Whenever I’m not sure what to write about, I just read. That’s one of the big benefits of daily blogging – it forces me to do that.

This morning I stumbled upon the blog of Jed Kolko. Jed is an economist and, up until 2015, he was Chief Economist and VP of Analytics at Trulia.

His most recent post argues – naturally with lots of data and charts – that for all of our talk of (re)urbanization, it’s actually a specific subset of the population that is far more likely to be have urbanized between 2000 and 2014: the young, rich, childless, and white. (Note: His post is talking specifically about U.S. cities.) 

Below are a few of his charts. 

In all cases, the x-axis represents % change in urban living between 2000 and 2014. All of the data is from Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) - 2000 decennial Census and from the 2014 one-year American Community Survey (ACS).

Here is age:

Household income:

Education and children:

And here is race/ethnicity:

San Francisco Bay Blues by Stefano Termanini on 500px

I recently stumbled upon a great Treehugger article by Lloyd Alter called: The real triumph of the city will be seen in Buffalo (2014). The post is partially a response to economist Ed Glaeser’s popular book, Triumph of the City, which I’ve mentioned and cited many times before here on ATC.

Lloyd’s thesis is basically that Ed is wrong in arguing that reducing the barriers to building is the most effective way to maintain housing affordability; that cities are really made out of flesh, rather than bricks and mortar; and that urbanists need to move beyond the view that a city’s past should be preserved at all costs.

Lloyd then goes on to argue that rather than continuing to over-intensify cities like New York, San Francisco, and Toronto, we should be turning our attention to former powerhouses like Buffalo and trying to figure out how to reinvigorate those cities. The bones are already in place.

Now, I don’t disagree that there’s lots of potential in cities such as a Buffalo and Detroit. I’ve written a lot about Detroit and I’m genuinely rooting for the city. But I don’t think it’s as simple as it sounds to shift our attention, and I don’t agree with all of the critiques of Glaeser’s work.

As important as built form is, cities like Buffalo and Detroit remind us that architecture and buildings alone aren’t enough to build a city. There are countless masterpieces – such as Michigan Central Station in Detroit – that regrettably sit abandoned. You need people and communities.

There’s also a snowball effect. 

As a city becomes more successful, there’s a natural tendency for more people to want to be there. It’s no different than the network effect experienced by a social network. A social network without people has no value. But the more people you add to it, the more valuable it becomes and the more difficult it becomes to replace.

So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people will put up with expensive real estate and small apartments just to live in cities like San Francisco. That’s where they want to be. And as long as the demand to live in those cities is increasing, I continue to believe that it makes sense to build more, not less, housing and to make it reasonably easy to do so.

At the same time, I believe whole heartedly in heritage preservation. As a trained architect, there’s a strong possibility that I would shed an actual tear should a building with heritage value be torn down in my city or in any city in the world. 

And that’s why when I was on CBC radio last week I said that neighborhood investment needs to be a balance between preservation and progress. The Twittersphere later blasted me for using the term “progress”, but I think you get my position.

My interpretation of Glaeser’s work has never been that he supports completely erasing a city’s past in order to make way for the future. If that is his position, then I too disagree with it. 

My interpretation has instead been that he supports removing unreasonable barriers to development so that cities are able to supply – or can at least try to supply – enough housing to meet growing demand. This also doesn’t exclusively mean high-rise intensification. It could mean removing the barriers in front of things like laneway housing. And I continue to believe that this is a good idea.

I don’t believe that this approach alone will solve all housing problems, but I do think it’s a great place to start.

Thank you Lloyd for the great post.

One of the reasons New York is the city it is today is because of the superiority of its port. For a number of reasons, which are better explained here by urban economist Edward Glaeser, New York was almost destined to become “America’s port.” Of course, this phenomenon is something that has been repeated all throughout history. Being connected to the right body of water, in the right way, has meant all the difference in terms of economic success.

But with study after study demonstrating that our economic success is leading to severe climate change and to the melting of arctic ice sheets, those very same port cities are now being put at serious risk. How ironic. Hurricane Sandy was the largest storm surge in the history of New York. Prior to it occurring, the likelihood of such a storm would have been calculated at 0.1%. It was greater than a 1,000 year storm.

But if the research is correct, we’re going to see more storm surges and we’re going to see rising sea levels. This makes many, if not all, sea port cities a high risk zone for flooding, which is why cities, such as Boston, have prepared comprehensive reports on how to manage a rising tide. From adjustable parapet walls to multipurpose green spaces that can absorb excess water levels, cities around the world are looking for solutions.

But these are merely reactive solutions.

What need to also be looking at is how we can fundamentally improve our economy so that we’re operating in a sustainable way. Some of the research suggests that what we’ve done is irreversible, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to make it any worse. Part of the issue with this “wicked problem” is that it doesn’t seem immediate to most people, yet. It’s too easy to ignore. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Image: This Big City