Income Matters More Than Race

Wealthy > White

This year many people are commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. This speech had lofty goals and among them was making education more equal for Whites and African-Americans. At the time, race was the most important factor in determining whether or not a child would be successful in school. Now fifty years later, race is not as important as another factor: wealth.

Children in the poorest American families are now an average of four grade levels of knowledge behind children in the richest families. The racial gap stands still at around three years. This is a bit bittersweet because although the racial gap is no longer the main obstacle to children this is only so because wealth has become more of an obstacle. The racial gap has not moved far in the last half-century. Let's look at some of the main reasons that wealth has become such a hot issue in education.

Investing in Children

Children who come from wealthy families are now more able than ever before to get ahead of their peers. Disposable income has risen rapidly for the richest families over the past 40 years but has risen much more slowly for lower-income groups.

The extra money that richer parents now have has allowed them to spend more on early educational opportunities for their children. Many wealthy children can now afford private preschools, language classes and a host of extracurricular activities that other students cannot. At the same time, public schools have cut back funding and have been asked to do more with less. These factors together push wealthy children up while putting extra pressure on children from lower-income families. 

The gap also tends to self-perpetuate. As wealthy children increasingly outperform lower-income children they are more able to get into top tier universities and thus are more likely to land high-paying jobs. The wider the gap grows between the groups, the easier it is for the disparities to become even stronger.

School Achievement Gaps

Similarly, there are geographical divisions between where rich and poor families live. This impacts the quality of public education across the country. Poorer school districts often receive less property tax revenue and spend extra money recruiting and paying teachers. These districts often struggle with underfunding, outdated books and classroom overcrowding. Richer public schools often have the tax funds to ward off many of these issues. As students in poorer districts receive less funding, they do not have the resources to keep up with wealthier peers in neighboring school districts. 

Worcester Should Take Cars Off Main Street

Main Street Worcester Should Be Pedestrian Only

Downtown Worcester

If you have ever driven through Worcester, MA, you have probably experienced many frustrations. Roads seem to twist and wind in every direction, traffic lights change colors seemingly based on their moods and pedestrians largely ignore crosswalks and walk signals. It can be really challenging to get between any two parts of the city, particularly if you are traveling from West - East as highways tend to serve North - South traffic. Sure, the city is old and has made plenty of mistakes over time, but it could do one thing to help improve the current situation: take cars off Main Street!

Downtown Worcester Map

Okay so fine, not all of Main Street, just the portion that runs between Highland Street and The Hanover Theater. This ten block area really represents the downtown portion of the city that is shown in the first picture at the top of the page. While this may seem just like a whimsical idea, I feel that I can present a solid case for why this is a good idea.

Main Street Is Inconvenient For Cars

If you are a car, you probably have no desire to drive along Main Street anyways. The main reason for this is that Main Street tends to have one lane of traffic in each direction, at least in the area that I have flagged for closure. Making you way down this narrow street brings you just about nowhere in either direction; it does not connect well to highways or other routes for getting through the city. Just one block to the East, Major Taylor Boulevard is a higher capacity street that readily brings traffic to I-290 and Route 146. If you are trying to get on the highway, you would normally be directed this way. West of Main Street is a primarily residential area where residents can either walk to work downtown or will likely take the highway out of the city. The North end of the street is meaningless; you have to navigate a six-way intersection to enter the street and sometimes when you try to turn off Main Street you are forced to make a U-Turn. To the South of The Hanover Theater the neighborhood deteriorates a bit and you are no longer in downtown.

Main Street Is The Heart of Downtown

Most areas in Worcester really could not support pedestrian friendly development because they are not dense enough. But Main Street actually has more than a handful of mid to high rise residential and office buildings. There is enough of a critical mass of people and businesses here that it would be feasible to be within walking distance of most everyday needs. I'm not trying to say that you could be fully car independent here as you could be in Boston, but you could free yourself from needing it to get everywhere. If only pedestrians were allowed to walk on the street, they would be more likely to actually do so without having to fear getting run down by a vehicles that notoriously run red lights!

Walkable pedestrian friendly zones tend to increase property values and encourage new businesses to move in. Worcester is in the midst of trying to recreate it's image and attract new commercial and residential tenants downtown. It's CitySquare project is trying to build mixed-use development just off of Main Street. Bringing pedestrians to the area is a great way to increase the likelihood of the success of this project. 

If Worcester wants to really become the world-class city that it aspires to be, it should adopt some forward thinking measures such as creating pedestrian only zones downtown. 

D.C. Goes Black to White

D.C. White Influx

Starting around 1950 and continuing for decades, many major American cities saw white residents move away while African American populations rose. Concepts of white-flight and urban poverty came into being as affluence migrated outward to the suburbs. Many demographic changes over the last 15 years have begun to reverse many of these trends; urban crime rates are falling, property values are rising and people are sick of long commutes. At the forefront of these changes lies Washington D.C., a historically African American city that is now increasingly turning White.

Since the 1950's D.C. has been predominantly African American and has been known as a city of racial tension and division. For decades, affluent White Americans avoided living in the city and despite increasing numbers of African Americans, the city's population fell. I remember even as a kid in the early 1990's I was told that D.C. was not a nice place to be.

But right around the year 2000 something started to change. People actually started to want to live close to where they worked and did not want to spend hours each day in the car. Parents became sick of driving their kids everywhere and wished that things were within walking distance. Urban drug wars were finished and violent crime rates fell. Suburbanites began to move back into D.C. and property values started to rise quickly. For the first time in 50 years The District became "desirable" and Whites came back. The percentage of African Americans living in D.C. has fallen from around 70% in 1950 to just over 50% today.

Whites are moving in, but why are African Americans leaving? 

They cannot afford to stay. The income gap between White Americans and African Americans has largely held steady over time. Whites make about 70% more money than African Americans in America. A 70% decrease in income is enough to price almost anyone out of a gentrifying neighborhood. 

As you can see from the graph above, home prices skyrocketed after 2000 and in the following decade prices nearly tripled. Income certainly did not, especially not for African Americans. Nobody knows exactly what will happen over the next ten years, but we may actually start to see a full reversal. Suburbs may eventually be reserved for lower-income non-White groups while wealthy individuals mostly white will be concentrated in the urban core. 

San Francisco Inequality

San Francisco's Wealth Gap

Over the past decade or so San Francisco has become one of America's success stories. The city is known as a hotspot for technology companies such as Facebook, Yahoo and Google. These large companies have brought countless high-wealth jobs and opportunities to the Bay Area. It is easy to just focus on the success of the city, but the newfound wealth of the area has brought many challenges as well. The price increases that have come along with high-wage earners have begun to price out long time residents of the city, which is creating a strong divide between the rich and poor in the city.

In 2003 the average rent in San Francisco was around $1,700 but today is has risen all the way to $2,800. That is nearly double in ten years. That isn't a problem is you happen to have a high paying job in the technology industry, but it presents problems for San Francisco's long-time population of artists and small business owners. These groups may have seen their incomes rise slightly over the last ten years, but not fast enough to keep up with rising housing costs. Rather than feeling wealthier over time, many long time San Francisco residents have slipped down the lifestyle ladder.

Over the past several years, GDP has increased in San Francisco while median income levels have dropped. This is a sure sign of rising inequality. Despite the rising tide, food stamps are at a ten year high and homelessness is increasing at a dramatic rate. All the while, luxury coaches bus technology workers from the city to nearby Silicon Valley every day for work, ignoring the realities of the world outside. Right now the San Francisco area is home to record levels of both millionaires and impoverished households. 

Can You Live Where You Work?

Cost of Living vs. Income

Americans often complain about their long commutes as traveling 45 minutes or more to and from work each day has become the norm. The natural response to this is to suggest moving closer to work. It is certainly true that moving closer to work would alleviate some of the stresses of commuting, but often times it is not economically possible to do so. 

To give a quick example, this graph shows the change in income and rent prices in the New York City area. As you can see, rents have risen while incomes have fallen slightly. For the "average" person in this circumstance, they have had less and less money available to pay their ever increasing rent payment. At some point, this "average" person will experience a drop in lifestyle if they remain in New York City or they will have to move away from the city to live in a cheaper apartment while maintaining their lifestyle. 

According to a study by the Manhattan Rental Market, the average price to rent an apartment in Manhattan is now $3,822 per month, or  $45,864 per year. The common rule is that you should not spent more than 30% of your annual income on housing. So in order to afford living in Manhattan, you would need an average of $152,880 per year in income. Most professions averages do not make the cut. For example, the average Manager makes about $108,000, Professors make around $73,000 and Judges make an average of $126,000. We think of all of these occupations as high-wealth and respected, but you need to be better than average in order to make it in Manhattan. One of the only people who could live comfortably here is an anesthesiologist who makes an average of $232,000. 

Interestingly enough, 1.6 million people actually live in Manhattan. These people must either be quite wealthy, work several jobs or live in more dangerous sections of the city. 

Montreal Highlights

The Best Parts of Montreal

As you may know, I just returned from a weeklong trip to Montreal. I haven't posted at all while I have been gone, but now that I am back I wanted to share some of the highlights of my trip with all of you. First of all I have to say that Montreal is a beautiful city and it is probably my favorite place that I have visited so far. Many things about the city are very progressive and it seems to do a lot of things really well. I give it an A for urban planning! I will post pictures of some of the places that I went that I really enjoyed!

As a side note, I wanted to mention that the city is huge. I spent about five days just walking from place to place and I feel that I still missed entire neighborhoods within the city. And when I say I walked I really mean it. I used a Jawbone Up Pedometer to measure my distance and I ended up walking 60 miles!!

Underground City

These two pictures I took while I was walking around in Montreal's Underground City. At first I was really skeptical and I wondered what an underground city was, but I quickly found out! It is a network of interconnected malls, apartments, shops, businesses and subway stops that can all be reached without stepping outside. This is really useful in the winter when temperatures rarely rise above freezing. I wasn't sure what exactly to expect, but many parts of this subterranean maze were quite beautiful. All in all, the Underground spans about 18 miles of downtown. Of course I only got to see a small portion of this, but it was completely worth it.

Old Port

The Old Port area was one of the biggest surprises for me. I didn't even really expect to visit the area but I sort of stumbled upon it by mistake. It is one of the oldest parts of the city located on the eastern bank of the St. Lawrence River. There are three long wharfs extending down into the river that have many restaurants and bars. This area is separated from the rest of the city by a long railroad park that runs along the river. It was a bit challenging to get to this area as it was a bit of a walk from the nearest metro station, but it was well worth it. 

Old Montreal

 

This was one area that I knew I had to see. Old Montreal is really the oldest part of the city and it has long cobblestoned streets that are closed to cars in many places during the summer. This part of the city felt very European and the buildings were absolutely stunning. Walking through this area you could really feel that Catholic history of the city. There were also tons of restaurants around here but they tended to be out of my budget!

Parc du Mont-Royal

As expected this was my favorite part of the entire city. The park is essentially a mountain that overlooks the entire downtown and is located right in the center of the city. It is a long walk up the mountain; it probably took me about an hour and a half, but it is certainly worth it. The views from up here are absolutely stunning. I have never been anywhere that has a view that compares to this urban park.

Botanical Gardens

This was one of the most surprising parts of the city. Halfway through the trip I changed hotels and moved to the Northern part of the city and my hotel happened to be right next to the gardens. I wasn't sure at first it it would be worth paying $25 to look at trees and sculptures, but I am so happy that I did! The gardens are collections of giant flower sculptures and some of them stand 20 or 30 feet tall. These were two of my favorite exhibits in the park! 

There are many other things that I could share about the city, but these were some of the quick highlights for me. Besides, I also ran into the problem where I filled up my available space on my iPhone so I had to reduce the number of pictures that I took. If you want to hear more about the trip let me know and I'd be happy to write more about the city!

Cities for the Ultra-Rich

When Money Doesn't Matter

If you have ever been to New York or London you know that it is dangerous to stay for more than a day or two. Not dangerous in the sense of physical danger, but financially. These cities will suck away all of your money and fast. To get by in Manhattan, you need an income of close to $100,000 per year for a modest lifestyle. For the average person, living in an area like this is a real struggle.

Despite the day-to-day struggles for most people, cities like New York attract the world's richest people. For the purpose of this post we will define the "richest" people as those worth over 100 million US Dollars. For people in this income range, luxury is most important. But where do these people actually go? 

Top Five Cities for UltraRich

1. London

2. New York

3. Hong Kong

4. Paris 

5. Singapore

The richest people flock to these metros in droves. In fact, more billionaires live in these places than everywhere else in the world combined! This is because these cities are safe. If you are extremely rich, the thing that you care most about is your own personal safety and stability. At this level of wealth, your only real concerns are death and loss of money! These cities offer political stability and luxury amenities designed to keep you safe. Extreme net worth households care less about education and affordability because neither of these things will help them to become any more rich.

Maybe someday we will all be able to afford to live in London, but for now it will remain a playground for the world's elite. 

Traveling to Montreal

Places I Want to See in Montreal

I am about to leave for a weeklong trip to Montreal and I am publishing this post for two reasons. The first is to let all of my readers know that I will be posting much more sporadically over the next week, and the second is to talk about the places that I want to go in Montreal. I'm hoping that anyone who has been here in the past will let me know what they think of my ideas! I realize that I will have limited time once I arrive and so I will need to pare down my list a bit. Here are my ideas!

 Mont Royal Park

This park I feel is a must. It is a huge hilltop that overlooks the downtown of the city. I really hope that it is as pretty as it has seemed from pictures. The name Montreal actually is said to come from this park.

Musee de la Basilique Montreal

Despite the fact that I am not a religious person, I do admire cathedrals for their architectural beauty. I have been to many nice churches in the past, but the photos of this one seem amazing! I really want to check it out.

Old Montreal

Old Montreal was the first part of the city to be built. Roads here are cobblestoned and there is a strong French flair. This is consistently ranked as one of the must-see parts of the city!

Montreal Botanical Garden

I am usually not super interested in things like botanical gardens, but I have been recommended to see this spot. I am excited to see if the gardens are as interesting as they seem to be from pictures!

Olympic Stadium

Fortunately my hotel is right next to the stadium so I do not think I will be able to miss it. It looks great again from pictures, but I wonder if there is anything interesting inside or if it just looks nice from the outside. I have also heard that you can ride up the tower for panoramic views of the city!

Underground City

This is my final attraction on my list and I may miss it. Montreal seems to rave about the underground city as a way to keep warm in the winter but as of my last check, the weather looks like it will be great for my trip so I may not want to venture underground!

I will say that I am proud of myself for being able to make this list! I haven't actually been yet but I was able to think of these places from memory, so hopefully I will have a successful trip once I arrive! Let me know if I'm missing anything important!

Creating Urban Retail

Walkable Shopping for Cities

One of the best ways to bring people to a city is by having an attractive array of popular stores and boutiques for them to visit. When retail shops begin to pop up in an area of a city, planners should know that they have done something right. You may think that it's as easy as zoning for retail spaces, but there are many factors that increase the likelihood of bringing shoppers into your city.

Newbury Street Shopping Boston, MA

Mostly Retail: Though this is a bit of a paradox it is true. In order to have a successful retail district, most of the street frontage in an area should be devoted to retail. Non-shopping buildings in between stores decrease a pedestrians desire to keep walking. The more gaps you have between shopping locations, the less time the average person will spend shopping! Bringing more stores to an area only can help.

Walkable: Sure anyone can shop at a mall. Malls can be built anywhere from the most posh city to the emptiest little town. Malls will not help. To really create a successful city, the stores should be a part of the city, not trapped inside a mega-structure. In order to facilitate the success of stores out in cities at large, they need to be accessible by foot. If people cannot get to the shopping area or do not feel comfortable walking around for long period of time, they will not.

Safe: Nobody wants to shop when they feel threatened in any way. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Safety is the most important need and it comes before any other desires. In order to care about shopping, the shoppers must not be worried about crime. Sorry Detroit, now's not a great time for you to add in some expensive stores!

Harmonious: One of the last ways to increase the likelihood of success in a retail district is to make sure that the area has a unique but consistent feel. Shoppers should be able to walk through the shopping area and see buildings built in similar styles and heights. Lots of variety can confuse a shopper into feeling like the area is haphazard or that it may abruptly end when it does not. At the same time, you want your retail area to stand out from the rest of the city. It should not appear to have appeared by accident.

Mealku: Urban Food Sharing

Mealku Food Sharing Application

As a sign of just how interconnected we are becoming, New York City has an ambitious new company called Mealku that is striving to promote the sharing of food among strangers. In the past we have seen other somewhat intimate forms of sharing. ZipCar allows strangers to share cars, Airbnb allows strangers to share their homes and decades old consignment shops allow strangers to share clothes. Many of these ideas have seemed controversial at first but have proved to be extremely beneficial to all parties involved. Meal-sharing brings the amount of trust and concern to a whole new level, but it will likely still be a great new innovation.

How Mealku Works

Before discussing why Mealku is such a great idea, we should look at exactly how it works. Right now, the company exists only in New York City but has plans to expand to other cities in the near future; food sharing can only reach it's niche market in large cities. The concept behind Mealku is that most people prepare more food than they can eat at once. Inevitably that leaves the average person with leftovers. You are then faced with a choice. Do you keep eating the same meal for several days and get sick of it, or do you throw away the leftovers? 

What if there were another option? Rather than throwing away those extra tacos or eating them for days, what if you could give them away? That's the idea behind Mealku. When you have made extra food, you can display it on the Mealku app for other users to see. You earn points for the food that you put onto the app.

Now the other side. You are a busy person and you are very hungry. There are plenty of places to get fast-food but you would much rather cook a healthy meal for yourself. But you just don't have time. The Mealku app allows you to choose fast-food like speed options that have been home prepared by other people. You see the tacos and think wow I would love a taco and so you order one.

Mealku delivery staff bridge the gap between the cook and the consumer by picking up the food from one location and delivering it to the next, free of charge. The cook earns points by cooking and the consumer spends points to buy food. You don't need to cook to earn points, you can also use money. The point system is intended to reward cooks. Another note is that Mealku will inspect your kitchen before allowing you to cook, this is intended to provide a quality control.

Mealku's Benefits

As people start to use Mealku, we begin to as a society realize great benefits. First and foremost we reduce food waste. Every year millions and millions of tons of food that could be eaten are just thrown away. Companies like Mealku can cut into these numbers and increase the efficiency of our food distribution system. On a large scale, bringing alignment between food supply and demand could help to control food prices and ensure that everybody gets fed. This is so important but until now it has been hard to achieve.

The large scale gains translate into economic benefits for everyone involved. It costs extra money to purchase and cook food that you ultimately throw away. It also wastes your precious time. Assume 20% of your food is extra and becomes wasted. If you spend $100 per week on groceries you are essentially shredding $20 per week, $80 per month, $1040 per year! Now you can recuperate these losses because someone else is paying you for these excesses. 

Finally we should look at the health benefits. By engaging with a company like Mealku we reduce our reliance on fast-food. Rather than eating quick unhealthy food from McDonalds, you now have the option of getting quick healthy food via Mealku. Think about how much healthier we could be if everyone stopped eating at fast-food restaurants. Even if you were the type of person to avoid fast-food, you may sometimes be stuck eating leftovers. It is important to have a balanced diet and so removing repetition from meals is a great way to make sure that all food groups are being covered. 

End of the Exurbs

Bedroom Communities are Becoming Extinct

The last economic recession has exaggerated many already occurring trends within American society. As the real estate bubble collapsed and incomes fell, homeownership fell from Americans priority lists. For the first time, housing sizes started to decline and foreclosure rates ticked up. The insatiable search for cheap land far from cities upon which to build affluent communities came to a crashing halt. Suddenly and poignantly, exurbs fell apart.

This is a screen shot from Google Maps. This is a suburban development north of Atlanta. During the recession some houses were built and people moved in, but the community was never finished. The people who do live here need to drive upwards of one hour to reach downtown Atlanta. Scenes like this litter the country. 

People began to realize that it was not sustainable to live further and further from cities. Highways became increasingly congested and commutes lengthened. Suddenly it was no longer appealing to drive for two hours each day just to get to and from work. For this reason, three years after the end of the recession, these areas still remain unfinished. The American Dream has changed and far flung communities have fallen apart. Rather than being a part of a thriving commuter town, many who have remained in the furthest suburbs have found themselves living in quiet ghost towns. 

Here are some other pictures of communities that have been stopped dead in their tracks. These photos are screen shots from Google Maps of exurban Phoenix and Las Vegas.

Connecting Amtrak to Airports

Connecting Trains to Planes

Right now there are only two airports in the United States, Burbank and Newark, that have a connection to an Amtrak station. This means when you fly to or from any airport, you almost always have to get to your destination by car. In order to increase the overall functionality of our public transportation system, I feel that any city that has both an airport and a rail connection should make sure to connect the two services. The picture below shows the Newark airport. Interestingly enough, this airport allows passengers to purchase plane and train tickets together in one transaction! Imagine if that were possible everywhere.

I realize that it would be expensive to make these connections in lots of cities, but I think that if all cities made this investment, it would be well worth it. The combined value of a network of airports and trains exceeds the value of each service on its own.

Intended Use

One of the most important reasons to bring airports and trains together is a desire to maximize the intended use for each type of transportation. Right now if you need to get somewhere you may have to fly a very bizarre route and some of your flights may be very short. For example, I recently flew 40 minutes from Philadelphia to Providence. Long-distance travel is ideal for planes because of their speed, but trips less than about 200 miles should actually rely on trains. This is because you can get right onto a train without airport security. If you are traveling less than 200 miles you will move faster by train than plane due to security checkpoints. Short trips like this are also much cheaper by train. 

Layover Pain

Another problem with short-distance flights is layovers. Again I will use my example for my Philadelphia - Providence flight. SIX hour layover for a 40 minute flight. My total travel time was about seven hours on this leg of my trip; I flew from Miami to Philadelphia in about four. Because of their shorter distance optimization and ability to stop at several locations, trains run more frequently. If there had been a train station in Philadelphia, I could have probably caught a Boston bound train within half an hour of my flight and stopped in Providence an hour or so later. This would have gotten me home faster and cheaper. Reducing layover congestion may be bad for airport vendors, but I think it would be good for just about any traveler.

Car Reliance

Right now when we travel, we usually end up paying twice for cars. We pay once to leave our car idle in the airport for several days and we pay again to rent another car when we arrive at our destination. Often times the only reason we need to rent a car is so that we can leave the airport; we then drive to our resort or hotel and either stay put or rely on public transportation. But we still have to pay for the car. If we could get out of the airports on a comfortable train that would take us closer to our destination, sometimes rental cars could be cut out! Not to mention that if we could take a train to the airport we would not have to pay to let our car sit in the lot. Besides, the fun of vacations do not come from renting cars. Cars are not "fun", they are methods of transportation to and from fun. If we could take out the expense of cars without reducing our ability to have fun, that would be a welcome development. 

Ban Cars from City Centers

Reasons to Ban Cars

I was doing some reading yesterday about how London has a goal of becoming the first car free city by 2050. I began to wonder why other cities were not doing the same thing. I strongly believe that cars are on the decline, but not everyone has realized it yet. New ideas come and eventually the old must go. In the late 1800s many people theorized the end of cities because of horse pollution. Then miraculously cars appeared and horses vanished and for the next 100 years everybody loved cars. But not it is time to start pushing cars the way of horses.

Eventually we would want our cities to look like this. High density areas full of pedestrians, bikers and anyone wishing to use public transportation. While you may be skeptical, I admit that this would not work for every city, but where it does it would be much more efficient than car use and heres why.

Money Savings: According to Investopedia it costs the average American over $9,000 in today's dollars to own a car per year. Given that the average American brings in somewhere between $45 and $50 thousand per year, cars can eat up around 20% of pay. Imagine how much you could save becoming independent of a car. In some cities this is already possible. If you live near Boston's subway line, an unlimited monthly pass costs $70, or $840 per year or 10% of owning a car! Now public transportation may be less luxurious than driving a car, but if it bothers you that much you could always ride a bike or walk for even less money.

Energy Savings: This comes in really two forms. One is that all of a sudden we do not have to worry so much about earth using up all of it's resources. Of course, people outside of cities will still be driving, but overall numbers will go down and perhaps oil prices will fall. This affects you even without a car because oil still powers planes and trains.

Pollution Reduction: I thought this was similar to energy savings, but that it was important enough to get its own category. One of the biggest complaints about cities right now is air quality issues and a big part of the polluted air comes from motorized vehicles. Imagine suddenly there are no cars and pollution would drop dramatically. For anyone who cares about reducing carbon emissions, this is a big deal.

Increased SPEED: I really wanted you to see this one! Right now you may be thinking okay sure but cars are so fast. They are not. Cars can go fast, but only in the absence of other cars. If you really think that you can go fast in a car in the city you are crazy. For example, according to the New York Times traffic in Manhattan tends to move between 7 MPH and 13 MPH. 13 was achieved on days like New Years. You could run that fast. Public transportation and bikes already exceed these dismal car speeds and improving their networks will only serve to increase their speeds in the future.

Safer: Off to the side we have to consider safety. You are much more likely to die in a car than while using public transportation. You are also more likely to kill someone else and then go to jail. Actually, you are more likely to not only hit a person, but maybe a storefront or a monument or some other thing that will cost you your life savings to repair. This should not be the primary reason to reduce car use, but it certainly should not be ignored. 

Public Housing Complexes vs. Housing Vouchers: What's Better?

Why Housing Vouchers Beat Public Housing Complexes

One of the biggest problems that cities have tried to deal with over the last 50 years is what to do with poor residents. There are conflicting ideas about what to do here and the main objective is to reduce crime. Starting around the 1950's, common logic was to build huge towers and place needy families together, think Cabrini Green in Chicago. In this scenario, police knew exactly where the dangerous area was and could step up patrols. Several decades later, these complexes began to be replaced increasingly with voucher systems. Poor residents could live anywhere in the city and became more spread out, but police worried that they would not know where to look for crime.

Cabrini Green, Chicago

It turns out that breaking apart these mega-complexes such as Cabrini Green has been a good things for urban poverty. Despite the fears of middle and upper class residents about their neighborhoods being "polluted" with vouchers, crime rates have declined in cities that have closed their housing complexes and here are some reasons why.

No More Black Holes: Black holes are my nickname for housing complexes because that is how they behave. They literally capture all that is bad in an area and concentrate it all in one place. If you live in a housing complex, you ARE the housing complex. You live in a dangerous environment and everyone that you know lives a similar lifestyle. You have no hope for rising out of the cycle of poverty and are trapped. Simply taking people out of these concentrated bad areas does a lot to improve chances for successful lives.

Break Up Gangs: Say we have two gangs that are fighting for control of a complex. Suddenly, the complex is torn down and residents are dispersed evenly throughout the huge city. Now there are no more gang territories and any theoretical gang concentrations are bisected by blocks of middle and upper class residents. Rather than cities falling into despair as people worried, gang violence actually calms down. Many people are in gangs because they can't escape; creating physical barriers is one huge deterrent to gang retention and formation.

Better Schools and Role Models: This one is most important for children that are growing up in poverty. Living in housing complexes they probably attend school with others like them and are likely surrounded by uneducated people. Moving into a more affluent area, they can attend better schools, receive more attention from teachers and seek to emulate students who may have more support systems at home. Instilling positive images and thoughts into a child is one way to increase his or her likelihood of rising out of poverty.

Reasons to Love Boston

Why Boston is a Great Place to Live

I've lived in New England for my whole life and it is only in the past few years that I have first come to appreciate Boston. Despite the fact that I live about an hour outside the city, I make it a point to commute in at least twice a month to take advantage of all of the different things that the city has to offer. Out of anywhere that I've travelled to, I think that so far Boston is my favorite city. Here are some reasons why this is my favorite city.

Walkability: This is key in my mind to the success of any city. While most cities build mega-highways through downtown that cut off pedestrians, Boston is a city designed for walkers and bikers. Speed limits for cars are low and it is always easy to get from place to place on foot. The subway system provides aid for destinations that are too remote. But overall, the city is one of the best places for just wandering around for a day. Boston was ranked the third most walkable city in the country!

Distinct Neighborhoods: Boston is hundreds of years old; in some neighborhoods you can feel as though you should be about to witness the Revolutionary War while in others your feel 100 years in the future. If you can afford it, Boston can offer you housing in almost any type of area whether it be a single family detached home, high-rise luxury condo or grand brownstone. Each part of the city has it's own unique feeling. 

Entertainment: Often times when I have nothing to do I will go to Boston just to eat, shop and walk around. In most cities I would get bored after a few hours of strolling, but Boston has such great shops and restaurants that it can keep you looking for more all day. The city has a great balance of chain stores and restaurants with unique bistros and boutiques. There is always something to satisfy you whether you are seeking novelty or familiarity. At night the city comes alive with almost unlimited options for dancing, socializing and even karaoke!

Progressive: Walking around Boston you can almost feel the culture of the city. It is one of the most liberal and accepting cities in the country; it makes you feel almost as though you are walking through a European city. The city feels very safe and does not try to keep anyone out. The citizens are politically active and the city really gets involved with the larger community.

Using Carbon Emissions to Measure Success

Measuring the Economy with the Environment

Traditionally, the economic fate of the world has been rendered in GDP. The more that we can produce in a given year, the more successful we are. As the global economy boomed through the industrial age, this measure of output made sense; countries races to see who could build the biggest things the fastest. We have now reached a point in history where many of our past assumptions no longer hold true and thus it is time to redefine what it  means to have a successful economy.

I propose that we use net carbon emissions. We have entered an age where sustainability is now much more important that it was in the past. If all countries were to produce "stuff" as fast as they could, GDP would rise across the world but we may use up all of earths resources. Here are some reasons why I think net carbon emissions could be better than GDP.

We Don't Need More Stuff: This is probably one of the main reasons GDP was so important for so long. Most people for hundreds of years were impoverished and as the world has produced more and more, hundreds of millions have risen out of poverty. We are now at an age where people in developed countries have their needs met and some of their wants as well. Giving more stuff to most people in these countries will not actually make them any better off. So rather than focusing on producing more things for people to consume, we should begin to focus on quality. Net carbon emissions would measure how clean and sustainable our production is and focus on that over rapid growth.

Smaller Scale Measure: Usually GDP is calculated nationally. It is often difficult to find out how one city or region within a country compares to another. Right now we can't really say that San Francisco has a higher GDP growth rate than Houston; we focus so much on macro-information that we lack detail. Net carbon emissions could measure the success of almost any sized area in theory by simply taking air samples. We could see how New York City compares to Philadelphia much more easily. In the aggregate, we could still see large scale numbers for entire countries.

We DO Need Smarter Growth: As I mentioned previously, if we do not change our production habits we will literally run out of resources. Imagine if we continue to build and churn and we end up with no oil, no trees, no fresh water, no natural gas and lots of cars that can't run, pollution and waste. Doesn't sound like a world that I would want to live in, but if we cannot change our global mindset, we may be headed in that direction. If we shave a bit off of our growth, we can build in greener and smarter ways while ensuring that we do not pollute. This way we can still grow and continue to develop new technologies and support larger populations without burning out. 

This may seem like a radical idea and I am not sure that it is the perfect solution, but I firmly believe it is better than what we are doing today. Spread the word, change the world. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Fast-Food "Recovery" into Poverty

Since the end of the last recession, unemployment has fallen from over 10% to around 7.4%. While this is generally good news, many of the newly created jobs since 2010 have come in low-wealth industries such as fast food. In fact, growth in the fast-food industry has been faster than that of any other industry; employment has expanded by over 10% in the past three years. More than 100 cities now see these workers striking for higher wages. The average wage for a fast food employee in the United States is around $8.50 per hour, not nearly enough to live on. The central theme of this strike is to request a wage of $15 per hour.

Given the fact that last year McDonalds reaped after-tax profits of around 6.5 billion dollars, they could probably afford to pay their employees a bit more. 

But I'm more concerned with the bigger picture here. The healthiest portion of our economy happens to be the sector that arguably contributes most to making us unhealthy. Obesity rates continue to rise and yet more and more fast food jobs are created. We know that American need to lose weight, but our new jobs simply expand unhealthy options for Americans. This seems like a huge paradox.

Furthermore, the jobs are not good for the employees either! (Even those who choose not to eat the food) Working for a fast food restaurant where you make close to minimum wage will not allow you to improve your life, it will keep you in poverty. As far as I see it, McDonalds and other unhealthy fast-food chains are almost like a collective black hole. 

These jobs are actually making the country much worse. Employees have almost no opportunity for upward mobility and end up trapped in poverty, patrons use these businesses as a way to become fat and unhealthy and yet the economy grows. Something has to change here. We as a country need to learn to look more into economic numbers and realize what they really mean. A country that grows fatter by the day while expanding low wage job options is not a country heading in a positive direction.

Cities Disrupt Sleep

I would like to think that the entire world could exist living in cities, so I become disappointed when I realize that there are downsides to urban life. Cities are certainly not "natural" places for us to live and as a result they can interfere with some of our natural functions. Life in cities can actually disrupt natural sleep patterns.

Major cities can be lit up almost 24 hours per day. When you walk around at night, you may not even have the perception that it is dark outside. Being constantly surrounded by light can interrupt the body's natural circadian rhythm. As a result, we wake up feeling tired almost everyday when it's time to go to work. 

The human body naturally is set to follow guidelines of sleep from the sun. Before electricity, people would wake up earlier and go to bed earlier, not spending much waking time in the dark. But now as our lives are full of artificial light, sleep patterns have become much more irregular and sleep disorders have become more common. Most people who live in bright urban areas tend to wake up later and fall asleep later than people living further from urban centers. It's not exactly clear why this happens, but the consequences can be frustrating as people struggle to wake up on time in the morning and fall asleep at night.

What Makes a City Feel Safe

Safety from Environmental Clues

Walking through a city at night, most of us will not encounter any problems. Even in the most dangerous cities in America, violent crimes strike no more than about 2% of the population per year. But despite the fact that most people go about their day to day lives unharmed by criminals, some areas really just have "a bad feeling." Sometimes it is just our perception of a place that makes us feel as though it is unsafe; many "bad" areas actually have low crime rates. But what exactly is it about an area that can make it feel more or less safe?

It turns out, there are a lot of things that can make a perfectly nice area feel less safe. Take this picture for example. When I looked at this picture one of the things that stuck out to me was the uncollected trash; it looks rather foreboding. But no imagine the same view with no trash. Then I am apt to see a bike-friendly sidewalk in an open area. That feels like a much safer thought.

Now we will look at some specific examples of what makes a neighborhood feel unsafe.

Trash: As I already mentioned, trash is one of the biggest subconscious indicators of safety. When we see trash on the street we think two things. The first is that the people who live here are either rude or do not care about their community. Both of these things make us worried. The second thought it even more ominous. Uncollected trash is a sign of lackluster city services. If the trash man won't come, how can I be sure that police do? It's an anxiety laden trap, trash does not actually make an area less safe.

Feeling that an area is Lower-Class or Boring: Unfortunately in many people's minds, lower-class and boring go together. In a "boring" neighborhood buildings have similar designs and it is challenging to discern where exactly you are; no landmarks or notable buildings help to guide you. Wandering through an area that seems rather similar and nondescript you may think "why would anyone want to be here?" You assume that nobody makes the choice to be here unless they have to or are too poor to live somewhere else. You then think that because you are in an area that you perceive to be lower-class, your risk for becoming a victim of a crime rises. 

No Pedestrians: Seeing people walking around is comforting. When lots of pedestrians are roaming an area, we assume that it means that this is a tourist friendly area or simply an area where people feel comfortable walking around. We think that other people would not bother to walk if an area was really unsafe so we should not either. This is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than anything. Foot traffic is not actually indicative of fewer crimes.

Distance from Starbucks: I'm serious, Starbucks seems to count, at least in my book. People tend to associate Starbucks with upper-class or tourist areas. If you are visiting a city and see a Starbucks, you know that you are in a nice area. But if you keep walking and begin to realize that you haven't seen your favorite coffee shop for several miles, you may actually begin to worry. 

This map took forever to find so I hope you appreciate it! But look. The touristy areas of DC, namely downtown and the Northwest quadrant are full of Starbucks. Wander into areas where you feel less safe, namely Southeast DC across the Anacostia River, and there is only one location!

Heat Increases Crime

Why Heat Increases Aggression

This topic has implications for those living in cities as well as for people in rural areas. I wanted to talk a bit about the relationship between heat and crime. While it has been establishes that cities are safer than rural areas, both types of areas experience spikes in crime during heat waves and during warmer months in general. 

One of the first studies about heat and aggression was this one shown in the graph. As you can see, hotter weather tends to lead to more riots. Similar studies have been conducted in many cities. Houston, TX for example studied the increase in murder rates that tend to occur during the summer months. So interesting, but what exactly is it that makes people more aggressive in the heat?

Heat Increases Testosterone Production: The hotter it is outside, the more the body naturally produces testosterone. Particularly in men, testosterone production is linked to aggression. The more testosterone a person has, the more statistically likely they are to act in an aggressive way. 

Increased Time Outside: When temperatures rise, more people come out from their homes. Interactions between people increase and alone this enough can increase the likelihood that someone will be involved in a crime. When there are more people in an area, the percentage of people committing crimes may stay the same, but total crimes may increase. Heat almost artificially boosts population by bringing people together.

More Irritable: This one is perhaps the most subjective, but lots of people struggle to sleep when it is too hot. Many people do not have air conditioners and so in the summer have to sleep in extreme temperatures. Heat can make it harder to fall asleep, leading to less sleep per night. When people get less sleep they tend to be more short tempered and irritable. This can lead people to act in more aggressive ways towards others.