Why San Francisco Beat Detroit. Bloomberg compares cities

[ghettopalmetto]

So these creative types don't work at Apple or Google? A large portion of downtown San Francisco is occupied by their financial district. I work in the financial industry and apparently I'm not the creative type everybody gushes about. SF has more sprawl than Detroit. Ford Edison and Firestone came together in Detroit because that was where Ford was from and Ford built his Model T factory in what was then an unincorporated area outside the city of Detroit.

And yea, I'm just dying here in my suburban. God save me.

I didn't say that. But you implied that EVERYONE works at Apple and Google. Just like you assume that EVERYONE wants [[or should want) to live in Suburbia. San Francisco may have sprawl [[as does every city in the United States), but it has a viable city remaining at its core. The housing values attest to the demand to live in such a place.

If you're happy, that's terrific. But to tell everyone else that they're wrong, because it's not congruent with your personal experience? That's just a little bit naive.

[Shollin]

I didn't say that. But you implied that EVERYONE works at Apple and Google. Just like you assume that EVERYONE wants [[or should want) to live in Suburbia. San Francisco may have sprawl [[as does every city in the United States), but it has a viable city remaining at its core. The housing values attest to the demand to live in such a place.

If you're happy, that's terrific. But to tell everyone else that they're wrong, because it's not congruent with your personal experience? That's just a little bit naive.

First I never said everyone. I said silicon valley and used Apple and Google as two companies who are part of silicon valley. I see so many people complain about how freeways and suburban office parks contributed to Detroit's decline, but the Bay Area is filled with office parks and there is about 9 different versions of interstate 80.

I didn't say everybody wants suburbia, but I see people pushing this urban lifestyle as if it's the wave of the future when suburbs are still growing at a faster rate than the urban cities.

Aren't you doing the same? Telling people who live in suburbia that we need instead dense urban because it's not congruent with your personal experience?

[iheartthed]

Ummmmm because SF Giants were a better team??
I'm not understanding the purpose of this article, its like comparing apples to oranges.

Ed Glaesar, the author, is a Harvard economist that studies urban economics.

[ghettopalmetto]

Here are the differences between what you're saying, and what I'm saying:

First I never said everyone. I said silicon valley and used Apple and Google as two companies who are part of silicon valley. I see so many people complain about how freeways and suburban office parks contributed to Detroit's decline, but the Bay Area is filled with office parks and there is about 9 different versions of interstate 80.

Detroit has expanded its suburbia while population has remained stagnant. It has also done so while the central city has continued to decline. Companies like Apple and Google developed after San Francisco started to reinvent itself. The point: Detroit continues down the same well-trod path regardless of circumstance.

It's probably important to distinguish Silicon Valley from San Francisco, though, as the distance and commuting hell between the two cities almost makes them two entirely separate metropolitan areas. Silicon Valley is more often associated with San Jose.

I didn't say everybody wants suburbia, but I see people pushing this urban lifestyle as if it's the wave of the future when suburbs are still growing at a faster rate than the urban cities.

Growing? In physical area or in population? Do you have a number to substantiate this? The urban lifestyle IS the wave of the future. Car ownership is decreasing, housing values in strong cities [[like San Francisco and DC) continue to rise while spec houses on the suburban fringe sit empty, vehicle miles travelled is decreasing.... Just follow the U-Hauls to find out where people are going.

Aren't you doing the same? Telling people who live in suburbia that we need instead dense urban because it's not congruent with your personal experience?

No, I am not. Suburbia has been the "norm" in this country since World War II. In Detroit, it is about the only lifestyle option--there isn't a realistic choice. Other places have choices. By not offering choices, you're limiting the types of people who would live in Southeast Michigan. It's like a pizza place that only offers cheese slices--the folks who want pepperoni or sausage or mushrooms have to go somewhere else to be satiated.

[nain rouge]

I think there is a cyclical nature to our relationship with cities and rural/suburban areas.

Basically, our grandparents or whatever grew up in crowded cities and were overjoyed to finally have space and privacy. However, over time, suburban developments got so spread out that car trips began taking 30 minutes, 45 minutes, or even an hour or more. Our generation grew up with those car trips and many of us are sick of it. The thought of being able to walk to where you want to go instead of having to drive makes many of us overjoyed.

And there you have it.

[iheartthed]

I think there is a cyclical nature to our relationship with cities and rural/suburban areas.

Basically, our grandparents or whatever grew up in crowded cities and were overjoyed to finally have space and privacy. However, over time, suburban developments got so spread out that car trips began taking 30 minutes, 45 minutes, or even an hour or more. Our generation grew up with those car trips and many of us are sick of it. The thought of being able to walk to where you want to go instead of having to drive makes many of us overjoyed.

And there you have it.

I think you mean generational, not cyclical. We haven't been through enough of this to identify whether it's cyclical, although I doubt that it is...

We're in uncharted territory in regards to human history. Never before has so much of the human population lived in urbanized areas. But there are two characteristics that are generally agreed on: 1) an urbanizing/densifying area correlates to a population becoming more prosperous, and 2) a de-urbanizing/de-densifying area correlates to economic decline. Metro Detroit has been de-urbanizing for a half century now, and also been in relative economic decline for just as long.

[Bham1982]

Growing? In physical area or in population? Do you have a number to substantiate this? The urban lifestyle IS the wave of the future. Car ownership is decreasing, housing values in strong cities [[like San Francisco and DC) continue to rise while spec houses on the suburban fringe sit empty, vehicle miles travelled is decreasing.... Just follow the U-Hauls to find out where people are going.

This is pretty much entirely wrong, except for the part where some desirable inner cities have stronger property values than exurban sprawlburbias [[which is kinda obvious).

With few exceptions, the highest population and economic growth rates are still in suburban and exurban regions, and U.S. auto ownership has never been higher.

So you may be true that, at some point urban living will be the future, but there isn't really any strong evidence to support the contention.

[Bham1982]

. But there are two characteristics that are generally agreed on: 1) an urbanizing/densifying area correlates to a population becoming more prosperous, and 2) a de-urbanizing/de-densifying area correlates to economic decline. Metro Detroit has been de-urbanizing for a half century now, and also been in relative economic decline for just as long.

This is true, but IMO doesn't have anything to do with urban vs. suburban growth.

An area that is densifying is, by definition, growing. LA and Houston have been densifying for decades, but I don't think they're exactly poster children for urbanization or some new paradigm of living. It's just that they have good economies and lots of construction housing increasing numbers of people.

Numerically, no region has added more people since WWII than LA, yet LA is pretty much the poster child for suburban sprawl. It may be dense suburban sprawl that's getting denser all the time, but it's still classically auto-oriented, and downtown LA has never been less important to the region than now.

[ghettopalmetto]

This is pretty much entirely wrong, except for the part where some desirable inner cities have stronger property values than exurban sprawlburbias [[which is kinda obvious).

With few exceptions, the highest population and economic growth rates are still in suburban and exurban regions, and U.S. auto ownership has never been higher.

So you may be true that, at some point urban living will be the future, but there isn't really any strong evidence to support the contention.

Well, let's agree on this, then: Regions that have strong central cities are more prosperous, both in educational attainment and economic growth, and are more attractive to the types of people who will grow the economy into the future.

Or would you have us believe that the nationwide trend toward urban redevelopment is a hoax, and Detroit is just as well positioned as San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and Philadelphia?

Like I said above...you can find cheese pizza anywhere. No one is going to move to [[or stay in) Detroit for cheese pizza if the toppings they want are available somewhere else [[and cheese pizza is but one of many options).

Keep on with the litany of excuses. All it does is keep the metropolitan psyche looking backward and remaining content with the status quo instead of working to adapt and move forward.

[Bham1982]

Well, let's agree on this, then: Regions that have strong central cities are more prosperous, both in educational attainment and economic growth, and are more attractive to the types of people who will grow the economy into the future.

I think this is probably true, at least for the "high-end" cities. No question that places like Manhattan, Brooklyn and San Francisco are huge draws.

Or would you have us believe that the nationwide trend toward urban redevelopment is a hoax, and Detroit is just as well positioned as San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and Philadelphia?

I don't think the urban generation meme is a hoax, but I think it's probably overhyped, and we've been hearing about this "back to the city" movement for decades now, yet the Census still isn't seeing it in their data.

I think that for a few "superstar cities" [[NYC, SF, Boston, maybe DC), the core areas will probably outgrow the fringes, because the cores are super-desirable for an elite class of worker. These areas might be a new urban paradigm, because I really can see the idea that, say, the Bronx is a better long-term economic bet than, say, suburban New Jersey. There are benefits to proximity in these "superstar cities"

Then there's a second class of cities where you see both urban growth and urban decline, and I don't know what to conclude. Places like Chicago, Philly, Baltimore are both crumbling and booming [[depending on ones perspective). They are economic laggards and have declining population and growing decay overall, yet their downtowns are growing quickly and they do have an influx of young, educated folks. I think these cities could go either way.

But I think most cities are in a third class, where we have yet to see any "recentralization". Not just Detroit, but other Rust Belt towns like Cleveland and St. Louis, and Sun Belt towns like Phoenix and Tampa. I don't see these cities with powerful cores anytime soon.

[cman710]

With few exceptions, the highest population and economic growth rates are still in suburban and exurban regions, and U.S. auto ownership has never been higher.

Unquestionably, the fastest growing areas of the country are car-dependent ones. If you look at the growth of metro areas with at least 500,000 people from 2010 to 2011, the fastest growing metro areas are the following:

Austin, TX
McAllen, TX
Raleigh, NC
Provo-Orem, UT
Charleston, SC
El Paso, TX
San Antonio, TX
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Colorado Springs, CO
Denver, CO

Source: Wikipedia

This list is striking for several reasons:

[[1) All are generally in pro-business states.

[[2) Texas is generally booming, despite its cities being heavily reliant on cars. [[Even Austin is car dependent and the other major cities have no significant public transportation.)

[[3) The cost of living in these cities is generally low, which is attractive in the current economy.

[[4) On the whole, these places have warm climates.

[[5) None of these areas are "elite" cities, but they generally do have an educated work force.

[ghettopalmetto]

Unquestionably, the fastest growing areas of the country are car-dependent ones. If you look at the growth of metro areas with at least 500,000 people from 2010 to 2011, the fastest growing metro areas are the following:

Austin, TX
McAllen, TX
Raleigh, NC
Provo-Orem, UT
Charleston, SC
El Paso, TX
San Antonio, TX
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Colorado Springs, CO
Denver, CO

Source: Wikipedia

You have to be careful citing such claims as "fastest-growing". For years, Loudoun County, Virginia claimed to be the Fastest Growing County in the United States. Well, of course it was. It started as a rural farming county of 24,000 in 1960, then exploded to 312,000 in 2010 due to the expansion of sprawling development. That's a growth of 1000% in 50 years, but a net gain of "only" 288,000 residents. Add 288,000 residents to Metropolitan Detroit, and you'd have a growth rate of only 6%, even though the raw numbers are exactly the same. Even still--just because Loudoun County was the "fastest growing", does that make it any better of a place?

In other words--OF COURSE those Sun Belt cities have been the "fastest growing". Many of them were podunk backwaters well after Detroit already "matured". Is this "statistic" supposed to excuse stagnation in Southeastern Michigan?

Car dependency is another issue entirely, as modern zoning regulations make construction of pedestrian-friendly environments illegal, for all intents and purposes.

I doubt people are flocking to Houston just so they can zoom zoom zoom all over town for a gallon of milk.

[iheartthed]

Unquestionably, the fastest growing areas of the country are car-dependent ones. If you look at the growth of metro areas with at least 500,000 people from 2010 to 2011, the fastest growing metro areas are the following:

Austin, TX
McAllen, TX
Raleigh, NC
Provo-Orem, UT
Charleston, SC
El Paso, TX
San Antonio, TX
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Colorado Springs, CO
Denver, CO

Source: Wikipedia

This list is striking for several reasons:

[[1) All are generally in pro-business states.

[[2) Texas is generally booming, despite its cities being heavily reliant on cars. [[Even Austin is car dependent and the other major cities have no significant public transportation.)

[[3) The cost of living in these cities is generally low, which is attractive in the current economy.

[[4) On the whole, these places have warm climates.

[[5) None of these areas are "elite" cities, but they generally do have an educated work force.

Texas could just become the new Michigan in 50 years too...

[michimoby]

First I never said everyone. I said silicon valley and used Apple and Google as two companies who are part of silicon valley. I see so many people complain about how freeways and suburban office parks contributed to Detroit's decline, but the Bay Area is filled with office parks and there is about 9 different versions of interstate 80.

It's important to also note that a very large proportion of young Silicon Valley employees reside in San Francisco and commute down the Peninsula [[many via BART, mostly via CalTrain).

[Bham1982]

It's important to also note that a very large proportion of young Silicon Valley employees reside in San Francisco and commute down the Peninsula [[many via BART, mostly via CalTrain).

BART doesn't go anywhere near Silicon Valley.

You're probably right that a fair amount of Silicon Alley employees are young San Franciscans, but Caltrain has total weekday ridership of only around 30,000, so I would guess a pretty small % of tech workers are taking the train.

Probably most people just take private cars to those suburban office parks, most of which aren't convenient to public transit. They also have commuter vans, so maybe younger folks who live in more urban locations use those.

[kryptonite]

One of the major complaints I have always heard from anyone I know who has lived in the Bay area is that the commutes there are terrible. Even on the weekends traffic can be horrible from what people have told me. When I was in San Francisco I was lucky enough to be able to stay at a hotel and walk wherever I went. But two friends met me for drinks downtown and had to drive 45 minutes just to get to the BART station nearest to where they live. They hate the traffic in the area.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
I don't think the urban generation meme is a hoax, but I think it's probably overhyped, and we've been hearing about this "back to the city" movement for decades now, yet the Census still isn't seeing it in their data.
...snip...

Do you know anyone living in downtown Detroit who keeps their legal residence in the burbs -- mainly for insurance reasons and perhaps also to avoid the full Detroit tax job?

I'm constantly surprised by how many people I know actually 'live' in the burbs -- but really 'live' in the city. Unintended census effect.

[Islandman]

Yes. And auto mechanic or any trade for that matter is indeed a skill to rival that of a secondary education. However many of the jobs that were lost around these parts weren't really skilled at all.

What is a shame is that, perhaps I am wrong, but the writing was really on the wall for decades. The boom/bust cycle of the auto industry, the competition from Japan, the near death of Chrysler in the early 80's should have been the signal to the region to about face and change course. Diversify the economy and get the population educated.

Instead we as a region clung to - and still cling to - this idea that the auto industry and manufacturing is our bread and butter. It has been disasterous. What I do think is also problematic is that education is viewed almost entirely as a means to an end. I was lucky that I had a family that instilled in me the belief that education in and of itself is valuable and makes you a better person, rather than just might help you get a better job. I also think our region would simply be a better place is we thought that way.

Degrees don't have to be expensive either, if you're saavy about it. I went to Wayne State, a great, working-class school and have very little debt, which will be gone soon. As a result I was able to get a good job and a great education. Hell, if I did the first two years at community college I'd probably have no debt. Think education is expensive? Try ignorance.

Great post.

[maverick1]

Yes. And auto mechanic or any trade for that matter is indeed a skill to rival that of a secondary education. However many of the jobs that were lost around these parts weren't really skilled at all.

What is a shame is that, perhaps I am wrong, but the writing was really on the wall for decades. The boom/bust cycle of the auto industry, the competition from Japan, the near death of Chrysler in the early 80's should have been the signal to the region to about face and change course. Diversify the economy and get the population educated.

Instead we as a region clung to - and still cling to - this idea that the auto industry and manufacturing is our bread and butter. It has been disasterous. What I do think is also problematic is that education is viewed almost entirely as a means to an end. I was lucky that I had a family that instilled in me the belief that education in and of itself is valuable and makes you a better person, rather than just might help you get a better job. I also think our region would simply be a better place is we thought that way.

Degrees don't have to be expensive either, if you're saavy about it. I went to Wayne State, a great, working-class school and have very little debt, which will be gone soon. As a result I was able to get a good job and a great education. Hell, if I did the first two years at community college I'd probably have no debt. Think education is expensive? Try ignorance.

As a white collar worker in manufacturing I don't understand why Detroit has to abandon manufacturing instead of building off of it and securing it. You'll never hear Germany abandoning manufacturing. And segments of manufacturing we led and then abandoned because it was "old and useless" are now making money for South Korea, China, and Germany. The skills, knowledge, and technology involved in "making things" should never be thrown away. Of course manufacturing will not employ the same amount of people it did 10-20 years ago. But to discard 100 years of manufacturing knowledge makes no sense to me. Other countries would kill for the knowledge and skills we have in manufacturing. I don't get why Detroit can't hold on and strengthen its position in manufacturing and bring in new industries. For example why can't Detroit keep its status as the heart of US manufacturing in addition to expanding into finance, biotech, entertainment, logistics, etc. People act as if the creative class works in the abstract and doesn't use tools [[by tools I mean any instruments required to properly do your job i.e. software, computers, scanners, etc.) Someone has to make the tools the creative people use to be effective.

[ghettopalmetto]

This short piece describes some of the socioeconomic dynamic of professional 20-and-30-somethings at work. This isn't happening in some Third World anti-labor state, some exotic weather paradise, or internet startup haven. This is Detroit:

This past July the U.S. Census Bureau released new population data that showed faster growth rates in city centers than in suburban areas for 27 of the 51 largest metro areas in the United States between July 2010 and July 2011.

Recent census figures show that Detroit's overall population shrank by 25 percent in the last 10 years. But during the same time period, downtown Detroit experienced a 59 percent increase in the number of college-educated residents under the age of 35.

LiveWorkDetroit!'s success suggests a genuine interest and curiosity about Detroit from the Millennials: the initiative brought together over 2,300 college students and graduates since March 2011. An overwhelming majority [[74 percent) of the people who participated indicated they have increased desire to live and work in downtown Detroit .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noel-h...b_2042926.html

[Bham1982]

This short piece describes some of the socioeconomic dynamic of professional 20-and-30-somethings at work. This isn't happening in some Third World anti-labor state, some exotic weather paradise, or internet startup haven. This is Detroit:

Ghetto, if you're arguing that city centers have faster rates of growth than metropolitan areas as a whole, that's probably true. You're comparing 5,000 people in downtown Detroit to 5 million in the metro. This would be an especially strong trend in a recession, where exurban growth basically stops.

I'm referring to cities vs. suburbs, not downtown districts vs. metropolitan areas. With the possible exceptions of NYC, SF and one or two others, I don't cities outperforming their suburbs.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ghetto, if you're arguing that city centers have faster rates of growth than metropolitan areas as a whole, that's probably true. You're comparing 5,000 people in downtown Detroit to 5 million in the metro. This would be an especially strong trend in a recession, where exurban growth basically stops.

I'm referring to cities vs. suburbs, not downtown districts vs. metropolitan areas. With the possible exceptions of NYC, SF and one or two others, I don't cities outperforming their suburbs.

Well, believe what you want. The fact that the number of motivated college graduates in Detroit is increasing can only be taken as a positive.

[gameguy56]

Ghetto, if you're arguing that city centers have faster rates of growth than metropolitan areas as a whole, that's probably true. You're comparing 5,000 people in downtown Detroit to 5 million in the metro. This would be an especially strong trend in a recession, where exurban growth basically stops.I'm referring to cities vs. suburbs, not downtown districts vs. metropolitan areas. With the possible exceptions of NYC, SF and one or two others, I don't cities outperforming their suburbs.

Well, you would be wrong. http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/...s.htmlIt's not just a handful of superstar cities. Cities from DC to Denver are growing and Densifying. Detroit is not.

[Det_ard]

This short piece describes some of the socioeconomic dynamic of professional 20-and-30-somethings at work. This isn't happening in some Third World anti-labor state, some exotic weather paradise, or internet startup haven. This is Detroit:

This past July the U.S. Census Bureau released new population data that showed faster growth rates in city centers than in suburban areas for 27 of the 51 largest metro areas in the United States between July 2010 and July 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noel-h...b_2042926.html

But the 2011 Census estimates are bogus, and can't be used to claim migration from suburbs to city centers.

The census data reported was the 2011 population estimates for incorporated places across the US. So basically cities, towns, boroughs, and townships. We went through this yesterday, but if one read the actual census methodology for this particular data they were quite clear. The subcounty [[i.e. municipal) population estimates are mostly based on an estimate of the change in housing units at the municipal level. The census changed their methodology on how they computed housing unit change for this particular data and as they explain:
“To produce subcounty housing unit estimates, we distributed the extrapolated county estimates down to each subcounty area within a county based on 2010 Census proportions.” [[emphasis added)
Which means basically that there was very little 2011 data that went into these numbers. Without using new information it begs the question of how much the results should be interpreted. They basically took the estimated county level population data and allocated it to smaller municipalities based on the 2010 Census. They also just assumed that all the growth was even within counties. That assumption, that center cities grew the same as their immediate suburbs, produced the results being reported on everywhere. There appears to be no other supporting analysis for the assumption, it is just an assumption. Other than that, there is no new information here to lead to the conclusions making their way into the headlines. It may have even tripped up the experts out there because the Census folks explain they changed their methodology just for this particular data release, and are likely to change it again before next year’s update. But you have to read into their methodology notes to realize the changes for just this year. This is all probably an example of why some of us have the bad habit of reading footnotes first.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...ted-population

[ghettopalmetto]

But the 2011 Census estimates are bogus, and can't be used to claim migration from suburbs to city centers.


http://www.newgeography.com/content/...ted-population

The Census numbers are bunk because Chris in Pittsburgh says so? Sure, I'll believe his off-the-cuff opinion over the hordes of professional statisticians. The only "numbers" this guy provides are years. Never mind that he clearly has an agenda [["hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies") whereas the Census does not.

And no one said "migration from suburbs to city centers" until you did. So you're not really talking about the same topic, are you?

Like I said, believe what you want.