American cities and the ultra wealthy

[Jeeper]

I've been reading about New York and Chicago's late 1800s growth and development lately and a thought popped into my mind. I've read several books over the years about the boom times of major American cities during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and they all seem to have one thing in common, a very wealthy upper class that pours money into their city. Now their reasons for this aren't always charitable; they wanted their names in newspapers and on monuments and buildings, and often they just wanted to one-up each other, but whatever their reasons it helped their cities tremendously. Today it doesn't seem that the rich contribute as much to their cities in philanthropy and civil projects like they used to.

It seems that today's mega rich, with a few exceptions, are all about their possessions and houses and islands, and put little to nothing back into the places from whence they came.

Am I way off here?

[chiguy123]

The wealthy start businesses in cities that employ people.

[Steely Dan]

i don't have precise figures, but a good deal of chicago's famous millennium park was funded through philanthropic donations from chicago's business community and aristocracy.

[brickell]

I think you're off, but the lens of time tends to cloud things.

The gilded elite certainly loved their homes just as much as they do today. It's just a sign of the times that homes built today are mansions in Jersey instead of lining 5th avenue.

There's also plenty of people donating plenty of money. Perhaps it's another sign of the times that cities don't have the civic pride they once did.

[mhays]

I don't know how many hundreds of millions Seattle has gotten from Bill Gates, Paul Allen, etc. It seems like every major project can count on a donation or two in the tens of millions.

[Jeeper]

Originally Posted by chiguy123

The wealthy start businesses in cities that employ people.

You're missing my point.

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by Jeeper

I've been reading about New York and Chicago's late 1800s growth and development lately and a thought popped into my mind. I've read several books over the years about the boom times of major American cities during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and they all seem to have one thing in common, a very wealthy upper class that pours money into their city. Now their reasons for this aren't always charitable; they wanted their names in newspapers and on monuments and buildings, and often they just wanted to one-up each other, but whatever their reasons it helped their cities tremendously. Today it doesn't seem that the rich contribute as much to their cities in philanthropy and civil projects like they used to.

It seems that today's mega rich, with a few exceptions, are all about their possessions and houses and islands, and put little to nothing back into the places from whence they came.

Am I way off here?

I disagree strongly. It's always been an ego thing. They like seeing their names on buildings and whatnot and that is fine by me if said building is going to benefit others. Just walk around any college campus with new construction and you will see it. Any hospital complex or arts district.

In my city (Dallas), examples are everywhere. There's the Margot Perot Center at Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas as well as the recently announced $200 million Perot Museum of Nature and Science which will be built in large part because of a $50 million gift from the Perots. Recently opened in Dallas' Arts District downtown is the Winspear Opera House built in part thanks to $42 million from the late Bill Winspear and the Wyly Theater thanks to more than $20 million from Dee and Charles Wyly who also endow a $2 million academic chair at the University of Texas at Dallas' Center for Brain Health. More than 90% of the funds for new $350 million AT&T Performing Arts Center (so named because of millions from Dallas-based AT&T) came from the private sector and families who donated millions each.

I could go on and on and that is just in Dallas. I'm sure there are countless examples in every other city in America. While I have no numbers to back this claim, I would think charitable contributions and philanthropic donations are as high as ever in terms of sheer dollars.

[Attrill]

One thing to remember is that the way companies are organized, owned, and managed now is very different. A donation from Marshall Field or Samuel Carson in the late 1800's would be handled differently today and go through the Company for variety of reasons. That said, there are still plenty of large donations from wealthy individuals happening today. This article has an interesting stat:

Given that in Illinois, individuals account for 83% of philanthropic donations, the thumbscrewing of such letters and lunches sparks questions. For wealthy people, how much charitable giving is enough? And what happens when they are perceived as not being generous enough?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't have precise figures, but a good deal of chicago's famous millennium park was funded through philanthropic donations from chicago's business community and aristocracy.

The Modern Wing of the Art Institute, too (as well as every other wing of the Art Institute...)

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Jeeper

...
It seems that today's mega rich, with a few exceptions, are all about their possessions and houses and islands, and put little to nothing back into the places from whence they came.

Am I way off here?

I can't speak to this part of your post, but I think it's important to remember what the relative tax burdens were in the 19th century compared to today.

I don't subscribe to the idea that that necessarily means the rich have a lot less to give, but it does mean the government does a lot more things with tax dollars that used to be the domain of charitable giving, which could make philanthropists lazy or at least less aware of needs.

I think because of that also, we see philanthropy occuring further up the food chain or being done in more targeted ways. The Gates Foundation gives out thousands of computers and software every year to libraries, but doesn't usually make a big deal about it. My mom has gotten tens of thousands of dollars from them for the small-town library she runs, used for PCs and for broadband internet. Gates and Clinton also have raised billions of dollars to be used for medical projects in Africa, which gets mentioned now and then, but is also sort of "out of sight, out of mind" for many people. Along those lines, the places of true need today aren't in the U.S. or Western Europe anymore - if I were a billionaire, I'd rather make a huge impact on lives in, say, India or Kenya than put a sculpture in Grant Park.

[Jeeper]

Thanks guys, these are exactly the kind answers I was asking for.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by jtk1519

I disagree strongly. It's always been an ego thing. They like seeing their names on buildings and whatnot and that is fine by me if said building is going to benefit others. Just walk around any college campus with new construction and you will see it. Any hospital complex or arts district.

When Gates gives billions to fight third world diseases, is that about ego? He seems to have had an epiphany somewhere along the line. (I'm still continually pissed at MS software, but the guy is doing great things.)

[Jasonhouse]

^I'm a minor Gates fan because of his massive philanthropy efforts, and how he has brought others into the fold (like Buffett).

Originally Posted by chiguy123

The wealthy start businesses in cities that employ people.

So does everyone else who lives life. The wealthy merely hoard assets for themselves while participating.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't know how many hundreds of millions Seattle has gotten from Bill Gates, Paul Allen, etc. It seems like every major project can count on a donation or two in the tens of millions.

How about they get him to donate some money to help ensure East LINK is as good as possible, meaning putting it in a subway through Bellevue to help speed up travel times on the line?

[mhays]

Now there's a good idea!

I've always daydreamed about what I'd do with 30 or 40 billion... adding transit, intercity rail, maybe a new university, supporting schools, buying up forests to preserve....East Link certainly belongs on that list!

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by emathias

I can't speak to this part of your post, but I think it's important to remember what the relative tax burdens were in the 19th century compared to today.

I don't subscribe to the idea that that necessarily means the rich have a lot less to give, but it does mean the government does a lot more things with tax dollars that used to be the domain of charitable giving, which could make philanthropists lazy or at least less aware of needs.

Bingo, this is exactly what I was going to write. This is also why cities like Houston and Dallas (historically, very low tax and low service/amenity) are ripe for rich residents and individuals to step in to make a difference in funding medical facilities, museums, parks, cultural centers, and so on.

Clearly in higher tax locales there is much civic philanthropy, but more often such donations take the form of matching/leveraging public dollars, as would be the case with Chicago's Millenium Park, for example, which still received a great deal of public funding.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Jeeper

Thanks guys, these are exactly the kind answers I was asking for.

Yeah, I think some of the answers are good. In general the wealthy do give back in many ways. Look at giving to universities endowments, civic and cultural giving and fund raising, not to mention they will often times invest heavily in the cities they live in.

We also have to remember, that even someone as wealthy as those in the top 1%, can not build major transportation or civic projects alone, those projects are too expensive.

[leftopolis]

On a positive note...there are plenty of universities and hospitals with wings that were built by donation $$(and a name on the building, of course)!

On the other hand, such donations tend to be a big reason how the wealthy avoid paying taxes...so I suppose some might make the inference that they are being unpatriotic by doing so--when it's actually the billionaires who can afford to pay the most taxes.

The other problem with donations by the wealthy is that they often are simply investments that further fuel the industry they made money in (as in Gates donating computers running windoze operating system). Furthermore, while big money can do great good, it has the potential to do great harm as well. As long as I'm picking on Gates...He recently stated in a speech wrt his foundation's work in Africa:

"GMO crops, fertilizer and chemicals are important tools -- although not the only tools -- to help small farms in Africa boost production."

WTF? Actually, if I wanted a software billionaire telling people how to grow food, I'd rather have it be Steve Jobs. At least he eats strictly organic(I used to work at the natural food store he would shop at, and yeah, he actually did his own shopping) and even has an organic orchard next to his home. Getting back to Gates: His philosophy will do way more harm than good in Africa, while enriching his buddies Monsanto, along with pouring toxins in the environment. Why doesn't he promote open-polinated seeds? That way the small farmer can collect his own seed and isn't forced to purchase franken-seeds every year from big agri-biz. The GMO seeds are also designed to require large amounts of specific toxins to be grown successfully(shich the farmer must also purchase). Why isn't he promoting non-toxic organic methods along with local compost production--thus making the farmer independent? In this example he's part of the problem, not the solution.

I am able to see the nuances here, btw. It's quite possible for the same one individual to do some great good with philanthropy, while in other cases screwing things up in a big way due to the greater responsibilities/ethics that go along with large sums of money.

[10023]

The wealthy in places like New York and Chicago still do a lot to support their cities. It's the wealthy in the newer "non-cities" that don't.

But more of it is probably the result of people being far more mobile these days, whether they're wealthy, middle class or even poor. One doesn't put the same effort or have the same pride in one's hometown because people move so often and so easily.

[new.slang]

i think its better that people eat harmless chemicals than dont eat at all...and organic farming is worse for the environment because it requires more land which means less forests...
but back to the original point, i agree with pretty much everyone here, there are still a lot of donations, but most of it comes with their name...isnt there like a wrigley pavillion in millenium park?