Urban Issues

The Worst Cities for Job Growth

Joel Kotkin — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:21:38 -0400

One of the saddest tasks in the annual survey of the best places to do business I conduct with Pepperdine University's Michael Shires is examining the cities at the bottom of the list. Yet even in these nether regions there exists considerable diversity: Some places are likely to come back soon, while others have little immediate hope of moving up. (Please also see "Best Cities For Job Growth" for further analysis.)

The study is based on job growth in 336 regions – called Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provided the data – across the U.S. Our analysis looked not only at job growth in the last year but also at how employment figures have changed since 1996. This is because we are wary of overemphasizing recent data and strive to give a more complete picture of the potential a region has for job-seekers. (For the complete methodology, click here.)

First let's deal with the perennial losers, the sad sacks of the American economy. Mostly cities in the nation's industrial heartland, these places have ranked toward the bottom of our list for much of the past five years. Eleven of the bottom 16 regions on our list are in two states, Ohio and Michigan. In fact, the Wolverine State alone accounts for the bottom four cities: Jackson, Detroit, Saginaw and Flint.

Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of short-term – or perhaps even medium- or long-term – hope for a strong rebound in those places. President Obama seems determined to give the automakers, for whom Michigan is home base, far rougher treatment than what he meted out to ailing companies in the financial sector.

In addition, new environmental regulations may not help auto production, since it necessitates some carbon-spewing and therefore perhaps unacceptable levels of greenhouse gas emission.

However, not all of Michigan's problems stem from Washington or the marketplace. Many of the locations at the bottom of the list remain inhospitable to business. To be sure, housing is cheap – in Detroit, property values are fast plummeting toward zero – but running a business can be surprisingly expensive in these hard-pressed places.

In fact, according to a recent survey by the Tax Foundation, Ohio has an average tax burden roughly similar to New York, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. But while the others are comparatively high-income states, Ohio residents no longer enjoy that level of affluence.

Can these places come back? It is un-American to abandon hope, but there needs to be a radical shift in strategy to focus on creating new middle-class jobs. Some Midwestern cities, like Kalamazoo and Indianapolis, have made some successful efforts to diversify their economies, encouraging start-ups and trying to be business-friendly.

But those are exceptions. Cleveland, one of our worst big cities, could spark a renaissance by revamping its port and nearby industrial hinterland. Once the world economy improves, it could re-emerge – building on the existing knowledge and skills of its production- and design-savvy population – as a hub for manufacturing and exports.

But right now, Cleveland does not seem to be pursuing such opportunities. As Purdue's Ed Morrison has pointed out, local leaders there seem to "confuse real estate development with economic development."

So Cleveland will focus on inanities such as convention business and tourism, believing we all fantasize about a week enjoying the sights along Lake Erie. Yet even high-profile buildings like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, completed in 1986, have not transformed a gritty old industrial town into a beacon for the hip and cool.

Old industrial cities like Cleveland are better off focusing on their locational advantages – access to roads, train lines and water routes – while offering a safe, inexpensive and friendly venue for ambitious young families, immigrants and entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, cities with formerly robust economies – like Reno, Nev., Las Vegas, Orlando, Fla., Tampa, Fla., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., West Palm Beach, Fla., Jacksonville, Fla., and Phoenix – are more likely to rebound. These areas topped our list for much of the 2000s; their success was driven first by surging population and job growth and later by escalating housing prices.

But the collapse of the housing bubble and a drop in large-scale migration from other regions has weakened, often dramatically, these perennial successes. "We could rely on 1,000 people a week moving into the area," notes one longtime official in central Florida. "These people needed services, houses and bought stuff. Now the growth is a 10th of that."

Instead of waiting for the real estate bubble to return, these areas should choose to focus on boosting employment in fields like medical services, business services and light manufacturing. In much of Florida and Nevada, there's also a need to shift away from a reliance on tourism, an industry that pays poorly on average and is always subject to changes in consumer tastes.

We can even be cautiously optimistic about some of these former superstars. After all, observes Phoenix-based economist Elliot Pollack, the existing reasons for moving to Arizona, Nevada or Florida – warm weather, relatively low taxes and generally pro-business governments – have not disappeared. "There's no change in the fundamentals," he argues. "It's a transition. It's ugly, and there's pain, but it's still a cycle that will turn."

Once the economy stabilizes, Pollack says he expects the flow of people and companies from the Northeast and California to Phoenix and other former hot spots will resume, once again lured by inexpensive real estate, better conditions for business and a generally more up-to-date infrastructure.

The Problem with California

So what about California? The economic well-being of many metropolitan areas in the Golden State has been sinking precipitously since 2006. This year, three California regions – Oakland, Sacramento and San Bernardino-Riverside – have sunk down into the bottom 10 on the large cities list. That's a phenomenon we've never seen before – and never expected to see.

Like other Sun Belt communities, California suffered disproportionately from the housing bubble's bust, which has devastated both employment in construction-related industries as well as much of the finance sector. But some, like economist Esmael Adibi, director of the Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University, where I teach, think a real estate turnaround may be imminent.

Among the first to predict the potential for a real estate bubble back in 2005, these days Adibi is more upbeat, pointing to rising sales of single-family homes, particularly at the lower end of the market. California's inventory of unsold homes is now down to about six months' worth, a figure well below the national average of 9.6 months.

It seems not everyone is ready to abandon the Golden State – but still, recovery in California may prove weaker than in surrounding states. One forecaster, Bill Watkins, even predicts unemployment could reach 15% next year, up from about 11% today. California, most likely, will see only an anemic recovery in 2010 even if growth picks up elsewhere.

Much of the problem lies with the state's notoriously inept government. The enormous budget deficit will almost certainly lead to tax increases, which will fall mostly on the state's vaunted high-income entrepreneurial residents. Stimulus funds won't do much good either, Adibi notes, since "the state is grabbing all of the federal stimulus money" to keep itself afloat.

A draconian regulatory environment also could dim California's prospects for growth. Despite double-digit unemployment, the state seems determined not only to raise taxes but also to tighten its regulatory stranglehold.

This is a stark contrast to what happened in the 1990s during the last deep recession. At that time, leaders from both political parties pulled together to reform the state's regulatory and tax environment. Almost everyone recognized the need to improve the economic climate.

But an even deeper recession, it seems, hardly troubles today's dominant players – public employees, environmental activists and gentry liberals who largely live along the coast. The state has recently passed a draconian Assembly bill aimed to offset global warming by capping greenhouse gas emissions – a measure that seems designed to discourage productive industry.

"This is becoming a horrible place to produce anything," says Watkins, who is executive director of the Economic Forecast Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

California's lawyers, though, might stay busy. Attorney General Jerry Brown has threatened to sue anyone who grows their business in unapproved, environment-threatening ways. To be sure, this promise may have relatively little impact on the more affluent, aging coastal communities – but it could wreak havoc on younger, less tony areas in the state's interior. Many of the local economies there still rely on resource-dependent industries like oil, manufacturing and agriculture.

It's sad because California has the capacity to recover more quickly than the rest of the country if the state moderates its spending and stops regulating itself into oblivion. This current round of legislation is so dangerous precisely because it could eviscerate the heart of the economy by slowing down entrepreneurial growth, the state's greatest asset.

Even in hard times, there are people with innovative ideas trying to bring them to market – and not just in Hollywood- and Silicon Valley-based industries but in a broad range of fields, from garments to agriculture, aerospace and processed foods. The desire to increase regulation reflects a peculiar narcissism and arrogance of the state's ruling elites, who believe the genius of San Francisco's venture capitalists and Los Angeles' image-makers alone are enough to spark a powerful recovery.

This is delusional. True, California still has a lead in everything from farm products to films to high-tech manufacturers. But it has been slowly losing ground – to both other states and overseas competitors. CEOs and top management might stay in the Golden State, but they increasingly send outside its borders all jobs that don't require access to the local market, genius scientists or talented entertainers.

"There's a feeling in California that we will come back, no matter what, because we are California," Watkins says. "The leadership is swallowing Panglossian Kool-aid. Some very smart people, a beautiful climate and nice beaches is not enough to guarantee a strong recovery."

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

Playing With Trains

Wendell Cox — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:16:52 -0400

The Obama administration appears to have established the development of high speed rail (HSR) as the most important plank of its transportation strategy. The effort may be popular with the media and planners, but it’s being promoted largely on the basis of overstatement and even misinformation.

I have had considerable experience evaluating high speed rail projects. Most recently, Joe Vranich (a former colleague on the Amtrak Reform Council) and I teamed to produce an extensive report on the subject, California High Speed Rail: A Due Diligence Report. The findings, based on information provided by the HSR promoters reveal the claims of the Administration to be highly questionable.

Financing: It begins with understanding transportation financing in the United States. The Administration notes that far more money has been spent on highways and airports than on intercity rail. This is not in question. However, virtually all of the money spent to build the nation’s highway system and its major airports has been paid for by users of the system. Highway users have paid for intercity highways with their state and federal fuel taxes. Airport users have paid for the airports and the air traffic control system with taxes on their tickets. Put directly, if you don’t use the highway or airport system, you don’t pay. Indeed, not only do highway users pay for highways, but at the federal level, their funds provide 8 times as much revenue to transit per passenger mile as to highways.

Passenger rail finance is another matter. Generally, users pay less than one-half the total costs of passenger rail. The rest comes from taxpayers. If passenger rail were financed the same way as highways and airports, it would be largely paid for – both capital and operating costs – by fares and by taxes on tickets. Of course that would not work, because passenger rail is far more costly than the highway and airport competition. Today, Amtrak fares per passenger mile are more than double that of the airlines per passenger mile, and that is before the heavy subsidies received by Amtrak.

Indeed, the most recent data provided by the Department of Transportation indicates that the federal government made a profit of $1.00 per 1,000 passenger miles on the highway program while subsidizing passenger rail $210 and transit $159 per 1,000 passenger miles.

Ridership and Relieving Congestion: High Speed Rail is also promoted by the Administration, which claims it will reduce traffic congestion. This claim is fraught with difficulty. First, highway traffic congestion is almost exclusively within urban areas, not between the urban areas that HSR would serve. Data from the California promoters indicates that traffic levels would rise nearly as much with HSR as without it. HSR is projected to reduce traffic by less than 3 percent once the system is complete. Without high speed rail, traffic volumes would increase 52 percent and without high speed rail, traffic volumes would increase 49 percent above 2000 levels (See Figure). In either case, things would be far worse in the future than they are today. And if HSR can make so little difference in congested California, it will surely do less in other parts of the country.

Similarly, HSR will have little or no impact on the need to expand airports. For example, the Bay Area’s regional airport plan noted that high speed rail “would not divert enough passengers to make up for the shortfall in runway capacity.”

In France and Japan, where travel is far more concentrated due to the linear location of major urban areas and the smaller number of large metropolitan centers, markets that are well served by HSR still have significant airline traffic (Tokyo to Osaka and Paris to Marseille). Also worth noting, both nations boasted pre-existing rail ridership levels that account for much of the HSR volumes. There is no such foundation in the United States. The ridership issue is particularly important, because of the miserable record of transportation ridership projections both in the United States and around the world. A most recent example is the Taiwan high speed rail system, which according to the early projections of promoters was to carry 180,000 passengers per day in its early operations. Yet in its second year of operation (2008), the average daily ridership was less than one-half that projection (84,000, calculated from Taiwan government data). This is telling in a country with notoriously congested traffic and very few major urban centers,

This strategy of exaggerating ridership claims (and grossly under-estimating costs) is widespread in rail projects and has been extensively documented in Megaprojects and Risks: An Analysis of Ambition, by international scholars Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius and Werner Rothengatter (available from booksellers). The Taiwan and other international experiences suggest a major HSR investment would cost the taxpayers many additional billions and could bankrupt any private investors.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: But perhaps the most misleading claims are related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It starts with the marketing. The Administration’s press release indicates that building all of its routes would reduce GHG emissions by “six billion pounds” annually. This sounds like a big number. It is akin to my characterizing my weight as nearly 100,000 grams, instead of the pounds (200 in my case) that is customary in talking about weight. In GHG emissions, we do not talk about pounds, we talk about metric tons. Six billion pounds is only 2.7 million metric tons (2,205 pounds), which is an infinitesimal share of the GHG emissions from the nation’s passenger transportation. Indeed, given the propensity of the consultants to produce ridership projections less accurate than “Vietnam body counts,” the figure is probably less.

The Administration falls into the usual trap of assuming that theoretical differences in GHG emissions can be turned into radical changes in travel patterns and behavior. The GHG emissions per passenger mile may be less (at least before the coming improvements in vehicle technology) but that does not mean that enough passenger miles can be moved from cars (and planes) to make a material difference. Our experience in high cost urban rail projects should have taught us this.

Moreover, a mere reduction in GHG emissions is not sufficient to justify adoption of a strategy. Strategies must be prioritized based upon their effectiveness, and that is measured by cost. On this score, the California HSR system fails to a degree that is incomprehensible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that the cost of GHG emission reduction should be no more than from $20 to $50 per ton. Even that may be too high. For example, Al Gore, Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi studiously buy carbon offsets for the tons of GHG that they produce flying around the country. The current market rate for such offsets is under $15.

The California High Speed Rail Authority, whose leadership touts its GHG emissions reduction potential constantly, did not even bother to look at the cost of GHG emission removal in its thousands of pages of expensive, taxpayer financed reports. We looked at the issue, using California High Speed Rail Authority and California Air Resources Board assumptions and found that the cost per ton of GHG emission removal would be nearly $2,000, or 40 times the maximum figure used by the IPCC. To illustrate how extravagant a figure that is, if the nation were to reduce its GHG emissions by 80 percent (as proposed by the Administration) at the same rate, the annual cost would be more than 75 percent of the gross domestic product.

But that assumes all of the rosy cost and ridership projections. The figure could be as high as $10,000 per GHG ton, if the consultants have exaggerated as much in California as elsewhere.

Conclusion: It is likely that the same arguments can be made even more strongly in other proposed high speed rail markets. Yet, as costly as it is, HSR would be no more objectionable than building a new hardware store if it were paid for by its users. However, when taxpayers are asked to foot the bill, objective analysis of the claims, costs and benefits should at least have some priority. These are issues that an Administration committed to reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent has an interest in addressing. Relying on folklore rather than reality, as seems to be the present case, reflect an abject naivety at the least and incredible foolhardiness at the worst.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley. He is the author of "War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

Can Eddie Mac Solve the Housing Crisis?

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:00:13 -0400

Every downturn comes to an end. Recovery has followed every recession including the Great Depression. In 1932, John D. Rockefeller said, "These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again." The question is not ”IF”, rather it is “WHEN” recovery will begin. The age-old question remains: what can government do to get the nation out of recession?

Government can act wisely. In the past, it used tax legislation (the mortgage interest deduction) to create the highest home ownership rate in the industrialized world. It can also act stupidly by promoting “Sub-Prime” mortgages, “105%” financing and the “No-Doc” loan that got us into this financial mess. As many as 4.4 million more Americans could lose their homes – unless drastic action is taken to stop the process.

Much of this was built on good intentions. One example of poor planning can be seen in Department of Housing Development’s “Dollar Homes” program. The HUD website describes this as an altruistic program “to foster housing opportunities for low and moderate income families” by selling homes for $1 after the Federal Housing Authority has been unable to sell them after six months.

This sounds like a good idea but the program has become consumed by fraud and waste and has delivered little benefit to the parties intended. First, the policy eliminated any ability to sell the properties at market since it is clear that the value will be marked down to $1 in six months. The result was massive losses to the government as previously saleable properties were re-priced to $1. Second, the homes were snatched up by businessmen and the cronies of politicians who knew how to game the system. These homes were then sold on the retail market for huge profits. Very few homes made it to the needy parties intended. This dumb legislation created and fed a lazy, corrupt, bloated, ineffective and expensive bureaucracy.

In contrast, smart legislation can end the housing crisis that threatens to send our economy reeling into the next Great Depression. A simple but effective governmental action does not have to cost a lot of money and more importantly, does not require a new permanent and expensive bureaucracy. It can be a win-win-win for federal government, local government and working families. This smart legislation is called Eddie Mac, which stands for the Empower Direct Ownership Mortgage Corporation.

The genesis of Eddie Mac comes from the “good old days” when home prices were high. The most common complaint heard from police, fire, teachers, nurses and municipal workers was that they could not afford to live in the very communities where they worked. The lower wages of these groups forced them onto the freeways to more affordable neighborhoods in distant suburbs. The commute of hundreds of thousands of city workers across the nation clogged our roads, added harmful emissions to our atmosphere and exacerbated our dependence on foreign oil.

Simply stated, the Eddie Mac program allows local government to buy vacant foreclosed homes from the banks and institutions. Local government then stimulates the local economy by hiring local realtors, appraisers and contracting with local labor to fix up the deteriorated properties. It then leases the properties to police, fire, teachers, nurses and municipal workers who otherwise could not afford to live in their own communities. Local government enters into an “Empower Direct Ownership Lease Option” with their employees so that the employees have the right to purchase the homes in the future using their rental payments to build equity. The Empower Direct Ownership Lease Option allows the employee to acquire the home in five years for the original purchase price plus 50% of the appreciated value.

Instead of concentrating power in Washington, Eddie Mac empowers local government to solve their own local real estate economy. Eddie would employ local realtors to identify vacant foreclosed properties qualified for the Eddie Mac program. Realtors would earn a 1% fee for identifying and assisting local government with the acquisition. The purchase price would be set by a local appraiser who would also earn an appraisal fee. Use of local appraisers avoids banks profiting unfairly from a government program. The free market system would set the value. The purchase price would include an estimate of costs to bring the home back to local standards, using local workers to fix up these properties. Local government would obtain 100% financing for the acquisition from Eddie Mac bonds that would be sold on Wall Street along side of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae guaranteed loans.

A $200,000 home, foreclosed upon, vacant and allowed to deteriorate has likely deteriorated to just $120,000. Its actual value will be determined by appraisal. At $120,000, a 4% guaranteed Eddie Mac mortgage would cost local government just $4,800 per year. Local government would be able to rent that home for $400 per month making it affordable to police, fire, teachers, nurses and municipal workers.

The Empower Direct Ownership Lease Option allows the employee to acquire the home in five years for the original purchase price plus 50% of the appreciated value. If the baseline value is $120,000 and the home appreciates at 5% per year, it will increase in value $6,000 per year or $33,153 over 5 years. The employee's Empower Direct Ownership Lease Option allows them to acquire the home in five years for the original purchase price plus 50% of the appreciation or $136,577. The price is $16,577 below market price, creating equity for the home buyer of $16,577 which can be used as the future down payment to acquire the home.

This is a win-win-win scenario. Stopping the slide in home values by buying up foreclosed homes with federally insured 4% bonds is a low tech, low cost effort to put the brakes on the recession. And it entails no new bureaucracy. The Federal government is the big winner because they would be footing the bill for the bail-out if the economy continued to unravel. Local government wins by solving an age old dilemma of how to house its local work force. The local economy wins as fresh stimulus is put into the economy to locate, appraise, acquire, insure, repair, repaint and refurbish these homes. The city/county/municipal workers win with an opportunity to enjoy the American dream of home ownership in the very communities where they work. The environment wins as we take commuters off the road and lessen the environmental impact of their commute. And, we help reduce our dependence on Middle East oil as the ripple effect of tens of thousands of Eddie Mac homes are leased to local employees who now live and work in their own communities.

Eddie Mac can become the firebreak to the mortgage crisis, the game changer needed to change market momentum. The hundreds and thousands of vacant foreclosed home sales generated by the implementation of the Eddie Mac program would send a strong signal to the public that the market has bottomed and the recovery has begun. Vacant homes would be acquired, fixed up and occupied by stable, important and long-term members of our communities.

John D. Rockefeller once stood on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and quieted the panic by firmly proclaiming; “Buy” in the dark days of the 1929 collapse. Our government can help stop the slide in prices by standing with our local governments and firmly encouraging “Buy” in the local markets. Reckless government got us into this mess. Smart government can get us out.

Robert J. Cristiano Ph.D. has more than 25 years experience in real estate development in Southern California. He is a resident of Newport Beach, CA.

Big Movers – Up and Down the 2009 Best Cities Rankings

Delore Zimmerman — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:50:54 -0400

In a year when modest – if not negligible – growth could nudge a city toward the top of the Best Cities for Jobs rankings you would suspect there to be little opportunity for big leaps up the scale. On the other hand, one could easily expect that there would be some places whose economic fortunes would resemble a vertigo-inducing fall.

A look at the 2009 rankings confirms that there are many cities whose job-creating engines have sputtered.

Among 336 cities in the rankings 46 cities fell more than 100 places compared to their position in 2008. Below are seven places that took the biggest fall and plummeted more than 200 places compared to 2008.

Seven Falling Stars: Ranking Fell More than 200 Places 2008-2009
City	2008	2009	Rank Change
Port St. Lucie, FL	88	290	-202
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	98	302	-204
Reno-Sparks, NV	104	314	-210
Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	10	230	-220
Prescott, AZ	26	252	-226
Winchester, VA-WV	73	299	-226
Yuma, AZ	33	266	-233

The Big Downstroke
Yuma, Arizona’s precipitous decline of 233 places is partly the result of its once envious position among the top ten percent of cities in 2008. It appears they came late to the economic wake that hit some towns with the collapse of the housing bubble in Arizona, Florida and Nevada as early as 2007 . In many communities in these states 2008 reflected things getting worse as commercial and industrial construction activity also dropped off.

The good news for Yuma, according to Paul Shedal of Yumastats.com is that the “biggest economic pillars,” agriculture and government, have remained relatively unscathed by the recession providing a fallback point that other markets don't have. This means that our worst case scenario for recession "harm" would be returning to our pre-boom level of economic sustainability rather than some depression abyss.”

Another falling star, Winchester, Virginia, fell 226 places in the rankings, experiencing what some in northern Virginia have described as a dramatic turnaround. Manufacturing in this part of the Northern Shenandoah Valley is linked to housing and vehicles, two industries hard hit lately. American Woodmark, the third-largest kitchen and cabinetmaker in the U.S. scaled back production as sales to homebuilders continue to fall. The services sector, once a bright spot for the region, has been shedding jobs in the midst of the recession. And major retailers like Linens N’ Things and Circuit City recently closed.

One bright spot in the Winchester area’s economy is the increase of jobs in the federal government sector, an advantage of its 75 mile proximity to the nation’s capitol. In 2008, the federal government added 400 jobs to the local economy at the Federal Emergency Management Agency offices in Stephenson and the FBI training and recruitment center in Winchester.

Rising Stars
Even in a troubled economy one expects that some places will thrive simply through determination and bold leadership moves, the foresight to have done the right things, or the luck of the draw. Everyone shares a hopeful optimism that a meteoric rise can offer a glimpse of things to come and perhaps offer a roadmap to a more prosperous future.

Rising Stars: Top Five Rankings Climbers 2008-2009
City	2008	2009	Rank Change
Lafayette, IN	287	85	202
Champaign-Urbana, IL	267	83	184
Sioux City, IA-NE.-SD	253	80	173
Lubbock, TX	242	74	168
Wheeling, WV-OH	305	138	167

This year’s rising star is without doubt Lafayette, Indiana with an astounding – and surprising given its Midwestern location – 202-place charge up the rankings from 2008. Like three of the other top five rising stars Lafayette came from a slightly above average position in 2008 to a respectable position in the top 100. These are by no means this year’s best places but their economies are defying the pervasive decline in the national economy.

A visit to the Lafayette Commerce website succinctly tells the tale. “Greater Lafayette wrapped up 2008 with a strong showing.” For Lafayette 2008 was a good year with new capital investments of $600 million, new employment in life sciences industries associated with the Purdue Research Park, and a second new hospital on the way as Greater Lafayette expands its regional healthcare base.

Equally important, Lafayette, like many university and college towns, benefits from the stabilizing presence of Purdue University, the area’s largest employer, which also serves as a force creating new economic opportunities through research, development and access to an educated workforce.

The annual report from Lafayette Commerce concludes by focusing on two key elements of their success. “In Greater Lafayette, we’re choosing not to participate in the national recession by using this opportunity for workforce development and innovation. That’s not to say we have been immune to the troubles of the national economy, but on the whole our community is growing, it’s thriving and improving every day.”

The Impending Future of Boom and Gloom

Science fiction author William Gibson’s famous quip that “the future is already here – it’s just not equally distributed” could have some credence in this year’s rankings –both up and down the scale.

The fastest rising cities boast stable employers in government and universities. They are leveraging this edge to create new opportunities in manufacturing, production agriculture and advanced producer services serving diverse sectors. Growth in health care services to the mixture, until recently one of the few remaining generators of new jobs, has also played a role.

Rising stars like Lafayette have made significant investments in infrastructure and advanced infrasystems, enabling them to create jobs in higher-value, innovation-generating economic activities.

This year’s cities that fell the furthest portend a return to pre-bubble growth patterns. As in the case of Yuma many places will refocus back on their historically strong core industries, like agriculture, and the economic activities that made them viable centers in the first place.

For all cities the ability to innovate locally and take advantage of demonstrated areas of competence represent two key ingredients of success – for building on existing momentum or hitting the reset button for a more prosperous future.

Delore Zimmerman is president and CEO of Praxis Strategy Group and publisher of Newgeography.com

Sydney: From World City to “Sick Man” of Australia

Wendell Cox — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:05:17 -0400

Americans have their “American Dream” of home ownership. Australians go one step further. They have a “Great Australian Dream” of home ownership. This was all part of a culture that celebrated its egalitarian ethos. Yet, to an even greater degree than in the United States, the “Dream” is in the process of being extinguished. It all started and is the worst in Sydney.

Sydney is Australia’s largest urban area, having passed Melbourne in the last half of the 19th century. With an urban area population of approximately 3.6 million, Sydney leads Melbourne by nearly 300,000.

The “Great Australian Dream” in Sydney: Sydney incubated and perfected the Great Australian Dream. New housing was built in all directions from the central business district. The most expensive was built to the east and north, while the least expensive – the bungalows and other modest detached houses – rose principally to the west and the south. Western Sydney is the culmination of the Great Australian Dream for perhaps more middle and lower middle income households than any other place in the nation.

Of course, Western Sydney was not planned in the radical sense of the word currently used by contemporary urbanists. In fact, most have little more regard for Western Sydney than for the shantytowns of Jakarta or Manila. Yet, the people of Western Sydney, like the people of countless modest suburban areas around the world, are proud of their communities and of their homes.

Rationing Land, Blowing Out Land Prices: About three decades ago, Sydney embarked upon what was to become one of the world’s strongest “smart growth” programs (called “urban consolidation” in Australia). Aimed at concentrating population closer to the core, urban consolidation sought to restrict and even prohibit new housing on the urban fringe. Sydney developed its own equivalent of the famous Portland urban growth boundary. The result is that every land owner knows whether or not their property can be developed, and the favored understandably take advantage by charging whatever price the highly constrained market will bear.

Reserve Bank of Australia research indicates that the price of raw land – Sydney urban fringe land for building a house that has not yet been fitted with infrastructure (sewers, water, streets, etc.) has now risen to a price of about $190,000 for a one-eighth acre lot. In the days before smart growth, the land would cost about $1,000. Needless to say, adding an unnecessary nearly $190,000 plus margins to the price of a house makes housing less affordable.

But even where development is nominally allowed, government restrictions make building almost impossible. For years the state government has promised to “release” land for new housing on the western fringe. Yet despite announcement and re-announcement, there have been interminable delays.

Destroying Housing Affordability: As a result, Sydney is now the second most expensive major housing market in the six nations in our Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, trailing only Vancouver. Sydney’s Median Multiple (the median house price divided by the median household income) is now 8.3. It should be close to the historic norm of 3.0 or less. Indeed, if land prices had risen with inflation from before urban consolidation, Sydney’s Median Multiple would be less than 3.0. As a result, households entering the housing market can expect to pay nearly three times as much for their houses than was the case before. This will lead to an inevitably lower standard of living compared to what would have otherwise been.

Forcing Density: Urban consolidation is destroying not only housing affordability, but also the character of Sydney itself. Sydney is an urban area of low density suburbs. It is also an urban area of high rise living. These two housing forms have combined with one of the world’s most attractive geographical settings to create an attractive and livable urban area.

The planners, empowered by the state of New South Wales government, are changing all of that. From the suburbs of Western Sydney to the attractive and more affluent North Shore suburbs, high-rise residential buildings are being thrust upon detached housing neighborhoods. One of Sydney’s great strengths is that the urban area has many local government areas (municipalities), empowering local democracy. These local governments have done their best to resist the state government densification mandates, in response to opposition from their citizens.

Raw Exercise of Power: One of Sydney’s greatest weaknesses is that the state government exercises undue control over the municipalities and is using its power to “shoe-horn” high density into places where it makes no sense. High density is fine in the Toney Eastern suburbs, but has no place where detached housing is the rule. Unfortunately, the planners seem to presume communities with detached housing have no character worth salvaging.

Urban Consolidation: Infrastructure Costs: Further, there is an inherent assumption that densification has no costs. The planners routinely exaggerate the cost of providing infrastructure on the urban fringes (failing, for example, to understand that much infrastructure is included in the price of the house, without government involvement). However, the infrastructure built for lower density detached housing is not sufficient for higher densities. As a result, there have been sewer overflows in densifying areas. Huge expenditures have been made for sewer upgrades. Tony Recsei, president of Save Our Suburbs, a community organization seeking to limit inappropriate densification, blamed recent power failures on an electricity infrastructure that was not built for high density in an April 7 Daily Telegraph letter, noting that “Cram in more people and overloading must result. That should not be too hard for people to understand.”

Greater Traffic Congestion: And, of course, insufficient road expansion has been undertaken to accommodate the inevitable intensification of traffic congestion. The planners like to say that higher densities mean less traffic. In fact virtually all of the evidence, throughout the first world, indicates that more intense traffic congestion is associated with higher densities.

Sydney is no exception. The average one-way work trip now takes 34 minutes, which equals that of America’s largest urban area, New York, which has more than five times the population and the land area as well as the longest travel time of any major urban area in the nation. Sydney’s planners delight in comparisons with Los Angeles, frequently suggesting that their regulations are necessary to ensure that Sydney does not “sprawl” as much as Los Angeles. Actually Sydney sprawls considerably more in relation to its population. The Los Angeles urban area is a full one-third more dense than the Sydney urban area. And despite the fact that nearly half of the planned Los Angeles freeway system was not built, Angelinos spend one hour less each week getting to work each than Sydneysiders. Even in Atlanta, with a pathetic freeway system little better than Sydney’s and one-third Sydney’s density, people spend an hour less commuting to and from work every two weeks and spend less total time traveling than in Sydney.

The Economic Cost: There may also be an economic cost. Bernard Salt – perhaps Australia’s leading demographer – has predicted that Melbourne will overtake Sydney in population by 2028. Moreover, there has been substantial domestic migration from New South Wales to Queensland. At current growth rates this could lead the Brisbane-Gold Coast region being larger than Sydney by mid-century. Salt blames Sydney’s declining fortunes on its overly expensive housing.

Sydney: World-Class City Status Threatened? Research in the United States has associated restrictive land use regulation with lower levels of employment growth in US metropolitan areas. In a more colorful finding, Australia’s Access Economics characterized the economy of New South as “so sick that it is at risk of adoption by Angelina Jolie.” A few decades ago, the English economy was referred to as the “sick man of Europe.” Sydney may well be on its way to becoming the “sick man of Australia.”

Planning: A Shout-Out For Local Players

Pete Peterson — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:43:20 -0400

More than a century ago, Rudyard Kipling, in his American Notes, shared his views on the character of the US. Along with remarks about the American penchant for tobacco spitting, Kipling recounted the near heroic ability of Americans to govern themselves, especially in small cities and towns. Traveling through the town he called “Musquash” (a pseudonym for Beaver, Pennsylvania) in 1889, Kipling described “good citizens” who participated in “settling its own road-making, local cesses [taxes], town-lot arbitrations, and internal government.”

Today, the pressures from state and federal governments on local planning have increased geometrically. But across America we are seeing a growing trend toward greater civic participation in land use decisions, as local residents seek to define their communities as unique.

No longer a Deweyan dream, there are several practical reasons why city governments from Starksboro, Vermont to Hercules, California are involving their residents in important land use/planning decisions. Most important is the challenge presented to local governments by the internet, which provides elements that seriously confront even the most legitimate authority: information, and a place to gather. From city and developer websites to Google searches, research into upcoming housing projects or parks is only a few keystrokes away. At the same time, the web’s social networks offer easy and cheap places for residents to communicate with others (usually like-minded) both inside and outside the local community.

As a result of single-issue local blogs, Facebook networks, and email campaigns, municipalities have had to become proactive in approaching their residents, including them in processes previously limited to a small group of “stakeholders.” Last year, a mid-sized city in the San Francisco Bay Area was considering the residential development of a significant land parcel, which was once commercial property. Not feeling involved in the early stages of the planning process, a localized environmental group used the internet to build a movement within the city, while it also connected with regional and national environmental organizations to find funding in support of an anti-development ballot proposition. After hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent, this “zoning by ballot” measure was defeated in November.

A second factor that highlights the importance of intentionally involving citizens is the often-enormous financial cost of these projects for small to mid-sized cities. From land to EIRs, the costs of almost any project – especially those with a public purpose, where taxpayer dollars are on the line – have never been greater. Failing to include residents in these processes, while faster and less expensive in the initial stages, can easily end up costing more and adding months, if not years, to a timeline. In 2007, a Los Angeles-area school district had paid almost $5 million in site planning and architectural costs for a middle school building project. Upon learning that the development would demolish a local supermarket, area residents who had not been involved up to that point organized, and elected a representative to the school board on the promise that he would “stop the school.” He won, and he did, turning the multi-million dollar planning element into a sunk cost.

This pragmatic reasoning behind civic engagement was recently supported in a 2008 study by the National Research Council. On the subject of government agencies that deal with environmental and planning issues, it concluded, “When done well, public participation improves the quality and legitimacy of a decision and builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the policy process. It can lead to better results in terms of environmental quality and other social objectives.”

Finally, the pressures placed upon communities to grow, while at the same time control growth, have reached crisis levels in many cities. Here in California, even with the recent economic downturn, the state population is forecast to almost double from its current 34 million people by mid-century. Meanwhile, state-mandated land use legislation, like the recently passed SB 375, constricts the space available for residential development by attempting to control growth to major transportation corridors. Even before this bill passed, the battle here between open space advocates, developers and cities has made “putting a shovel in the ground” an excruciating experience. In San Mateo County (just south of San Francisco), less than 20% of the land mass is available for housing; twice that amount is designated for open space. A group of concerned citizens, including business owners, environmentalists and housing advocates, formed “Threshold 2008” to explore options for residential development. Creating a multi-stage process that has involved over 1,000 San Mateans in various online and face-to-face deliberations, leaders from the group are now working with city planners around the county to find solutions to shortages in affordable housing.

State-level organizations like the one I work with here in the Golden State, Common Sense California, are supporting cities and towns as they try to involve their publics in these local decisions. We have found that the best engagement efforts invite the most diverse and representative group of residents possible, give them information from a variety of perspectives, and facilitate discussions in such a way that forces participants to wrestle with the issues in the same way planners, city managers, and city councils must.

At their worst, such “participatory planning” campaigns are pre-ordained and, therefore, manipulative. Organizers can hold this control whether they’re inside government, or, like environmental groups and developers, outside of it. Explicit stakeholders, from developers to environmentalists to city officials, are most effectively engaged in the early stages, serving as an “advisory group”, helping to formulate the information packets and option sets that will be presented to the general public. Practitioners like the Orton Family Foundation and Viewpoint Learning are working with cities that are facing tough land use decisions. A growing number of planning and architectural firms are offering these services, but can be predisposed to certain planning outcomes depending on who hires them.

Restrictions on local planning decisions made at the state level (and, someday, the Federal level?), combined with the homogenizing influences of web-based organizing supported by national organizations, have created a climate in which the challenges to cities seeking their own unique “personalities” have never been greater. Many cities and towns throughout America are discovering that the most creative solutions can be found by legitimately informing and involving local residents in these decisions.

In this way, may there be more Musquashes.

Pete Peterson is Executive Director of Common Sense California, a multi-partisan non-profit that consults on and supports civic engagement efforts throughout California. He also lectures on civic engagement at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy. He can be reached at p.peterson@commonsenseca.org.

America's Four Great Growth Waves and the World Cities They Produced

Tory Gattis — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:34:44 -0400

There have been four great growth waves in American history. In each case, there was an attractive new frontier, which not only drew migrating waves of people seeking new opportunity, but also developed large new bases of industry, wealth, and power. These waves have also created top-tier world cities in their wake. The first three of these waves were:

The Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC corridor was America's original land of opportunity, industry, wealth, and power. New York was the big winner, and DC and Boston still do quite well.
The rise of the agricultural and industrial Midwest, including Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and St. Louis. The fall here has been a hard one as manufacturing moved abroad, but Chicago still stands as a world-class city produced during the region's heyday.
The great westward migration, mostly focused on California, but with ancillary growth in adjacent and west coast states. This migration started well before World War 2, but really took off after the war, and produced two top-tier mega-metros – Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area - and several successful second-tiers like Seattle, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

These waves are not clearly distinct, but overlap each other. As one region matures and starts to level off, the next region starts its growth wave. And that's the situation now as California shows clear signs of having peaked: gigantic tech and housing crashes plus economic and domestic outmigration as tax, cost-of-living, housing, and regulatory burdens rise and a dysfunctional government teeters towards financial collapse.

The fourth wave is increasingly clear and follows the same California model of a single focus mega-state and an ancillary region: Texas and the new South.

Just as California had its pre-war growth surge, Texas had its first real growth waves with the 20th-century post-Spindletop oil boom. California had the dust bowl migration of the 30s, and Texas the oil boom migration of the 70s. But the real super-surge has become clearer in the new century as California hands off the baton to Texas. This growth wave really covers much of the South, but Texas is the 800lb gorilla vs. states like Georgia and North Carolina, just as California dominates over Washington, Nevada, and Arizona. Texas even looms over Florida, which certainly has experienced incredible population growth to become the fourth-largest state, but has had considerably less success with building industry, wealth, and power. Florida’s wealth – like that of Arizona – comes in part from people who built wealth elsewhere but moved or bought a second home there. Neither place is home to many Fortune 500 headquarters, an area where Texas has excelled.

California had its agriculture and oil barons before WW2, but the real story there was the post-war rise of the entertainment, defense, aerospace, biotech, trade and technology industries. In a similar way, Texas’ oil tycoons are just the tip of the coming surge of wealth and power in industries such as technology, health care, biotech, defense, trade, transportation, aerospace, finance, telecom, and alternative energy in addition to traditional oil and gas (in fact, Texas is the #1 wind power state).

The great cities emerging from this new wave are Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and Houston. They dominate the census growth stats (Houston story), and all indications are that Houston will pass Philadelphia in the 2010 census to join Dallas-Ft.Worth in the top 5 metros along with New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. DFW and Houston are even approaching the combined San Francisco Bay Area population of 6.1 million, and Texas passed California and New York for the #1 ranking in the Fortune 500 HQ rankings last year.

Want more evidence? Check out this impressive video on the DFW-Austin-San Antonio-Houston Texas Triangle with an overwhelming list of statistics that make the case. In the video, they refer to the region as the 18m-strong "Texaplex" – a play on the “Metroplex” nickname for Dallas-Ft. Worth. You can also see their Texaplex informational brochure here (pdf).

When you look at it in this historical context, it's clear Texas and the new South will be the focal point of America's growth for at least the next few decades. History also says at least one, and possibly more, truly top-tier world cities will emerge from this wave – and it could be argued that some have already. It's easy to get caught up in the day-to-day hubub and crisis-of-the-moment, but take a minute to stand back and see the big picture. Those living in or moving to Texas and the new South are part of a great historical wave that's just starting to really take off, the same as being in Chicago at the turn of the 19th-century or in California after WW2. Pretty cool, eh?

Tory Gattis is a Social Systems Architect, consultant and entrepreneur with a genuine love of his hometown Houston and its people. He covers a wide range of Houston topics at Houston Strategies - including transportation, transit, quality-of-life, city identity, and development and land-use regulations - and have published numerous Houston Chronicle op-eds on these topics.

Where are the Best Cities for Job Growth?

Joel Kotkin — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:08:29 -0400

Over the past five years, Michael Shires, associate professor in public policy at Pepperdine University, and I have been compiling a list of the best places to do business. The list, based on job growth in regions across the U.S. over the long, middle and short term, has changed over the years--but the employment landscape has never looked like this.

In past iterations, we saw many fast-growing economies--some adding jobs at annual rates of 3% to 5%. Meanwhile, some grew more slowly, and others actually lost jobs. This year, however, you can barely find a fast-growing economy anywhere in this vast, diverse country. In 2008, 2% growth made a city a veritable boom town, and anything approaching 1% growth is, oddly, better than merely respectable.

So this year perhaps we should call the rankings not the "best" places for jobs, but the "least worst." But the least worst economies in America today largely mirror those that topped the list last year, even if these regions have recently experienced less growth than in prior years. Our No.1-ranked big city, Austin, for example, enjoyed growth of 1% in 2008--less than a third of its average since 2003.

The study is based on job growth in 333 regions--called Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provided the data--across the U.S. Our analysis looked not only at job growth in the last year but also at how employment figures have changed since 1996. This is because we are wary of overemphasizing recent data and strive to give a more complete picture of the potential a region has for job-seekers. (For the complete methodology, click here.)

The top of the complete ranking--which, for ease, we have broken down into the two smaller lists, of the best big and small cities for jobs--is dominated by one state: Texas. The Lone Star State may have lost a powerful advocate in Washington, but it's home to a remarkable eight of the top 20 cities on our list--including No. 1-ranked Odessa, a small city in the state's northwestern region. Further, the top five large metropolitan areas for job growth--Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Ft. Worth and Dallas--are all in Texas' "urban triangle."

The reasons for the state's relative success are varied. A healthy energy industry is certainly one cause. Many Texas high-fliers, including Odessa, Longview, Dallas and Houston, are home to energy companies that employ hordes of people--and usually at fairly high salaries for both blue- and white-collar workers. In some places, these spurts represent a huge reversal from the late 1990s. Take Odessa's remarkable 5.5% job growth in 2008, which followed a period of growth well under 1% from 1998 to 2002.

Of course, not all the nation's energy jobs are located in Texas, even if the state does play host to most of our major oil companies. The surge in energy prices in 2007 also boosted the performance of several other top-ranked locales such as Grand Junction, Colo., Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodoux, La., Tulsa, Okla., Lafayette, La., and Bismarck, N.D.

Looking at the energy sector's hotbeds, however, doesn't tell the whole story. Another major factor behind a city's job offerings is how severely it experienced the housing crisis. There's a "zone of sanity" across the middle of the country, including Kansas City, Mo., that largely avoided the real estate bubble and the subsequent foreclosure crisis.

Still other factors correlating with job growth--as evidenced by Shires' and my current and past studies--are lower costs and taxes. For example, the area around Kennewick, Wash., is far less expensive than coastal communities in that same state, and residents and businesses there also enjoy cheap hydroelectric power. Compared with high-tech centers in California and the Northeast, such as San José and Boston, places like Austin offer both tax and housing-cost bargains, as do Fargo, N.D. and Durham-Chapel Hill, N.C.

College towns also did well on our list, particularly those in states that are both less expensive and outside the Great Lakes. Although universities--and their endowments--are feeling the recession's pinch, they continue to attract students. In fact, colleges saw a bumper crop of applicants this year, as members of the huge millennial generation, encompassing those born after 1983, reach that stage of life. More recently, college towns have emerged as incubators for new companies and as attractive places for retirees.

Specifically, the college town winners include not only well-known places like Austin and Chapel Hill, but also less-hyped places like Athens, Ga., home of the University of Georgia; College Station, Texas, where 48,000-student Texas A&M University is located; Morgantown, W.Va., site of the University of West Virginia; and Fargo, the hub of North Dakota State University.

Democratic states are glaringly absent from the top of the list. You don't get to a traditionally blue state--in a departure from past years, Obama won North Carolina--until you get to Olympia, Wash., and Seattle, which ranked No. 6 among the large cities.

But political changes afoot could affect the trajectory of many of our fast-growing communities--and not always in positive ways. It's possible that the Obama administration's new energy policies, which may discourage domestic fossil fuel production,could put a considerable damper on the still-robust parts of Texas and elsewhere where coal, oil and natural gas industries are still cornerstones of economic success.

By contrast, the wind- and solar-power industries seem to be, as of now, relatively small job generators, and with energy prices low, endeavors in these areas are sustainable only with massive subsidies from Washington. But still, if these sectors grow in size and profitability, other locales that have not typically been seen as energy hubs over the past few decades may benefit--notably parts of California, although Texas and the Great Plains also seem positioned to profit from these developments.

Another critical concern for some communities is the potential for major cutbacks on big-ticket defense spending. This would be of particular interest to communities in places like Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia where new aircraft are currently assembled. Over the years, blue states like California have seen their defense industry shrivel as the once-potent Texas Congressional delegation and the two Bushes tilted toward Lone Star State contractors.

These days it's big-city mayors and big blue-state governors who are looking for financial support from Obama. Northeast boosters are convinced more money on mass transit, inter-city rail lines and scientific research will rev up their economies. Boston--No. 16 on the list of large cities and a leading medical and scientific research center--could be a beneficiary of the new federal spending.

The most obvious winner from the recent power shift should be Washington, D.C. The Obama-led stimulus, including the massive Treasury bailout, has transformed the town from merely the political capital into the de facto center of regular capital as well. Watch for D.C. and its environs to move up our list over the next year or two. Already the area boasts one of the few strong apartment markets among the big metropolitan areas in the country, which will only improve as job-seekers flock to the new Rome.

Yet Washington is an anomaly, because most of the places that stand to benefit from this unforgiving economy are ones that are affordable and therefore friendly to business, reinforcing a key trend of the last decade. It also helps regions to have ties to core industries like energy and agriculture, a sector that has remained relatively strong and will strengthen again when global demand for food increases.

Some areas have attracted new residents readily and continue to do so, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. Over time this migration could be good news for a handful of metropolitan areas like Salt Lake City, which ranks seventh among the big cities for job growth, and Raleigh-Cary, N.C., which was No. 1 among large cities last year and No. 8 this year. Over the last few years, these places have consistently appeared at the top of our rankings and are emerging as preferred sites for cutting-edge technology and manufacturing firms.

Below these winners are a cluster of other promising places that have already managed to withstand the current downturn in decent shape and seem certain to rebound along with the overall economy. These include the largely suburban area around Kansas City, Kan., perennial high-flyer Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and Greeley, Colo.--in part due to their ability to attract workers and businesses from bigger metropolitan centers nearby--as well as Huntsville, Ala., which has a strong concentration of workers in the government and high-tech sectors.

In the end, most of the cities at the top of the lists--whether they are small, medium or large--have shown they have what it takes to survive in tough times. Less-stressed local governments will be able to construct needed infrastructure and attract new investors so that job growth can rise to the levels of past years. If better days are in the offing, these areas seem best positioned to be the next drivers of the economic expansion this nation sorely needs.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

Millennials’ First Recession

Adam Mayer — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:09:53 -0400

Each generation has been affected differently by the deepening global recession. Baby boomers have witnessed their retirement savings evaporate into oblivion. Generation X families who finally saved enough for a down payment on their first house find themselves deep underwater without SCUBA gear. And earnest Millennials fresh out of college are wondering where all those high-paying jobs promised by duplicitous corporate recruiters went.

No doubt the economic collapse is most palpable for the Boomer generation. Closing in on retirement, many are now holding off on purchasing that winter home in Florida. Moreover, many Boomers have no other choice but to delay retirement (provided they have managed to keep a job) in order to maintain current lifestyles.

Ironically, this may not be too much of a stretch for the ‘forever young’ generation who has come to define themselves by their occupations. Yet this does pose a problem from those who are actually young and currently entering the workforce.

Over the past few months I have witnessed many of my 20-something peers lose their jobs – not to mention me as well. This contradicts the popular, yet flawed notion that ‘technologically savvy’ Millennials are rendering older workers obsolete. It is clear now that upper management at corporations across the country have opted for a more conservative approach to hunkering down. This includes letting go of those with less experience (low on the company ladder) and closing the door completely to new hires out of college.

Justin Pope of the Associated Press has confirmed that college graduates face the worst job market in years. As is indicated in Pope’s article, employers plan to hire 22% fewer graduates this spring – an alarming statistic reported from a survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

Perhaps one of the more unnerving new realities spawned by the recession is what appears to be the diminishing returns to education. Even those graduating with J.D. or M.B.A. degrees find themselves in panic mode. Traditionally, these prestigious degrees meant relatively high salaries right out of grad school. Yet with law firms laying off in droves and corporations slashing entry-level positions, not only do graduates with fresh Master’s degrees find themselves without any job prospects, many are stuck with exorbitantly high student loan bills.

So what are Millennials doing to ride out the storm? Those who do have jobs are hanging on for dear life. Some are applying to graduate school with the hopes that the economic climate will be better by the time they graduate. Others, like 26 year-old Michael Kaainoni have opted to move back home.

After graduating from Columbia University with a Masters in Architecture degree last year, Michael landed a job at a large international architecture firm in Manhattan. Only months later, he found himself caught in a wave of corporate downsizing. Rather than scrape by and continue to pay ridiculous New York City rents, Michael opted to move back to his hometown of Kailua, Hawaii. Now living back in Hawaii, he works for a local architecture office that gets steady commissions from the government.

Michael’s story is not uncommon for young people these days. The Millennial generation does not share the same horror about moving back home as the rabidly ‘independent’ Boomers or Gen Xers. Rather than seeing a retreat back to the nest as taboo, many Millennials will tell you that this is just smart financial planning.

In many ways the Millennials may be following not the boomers but the experience of immigrants. For decades strong family networks have allowed immigrants to the U.S. to become ‘upwardly mobile’ despite all sorts of disadvantages from lack of English fluency to discrimination. Now that this secret is out into the mainstream consciousness, the ‘going it alone’ mentality is rapidly disappearing. Familial and community support networks are making a strong comeback out of financial necessity – and probably for the better.

Writer Tamara Draut focuses on the financial plight facing young people today in the book “Strapped: Why America's 20- and 30-Somethings Can't Get Ahead”. In her book, Draut explains why young people in the workforce might seem too eager to get ahead:

“If today’s young adults can be accused of wanting it all too soon, the ‘it’ isn’t riches, gadgets, or luxury cars. The elusive ‘it’ that today’s twenty-somethings are after is financial independence, and then hopefully, financial security.”

Derided as the ‘everyone gets a medal’ generation by cultural commentators who believe that young people today have a bloated sense of self-esteem, most Millennials just want to live secure, modest lifestyles. This observation goes against everything that civic boosters and urban real estate speculators have hoped for during the recent boom years.

With the notion that lifestyle trumps employment, urban planners have been deluded into thinking that by turning cities into expensive playgrounds, they will attract the best and the brightest young workers. This was an idea touted by urban theorist Richard Florida in his highly influential book “The Rise of the Creative Class”. Florida claims that, according to his focus groups, young creative people do not want to live in places that “do not afford a variety of ‘scenes’”.

The idea that young people can choose their city at will based on lifestyle preference does not make much sense given the current economic circumstances. Job opportunity and affordability, not to mention family ties, are more likely to dictate where young people end up settling now and in the immediate future.

Furthermore, many of the ‘lifestyle amenities’ – such as cool coffee shops, farmer’s markets, and culturally diverse restaurants – desired by these young creatives can now be found in more affordable environments outside of the traditional urban core.

By the time this recession is over, Millennials may have passed their ‘city phase’. This spells bad news for places that have banked on spurring a renaissance driven by young people who often like urban settings but can no longer afford the luxury. Neighborhoods like San Francisco’s SoMa or downtown Los Angeles could be the losers. Cities completely missed the boat by allowing greedy real estate developers to build expensive condos for a largely ephemeral surge of Boomer empty nesters while ignoring basic issues like quality of life, safety and affordability.

Millennials will bounce back. As the youngest generation in the workforce, they will be defined by the experience of the current economic slump and take its lessons with them throughout their lives. Instead of greed and selfishness, which is likely to define the Boomer legacy, Millennials will more likely resemble that of their grandparents’ generation – one where family and frugality is valued over individuality and self-interest.

Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

What Does Urban Success Look Like?

Aaron M. Renn — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:14:25 -0400

What does urban success look like? Ask people around the country and they’ll probably say it looks something like Chicago.

Arguably no American city over the past decade has experienced a greater urban core renaissance than Chicago. It is a city totally transformed. The skyline has been radically enhanced as dozens of skyscrapers were added to the greater downtown area. Millennium Park opened as a $475 million community showplace full of cutting edge contemporary architecture and art. There has been an explosion in upscale dining and shopping options, as well as large numbers of new art galleries, hotels, clubs and restaurants.

But perhaps nothing shows the transformation of Chicago more than the huge condo boom, with thousands of new units coming online every year. This sent development waves rippling out from the Loop and North Lakefront, often into places that just a short time ago were no man’s lands. If you told someone 15 years ago you lived in the South Loop, they would have said, “Huh?” If you had told them you lived by the old Chicago Stadium, they would have thought you had lost your mind. These and other neighborhoods that were once derelict or dangerous, as well as some that were low key ethnic enclaves, have been transformed into bustling yuppie playgrounds for the new “creative class”.

But there has been a downside to this for Chicago as well. The influx of the educated elite into the city has significantly raised housing prices in large parts of the city, rendering it unaffordable to others. Supporting the amenities demanded by the city’s new residents costs money, so taxes have gone up, doubling the squeeze on the city’s traditional residents, forcing many of them out.

So in the end, despite its building boom, it is actually losing people. The Census Bureau estimates the city of Chicago’s population declined by about 60,000 people since 2000. That’s not much on a percentage basis, but, considering the urban core boom, it is telling. While Chicago’s metropolitan area continues to grow, it is doing so slower than the national average and has significant domestic out-migration. Chicago’s metropolitan area saw net domestic out-migration of 42,000 in 2008 and 57,000 in 2007. To put this in perspective, the poster child metro for urban decline, Detroit, Michigan, only lost 62,000 and 58,000 people in those years respectively. Only Chicago’s continued appeal as an immigrant magnet kept it from posting large overall migration losses as it had very high international in-migration.

Chicago is an incredible urban success story, but only for some. International immigrants and the creative class are flocking, but everyone else is leaving.

But there is another group of cities in the Midwest, much smaller cities, that are often overlooked, but which offer an alternative model. Places like Columbus, Indianapolis, and Kansas City provide a mirror image of Chicago. Their downtowns have resurged, if not from their glory days in the 1950s, then since their nadir in the 1970s. There is also significant condo construction in their cities. But, beyond these superficial similarities, they are nothing like Chicago. They lack the urban energy of that colossus, its huge inventory of swanky shops and high-end fine dining. They haven’t had a skyscraper boom. Most of their downtown development still requires significant tax subsidies. They feature largely vanilla brand images that don’t give them the coolness factor. And they continue to struggle in attracting top talent to live there.

Yet in many ways these cities show signs of demographic and economic health that Chicago could only dream about. The Columbus, Indy, and KC regions are all growing faster than the national average in population and, unlike the vast bulk of the Midwest, have significant domestic in-migration. They are outperforming the nation in employment. In fact, it can be argued that they have as much in common with the Sun Belt as the Rust Belt. People are voting with their feet to move to these places. Between 2000 and 2005, about 7,000 net people moved from the Chicago metro area to Indianapolis, for example.

One key to this lies in affordability. For years Indianapolis has been ranked as the least expensive major housing market in America. Blessed with few natural barriers and pro-private sector governments, housing supply in these cities has grown along with population. Yet at the same time the negative impacts of sprawl have been mitigated by their modest – compared say to Dallas, Phoenix or Houston – growth rates and relatively small size. This leaves them attractive, affordable, and offering a very high quality of life to people without elite professional incomes.

In short, these cities are just as successful as Chicago; they just do it their own way and serve a different market.

Indeed what we can see is that there are different forms of urban success. In an ever more diverse America, people define the good life differently. Too much urban policy is focused on one size fits all solutions that assume cities should look and function something like Chicago. But America’s cities are very diverse and require tailored policies to suit the local landscape, and the unique local geography, demography, history, culture, and values that our cities bring to the table. Great cities, like great wines, have to express their terroir.

As with the consumer market, cities too need to recognize our increasingly complex and diverse population, and sharpen their strategic focus to the target segments they best serve. Chicago is tailoring its offerings to where it believes it can most effectively compete – new immigrants and world class talent. Places like Columbus, Indianapolis, and Kansas City are focusing on a broader middle class. Neither way is right or wrong. Both types of places, and others too, can all find success by offering unique places for people to realize their own personal American Dream.

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