Here’s a link to Gregg Easterbrook’s Brookings report on the global warming debate, as mentioned in class last week. (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf)
Easterbrook – a former global warming skeptic who is now convinced that the problem is real – argues that solutions to global warming (especially market-based solutions) may not be as expensive or economically detrimental as “conventional wisdom” might hold.
In related news, check out this column from Slate that talks about the growing potential for a carbon tax. (http://www.slate.com/id/2153390/nav/tap2/) Note the author’s dismay that a carbon tax debate won’t fit into the usual media-defined political boxes. Even libertarian could support it!?... Is that really so shocking?
By the way, is a libertarian a conservative?
Monday, November 27, 2006
Sunday, November 26, 2006
What's Going to Happen to Peabody Place?
Memphis’ experiment in urban shopping and entertainment appears to be headed for difficult times. Within the last few weeks, two of Peabody Place’s most prominent tenants have announced plans to leave or downsize. First came the worst-kept secret in retail: Tower Records was bankrupt and would be closing its stores. Nationally, sales of compact discs have been lagging for years. The advent of the digital download has made the compact disc something of a relic, seemingly headed in the same direction as the eight-track.
Then, last week came an announcement from Muvico: It would close eight of its 22 Peabody Place theatre screens. Muvico’s struggles have been obvious, though the company has not acknowledged them previously. Earlier this year, Muvico announced that it was lowering ticket prices to $6.50, nearly $2.00 less than what its competitors charge for admission. Muvico blamed its screen closures on national trends, saying that movie receipts are down this year and have been trending downward for the better part of a decade. Yet, Muvico’s closure of 36 percent of its screens dwarfs the 14 percent decrease in film revenues during Muvico’s short existence in downtown Memphis.
Peabody Place began for a noble enough reason: to attract tourists. It was designed to compliment Beale Street and AutoZone Park and offer downtown visitors a chance to come inside from the heat, see a movie, have a drink, and spend some money in national chain stores. Yet, that very intention may have undermined the development. While downtown’s residential population continues to grow quickly, few necessary services can be found downtown. Residents complain of having to drive across a bridge to another state to shop for groceries and other necessities; Peabody Place offered no relief to those residents. Undoubtedly, many Memphians who live outside of downtown saw Peabody Place as just another tourist attraction and avoided it.
An additional concern is crime or the perception of crime. As early as 2002, a consultant hired by the Center City Commission indicated that the area surrounding Peabody Place, as well as Peabody Place itself, seemed engulfed in crime. The Thayer Report noted that gang activity was present at Jillian’s and that Muvico acted irresponsibly in selling tickets to late-night shows to minors in spite of a citywide curfew. While those problems may have been corrected, the loitering that began within and around Peabody Place shortly after its construction has continued. The community’s growing perception of Peabody Place as unsafe has certainly contributed to its decline.
The future of Peabody Place is up in the air. Issac Hayes’ bar and restaurant has already closed and reopened once. The parent company of Jillian’s filed bankruptcy two years ago. Tower Records is bankrupt and closing. Muvico is cutting back. Will Peabody Place turn into a shell of a mall like Raleigh Springs? Finding ways to fight crime and reaching out to downtown residents would be the first steps I would take in improving Peabody Place.
Then, last week came an announcement from Muvico: It would close eight of its 22 Peabody Place theatre screens. Muvico’s struggles have been obvious, though the company has not acknowledged them previously. Earlier this year, Muvico announced that it was lowering ticket prices to $6.50, nearly $2.00 less than what its competitors charge for admission. Muvico blamed its screen closures on national trends, saying that movie receipts are down this year and have been trending downward for the better part of a decade. Yet, Muvico’s closure of 36 percent of its screens dwarfs the 14 percent decrease in film revenues during Muvico’s short existence in downtown Memphis.
Peabody Place began for a noble enough reason: to attract tourists. It was designed to compliment Beale Street and AutoZone Park and offer downtown visitors a chance to come inside from the heat, see a movie, have a drink, and spend some money in national chain stores. Yet, that very intention may have undermined the development. While downtown’s residential population continues to grow quickly, few necessary services can be found downtown. Residents complain of having to drive across a bridge to another state to shop for groceries and other necessities; Peabody Place offered no relief to those residents. Undoubtedly, many Memphians who live outside of downtown saw Peabody Place as just another tourist attraction and avoided it.
An additional concern is crime or the perception of crime. As early as 2002, a consultant hired by the Center City Commission indicated that the area surrounding Peabody Place, as well as Peabody Place itself, seemed engulfed in crime. The Thayer Report noted that gang activity was present at Jillian’s and that Muvico acted irresponsibly in selling tickets to late-night shows to minors in spite of a citywide curfew. While those problems may have been corrected, the loitering that began within and around Peabody Place shortly after its construction has continued. The community’s growing perception of Peabody Place as unsafe has certainly contributed to its decline.
The future of Peabody Place is up in the air. Issac Hayes’ bar and restaurant has already closed and reopened once. The parent company of Jillian’s filed bankruptcy two years ago. Tower Records is bankrupt and closing. Muvico is cutting back. Will Peabody Place turn into a shell of a mall like Raleigh Springs? Finding ways to fight crime and reaching out to downtown residents would be the first steps I would take in improving Peabody Place.
Conventional Wisdom Strikes Out Again
Conventional wisdom holds that suburbs are great places to raise a family but lack the social capital found in more densely populated areas. As is the case with most conventional wisdom, the reasoning behind the premise that suburbs are bad for social interaction just makes sense. Conventional wisdom holds that development in the suburbs is designed in such a way that you don't have to interact with your neighbors. The houses are set back from the street so you can't easily converse with neighbors walking by. Conventional wisdom also holds that people don't walk in the suburbs. Due to the auto centric nature of the suburbs, residents go from their house to work and back without every having to interact with their neighbors. Conventional wisdom holds that urban areas provide more options for neighors to interact be it in local parks, public squares or just from the front porch.
This image of the isolated suburbs has found its way into the popular media. Both TV shows and movies portray the suburbs as seas of isolation where the characters struggle with the sense of anomie created by living there. In fact, the lack of social interaction is often sited as a negative externality created by sprawl and therefor a argument against sprawl. The conventional wisdom that suburbs is bad for social interaction also has some backing from the academic community. Robert Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone attributes some of the decrease in social capital found in America due to the growth of sprawling suburbs.
Well, a recent study found the exact opposite to be true. The study found that social activity actually increased as density decreased. This suggests that suburbs are better at building social capital than urban areas. It turns out suburbs aren't the cold, isolating placed they were once thought. When conventional wisdom is turned on its head, such as this study has done, it opens up the floor to debates as people now feel free to question commonly held beliefs about the subject. Hopefully this will lead to some fresh perspectives into the social dynamics of sprawl. I for one am interested to hear the debate that follows.
This image of the isolated suburbs has found its way into the popular media. Both TV shows and movies portray the suburbs as seas of isolation where the characters struggle with the sense of anomie created by living there. In fact, the lack of social interaction is often sited as a negative externality created by sprawl and therefor a argument against sprawl. The conventional wisdom that suburbs is bad for social interaction also has some backing from the academic community. Robert Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone attributes some of the decrease in social capital found in America due to the growth of sprawling suburbs.
Well, a recent study found the exact opposite to be true. The study found that social activity actually increased as density decreased. This suggests that suburbs are better at building social capital than urban areas. It turns out suburbs aren't the cold, isolating placed they were once thought. When conventional wisdom is turned on its head, such as this study has done, it opens up the floor to debates as people now feel free to question commonly held beliefs about the subject. Hopefully this will lead to some fresh perspectives into the social dynamics of sprawl. I for one am interested to hear the debate that follows.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
The Stern Report and Cities
On October 30 of this year the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was released. The team that wrote the report was headed by Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economics Service and Chief Economist for the World Bank from 2000 to 2003. In the report the costs of global warming were weighed against the costs of mitigating the affects of global warming. In other words, the report the team sought to determine if fixing global warming made economic sense. Three different methods were used to determine the economic impact of global warming and all three found that "the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs." In other words, fixing global warming is good for the global economy.
The report suggests that global warming "is the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen." While global warming will negatively affect the global economy, the effects will not be evenly distributed. Unfortunately those countries already struggling will be hardest hit. This is especially unfair since global warming is a phenomenon created by the richer industrialized countries of the world. This is just another instance of the poor getting poorer. While the poor will be hardest hit the developing nations will also be hurt by global warming. The report states that the effects of global warming will put the global economy into a depression similar to the one experienced in the 1920's.
So what does this all have to do with cities? Well, everything. Since the industrial revolution the economies of scale found in cities have produced sprawling metropolises. Most of greenhouse gas emissions produced in the last century can be linked to cities and their growth. Emissions from industry was the main sources of emissions at the start of the century, but soon the effects of cars and massive amount of energy needed to keep a city operating also began to have a toll on the global climate as well. Cities put a double whammy on the global climate by destroying habitats that helps to reduce greenhouse gases while also producing massive about of greenhouse gases at the same time.
The problem is not going to go away, no more than cities are going away. In fact more and more people are flocking to cities across the globe. So while the problem of global warming began and continues to be with modern cities the solution can be found in cities as well. Cities have to be part of the solution in order for any mitigation measures to work. This does not mean that cities must "bite the bullet" or "take one" for the global cause. There are a variety of ways in which cities can do their part in reducing their greenhouse emissions while also making the city a better place to live. Many of the newest urban design theories call for a return to more human scale, walkable development. These New Urbanist and sustainable design gurus suggest that new forms of development make social, economic and environmental sense. Many of these energy saving measures, such as public transit and more dense walkable neighborhoods, area also seen as amenities by young educated workers, seen by many to be the economic drivers of the new information based economy. So cities that address global warming can do so in a way that increased the overall quality of life for their residents. There is also plenty of money to be made in mitigation effort. Cities that are able create markets and encourage entrepreneurs creating solutions to global warming will be economic winners in the next century. Solving global warming makes economic sense for the global economy and for cities as well.
The report suggests that global warming "is the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen." While global warming will negatively affect the global economy, the effects will not be evenly distributed. Unfortunately those countries already struggling will be hardest hit. This is especially unfair since global warming is a phenomenon created by the richer industrialized countries of the world. This is just another instance of the poor getting poorer. While the poor will be hardest hit the developing nations will also be hurt by global warming. The report states that the effects of global warming will put the global economy into a depression similar to the one experienced in the 1920's.
So what does this all have to do with cities? Well, everything. Since the industrial revolution the economies of scale found in cities have produced sprawling metropolises. Most of greenhouse gas emissions produced in the last century can be linked to cities and their growth. Emissions from industry was the main sources of emissions at the start of the century, but soon the effects of cars and massive amount of energy needed to keep a city operating also began to have a toll on the global climate as well. Cities put a double whammy on the global climate by destroying habitats that helps to reduce greenhouse gases while also producing massive about of greenhouse gases at the same time.
The problem is not going to go away, no more than cities are going away. In fact more and more people are flocking to cities across the globe. So while the problem of global warming began and continues to be with modern cities the solution can be found in cities as well. Cities have to be part of the solution in order for any mitigation measures to work. This does not mean that cities must "bite the bullet" or "take one" for the global cause. There are a variety of ways in which cities can do their part in reducing their greenhouse emissions while also making the city a better place to live. Many of the newest urban design theories call for a return to more human scale, walkable development. These New Urbanist and sustainable design gurus suggest that new forms of development make social, economic and environmental sense. Many of these energy saving measures, such as public transit and more dense walkable neighborhoods, area also seen as amenities by young educated workers, seen by many to be the economic drivers of the new information based economy. So cities that address global warming can do so in a way that increased the overall quality of life for their residents. There is also plenty of money to be made in mitigation effort. Cities that are able create markets and encourage entrepreneurs creating solutions to global warming will be economic winners in the next century. Solving global warming makes economic sense for the global economy and for cities as well.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
El Sueno Americano (The American Dream)
The Commericial Appeal's Sunday cover story examined the ease with which illegal immigrants have been able to get mortgages.
(http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5137932,00.html)
Should we be concerned about this? I guess it depends, in part, on how you feel about illegal immigration -- not that I want to get into all that. Putting that aside for a moment, let's assume that there are legitmate reasons for our policies that encourage homeowenership in general (positive externalities). Do those benefits go away if the homeowners are not legal citizens?
(http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5137932,00.html)
Should we be concerned about this? I guess it depends, in part, on how you feel about illegal immigration -- not that I want to get into all that. Putting that aside for a moment, let's assume that there are legitmate reasons for our policies that encourage homeowenership in general (positive externalities). Do those benefits go away if the homeowners are not legal citizens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
