Kazan file.
I’ll wrap up with a bit of transport geekery. Yes, they have a bike share system.
Their new metro system is in the Russian style with lots of marble, etc. The system “M” logo is similar to Moscow but in green (the traditional color of Islam). Instead of Moscow style tap cards they are using plastic tokens.
A metro station.
Station name signage. I believe the top is Russian and the bottom is the Tatar language, which is also written using the Cyrillic script. Interestingly, for at least while into the Soviet period, Tatar was written using the Latin alphabet, but they were apparently forced to change.
Here’s a train in the station. These are the exact same trainsets as the new Moscow ones I mentioned by didn’t have a picture of.
As I said, I was only there a day but was glad I went. It was good to get to see a city further into the Russian interior. Lots of money is being spent there, so I’d expect many further developments in the future.
Monday, July 20th, 2015
My latest post is online at New Geography and is called “LA’s Tale of Two Cities.” I was prompted to write it when I saw two articles within a month of each other, one declaring LA a paradise for creatives priced out of New York, the other about how creatives can’t afford to live in LA anymore. Here’s an excerpt:
It’s the best of times and the worst of times in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles is now attracting notice as a so-called “global city,” one of the world’s elite metropolises. It is ranked #6 in the world by AT Kearney and tied for 10th in a report by the Singapore Civil Service College that I contributed to. Yet it also has among the highest big city poverty rates in the nation, and was found to be one of the worst places in America for upward mobility among the poor. Newspaper columns are starting to refer to LA as a “third world city.”
Yet LA’s glitz factor remains potent. The fashion industry has gained considerable recognition. Tom Ford set up shop and brought his runway show to the city. Locally grown brands like Rodarte have a major following. LA also is increasingly a global center of gravity in the art world.
Yet behind the glitz, in the city of Los Angeles, aging water mains regularly erupt and the streets and sidewalks decay, with the city’s own report estimating it has an $8.1 billion infrastructure repair backlog.
One report chronicles the flight of cash-strapped New York creatives fleeing to sunny, liberating, and less expensive LA. Another how high prices and the Southern California grind are sending those same creatives packing.
Click through to read the whole thing.
Monday, June 29th, 2015
Photo by Scott Beyer
With pending changes in US-Cuban relations, there’s been a flurry of attention turned towards Cuba and Havana. I want to highlight a few articles on the topic. Firstly, Scott Beyer posted a two-part series over at Market Urbanism. It’s part policy analysis, part travelogue, and his large numbers of photos are a must-see.
His first piece is “City of Scarcity.” Here’s an excerpt:
I found myself unable to buy basic things. For example, during my first night in Havana, I didn’t realize–until it was too late–that the B&B landlord had not provided toilet paper. In America, this would be a glaring oversight, but in Havana, I would discover, is normal. This forced me to navigate my neighborhood at 3am, offering pesos to the many teenage boys still standing outside, to bring out “papel higienico” from their houses. Every time I tried this, they would each explain, in rather comical fashion, that none was available. Finally I found a teenager who spoke passable English, and asked him how this could be. After sending his little brother in to find something, he explained that “in Havana, toilet paper is a delicacy–like chocolate,” and that most residents don’t just have any sitting around. So how did people cope?
“Here in Havana, we have a saying,” he quipped. “We say, ‘Cubans have a good ass. Our asses work for all kinds of paper. Toilet paper, newspaper, book paper–any kind of paper’.”
Photo by Scott Beyer
His second piece is called “Stagnation Doesn’t Preserve Cities, Nor Does Wealth Destroy Them.” He uses the example of Havana as a counter-point to the anti-gentrification narrative in which investment in a city destroys is character.
Instead, she claims that these groups are “destroying” the city. She is thus spouting the same myth that is advanced about historic preservation by urban progressives, who seem to think that wealth and gentrification works against preservation. But a fair-minded look at U.S. cities demonstrates the opposite. If one looks at America’s most notable historic neighborhoods–the Back Bay in Boston; Capitol Hill in DC; the French Quarter in New Orleans; much of northern San Francisco; much of Manhattan and northern Brooklyn; downtown Savannah; and downtown Charleston–a unifying feature is that they have great residential wealth. Meanwhile, there are numerous cities—Baltimore, Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland—that have a similar number of historic structures. But many of them sit hollowed-out because of decline.
Image via the Guardian
Meanwhile, the Guardian also ran a take on the city, calling Havana “one of the world’s great cities on the brink of a fraught transition.” It’s very different to say the least.
Nowhere have these changes been more apparent than in Cuba’s capital, and Havana today can be a jarring collision of the antique and the nouveau. While I was there, the Havana Biennial was bringing in cutting-edge artists and art dealers from all over the world – yet turn the television to one of the state-sponsored channels and one is immediately transported back to the time of Soviet-era propaganda, of shrill declarations and low production values. In contrast, Venezuela’s TeleSUR (now accessible to Cubans), which generally maintains a line favourable to Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his allies (of whom the Castros are two), is positively electric and full of flashy visuals and news from the outside world.
Photo by Scott Beyer
Last Spring, City Journal ran a piece on the city by Michael Totten called “The Last Communist City.”
Even employees inside the quasi-capitalist bubble don’t get paid more. The government contracts with Spanish companies such as Meliá International to manage Havana’s hotels. Before accepting its contract, Meliá said that it wanted to pay workers a decent wage. The Cuban government said fine, so the company pays $8–$10 an hour. But Meliá doesn’t pay its employees directly. Instead, the firm gives the compensation to the government, which then pays the workers—but only after pocketing most of the money. I asked several Cubans in my hotel if that arrangement is really true. All confirmed that it is. The workers don’t get $8–$10 an hour; they get 67 cents a day—a child’s allowance.
The maximum wage is just the beginning. Not only are most Cubans not allowed to have money; they’re hardly allowed to have things. The police expend extraordinary manpower ensuring that everyone required to live miserably at the bottom actually does live miserably at the bottom. Dissident blogger and author Yoani Sánchez describes the harassment sarcastically in her book Havana Real: “Buses are stopped in the middle of the street and bags inspected to see if we are carrying some cheese, a lobster, or some dangerous shrimp hidden among our personal belongings.” Perhaps the saddest symptom of Cuba’s state-enforced poverty is the prostitution epidemic—a problem the government officially denies and even forbids foreign journalists based in Havana to mention. Some Cuban prostitutes are professionals, but many are average women—wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers—who solicit johns once or twice a year for a little extra money to make ends meet.
Monday, June 15th, 2015
In the last 25 years there has been a huge change in the level of competitiveness of smaller urban areas – by which I mean the small end of the major urban scale, or metro areas of about one to three million people – that has put them in the game for people in residents in way they never were before.
I recently gave the morning keynote at the Mayor’s Development Roundtable in Oklahoma City and talked a bit about this phenomenon, as well as how these generally younger and sprawling areas ought to be thinking about their future.
If the video doesn’t display for you, click over to watch on You Tube (my segment starts at 4:36).
Thursday, June 11th, 2015
Kay Hymowitz is the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and probably best known for her work on family and gender issues such as the book Manning Up. But she does a lot more than that, including some great writing on her home borough of Brooklyn.
The current issue of City Journal has a great piece by her called “Made in Brooklyn, Again” that is a look at the manufacturing renaissance ongoing at the former Brooklyn Navy Yard. Here’s an excerpt:
The Yard is now home to 330 small to medium-size manufacturing firms employing 7,000 workers—double the total of 15 years ago. Many of the companies are traditional or “analog” in their approach, but firms emerging out of the local north Brooklyn design, crafts, and tech scene—or the “maker movement,” as it’s sometimes known—come to the Yard every day looking for vacancies that don’t exist. Local officials have their fingers crossed that the Yard’s rise from its smokestack ashes will reverse decades of manufacturing decline and make a real impact on the persistent joblessness that troubles nearby, mostly minority, parts of Brooklyn. But in part for reasons related to that 5 Axis router—as well as to New York’s costly regulatory climate—they should be careful not to hope for too much.
There’s more where this came from. Last spring she wrote a piece about the largely Fujianese immigrant community in Sunset Park called “Brooklyn’s Chinese Pioneers.” Everybody first thinks of Flushing, Queens when they think about the Chinese in New York. But Sunset Park is home to an even bigger Chinese community. This one is poorer than Flushing’s, and made up of many people from Fujian, a linguistically diverse and largely non-Mandarin speaking province in China. An excerpt:
What started with a few hundred Fujianese pioneers a few decades ago is now New York City’s most populous Chinatown—considerably larger than Manhattan’s and bigger even than Flushing’s. Sunset Park bustles with Chinese and Vietnamese restaurants and stores selling dried shrimp and scallops and a staggering variety of gnarly ginseng roots, medicinal herbs, oils, and powders. One rarely sees a non-Asian face there. Though official city numbers are considerably lower, Paul Mak, president of the Brooklyn Chinese American Association, estimates that Sunset Park and adjoining sections of Bay Ridge and Borough Park are home to at least 150,000 Chinese.
For all their gumption, the Fujianese don’t entirely conform to the model-minority image. Take, for instance, the way they come to the United States. Long-term visas are nearly impossible to get, at least for those without family already here. Among New York immigrant groups, the Chinese apply for the most asylum visas, many based on trumped-up complaints. Other Fujianese turn to smugglers, or “snakeheads,” to create fake papers and guide them through a nightmare journey that often involves dangerous weeks in the airless holds of barely seaworthy ships, long stretches in safe houses in Thailand or Guatemala, or treks across the Mexican desert. The grueling adventures can cost them $50,000 or more. (Patrick Radden Keefe’s 2010 book, The Snakehead, offers a powerful depiction of the multibillion-dollar Chinatown-based smuggling business.) A large number of Fujianese who come to New York these days do so through Canada, using the passports of relatives; they rely on border guards not being adept at distinguishing Chinese faces. There’s no precise number of the undocumented Fujianese who’ve arrived in New York City since the early eighties, but estimates run as high as half a million. Kenneth Guest, an associate professor of anthropology at Baruch College, says that as many as half the Fujianese in the city are here illegally.
In 2013 Kay took a look at “Bed-Stuy’s (Unfinished) Revival.” She observes:
Of all the changes that I’ve witnessed in Brooklyn since settling there 30 years ago, none has surprised me more than the blossoming reputation of Bedford-Stuyvesant, now the fastest-growing neighborhood in New York’s fastest-growing borough. For decades, Bed-Stuy’s nickname, “Do or Die,” perfectly captured the spirit of the place: it was a neighborhood of entrenched black poverty, mean streets, meaner housing projects, and a homicide rate that had reporters using war metaphors. Nowadays, Bed-Stuy has become the latest destination for young professionals and creative-class whites on the prowl for brownstones, tree-lined streets, and express subway lines to Manhattan. Artisanal coffee, prenatal yoga classes, and Danny Meyer–inspired restaurants (one, called Do or Dine, serves foie-gras doughnuts) have followed close behind.
And in 2011 she took a checkpoint on the Brooklynization of Brooklyn in “How Brooklyn Got Its Groove Back.” An excerpt:
Unlike their predecessors, however, these grads are not only artsy; they’re tech-savvy and entrepreneurial. Don’t confuse them with the earlier artists and bohemians who daringly smoked pot at Brooklyn Heights parties. These are beneficiaries of a technology-fueled design economy, people who have been able to harness their creativity to digital media. In a 2005 report, the Center for an Urban Future estimated that 22,000 “creative freelancers”—writers, artists, architects, producers, and interior, industrial, and graphic designers—lived in Brooklyn, an increase of more than 33 percent since 2000. The Brooklyn Economic Development Corporation has dubbed the area from Red Hook to Greenpoint the “Creative Crescent.”
The new gentrifiers have also, surprisingly, re-created Brooklyn’s identity as an industrial center, locating commercial kitchens, artists’ lofts, and crafts studios in retrofitted factories in Sunset Park, Gowanus, and downtown Brooklyn. If they have to commute to work, they want to ride their bicycles, which is easier to do if you don’t have to cross the East River. (Brooklyn may be one of the only places in the world that occasionally offers valet bike parking.) Many have started their own boutique firms. In its report, the Center for an Urban Future also noted that “freelance businesses have been a faster growing part of the Brooklyn economy than employer-based businesses.”
Friday, May 29th, 2015
The evolution of historically poor, but creative, neighborhoods into affluent gentrification is a common trend in many large cities in the U.S. and the West. In new research, Jenny Schuetz examines the role that art galleries play in this trend toward gentrification. She finds that while galleries tend to choose neighborhoods with affluent college educated households, they are not themselves a cause of gentrification, and are not the source of further neighborhood transition after they are established.
Mimi and Rodolfo of La bohème would have difficulty finding a picturesquely dilapidated garret in today’s cleaned-up Latin Quarter – and even more difficulty affording the rent. Other well-known examples of gentrified Bohemia include London’s Bloomsbury and Hackney districts, Berlin’s Kreuzberg, and New York City’s SoHo and Chelsea neighborhoods. These once-shabby, low-rent enclaves became known for their concentrations of artists, writers, and musicians – not to mention their favorite watering holes – then gradually attracted more affluent residents and mainstream commercial activity.
Many historically artsy neighborhoods evolved organically into affluence. More recently, local economic development policies offer subsidies, preferential zoning, or other incentives to artists, galleries, performance venues, or the “creative class” more generally. One popular strategy is to encourage the reuse of abandoned warehouses and similar industrial spaces as art galleries. Galleries, especially “star” galleries owned by well-known dealers, have the potential to draw culturally-oriented visitors to a neighborhood, which in turn may attract new residents, shops and restaurants. Despite case studies of neighborhoods like SoHo, the causal relationship between art galleries and gentrification has not been rigorously established. Do galleries cause neighborhoods to transform, or are they drawn to neighborhoods with higher propensities to gentrify?
New evidence finds that in New York City, galleries choose high-amenity neighborhoods, but do not independently cause those neighborhoods to transform. To examine whether galleries lead to neighborhood redevelopment, I assembled an inventory of art galleries operating in Manhattan from 1970 through 2003. During the study period, roughly 800-1000 galleries per year operated in Manhattan, more than twice as many as in any other U.S. city. The study first examines whether galleries seek out locations with particular economic and physical amenities, and then analyzes whether gallery neighborhoods undergo more physical redevelopment, conditional on initial amenities.
Like antique dealers and high-end furniture stores, galleries are highly spatially concentrated in a few neighborhoods (Figures 1-2). Roughly 70 percent of all Manhattan galleries are located in just four neighborhoods: Chelsea, Midtown, SoHo and the Upper East Side. These clusters are remarkably persistent over time — Midtown and the Upper East Side have been gallery destinations since the 1940s, SoHo since the mid-1970s — despite the relatively short life-span of most individual galleries.
Figure 1 – Galleries in Uptown neighborhoods, 1970-2003
Source: Manhattan Gallery Database
Figure 2 – Galleries in Downtown neighborhoods, 1970-2003
Source: Manhattan Gallery Database
Some of the persistence is due to agglomeration economies: new galleries benefit from opening near existing galleries, especially “stars” that attract high-volume (and high net-worth) visitors to the neighborhood. Galleries also prefer neighborhoods with place-specific amenities, such as high quality architecture, museums and parks. For instance, about 80 percent of SoHo’s galleries are located within the Cast Iron Historic District (Figures 3-4).
Figure 3 – Gallery in Cast Iron Historic District, SoHo
Source: Photo taken by author
Figure 4 – SoHo galleries (1990-2003)
Source: Manhattan Gallery Database
The high-ceilinged and large-windowed structures were originally built for manufacturing and today contain upscale apartments, restaurants and shops, as well as galleries. Galleries on the Upper East Side also occupy historic structures, mostly elegant 19th century townhouses, and are located near prestigious museums (the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Guggenheim and the Frick) and Central Park (Figure 5-6).
Figure 5 – Upper East Side galleries in historic townhouses
Source: Photo taken by author.
Figure 6 – Upper East Side galleries (1990-2003)
Source: Manhattan Gallery Database
Starving artists may seek out low-rent, bohemian enclaves, but art galleries prefer to locate among well-to-do households. New galleries are more likely to open in neighborhoods with affluent, college-educated households and above-average rents. These trends are particularly pronounced for star galleries – perhaps not surprising, given the price of an original Matisse or Jeff Koons.
To determine whether neighborhoods with high concentrations of “star” galleries undergo more physical transformations, conditional on the initial level of amenities, I perform a variety of statistical analyses. Based on the evidence of previous case studies, we would expect gallery-rich neighborhoods to be especially dynamic, undergoing more frequent redevelopment. Gallery neighborhoods may also shift from industrial uses or vacant buildings towards mainstream residential and retail activity. If galleries increase nearby property values, the quantity of building stock should increase (in the form of more or taller buildings).
The results indicate that star galleries do not lead to neighborhood redevelopment, once initial amenities are controlled for. The simplest statistical models show a positive correlation between initial density of star galleries on Manhattan city blocks and several metrics of physical change. City blocks near many star galleries have a higher incidence of overall building changes, increased land shares devoted to residential and retail uses, and larger gains in aggregate building stock. However, these correlations are not robust to more sophisticated models, which control for initial physical and economic conditions. The results suggest that star galleries choose locations that subsequently undergo more transition, but redevelopment is due to observable and unobservable amenities, rather than galleries themselves.
Two policy implications emerge from this research. First, this study focuses on one type of arts venue in one city, but cannot speak to potential impacts across other cultural activities or other cities. Policymakers should rely on hard evidence when designing economic development strategies, targeting public funds to activities and locations that provide the greatest return. Second, should the arts be subsidized as a tool for economic development, or because they contribute other benefits to society? Does the value of La bohème extend beyond Rodolfo’s now-gentrified garret?
This article is based on the paper ‘Do art galleries stimulate redevelopment?’, in the Journal of Urban Economics.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USApp– American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics, and do not indicate concurrence by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Jenny Schuetz – Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Jenny Schuetz is an Economist in the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Her research focuses on urban economics, real estate and housing policy. Jenny received a PhD in Public Policy from Harvard University, a Master’s in City Planning from M.I.T., and a B.A. with Highest Distinction in Economics and Political and Social Thought from the University of Virginia. Her current projects include a study of transit-oriented development in Los Angeles and an evaluation of the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
This post originally appeared in the London School of Economics USA Policy and Politics blog on October 22, 2014. Reposted with permission.
Friday, May 15th, 2015
One unique aspect of Baltimore is that it is a so-called “independent city” that is not part of any county. Because of this, migration data from the IRS allows us to look specifically at the city of Baltimore. So I wanted to take a quick look at migration between Baltimore and its suburbs.
As you might expect, there’s been a net outflow of people from the city for quite some time. From 1990 to 2011 (the most recent year the IRS has released), Baltimore lost almost 151,000 people on a net basis to its suburbs. Here’s the chart:
You see here that Baltimore had an accelerating net loss of people, but then showed a steep drop in net loss through the 2000s. This is consistent with county level migration I’ve seen in other regions.
When people leave, they take their money with them. Baltimore’s cumulative net loss of annual income to its own suburbs from departing residents is about $2.75 billion from 1992 to 2011. (Income data isn’t available for 90-91 and 91-92 movers). That’s annual income, so this loss in effect recurs every single year. That’s a lot of money. Here’s the chart on adjusted gross income loss (in thousands of dollars):
What was a small post-recession bump in the people numbers is a more sizable one in the money figures.
Since we can, let’s also look at the individual flows of people leaving and people coming in. Here are people moving from Baltimore to the suburbs:
And here are people moving from the suburbs to the city of Balitmore – and yes, lots of people do that:
Here we see that the decline in Baltimore’s net loss was driven both by a decline in the number of people leaving and by an increase in the number of people coming in. This is similar to what I’ve seen in other similar places. The uptick in the recession is due to a drop off in the number of in movers.
There are some pretty dramatic movements in the early 90s, which were an interesting time in urban America to put it mildly. I’m not familiar with the specifics of Baltimore in that era. Some other regions I looked at – including St. Louis, which is also an independent city – show higher early 90’s migration, but nothing like the swing in Baltimore.
We will have to see what happens in post-2011 years. The IRS is delayed in issuing data, and has been trying to kill off this data program entirely, so who knows when more data will be available. 2012 data should in theory be out right about now, but we are some years away at best from finding out what impact this year’s riots might have had.
I should caveat this data by noting that it is based on tax returns that can be matched from year to year, so there are some movers who aren’t captured. As you can see, this is a pretty large data set, however.
Thursday, April 30th, 2015
My latest piece is online over at the Guardian. It’s called “Have we actually reached peak car?”
My piece is quite different from the typical US consumer preference change story. Rather, it draws on research from the UK that’s not widely publicized here in which traffic experts going back as far as the 50s and 60s predicted a saturation in demand for driving. In short, while total driving levels may grow with increasing population, individual (per capita) demand for driving may be at or close to its peak.
Here’s an excerpt:
What’s frequently lost in the debate is that traffic experts themselves predicted a driving peak long ago. Models developed as far back as the 1950s and 60s anticipated that at some point the demand for driving would reach saturation point. A 1974 report in the UK predicted that point would be reached in 2010, a remarkably prescient view. As Goodwin points out: “In fact, the 1970s predictions were official government forecasts by its own research laboratory … The institutional memory collapsed and the generation who remembered or were involved in those forecasts is now only a few elderly specialists, like me. I was as surprised as anybody when I re-examined the old reports: I had no idea that the forecasts were turning out so accurate 30 to 40 years later. Mind you, that does not prove the method is right, of course, but it is food for thought and certainly demonstrates that the idea of eventual saturation is not alien.”
UCL’s David Metz, formerly chief scientist of the UK Department for Transport and author of Peak Car: The Future of Travel, has taken up the saturation theme. “Saturation of daily travel demand is to be expected and is a likely explanation for the observed cessation of per capita growth of personal travel.”
There’s a lot in this piece, so click through to read the whole thing.
Tuesday, March 17th, 2015
Following up on last week’s post from Alex Schieferdecker about Minneapolis-St. Paul as the “Capital of the North” – an attempt to rebrand it to be in a region separate from the Midwest – I put together a few thoughts of my own that are posted over at New Geography. Here’s an excerpt:
There are two basic approaches cities are pursuing today. One is the regional capital approach of a Barcelona. (It would perhaps like to see itself as a national capital). The other is the global city approach of Chicago in which the city seeks to brand itself as a stand alone entity directly in the marketplace while actively divorcing itself from the region. The global city model seems more popular at present….If the Twin Cities are functionally a capital, this regional relationship will assert itself organically, however it seeks to brand itself.
Where the branding idea falls flat is in two areas….
Click through to read the whole thing.