Chicago: Segregation and Violence

Violence in Chicago is Black and White

Recently Chicago has made many headlines for the alarming number of homicides that have occurred in the city. This weekend several people were shot, including a young child. But Chicago actually is a city that exists in two totally different worlds. If you are white, the city is one that seems quite safe and full of opportunity, but for African Americans, living in Chicago is often all but pleasant. 

Take a look at this map. It shows just how segregated the city is by race. In fact, Chicago consistently ranks as the most segregated city in the country. Most parts of the city have clear racial majorities, and there is not much overlap.

Huge sections of the city are more than 75% African American and those areas are largely surrounded by hispanic majority areas. You will notice some white sections which are those areas that have no clear majority and outside these areas are the 75% or more White sections of the city. With few exceptions, this is the pattern in the city. It is interesting to note that the University of Chicago is in Hyde Park which is along the right side of the map near the bottom third and surrounded by African American sections. Keep that in mind.

Here is the second map I wanted to show. This map shows the rate of violent crimes in the city from a few years ago. The distribution of crimes has hardly changed over time.

Notice the extreme correlation between African American and hispanic neighborhoods in the first map and the violent crime rate in this map. And look back at Hyde Park. It is clearly the safest neighborhood in an area surrounded by crime and consequently it is the only neighborhood in the area that is not predominantly African American. 

These figures really make me think. It seems that being in Chicago race matters more than almost anywhere else in the country. For the white residents in the city, they can rest easily at night knowing that they feel safe in their homes, but for African Americans it appears this is often not the case.

What I find interesting is that crime really does stick in particular areas. It seems that "safety" has sharply defined lines in the city, but there are no physical barriers to the movement of crime to other areas of the city. For all of the innocent people who are hurt or killed living in Chicago, something's got to change. 

On Making Life Decisions

Life as the Endless Consumer

I think of the word consumer as bad. To me it stirs up images of McDonalds, obesity, crowded McMansions and televisions. I spend most of my time running from the consumer label, but the faster I run, the more I realize that it is impossible to escape. Almost every decision that we make has been commercialized; we have been segmented and targeted by unassuming men holed up in marketing departments. No matter what choices we make, we fit some sort of mold and the notion of individuality slips further from our grasp.

Everyday we must make decisions, some are easy and some are more challenging. We know immediately when we get out of bed that we will walk to the bathroom and brush our teeth with some Crest Toothpaste and then use our Keurig to make some Starbucks coffee. These decisions are almost thoughtless for us, but even these simple morning routines are representative of a larger commercialized reality.

Making Big Decisions

At this point in our society, some decisions still require active thought. I would categorize these as big decisions, things such as where to work and where to live. Granted, not everybody has the luxury of making such choices, but for those who do, they choices can be daunting.

Let's just consider the idea of choosing a place to live and imagine that it is an independent choice and that we can choose anywhere. You might at first be really happy that you have so many choices, but when you think more you realize that whatever you choose will come to represent you as a consumer. 

San Francisco, Paris, London, Sydney, Nebraska, Alaska, Hawaii: all of these places represent something different. You will have to think long and hard before you make a choice, but that choice ultimately will help to define you further as a consumer. 

Choice Creates Anxiety

Even choice itself is a paradox. We all think that we want more options so that we can make sure we choose something that's really the best, but when presented with a seemingly unlimited number of choices, we feel unhappy. The more options we have, the more likely we are to feel regretful for having not chosen a particular thing and the more we will worry about whether or not we are making the right choice. There probably is always a "best" choice, but finding it can elicit so much stress.

People are actually happiest when they have no choices because they are most willing to accept whatever the condition is that they are given. In many ways this runs counter to the notions of freedom and free will. So we cannot eliminate choices; to do so would run against the common will of our society. 

Searching for Happiness

So what do we do? Everyday new brands are created and more things are commercialized and as a result, the number of choices that we have is ever increasing. At the same time, our satisfaction is decreasing for the same reason. But an attempt to reduce choice may put us on the path towards an autocratic society. 

I believe that the main purpose in life is to find happiness. The more clutter there is in the world, the harder that happiness is to find. It seems that the key is becoming independent of consumerism, but I'm not sure that we as a society know how. 

Paying People not to Drive

Using Money to Get Cars Off the Roads

I recently wrote a post about traffic congestion and how small decreases in driving levels can lead to huge reductions in traffic. A study had found that even when given the option to take public transportation to work and that even when it would be cheaper and result in less travel time, Americans prefer to travel by car. Instead of just hoping that people would get off the roads, the government could step in and start paying people not to.

Yes I'm talking about a government subsidy. Before you write me off as crazy I would like to remind you that the government subsidizes all types of things, such as not to grow crops.

If we could reduce driving by even 5% during rush hour, commutes would be much more pleasant for the other 95%. I believe that the best way to go about a program like this is to develop a contract of some sort where a driver agrees to take public transportation in a city say 1 day per week and on that day not drive and in exchange the city could pay for the cost of his or her transportation. One caveat is that this program could only work in very dense cities with good transportation networks such as New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.

I have a budget plan as well. This program would not be free and I do not advocate increasing the deficit. I think that in cities that enact this program they should also create a density gas tax. Gas stations would be charged a gas tax in proportion to the density of the area. The tax would be highest in the densest areas because it is in these areas that public transportation usage would help the most and therefore those who do choose to drive and fill up in these areas would have to pay extra. In return this money would go into a fund to pay for the public transportation subsidy.

My plan may be radical, but I bet it would make everyone's days go a bit smoother and faster on the roads. 

Why Do Commuters Choose Cars?

Driving Through Traffic: The Car Effect

Everyone that I know hates driving in traffic. Most people claim that they wish that there were ways to avoid traffic, but everyday we get into our cars and drive the same familiar clogged routes to and from work. It may seem that this is the only option, but in many cases this is not true. A study has recently uncovered the "car effect" which shows that people tend to take cars over public transit even when it is less efficient and more expensive to do so. 

This chart may at first seem difficult to understand, but it is the result of a car vs. metro decision study. The graph oh the left shows the percentage of commuters who chose a car each day. The two lines through the graph represent different levels of traffic. Traffic becomes "annoying" at the lower line and "unbearable" at the upper dotted line, depending on how many people are in their cars. The chart on the left shows the cost each day of taking the car vs. taking the metro. In general, cars were more expensive due to traffic gas costs.

Applying this to Boston

I am not familiar with the public transportation options available in all cities across the country, but I can speak to Boston. If you ever need to get into the city at rush hour, you will notice that no matter what highway you are on, I-90, I-93, I-95 or I-495, you will be stuck in traffic unless you leave your house before 6 A.M. Here is a map so you can visualize the structure of the highways in and around the city. As you can see, only I-90 and I-93 even head directly into the city, but all four of the routes that I mentioned are extremely congested.

The second map that I have added is a map of current traffic in the city; by now rush hour is over and you will see that there is still extreme congestion. Without traffic it would take me 45 minutes to get downtown, but if I were to leave at 7:30 it would take me until 9:00.

So why do Boston commuters put up with this rush every day? They don't need to. The reason that I wanted to focus on Boston is that the city has an impressive network of subway stops and commuter rail stations. This following map shows the entire commuter rail and subway network together; you will see that the stops listed stretch even beyond I-495 all the way to Worcester and Providence, typically accepted as the furthest typical daily commute locations.

Coming to and from Boston, commuters in almost any town have the option of taking the train to and from work. A recent study on Boston indicated that a 1% decrease in road traffic would lead to an 18% decrease in traffic congestion time in the city. This is huge, if there were just a 1% increase in train traffic, commutes for those who did choose to drive would become much more manageable. Not to mention that when you choose to take a train, you will usually save money; no need to worry about tolls, gas or parking costs in the city. Some people even can start their day early and work on the train. To me, this seems like the perfect solution.

Love in the Urban, Modern World

Love vs. Economic Opportunity

In my posts I tend to focus a lot on the technical aspects of urban planning, but it is important to think about how our increasingly urban society actually effects us as people. Over the last 50 years we have become both more urban and more mobile; this can often present unique challenges to people in serious relationships, especially when children are involved. There was a time not so many years ago when men were expected to bring home all of the income for a family and things were less complicated as a result. If a job opportunity presented itself far from home, the man would take it and his wife and kids would follow. While moving around like this would still effect the family, the effects have become even greater today as more and more relationships are composed of two income-earners.

We are Increasingly Mobile People

Now more than ever before, Americans are likely to have a variety of jobs between the beginning and end of their careers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average person can now expect to have between 12 and 15 jobs in their lifetime. These jobs could all be in the same area, but that seems unlikely. It has also become much harder to find a stable job over the last ten years, which makes it harder for a person to turn down the opportunity to relocate for a new position. The Census Bureau estimates that after age 18, the average American will move 9 times. 

How Love Fits In

Imagine this. You are an eager college graduate ready to take the best job that you can find. You find one job that you are happy with but you know that every few years you will need to move to a totally new area and that you will have to do lots of traveling. This sounds like a great opportunity and you have always wanted to travel. It would be so easy for you to move from place to place and you are excited about the prospects of seeing the world.

But not so fast. Your significant other, also a recent grad, has a similar opportunity with a different company. Now what?

In 1950 the answer to this question would have been easy; the situation surrounding it would be in all likelihood very different. A man would have this great opportunity and he might already be engaged or married after college to a woman who he would expect to bear children and stay at home. The man would have taken the job and his wife or girlfriend would have followed.

But now that women and men have the same (hopefully) opportunities in the workforce, this is so much more complicated. Not to mention the fact that there are so many new relationships that were not acknowledged years ago. We could be talking about a homosexual pair or a pair with a large age gap. The world is no longer so black and white. 

Now What?

Right so it is extremely complicated. Both people have the opportunity to take jobs in different cities and both people want to focus on their careers. One person could follow the other, but they would likely have to give up some of their career opportunities. Many couples try to avoid this problem, but it is almost bound to come up at some point when the world has become so mobile.

In this situation you have a variety of choices, none of which are clearly better than the others and each requires a lot of sacrifice. You could both take the jobs and enter into a long-distance relationship or break up. You could try to prioritize careers by who will make the most money (what a depressing conversation). Or you could both skip out on your offers and continue to search for jobs in the same area. 

It comes down to a very dreary choice: for love or prosperity? There are many cases where you can end up with both, but you will have to make a leap of faith in one direction or another and hope that the other part will follow. No matter what choices are made, there is ample opportunity for resentment either of one's partner or of one's career. 

As of now, I cannot think of an efficient or reasonable solution to this modern love problem.  

Manhattan Should Keep Building

Manhattan Needs More Growth

New York City is currently stuck in a bit of a public battle over growth. Many longtime residents of New York become displeased when their favorite buildings and neighborhoods are torn down in order to make way for new development. As the city has recently tried to rezone parts of Manhattan to allow for new growth, many residents have raced to designate buildings, blocks and entire neighborhoods as historic districts to prevent future growth. While it is true that Manhattan today has a particular image that is quite popular to its residents, I believe that the city must continue to grow in order to maintain it's global status.

Manhattan is a World Leader

New York City has long served as a major world hub. The centers of fashion, finance, media and culture are all metaphorically located on the island of Manhattan. This did not happen by chance. New York City has long embraced growth by outbuilding other world cities. It has attracted so much talent and people hoping to make it flock into the city to pursue their dreams. If the city decided to stop building and innovating by emphasizing historic areas, another city would step up and take away the people who define New York. To hold onto and continue to attract new talented people and companies the city has to show itself as being on the cutting edge.

Built on the Future, not the Past

Similarly, New York's main status is being a forward thinking city of the future. Manhattan has historically always lead the push to build bigger and grander. The value of living or working here is in opportunity and that opportunity is the intangible value of social mobility through growth. New York City is expensive, but it can be because those who live there expect to be able to make something of themselves and ultimately afford the costs. There is some comfort knowing that the best and biggest companies want to come into the city and will be willing to pay a premium for workers once they arrive. If people stopped believing in the city and felt that it could no longer promise growth, the city may face decline. There are plenty of global cities that stay rooted in the past, but New York City defines itself by its stance strongly aligned with that of the future.

Manhattan Can Take More People

One of the main arguments against building further up in New York City is that Manhattan cannot possibly handle an influx of more people. It is true that the city is quite crowded, but it has been more crowded in the past. In 1910 according to the Census Manhattan had 2.3 million residents, today it has only 1.6 million. Not only were the more than half a million extra people at that time, but they lived much flatter. Back then the city did not have residential high-rise towers that can give people more personal space; most of the people in 1910 lived close to the ground. Since then Manhattan has increased height and dramatically improved the quality of public transit options. Saying that the city is too big puts an artificial limit on future growth potential.

Worcester Traffic Cameras

Worcester Drivers Ignore Traffic Lights

There is a little known secret here in Worcester about traffic lights. If you are driving around you will notice that many lights have cameras, especially at major intersections. You will also notice quite often that drivers will completely ignore red lights and drive right through with no hesitation almost as if the camera were not able to see them. For a while I was really perplexed. 

It turns out the cameras don't work! A few years ago the city realized that it's drivers ignored road rules and so decided to pay a company to install these lights. The idea was that the camera would capture offenders and they would be issued moving violation citations. Great idea except that city voters quietly voted against the cameras after they were installed. So now lights have cameras but they don't do anything! People who don't know this or who aren't from Worcester have a tendency to pay more attention to their driving because the cameras scare them. But it explains why Worcester residents in the know drive right through red lights.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing! First of all, running lights is dangerous. We have lights so that people do not cause accidents. Whether or not you will get caught it is not safe to drive through red lights. Turning on the cameras would increase the likelihood that drivers would obey traffic signals and could reduce accidents and injuries.

Another reason to turn on the lights is simply budgetary. It was essentially wasted money to install cameras that won't be used, but if they were used the city could generate some extra cash from increased citations. The money could be put towards improving the conditions of the city's roads which seems to be in a constant state of disrepair.