American Pleasant Weather

Areas with the Best Weather

A new interactive map was created today that charts weather across the country. It is designed to show which cities have the most pleasant weather. The map defines pleasant as an average daily temperature between 55 - 75, with no drop below 45 or heat above 85. There also must be no rain or snow. All five of the country's "best weather cities" are in California; Los Angeles tops the list with 183 days of pleasant weather each year.

If you are interested in seeing how your city stacks up, follow the link to the interactive map and type in your zip code! 

P.S. for those of us living in the Northeast, most cities register somewhere around an unfortunate 55 days of pleasant weather, a far cry from Southern California!

Women, Marriage and Prosperity

Why Poor Women Have A Harder Time Rejecting Marriage

Over the past several years, many Americans have seen their dreams put on hold. Individuals within our society often struggle just to keep afloat, despite the many things that weigh them down. Unfortunately for women, marriage, or rather, the lack thereof, has become one such weight.

It would be nice if love was the only factor in the modern marriage game, but unfortunately it is not. For women especially, socioeconomic status plays a huge role in whether or not a marriage will occur and why. Let me explain.

Sarah and Mary

Let's consider two women on opposite ends of the income ladder, Mary and Sarah. Mary is a successful lawyer who lives comfortably in a spacious Manhattan condo. Sarah is a single mother of two who works at a fast food restaurant and at a Walmart. Despite their hectic lives, both women fall in love. As her relationship gets more serious, Mary begins to contemplate marriage. She considers whether or not binding herself to a man will restrict her independence, slow her career progression or contribute in some way to a male dominated world. As Sarah contemplates marriage, she thinks of raising her two children on two incomes rather than one. For Sarah, the prospect of marriage could mean not having to worry about going to bed hungry.

Both women are in love, but their relative needs are quite different. The wealthy Mary has the privilege of considering marriage in an abstract way, and wondering how it may affect her future lifestyle. Mary has a lot of power in deciding whether or not to get married. Struggling Sarah on the other hand, sees marriage as a question of love, but also one of opportunity. Sarah's decision on whether to marry has an immediate and tangible affect on her own lifestyle and on that of her children. Effectively, she has less power.

Now of course, Sarah and Mary are completely made up. But their stories parallel the reality of being a woman in America. Without using a value-judgment, the fact remains that married women tend to have brighter economic outcomes than unmarried women. And for women floating around the poverty line, this matters a lot.

Compare the top line to the bottom line: married working woman vs. unmarried working woman. Think back to struggling Sarah and imagine the improvement in her life and her children's lives if she moves from the red line to the green line. Mary, who is already floating above the green line, does not care.

Judgment Free Reality

My goal here is not to claim that poor women should get married or that men should rescue women from their sad lives. These numbers are in many ways representative of the persistent and unfair gaps in pay between men and women. But regardless of how fair or unfair these numbers are, they are reality. Sure we can and should work to make changes here, but for right now, marriage is an important predictor in lifestyle.

When I said judgment free I lied, I do have one judgment before I close. Our society always teaches young girls to want marriage and to hope for it. Girls dream about their wedding days and plan them out for years. But what about young boys? Our society never tells boys that love is important. We teach boys to follow their dreams and make big changes in the world with their careers. For boys, love is taught to be an afterthought. Perhaps this is the real problem. 

Hidden Costs of Commuting

How Commuting Hurts Us

In 2012 the average American spent about 25 minutes commuting to work every day each way. Some lucky Americans can get to work in 5 to 10 minutes, while others have to spend upwards of an hour commuting each way. Often we write off our commutes as something that does not matter and will not affect our quality of life, but this simply is not the case.

This map shows most of southern New England commute times. Lighter colors represent shorter commutes and tend to cover areas of cities while more suburban areas tend to be shaded by darker colors. Living further from the city center has a strong relationship with increased commute times.

Does Commuting Really Matter?

Yes. Let's do the math. If you are an "average" commuter you will spend 50 minutes per day moving from place to place. This may not sound bad on it's own, but if you extrapolate this over a typical 50 working week per year 40 year career, you have wasted 347 days commuting to and from work, the equivalent of almost an entire year. 

Long commutes also correlate with higher health risks. An article from The New York Times showed that longer commutes correlate with high blood pressure, obesity and cardiovascular disease. And interestingly enough, in Manhattan where people have some of the shortest and most active commutes, the average person weighs 7 pounds less than the average American. 

Just Think

Sometimes it is not possible to eliminate a long commute, but we often have more choice in our lives than we realize. Rather than ignoring the effect of a commute on your own personal well being, I ask that before making a decision about where to work or live, you at least consider how you will feel about spending so much time commuting every day. 

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. 

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. 

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.

Sprawl Makes Children Fatter

Sprawl and Obesity

Many decades ago, children could walk almost anywhere they wanted to go on a day to day basis. It was a short walk to school, to a friends house and maybe even to the park. Kids spent lots of time outside socializing and wandering from place to place with friends. Today this is no longer the case. Kids can hardly get anywhere without the help of a car. It's making kids gain weight.

The first study on sprawl and obesity was published in 2008 and it confirmed that residents who live in car dependent communities tend to weight more. One way to show this trend is the increase in school bus ridership. As school have become further and further from residences, children have needed to travel further and now about half of school-aged children ride the bus every day to get to school.

What do we do?

There is no simple way of solving this problem because really there are two problems, obesity and sprawl. The relationship between the two is not perfect; there are other factors which influence both sprawl and obesity. But one clear step that can be taken is moving people back into cities. Reducing dependency on cars increases walkability and decreases sprawl at once. However, even urban living does not really solve the problem. Some cities like New York and Boston are well suited for walking while others require you to use a car for almost everything even if you live downtown. 

Sometimes it is better to recognize that you have a problem before trying to search for a solution. These issues are complex and need to be fully understood before halfheartedly attempting to resolve them. 

Dealing with Shrinking Cities

Defending What's Left of Declining Cities

Despite the fact that we like to imagine that over time cities always become larger and more prosperous this is not always the case. In the United States an entire region of cities has been declining in prestige and population for about 50 years. This area is the upper midwest and is known as the Rust Belt. Cities such as Detroit (more on that later), St. Louis, Youngstown and Flint have been shrinking for decades. Public officials have either turned a blind eye or just hoped that trends would reverse. As these areas lost manufacturing jobs that were at the base of the economy, they have been forced to cut back.

I wanted to show you a picture of Detroit specifically. It is the highlight of urban decline and it's population has dropped from a peak of 1.8 million to around 700,000.

This is only one neighborhood, but it is largely representative of the whole city. Notice that a once full residential neighborhood stands with fewer than 50% of the houses remaining. This problem plagues Detroit. The city has a large size but because residents are so dispersed and density is low, city services are strained.

But what do we do?

1. Accept Shrink

The first step to fixing any problem is always acknowledging that it exists. Clearly some cities have a dramatic shrinking problem. Often times, city boundaries were created large to accommodate high density population; it makes sense that if it was known that the population would shrink, the city would have been designed smaller.

2. Centralize  

This could be a challenge. I propose literally moving people out of the abandoned reaches and into the urban core. This will do two things. First, it will allow the city to cut services to outlying areas because they will truly be abandoned. Secondly, increased density in a central urban area will make the city FEEL bigger. This can help residents to cope and may restore some faith in the community. Bringing people together may also increase business activity in the central core of the city.

3. Defend What's Left

Rather than continuing to reduce the size of the central core, revitalize downtown and make the city more livable. Make the center of a city that people want to come to and want to stay in. Rebuilding downtown and bringing a in new businesses will bolster the economy and hopefully help to stop the exodus. If this does not happen, the city will probably keep shrinking!

It is certainly not easy to deal with a shrinking city and by no means is shrink the "fault" of urban designers. Many factors relate to why people may want to leave a city. It sometimes takes radical and creative approaches to turn things around. My next post will be about Detroit and it's specific dilemna.

What Price Would You Pay For Fun?

Cities are Fun

Yesterday I mentioned that one of the downsides to living in a city is that there are often more restrictions than when living in rural areas, but on the flip side, cities tend to be much more fun as well. Most large cities offer a variety of different services that appeal to almost anyone. Things to do could be visiting parks, museums, shopping, trying new restaurants and cafes, exploring different neighborhoods or enjoying nightlife.

For the past decade or so, cities have increased their "fun" offerings in hopes of appealing to younger crowds of people. In general this has worked in many areas and young people really want to move downtown after graduating from college. 

One of the problems with this is the cost. Cities are extremely expensive. Adding more and more fun activities to one's day only increases prices further. What is interesting to me is that people in their 20s are the most likely to want to engage in many of the activities that cities offer, but they are the least likely to be able to afford these things. It seems that there is a disconnect between desires and abilities. The older you get, the more money you are likely to have but the less you will be enthralled with the idea of living close to the urban core. 

My next post will examine the phenomena behind the disconnect between age and money. 

Big Cities Lead to Less Freedom

Cities Require More Laws

For the most part, I try to be as logical as possible. I profess myself to be a huge supporter of cities and urban lifestyles, but today I wanted to examine a noteworthy disadvantage of city life. It turns out that the more tightly packed people are, the more laws are enacted. Thinking on a simplistic level this makes sense.When people have less personal space, more boundaries need to be set in place to manage and fairly allocate this space.

I chose this rather daunting sky-level view of New York City to remind everyone of just how crowded cities can be.

Let's consider some common regulations that are found in cities, but usually not in urban areas.

Noise Restrictions

Leash Laws

Parking Regulations

Strict Recycling Mandates

Rental Limitations

Utility Limitations

Transit Zones: Pedestrian vs. Bike vs. Car

Depending on the specific city, there may be more or less crowding specific legislation. But regardless, most of these legal codes do not exist in rural areas since they tend to correlate with lack of space. Take parking regulations for example. Small towns tend to have an abundance of wide roads that experience low traffic; parking cars on streets overnight does not cause any disruptions. On the other hand, many cities have narrow multi-lane streets that are always congested. If a car were to park here for any amount of time, chaos would ensue. 

While I still think that cities win out, it is important to be fully aware of the trade offs that come from moving from urban to rural and vice versa. Tomorrow I will write a bit more about what benefits cities have to confer that rural areas cannot provide.

Wealth and Energy Savings

Wealthier Americans Spend Less on Energy

A couple of years ago my family renovated our kitchen. Included in our new kitchen was a set of brand new energy efficient appliances all of which came with tags stating energy usage. For example, our dishwasher claimed to use only about $25 worth of electricity per year. If we assume the average dishwasher uses about $50 - $60 per year in energy, this is a savings of over 50%. Let's assume that my dishwasher cost $700 and an average dishwasher costs $400. If I am saving about $30 per year on energy costs, after 10 years of owning the more efficient dishwasher, it will have paid for itself.

This concept was true not only of my dishwasher, but of all of my other appliances. I know that this in fact is a common trend. Spending more up front on energy efficiency will allow long term savings. After say 15 years of having a kitchen full of high-quality appliances, one will actually have paid less than someone who created an average kitchen up front. 

I suppose that I find this a bit disconcerting. In cases like these, being wealthy actually ends up in a way creating more wealth by generating long term savings. Because not everyone can afford the most efficient appliances and homes, most people end up paying more than they need to over the long term and have lower quality standards than wealthier individuals. Not only do those in lower income groups suffer because of costs, the things that are bought in lower price ranges tend to have more problems and require more repairs over their lifetime thus adding another cost to lower income households. 

On the other hand, if you have extra cash to spare, it might be worth it to upgrade some of your things because you can view these purchases as investments. It seems that many people seek to increase their net worth by increasing income, but it is just as acceptable to spend money to decrease expenses. I personally feel that cutting expenses in ways like these energy upgrades may be more helpful in certain situations. If a person was to become unemployed, they would probably maintain their lifestyle for longer if they were used to living with low expenses rather than a high income.

American Consumerism: Why We Shop

The United States has long been plagued by one of the lowest saving rates in the developed world. After hitting a low of 1.5% in 2005, this rate has since increased slightly to around 3%. What this means is that generally, Americans barely break even despite earning incomes that average higher than most other countries. To further put this into perspective, 48% of Americans have more debt than savings, giving them a negative net worth.

But what do Americans spend all of their money on? All of this.

We feel the need to purchase more than we can afford even after the recent financial crisis. Americans seem to have an obsession with keeping up with one another. Wealth is a huge status symbol in the United States as it signifies ones success at navigating the capitalistic system. Easy credit and a culture of loans makes it easy for people to pretend that they make more money than they do, living beyond their means.

One of the most common ways for Americans to splurge is through the purchase of luxury homes or McMansions. The average size for an American home is about 2,300 square feet, compared to about 800 square feet in the United Kingdom. Many Americans would not even consider living in an 800 square foot house.  

Many other cultures place more value on other things such as education, family ties or social abilities. In these countries, residents are less likely to purchase out of insecurity because financial status is not a top priority.

Ironically, Americans who spend more money than they make as a way to prop up their lifestyle end up actually having no money at all. Across the United States, people routinely become bankrupt and lose their homes to foreclosures because they are in over their heads. Trying to appear rich can end up keeping you poor!

Building Up or Building Out

The most common category of complaints that I hear about cities is regarding crowding vs. spread. Some cities like New York seem just too tightly packed while others like Los Angeles spread across vast distances and become extremely inefficient. These are two extremes, but cities tend to fall all along this spectrum and rarely do cities seem to achieve perfect balance.

So which is better? Build massive skyscrapers in a tiny area thereby crowding streets with pedestrians and blocking sun from roads or designate hundreds of square miles for sprawling cities where most builds are detached and less than four or five stories tall? Let's start by examining the issue with both types of cities.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong can easily be designated as a crowding city. The population density is about 16,500 per square mile. To put this in perspective, the average population density across the United States is 88 per square mile. Notice in this picture of Hong Kong, almost all construction is in the form of skyscrapers. Looking out of a window you are very likely to be looking into an adjacent building rather than into the sky. Despite the fact that the city is so built up, not all land is used. The higher elevations around the corners of the photo are virtually undeveloped.

Los Angeles

Los Angeles on the other hand can be seen as a city of sprawl. It is still tightly packed, but because of the low density development, the population density is about 8,000 per square mile. At this level there is plenty of open space, but travelling from place to place can be a nightmare. Cities with such a spread cannot support the vast public transit systems of more dense cities and car traffic can overwhelm the roadways as a result.

Both types of cities have clear problems and may seek to emulate the other type of city. It is relatively challenging for cities to achieve a balance between the two extremes and I do not have a perfect solution to these problems.

My favorite ideal solution is one that I so far have not found in any city. I envision a city with a medium / high density residential urban core, something where the buildings average perhaps 15 stories. Within this central area, cars would not be allowed and so all roadways would be fully open to pedestrians. These walkways would be wide so that the sun would never be blocked by shadows. Around the residential core would be three or four separate downtown areas that are high density. Each of these clusters of downtown would be grouped by industry; for example, one cluster may include banks and financial services while another may be pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Essentially this city would look like a bowl from the sky. This may seem a strange idea, but I would like to see it put in place as an experiment.

How Money Can Buy Happiness.. Sort Of

Sometimes used as a way to persuade children into following a career that they love rather than one that will ensure wealth, parents say money will never buy you happiness. Adults tell this to other adults as well, usually friends who seem very unhappy despite boatloads of money. In these situations, the advice-givers are probably correct. Being wealthy does not bring happiness; no matter how fat the paycheck, work takes up a significant amount of time and if you hate it, the money probably does not matter.

But, there is more to it than that. Sometimes, money really does make us happy.

Imagine for a moment someone on the other side of the coin, someone who struggles to eat every week and never knows how they will pay their rent. They have no money in the bank and if their car were to break down they would have no way of fixing it. These people struggle along always wishing that they had just a few more dollars to fend off their financial anxiety. Money really would make them happier.

In reality, most people do not truly fall at either end of this spectrum; most lie somewhere in between. We know that more money does not satisfy the rich, but money brings great joy to the poor, but what of the middle? It turns out, money can buy happiness up to a salary of about $70,000. Nationwide, this is the approximate income level where people stop feeling anxiety about money. A person making $70,000 can expect to afford their basic expenses including car payments, mortgage payments and bills while still having some money left over each month and having some retirement savings. Effectively, people making this much money have their needs met and any further increases in wage would likely go towards "extra" unnecessary purchases such as for example buying a bigger house or nicer car. These types of extras do not actually add any happiness.

While $70,000 is still more than the average American pulls in each year, the median hovers around $50,000, it is still not an unimaginable level of income. It does not take extreme wealth to achieve this financial independence. Of course, in certain areas such as New York City or Boston, $70,000 would not be enough to achieve this standard of living, but it is a generally good fit for most of the country. Next time someone says that money will make them happier, think about their current lifestyle before responding!

Cities are Great for Families

Why Families Should Move to Cities

When deciding to have children, many couples make the decision to leave the city and move to the suburbs in order to attempt to give their children a more positive upbringing. Many children are then raised in small towns where the people are relatively homogenous. They never learn that peoples lives can be different from their own and that there are other acceptable ways of living. While suburbs do tend to be safe and foster feelings of community, people who spend their whole life living here may end up with a narrow focus.

It occurred to me when I left for college that perhaps I was one of these people. I assumed that everything in my new city was dangerous and that the people were somehow different from the people in my town. I was wrong. Over time I realized that it was wrong to have looked down on cities just because I was not from one. The friends I have made who grew up in the city have a totally different, and I would argue more mature, worldview.

Growing up in a city does not make the same person achieve less in life, it simply shows that people live different lifestyles. Children who grow up in cities may be more tolerant of others who are unlike themselves because they are surrounded with such people. Rather than thinking that everyone is and upper middle class white person like I did (my town is 98.2% white), they will see people from different racial, ethnic and income groups. Having an appreciation of diversity is so important because it can allow you to be much more open as a person and less closed off from people and things that are unfamiliar to you. It is certainly important to make sure that children are raised in a safe and supportive environment, but most cities have neighborhoods that are very safe for children.

Over time I believe that the American ideal image of suburban life will begin to change. Since the financial crisis beginning in 2008, it appears that in fact suburbs have begun to lose their appeal and their population. There is no saying whether or not this trend will continue for sure, but I believe that people are realizing all of the benefits of city life and are deciding to leave the suburbs, with their families, for good.