Detroit

Toyota: How Mississippi Engineered the Blue Springs Deal

Andy Sywak — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:08:14 -0500

A big crowd gathered earlier today to welcome the first Corolla that rolled off the assembly line at Toyota’s tenth U.S. plant in the tiny hamlet of Blue Springs, Mississippi. Situated in Union County, just 17 miles from Elvis’ hometown of Tupelo, the new plant is the latest new automobile manufacturing facility to fly the flag of a foreign manufacturer in the Deep South.

The opening culminates a year of project announcements in the area. Mercedes-Benz will invest $350 million to add capacity to its plant just outside of Tuscaloosa, joining Navistar, the nation’s top manufacturer of school buses and medium-duty trucks, which also announced plans to expand in Alabama. In neighboring Tennessee, eleven automotive related projects totaling $300 million have been announced since June. A commissioner from the state’s economic development office recently said that one third of the manufacturing jobs in the Volunteer State now relate to the automotive sector.

But the growth of the auto industry in the area is not a stroke of fate. “It was a deliberate strategy, a regional strategy,” said David Rumbarger, President and CEO of the Community Development Foundation for Tupelo/Lee County. In 2001, three northeast Mississippi counties, Pontotoc, Union, and Lee, formed the PUL Alliance with the goal of luring a major automobile manufacturer to the area. Two years later, they identified the Blue Springs site, began looking for a tenant, and named the endeavor the Wellspring Project.

“At the time, North Mississippi said, ‘We’ve got to diversity our economy here’ and we narrowed it down to automotive,’” said Josh West, Economic Developer for Pontotoc and Union counties. Nissan’s announcement in 2000 that it would open the state’s first assembly line plant in Canton proved it could be done.

Furniture manufacturers, anchored by Ashley Furniture, Lane Furniture and Southern Motion, had long provided the region’s economic backbone (as recently as the 2007 Economic Census, more workers were employed in the state manufacturing furniture than automobiles). But, as with the textile industry, the industry slowly declined through downsizing and outsourcing, forcing locals to explore how to best capitalize on the area’s skilled labor force. The members of the PUL Alliance also probably couldn’t help but notice that the annual compensation cost for workers making automobiles is three times higher nationwide than for those manufacturing furniture.

Furniture manufacturing provided a good labor basis for the region, West said, “but the computer technology and robotics needed to be taught.” To that end, the PUL Alliance formed a consortium of four area community colleges to offer the skills needed at the Blue Springs facility.

“Each (college) couldn’t teach all the needed courses by themselves,” Rumbarger said, referring to courses on working with sheet metal, tool and dye technology and robotics, among others. “When we put the four institutions together, it helped spread the education of the workforce. It allowed the whole region to upgrade their skills.”

After approaching Ford and other domestic manufacturers (“I spent a lot of time in Detroit," Rumbarger said), Toyota announced in 2007 that it would break ground in Blue Springs, originally to make the Prius; Toyota later announced the plant will make only Corollas. Automakers have generally avoided opening up new plants in states where the United Auto Workers have a long history, choosing instead sites in the South with right-to-work laws that prohibit workers from being forced to join unions if their co-workers do so.

“It’s definitely a benefit to us to be a right-to-work state,” West said, estimating that less than two percent of private employees in the northern Mississippi area belong to unions.

The plant received 35,000 applications for 1,300 available spots, hiring mostly locals, with plans to hire more next year. Of course, a spin-off of every new auto plant is the wealth of suppliers who move into the area, producing seat bumpers, plastics, metals and other auto parts that add an estimated 1,000 jobs to the area. With Nissan’s Canton plant a four-hour drive south, suppliers have additional incentive to set up shop.

According to Rumbarger, economic development officials in the area had a wage target of 15 to 28 dollars an hour for the jobs at the Blue Springs plant, an increase from the average hourly manufacturing wage in the area of $13.50. With the median home value in Union County at $79,200 and a per capita average under $18,000, the wages paid by Toyota should make home ownership easily attainable to its plant employees. The area has also seen an increase of 200 home starts this year compared to last.

“I would speak to community groups and ask if anyone knew somebody who worked for Toyota. A couple of hands would go up,” Rumbarger said. “Now when I pose the question, nearly half of people know somebody who worked for Toyota. That’s the difference over the last 18 months.”

Andy Sywak is the former publisher of the Castro Courier newspaper in San Francisco. He now lives in Los Angeles.

Photo: Toyota Corolla by Paulo Keller

Major Metropolitan Commuting Trends: 2000-2010

Wendell Cox — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:38:33 -0400

As we indicated in the last article, solo automobile commuting reached an all time record in the United States in 2010, increasing by 7.8 million commuters. At the same time, huge losses were sustained by carpooling, while the largest gain was in working at home, which includes telecommuting. Transit and bicycling also added commuters. This continues many of the basic trends toward more personalized employment access that we have seen since 1960.

Solo Automobile Commuting: Among the nation’s 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million population, 38 experienced increases in solo automobile commuting between 2000 and 2010. More than 80% of commuting is by solo automobile in 25 of the 51 largest metropolitan areas, with the highest rates being in Birmingham, Detroit, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Kansas City. Another 28 metropolitan areas have single automobile commute shares of between 70% and 80%, with Boston, Washington and San Francisco between 60% and 70%. As would be expected, the lowest solo automobile commute share was in New York at 51%.

Car Pools: The national data also showed a nearly 2.4 million loss in carpool use. The losses were pervasive, occurring in all 51 metropolitan areas. Riverside-San Bernardino had the highest carpool market share at just under 15%, while all other major metropolitan areas were below 12%. Car pools have been losing market share for decades.

Work at Home (Includes Telecommuting): In what we have previously labeled as The Decade of the Telecommute, the nation experienced a 1.7 million increase in working at home over the past decade. The market share gains in working at home were as pervasive as the losses in carpooling, with all 51 metropolitan areas registering increases. Austin had the strongest work-at-home market share, at 7.3%, followed by Portland at 6.5%, San Francisco and Denver at 6.2%, Phoenix at 6.0%, with San Diego, Raleigh and Atlanta above 5.5%. Overall, working at home exceeded transit commuting in 37 major metropolitan areas out of 51 in 2010, up from 27 in 2000. Three metropolitan areas had work at home market shares of less than 3%, including Memphis, New Orleans and last place Buffalo.

Transit: As noted before, transit enjoyed its first 10 year gain since journey to work data was first collected by the Census Bureau 50 years ago. Overall, transit added 900,000 daily commuters, roughly half that for telecommuters. Transit's market share increased in 25 of the top 51 metropolitan areas. It is also notable that in a number of the metropolitan areas with the largest expenditures for new rail systems, there were either losses or commuting gains were concentrated in the more flexible bus services.

New York: As so often has been the case, transit was largely a "New York story." More than one half of the new transit commuters were in the New York metropolitan area, more than 450,000 of the 900,000 increase. New York boasts by far the most extensive transit system in the nation, which serves the second largest central business district in the world and by far the nation’s most important. In 2000, New York had a transit work trip market share of 27.4%. By 2010, New York's transit work trip market share had risen to 30.7%, more than double that of any other metropolitan area. More than 70% of the new transit commuters in the New York area were on its subway (Metro), suburban rail and light rail systems.

San Francisco: San Francisco retained its position as the second strongest transit metropolitan area, with a 14.6% work trip market share in 2010. This is up from 13.8% in 2000.

Washington: Washington was the third strongest transit commuting market, with a 14.0% work trip market share in 2010. This modest increase from 13.4% nonetheless produced the second largest ridership increase in the nation, at more than 130,000. This reflects the strength of Washington's job market over the decade. Rail ridership accounted for 53% of this increase, while buses accounted for the other 47%.

Boston and Chicago: Boston passed Chicago to become the fourth strongest transit market, at 11.8% in 2010. This is an increase from 11.2% in 2000. Chicago ranked fifth at 11.2%, a small reduction from the 11.3% in 2000.

Los Angeles: Los Angeles had the third largest increase in transit commuting, adding 60,000 daily transit commuters. Approximately 75% of these new commuters were attracted by the region's extensive bus system as opposed to its very expensive but limited rail system. This increase placed Los Angeles in a virtual tie with Portland, with a work trip market share of 6.2%.

Portland: Portland continued to experience its now 30 year transit market share erosion, despite having added three new light rail lines between 2000 and 2010. Portland's transit work trip market share fell to 6.2% from 6.3% and now trails the work at home and telecommute market share of 6.5%.

Seattle:Seattle added 29,000 new transit commuters for the fourth strongest growth in the nation. Approximately 75% of the new commuters were on the metropolitan area's bus system.

Atlanta: Atlanta, which is home to the third largest postwar Metro system in the nation (MARTA) gained nearly 9000 new transit commuters, all of them on the bus, while losing more than 3000 rail commuters.

Miami:Miami added 16,000 new transit commuters, though more than 90% were attracted to the bus system, rather than the rail services.

Rail and Bus in Texas: Other metropolitan areas with new and expanded rail systems did not fare as well. In Dallas-Fort Worth, the light rail system was more than doubled in length, yet there was a reduction of more than 3000 daily transit commuters. The transit work trip market share in Dallas-Fort Worth dropped from 1.8% to 1.4%, approximately one quarter lower than that of any other major metropolitan area with a new light rail or Metro system. Houston, which built its first light rail line during the period, lost nearly 3000 daily transit commuters, with its transit work trip market share dropping by nearly one-third, from 3.2% to 2.3%. By contrast, the third largest metropolitan area in Texas, San Antonio, lost no commuters from its bus only transit system.

Other New Rail Metropolitan Areas: Other metropolitan areas with new rail systems experienced modest ridership increases, with 60 to 70 percent of the increase on the bus systems in Charlotte, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Phoenix. Salt Lake City experienced a small decline in transit commuting.

Below 1 Percent: Four metropolitan areas had transit work trip market shares of less than 1%, including Indianapolis, Raleigh, Birmingham and last place Oklahoma City, with a market share of 0.4%.

Bicycles: It was also a good decade for bicycle commuting, with the national increase of nearly 250,000. The bicycle commuting market share rose in 45 of the 51 largest metropolitan areas. Portland had the highest bicycle market share at 2.2%, with three other metropolitan areas at 1.5% or above, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose. The lowest bicycle commuting market shares were in San Antonio, Cincinnati, Birmingham and Memphis, all at 0.1 percent.

Walking: There was little change in walking among the nations major metropolitan areas. The largest shares were in New York (5.9%) and Boston (5.4%), with the smallest shares in Raleigh (1.1%), Orlando (1.1%) and Birmingham (1.0%).

Drifting Away from Shared Commuting: In some ways, the 2000s were different than previous decades, especially with the reversals in bicycle commuting and transit. However, overall, shared ride commuting (transit and car pools) lost share due to the precipitous decline in car pooling. Longer term share increase trends also continued in single-occupant automobile commuting and working at home. The bottom line: personal employment access (personal mobility plus working at home) continues to carve away at the smallish share still held by shared commuting.

-------------

Data: The 2000 and 2010 commuting market shares by mode are shown in Tables 1 and 2 (2010 metropolitan area boundaries).

------------

Table 1
Work Trip Market Share: 2000
Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population in 2010

Metropolitan Area	Car, Truck or Van: Alone	Car/Van Pool	Transit	Bicycle	Walk	Other	Work at Home (Includes Telecommute)

Atlanta	77.0%	13.7%	3.4%	0.1%	1.3%	1.1%	3.5%
Austin	76.5%	13.7%	2.5%	0.6%	2.1%	1.1%	3.6%
Baltimore	75.5%	11.5%	5.9%	0.2%	2.9%	0.9%	3.2%
Birmingham	83.3%	12.0%	0.7%	0.1%	1.2%	0.7%	2.1%
Boston	71.1%	8.6%	11.2%	0.5%	4.6%	0.8%	3.3%
Buffalo	81.7%	9.4%	3.3%	0.2%	2.7%	0.5%	2.1%
Charlotte	80.7%	12.8%	1.4%	0.1%	1.2%	0.8%	2.9%
Chicago	70.4%	11.0%	11.3%	0.3%	3.1%	1.0%	2.9%
Cincinnati	81.3%	10.1%	2.8%	0.1%	2.3%	0.6%	2.7%
Cleveland	81.3%	8.8%	4.1%	0.2%	2.2%	0.6%	2.7%
Columbus	82.1%	9.7%	2.1%	0.2%	2.3%	0.6%	3.0%
Dallas-Fort Worth	78.7%	13.9%	1.8%	0.1%	1.5%	1.0%	3.0%
Denver	76.0%	11.7%	4.4%	0.4%	2.1%	0.8%	4.6%
Detroit	84.7%	9.2%	1.7%	0.1%	1.4%	0.6%	2.2%
Hartford	82.6%	8.7%	2.8%	0.2%	2.5%	0.6%	2.6%
Houston	77.0%	14.3%	3.2%	0.3%	1.6%	1.1%	2.5%
Indianapolis	82.8%	10.4%	1.3%	0.2%	1.7%	0.7%	3.0%
Jacksonville	80.3%	12.6%	1.3%	0.5%	1.7%	1.4%	2.3%
Kansas City	82.6%	10.6%	1.2%	0.1%	1.4%	0.7%	3.5%
Las Vegas	74.6%	14.7%	4.4%	0.5%	2.3%	1.3%	2.3%
Los Angeles	71.9%	14.6%	5.6%	0.7%	2.7%	1.0%	3.5%
Louisville	81.8%	11.2%	2.0%	0.2%	1.7%	0.7%	2.5%
Memphis	80.7%	13.3%	1.6%	0.1%	1.3%	0.9%	2.2%
Miami-West Palm Beach	77.3%	13.1%	3.2%	0.5%	1.7%	1.2%	3.1%
Milwaukee	79.7%	9.9%	4.2%	0.2%	2.9%	0.6%	2.6%
Minneapolis-St. Paul	78.3%	10.0%	4.4%	0.4%	2.4%	0.6%	3.8%
Nashville	80.5%	13.1%	0.8%	0.1%	1.5%	0.8%	3.2%
New Orleans	72.9%	14.6%	5.4%	0.6%	2.7%	1.3%	2.4%
New York	52.7%	9.3%	27.4%	0.3%	6.0%	1.5%	2.9%
Oklahoma City	81.6%	12.1%	0.5%	0.2%	1.7%	1.0%	2.9%
Orlando	80.6%	12.1%	1.6%	0.4%	1.3%	1.1%	2.9%
Philadelphia	73.1%	10.2%	8.9%	0.3%	3.9%	0.7%	2.9%
Phoenix	74.6%	15.3%	1.9%	0.9%	2.1%	1.4%	3.7%
Pittsburgh	77.5%	9.8%	5.9%	0.1%	3.6%	0.6%	2.5%
Portland	73.1%	11.5%	6.3%	0.8%	2.9%	0.8%	4.6%
Providence	80.7%	10.5%	2.4%	0.2%	3.3%	0.8%	2.2%
Raleigh	80.8%	12.1%	0.9%	0.2%	1.6%	1.0%	3.5%
Richmond	81.7%	10.9%	1.9%	0.2%	1.8%	0.8%	2.7%
Riverside-San Bernardino	73.5%	17.6%	1.6%	0.5%	2.2%	1.2%	3.5%
Rochester	81.7%	9.1%	2.0%	0.2%	3.5%	0.6%	2.9%
Sacramento	75.3%	13.5%	2.7%	1.4%	2.2%	0.9%	4.0%
Salt Lake City	76.0%	13.4%	3.3%	0.5%	2.1%	0.7%	4.0%
San Antonio	76.2%	14.9%	2.7%	0.1%	2.4%	1.2%	2.6%
San Diego	73.9%	13.0%	3.3%	0.6%	3.4%	1.4%	4.4%
San Francisco-Oakland	62.8%	12.7%	13.8%	1.1%	3.9%	1.3%	4.3%
San Jose	77.2%	12.4%	3.4%	1.2%	1.8%	0.9%	3.1%
Seattle	71.6%	12.7%	7.0%	0.6%	3.1%	0.8%	4.2%
St. Louis	82.5%	10.0%	2.2%	0.1%	1.7%	0.6%	2.9%
Tampa-St. Petersburg	79.7%	12.4%	1.3%	0.6%	1.7%	1.2%	3.1%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk	78.8%	12.1%	1.7%	0.3%	2.7%	1.6%	2.7%
Washington	67.5%	13.4%	11.2%	0.3%	3.0%	0.9%	3.7%
Top 51 Metropolitan Areas	73.2%	11.8%	7.5%	0.4%	2.9%	1.0%	3.2%

Calculated from Census Bureau data
Metropolitan areas as defined in 2010

Table 2
Work Trip Market Share: 2010
Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population in 2010

	Car, Truck or Van: Alone	Car/Van Pool	Transit	Bicycle	Walk	Other	Work at Home (Includes Telecommute)

Atlanta	77.6%	10.3%	3.4%	0.2%	1.3%	1.5%	5.8%
Austin	75.6%	10.5%	2.3%	0.6%	1.9%	1.8%	7.3%
Baltimore	76.5%	9.6%	6.0%	0.2%	2.6%	1.0%	4.1%
Birmingham	84.8%	10.0%	0.6%	0.1%	1.0%	0.5%	3.1%
Boston	69.5%	7.5%	11.8%	0.7%	5.4%	0.8%	4.4%
Buffalo	82.0%	7.5%	3.8%	0.3%	3.0%	1.1%	2.3%
Charlotte	80.6%	10.0%	2.0%	0.2%	1.5%	0.6%	5.1%
Chicago	71.0%	8.5%	11.2%	0.6%	3.1%	1.0%	4.5%
Cincinnati	84.1%	7.9%	2.1%	0.1%	2.0%	0.4%	3.4%
Cleveland	82.3%	7.2%	3.6%	0.3%	2.2%	0.7%	3.7%
Columbus	82.4%	8.0%	1.7%	0.5%	2.3%	0.6%	4.6%
Dallas-Fort Worth	81.3%	10.1%	1.4%	0.2%	1.2%	1.4%	4.6%
Denver	76.3%	9.6%	4.1%	0.8%	1.9%	1.1%	6.2%
Detroit	84.6%	8.5%	1.5%	0.2%	1.4%	0.8%	3.0%
Hartford	81.5%	7.9%	3.1%	0.3%	3.0%	1.0%	3.2%
Houston	79.4%	11.5%	2.3%	0.3%	1.4%	1.7%	3.4%
Indianapolis	83.9%	8.2%	0.9%	0.3%	1.5%	0.8%	4.3%
Jacksonville	82.5%	8.9%	1.0%	0.5%	1.4%	1.2%	4.5%
Kansas City	83.7%	8.5%	1.2%	0.2%	1.4%	0.9%	4.1%
Las Vegas	78.9%	10.5%	3.8%	0.6%	1.6%	1.3%	3.3%
Los Angeles	73.5%	10.7%	6.2%	0.9%	2.6%	1.2%	5.0%
Louisville	83.5%	9.2%	1.9%	0.2%	1.3%	0.9%	3.1%
Memphis	83.6%	10.3%	1.0%	0.1%	1.5%	0.9%	2.7%
Miami-West Palm Beach	78.8%	9.4%	3.5%	0.6%	2.0%	1.4%	4.4%
Milwaukee	80.1%	9.3%	3.4%	0.5%	2.6%	0.7%	3.4%
Minneapolis-St. Paul	78.3%	7.9%	4.8%	0.7%	2.4%	0.9%	4.9%
Nashville	81.3%	10.7%	1.0%	0.2%	1.2%	1.0%	4.6%
New Orleans	78.1%	11.0%	3.2%	0.7%	2.6%	1.9%	2.5%
New York	50.5%	6.8%	30.7%	0.5%	5.9%	1.6%	3.9%
Oklahoma City	82.7%	10.6%	0.5%	0.3%	1.6%	1.0%	3.4%
Orlando	82.1%	9.2%	1.6%	0.3%	1.1%	1.4%	4.4%
Philadelphia	73.9%	8.0%	9.6%	0.5%	3.5%	0.8%	3.8%
Phoenix	76.7%	11.8%	2.0%	0.6%	1.5%	1.5%	6.0%
Pittsburgh	77.0%	8.9%	5.6%	0.3%	3.7%	0.9%	3.5%
Portland	72.1%	8.8%	6.2%	2.2%	3.3%	0.9%	6.5%
Providence	81.3%	8.3%	2.6%	0.5%	3.2%	0.9%	3.2%
Raleigh	82.0%	8.7%	0.9%	0.3%	1.1%	1.1%	5.9%
Richmond	81.2%	10.1%	1.8%	0.4%	1.2%	0.7%	4.6%
Riverside-San Bernardino	76.1%	14.8%	1.7%	0.4%	1.8%	1.4%	3.8%
Rochester	82.6%	7.1%	1.8%	0.4%	3.9%	0.7%	3.6%
Sacramento	75.6%	11.2%	2.9%	1.7%	1.9%	1.1%	5.5%
Salt Lake City	77.7%	11.3%	2.9%	0.8%	2.3%	1.0%	4.0%
San Antonio	79.5%	11.5%	2.1%	0.1%	2.0%	1.4%	3.3%
San Diego	76.2%	10.1%	3.3%	0.8%	2.8%	1.0%	5.9%
San Francisco-Oakland	61.5%	10.6%	14.6%	1.7%	4.2%	1.2%	6.2%
San Jose	77.5%	10.3%	2.9%	1.6%	1.8%	0.9%	5.1%
Seattle	70.5%	10.2%	8.2%	1.1%	3.5%	1.0%	5.5%
St. Louis	83.0%	7.7%	2.6%	0.2%	1.9%	0.8%	3.7%
Tampa-St. Petersburg	80.3%	9.5%	1.6%	0.8%	1.4%	1.4%	5.0%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk	80.9%	9.4%	1.8%	0.5%	3.3%	0.9%	3.1%
Washington	65.6%	10.6%	14.0%	0.5%	3.5%	1.0%	4.9%
Top 51 Metropolitan Areas	73.7%	9.4%	7.9%	0.6%	2.8%	1.2%	4.4%

Calculated from Census Bureau data
Metropolitan areas as defined in 2010

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

Photo: Manhattan (New York), with the Woolworth Building in the distance (by author)

The Next Boom Towns In The U.S.

Joel Kotkin — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:20:24 -0400

What cities are best positioned to grow and prosper in the coming decade?

To determine the next boom towns in the U.S., with the help of Mark Schill at the Praxis Strategy Group, we took the 52 largest metro areas in the country (those with populations exceeding 1 million) and ranked them based on various data indicating past, present and future vitality.

We started with job growth, not only looking at performance over the past decade but also focusing on growth in the past two years, to account for the possible long-term effects of the Great Recession. That accounted for roughly one-third of the score. The other two-thirds were made up of a a broad range of demographic factors, all weighted equally. These included rates of family formation (percentage growth in children 5-17), growth in educated migration, population growth and, finally, a broad measurement of attractiveness to immigrants — as places to settle, make money and start businesses.

We focused on these demographic factors because college-educated migrants (who also tend to be under 30), new families and immigrants will be critical in shaping the future. Areas that are rapidly losing young families and low rates of migration among educated migrants are the American equivalents of rapidly aging countries like Japan; those with more sprightly demographics are akin to up and coming countries such as Vietnam.

Many of our top performers are not surprising. No. 1 Austin, Texas, and No. 2 Raleigh, N.C., have it all demographically: high rates of immigration and migration of educated workers and healthy increases in population and number of children. They are also economic superstars, with job-creation records among the best in the nation.

Perhaps less expected is the No. 3 ranking for Nashville, Tenn. The country music capital, with its low housing prices and pro-business environment, has experienced rapid growth in educated migrants, where it ranks an impressive fourth in terms of percentage growth. New ethnic groups, such as Latinos and Asians, have doubled in size over the past decade.

Two advantages Nashville and other rising Southern cities like No. 8 Charlotte, N.C., possess are a mild climate and smaller scale. Even with population growth, they do not suffer the persistent transportation bottlenecks that strangle the older growth hubs. At the same time, these cities are building the infrastructure — roads, cultural institutions and airports — critical to future growth. Charlotte’s bustling airport may never be as big as Atlanta’s Hartsfield, but it serves both major national and international routes.

Of course, Texas metropolitan areas feature prominently on our list of future boom towns, including No. 4 San Antonio, No. 5 Houston and No. 7 Dallas, which over the past years boasted the biggest jump in new jobs, over 83,000. Aided by relatively low housing prices and buoyant economies, these Lone Star cities have become major hubs for jobs and families.

And there’s more growth to come. With its strategically located airport, Dallas is emerging as the ideal place for corporate relocations. And Houston, with its burgeoning port and dominance of the world energy business, seems destined to become ever more influential in the coming decade. Both cities have emerged as major immigrant hubs, attracting on newcomers at a rate far higher than old immigrant hubs like Chicago, Boston and Seattle.

The three other regions in our top 10 represent radically different kinds of places. The Washington, D.C., area (No. 6) sprawls from the District of Columbia through parts of Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia. Its great competitive advantage lies in proximity to the federal government, which has helped it enjoy an almost shockingly ”good recession,” with continuing job growth, including in high-wage science- and technology-related fields, and an improving real estate market.

Our other two top ten, No. 9 Phoenix, Ariz., and No. 10 Orlando, Fla., have not done well in the recession, but both still have more jobs now than in 2000. Their demographics remain surprisingly robust. Despite some anti-immigrant agitation by local politicians, immigrants still seem to be flocking to both of these states. Known better s as retirement havens, their ranks of children and families have surged over the past decade. Warm weather, pro-business environments and, most critically, a large supply of affordable housing should allow these regions to grow, if not in the overheated fashion of the past, at rates both steadier and more sustainable.

Sadly, several of the nation’s premier economic regions sit toward the bottom of the list, notably former boom town Los Angeles (No. 47). Los Angeles’ once huge and vibrant industrial sector has shrunk rapidly, in large part the consequence of ever-tightening regulatory burdens. Its once magnetic appeal to educated migrants faded and families are fleeing from persistently high housing prices, poor educational choices and weak employment opportunities. Los Angeles lost over 180,000 children 5 to 17, the largest such drop in the nation.

Many of L.A.’s traditional rivals — such as Chicago (with which is tied at No. 47), New York City (No. 35) and San Francisco (No. 42) — also did poorly on our prospective list. To be sure, they will continue to reap the benefits of existing resources — financial institutions, universities and the presence of leading companies — but their future prospects will be limited by their generally sluggish job creation and aging demographics.

Of course, even the most exhaustive research cannot fully predict the future. A significant downsizing of the federal government, for example, would slow the D.C. region’s growth. A big fall in energy prices, or tough restrictions of carbon emissions, could hit the Texas cities, particularly Houston, hard. If housing prices stabilize in the Northeast or West Coast, less people will flock to places like Phoenix, Orlando or even Indianapolis (No.11) , Salt Lake City (No. 12) and Columbus (No. 13). One or more of our now lower ranked locales, like Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, might also decide to reform in order to become more attractive to small businesses and middle class families.

What is clear is that well-established patterns of job creation and vital demographics will drive future regional growth, not only in the next year, but over the coming decade. People create economies and they tend to vote with their feet when they choose to locate their families as well as their businesses. This will prove more decisive in shaping future growth than the hip imagery and big city-oriented PR flackery that dominate media coverage of America’s changing regions.

Cities of the Future Rankings
Rank	Metropolitan Area
1	Austin, TX
2	Raleigh, NC
3	Nashville, TN
4	San Antonio, TX
5	Houston, TX
6	Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
7	Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
8	Charlotte, NC-SC
8	Phoenix, AZ
10	Orlando, FL
11	Indianapolis, IN
12	Salt Lake City, UT
13	Columbus, OH
14	Jacksonville, FL
15	Atlanta, GA
16	Las Vegas, NV
16	Riverside, CA
18	Portland, OR-WA
19	Denver, CO
20	Oklahoma City, OK
21	Baltimore, MD
22	Louisville, KY-IN
22	Richmond, VA
24	Seattle, WA
25	Kansas City, MO-KS
26	San Diego, CA
27	Miami, FL
28	Tampa, FL
29	Sacramento, CA
30	Birmingham, AL
31	New Orleans, LA
32	Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
33	Minneapolis, MN-WI
34	St. Louis, MO-IL
35	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
35	New York, NY-NJ-PA
37	Boston, MA-NH
38	Memphis, TN-MS-AR
39	Pittsburgh, PA
40	Virginia Beach, VA-NC
41	Rochester, NY
42	Buffalo, NY
42	San Francisco, CA
44	Hartford, CT
45	Milwaukee, WI
45	San Jose, CA
47	Chicago, IL-IN-WI
47	Los Angeles, CA
49	Providence, RI-MA
50	Detroit, MI
51	Cleveland, OH

This piece originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

Photo by Exothermic Photography

Detroit: A Century On The Smart-Growth Grid

Rick Harrison — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:40:58 -0400

The following excerpts are from a report that was intended to solve many of the planning issues facing one of America's largest cities: Detroit. Its conclusions are in many ways counter to the ‘Smart Growth’ principles being promoted by influential decision makers. It was compiled by the city's highest level planners and engineers:

"One disadvantage under which Detroit is working is the extremely mixed character of its building – fifty thousand dollar houses, warehouses, saloons, institutions, slums, factories of all sorts, inexpensive dwellings, great apartment houses, and huge billboards follow one another almost in the same block, to the great detriment of practically all classes of occupancy. A zone system, if established, would bring order out of this chaos; and it would so stabilize the character of neighborhoods as to greatly increase land values. Though such control may at present be impossible, much may be done to assist in establishing zones or districts confined to one type of use, such as residential, industrial, and the like."

This suggests that the ‘Smart Growth’ goals of mixed uses and mixed incomes may not be so ‘smart’.

Of course, those who believe in intermixing all sorts of uses and incomes on the same block refer to cities where, a century ago, such a mix was normal, and suggest that the isolation of modern transitional zoning is a far worse option.

As we read further:

"In this report, stress will be laid on the less expensive residential development, for which… if the street and lot system is not well adapted to it, there will result serious and at the time wholly unnecessary waste and expense. Moreover, the added cost in land and improvements is apt to cause a deduction in the cost of the building which will lower the standard of living in an entire district."

In other words, this report is referring to the importance in lower income residential development to create the most efficient form of streets and infrastructure. This would free up funds that would have otherwise been used for wasteful design to be applied to housing. The results of reducing wasteful construction would enhance living standards, instead of lowering them. The authors of this report understood the importance of efficiency, and how it relates to the welfare of residents outside the gentrified sections of the city. The report goes onto recognize one of the most important financial aspects of development:

The house should normally represent three fourths of the cost; the improvements, such as sewers, sidewalks, etc. about an eighth; and the raw land an eighth.

Why is this so critical? Before the current housing market crash and the resulting depletion of American bank accounts, home builders traditionally stood by this model. But after the dot-com bubble, where investors put their money into vapor-ware only to see their investments disappear, the new favorite investment became land and buildings. In many areas of the country developers and national home builders went on a bidding spree, hiking raw land prices into the stratosphere. In the past, the financial rule was that a completed lot could not exceed 1/4th the total home price. The 'rule' was now broken, ignored or modified. Financial institutions also turned their heads away. Had the real estate market continued to hold fast to the above formula that served history so well, there may not have been a housing crash.

The report questions another aspect of ‘smart growth’, too:

"No Alleys. Alleys are unnecessary and wasteful of room, except where dwellings are in continuous rows or in groups of three or more. For detached and semi-detached cottages the space between adjacent houses necessary for light and air is sufficient also for a walk from the street to the back door."

While alleys are fodder for heated discussions from many sides of the planning field, clearly this city's planners do not like them, yet this particular city is full of alley-laden blocks. Those that blame poor planning on the automobile embrace alleys as a way to hide cars in the rear yards. What this actually does is literally surround the home with pavement and vehicle use-areas. Instead of reducing the connection between home and automobile, it increases the connection. The authors clearly recognize this, and go on to promote common gardens and play areas in the rear yards instead.

The report is very specific about street design. It suggests that the streets be sized for the traffic count, rather than creating unnecessarily wide streets everywhere, perhaps recognizing that too many cities have one size that is supposed to fit all. Unfortunately, planning and engineering consultants often seem to feel, inexplicably, that a short cul-de-sac in a city serving 10 lots somehow carries the same traffic as a street with ten times or more that number of homes. Many sections of Las Vegas, for example, from the air look like a sea of paving and rooftop – and that’s in the suburbs!

The report addresses street grids, as well:

"In rough topography the rectangular and the formal have no place, as they require heavy construction expense otherwise unnecessary. Even in flat country… the depressingly monotonous effect of the rectangular system should be avoided, on economic grounds if no other, for the dead level of mediocrity to which it brings districts depreciates their total value very materially. While to be sure no site is worth very much less than the average, none is worth very much more, whereas with variety in the layout many lots may be created with unusual value, due to location, attractive outlook, and special shape of lot adapted to the needs of the particular resident."

Oh my, such harsh words against the very grid pattern that the ‘Smart Growth’ movement promotes. It seems that the authors are suggesting a much more organic design, which can eliminate the monotony that detracts from housing and community values. It would seem that the very rigid relationships that are being promoted by ‘smart code’ proponents would not be embraced in this city, at least not by the top level staff and advisors.

The details of this report?

DETROIT
Published by the Commission
1915

It was located in the Cornell University Archives library annex. Called Detroit Suburban Planning, and authored by Arthur Coleman Comey, Landscape Architect, it was based on the preliminary plan for Detroit by Edward H. Bennett, Architect. It included input from the commissioner of parks and boulevards, the commissioner of public works, and the city engineer.

I grew up just outside the border of Detroit in the 1950s and early 1960s. It seemed that, for the most part, development continued on the same grid patterns, ignoring this report for at least the 40 years that followed its publication.

Today, to provide a hope for sustainability for Detroit, we need to heed the report and provide better housing for those that cannot live in architectural wonderlands that only the wealthy can afford, or be subsidized by tax dollars that are no longer available. The development process of trying to jam each and every unit allowed by a regulation's most minimal dimension in order to achieve the highest possible density pretty much guarantees that the development will fall into the very same traps that the report warned us about.

Rick Harrison is President of Rick Harrison Site Design Studio and Neighborhood Innovations, LLC. He is author of Prefurbia: Reinventing The Suburbs From Disdainable To Sustainable and creator of Performance Planning System. His websites are rhsdplanning.com and performanceplanningsystem.com. To learn more about the kind of communities described in the report, check out Harvard University's Graduate School of Design's Landscape Urbanism writings and programs, or, to learn more about Prefurbia as applied specifically to this kind of redevelopment, click http://www.rhsdplanning.com/redev.swf (to request a DVD, contact rharrson@rhsdplanning.com.

Is The Information Industry Reviving Economies?

Joel Kotkin — Mon, 16 May 2011 12:53:50 -0400

For nearly a generation, the information sector, which comprises everything from media and data processing to internet-related businesses, has been ballyhooed as a key driver for both national and regional economic growth. In the 1990s economist Michael Mandell predicted cutting-edge industries like high-tech would create 2.8 million new jobs over 10 years. This turned out to be something of a pipe dream. According to a recent 2010 New America Foundation report , the information industry shed 68,000 jobs in the past decade.

Yet this year, information-related employment finally appears to be on the upswing, according to statistics compiled by Pepperdine University economist Michael Shires. The impact of this growth is particularly marked in such long-time tech hot beds as Huntsville, Ala., Madison, Wis., and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif., in the heart of Silicon Valley, all of which have relatively high concentrations of such jobs.

The San Jose area, home of Silicon Valley, arguably has benefited the most from the information job surge. Much of this gain can be traced to the increase in social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, all of which have been incubated in the Valley. Good times among corporations have led many to invest heavily in software productivity tools, while those marketing consumer goods have boosted spending for software and internet-related advertising.

The 5,000 mostly well-paying information jobs added this year was enough to boost San Jose’s standing overall among all big metros 20 places to a healthy No. 27 in our ranking of the best cities for jobs.

But as economists enthuse over the tech surge, we need to note the limitations of information jobs even in the Valley. Software and internet jobs, which have increased 40% over the past decade, have not come close to making up for the region’s large declines in other fields, notably manufacturing, construction, business and financial services. Overall, the region has lost 18% of its jobs in the past decade — about 190,000 — the second-worst performance, after Detroit, among the nation’s largest metros. It still suffers unemployment of close to 10%, well above the national average of 9.0%.

This dual reality can also be seen in the local real estate industry. Office vacancies may be back in the low single digits in some markets popular with social networking firms, such as Mountain View, but they remain around 14 or higher throughout the region — 40% higher than in 2008. No matter how impressive reporters find a new headquarters for high-fliers like Facebook, the surplus of redundant space, particularly in the southern parts of the Valley, suggest we are still far from a 1990s style boom.

Some observers also warn that the long-term prospects for the Valley may not be as good as local boosters assume. Analyst Tamara Carleton cites many long-term factors — like the financial condition of local cities and diminishing prospects for less skilled workers — that make it tougher on those who live below the higher elevations of the information economy. She also says that a precipitous decline in foreign immigration could slow future innovation.

This dichotomy is even more evident in the other big information gainer among our large cities, Los Angeles. Although it is little known by the media or pundit class, the Big Orange actually boasts the nation’s single largest number of information jobs. Its over 5% growth in information jobs translates to roughly 10,000 new positions over the past year. In LA, the big sector for information jobs is likely not social media but traditional entertainment, one of the area’s core industries.

Yet information growth clearly is not bailing out the overall economy. Other much larger sectors, such as manufacturing and business services, continue to shrink. The area still suffers from an unemployment rate of roughly 12%.

Other information winners among our large metros include Boston and Seattle, both traditional centers for software-related jobs. These areas have not been as hard-hit by the real estate and industrial declines as their California counterparts, so increasing information employment does not constitute the outlier that we see in the Golden State.

Less expected gains were notched by some of our other big information sector winners. One big surprise was New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, whose information sector, including a growing film and television industry, expanded almost 39% in past year. As is the case with its strong overall rankings in our best cities survey, the Big Easy’s comeback from the devastation of Katrina is heartening. But we must curb our enthusiasm by pointing out that total regional employment remains 100,000 less than it was before the hurricane.

Equally intriguing has been the strong performance of Warren-Troy-Farmington, Hills, Mich., and Detroit-Livonia, each of which has benefited from the resurgence of the American auto industry. In these areas, information jobs tend to be tied to the needs of large industrial companies. The state has also waged a major campaign for film and television jobs, as part of an attempt to diversify its economy.

Yet for all the hype that surrounds industries like media and software, it’s critical to point out that overall this is not a huge employment sector. Even in Seattle — home to Microsoft, Amazon and other software based companies — information jobs account for barely 6% of the total. In Los Angeles, it’s 5%, compared with 10% each for manufacturing and hospitality. In media-centric New York, information accounts for barely 4% of jobs, less than half that of financial services and one-third that of the huge business service sector.

In most other areas, including those experiencing strong growth, information jobs constitute an even smaller part of the economy. In New Orleans, Warren, Mich., and Detroit, such jobs account for less than 2% of employment . Still, the growth of this sector is a promising one for economies that have long been dominated, like New Orleans, by the generally low-paying hospitality industry, or in the case of the Michigan cities, the volatile and often chronically hurting manufacturing sector.

The increase in information jobs, however welcome, should not be sold as a universal elixir for creating widespread prosperity. Over time, strong regional economies are those that rely on diverse employment sources rather than one. Growth in high-tech and media jobs can wow impressionable reporters and earn economic developers bragging reights, but they can do only so much to lessen the recession’s impact on the vast majority of workers and the broader regional economy.

Top Cities for Information Job Growth, 2009-2010
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.86%
Honolulu, HI	25.11%
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	18.85%
Huntsville, AL	14.71%
Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA	13.33%
Redding, CA	10.53%
Madison, WI	10.20%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	10.01%
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	7.63%
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA	6.33%

Top Big Cities for Information Job Growth, 2009-2010
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.86%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	10.01%
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA	6.33%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA	5.08%
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI	3.97%
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA	3.54%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	3.46%
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	3.02%
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI	2.48%
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA	1.47%

Photo by Angelo Amboldi

Can the Winnipeg Model Save Detroit?

Steve Lafleur — Sun, 15 May 2011 23:05:18 -0400

Detroit, not only in the US but across the globe, has become the poster child for urban decay. The city lost 25% of its population between 2000-2010, and over half its population since 1950. Over 90,000 houses stand empty, and many neighborhoods have been completely abandoned.

The burden of maintaining infrastructure and law enforcement in a city with an eroding tax base and sparse population has lead to attempts to “shrink” the city. This means bulldozing several areas of the city, and relocating existing residents. Current Mayor Dave Bing realizes this, and has pledged to knock down a staggering 10,000 structures during his first term. In the past such slum clearances lead to vigorous opposition from urbanists like Jane Jacobs, who argued that top down approaches to urban redevelopment would cause a great deal of pain, for little to no benefit. Yet despite the fact that Jacobs is widely admired by planners, the plan to shrink the city has met with little opposition in Detroit. Frankly, unless Detroit sees a major population surge, shrinking the city may sadly be necessary.

Last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, and at one point mused about using immigration policy to repopulate the city. Bloomberg didn’t offer a substantive policy proposal, but the premise makes perfect sense. Most of Detroit’s problems stem from the fact that fewer and fewer people are working and paying taxes in the city. There is more infrastructure than people need or the city can afford.

Ultimately the issue then is getting people to live in Detroit. But the biggest problem, even with a mild resurgence in the auto sector, is that Americans, and even most Michiganders, don’t want to live in Detroit, even with jobs.

But for many immigrants, Detroit would seem like a major upgrade over their current living situation. This is not as far-fetched a notion as some may believe. Here’s a proposal for Detroit based on an unlikely Canadian immigration success story: Winnipeg.

Learning from Winnipeg

When Americans think of Winnipeg, they think of white guys wearing earmuffs in July, speaking with the kind of Canadian accents typically ridiculed on American sitcoms. When Canadians from outside of Manitoba think of Winnipeg, they think of a former industrial city that is hardly a draw to the much sought after “creative class” even though the city has the nation’s lowest housing cost. What no one from outside the city associates with Winnipeg is immigration.

Winnipeg’s immigration success is not well known outside of the province, but it is hard to dispute the facts. Smart immigration policies have helped Winnipeg stabilize its population and reverse the city’s decline.

Between 1971-1996, the city of Winnipeg grew by just under 16%, or roughly 0.6% per year. Like many North American cities, all of the growth was taking place in the suburbs. In fact, the population of Downtown Winnipeg shrunk by 23.25% during that period. Though the rate of decline is nowhere near that of Detroit, the causes and effects are similar. Manufacturing declined; people moved to the suburbs, aided by highway expansions and low cost automobiles; residents moved to more entrepreneurial cities, such as Calgary; ensuing job and population decline lead to a decline in safety. The most notable difference is that racial tensions in Detroit exacerbated suburban flight. But the similarities are sufficient to use Winnipeg as a model.

Using immigration to reverse population decline in Manitoba

In 1998, the Province of Manitoba introduced the Provincial Nominee Program, which gave the province the ability to recruit immigrants over and above federal immigration quotas. Since Manitoba was not seen as the most attractive place for new immigrants to settle, only 1.8% of immigrants to Canada settled in the province between 1996-2000 (Note 1). Since the introduction of the nominee program, immigration to the province has increased by 250%. The increase in the City of Winnipeg has been staggering. In the years 1996-2000, the city saw 15,809 new immigrants. In just one year, 2007-2008, the city attracted 16,585 immigrants. Equally as important, 78% of Manitoba immigrants stay in the province, which is a significant improvement over the 1980s, when they had a retention rate of less than 50%. Increased immigration ended Manitoba’s population stagnation, and the province now enjoys consistently positive net migration.

Economic outcomes of Manitoba immigrants

A survey of immigrants who migrated to Manitoba through the provincial nominee program shows promising results. Three quarters of participants surveyed have never experienced involuntary unemployment. Of those surveyed, 85% were employed, and 7% were in school. While the average annual household income of $49,066 for participants is lower than the provincial average of $60,242, they are generally making enough money to live reasonably well, contributing to the provincial and municipal tax bases.

Reasons for the program’s success

Of course, mass immigration often creates challenges for recipient regions. Aside from the need for immigrants to find jobs, they also often require language training, and educational upgrading to meet certification levels for their professions. However, the success of the program shows that participants were by and large able to overcome these difficulties. Some of this can likely be attributed to the fact that immigrants of similar backgrounds tended to cluster together, some integrating into communities with existing settlers of similar backgrounds. The primary examples of these two patterns are the concentration of Filipino immigrants in Winnipeg, and the large number of Mennonites from Germany, Mexico, and South America who integrated into existing Mennonite communities. This can be important, since it allows for them to develop, or take advantage of informal support networks. Living in a community with speakers of the same language makes it easier for immigrants whose first language is not English to integrate into the community, and can help with finding employment.

Benefits of targeted immigration to Detroit

Immigration is often a source of innovation and entrepreneurship. Recent studies have shown that immigrant entrepreneurs in America have created more jobs for existing Americans than for other immigrants. More people moving to Detroit would also mean more customers for the service industry in the city. And by paying property taxes, they would help to keep the city government afloat. Perhaps the most important benefit would be that more people generally would make the city safer. Criminals, after all, hate witnesses.

Hopeful signs from recent immigration to Detroit

Recently, Detroit has experienced an influx of Latino and Muslim immigration. Despite the stigma attached to these groups by many Americans, anecdotal evidence suggests that these newcomers have been a boon to the city. According to the Immigration Policy Center, Arab American employment now contributes $7.7 billion to the Detroit metro economy, and provides $544 million in tax revenue to the state. They now support over 140,000 jobs in the city. Latino immigrants are being credited with helping to revitalize Southwest Detroit, which saw $200 million of investments between 1993-2008, and the area’s population grew by nearly 7% between 1990-2000 even as most of the city declined. The City is now home to nearly 50,000 Latinos, up from under 20,000 in 1990.

And for those who claim immigrants take American jobs, the evidence suggests the opposite. Despite the fact that immigrants have lower average wages than non-immigrants, they manage to have a disproportionate economic impact in many cities, Detroit being one of the best examples. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, immigrants contribute 1.3 times as much to the economy per capita as non-immigrants in Detroit. This means, among other things, they disproportionately create jobs and contribute to the tax base.

Policy recommendations

Creating a targeted immigration program would require co-operation between municipal, state and federal governments. The policies recommended here are one set of options among many.

The federal government should create an ”urban revitalization” visa category to allow for municipalities with severe demographic declines to accept immigrants without counting them towards immigration quotas.
The state of Michigan, or other similarly challenged states, should create a specific program modeled on Manitoba’s provincial nominee program.
Immigrants should be required to prove that they have the financial means to support themselves for a specified amount of time in the absence of income. This would ensure that they didn’t burden the existing welfare system.
Participants in the program could be required to undertake language training at their own expense, or to prove a basic competence in English.
The City of Detroit should move more aggressively towards allocating abandoned buildings to provide housing or places for businesses of immigrants, or anyone else who wants to occupy them for that matter. Filling buildings means more property taxes.
The City should concentrate on settling new immigrants of similar ethno-linguistic backgrounds into specific underpopulated areas. Rather than simply allowing a certain number of immigrants into the city, they could create zones with high vacancy levels, and allow immigrants who apply to the program to move into these zones initially. The aim should be to populate one neighborhood every two years to fill current vacancies.
Instead of punitive measures to force immigrants to stay in Detroit, the city should provide incentives to stay. This could include requiring immigrants under this program to sign long term leases with large deposits, or to purchase property. This is preferable to attempting to monitor the movement of immigrants.
The city and state should attempt to partner with businesses, who may be interested in opening operations in the city due to the influx of immigrant labor. This could help to give further incentives for new immigrants to stay, and create jobs for existing unemployed residents.

Many of these recommendations require more micromanagement than I’d personally prefer, but address political and economic realities. Simply allowing anyone and everyone to immigrate to Detroit or anywhere else in America is a political non-starter. Also, the dire budgetary situation facing the City of Detroit and the state of Michigan means that neither can afford to allow new immigrants to become economic liabilities. After all, the justification for this program is to replace the tax base and reduce crime, not to create a new underclass. Though there would certainly be some hiccups, evidence in Winnipeg and Manitoba could help to revitalize both Detroit and much of the state of Michigan. Failure to undertake an aggressive revitalization strategy will make an aggressive shrinking strategy inevitable. Given the two choices, revitalization seems vastly preferable.

---

Note 1: Unless otherwise noted, data on the Manitoba Provincial Nominees Program is based on http://www2.immigratemanitoba.com/asset_library/en/resources/pdf/pnp-manitoba-provincial-nominee-program-tom-carter-report-2009.pdf

Steve Lafleur is a public policy analyst and political consultant based out of Calgary, Alberta. For more detail, see his blog.

Photo by Arlo Bates

Manufacturing Stages A Comeback

Joel Kotkin — Mon, 09 May 2011 13:01:38 -0400

This year’s survey of the best cities for jobs contains one particularly promising piece of news: the revival of the country’s long distressed industrial sector and those regions most dependent on it. Manufacturing has grown consistently over the past 21 months, and now, for the first time in years, according to data mined by Pepperdine University’s Michael Shires, manufacturing regions are beginning to move up on our list of best cities for jobs.

The fastest-growing industrial areas include four long-suffering Rust Belt cities Anderson, Ind. (No. 4), Youngstown, Ohio (No. 5), Lansing, Mich. (No. 9) and Elkhart-Goshen, Ind. (No. 10). The growth in these and other industrial areas influenced, often dramatically, their overall job rankings. Elkhart, for example, rose 137 places, on our best cities for jobs list; and Lansing moved up 155. Other industrial areas showing huge gains include Niles-Benton Harbor, Mich., up 242 places, Holland-Grand Haven, Mich., (up 172), Grand Rapids, Mich., (up 167) Kokomo Ind., (up 177) ; and Sandusky, Ohio, (up 128).

Industrial growth also affected some of the largest metros, whose economies in other areas, such as business services, often depend on customers from the industrial sector. Economist Hank Robison, co-founder of the forecasting firm EMSI, points out that manufacturing jobs — along with those in the information sector — are unique in creating high levels of value and jobs across other sectors in the economy. They constitute a foundation upon which other sectors, like retail and government, depend on.

Take the case of Milwaukee. The Wisconsin city rode a nearly 3% boost in industrial employment to increase its ranking among the best large metros for jobs: It rose from a near-bottom No. 49 (out of 65) to a healthy No. 23. As manufacturing employment surged, others sectors, notably business services, warehousing and hospitality, showed solid increases after years of slow or even negative growth.

Milwaukee’s growth reflects some of the greater trends affecting the industrial sector, whose overall income is up 21% since mid-2009. The Fed’s monetary policy, combined with deficit-related concerns, has certainly helped by depressing the value of the dollar, keeping American prices more competitive with foreign producers. Low prices have helped U.S. industrial exporters gain sales, much as it has boosted agricultural commodity producers to sell their goods to growing countries like China, India and Brazil. Exports now account for 12.8% of all U.S. output, the largest percentage since the Commerce Department starting tracking in 1929.

These new markets are particularly strategic to regions like Milwaukee and other parts of the Great Lakes. Despite the industry’s massive shrinkage of the past decade, these areas retain significant specialized skills in fields like machine tools, automotive parts and temperature controls, which are all in demand in the developing world as well as at locally based firms, many of which are enjoying high profits. Allen-Edmunds, a high-end shoe maker based in the region, has seen export business surge.

Similarly Peoria, Ill., has benefited from a boom in overseas orders for heavy equipment from Caterpillar, its dominant industrial company. Caterpillar sells the kind of heavy moving and mining machinery now in great demand, particularly in developing countries.

One big driver of industrial growth has come from the source of so much pain in the past: the auto industry. Although production remains 25% below its 2007 peak, the industry, which accounts for roughly one-fifth of the nation’s industrial output, is on the rebound. Ford Motor is achieving its best profits in over a decade, and both Chrysler and General Motors are officially in the black.

Long-depressed industry center Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, Mich., topped our list of manufacturing job-creators, with an impressive 8.2% increase. Second place went to the Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn area, which experienced 3.5% growth. Of course this recent expansion hardly makes up for decades of decline — auto industry employment, for example, is still down over 34% from its 2005 peak. But industrial expansion has clearly improved job prospects across the board; over the past year, for example, Warren experienced healthy growth in its information, business services and wholesale trade sectors.

Of course, not all the big gainers in the industrial sphere are located in Great Lakes. The movement of manufacturing to other parts of the country, particularly to Texas and the Southeast means a better industrial climate helps those regions as well. The list of fastest-growing industrial areas among our big metros includes San Antonio, Texas (No. 3); Atlanta (No. 7); Oklahoma City (No. 8) and Austin-Roundrock, Texas (No. 10) — all of which did very well in our overall jobs survey. Many of these areas are business-friendly, have low housing costs, reasonable taxation and business-friendly regulatory environments that induce industrial expansions.

Another contributing factor to industrial growth in places like Austin is high-tech manufacturing. Covering everything from servers to specialized production equipments, the expansion of this sector accounts for a healthy 1.7% upturn in San Jose, No. 6 among our large metro regions, a welcome turnaround for an area that shed some 17% of its industrial jobs over the past decade.

But some of the best progress took place in smaller communities spread across the country. Take Yakima, Wash., which came out first on our manufacturing job growth list with a heady 19% growth in industrial jobs. Metal fabrication plants companies such as Canam Steel have led the way, with some of the new demand coming from Canadian sources.

Other strong performers included Midland, Texas, which ranked sixth in our industrial rankings — fifth among the smaller cities. Here an expanding oil and gas sector has sparked a strong revival not only in manufacturing but also in business services and finance.

If manufacturing growth has become a new shaper of overall job growth, some regions may need to move beyond the post-industrial mindset that dominates so much of regional e development orthodoxy. Take the coastal areas in California: Los Angeles-Long Beach, which has the nation’s largest industrial base and high unemployment, continues to lose manufacturing jobs – over 28% gone over the past decade — in part due to strict regulatory controls and a basic inattention to this sector by government officials.

In contrast, some hard-hit economic regions like Modesto, in California’s Central Valley, have promoted industrial growth. Last year, a nearly 14% increase in manufacturing jobs — much of it food related — helped the area gain some 92 places on our survey . They have not exactly won a gold medal, but certainly the improvement amount to more than chopped liver.

To be sure, cities can grow without robust manufacturing. Take financial centers like New York, university towns or Washington, D.C., where paper-pushing remains the core competency. But for many areas, particularly those beyond the urban “glamour zone,” getting down and dirty at the factory represents a solid economic strategy. In fact, it may be one of the best way to nurture your region back to health.

Top Cities for Manufacturing Job Growth, 2009-2010
Yakima, WA	19.0%
Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	17.4%
Palm Coast, FL	16.7%
Anderson, IN	14.3%
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	13.2%
Midland, TX	13.0%
Modesto, CA	12.0%
Yuma, AZ	9.8%
Lansing-East Lansing, MI	9.3%
Elkhart-Goshen, IN	9.3%

Top Big Cities for Manufacturing Job Growth, 2009-2010
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI	8.2%
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI	3.5%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	3.2%
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	2.9%
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	2.0%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	1.7%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	1.7%
Oklahoma City, OK	1.6%
Pittsburgh, PA	1.6%
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	1.5%

This piece originally appeared in Forbes.com

Photo by bobengland

Rethinking Urban Dynamics: Lessons from the Census

Aaron M. Renn — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 05:39:30 -0400

Much has been made of the vaunted “back to the city” movement by “the young and restless,” young professionals, the creative class, empty nesters and others were voting with their feet in favor of cities over suburbs. Although there were bright spots, the Census 2010 results show that the trend was very overblown, affecting mostly downtown and near downtown areas, while outlying ones bled population. One culprit for this discrepancy seems to be that the intra-census estimates supplied by the Census Bureau were inflated – in some cases very inflated.

Looking at selected core cities for major US metropolitan areas, many of them were materially over-estimated:

One particularly egregious case relates to Atlanta. Its huge projected population increase in the 2000s led me to describe it as “one of America's top urban success stories.” The reality proved to be quite different. Rather than strong population growth in the city, the population growth turned out to be basically flat, quite a different story. Other declines might be more predictable, such as Detroit, or those who had previously challenged estimates like Cincinnati and St. Louis. Still, even urban cores in rapidly growing regions like Dallas and Houston were not immune from this trend.

There were some exceptions. Cities like Indianapolis, Columbus, and Oklahoma City came in slightly ahead of expectations, but the number of cities with misses and the sizes of the positive and negative misses tilted towards the down direction.

It seems clear now that the justification for much of the “back to the city” story reflected bad estimates. People can't be faulted for relying on the official government numbers – I did. But the reality of the 2010 Census, as demonstrated by Wendell Cox and others, is that the 1990s were actually better for urban population growth in America than the 2000s in many respects.

One legitimate bright spot for cities lay in the growth of downtown and near downtown areas. Though often starting from low bases, these areas often showed impressive increases. For example, St. Louis showed good growth downtown despite a very disappointing decline in total city population:

The poster child for this phenomenon was Chicago, where a fairly expansive area in the greater core showed large population growth. Areas that were formerly almost all commercial, such as the Loop, added significant residential population, while areas that were nearly derelict like the near South Side have blossomed into thriving upscale neighborhoods.

The problem, from places ranging from Chicago to Cleveland, is that the gains in the “core of the core” have been more than offset by losses elsewhere, especially the flight of blacks and other minorities – many of them immigrants – to the increasingly diverse suburbs.

Cities across America have invested enormous sums into downtown redevelopment and major projects in selected districts. The good news: these investments have shown some ability to move the needle in terms of attracting young professionals downtown. The bad news lies with the fact that these developments have been extremely costly, and have not transformed the overall demographic or economic climates of the cities that tried them. This demonstrates the limits of the policies. Those who aren't in the young professional, empty nester, or creative class demographic have rightly figured out that they are no longer the target market of city leadership. No surprise then that many of them have decided to vote with their feet.

Given the resulting overall negative swings, cities may want to revisit their strategy of putting all their chips in the downtown redevelopment basket in favor of less glamorous improvements in basic neighborhood safety, services, schools and other critical elements. A handful of elite enclaves and talent hubs may be able to thrive on a “favored demographic quarter” strategy, but for most places there just aren't enough young professionals and artists to go around.

Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile.

* Actual population minus projected population as of 4/1/2010 using a run rate projection based on the 2008-2009 estimated population growth.
** Base is the projected 4/1/2010 population above.

Photo by Ian Freimuth

China, Detroit, and Houston: How Ghost Properties Compare

Rick Harrison — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:59:29 -0400

Learning about China's property boom and its "ghost" cities has given me a whole new perspective on my four decades in the building, land development and consulting fields. During these periods our economy has had various ups and downs. In ‘up’ times, the rise in construction of new housing and growth in commercial developments has been quite obvious. What I have always had a problem understanding is why there seemed to be new housing projects and commercial projects that sprouted up during the bad times.

Unlike this current recession — and I do believe that it is still current, despite the rhetoric that it's over — past economic downturns were localized. As an example, I lived in Detroit in 1973 during the first gas crunch, when there were long lines to fill up. Unemployment in Detroit was a huge problem, and there was no work for a young ‘planner’ for new suburban developments, nor the prospect of anything turning around soon.

I eventually decided to move to the south, where it was thought to be better. As I crossed into Texas, there weren't any more gas lines. It seemed the entire State was booming. I drove through to Houston, picked up a phone book, and made a phone call to Paul Lederer Land Surveying and Engineering, which had a display ad that stuck out. Paul answered, and when I explained that I wanted to work as an apprentice to expand my knowledge into his field he hired me over the phone. I settled down, and after a year was ready to buy a home of my own.

Detroit was still in economic hardship, with housing requiring a 20% down payment for a mortgage. At the same time, in Houston, homes were so much in demand that we had only minutes to make an offer once a home we wanted came on the market. Financing required only a 5% down payment.

When a wealthy Detroit businessman heard that I could buy homes with only 5% down in a market that was escalating in sales and pricing I was offered a business proposition. I was asked to buy 50 homes at 5% down, and then resell them to a shell company for at least 10% more than our original purchase price. The homes would then be re-financed elsewhere with 5% down. The shell company would then default on the loans, and we would split the profits.

In other words, if we paid an average of $30,000 each for 50 homes, we would have $1,500,000 in real estate, for which we had put $75,000 down. In theory, if I sold the homes to a shell company for $2,000,0000 with a $100,000 down payment, we would each walk away with $200,000 profit (roughly $790,000 in today’s dollars after inflation) if we defaulted on the loans. I was not interested in something that I considered fraud for a quick dollar, but it would not have been difficult to do this in real estate at that time.

A few years later, Detroit was still in an economic downturn, and another person I knew was building large residential and commercial projects. These were new developments with hundreds of units and high-rise office towers.

I mentioned to someone close to this developer that I was unimpressed with a venture to build at a time when there was not a market for either condominium buyers or office tenants, and curious as to why it was being pursued. A 20 story office tower would impress me if it were leased out; one sitting empty would not be so impressive.

The answer was a lesson in economics. It was explained to me that the office tower was built for $10 million, but financed for $20 million, made possible by some inventive appraisals. Yet the bank needed only $1 million down. In other words, if the developments failed spectacularly there were still millions to be made, even if the properties went back to the banks. Ironically, Detroit in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s recovered somewhat, and the developments in question became financially viable and successful.

I have no doubt that every industry, not just the development of land, has stories of financial shenanigans, but these are two examples of only a few that I have been exposed to during my 43 years in the development business.

So today, whenever I see areas with aggressive construction that exceeds market potential, it makes me wonder…

In light of this history, see what you think about development in China. Check out this 15 minute video from a major Australian broadcaster on China's ghost cities.

Photo: Expensive waterside apartments in Shekou Shenzhen by DC Master.

The Deconstruction of Barack Obama

Robert J. Cristiano — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:18:12 -0400

The first two years of the Obama Administration have been historic and eventful. The first openly liberal president in a generation has dramatically increased government spending and intervention in the nation’s economy. The federal deficit soared to $1.65 trillion dollars and 35% of Americans now receive some type of government assistance.

The President seems to view the American economy through the prism of an academician. His vision of America held that his New Economy would be supported by the troika of plentiful Green jobs, new federal employment, and a revitalized and robust union based economy.

Give him credit. President Obama has held true to his vision even if the economy, and the American people, did not.

The “Green Jobs” of Mr. Obama’s new economy have not materialized despite huge government incentives. The president's New Energy for America plan called for a federal investment of $150 billion over the next decade to catalyze the private sector to build a clean energy future.

Obama’s plan is to:

Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined
Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon – on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America
Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025
Implement an economy-wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050

The President’s plan called for renewable energy to supply 10% of the nation's electricity by 2012, rising to 25% by 2025. The problem with his vision was that America was already generating 11.4% of its electricity from renewable sources when he delivered his speech. Ironically, most renewable energy comes from hydro-power, a source disdained by many greens. (US Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, June 2010.). T. Boone Pickens’s plan to build wind farms across the Great Plains was the most publicized private response to Obama’s vision never materialized. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported on March 10th that 351 “shovel ready” energy projects were stalled nationally due to “a tangle of state and local regulations”. These 351 projects were to create 1.9 million jobs and infuse the economy with “a $1.1 trillion short-term shot in the arm”. William Kovacs, senior vice-president of the chamber said, “In fact, there weren’t any shovel ready projects.”

In the end, the outpouring of new technologies and jobs in the new “green” economy simply never materialized.

Indeed, despite the grand vision of a Green economy, America remains deeply dependent on others for its energy.

The second leg of Obama’s troika was new government employment. He was successful in signing his health care reform into law but delayed implementation to 2014. The 2010 election that changed 63 House seats to the Republicans, has acted to unwind much of this legislation. If not repealed outright, Obamacare will likely face starvation from Republican cuts in funding necessary to implement the 2,900 page law with its hundreds of new federal regulations. Federal civilian employment in the president’s 2012 budget, will be 15 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 2007. This effort is also likely to be stymied.

Union workers, the third leg of Obama’s troika, were well served in the first two years of the Obama Administration. The United Auto Workers inherited ownership in General Motors and Chrysler, and obtained federal protection of their relatively high wages and Cadillac health care benefits. Had GM and Chrysler been allowed to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it’s likely both would have been drastically reduced. Under the health reform act, union workers received exemptions from taxation for their Cadillac health care plans – unlike those of private companies.

According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers - a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits. (Adam Summers Reason Foundation - Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries May 10, 2010).

Will union members be able to hold their ground or be forced into major concessions during the coming deconstruction? State governors like Christie (NJ), Daniels (IN), Kasich (OH), and now Governor Walker of Wisconsin are taking on the unions head-on for the first time in generations. New conservative majorities in state house around the country are deconstructing collective bargaining agreements, above market wage gains, and Cadillac fringe benefits. Labor’s gains, and political clout, may have peaked in 2008.

Will President Obama adhere to his academician’s vision of the New Economy or will he be forced to succumb to the realities of the coming Great Deconstruction? Congress is arguing whether it can afford $4 billion in cuts to a $3 trillion budget in order to avoid an imminent government shutdown.

Overlooked and more momentous is that for the first time since World War II, both houses of Congress – and some in both parties – are debating how to enact massive cuts in government spending. This is the beginning of the Great Deconstruction. Like the proverbial snowball rolling downhill, the $4 billion cuts of March 2011 could eventually canonball into hundreds of billions of actual spending reductions as the federal government deconstructs.

The Government Accounting Office released a report on March 1st entitled 'Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.' The report identified $200 billion in annual waste from duplicative federal programs. The agency found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances. Finding ways to cut billions in federal spending is not be the problem. Finding politicians with the political will to withstand the barrage of criticism from impacted constituents is another matter.

The Great Deconstruction has already begun. Will President Obama, clearly a savvy politician, recognize this inexorable reality of this gathering force, leap in front of it, and claim ownership? Or will he stick to his academician’s vision and allow the snowball of deconstruction to roll over him?

Robert J Cristiano PhD is the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange, CA and Head of Real Estate for the international investment firm, L88 Investments LLC. He has been a successful real estate developer in Newport Beach California for thirty years.

Other works in The Great Deconstruction series for New Geography
Deconstruction: The Fate of America? – March 2010
The Great Deconstruction – First in a New Series - April 11, 2010
An Awakening: The Beginning of the Great Deconstruction – June 12, 2010
The Great Deconstruction :An American History Post 2010 – June 1, 2010
A Tsunami Approaches - Beginning of the Great Deconstruction - August 2010
The Tea Party and the Great Deconstruction – September 2010
The Great Deconstruction - Competing Visions of the Future – October 2010
The Post Election Deconstructors - Mid-term Election Accelerates Federal Deconstruction – November 2010
The State Government Deconstructors – November 2010