
For those that don’t really follow urban spatial arrangements the same way I do, you might not know that metropolitan Europe has an entirely different spatial pattern than metropolitan America. In the United States, most suburban development occurred as a result of middle-class exodus from central cities. The general pattern in Europe is almost exactly the opposite; the poor live in the ‘burbs, while the central city typically houses the bourgeois class. Paris, for example, is like the anti-Detroit: Imagine Bloomfield Hills as a sprawling slum, and downtown Detroit as home to Michigan’s most wealthy.
In Europe, like America, poverty tends to be isolated from areas of employment, role models of behavior, social services, and other rudimentary, daily needs. This social and physical isolation may change in Paris in the next few years, however. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, has recently employed the services of an international team of urban planners and architects in the hopes of fundamentally changing metropolitan Paris. There are plenty of ideas being thrown around, most captured in this excellent New York Times piece. The most genius idea being discussed, however, involves a metropolitan transit system connecting the city of Paris to its poor suburbs.
I recently wrote about the failures of the American public transit system, far too often focusing on levels of density than on the needs of poor folks without access to other means of transportation. I mean, this whole idea that our transportation system needs to be environmentally sound is great, but we can’t forget why we have public transportation: to transport the public. More importantly, a focus on alleviating density ignores the great social need for sound transit in isolated urban and suburban communities with already low levels of traffic. Our transit system should respond to the needs of our most marginalized citizens.
The plan in Paris takes both of these considerations into account. With one carefully planned transit system, Paris’s poor suburbs could become “greener” and less isolated:
Isolated neighborhoods, which now have little green space, would be intimately woven into the city’s fabric. And the parks would link to a vast new greenbelt defining the city’s edge.In a phrase, this is urban policy at its finest. Sarkozy and his architects are cognizant of the social, ecological and environmental concerns of metropolitan Paris—and they’re actually going to respond to these needs. Novel idea, I know. If Sarkozy is able to implement his plan, it will be the most ambitious reinvention of an urban metropolis in our generation—an innovative plan that may serve as a model for re-envisioning urban America.
Interesting article in the Atlantic predicting that the US will come to resemble France, i.e. the poor being pushed to suburban fringes with low-quality housing stock and no access to public transit:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
One problem I thought of after reading this article is the observation that access to public transportation leads to increased property values. Build a commuter rail into a sleepy town near NYC and you just might push its poor residents out and bring the yuppies in. Call it a failure of the free market, but if transportation is a good, then poor folk will always have less of it.
Now, we could saturate the country with public transit so that it ceased to be a factor in property values, but the budget deficit is large enough already. Or we could subsidize suburban housing with access to public transit - but good luck selling that policy. It's no accident that the best public transit I've ever used was in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The "green" framing dominates because the "public transit is welfare" framing is a political non-starter. You are right that the green framing results in transit being built in communities where people already have cars (and Priuses at that - I'd rather get one clunker off the road than one hybrid). But I wonder if there isn't a "transportation is good for the economy" framing. Solving spatial-mismatch means lower labor costs for small business owners! But considering that the poor would save on car/gas/maintenance, real wages for workers could remain steady. In short, public transit = larger markets = more commerce = more efficient markets. The center-right should love it.
So, there's a lot to think about here. I based a lot of my thinking off of a couple of Daniel Strauss' recent posts, mainly this one that I commented on: http://danielstrauss.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/cta-makes-good-decision/
ReplyDeleteIt seems like Chicago public officials are reacting to expansion by planning rail-lines in areas of anticipated growth so as to alleviate (potential) congestion. This seems to be the overall impetus for transit construction: alleviate congestion, be "green." It might just be my reading of it, but it seems less like a strategic frame and more like an actual belief. Personally, I think there are many more pressing issues, but that's because I place social inequality (read: social isolation in urban neighborhoods) at a higher priority than some general standard of living.
I saw that piece from the Atlantic today, and...I don't know. I see the logic. I certainly see inner-ring suburbs getting poorer, but that doesn't mean we're going to experience the same spatial arrangements as France. I think suburban poverty is less about poor people getting pushed out to the suburbs and more about industry de-centralization and the decline of manufacturing. But this isn't really based on any evidence, aside from a presentation I saw Alex Murphy (a grad student at Princeton) give on suburban poverty.
As for the framing question, which really should be the operative question: You're totally right, Carl. The "public transit as social need/welfare" frame is political suicide; I've just been mentioning it because I got frustrated with a few articles I had been reading re: environmentalism in urban communities. There's gotta be a balance between framing this as "transportation is an economic imperative" while simultaneously resisting raising property values and displacement.
Pres. Obama needs to get some Harvard sociologists in his administration to start thinking through these things...
This I-Go Car map (a non-profit, unlike Zipcar, by the way) underscores the problem: http://www.igocars.org/locations
ReplyDeleteHyde Park gets 8 I-Go Cars, compared to 3 for the rest of the South Side. The for-profit ZipCar is even worse, with 0 in the South Side (other than Hyde Park) but hundreds in downtown and Lincoln Park.
ZipCar obviously thinks the South Side would be unprofitable - maybe they think not enough people there have credit cards, or maybe they think the South Siders wouldn't take care of the cars - but I don't see how the demand in Lincoln Park could be a hundred-times greater than in the entire South Side.
Last comment. Your post has me thinking about all possible forms of transportation. Well, it looks like South Side cyclists are seriously underserved too:
ReplyDeletehttp://egov.cityofchicago.org:80/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/chicagomap_en_combined.pdf
And we all know about the problems with taxi service in minority neighborhoods. There's some serious cumulative disadvantage here.
I think all of the marinas are on the North Side as well...
I’m not sure that using Chicago’s transit system is the most appropriate here because it was built well before most urban development and suburban sprawl occurred in Chicago. Using Washington DC’s Metrorail is probably more appropriate simply given the context of when it was built. The first line to open (the red line) was built for some of the wealthiest folks in town and shuttled people back and forth from the Northwest to downtown Washington. Contrast this to the last line to open (the green line), which was built through some of the most blighted parts of the city. Now, the Southeast is still in pretty bad shape (though arguably a few neighborhoods are gentrifying like crazy, specifically around the ball park), but the green line has allowed for incredible development around a number of urban stations. Shaw, Columbia Heights, and U Street used to be like the Harlem of Washington; now it’s a struggle to get a rental in those neighborhoods for less than a grand.
ReplyDeleteNow, when the green line was under construction there was certainly optimism that it would bring better transportation and opportunities to the city’s poorest and neediest. Today many of those same people have been pushed out of those neighborhoods and still lack access to transportation.
Of course, there is a bind here. Transit stations need to be developed in order to provide good urban jobs, otherwise you wind up with a transit line that serves the poor but can’t take them anywhere. Cleveland’s red line would be an example of this – the failure to develop most of the stations means the line still serves poor neighborhoods, but most of the service jobs that would most benefit the poor moved out to the suburbs where decent public transportation doesn’t exist.
The sticking point in this debate seems to be that there are rich neighborhoods and there are poor neighborhoods, and nowhere do people of different classes live in harmony. Maybe this is more of a sociological question than an economic one, but many cities (and definitely suburbs) have been planned around this class segregation. Work on addressing that and perhaps this transportation problem becomes less of an issue.
This view of poor being in burbs in Europe is not universal. They have rich and middle class burbs also. So does US, as Orfield has revealed inner burbs are poor.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check this out also:
http://www.gmfus.org/doc/Lessons%20from%20Turin%20and%20Lyon.pdf
LESSONS FROM TURIN AND LYON
What Six Clevelanders Took Away from Two European Success Stories
and Its Possible Application Here