Why is Joel Kotkin Extolling the Virtues of Suburbia?

[American Dirt]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

In Edmonton, we have a weird problem. All the public schools compete against each other by making a plethora of programs available. You want Ukrainian immersion? German immersion? Arabic immersion? Mandarin immersion? Fine arts, academic or mathematics? You go to a public school. It has made it a very rough time for private schools to find a niche to compete in and Edmonton's lonely private school is lacking students and funding.

Compared with Calgary where they don't do this has private schools appearing.

Weird indeed, but why is this a problem? It sounds like the public schools there have found a niche that allows them to compete legitimately against the private schools. If the private schools are lacking students and funding, they will quietly go out of business, right? Which further explains why there's usually a relative scarcity of private schools in suburban districts with top-rated school systems.

This sounds like a problem that most school districts would kill to have. Bully to Edmonton.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Please... don't even try the "bleeding heart shit" and "grow up" garbage with me. Save that for someone who can't think circles around you.

Oh? Then let's think, shall we?

As someone who has actually taught in public schools (in urban, poorly-performing public and private charter schools, as well as suburban public schools), I have a helluva lot more insight into this than you.

That's nice. Still doesn't address the argument at hand or give you the right to be an ass.

you not understanding how a homogeneous population plays into the issue of public education completely displays how you have no experience in the matter and know idea what you're talking about. Go spend a week teaching in a urban public school and get a clue, then back to me on that.

If you take a classroom of kids filled with every ethnicity in the world I still do not see where the color of their skin somehow affects their intelligence. You're not trying to suggest otherwise are you?

Even if we take your assertion and run with it, then why shouldn't we have school choice so people from different backgrounds can go to schools who can adapt to their unique needs?

I guess you just think that people shouldn't be concerned with what they pay for and accept the failing public school system where they live rather than actually doing something about it.

Actually, they are doing something about it. They're leaving cities. And on a website that's about promoting and boosting cities, that should be disconcerning, no?

Yeah, taking action to improve one's community is sooooo "bleeding heart". It's better to just say something like "Damn straight it's not my problem".

While I actually agree that America has largley become an apathetic and selfish society, the "More Money" cries have not shown themselves to be effective in the real world nor socially/politically teniable. The dirty truth is that the rich schools are that way becuase those populations have an ingrained belief in the value of education and instill that in their children. If money is everything how come some kid from Africa or India that went to school in a one room hut can find themselves later graduating from top US universities w/ honors?

I'm all for fair funding of schools, BTW. I just think it's time we truly hash out what's really needed in the school system.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Oh? Then let's think, shall we?



That's nice. Still doesn't address the argument at hand or give you the right to be an ass.



If you take a classroom of kids filled with every ethnicity in the world I still do not see where the color of their skin somehow affects their intelligence. You're not trying to suggest otherwise are you?

Even if we take your assertion and run with it, then why shouldn't we have school choice so people from different backgrounds can go to schools who can adapt to their unique needs?




Actually, they are doing something about it. They're leaving cities. And on a website that's about promoting and boosting cities, that should be disconcerning, no?




While I actually agree that America has largley become an apathetic and selfish society, the "More Money" cries have not shown themselves to be effective in the real world nor socially/politically teniable. The dirty truth is that the rich schools are that way becuase those populations have an ingrained belief in the value of education and instill that in their children. If money is everything how come some kid from Africa or India that went to school in a one room hut can find themselves later graduating from top US universities w/ honors?

I'm all for fair funding of schools, BTW. I just think it's time we truly hash out what's really needed in the school system.

Okay, let's see here... I call out your flawed reasoning (which you obviously took issue with) and you respond with "bleeding heart shit" and telling me to "grow up"... and I'm the one being the "ass"...

As for the issue of homogeneous student populations (which I brought into this discussion because you strangely tried to compare the educational situations in Sweden and the Netherlands with the US)... it goes far beyond just skin color, as I already mentioned in my original post, to include ethnicity (which includes native language), income and educational levels of parents. I never once said or implied anything about race and intelligence, only you did that. If you have actually spent time instructing in a public school classroom, you would understand the challenges that these widely-varying social characteristics bring.

As for your question, "why shouldn't we have school choice so people from different backgrounds can go to schools who can adapt to their unique needs?"... I assume with school choice you are speaking of a voucher program. The answer is this... because that is not how our society is intended to work and that type of program undermines our very constitutional standards, not to mention destroys the American notion of equity in education. Answer us this: Why should public funds be given to privately-run schools? Why should taxpayer money be subsidizing a private entity that is not accountable to the taxpayer, especially when that subsidized funding of the private entity costs the taxpayer more?


If you think that moving out of cities is "doing something about it"... wow. That is doing nothing about working to solve the problem and everything to contribute to it... and yes, that is disconcerting.

I agree completely with your last paragraph. So what is really needed in the school system then?

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Okay, let's see here... I call out your flawed reasoning (which you obviously took issue with) and you respond with "bleeding heart shit" and telling me to "grow up"... and I'm the one being the "ass"...

I have no problem with you thinking my reasoning is flawed, I'm not saying I have all the answers. But I expect such accusations to be backed up with evidence. What I got instead was someone talking to me like I was one of their students, and that doesn't tend to go over well with most people. My reply, while admittedly snotty, was condescention being met with condescention.

As for the issue of homogeneous student populations (which I brought into this discussion because you strangely tried to compare the educational situations in Sweden and the Netherlands with the US)

How is comparing contries irrelevant. School inequality is present nationwide in the US. Both countries I citied are industrial, first-world societies like the US.

... it goes far beyond just skin color, as I already mentioned in my original post, to include ethnicity (which includes native language), income and educational levels of parents. I never once said or implied anything about race and intelligence, only you did that. If you have actually spent time instructing in a public school classroom, you would understand the challenges that these widely-varying social characteristics bring.

If you feel this information is useful for me to have a more complete picture of the situation, then elaborate.

As for your question, "why shouldn't we have school choice so people from different backgrounds can go to schools who can adapt to their unique needs?"... I assume with school choice you are speaking of a voucher program. The answer is this... because that is not how our society is intended to work and that type of program undermines our very constitutional standards, not to mention destroys the American notion of equity in education.

America is alot of things, but equal it has not and most likley never will be. Second, as far as "how society is intended to work", How exactly is that supposed to be? No one came to me with a questionare saying "Qubert, how should the world be?". I'd certainly be very different if they did, that's for sure. 99% of the blood spilled on the Earth is from someone thinking they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Answer us this: Why should public funds be given to privately-run schools? Why should taxpayer money be subsidizing a private entity that is not accountable to the taxpayer, especially when that subsidized funding of the private entity costs the taxpayer more?

The school would be accountable to the parent individually, like any other buisness.

If you think that moving out of cities is "doing something about it"... wow. That is doing nothing about working to solve the problem and everything to contribute to it... and yes, that is disconcerting.

I don't think people moving out of cities is a good solution. I wouldn't be here if I did. However, one must realize that human selfishness is an intractable reality and most people find the path of least resistance is to pull stakes for the "Good Schools" in the leafy green suburbs.

I agree completely with your last paragraph. So what is really needed in the school system then?

For starters, an abandonment of the one size fit's all mentality and a system geared towards the student as an individual, not as a statstic.

[vid]

Sweden has very few people living in poverty. Can you say the same for NYC?

Sweden is 95% white. Can you say the same for NYC?

Tensions based on race and economic class simply don't exist in Sweden like they do in New York. The ways people interact with each other in both places is very different.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by American Dirt

Weird indeed, but why is this a problem? It sounds like the public schools there have found a niche that allows them to compete legitimately against the private schools. If the private schools are lacking students and funding, they will quietly go out of business, right? Which further explains why there's usually a relative scarcity of private schools in suburban districts with top-rated school systems.

This sounds like a problem that most school districts would kill to have. Bully to Edmonton.

It's only a problem for those wanting to start a private school in Edmonton.

[M II A II R II K]

Can The Suburban Fringe Be Downtown Adjacent?


08/04/2010

By Michael Scott

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...ntown-adjacent

For many suburban Americans, the thought of migrating to a center-city environment holds an intriguing appeal, fueled by urbanists who tout the benefits of stunning cityscape views, walkability, proximity to civic and cultural amenities, and street vibrancy. I happen to be among those suburbanites who have harbored a secret fantasy of living in a dense downtown environment, replete with throngs of creative millennials roaming the streets, fancy coffee houses, and close access to fine dining. A decision to move from suburban Sacramento to Denver has been the result.

The urban/suburban residential conundrum has generated epic debates that match the joys of city living against the benefits of suburbia. Terms such as “sprawl,” “drivable urbanism,” and the “slumming of suburbia” appear in the news regularly, often in an attempt to sway the pendulum in favor of dense city living.

The tsunami of hoopla around “urban livability” has been of growing interest to my family and me as we prepare to relocate to Denver. I've come to believe the accuracy of the assertion, often voiced on this site, that America’s interest in suburbia has not abated. It has become abundantly clear from the brisk interest of potential buyers of our current Folsom, California residence, that living in a suburban locale still holds a special appeal. The environmentalist clamor aside, what people really want from a community is amenities that appeal to their specific interests. Folsom, a city of 72,000 nestled on the outskirts of Sacramento, offers myriad advantages for leisure — such as boating and biking — to basic requirements like low crime rates and quality schools.

For us, the move to Denver is a transition from suburbia that's been a challenge. Despite steady buyer interest, our 3100-square-foot house is still on the market. Suburban critics, like Urban Land Institute-fellow Christopher Leinberger, would likely cite a potential cause as being declining interest in what are affectionately known as McMansions, those big cumbersome houses replete with big lawns, big mortgages, and big utility bills. Demographic trends also show a steady rise in the number of adults without children, who are presumably less likely to purchase a big house. And, as a real estate professional pointed out to us, people are holding out for a windfall deal these days amid the abundance of foreclosures in the Sacramento metro area.

Finding a family home in Denver has been even more interesting. While the downtown Lo-Do District has great appeal to us because of its vibrancy, civic amenities, and proximity to Coors Field (Rockies Baseball), Invesco Field (Broncos Football) and the Pepsi Center (Nuggets Basketball and Avalanche Hockey), it simply doesn’t strike my wife and me as the ideal environment for raising our seven-year-old daughter. The questionable schools in the city-center core were the deal breaker, and the catalyst for our decision to explore quasi- suburban areas on the fringe of downtown.

Photo by Michael Scott of a "suburban" neighborhood in Denver.

[llamaorama]

Is it just me, or this just reinventing the wheel?

Even in the past living in the very center of the city was usually most optimal for the young and/or single while people in the middle stages of life often desired some kind of home, though that could be a walk up apartment or rowhouse or duplex in a nearby residential area. Not every street needs high density buildings with ground floor retail, what a city needs are scattered nodes of density and commercial corridors surrounded by more low intensity or quiet areas.

What is urban is a vast category of places, and I think its harmful that people are spreading this dogma about living in downtown condos in some cheesy district as the only "urban" place, this just causes people to inevitably look back at the suburbs and write the city off, all thanks to a lack of understanding.

[M II A II R II K]

Mass Transit: The Great Train Robbery


08.09.10

Joel Kotkin



Read More: http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/09/cit...mepagechannels

Last month promoters of the Metropolitan Transit Authority's Los Angeles rail projects, both past and future, held a party to celebrate their "success." Although this may well have been justified for transit-builders and urban land speculators, there may be far less call for celebration among L.A.'s beleaguered commuters. Despite promises that the $8 billion invested in rail lines over the past two decades would lessen L.A.'s traffic congestion and reshape how Angelenos get to work, the sad reality is that there has been no increase in MTA transit ridership since before the rail expansion began in 1985.

Much of the problem, notes Tom Rubin, a former chief financial officers for the MTA's predecessor agency, stems from the shift of funding priorities to trains from the city's more affordable and flexible bus network. Meanwhile, traffic has gotten worse, with delay hours growing from 44 hours a year in 1982 to 70 hours in 2007. Sadly, this situation is not unique to Los Angeles. In cities across the country where there have been massive investments in light rail--from the Portland area to Dallas and Charlotte, N.C., and a host of others--the percentage of people taking transit has stagnated or even declined. Nationwide, the percentage of people taking transit to work is now lower than it was in 1980.

None of this is to argue that we should not invest in transit. It even makes sense if the subsidy required for each transit trip is far higher than for a motorist on the streets or highways. Transit should be considered a public good, particularly for those without access to a car--notably young people, the disabled, the poor and the elderly. Policy should focus on how we invest, at what cost and, ultimately, for whose benefit.

In some regions with large concentrations of employment, downtown major rail systems often attract many riders (although virtually all lose lots of money). The primary example would be the New York City area, which is one of only two regions (the other being Washington, D.C.) with over one-fifth of total employment in the urban core. In the country as a whole barely 10% of employment is in the city; and in many cities that grew most in the 20th century, such as Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles and Phoenix, the central business district's share falls well under 5%.

[M II A II R II K]

Urban Legends - Why suburbs, not cities, are the answer.


SEPT. / OCT. 2010

BY JOEL KOTKIN



Read More: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article.../urban_legends

The human world is fast becoming an urban world -- and according to many, the faster that happens and the bigger the cities get, the better off we all will be. The old suburban model, with families enjoying their own space in detached houses, is increasingly behind us; we're heading toward heavier reliance on public transit, greater density, and far less personal space. Global cities, even colossal ones like Mumbai and Mexico City, represent our cosmopolitan future, we're now told; they will be nerve centers of international commerce and technological innovation just like the great metropolises of the past -- only with the Internet and smart phones.

- According to Columbia University's Saskia Sassen, megacities will inevitably occupy what Vladimir Lenin called the "commanding heights" of the global economy, though instead of making things they'll apparently be specializing in high-end "producer services" -- advertising, law, accounting, and so forth -- for worldwide clients. Other scholars, such as Harvard University's Edward Glaeser, envision universities helping to power the new "skilled city," where high wages and social amenities attract enough talent to enable even higher-cost urban meccas to compete.

- By 2025, the U.N. projects that there may be 27 cities of that size. The proportion of the world's population living in cities, which has already shot up from 14 percent in 1900 to about 50 percent in 2008, could be 70 percent by 2050. But here's what the boosters don't tell you: It's far less clear whether the extreme centralization and concentration advocated by these new urban utopians is inevitable -- and it's not at all clear that it's desirable.

- Not all Global Cities are created equal. We can hope the developing-world metropolises of the future will look a lot like the developed-world cities of today, just much, much larger -- but that's not likely to be the case. Today's Third World megacities face basic challenges in feeding their people, getting them to and from work, and maintaining a minimum level of health. In some, like Mumbai, life expectancy is now at least seven years less than the country as a whole. And many of the world's largest advanced cities are nestled in relatively declining economies -- London, Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo. All suffer growing income inequality and outward migration of middle-class families. Even in the best of circumstances, the new age of the megacity might well be an era of unparalleled human congestion and gross inequality.

- Perhaps we need to consider another approach. As unfashionable as it might sound, what if we thought less about the benefits of urban density and more about the many possibilities for proliferating more human-scaled urban centers; what if healthy growth turns out to be best achieved through dispersion, not concentration? Instead of overcrowded cities rimmed by hellish new slums, imagine a world filled with vibrant smaller cities, suburbs, and towns: Which do you think is likelier to produce a higher quality of life, a cleaner environment, and a lifestyle conducive to creative thinking?

[mhays]

He's really earning his industry subsidies on this one.

[Chicago103]

what if healthy growth turns out to be best achieved through dispersion, not concentration? Joel Kotkin

That's like asking what if it turns out that smoking turns out to be good for you, therefore people should keep smoking. All the evidence suggests the opposite, its a f***ing crazy argument that can be taken to an extreme.

Maybe I should put arsenic in my water because its possible one day doctors might find a medical benefit in it.

[vid]

what if healthy growth turns out to be best achieved through concentration, not dispersion?

It's not hard to make shit up.

[llamaorama]

To be entirely fair, maybe guys like Kotkin serve a purpose in calling out the dogma that some planners believe in, how density or anything else is always good.

I dunno, I happen to appreciate downtowns and built up pockets of cities but then I can also see how living in a concrete jungle has its negatives. Best if things are in balance, people in particular stages of life who prefer being in an apartment on a busy street should have that opportunity while others can enjoy the quiet of suburban areas.

It may be true that places like Paris and Tokyo are livable today in the 21st century because they have the wealth and resources to mitigate the problems of high density. In the past they weren't much different from places like Sao Paulo, and even before that, Lagos. Funny how the oldest parts of some European cities bear a resemblance or two to the shape of informal settlements.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

To be entirely fair, maybe guys like Kotkin serve a purpose in calling out the dogma that some planners believe in, how density or anything else is always good.

He would serve a purpose if he actually knew or even cared what planners are usually saying.

It seems to be human nature to take the extreme of something and then use that as an argument for the opposite extreme as the solution. Thus he talks about slums and highrise studio apartments versus auto-centric suburban sprawl. I would like to know where he thinks a neighborhood like mind fits into the picture, one that doesn't fit either extreme.

The idea is that most sane urbanists would agree that families with children shouldn't be forced to live in 500 square foot apartments but you can't jump from that and say that 2,000+ square foot McMansions on a cul-de-sac in an auto-centric environment is the only solution. Most major american cities offer plenty of housing options for every stage of life already.

Sure living in Wrigleyville or some other hip highly dense urban neighborhood in Chicago might be suited for the young
and childless but instead of moving out to Naperville or Kendall County once they have kids why not move to traditional family oriented city neighborhoods like Bridgeport, Garfield Ridge, Beverly, Jefferson Park, Norwood Park, etc. instead? Once you enter those places into the equation in my opinion the suburbs are pretty much worthless because the city of Chicago already has great neighborhoods that cater to people in every stage of life from the cradle to the grave.

[vid]

This:



is just the opposite extreme to the things Kotkin hates.

[Qubert]

The best part is that pic shows people having very little latterial space and very little yard space. I don't really see how "spacious" those accomdations are. I bet a brownstone block could provide a similar living space and more yard space than that junk.

[vid]

I just noticed that. The ones in the bottom left basically have no yard at all. What is the point of living there? It looks downright inhumane.

[M II A II R II K]

If the 3rd world megacities are bad, wonder what he'd have to say about the 3rd world suburbs as an alternative to it.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by vid

This:



is just the opposite extreme to the things Kotkin hates.

The picture shows bad urban planning but it's not extreme by US standards...it's a lot denser than many suburbs, particularly in the East, Midwest, and South.