Who’s Actually A Big Deal?

Posted on July 17, 2023 by tgilbertson06

We are consistently plagued with online news and travel articles that rank cities purely based on their statistics and without regard to nuance. Doing so may seem innocent but easily lends itself to misconceptions. Articles ranking America’s “biggest cities,” “fastest growing cities,” or “upcoming cities,” and so forth can be misleading when statistics are pulled without considering how different states incorporate and define cities. If we allow cities to be defined merely by matters of statute and local administration, then our popular understanding of cities lies substantially at the mercy of oblivious pop journalists who greatly influence public perception. This is why planners should define an urbanist definition for “city.”

Why We Must Define Cities Differently –

Our understanding of what constitutes a city should form the foundation of our work as urban planners. Continued failure to do so will doom us to remain within our current urban landscapes that are often littered with disjointed or barely noticeable development strategies. In other words, if we can’t define the type of environment we are working towards, we’ll never get there. Worst still, without a workable, urbanist definition for city, planners may find themselves at the whims of interests groups and regulatory agencies that do not consider urban life in their lines of business. The results will not be desired by most.

The Current Definition –

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines city as “an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village.” Though this definition speaks to the prominence of the city, it doesn’t lend much else to our understanding. Instead, many observers are left to piece together their definition of the city from the writings of reporters who merely restate statistics on incorporated population totals or federal designations of metropolitan statistical areas. By these standards, cities such as Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and a select few others are usually included on lists that focus on the country’s biggest cities. However, to keen observers, these places may not feel as though they embody our stereotype of the city as much as some other, albeit jurisdictionally smaller, cities such as Boston, Providence, Hartford, or Baltimore. Such observations suggests that the unmistakable variations in the overall urbanity of cities means that they cannot be defined by jurisdictional statistics alone.

Urban Life –

The planner’s definition for city should encompass the idea of urban life. There is a clear and noticeable difference between a place with urban life and somewhere without. For most, places with urban life are warm and friendly while those devoid of humans are austere and even scary. Urban life comprises many activities that should be ordinary within city neighborhoods. This includes people walking on the sidewalks, playing games in the park, hanging out at sidewalk restaurants, sitting on stoops, or performing various neighborhood jobs like delivering mail or fixing street amenities. Automobiles can and should play a role in urban life albeit a minimized one that lies in balance with other activities. Despite what advances in transportation may come, urban life will always reside on the human scale. Just as we can tell when a place is filled with urban life, we can see one without.

Rural areas are often beautiful in many ways but signs of urban life are usually not present. People exist but most of their activities revolve around tending to their own properties. In suburban areas, properties are also tended either by individual owners or service companies. Although some forms of active human life can be found throughout the suburbs and rural areas, it is rarely connected to the street, sidewalk, or some other element of the public domain. Essentially, suburbs and rural areas are not devoid of humans, they are simply devoid of humans interacting within public spaces. Such distinction is suggestive that an urbanist definition of city should capture those environments that are likely to yield high levels of human activity taking place within the public realms of our streets, sidewalks, parks, and promenades.

Component Definitions –

Defining the city as a place that offers and presents urban life suggests the need to define the urbanized lifestyle. It is fair to suggest that the urbanized lifestyle and the urban neighborhood go hand-in-hand. To enhance our understanding of the urbanized neighborhood, I also attempt to define the suburban and rural environments so as to distinguish their characteristics from those common to what we’ll come to consider as cities.

Urbanized Lifestyle

In the urbanized neighborhood, it is normal to complete errands by walking. Buildings are oriented to the sidewalk and keeping sidewalks in good shape and free of obstructions is a part of the social code of conduct. People can also get around by a variety of transportation options in addition to walking. This is because public transit, like sidewalks, is also prioritized above the private automobile. The necessities and amenities needed for daily life are available within a twenty minute commute from home, and most residents can conduct all routine activities without traveling beyond four miles. Residents’ favorable views on the continued concentration of development enables this convenience as they see the benefits of urban density as outweighing the potential drawbacks. The public realm provides the medium to sustain life.

Suburbanized Lifestyle

The suburbanized environment employs the automobile to create a landscape of privatization. Individuals without cars are considered unsuitable. When a person who normally possesses a car finds themselves without one they become reliant on other individuals or private services. All establishments are spread out on large tracts of land, and it is common for people to travel up to 20 miles to conduct errands or reach their job. Parking lots are everywhere and businesses or homes without them are considered problematic. Policies and design decisions that marginalize or entirely outlaw the functional pedestrian are commonplace and considered appropriate. Nearly all land is privately owned and accessible only through the use of a vehicle effectively creating a socio-economic litmus test to determine who can patronize establishments. Life is sustained through one’s ability to participate in the private medium.

Rural Lifestyle

Within the rural environment, people get around by driving. The automobile is symbolic of life and those seen walking are in trouble at best or downright suspect. Traveling distances of 20-to-30 miles in order to carry out routine activities is not only common but necessary for many errands. Continuous exposure to the countryside encourages a lifestyle that synchronizes with natural phenomena and cycles. Life is sustained through private means.

An Attempt to Define “City”

Based on the aforementioned components, here is my attempt to create a planner’s definition for the concept of a city.

A city is a collection of urbanized neighborhoods oriented around and affiliating with a central space producing a shared identity. In the urbanized neighborhood, it is normal to complete errands by walking. Buildings are oriented to the sidewalk and keeping sidewalks in good shape and free of obstructions is a part of the social code of conduct. People can also get around by a variety of transportation options in addition to walking. This is because public transit, like sidewalks, is also prioritized above the private automobile. The necessities and amenities needed for daily life are available within a twenty minute commute from home, and most residents can conduct all routine activities without traveling beyond four miles. The public realm provides the medium to sustain life. The central space and shared identity of the city is that area considered by the inhabitants of its urban neighborhoods to be their overall hub of culture, commerce, visitation, and expression.

Any urbanized neighborhood within an inhabited region not affiliating with the central space and identity of the principal or “big” city belongs, in fact, to another separate city. This might be the case of a sizable outer borough or commuter town located within a large urban region. For example, Tacoma versus Seattle in Washington State where Tacoma is a part of the Seattle region but recognized by the inhabitants of its urban neighborhoods as having a central or common identity distinct from that of Seattle.

Finding Out Who’s Big (methodology) –

To test out this revised concept of city, I created an analysis to approximate the size of notable American cities. Population data from the 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) was matched with Census Tract identification numbers for 35 U.S. states containing a total of 80 notable cities. Selected cities mostly encompassed known “big” cities but also included a fair number of mid-sized and even small ones to test the analysis among regions of varying sizes. A notable exception was made for New York City, which, given its massive geographic size and multi-nodal development pattern, was included twice – once for Midtown Manhattan and again for Downtown Brooklyn.

A GIS point feature was mapped in the approximate center of each city’s downtown district. For cities with downtowns located immediately off coastlines, some relief was provided by placing the point feature at the edge of the downtown area opposite the waterbody rather than on the most central part of the downtown district. Next, a three-mile buffer feature was created around each point. A distance of three miles was chosen because it aligns well with our revised definition of city. Each three-mile buffer creates a circle encompassing 28.27 square miles.

Census Tract population data was summarized within the three-mile buffer features to produce an estimate of the urbanized population living in each city. In some of the smaller regions, this methodology likely captured close-in suburbs, and for some of the larger ones a substantial amount, if not even a majority, of the urbanized population was left out. However, the intention behind this method was to create an approximation of the relative differences in urbanized populations between cities rather than to accurately estimate the total urbanized population of each city. Therefore, my analysis is based on the assumption that most cities have a monocentric development pattern and that the existence of densely urbanized neighborhoods more than three miles from the downtown core would not be decisive.

This image shows how the three-mile buffer feature was applied to Chicago, Illinois. Many of the dense, close-in neighborhoods are covered but many other “urban” ones are not. The downtown is entirely covered with the center of the buffer setback a little from Lake Michigan. Though a little relief was provided, it should also be noted that cities on coastlines are naturally encouraged to develop more densely.

This image shows how the three-mile buffer feature was applied to Seattle, Washington. Though some relief was provided rather than centering the buffer feature on the core of downtown, the shape of some U.S. cities may have undersold them in my analysis.

Who’s Actually A Big Deal Map

Telling Results –

Though the premise of my analysis was basic, the results have actually changed the way I think about certain cities.

The Dominance of New York City –

To begin, there is New York, and honestly, not much else. New York City is truly dominant in its urbanized population. No wonder why many people say New York City is a place like nowhere else. Back in 2014, I visited a friend who was living in NYC at the time. Despite his humble beginnings, my friend had become a world traveler by his late-twenties. Having lived in Copenhagen for a year and having travelled to some of the great cities of Asia, I was surprised when my friend said to me that he’d seen nothing like New York City. It looks like the figures agree. The population contained within the buffer features centered on Midtown and Downtown Brooklyn dwarf all other cities. They both have more than twice the population of the next biggest city.

Los Angeles Deserves Some Respect –

Our image of an endless landscape of gross urban sprawl should be tempered by the facts when we picture Los Angeles. The City of Angels boosts the largest urbanized population outside of New York City by a healthy measure. Seldomly known and recognized, Los Angeles once had what may have been America’s most extensive streetcar network. Streetcar networks were known for being centered on walkable urban grids as most commuters in those days walked to and from the nearest streetcar stop. Streetcar stops themselves were typically seen as prime locations for higher density developments and the walkable street grids of the early streetcar suburbs were highly adaptable for urbanization. The results from my analysis suggest that Los Angeles capitalizes well on the urbanization opportunities presented by the areas built off its historic streetcar network.

The red line demonstrates a three-mile buffer around downtown Los Angeles, California. Despite its freeways and central aqueduct, the dense utilization of Los Angeles’s urban grid enables the city to house more residents living close-in than any U.S. city outside of New York City.

Benjamin Franklin’s Old Haunts –

Rounding out the top five by coming in fourth and fifth are Philadelphia and Boston respectively. Philadelphia being the city that made our great national founder and Boston being the place of his birth. Both are among America’s most historic and densely settled cities. Central Philadelphia is home to America’s oldest continually inhabited street (Alfred’s Alley) and both cities host many residential blocks where those traveling by automobile need not apply. Though both cities got into skyscrapers late in the game, they do a good job showing that such shiny buildings don’t really matter as great density can be achieved with structures built on a much more human scale.

The Top Ten Cities in the U.S. –

Five of America’s largest cities are located in the northeast, three are in California, and the other two are Chicago and Miami. By our revised definition of city, Texas does not even boost one within the top twenty. Coming in just below San Francisco, Chicago is ranked seventh in the U.S. at best. Although the city boost one of the most impressive skylines, it could do much more at all scales, particularly the human, to increase the residential population in its central core. Hemmed in by the Everglades, Miami cracks the top ten coming in ninth and stands alone as the only southern city to be among America’s top twenty cities. Finally, San Jose might offer another surprise coming in tenth overall.

Sunbelt Cities –

Much has been written about the rise of Sunbelt cities over the past twenty years. Although I may dismiss much of the South’s economic growth as the region catching up to the rest of the country after generations of struggles following the Civil War, recent growth can be attributed to much more than merely the advent of air conditioning. There is no doubt that the South contains some of the country’s largest inhabited regions and economies. But what remains of the urban experience in many of those cities appears to be quite minimal. By our definition, New Orleans is the second largest city in the South and ranks ahead of Atlanta, Houston, Austin, and even Dallas. In fact, Houston’s urbanized size ranks below that of Rochester, New York. Despite their immense size, the great settlements of the Sunbelt do not possess the urbanized environments necessary to constitute “big” cities.

The red line demonstrates a three-mile buffer around downtown Houston, Texas. Many freeways fragment central neighborhoods and discourage the centralization of residential density resulting in a “big” city with fewer residents living close-in than Rochester, New York.

The red line demonstrates a three-mile buffer around downtown Rochester, New York. The relative absence of major freeways in Rochester paired with its legacy of traditional urban development enable it to house more people within three miles of its downtown than Houston, Texas despite anchoring a much smaller region.

A video on Rochester’s history of freeway development and plans for removal.

An Altered Understanding of Cities –

My analysis revealed that San Antonio, a city with more than 1,400,000 residents in its official jurisdiction of 500 square miles, is just barely larger than Pittsburgh. San Antonio has a urbanized population of around 150,567 within its three mile radius while Pittsburgh has 147,989 in its corresponding area. Pittsburgh, despite once being an industrial powerhouse, has seen its urbanized population fall so much that it is only a little larger than Allentown, Pennsylvania (141,004). One interpretation of this observation, I assume, is that the urban experience, when viewed in terms of population, is about as opportune in Pittsburgh as it is in San Antonio despite that the latter being much larger by jurisdiction.

A seemingly small community such as Grand Rapids, Michigan, may offer a comparable urban experience to that of Columbus, Ohio. Once again, Columbus is a much larger city on paper than Grand Rapids. However, Grand Rapids contains about as many people living within a three mile distance of its downtown as Columbus (137,793 versus 138,269). One could argue that a “big” city such as Columbus carries burdens that smaller ones like Grand Rapids do not face. It is likely that Columbus has to house a state capitol campus, freeway loop, large institutions, expansive offices, warehouses, stadiums, and other functions within a three-mile radius of its downtown. However, to counter this argument, I suggest that the more powerful market forces supplied by Columbus’s larger economy should be capable of generating stronger land use demands and thus the greater utilization of residential areas that do exist within its central areas.

Another example of a “big” city delivering weak population numbers in its central neighborhoods can be observed in the comparison between Cincinnati, Ohio and Eugene, Oregon. Cincinnati is considered to be the first city in the United States whose layout and design was the product of purely American influence. Though Cincinnati has many opportunities to increase residential density, much of its central areas are scared with freeways and its downtown is both office heavy and packed with stadiums. Many of the areas lying beyond its freeway loops located opposite of its downtown and core neighborhoods are suffering from the disinvestment that often comes with a lack of connection to the rest of the city. Despite its size and legacy, Cincinnati contains just over 10,000 more people residing in its central neighborhoods than Eugene, Oregon – being essentially a mere college town.

*The red line demonstrates a three-mile buffer around downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. Numerous freeways disrupt the fabric of neighborhoods and make a continuous gradient of urban density more difficult.*

The red line demonstrates a three-mile buffer around downtown Eugene, Oregon. Without many freeways to disrupt its urban fabric, a continuous gradient of dense residential development is better able to take hold.

Signs of Hope for Legacy Cities –

There are some signs of hope for older cities. Buffalo, New York, though often treated as a the butt of jokes for its long standing decline, boosts a larger central population than Charlotte, North Carolina. This means, in fact, by way of our revised definition for city, Buffalo is larger than Charlotte. Actually, Buffalo stands above many cities including Indianapolis, Orlando, Phoenix, Detroit, St. Louis, Fort Worth, Kansas City, Cleveland, and Memphis. From my analysis alone, I would suggest that there is more urban life occurring in Buffalo than any of those much larger cities. But how can a city that everyone jokes about as a dying place still have a larger urban population than some of America’s most up-and-coming cities?

Common Perceptions, Likely Deceptions –

With signs of hope also came more discouraging findings. For example, Erie, Pennsylvania contains a larger urbanized population than Detroit, Michigan. Erie contains 90,456 residents within three-miles of its downtown whereas Detroit has only 85,645. Before moving out east, I considered the idea of settling in Detroit based on recent media hype and discussions about its revitalization. I thought that doing so would get me in on the ground floor of a place that was rising up. However, it’s tough to sell the idea that your “big” city is revitalizing when it houses fewer people in its central neighborhoods than a place most people don’t know exist. Had I moved to Detroit, I would have likely faced the same two lifestyle options that an unfortunate number of American cities offer their inhabitants. One being the central city with a small town population and limited offerings and the other comprising an auto-dependent and faceless suburbia.

Big City: By Jurisdiction Only –

When statistics on the official populations of cities are discussed, I have always found it to be frustrating that nuances of municipal incorporation practices are often ignored. With an official population total of 887,642, Indianapolis, Indiana is among the larger cities in the country. However, according my study, its urbanized population sits at about 98,764. By comparison, San Francisco has an official population that sits below that of Indianapolis at 873,965 while boosting an urbanized population more than four times greater at 407,649. Indianapolis carries its 887,642 people within a jurisdiction comprising 362 square miles of available land compared to San Francisco’s 47. In fact, Indianapolis’s land area is larger than that of New York City and San Francisco combined. When these figures are compared, one must concede that because Indianapolis has far less population within its urbanized neighborhoods, it is unfair to consider it as comparable in size to San Francisco.

This graphic provides a scaled comparison showing the actual difference in the size between the administrative jurisdictions of Indianapolis, Indiana and San Francisco, California.

The Small Big Cities –

If one is looking for the urban experience in America, they better choose their city wisely. Most urban dwellers want a neighborhood with nice amenities, vibrant streets, nearby shops and businesses, and the ability to run errands without having to leave one’s neighborhood and travel across town. Unfortunately, many “big” American cities don’t offer this experience on a desirable scale. From my cursory study, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, and Phoenix all have lower population totals in their central areas than Salem, Oregon – being essentially a small town with a largely suburban character. The absence of the urban experience in the United States likely means that most consumers have entirely evaded any substantive experience of the urban lifestyle. This may usher the question of how planners can possibly succeed at revitalizing cities in a country where most people have never truly lived in one.

Repurposing Cities –

Many of the challenges we face could be greatly alleviated if our cities were in healthy condition. Consumers waste years of their lives in traffic, spend too much on limited housing options, fail to get enough exercise, struggle to find community, and are continuously exposed to subtle environmental hazards. The efficiencies delivered by urban life can provide tired and true solutions to many of these problems. When people are empowered to tackle life’s obligations released from the burdens of the automobile, they are presented the gifts of more time, money, and relaxation. Urban neighborhoods can provide the fabric needed to make our errands simpler, more efficient, and less stressful. But many people don’t realize this fact. That is why we must bring back our cities and reintroduce the urbanized lifestyle to consumers.

An excellent video on how most people live in the urbanized neighborhood / lifestyle.

Our cities can’t just be places for special events, office buildings, sports stadiums, low income housing projects, bland public spaces, big infrastructure, and parking lots. Instead, they must be filled with vibrant neighborhoods full of activities taking place in the public domain. Cities need to offer urban neighborhoods delivering the density required to sustain the services and amenities that support daily life. It’s time to think in new and innovative ways to cultivate urbanized neighborhoods. Perhaps, most cities can start by repurposing their downtowns to function as urban neighborhoods centered around transit hubs rather than serving to cluster the large scale ceremonial, institutional, and entertainment spaces that cater to those residing elsewhere. It’s time to start acting like a city again.

WILL WHAT BRINGS CITIES TOGETHER KEEP THEM TOGETHER?

Posted on October 15, 2022 by tgilbertson06

This article will begin by examining the basic dynamics that contribute to the centralization of activity within inhabited places as well as the forces that discourage such concentration. After discussing the integrative forces that form cities our focus will pivot to consider the social and cultural conditions that either bind a city together or tear it apart. After the forces of centralization are explored in both economic and social terms, a third type of integration formed around the concept of the natural area will be discussed. We’ll begin with a bold statement about the planner’s role as it relates to the forces of centralization.

YOUR FOUNDAMENTAL JOB

As a planner, it is your job to promote centralization through incremental efforts to foster opportunities for integrative forces to manifest within communities. This is true regardless of whether you work in an urban environment (the city planner) or a rural landscape (the county planner). Within the city, your job is to gradually work towards cultivating an environment where urban interactions and exchanges create the value that keeps people, businesses, and institutions within the city. If you are not doing this you are failing at your job – plain and simple. Across the countryside, your job is to preserve the ecosystems and opportunities for resource extraction that make production profitable and worthwhile. Part of this task is to promote mobility to distant markets and ensure that opportunities for agriculture support businesses and operations are well protected. If this is not happening, there is a chance that you are failing.

THE FORCES OF CENTRALIZATION

Forces that encourage the geographic concentration of human activity are integrative forces. That is to say that integrative forces can consist of any factor that encourages centralization. Traditionally, such forces have been viewed as those born between actors that rely upon each other to varying extents. One example might be the connections established between a business and its suppliers, servicers, and customers. Another traditional example may include the relationship created between the businessman and the politician who may need to engage in bargaining and negotiations. Beyond this traditional understanding, I argue that integrative forces can include a great variety of circumstances that relate solely to the individual and their interaction with the built environment of their community rather than its other inhabitants. One’s enjoyment of their town’s parks, landscapes, amenities, culture, sense of safety, or general livability may in fact be one of the most important centralizing forces within the modern city. Such individual forces of integration are important and should not be ignored. However, individual preferences are subject to fluctuations over time, and cities working to respond to such preferences should also not lose track of creating a system of incentives that effectively bring large interest together. In this manner, communities seeking to centralize and develop should simultaneously respond to both the individual and collective incentives that effectively bring people together.

SOME GENERAL EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATIVE FORCES

The Bond Between a Business and its Key Customers and Suppliers – I encountered an example of this dynamic in Salem, Oregon whereby an alternative arts and culture focused newspaper was heavily dependent upon the support of local businesses within the walkable portions of the community. Unfortunately, in that case, the newspaper ceased operations after fourteen years in business as local advertisers shifted their marketing toward online mediums (see article in the Stateman’s Journal). We’ll briefly discuss how the internet might impact traditional forces of centralization below.

The Industry and Its Workers – Another traditional example of an integrative force might be that of the large employer and its need to locate in close proximity to a healthy pool of workers. This particular dynamic helps explain the great urban development and high levels of historic density experienced within America’s powerhouse manufacturing cities. Places like New York, Chicago, and Detroit grew to great size and high density in part because the manufacturing that took place in those cities required many thousands of workers in close proximity. Cities such as Phoenix on the other hand were not originally propelled by a heavy manufacturing base, and lacking a comparable integrative force, never centralized the same level of urban density. The result for the latter group of cities has been more dispersion.

EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATIVE FORCES AT WORK IN MY LIFE

Public & Active Transportation – One integrative force that has influenced my attachment to various communities has been the presence of low cost transportation options. In general, the places where I lived that offered a very low commute cost have been highly attractive for their increased affordability. Conversely, places where I lived with a high commute cost have usually resulted in unstable living circumstances. Essentially, the ability to live near my job has been a source of financial efficiency, and I strongly believe that cities would be wise to enable their citizens to live near their jobs.

Mixed Use Neighborhoods – Because I have heavily relied on a combination of active and public transit modes throughout my life, close access to services and amenities has been a major integrative force. For most of my life, I have relied either on my own feet, my bike, or public transit in order to get around. Therefore, the ability to access useful services and amenities within my neighborhood or nearby has been so beneficial that I’m specifically attracted to seek residence in areas that offer this convenience. Nearby access to social opportunities and entertainment options has, to a lesser degree, produced a similar effect.

Local Politics – The desire or concern to live within the “correct” councilmanic district has served as an attractive force bonding me to a particular neighborhood. In some communities where councilmanic privilege plays a key role in shaping city life and services, the ability to be well protected by your local leadership is critical when the need arises to work with city government. Most Americans likely haven’t experienced this type of situation. However, within certain cities, where multiethnic coalitions exist and diversity is high, getting caught with a specific need for public support when your type reflects the wrong constituency for your local district can be a horrible experience. Therefore, the concern for living on the right side of a particular street can serve as an integrative force for belonging to a neighborhood. Conversely, the dynamics of councilmanic privilege can also be a dispersive force.

THE FORCES OF DISPERSION

Forces that discourage the geographic concentration of cities are those of dispersion. That is to say that forces of dispersion are non-integrative for cities. Among these are conflicts and struggles present within the urban environment that tear a city apart and decrease urbanization as a result. Traditionally, forces of dispersion may come in the form of high taxes, rampant crime, poorly performing schools or other public services, and traffic congestion among others. Essentially, non-integrative forces of dispersion can take of the form of anything that encumbers economic prosperity or general livability. However, the limits on what can be considered a non-integrative force that discourages one from dwelling in a certain community are often a matter of individual preference. Community planners should work to carefully document, ideally on a scientific level, the top forces of dispersion weighing on the population(s) within their jurisdiction.

SOME GENERAL EXAMPLES OF NON-INTEGRATIVE FORCES

High Taxes – Prohibitively high taxes might be one of the most commonly cited forces of dispersion. People look for bargains and ways to save money, and high taxes at the local level are not a part of that equation. Whether a jurisdiction’s taxes are actually high or merely perceived to be high does not appear to make a difference much of the time. I have found that some people would never consider life in a larger city based heavily on their perception of the taxes. Having lived within a wide array of communities myself, ranging from rural areas to small towns to mid and large sized cities, I can suggest that the emphasis on local taxes is largely overblown. However, prohibitively high taxes will disperse people and families, and even whole developments, across jurisdictional lines. Similarly, tax rate differentials between municipalities may discourage consolidation even when their residents consider themselves to belong to the same community.

Failing Public Services – When public services fail to provide for people, people disperse. Unfortunately, school districts in large cities have displayed a clear example of the dispersion caused when public services fall short of expectations. Within America, it is the exception to find a well performing urban school district rather than the rule. The failing performance of urban schools has played a major role in decentralizing cities by motivating middle class families to relocate into the suburbs and neighboring small towns. Finding solutions to improve urban education for children would be transformative for larger American cities.

Traffic Congestion – Congested streets are not only a hinderance for all activities in life, they are an economic burden on cities and regions. The economic burden imposed by congestion, whether it be on streets, rail lines, water ways, dock facilities, airport runways, or somewhere else, stems from its impact on limiting the reach of consumer markets and labor markets. Essentially, congestion is a supply chain issue of the logistical type. Since most people interact with congestion in the form of roadway traffic, I’ll provide two short examples based on vehicular congestion. For workers driving to their jobs, routine traffic congestion increases the amount of time lost during their commute. Since the typical worker can only allocate so much time within their day to their commute, the more congested the roadways the slower the average speed of travel and the less distance that can be covered during a routine commute. The question is, of course, how far can workers travel within their livable allowance for commute time? For myself, I struggle to maintain any commute longer than 45 minutes. A second example of the negative impact or non-integrative force imposed by congested roadways concerns their impact on the market reach of product suppliers and businesses. Heavy roadway congestion either increases the lag time or outright reduces the distance that businesses and suppliers can deliver their goods into surrounding marketplaces – thus reducing their overall reach, profits, and competitiveness.

Crime – High crime directly impacts one’s sense of safety and livability within a community. If crime is too consistent or high, people will seek a safer environment. Most of the time, this means moving to a different community – hence, a non-integrative force.

EXAMPLES OF NON-INTEGRATIVE FORCES AT WORK IN MY LIFE

Crime – The inability to safely live within certain neighborhoods has cut down on the range of housing options that have been available to me in the past. This issue particularly arose while living in Philadelphia where it was difficult to find a “middle of the road” neighborhood that was also safe for outsiders.

Transportation – Access to good public transportation along with the ability to walk to select amenities has been crucial in my living situations. However, when these systems break down, a dispersive force emerges. In Philadelphia, failed negotiations led to a transit strike that made commuting very difficult, if not even almost impossible, because of the traffic congestion that resulted. Otherwise, Philadelphia was excellent in terms of public transit and walking. The real non-integrative force that limits my association with many opportunities across America is the poor investment in good public transit options and the lack of walkable communities.

Housing Stock – Much of the housing built today has a tendency to support only certain kinds of consumers. Fancy downtown condos for the rich, big suburban mansions for the somewhat less rich, single family homes for the upper realms of the middle class, urban apartments for new money, and so forth. When it comes to the working class, affordable options in prosperous cities are very often limited to perimeter trailer parks, rundown suburban apartments, residual urban slums where crime has stayed gentrification, and a select few units set aside for those making below a certain percentage of area medium income – should you be so lucky on the waiting list. Unfortunately, good affordable housing within a nice city is a hard find for the 21st century worker.

A diagram displaying the basic forces of my attachment to life in the city.

Planners would be wise to understand the most basic and dominant forces of integration and dispersion present within the communities where they operate. Doing so should be considered as a necessary workplace assignment.

PEOPLE DO NOT ALWAYS MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS

In conversation, I often hear people who express high taxes as their top reason for not wanting to live within the city. I understand that certain lifestyles might be easier to achieve in suburban or rural-residential communities, but I always find the high taxes reason to be puzzling. I feel people do not account for higher transportation costs and lost time that often come attached to living further out from the city core. One living within the core of the city and subject to higher taxes is ideally relieved by shorter commute times, the greater flexibility that comes with transportation options, and less auto-dependency. In other words, the difference between being a two-car household and a single-car household can easily account for the differential tax burden on property owners in the city versus the suburbs and outlying areas. In fact, even a two car household within the city may see a substantial reduction in their transportation cost resulting merely from the fact that they are likely to drive shorter distances between home, work, amenities, and errands. Nevertheless, the tradeoff between transportation costs and lost time to the municipal tax differential between central cities and surrounding areas seems to be lost on many consumers.

BEYOND ECONOMICS, A LOOK AT NATURAL AREAS & CREATING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY:

When it comes to the attachments people form with their community, not all decisions are based on economic factors. Social characteristics and the relationships formed between individuals often play a critical role. Edward C. Banfield’s and James Q Wilson’s excellent 1963 book on the political forces at play within cities, “City Politics,” provides a concise and articulate description of what makes a community:

“The city is among other things a set of values, habits, sentiments, myths, and understandings which are (more or less) shared by the people who live in it, and the sharing of which constitutes (again, more or less) a social bond attaching the people of the city to one another and – if the bond is sufficiently strong (it may not be) – making themselves to be, and therefore to be in fact, a community.”

Robert Park, urban sociologist, among others, introduced the concept of “natural areas” in the social tapestry of cities. Each natural area within a city exists as a sub-community because it satisfies the fundamental human needs of inhabitants through its own order of social organization and ethos (Banfield & Wilson, 49). Natural areas can function to reduce, for their members, the sense of alienation and anomie that often come with city life. With varying degrees of cohesion, some examples of natural areas include those formed along ethnic, racial, and religious lines. However, Banfield and Wilson also suggest that natural areas can form around institutions like a university or types of communities based on their lifestyle characteristics and appeal such as suburbs. Another type of natural area suggested is the one that forms around business establishments and the type of people they attract – some examples may include gamblers, artists, wealthy individuals, and others.

Banfield and Wilson highlight three socio-economic types of natural areas that may exist within a city. The following passages describe these three types of natural areas in detail and where taken directly from their book, City Politics (52-53):

[LOW INCOME AREAS] Some are tenement districts in which low-income migrants live, where family life is disrupted, church membership low and social life limited to a few friends or to a “gang.” In such areas, political preferences are unstable, people care little about the area or about the city as a whole, and they vote (and, more rarely, participate in politics in other ways) mainly when prompted to do so by organizations that offer material inducements or that appeal to particular, often personal loyalties.

[MIDDLE INCOME AREAS] Another type of natural area consists of small houses in which live semiskilled and clerical workers. In these areas, family activities are of the greatest importance, there is much “neighborliness,” many people attend church regularly, and there is a sense of obligation to the “community” and to neighbors. Few people have much leisure, however, and the educational level is rather low. Membership in voluntary associations (other than churches and unions) is also low. Although the sense of community is fairly strong, few people participate in local affairs and few take much interest in the government of the larger city or have much confidence in their ability to influence it. Such areas tend to exert a stabilizing, “balancing wheel” effect in city politics, but they seldom take a leading active role in it.

[HIGH INCOME AREAS] In the third type of natural area, where incomes and educational levels are high, neighborliness may not be very marked; this is especially the case where there are high-rise apartments. Membership in voluntary associations is high, however; both husbands and wives belong with varying degrees of enthusiasm to organizations having civic, educational, or fraternal purposes. Many people participate in civic projects and cultural affairs that transcend neighborhood lines, and the sense of obligation to the “community,” by which is generally meant the city (or even the metropolitan area) “as a whole,” is particularly strong.

MY THOUGHTS ON NATURAL AREAS

I like the aforementioned quote concerning how the values, habits, sentiments, and other factors can create a social bond between individuals that may in turn create a sense of community. It is possible that this sense of community could be tested during occasions of one’s out of town travel. Let’s say that you are travelling somewhere else within your state and happen to strike up conversation with a stranger whom you learn is from your same municipality. If you find that each of you feel somewhat more relatable to each other simply because you come from the same municipality, then such circumstance may be a sign that your municipality has a strong sense of community. However, if the coincidence of being from the same city is merely a minor fact or afterthought, because just being from the same municipality does not encourage further conversation, all else equal, it is possible that your municipality has a weaker sense of community.

In many ways, the formation of natural areas as sub-communities in cities is reassuring. It makes me optimistic to think that our large cities are bonded together by natural affiliations that form along a diverse array of linages rather than purely through a system of economic incentives that act as integrative forces. Communities that form along racial lines may provide comfort to those who feel or actually are marginalized within the city. Those forming along ethnic lines may strengthen our cities by setting the stage for welcoming new immigrants. Neighborhoods that attract individuals with specific interests such as in the sciences, technology, or arts may create a fertile environment for the growth of cultural movements or large, economically-disruptive enterprises. Without these natural areas a city might not be able to exist, and a city without them is hardly a city at all.

I’m uncertain whether the three natural areas highlighted along socio-economic lines by Banfield and Wilson can actually be classified as natural areas but rather as cleavages dividing the population within the larger city. It is likely the case that low, middle, and high income families will concentrate in select places, but it will often be the case that such concentrations will occur multiple times throughout even a mid-sized city. In many cities, there are multiple low income neighborhoods and a few high and middle income ones as well. I may then ask, can there by more than one location of the same type of natural area within the city? Or are such duplicative areas always distinct?

Regardless of how such questions might be resolved, one observation highlighted in City Politics that I find particularly interesting is the reference to the “stabilizing” or “balancing wheel” effect of the middle income neighborhoods in the political life of cities. In times of heated political exchange, I have felt that there is no crime greater than the politized action that ends up harming the ordinary people who seldom, if ever, get involved in political affairs. An example of this might be the politician, who, out of political retaliation, closes down a facility in a manner that harms people or causes social damage. If cities are commonly driven by conflicts between their wealthier and poorer residents, then a stable base of relatively non-engaged middle class families might be vital for preventing things from becoming unhinged. Unfortunately, as many American cities have lost their middle class populations, the effect of this “balancing wheel” may have become minimized.

HOW MIGHT TECHNOLOGY INFLUENCE CENTRALIZATION & OUR COMMUNITY ATTACHMENTS?

The rise of high speed internet and related technologies may be reducing the forces that contribute to the centralization of populations. Edward Glaeser has said, in his book, Triumph of the City, that “distance is dead.” The death of distance may have major implications for cities and city life as we know it. In fact, in the wake of the Global COVID-19 Pandemic, many companies are entertaining situations where their employees entirely work remotely. In some other cases, firms employ workers who work mostly from home and only convene in the office for the most important meetings, trainings, or events. Taking this trend to the extreme, our once prized downtown’s filled with corporate offices might have to be remodeled into conference spaces that are perhaps shared by more than one firm. It is possible that many of these spaces could also be located in the suburbs. Numerous articles published over recent years have lauded the rise of small towns and satellite cities, sometimes located far away from large metropolitan areas, for exhibiting robust growth both in terms of population and jobs. Such places have risen as dispersive forces in large cities such as housing affordability, crime, transportation cost, and others have left consumers questioning their existence in the big city or even its traditional suburbs. These trends suggest that cities will continue to hollow out as the traditional office core becomes irrelevant and consumers look to smaller towns located further from the heart of the metropolitan area to seek a better quality of life.

I agree with Edward Glaeser in that we are witnessing the slow death of distance. This death will deemphasize the need to keep transportation cost within the city low, modify what we know as the typical home, and alter what many recognize as the primary function of the downtown office core. However, with the gradual death of distance we are also witnessing a pent up and long overdue rebirth of place. The desire to establish the human’s sense of place has been documented in a steady and growing stream of articles over recent years, and common realizations made during the COVID-19 safety measures have led many people to reconnect with the physical activities offered by the outdoors and nature. Although the advances propelled by the internet will come to represent a new transportation technology along with new habits for how space is consumed, the desire to belong to a place or natural area will remain. If people are to be defined as more than their jobs, then cities should be defined by more than just collections of jobs and sites for economic exchanges. Over the coming years, our cities should focus on what they did well prior to the massive office space booms that begun in the 1960s. Downtowns should work to be the “face” of their region. This includes being a place of central assembly, a neighborhood, the seat of local governments, a cultural center, a business hub, a historic showcase, a center for institutions, an intellectual community, a place for the exchange of ideas, and a desirable choice for interactions between people. The gradual death of distance paired with new technologies might drive workers towards remote locations but humanity’s innate desire to connect with a sense of place will bring people back to the city.

SOME CLOSING QUESTIONS

How can we document the forces of integration and non-integration at play in our jurisdictions?

What are some ways that we can strengthen the attachments people feel with their cities or communities?

To what extent will advances in technology encourage people to move away from cities or metropolitan areas?

With the rise of the internet, will natural areas continue to play an important role in communities?

How can cities create places in which people feel attached?

SOURCES:

Banfield C. Edward and James Q Wilson. City Politics. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. and Random House, Inc, 1963.

Glaeser, Edward. Triumph of the City. New York, Penguin Group Inc, 2012.

The Planner's Parallax

Exploring community planning through the lens of administration, efficiency, & economy.

Tag Archives: Cities