Despite Urbanization, Cities Lose Politically

The Imbalance Between Urban and Rural Politics

America has been undergoing a period of rather rapid urbanization for about 100 years, but politically it seems not to matter. Political power in America tends to favor less populous areas; this is true both on the federal level and at the state levels. For example, voters from Vermont see their votes technically weighted several times more than in Ohio because for a state of 620,000, they receive 3 seats in Congress, approximately 1 for every 200,000 citizens. Ohio on the other hand receives 18 seats for a population of 11,000,000, or about 1 for every 600,000 citizens. This happens because even the smallest states are still afforded two Senators and one Representative. Much the same is true inside states, and the consequences can prove interesting.

Unbalanced Power

Rural counties have been rapidly losing population to cities throughout the country, but they lose seats in state government much more slowly. Over time this means that the influence of cities in politics grows, but it grows much more slowly than the cities themselves. Interesting.

The problem becomes most pronounced in large states that are mostly rural but have one large city. New York and Nevada are the perfect examples. In both of these states, the major cities, New York City and Las Vegas, occupy the southern portion of the states and have vastly different concerns from their isolated northern neighbors. However, when it comes to state laws and resources, both of these cities struggle. New York City, with its nearly 16 million residents, finds itself reporting to Albany, a city with less than 100,000 residents. For those living in Upstate New York, this is great. It keeps the rural northland heard and gives them significant political power. But, more importantly, this is completely unfair to New York City. 

Urbanization is likely to continue throughout America, but we need to make some changes in our voting laws. Every citizen should have equal representation in every election, regardless of where they live. 

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. 

Cities are Safer than Suburbs

Why it's Safer to Live in the City

Now you may see this title and be a bit skeptical, but a new study asserts that this is true. If you don't believe me, check out this article by National Geographic. At first, I was skeptical as well. But when you dive into the facts, this seemingly illogical idea begins to make much more sense.

But haven't we learned for decades that the best way to keep our children safe was to move out to the suburbs? How can cities really be safer?

Fewer Car Accidents: 

There are a number of factors that tip the scales in favor of cities, but by far, the biggest reason that cities are statistically safer is that they provide a lower risk for car accidents. In 2011, over 32,000 Americans died in car accidents. Logically, the more you are in a car, the more likely you are to die in a car accident. Because suburban and rural residents depend on cars for everyday needs, they spend significantly more time in cars, making them much more likely to die in car accidents. If you live in a city and use public transportation, your risk of dying in a car accident drops to near 0. 

Now you may say so what? I'm not worried about car accidents, cities are just simply more dangerous. Its true that cities have more crime per capita, but accidental deaths caused by cars are still real deaths. They must be factored into the equation. Just as a note, city dwellers using public transit are more likely to die in these types of accidents, but the rates and severity of these accidents are much lower than of cars.

Quicker Saves:

This can really mean a variety of things, but it comes down to the idea that if something bad happens to you in a densely populated urban area, you are more likely to get help quickly. This bad thing could be a fire, a shooting, a heart attack or almost anything else. If for example you have a heart attack in New York City, you will be close to a hospital and more likely to survive than if you live in say rural Maine. Response rates for accidents can really mean the difference between life and death. Rural areas tend to have slower response times because emergency services have to cover larger areas and are thus more likely to be far away from where the accident occurs.

Fewer Suicides:

There tend to be higher suicide rates in rural areas compared to urban areas. Suicides tend not to be among the leading causes of death, but they still contribute to the final total. Nobody knows for sure why rates are higher in rural areas, but one possible explanation is isolation. People benefit from social connections and these relationships can help to ward off depression. Being far from others in rural areas may increase depression and suicide rates by default.

I have to say that when I first read this new study I was surprised. In as much as I advocate for living in cities, I was among the majority of Americans who had the misperception that rural areas are safer. Be informed, spread the word. 

City vs. Rural Homes

In my post yesterday I talked a bit about the fact that Americans have the largest homes of any country in the world. But I have also written about the fact that living in cities can be extremely cramped and expensive. So today I decided to talk about the differences between living in the city and in rural areas in terms of space.

Ultimately, homes are much larger in the suburbs and in rural areas compared to cities. For example, in Boston, prices can run upwards of $1,500 per month per bedroom for an apartment or condo. In the far reaches of the Greater Boston suburbs, $1,500 per month can buy a four bedroom house and leave you with money to spare.

This difference in home sizes used to play into the idea that people in the suburbs were wealthy while those in the cities were poor. For a long time, this general idea held largely true. More recently, poverty rates have increased in suburbs while cities have seen increased gentrification. Now a family of four may live in a nice four bedroom suburban home but may be in a worse financial situation than a similar family cramped into a two bedroom apartment in a city. 

It seems that perception of wealth may be changing and therefore so are the material items that people value. For the better part of American history, having an impressive house was among the most important status symbols. But now as many people are electing to have smaller, more humble homes to live closer to cities, it appears that other factors, such as eco-friendliness or perhaps access to public transportation, are redefining American status. 

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.

Urban Rent Crisis

As I have moved closer to the end of my college career, I have spent a lot of time reading about life after college and trying to get a feel for what comes next for graduates. One thing that I have discovered is the high cost of living in many large cities where jobs are located. In larger cities, residents pay huge percentages of their income towards rent and it appears that the cost increases of housing outpace the overall cost of living increase between rural and urban areas.

Tiny apartments such as this one are becoming more standard in densely packed cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco, but they still can cost upwards of $2,000 per month. Many of these small apartments are between 250-300 square feet. This is a high price to pay for living downtown. 

For people who cannot imagine themselves crammed into microapartments, costs can run even higher. In Manhattan for example, the average price of a one bedroom "regular" sized apartment runs about $3,000 per month. Most financial advisors will recommend that a person spend no more than about 25% of their gross income on housing. In order to afford a $3,000 per month one bedroom apartment, a person would need to earn around $145,000 per year. 

The situation in Boston is a bit less crazy. This map shows the distribution of rent prices around the city. Notice that darker red colors are located close to subway stops. In the heart of the downtown area, prices are approximately $2,000 per bedroom. 

Personally I wonder how anyone can afford to live in these cities without making huge financial sacrifices. It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible for college graduates to practice financial responsibility while trying to live in one of these expensive cities. Unfortunately, these areas are extremely appealing for college graduates and tend to have the best job markets as well. 

Obesity and Access to Food

Yesterday I spent some time talking about the fact that many Americans live in areas that are designated as food deserts where they struggle to find access to grocery stores. Today I wanted to look into this a bit more by bringing in obesity and seeing if there truly is a relationship between living in a food desert and likelihood of being obese. Here is what I found.

I will start again with a map of the food deserts in order to provide a solid reference point.

And here is a map of obesity trends across the country.

These maps do not show a perfect overlap, but it definitely suggests a relationship between struggling to find food and being obese. This map seem counter-intuitive. Wouldn't being further from food sources indicate people would be less obese? 

No. Regardless of location everybody has to eat, but being further from grocery stores simply affects what gets eaten. When it is really challenging to purchase healthy foods, people sometimes choose the ease of shopping at closer convenience stores which are full of options that have less nutritional value. When actually making it to a grocery store, people living in food deserts may purchase items that last longer and many of these items are typically less healthy than items that go bad more quickly.

This is an unfortunate problem in the country because it is extremely complex. For decades American obesity rates have been rising, but in some areas it simply is not economically feasible to build supermarkets. This may be one of the more subtle contributing factors to the trend of urbanization in the United States; people move to cities as they become frustrated with their nutritional struggles. 

The Great American Political Divide: Urban vs. Rural

Throughout most of the democratic world, elections results tend to split around regional differences. Historically this is true of the United States as well. Think back to the American Civil War. In presidential election of 1860 that preceded the war, the country split almost perfectly along a north south divide. The following map illustrates the stark divide in politics between north and south.

However, over the last 20-30 years in the United States, this long-standing pattern has begun to unravel. With each passing year, the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans has shifted more and more from a regional separation to one of urban vs. rural. Cities have increasingly swung Democratic while rural areas have become Republican strongholds. It seems that population density is becoming one of the biggest indicators of voting preference.

Take of example this map of midterm election results for 2010. Notice that most of the country looks strongly red; the Republican party controls a strong majority of the physical land area.

Notice also that this map is very different from the first. There seems to be few regional splits in voting preferences. Blue and red areas are largely intermixed throughout the country.

But now look at this third map. This shows the same results as the last map, but now the sizes of the districts have been changed to show them in proportion to their population. This image is barely recognizable as the United States. Notice how tiny the huge swath of red districts has become in comparison to the now prominent blue, Democrat controlled districts. You can clearly see Cape Cod, Long Island and the San Francisco Bay Area all colored blue. 

These blue areas almost exclusively represent densely populated urban areas. When looking at this map, the country looks much more evenly split. In the last election in 2012, 27 of the 30 largest urban areas in the country voted Democratic in the presidential election. 

If this trend continues with urbanization, the future of the Republican party as we know it may be uncertain.