Here is an interesting topic for debate.

This week the NY Times reported that a non-profit group called the National Civic Art Society has drafted an executive order that would make classical architecture the default style for all federal buildings in the United States. The draft order is naturally titled: "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again."

Here is an excerpt from the New York Times:

“For too long architectural elites and bureaucrats have derided the idea of beauty, blatantly ignored public opinions on style, and have quietly spent taxpayer money constructing ugly, expensive, and inefficient buildings,” Marion Smith, the group’s chairman, wrote in a text message. “This executive order gives voice to the 99 percent — the ordinary American people who do not like what our government has been building.”

As you can imagine, this proposed order isn't sitting well with many architects (the real kind who, presumably, hold licenses). Thom Mayne of Morphosis put it well with this quote:

“We are a society that is linked to openness of thought, to looking forward with optimism and confidence at a world that is always in the process of becoming. Architecture’s obligation is to maintain this forward thinking stance.”

I think there are many people who would tell you that they prefer classical architecture to modern architecture. And that's totally fine. I don't know how many is many, but I am fairly certain it is not 99% of all Americans. (It would be interesting to know the approximate taste split.)

My strong view is that I don't see the need to mandate a particular architectural style. Let architecture respond to the world around us. Let urban context guide. Like Mayne, I am also drawn to the future, as opposed to the past -- though I certainly appreciate history.

What is your view?

As a side note, classical architecture was used pretty much exclusively for federal buildings up until the 1930s. Architecture school taught me that it was initially chosen because it was seen to embody the ideals of the American democracy.

Photo by Caleb Perez on Unsplash

Matthew L. Schuerman has a new book out called, Newcomers: Gentrification and Its Discontents. I haven't read it. But in it, he argues that "gentrification is all around us." Hence the title. Will Stancil has an interesting rebuttal to this position as part of his book review in the Washington Monthly. Here's an excerpt:

Schuerman settles on what he admits is a simple definition of gentrification: the process by which a neighborhood goes from having below-average to above-average incomes for its region. But he never really applies it. While he frequently asserts or implies that gentrification is exploding across cities, he doesn’t say how many neighborhoods actually meet his definition.

As a demographic researcher, I decided to check. Using U.S. Census data, I looked at the share of people in New York, San Francisco, and Chicago living in places that met Schuerman’s definition of having gentrified between 2000 and 2016. In New York, it’s 3.1 percent of residents. In San Francisco, the number is 4.4 percent. In Chicago, it’s 4.8 percent. Needless to say, this does not represent a vast swath. Although the numbers might increase if the time frame were extended, change at a generational pace is far less disruptive than change that takes place over a few years. Using Newcomers’ own definition, the story of urban America is not a tidal wave of gentrification but creeping racial and economic transition.

In fact, this aligns with the growing academic consensus that gentrification is much rarer than is commonly believed. This year alone, there have been no fewer than three national studies into the prevalence and location of gentrifying neighborhoods. (Disclosure: I authored one of these studies, for the University of Minnesota.) Despite using very different methods, all three studies roughly appear to agree that about 10 percent of neighborhoods in metro areas were gentrifying. Research has also tended to show that no matter how you measure gentrification in the urban core, it’s almost always more common to find neighborhoods afflicted by intensifying poverty. Out of the fifty biggest American regions, forty-four have core cities where the population in poverty has grown faster than the overall population since 2000. The only exceptions are New York City, Los Angeles, D.C., New Orleans, Atlanta, and Providence.

This issue of concentrated poverty has come up before on the blog through posts like this one about Detroit. The data is pretty clear: The number of high poverty Census tracts in the US is increasing faster than the number of gentrifying Census tracts (i.e. Census tracts that are becoming wealthier).

So could it be that the problem isn't actually gentrification? It is that, paradoxically, gentrification isn't happening enough and more broadly, and that it is leading to rising inequality across our cities. That strikes me as being the greater issue.

Photo by Hardik Pandya on Unsplash

Three years ago I wrote about how I was one step closer to not only going cashless -- I had pretty much already done that -- but also going walletless. (That's one of the things about writing a daily blog -- there's a public record.) I still carry a wallet in most cases, but I couldn't tell you the last time I paid for something using cash here in Toronto. It was probably at a Vietnamese restaurant.

I did, however, notice on my trip last month that Germany and Austria are still quite reliant on cash. Many places only accepted cash and many places wouldn't accept credit cards under a certain minimum spend. Fewer opportunities to just tap as well. I had forgotten how annoying it was to carry around lots of coins. You really need a change purse.

Still, a paradigm shift has taken place. And because of this shift, there's a growing movement in cities toward banning cash-free businesses. Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, and Washington, DC are all working on policy. The concern is that not accepting cash discriminates against lower-income patrons.

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FIDC), approximately 8.4 million US households (6.5% of all households) were "unbanked" in 2017. This means that no one in the household had either a checking or savings account.

An additional 24.2 million US households (additional 18.7% of all households) are estimated to be "underbanked", meaning they have at least one account at an insured institution, but they also rely on outside financial products -- such as payday loans.

When surveyed, somewhere around half tend to cite "not having enough money" as one of the reasons for being "unbanked." But the good news is that the percentage of people without a bank account seems to be declining (see above chart).

This is important because we all know where things are headed. And banning cashless businesses isn't going to stop that march. There are deeper issues that need to be addressed. Here is an excerpt from a recent CityLab article on the topic:

“I certainly don’t think [this bill] is the right long-term solution,” said Rogoff. “The future does not lie in this direction. The future lies in giving people free debit cards and financial inclusion.” He cited the case of India. The country launched a program to decrease the number of unbanked and saw the percentage decrease from 47 percent of adults in 2014 to 20 percent unbanked in 2017 according to the World Bank Global Findex Report. “If India can manage to give people free debit cards, so can the U.S.” Rogoff said.

Kenneth Rogoff is a professor of public policy at Harvard University, the former chief economist of the IMF, and author of The Curse of Cash. If you're interested in this topic, his book may be a good one to check out.