Somerville: America's Happiest City

Somerville Becomes First City to Track Happiness

Everyday when we wake up the first thing that we notice is how we feel. Regardless of whether it's a Tuesday and we are headed to work or whether we are vacationing in the Caribbean, we get a feeling to start off our day; some feel happy, some feel sad and others are anxious about something. We feel things everyday and it is our feelings that determine our levels of satisfaction in life. But all too often we focus on the things around us as a measure of happiness, instead of the way that we feel. Somerville, MA recently became the first city to take note of this. Instead of asking residents to talk about their surroundings, the city surveyed residents about how happy they are.

Letting Feelings Shape Policies

Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone is largely credited with transforming the city from a place that was better to avoid into a place where people wanted to live. It is also consistently ranked among the best managed cities in the country. In shaping the city, Curtatone decided to ask residents how they felt about life, how they felt about Somerville and how they felt about specific policies enacted by the city. 

The survey yielded some interesting results, some surprising and others unsurprising. They mayor's office found that trees and bike lanes contributed to residents happiness as did income up to $75,000. But surprisingly, the city learned that zero sort recycling was also a huge plus for residents. Before the survey part of the city had zero sort recycling while the rest had to sort recyclables. After the happiness survey, Somerville moved the entire city to a zero sort model.

Somerville is definitely onto something. What good is a building, road or policy in a city if it doesn't actually make us happy? Hopefully many more cities will follow in Somerville's footsteps. 

Do We Need to Abandon the Coast?

Coaxing People to Move

In recent years hurricanes have been a hot topic, that is, at least while they are happening. They wreak billions of dollars of damage to coastal properties, cause injuries and deaths and ruin livelihoods, but it seems that once hurricanes pass, people rebuild houses on the coast. This seems a bit illogical to me. Homes and entire towns that are built in hurricane prone areas are bound to be damaged, it is only ever a matter of time. So how can we protect people and properties? There are really two options that I see. One is convincing people to leave the coast, and the other is rebuilding coastlines around people. This is what inevitably happens to coastal homes during storms.

Option1: Convincing People to Leave

Personally I think that this might be the most cost effective option. For years insurance rates for people living in high flood risk homes have been out of whack. The National Flood Insurance Program has been charging people much lower premiums than what would actually be necessary to cover the risk associated with building coastal homes. Ironically, part of the reason for the discounted rates was to encourage coastal home building. These rates should be, and are in the process of being, adjusted to match the real risk class. This will inevitably move some people away.

My second idea to get people off the coast is to do a reverse coastal subsidy for coastal residents. First the government should mandate some sort of "buyers warning" policy for coastal real estate transactions that warns people about impending hurricanes. Secondly, those living on the coast should be provided with financial incentives to move. They should receive some government subsidy off of the market price of inland homes to reflect the fact that they are moving to safety. If this was successful, even with the subsidy the government would likely save money because it would stop having to pay for the effects of hurricanes.

Option 2: Rebuild the Coast

There is a lot, a lot, of hurricane prone coastline in the United States. But perhaps we can't get everyone to leave. Maybe there are some areas that we could rebuild in a different way. There is currently a proposal for Long Beach New York that proposes the construction of levees through the island. During nice weather, these levees essentially serve as public parks and bike trails, but they provide organized spaces for flooding during storms. Proposals like this could help to actually protect the coast. Or we could build huge multi-billion dollar storm walls everywhere.

Either way, we have to do something. It's up to our policymakers to decide what. 

MyStuckMovingLife: One Year Later

Still Stuck, But Hopefully Moving Soon

For those of you who routinely read my blog, you've probably noticed that I tend to cover a wide variety of topics and I rarely post anything about my own personal life. My aim is always to generate discussions that focus on the core of our human experience, and often I feel that talking about progressive trends in cities is a great way to do this. I've been at this now for about a year and people ask me often what motivates me to continue and to be fully honest I'm never really sure, but I find it quite calming. I want to take the time to give an update not about the world that we live in, but rather about myself as a part of it.

When I first started blogging I chose the name MyStuckMovingLife and I always hoped that nobody would ask me why, because I did not really know the answer. But now I do. I realized that through most, perhaps all, of my life I've felt limited in one way or another, but I've always had a pervasive sense of optimism about the world. I've felt confined and held back, unable to push forward, but I've always hoped that one day things might be different. But now for the first time, it's really all about to be different.

Stuck

Most of you probably don't know much about me or about my life, because very few people do and you are probably not exactly sure what I mean when I say in a very vague sense that my whole world is soon to change. But here it is in a nutshell. I've spent the last three years at a college that was not in any way a good fit for me. For the entirety of my time I've felt drained, frustrated and held back from achieving everything that I want to. That's not to say that I haven't been successful; I'm graduating a year early with excellent grades. Simply put, I've been unhappy and unfulfilled. But I have 7 days left of classes and then it's all over. 

Moving

In one week I will reach the end of my 15 year formal academic career; the goal that I've been working towards for 75% of my life will be achieved. The next week I graduate and then only days later I fly to Europe for the vacation I've always dreamed of. I'll be reunited with one of my best friends who I haven't seen in a year, and she and I will travel to Prague, Rome, Florence and Paris together (which I'm sure will provide me with some great material for future posts). And then I will return and start full-time work and enter a new phase of my life, one that I hope to be rich and full of meaning. 

Life

It's almost surreal when I think about it, but this is really me. This is my life. I've spent the last 20 years preparing for "the real world" and now it's about to be right here for me to touch. But in some ways the role of the student, at least in my experience, is quite sad. You are told over and over for years on end that you have to prepare for the future and for what you want to do with your life. But all the while you are in fact alive; you are somehow "preparing" for your life while also living your life. It seems like a contradiction to me. I could tell myself that I won't start living until the day that I receive my diploma, but I simply can't accept that any longer.

I am and always have been an active participant in my own life, but it seems that I've only just come to accept it. I've spent preparing for this time, and I'm more ready than ever before to move forward. 

Build Your Own Subway

New Subway Game for Urban Planners

I recently found a new game that is great for anyone interested in urban planning. The name of the game is Mini Metro and it requires the user to build a subway system that gets increasingly complex as a city grows. I have included a link to the game here. I have to say that the game seems really easy at first, but gets very very challenging. The opening shot of the game looks something like this.

Simple right? At this stage you only have three stations and are operating only one subway line. The game picks up speed and you must add additional lines and complexities to keep up with increased demand. And after a few minutes of gameplay, the screen might look something more like this. 

Extra stops get added and the number of riders to transport increases rapidly. At this stage the game is still pretty manageable. But after about 5 or 10 minutes, it quickly becomes almost impossible. One of my more advanced screens looks like this.

Eventually, you lose when you cannot meet the needs of an expanding city. I personally think this game is fascinating for anyone that is really interested in transportation and urban planning. My highest score of all time is 625 riders. I challenge you to try and outscore me!

The Paradox of Wealth

Very Rich, but Very Poor

Money, assets, wealth, rich, poor, destitute: all of these are in some ways less tangible than they may seem. Sure, today we have a world full of have's and have not's. Some are suffering in extreme poverty while others lounge on Caribbean beaches. This may seem to reflect some sort of natural arrangement, but in fact it does not. Wealth is really just a socially constructed system to distribute society's resources.

Imagine for example that you are Bill Gates; you have more money than you could ever dream of. Now imagine that you are in a desert with a low-income person. Nobody else is around. You are both walking through the desert alone together and you happen to find a pitcher of water. What would happen? I suspect that you would simply split the water between the two of you. Outside of market system of society, Bill Gates and any other person suddenly become equals. If something cannot be bought or sold, wealth becomes meaningless.

It's important to remember that in the natural world, money does not divide humanity into those who are worthy of something and those who are not. Society simply has needs and wealth is in a very general sense a reward to those who fill some of these needs. So what happens then when society determines that certain individuals should be given a huge share of total wealth, relative to other people? 

I think it depends.

Money alone really is empty. It really takes meaning when it represents something else. For example, for some people money can come with achievement and the fulfillment of ambitions. These people may feel happy earning more and more money because it represents their own accomplishments. On the other hand, some people seem to happen upon money for seemingly no reason, and in these situations it may generate other feelings.

The Rich Can Feel Poor

I know that often times nobody really wants to hear about the problems of the rich. People may think that they have nothing to worry about because they have all the money that they need. But money is not always a solution and I believe that all life problems can really only be in perspective of one's own life. That being said, I truly want to examine the perhaps sad lives of some extremely wealthy individuals.

If someone becomes rich upon accomplishing a major life goal, reaching some milestone or just by chance, they may feel discontent. If money was a motivating force in someone's life and they suddenly have more of it than they will ever need, it could create a sense of being finished in some way. The sense of achievement and abruptness that could come with wealth may leave some rich wondering "What now?" Money alone might have the effect of interrupting a sense of purpose in the world. 

The Rich Can Also Feel Rich

Perhaps if instead we examine a rich person, or a set of rich people who earn wealth over time, we may find a different outcome. If wealth becomes a part of the journey rather than a destination, it may not conjure the same feelings of a sort of existential dread associated with fulfilling a life goal. Those who are able to come into wealth and adjust their life goals to seek new passions and ambitions, rather than just more money, may feel quite happy with their wealth.

Tension Between Rich and Poor

For some reason, there seems to be a theme in our society of being obsessed with knowing who has money and who doesn't and of creating some sort of judgment as a result. If you are rich, you are taught, probably subconsciously, to look down upon those who earn less than you. On the other hand, if you are poor or even middle class, you may resent those who have more money than you do. 

I believe that no matter the direction of the scorn that it is in many ways quite foolish. There is really no point in disliking an individual or a group of individuals just because they fall into a different financial class than you do. Thinking back to the desert example, after extracting the social construct of wealth from the equation, it's easy to see that everyone is really equal to one another in their intrinsic human value. 

Wealth is just the way that society determines the allocation of resources. Individuals really cannot determine how much society will value their contribution; market forces set wage rates for different industries, companies and individuals. Therefore nobody should judge somebody else simply for a difference in income. 

We are all humans and we are all equal. We should stop letting ourselves believe that a person's financial status is at all indicative of their human value. 

Is The Housing Bubble Back?

The Housing Market Roars Back to Life

2006 was a seemingly pleasant time for America. Sprawling subdivisions were popping up all over the country, home prices were surging and homebuyers were grabbing up properties at record rates with little to no money set aside for down payments. It seemed that prices would never stop climbing and that wealth would never stop growing.

Then came 2007 / 2008 and everything collapsed. Home prices plummeted, people found themselves owing more than their homes were worth and we were faced with nearly countless foreclosures. Neighborhoods stood abandoned; new subdivisions stopped mid-construction and America decided that we would never create another housing bubble again.

Welcome to 2014

For the past three years, housing has been making a strong comeback. Interest rates have been at record lows and home prices have been steadily rising. But after years of recovery, we may have inadvertently begun to create another bubble like the one that caused the housing crisis in the first place.

This government chart clearly shows the last bubble that was created. This measures the difference between home prices and rental units. More specifically, the light blue line measures what it costs to own a home while the dark blue line measures the would be cost of renting the same home. Between 2000-2006 there was a huge and growing gap between the cost of buying vs. renting. The financial crisis corrected this bubble and brought home prices more in line with historical averages.

Pay attention to the last centimeter or so of the graph. Sometime around 2011, the light blue line began to rise sharply in comparison the the dark blue line. If this trend continues it will indicate that homes are once again becoming much more expensive than renting.

Now here is another graph that is less technical, but perhaps more telling.

This one shows the median and average square footage of new homes. During the last bubble, new homes got larger and larger. It was the era of McMansions. After the crisis, home sizes fell significantly. But once again, home sizes began to creep higher starting in 2011. As of right now, home sizes have actually hit a new record. This means that the average home built today is larger than during the peak of the last housing bubble!

Be Careful America

Right now homebuyers are feeling quite excited. Prices are rising and interest rates are low. Things are looking pretty great. I'm not trying to put a damper on this excitement, but I think that it is important to be cautious. If we are not careful, this type of activity could quickly begin to re-inflate a real estate bubble. Try not to forget what happened last time. 

 

Worcester Needs a New Highway

Bringing the Airport to Life

I want to begin this post by saying that in almost all cases, I think that the construction of new highways is not a good idea. I tend to think that highways are a waste of public funds that could be better spent on things such as public transportation. But, the city of Worcester is particularly unique in that it is currently not well served by highways. 

Worcester is the second largest city in New England, but it has a poor road network compared to other major cities. There is only one highway that runs through the city, I-290, and one that runs to the north of the city I-190. Most cities have the fortune of having highways that run through the city as well as a beltway that encircles the city. 

Worcester could benefit from a beltway loop for two reasons. The first is that currently, anyone who lives on the west side of the city is about a fifteen minute drive from an interstate. This dramatically increases commuting times and because there are no highways or viable forms of public transportation, main roads become unbelievably clogged in residential neighborhoods for hours at a time. If you live West of the city outside of the city limits, your commute is likely even more unfortunate.

The second reason is that Worcester actually has an airport which has started offering daily flights. The city has struggled for years to make it's airport a viable option, but it is largely ignored for airports in Boston and Providence. One major reason is that right now it is quite inconvenient to fly from the airport as it is difficult to access. If Worcester wants to expand it's airport and bolster it's economy, it must make the airport more accessible.

From the highway, it takes 13 minutes and several winding roads to find the airport when there is no traffic. And there is always traffic. Signs directing traffic are poor, roads are bumpy and it is just unpleasant trying to get to the airport. If Worcester has any chances of competing with customers flying out of TF Green or Logan, it needs to improve airport access.

Here is my proposal.

Beltway

Worcester should build an interstate, presumably named I-490, that would connect the Mass Pike with I-190. The route could go around the outside of the city through relatively undeveloped sections of Auburn, Leicester and Holden. It would link all three of these towns more readily to the Mass Pike and allow commuters to reach their jobs much more easily. These western suburbs of Worcester, and the west side of the city itself, could actually begin to expand just as communities to the east of the city have done.

But more importantly, it would link the airport directly to the mass pike. It would suddenly become convenient for residents of central New England to fly out of the Worcester airport. They would have easy directions and not need to worry about driving through the clogged city to catch a flight. I strongly believe that this would give a huge boost to the local economy.

London's Proposed SkyCycle

London Unveils SkyCycle

Commuters in London have longed urged city leaders to develop safer bicycle routes for commuters. London lags behind other European cities for bike-friendliness, but the city is seeking to change it's reputation. The city has revealed plans for SkyCycle, a network of bike routes to be built over the next 20 years in the city. The project is expected to cost  £220m and span over 135 miles within the city.

Why SkyCycle?

London is notorious in the European community for bicycle accidents. Over the last month there have been several high profile incidents involving cyclists being struck by vehicles. According to an article by BikeRadar, many cyclists in London feel unsafe traveling with vehicles on the roads today. As a result, the city had to devise a creative solution for improving bicycle safety.

The SkyCycle would be built three stories above London's current network of commuter rails. In a city where free space is hard to find, this is a brilliant solution. This not only takes cyclists out of the mix of traffic, but it also offers scenic views of the city at the same time. Each of the routes of SkyCycle could accommodate 12,000 commuters per hour and dramatically reduce the time cyclists spend on streets with cars. This should greatly reduce the number of traffic fatalities.

This map shows an idea for the routes proposed to be built as part of SkyCycle. There will be 209 entrances to the network. Over 5.8 million Londoners live nearby an entrance to the network of routes. This could further encourage an increase in bicycle commuting within the city. 

Despite the cost of building this new bike network, it seems like a great investment for the city of London.

Cities Come In Strange Shapes

This video shows examples of some cities that have really bizarre boundaries.

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.

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.

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.

Why Bigger Cities Drink More Coffee

Right now it's about 6:30 A.M. and I am sitting out on my porch enjoying a nice home brewed cup of coffee. I typically have this one cup in the morning and some days I will drink another small cup around lunchtime. I have seen some people however who seem to drink upwards of four cups a day and I wondered if this was at all unusual. It turns out that the answer is that it depends.

The average coffee consumption across the United States is about three small cups per day, but people who live in large cities tend to far outdrink those in smaller cities or rural areas. For example, coffee drinkers in New York and Chicago both drink an average of 3 times the national average! That is nine eight ounce cups of coffee per day! I found this fascinating in of itself but I began to wonder why.

I thought about the main reason that people drink coffee and it seems in general that besides enjoying the taste, most people drink coffee for the energy boost that comes with ingesting caffeine. A cup of coffee can do two things, wake up a person who has low energy due to sleep deprivation and energize a person who receives a normal amount of sleep. This makes sense in terms of larger cities. Check out my post about cities that get too big.

People who live in larger cities report higher levels of stress and are more likely to be required to work long hours at a job. Working 50, 60 or more hours a week can be exhausting and drain energy; people really should not work more than 40. The solution: grab a cup of coffee. Additionally, those who work long hours are less likely to have the time to sleep enough each night, which can lead to feeling groggy and again needing more coffee. In this regard it makes sense that cities like New York and Chicago drink so much coffee.

Another thing about big cities that encourages coffee consumption is simply related to stress levels. There is so much hustle and bustle in large cities that people must always be alert and aware of their surroundings. Not to mention the fact that it can be stressful to get around due to road and pedestrian traffic. Letting your guard down in a big city is more likely to bring a negative result. Once again coffee serves as a great way to keep vigilant.

Overall it seems that Americans love coffee regardless of location, those who live in more crowded areas simply indulge more. One of the main things to watch out for about coffee is the price! Drinking three or four cups of Starbucks coffee per day can easily amount to a $10 habit.

Strip Malls vs. Starbucks

Some of the most beautiful cities in the world are those that seem to have a soul. Some of these cities, like Boston, make the cut because they have a disorganized charm while others such as Shanghai are known for the modern feel. Regardless of what makes a particular city special, the thing that my favorite places have in common is that they are all unique and have something that cannot be mimicked by another place.

This for example is a picture that captures the essence of Shanghai.

It appears to me that at some point, cities and to a greater extend suburbs forgot what it meant to have a unique feeling. In came developers. Sprawling neighborhoods emerged of houses that not only looked the same as one another, but looked the same as others in other towns and even in other parts of the country. This is not limited to residential development; strip malls and chain restaurants populate huge tracts of land. Standing in one of these malls one would have no way of guessing if they were in Florida or North Dakota, except maybe for the temperature!

True it may be cheaper and easier to build standardized developments, but it also takes the heart out of an area. The appeal of an area is lessened as it imitates the style of everywhere else. This type of development can drain the life out of a city.

While this trend seems to roll along, some retail companies have notably bucked the trend. My two best examples of this are Apple and Starbucks. When visiting a location of one of these stores, you know that you are sitting and drinking your favorite coffee or shopping for a nice computer, but you also know where you are. These stores are built to represent the feel of the company while respecting the environment that they are found in. Apple has been able to build stores inside of the Louvre and Grand Central Station. These locations represent a fantastic balance between standards of design and urban cultural awareness that other new developments should seek to emulate. 

That Prestigious Suburban School May Undermine Your Success

I tend to spend a lot of time envisioning the rise of cities and the decline of present day suburbia. But one topic that I have not discussed so far is the structure of the education system in urban areas as it compares to rural areas. Right now, suburban public schools nationwide far outperform urban schools and this is one reason that many families choose to live in the suburbs. Private schools are often located in cities and are a way for wealthy families to send their children to good schools but this further increases the cost burden of living in cities.

Urban school districts do tend to serve a variety of students from different income levels and ethnic groups. Because of the way that cities tend to exist today, many of these students that attend urban public schools come from lower income brackets and a higher percentage of students fall below the poverty line than students in suburban schools. Unfortunately there is a strong relationship between race, income level and academic performance. With higher percentages of students from lower socioeconomic groups, average academic performance tends to be lower in urban schools.

My overall point is that one must look past averages.

The public school system receives most of it's funding from a combination of tax dollars and government funds. Despite the fact that urban school districts tend to preform at lower levels than suburban schools, they also often receive more funding. Urban schools also tend to serve much greater numbers of students than do suburban schools. These factors together often mean that inner city schools can offer a greater variety of courses and programs to students than suburban schools. A common misconception about urban schools is that teachers are under-qualified. However, teachers in urban districts tend to receive higher salaries than those in suburban areas. Many highly skilled teachers choose to teach in cities for this reason.

But wait, does this mean that urban schools can actually be better than suburban schools? Yes.

Imagine that two high school students have similar academic abilities and both are high performers. One student goes to a suburban school and the other goes to an urban school. The student that goes to the suburban school may feel limited in the number of challenging courses that they can take. Since the school is so small it cannot offer a wide variety of electives and advanced placement classes. On the other hand, the student who attends an urban public high school feels more challenged because the school offers more opportunities. The suburban student graduates 3rd in a class of 100 students an the urban student graduates 5th in a class of 500. Both students worked hard and impressed college admissions departments, but the student from the urban school was accepted to colleges with higher rankings. In this scenario the student from the urban school had a better outcome.

While this may not be the average case, I believe that averages are misleading in the education world. It is challenging to objectively compare schools based on average results because the demographic prints of city schools are so different from schools in the suburbs. I feel that it is much more important and telling to compare the prospects of similar students.

Ultimately when deciding where to raise a family, school district statistics can be overwhelming and I feel that often these statistics have a large role in determining where children are raised. Despite the fact that it seems nearly counter-statistical, I feel that urban school districts may actually be able to serve students better than suburban schools in many cases.

Redefining Urban and Political Boundaries

I have a somewhat radical idea about how to increase overall efficiency in the United States. The nation is currently divided into fifty states that are all responsible for making laws that apply across the entire state. In some cases, when considering a new law or regulation, states are really only responsible for one geographic region, such as Rhode Island generally represents the Providence metropolitan area. Other states, such as Texas with its few large cities and hundreds of miles of farm in between, have to consider multiple urban centers and rural areas together when making decisions. It seems to me that in a  broad sense the federal government should bind the nation together, but that further subdivisions should have meaning that derives from the land itself.

What I propose is an actual separation first between urban and rural areas. Many rural areas tend to be either farms or lands reserved for some sort of physical production of a good. It does not make sense to have the same regulations in place for these areas as it does for urban centers. For example an urban area that falls under the jurisdiction of several cities may want to regulate street parking. To be most efficient this should be done at the state level so that it can apply equally across all of the municipalities within the densely populated area. Unfortunately, this would also serve to regulate parking in rural areas of the same state. See the problem?

A somewhat close example to what I feel is best can be found in the state of Virginia. Although it's rural areas are separated by county, it's rural areas are divided from it's urban centers through the use of independent cities. These cities could for instance make parking regulations that would not affect the rural areas surrounding them. Here is a map of Virginia's solution with independent cities shown in red..

In order to create the ideal solution that I envision, Virginia should merge large chunks of it's rural counties together to form geographically regionalized rural areas. The end result would theoretically be several "states" or simply separate political districts that are divided by functional region with urban political districts interspersed throughout them in the current locations of Virginia's independent cities.

Here in the case of Virginia, we would see five geographic divisions that would continue North and South into surrounding current day states with independent cities dispersed in red areas throughout the larger region. This change would ultimately make the political process flow more smoothly because it would create some sort of standardization within a district. 

Washington D.C. : America's Best City For Young People

The morning sun passes through the large windows of the mid-rise apartment, no taller buildings cast shadows onto the facade or into the wide streets of the city. Looking out from almost any point, one can see the impressive structure emblematic of a vibrant history. People stop by their local cafes, passing briefly en route to their jobs, wearing suits that live up to the grandeur of the buildings in which they work. This is a snapshot of life in Washington D.C.

While it goes without saying that life in Washington D.C. is not perfect by any measure, the city has so much to offer, particularly for people in their 20s. Over the past 20 years the city has grown rapidly and a lot of this growth has come from young age groups. The median age of city residents is 33, compared to almost 40 nationwide. This rapid growth has increased real estate prices, but it has also brought many new amenities and services to the city. 

Because the federal government is located within the city, unemployment rates are notoriously low, currently are 5.3%. The government provides stable jobs through almost any economic climate so residents of the city tend to have great employment prospects. The federal government is also known as being one of the best places to work; employees get much better benefits than employees at most private companies. 

Despite being so big, the city is so well planned in its design that it truly feels like an eclectic city of neighborhoods. No two areas of the city are quite the same and almost the entire city is composed of medium density development. Walking around the city, one can feel the culture shift every few blocks. The city feels much more European than any other American city. The development pattern is a bit less efficient than highly developed citys like New York, but it is much more aesthetically appealing. 

D.C. also has a wide array of choices for entertainment. The city is full of clubs, bars, restaurants and music venues of all different types. No matter what your preference, you can likely find your niche in D.C. To bolster these offerings, the subway or "Metro" remains open until 3 A.M. on the weekend. While not perfect, the Metro is rather expansive and can get you within walking distance of most developed sections of the city. 

Along with everything else, D.C. has a pleasant climate. The average high temperature for the year comes in at 66. The city does experience all four seasons, but the swings between hot and cold tend to be more moderate due to the proximity of the city to the ocean.

All of these things have probably continued to perpetuate the growth of Washington D.C. and this growth will likely continue into the future as the city becomes increasingly attractive for those who are starting out their professional lives.

Worcester or Boston: Space vs. Appeal

It seems that for every major city, people struggle with a major decision. Should I live in an expensive tiny apartment so that I can experience all of the great things about the city, or should I move to a cheaper area that has less to offer? Rather than discuss this problem in a broad sense, I prefer to focus on the Massachusetts version: Worcester vs. Boston.

I started thinking about this idea yesterday as I was climbing Mount Wachusett. It was a clear day and at the top of the mountain I looked and in the foreground I could see Worcester but in the same view further towards the horizon I could see the skyscrapers of Boston. These two cities are less than an hour apart, but they feel like two different worlds.

Boston:

Worcester:

Both are nice pictures, but even from these shots, it is easy to see that Boston is much larger. Worcester has about 175,000 people and Boston swells above 1,000,000 during the workday. Boston is a city with a strong history, great opportunities and a European flair not found in most American cities. Worcester also has a great history, but it is a city that is an emblem of the industrial working class.

For decades Worcester was a city in decay. Businesses and restaurants would routinely close and grand old houses would fall into disrepair. Recently the city has begun to make a comeback, but it is still a long way from a world class city. Boston on the other hand is a city known for being a pioneer of innovation and modern living, offering organic markets, upscale boutiques and modern high-rise apartments.

For these reasons, many people, particularly those in their 20's, choose Boston. This may seem a simple decision, but consider cost-of-living.

As a college student living in a nice three bedroom apartment in Worcester, my roommates and I paid a total of $1,160 per month. In many parts of Boston, it is difficult to find a tiny studio apartment for the same price. It may cost upwards of a million dollars for a two bedroom condo in a nice building in downtown Boston, but many large four bedroom homes in nicer neighborhoods of Worcester sell for $200,000. Unless you have enough money that money is not a discussion point, this earns Worcester a lot of value. In Worcester you may not have immediate access to the finer things in Boston, but if you live in Boston you probably cannot afford those luxuries. People living in Worcester can enjoy a higher standard of living for a lower price.

Personally I cannot decide what is more important. Affordability or Amenities?

Ending Suburban Sprawl

The American dream: go to college, get a job, move to a nice house in the suburbs. Like this.

Here is a picture of a Phoenix suburb. Houses sprawl endlessly into the desert taking up more and more space and moving further from the urban core. An even more dramatic example is this picture of suburban Los Angeles.

When will it stop? It has become extremely challenging to actually move between the suburbs and the city center. 

Suburbs are extremely inefficient and cannot continue to spread outwards from city centers. In Los Angeles, it takes 30 minutes without traffic to reach downtown from the outer edge of the city. Considering suburbs that extend outside of the city limits, commuters can often drive upwards of an hour to work each way. Not only is it annoying to spend two or more hours commuting a day, it is unnecessary. 

It seems that Americans are finally feeling fed up with the suburbs and beginning to move back to city centers. As cities grow from the center, they can offer more and better services to their residents. Living in a community like the ones pictured in these photos is becoming an unattractive venture. I hope that the trend of downtown urbanization continues over time.

Boston's Urban Ring Project

For anyone who routinely rides the T in Boston, you probably understand many of it's problems. The green line routinely breaks down, trains never seem to stick to a schedule and there always seem to be interruptions in service. These things are all annoying, but by far worse is the fact that when riding the T, in order to change routes, you must ride all the way downtown. For those of you who are not familiar, I will share a map.

This picture shows a map to scale of the T. The white circles in downtown Boston are the only interchanges between lines. This makes the T practical only for those who need to get from their homes to downtown and back. For example, to get from Riverside at the end of the green line to Alewife at the end of the red line, you would need to travel 40 minutes inbound on the green and then another 20 outbound on the red. This seems illogical. 

The current setup of the T restricts commerce. If it were easier to move between the cities surrounding Boston, these areas would experience higher economic growth rates and the entire metropolitan area could prosper. Funneling traffic into just one place only creates congestion and frustration.

One idea that has been suggested is known as the Urban Ring Project. This is a proposition to expand T service to connect the current lines in a ring, allowing for easier access to areas that are not just downtown. This is a map of the proposed expansion.

The ring project itself is the new yellow line. This would make travel so much easier for people in and around Boston. You will notice that this full expansion would also expand existing lines and create a new purple line. These new routes can be hoped for, but the ring I believe is most crucial to economic success. The cost of building a new subway line would be very high, but Boston has a history of expensive public works projects. In fact, Boston is home to the first subway line in the country. With a subway that started in the late 1800's, it seems that it is time for a modern upgrade so that Boston can continue to be a pioneer of urban success.