Alex Steffen lays out the main arguments for denser cities and/or reducing car dependence very succinctly and clearly. See http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html

Unfortunately, I was unable to comment as the comments turn off after 14 days. This is what I wanted to say, but was prevented from:

There is one glaring omission I feel, one that as far as I could tell was also not addressed by the commentators. This is the power of land tax.
Land taxation is a frighteningly simple and effective method to encourage dense settlements, and quickly recoup the cost of mass transit investment. It is frightening as it threatens the FIRE economy and homeowner fantasies of extorting money from later generations when they sell.
The basic idea is to take today’s “property” tax and eliminate the portion of it that falls on the building’s value, and shift it to the part that falls on the value of the land under the building. Once this has happened, the land tax can be increased to capture a significant portion of land value increases.
The reason for its effectiveness is that it removes an enormous disincentive to intensifying land-use (as it would not affect your tax bill). Conversely, it creates a stronger disincentive to under-utilizing land, as a vacant lot next to a lot containing an apartment building is taxed similarly. Use it or lose it.
Land taxes also recapture land value increases due to transit and other public infrastructural improvements. This means that transit investments become much more affordable, as the increased tax revenue will significantly offset capital expenditures.
The final advantage gained from land taxation is the subtlest. Once the land tax recaptures a significant part of land value appreciation, property values will mostly reflect the building itself, rather than the land. This may reduce landowner/homeowner resistance to intensification, as “undesirable” land uses nearby like apartments or commercial development will not affect their property value much. In my experience, homeowners are the greatest obstacle to intensification efforts – vehemently opposing any zoning changes to allow greater density. This in turn drives up the price of any land that does get zoned for intensification, which is passed on to renters or purchasers of housing on that land.

This is just about the saddest collection of pictures you can see. Overwhelming sometimes – how people can waste such riches: The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit

I was asked recently by someone returning (shell-shocked) from Detroit – what would I change? …I think Detroit presents a whole series of reinforcing problems (these are my opinions, some of which can be found elsewhere on this blog):

First reason: Bad property tax system (as you may have guessed!): it taxes both land and capital, and allows each owner to depreciate the building’s value and write off the interest on the mortgage. I think it also has lead to and compounds an assessment bias in favour of building value. So when you stop repairing a building, the assessment goes down, and you pay less tax, yet you are still allowed to reduce your income tax by writing off interest payments on the mortgage, AND the ‘depreciation’ on the building. If you flip the property when the building has ‘depreciated’ to $0 value, the new owner can start depreciating it again (even if the building has not actually depreciated much). As the land value is under-taxed, speculators can buy up land whenever there are signs of regeneration, and hold it hoping someone who wants to actually do something with it will buy it for more than the speculator paid. If their bet turns out wrong – well, you can burn it down for an insurance write-off (again, based on an inflated assessment), or just stop paying taxes until the city assumes ownership.

Assessing properly, and taxing just the land, lights a fire under landowners to do something with the property (to earn the rent it should be earning), and doesn’t penalize them for fixing up the buildings, or even intensifying the land use. So bad property tax rewards land speculators and punishes real developers; it rewards people for destroying sound buildings, and rewards people for not using land. This exacerbates sprawl, which in turn exacerbates blight.

Please note that this applies to most cities, not just Detroit.

2. Zoning: You can assign this to my libertarian streak, but I think zoning regulations are much more destructive than beneficial. Several reasons for this:

a. Paternalism – ‘we’ (the planners) know what’s best for you. Here’s a classic example: people living (illegally) in industrial loft space. Why is it llegal? Because it is zoned ‘industrial’. Why is it zoned ‘industrial’? Because people shouldn’t live near industry. Why shouldn’t people live near industry? Because it can be noisy, smelly, and even polluted. But what if people don’t care that much, and just want a cheap and interesting place to live and work? Well, they don’t know what’s best for them.
b. Elite capture: the planning and zoning process is often complex, bureaucratic, and lengthy. This means that a few people with time on their hand (busy-bodies), or a speculative interest in the outcome (‘ratepayers’, land speculators) can change lives of others around them. The people usually ’screwed’ by zoning are the poor (by segregating uses and making life difficult for those without cars, and by restricting the land that can be used for multiple-dwelling unit buildings [or even small lot sizes] and small businesses). This problem was well appreciated by those who originally enacted zoning bylaws – they tried to prevent referendums on the adoption of zoning by voters.
Where referendums were used, they have generally rejected zoning (mostly Texas). Analysis that I have seen of the votes in Texas showed that blacks and generally poor neighbourhoods overwhelmingly voted against zoning.

c. Zoning often enforces unrealistic or downright destructive planning fads – witness the near universal single-use zones, and downtown ‘revitalization’ by hotel and theme mall, etc.

d. Even ‘progressive’ zoning just tries to imitate non-zoning (like mixed-use, live-work, density etc).

e. Zoning forces a very unnatural stagnation on cities: buildings, streets, neighbourhoods should be changing all the time – new uses, different uses, intensification, etc. Cities are by nature dynamic – if they aren’t they become overgrown towns. Most old areas of cities (those that had a chance to evolve before zoning) gradually changed over time – they intensified, and became more mixed. Even old neighbourhoods usually started fairly monotonous, but changed.

This is not the case where zoning has been enacted – the monotony never goes away. In Detroit’s case, the number of abandoned industrial buildings is staggering – but part of the reason has to be their industrial zoning – surely people could find some use for those spaces (huge windows, high ceilings,
sound-proof cement floors, unlimited floorspace!)

3. Quadruply bad luck: Overspecialized in one industry. Overspecialized in an industry that became concentrated in only 3 vertically integrated firms (meaning little flexibility). Overspecialized in a manufacturing industry (think rust-belt vs. finance). Overspecialized in automobiles (rather awkward
to fight highways or promote public transit in Motor City!).

So what would I do?

1. Revamp the assessment system, and tax only the land portion of property

2. Remove ALL zoning controls

3. Rip up the urban freeways, replace with regular avenues. Convert all one-way streets to 2 way, and greatly reduce street widths.

4. If there is any rent control, scrap it. Rent control ends up hurting those it was meant to help – renters. What developer in their right mind would build rental units if they can’t charge what the market will bear? So as apartments and rental houses are converted to condos or free-hold houses, or they are abandoned/burned etc., the rents go up anyway – just look at NYC over the past half century.

At this point you already see the political impossibility of it! But the final steps would be (and probably could happen regardless of the above happening):

4. Where the city owns abandoned land, retain ownership, but lease the land at market rates (initially it will be negligible) to anyone who wants to build, or use it. These would own the buildings or other improvements they do to the property

5. On a block by block basis, implement Jane Jacobs’ 4 characteristics for vibrant streets:
- density: raise density to at least 100 dwelling-units/acre by building really basic buildings (on 1-4 lots at a time, with internal divisions reflecting old lot boundaries; nothing worse than massive redevelopment schemes consuming entire blocks) with tons of floor space per condo on city owned vacant lots. It is important to do this on a block-by-block basis, as raising the overall density a little bit will have no (even negative) effect. Give the condos away (while retaining the land); make the condo owners pay market-rate land leases (again, probably negligible at first), but no taxes, to the city.
- short blocks: cut large blocks into smaller ones with small cross streets (Jacobs doesn’t give exact lengths, but apparently it means the longest dimension should be less than 400 feet along).
- diversity of uses: have no restrictions on what the basic buildings, or condos within them are used for; encourage where possible uses that have complementary utilization periods (so 2 or more groups of people use the street during different hours of the day)
- diversity of ages: This was aimed to make sure there is an ongoing-supply of cheap space (in old buildings usually). A true diversity of ages would be difficult, but it can be mimicked by continuously adding to the supply of condos – this ‘glut’ keeps scarcity rents from occurring.
6. De-monopolize and privatize the public transit system – to support the denser and poor areas, and free up money. Public monopolies on public transit are a legacy of fixed-route streetcars and subways where ‘natural monopolies’ exist. With cars, vans, and mini-buses now available, there is no reason for the inefficient and inconvenient public monopolies on mass-transit. (that this improves mass-transit can be seen in the UK. Thatcher (‘transit is a relic of the past’) privatized local and inter-urban bus service. Ironically, this has drastically improved bus service – it is now more convenient, and cheaper than before. Even the Tube – still public – has improved due to competition with bus lines.)

I lay unable to sleep (how often to blog entries begin thus?), brooding on how tedious and soul-destroying taking the TTC can be; on how frustrating it is that mass-transit is rarely given a fighting chance; on how most transit plans (including recent) pander to voters who don’t use it. Then it struck me: we need an organization similar to the CAA for transit users! Not (merely) an advocacy or industry group, but a “Member-driven organization that delivers quality transit, [travel, insurance and advocacy] services providing peace of mind, safety and value.” (adapted from CAA, 2007)

Looking at the Southern Ontario version of the CAA’s history gave me all sorts of ideas for starting up a Transit Users’ Co-op (TUC) . Here’s the first 20 ideas (in [their] chronological order):1: Give politicians a demonstration ride (to show the problems encountered by transit users).

2: Ontario’s first Transit race (have to figure out how still).

3: Publish first “Official Transit Guide Of Canada” – TTC Rider has already started the work in Toronto.

4: “The Ontario Motor League’s road signing program began in 1913 when Dr. Doolittle started a movement in which motorists, truck drivers and cyclists travelled throughout Ontario to install wooden road signs.” What a great idea! Let’s start putting up signs/directions to help people using the often labyrinthine transit systems. And on the street – I’m always confused about where the actual entrance to the subway is, or how far the nearest streetcar/bus stop is, etc. 

5: TUC long-distance transit committee to help people without cars plan longer trips around the region, or even country. How about an interactive, user-friendly website that actually allows you to plan the best way to get somewhere by transit and foot (when you haven’t already figured out the best route)?

6: Transit scouts to patrol transit systems to warn people about delays, detours, and to help stranded riders in emergencies. The TUC could email or phone members up to the minute delay info. Perhaps even somehow organize members’ cellphones into a monitoring system to tell other members when the next bus/streetcar/train will arrive (Bell mobility has a service already that shows family members the location of others’ phones on a map).

7: TUC commercial users section to deal with issues commercial users of transit face (couriers, sales people and others traveling for business, businesses far from bus routes, etc)

8: Publish a monthly Canadian Transit Users Magazine

9: Become part of, or create a Safety League – specifically about safety issues using mass-transit

10: Lobby for “reciprocity” of monthly passes between all cities in Canada and USA – so owning a monthly pass in one city will allow you to travel in other cities as well. The TUC could sell these special passes to members (To prove it is a legit transit user. Don’t want people using this as a form of arbitrage between differently priced passes)

11: The TUC President should do a publicity stunt like trying to cross Canada using only public transit systems, or something.

12: Introduce emergency road service for members – Shuttles to pick up seriously delayed riders (have to work this one out!)

13: Volunteers posted at spots that are notorious for confusion or accessibility to help travelers unfamiliar with a transit system or people who may need assistance climbing stairs, etc .

14: Campgrounds are approved, encouraged and, in some places, operated by the TUC for people who don’t use cars! Obviously accessible by public transit.

15: TUC’s engineering department conducts official transit system tests and issues certificates of performance

16: TUC-sponsored safety patroller program. The role of the program, which uses student volunteers aged 11 to 14, is to guide and chaperone youngsters using mass-transit to get to school. Organize national jamborees! Who doesn’t love jamborees?!

17: Organize a British Commonwealth Mass-Transit User Conference, and get someone from the Royalty to be Patron!

18: Fund a gasoline-tax study.

19: Sponsor a seminar series by mass-transit engineers and other professionals to explain basics of mass-transit planning to members

20: Create a day-long better traveling program for seniors that features presentations by experts

Yes, some of these ideas are quaint, and some are long-shots, but if the local CAA chapter can do it, why can’t we? They started with only 25 people (and 25 cars).

Fortunately, there are already groups, primarily advocacy, industry, or transit fetish, like:

Toronto Transit Camp

The Rocket Riders

Canadian Urban Transit Association

Ontario Community Transportation Association

Ottawa Transit Riders’ Association (Just starting, good name, looks like it’s officially advocacy based, but on their wiki is the beginnings of a group trying to make transit use easier/nicer. I doubt they’re aware of it, but their acronym OTRA means ’second’, as in ’second best’ in Latvian.)

Transit Toronto (AMAZING site!)

Hey, I know, I should be writing more, but school has taken over so much time that I feel unable to do much for the blog.

I did run across something weird in Jane Jacobs’ work – her only reference to Henry George. Here are my thoughts:

Jacobs was aware of George’s work – in The Economy of Cities (1969), she directly referrers to him (she rarely referenced anyone) when discussing capital for city economic development. Here is the reference:“Henry George, reasoning from the premise that land is basic capital and basic wealth, asserted that all profits made in cities derive from the value of city land.” She continues, but I am not sure if this is still referring to George: “Of course the peculiarly high value of city land does not derive from anything inherent in the land, but from the concentrations of work upon city land.”I very much doubt that George would have agreed with Jacobs’ statement on his reasoning. George was very clear that land should never be confused with capital, basic or otherwise. And further, he emphasized land is not wealth, basic or otherwise. As well, George did not like the word ‘profit’, as its meaning is imprecise, so would not have used it in making assertions. More fundamentally, George definitely did not assert that ‘profits’ derive from land values, if by profits, Jacobs means the accounting profits of businesses. In fact, he asserted the opposite, that city land value derives from the ‘profits’ made in cities. So what to make of this quote? I have not unfairly taken it out of context – Jacobs asks “What is ‘basic’ capital” and then goes on to say that ‘basic’ capital is a platonic (not real world) concept. Jacobs’ conclusion in that section is that economic development does not require outside ‘capital’ investments – that outside financing creates economic dependency. Rather, developing economies must provide (and do provide) their own capital as they go along. In a way, she is arguing against the fallacy in economics that poverty is caused by a lack of capital, which goes back to the old Malthusian fallacy that there is a fixed amount of capital which is divided between labourers. In this view, poor regions can be helped along by providing them with capital.The irony of this is that Henry George was saying exactly the same thing – poverty is not caused by a scarcity of capital. He asserted that each society produces enough capital for its own needs – that it ‘secretes’ the necessary amount.The quote does show that Jacobs was aware of Henry George and his work. But it flat out contradicts what he actually says. That Jacobs continues her argument, after misrepresenting George, to conclude the same thing he did is very odd. It may simply mean that she did not understand his work. My own opinion of Jacobs’ lucidity and intelligence, as well as George’s very clear and understandable writing makes me doubt this. On the other hand, she may have read a second-hand source that did the actual misrepresentation, or she herself had not actually read his work, but merely knew of it through later economic writers. But this would be unseemly for Jacobs – someone with a reputation for extensive reading and fact-checking. Less benevolently, Jacobs may be intentionally misrepresenting George, knowing that few people actually read him anymore, to claim his ideas as hers. It would be like some future economist or urban planner claiming: ‘Jane Jacobs, reasoning from the premise that cities are economically dependent on agricultural regions and large empires, asserted that theoretically, it would be better to spread people out over a nation rather than concentrate them in large cities’. The future economist could then go on to explain that de-urbanising a population is actually a recipe for disaster.That may be being too harsh; it makes Jacobs sound like a charlatan. But if Jacobs was aware of George, she must have been aware of the Single Tax movement. She could have thus been aware of the conspiracy against it (she certainly did not harbour any illusions about academic economists), and so did not want to share that fate. If this is the case, the blatant misrepresentation of George’s theories may have been a mischievous way of acknowledging him (without making it look like she was a follower of his), and perhaps testing her audience to see if someone would call her on it. The feeling I get from reading biographical notes on her, and her own writing, is that she did have a mischievous streak in her. As to what she was trying to accomplish with this bit of mischief is now likely un-knowable. But from it, we can be certain that she was familiar with Henry George’s work, and if my hypothesis is correct, she probably understood quite clearly what he was saying.

This post is a follow up to the post about Henry George vs. Jane Jacobs (and to Wyn’s excellent comment). I want to make sure that we all understand that a LOT of Jacobs’ work and ideas meshes very well with George’s.

In Jacobs’ ”The Death and Life of Great American Cities” she argues (convincingly) that diversity is the key to economically successful and socially vibrant neighbourhoods and cities. She lists the following as the “Four Conditions” for generating diversity:

1.  The [city] district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These must insure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and are in the place for different purposes, but who are able to use many facilities in common.

2. Blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent.

3. The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in economic yield they must produce. This mingling must be fairly close grained.

4. There must be a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there. This includes dense concentration in the case of people who are there because of residence.

In the other post I essentially argued that Jacobs may not have mentioned George because his proposals may be counterproductive to a diversity of uses, and for ensuring old buildings are left alone.

On the other hand, Jacobs’ condition #4 (density) is very clearly produced by George’s land tax – no wasting space where there is demand for intensifying it. As well, I believe Jacobs’ condition #2 (short blocks) is produced by George’s land tax. This will need some explaining.

First of all, a lot of the value of a plot of land is based on it’s street frontage. This is why lots tend to be long and narrow, with the narrow end facing the street. This is also why corner lots are so prized, and so highly valued. Now, near my apartment is an interesting situation. See map:

(Source: Mapquest – see original here) 

One major street, Harbord, ends at Ossington, making a T-junction. Supose someone were to buy up the lots that face Harbord (on Ossington), and the lots behind those that face a smaller street (Concord) parallel to Ossington. They could then remove two buildings (one facing Ossingtion, the other facing Concord) and create either a narrow street or laneway, or a pedestrian/bike path that would in essence be a continueation of Harbord past Ossington.

The reason this could happen is that you could start with 6 mid-block lots, and end up with four corner lots. Depending on the economics, the increase in value of the four lots could more than compensate for the ‘loss’ of two lots. Depending… Now under George’s system a developer / speculator would lose this money through higher taxes, BUT if it was the city doing this, it could make sense for it to do so.

Once this occurs, then the next block facing Ossington could also be divided this way. It is hypothetical, but this could be a mechanism to slowly extend streets, thus making smaller blocks with more corners.

About Jacobs’ condition #1. I think that as an area changes from low intensity to high intensity, Georgist taxes would encourage diversification. Imagine an existing area of low-density, one use, suburban housing has existed for a few decades. A developer has noticed that over time, many of the houses have added basement suites, or become duplexes. This leads to the conjecture that there is demand for cheap housing for low-income households in the area. Thus, higher density housing is developed in an otherwise low-density, pedestrian unfriendly area.

This development encourages a few small retail establishments and a restaurant or two to start up nearby. The concentration of people in the higher density development act as tipping point. These in turn encourage more people from the surrounding area to frequent the shops – even by foot, as they are nearby. This attracts a few more businesses to become established, some of which serve the other shops as well as customers. A concentration of convenient shopping opportunities and restaurants creates a somewhat lively daytime and evening atmosphere, attracting people from a larger area still, thus allowing the establishment of a mass transit line to the area, putting more pedestrians on the street.

Further, all these amenities now create greater demand for housing by people who cannot afford low-density residences, and do not drive. This demand encourages homeowners to add dwelling units and developers to build higher density housing. Thus the cycle continues.

During further ramifications, non-retail commercial businesses would start, perhaps some light manufacturing type businesses would grow from the initial retail etc. These would add still more pedestrians through the employee traffic. This would then tremendously encourage local retailing, as then a steady stream of pedestrian traffic would be generated throughout the day.

So Georgist taxation, by encouraging this virtuous circle, is very good for setting up diversity. However, as I described in the previous post, once diversity has become established, it can destroy itself, and I think that Georgist taxation would similarly encourage that vicious circle.

 However, Jacobs did describe several ways to combat the self-destruction of city diversity, but for that, read the book! Or perhaps I’ll return to it later.

Lastly, about Jacobs’ condition #3 – those old buildings. Not sure yet about what Wyn said about it. I’ll get back to that.

Well, actually, David Greusel wrote it, and two years ago. I found out about it through the AMAZING blog “Raise the Hammer” about Hamilton (hometown!). The document is a ‘manifesto’ on ChangeThis. Here’s the link to his Legalize Neighborhoods Again! manifesto. To my credit I must say that I was thinking those exact things back then. But he wrote it, and wrote it well. He points out the two big evils of the past half century of city building (zoning and traffic planning). Here’s what he recommends, and what I concur with:

1. Get rid of zoning

2. Prioritize traffic planning for pedestrians, then public transit, then bikes, and only then cars

Here’s what he says makes real neighbourhoods (and which he probably lifted from Jane Jacobs):

“To be a healthier, more effective human environment, neighborhoods need to have the following: Density, Activity, Diversity, Ambiguity, Vitality, Flexibility, Public Space”

PS> I’ll put more on Jacobs and Henry later today!

 VS.

I want to post something I’ve been thinking about since reading Progress and Poverty. Wyn from Wealth and Want has been in touch with me, and has graciously offered to put this blog on a listserve for Georgists. So I thought I should add a bit more on Henry George.

I hope Georgists are aware of Jane Jacobs’ work – I would rate them both at the same status of “genius outsider economists”. George died long before Jacobs, but his work was undoubtedly known to her. However, she has never explicitly mentioned him in her work – which is a bit weird considering how both were intensely interested in urban economics. This got me thinking about why she hasn’t. I think several reasons explain this:1. Jane Jacobs was probably aware of the campaign against Henry George, so did not want to be tarred by the same brush.2. Georgist policy would drastically increase the pressure to convert land to its “best possible use” (that’s Henry George’s point isn’t it?)I won’t go on about the first point – it is impossible to prove or disprove it now that she has passed away. It’s just a gut instinct.However, about the second point… Two things Jacobs wrote about deal with converting land uses. One was that “Old businesses may sometimes use new buildings, but new businesses must always rely on old buildings”. Georgist taxation would make it very expensive to keep old buildings in areas where land values had increased. The tax burden would require their rebuilding to whatever use carried the highest rent. This could mean old warehouses leveled for new condos (Toronto today), or even massively renovated to appeal to urban-type businesses/residents that can pay high rents for the cool factor of being in a converted space.Under the current system, landlords to not have as much pressure to knock down or renovate old buildings – one of George’s complaints.The second point is more involved, it deals with her explanation of “The self-destruction of diversity” to understand her point, one must accept that neighbourhoods with a diversity of primary uses are much more vibrant and economically productive. Self-destruction occurs because vibrant areas attract people (and their money). People and businesses want to be there because it is a pleasant area (i.e. commercial businesses and residents), and retail businesses want to be there because of the foot-traffic.This very desirability drives up rents – which means landlords must convert their buildings to suit whatever use happens to be most profitable, and hence can pay the high rents. What use this is depends on the area – e.g. some areas become known for restaurants (like College St currently in Toronto), so gradually the diversity of other businesses (retail, professional, etc) gets reduced as they are driven out of the area, and more restaurants move in. Eventually, there remains only one main use (downtown office districts are the ultimate expression of this), and the area becomes dull and uninviting. We scratch our heads wondering what happened, and then move on to the next “in” neighbourhood.

Georgist taxation would drastically exaggerate this tendency as the government itself would put monetary pressure on landlords to convert to the highest paying use. Currently if a business owns its own building, it is able to ignore the higher rent it could charge if it rented it out. And probably landlords can be lazy about evicting long time tenants or charging them higher rents reflective of the neighbourhood. But with the taxman charging higher land tax, the pressure to convert would be immediate and intolerable.

These are raw thoughts – please comment!!

As usual, the Onion has hit this nail on the head. A hilarious parody of the travails of a would-be gentrifier. Read this

“I mean, I don’t want the people here to leave. I just want them to stay inside more. Especially if they’re not going to do anything to bring this community to life. But they’re always out on their stoops, just playing dominoes or talking. I like talking, but I do it inside, where it was meant to be done. It makes me uncomfortable to have people watching me all the time. Not that I think they’d do anything, but I just like to be a little more private. “

Who likes the Globe and Mail? I do for one, and have a subscription, and generally enjoy reading it and am usually satisfied with their reporting. However I have one complaint about the Globe – that their “Globe Toronto” section is garbage. The pieces are usually about fluff, crime, not about Toronto at all, and maybe a couple of good ones (usually by J. Barber). I have decided to to make a tally of the articles in this section every day to show how bad it is. I will write out the the titles (1 point each) of all articles in the Globe Toronto section and rate them. The findings will be posted everytime I do a rating on my sidebar.

To see how I rated each article follow the links above, or on the sidebar – please feel free to comment if you believe my rating is unfair, or whatever. I may reconsider.

Conventional economic wisdom cites such factors as infrastructure, education, crime rates, labour mobility and lack of corruption being determinants of economic success. By these criteria, all medium sized Canadian cities would score very high, in fact much higher than large cities. Yet, these cities are not growing…

Richard Florida has studied urban growth and the factors determining it. His studies point to other factors than those given above as being important for urban growth. His findings point to the existence of a “creative class” whose members are now determining the economic performance of US cities. Cities that can attract and hold members of this class tend to have similar characteristics and thus he has recommended that cities focus on three mutually necessary factors – Talent, Technology, and Tolerance.

Of these, tolerance has caused considerable controversy, as he measured this using a “bohemian index” and a “gay index”. These indices measure the per capita concentration of artists/musicians and similar professions, and the number of same-sex couples on US censuses, respectively. Somewhat surprisingly, these indices were the best at predicting economic performance compared to indices of technology, education, or immigrants per capita.

For cities to prosper he recommends that they create an environment that welcomes diversity, that supports creativity, and which provides a variety of cultural amenities. These cultural amenities include outdoor sports opportunities, a vibrant nightlife, a vibrant music scene, cafés and restaurants open at all hours etc. As well, for a city to succeed, it must be able to utilize the creative and entrepreneurial drive of this class by providing accessible sources of start-up capital, and effective networks between new start-ups, the cultural scene, and the mainstream.

The class is composed of people with much education, entrepreneurial drive, and who identify with the cultural scene of urban environments. Florida characterises these people as highly mobile, and who prioritise a city’s lifestyle and cultural amenities over immediate job opportunities.

This approach is very refreshing, and does provide a welcome contrast to traditional analysis of urban development. However, his theory does not really show how to create a vibrant city. Also, what it could be showing is that the creative class is attracted to vibrant, growing cities, rather than creating them. By his indices, most major and many minor Canadian cities score well. However, this does not mean that medium sized cities in Canada are faring well.

Also, large cities tend to be older cities, and tend to provide more diverse cultural amenities than smaller cities. The creative class is very mobile and members specialize in niche markets and so are attracted to large, vibrant cities with large and deep markets. Thus, size is a large factor in this index, so small and large cities shouldn’t be compared. He does acknowledge this, and usually compares cities of similar sizes. By his own indices, small cities tend to score lower when compared to large cities, and any high scores by small cities tend to be for one factor, rather than all three.

The environment attractive to the mobile creative class is actually attractive to everybody. If a city caters to it’s own poorer classes in a way that encourages them to start their own businesses, it will almost certainly create a favourable environment for the creative class. For the most part creative class people can take care of themselves – being well educated, driven, and mobile. It is the people who lack these advantages that cities must strive to help.