"Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise"

[jpdivola]

Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise: Urbanists hoped for greater density and transit. Instead people are fleeing to midsize metros.
Coner Sen
April 18, 2018
Bloomberg View
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...e-urban-future

Urbanists thought their moment had finally arrived. Those who favor increased urban density and transit options believed the housing bust and the great recession could end decades of development centered on automobiles and suburban sprawl, shifting planners' focus more to cities, density and transit.

The advocates for this model point to California as the inevitable result of inaction. If you try to grow without increased density and transit you'll end up with the traffic of Los Angeles and the home prices of San Francisco. Yet the negative effects of political inaction do not make political action inevitable. Another possibility is … Boise.

[mhays]

That "85% of net new arrivals" stats is way out of context. Some people don't think about it....you could have five states EACH representing 85% of net new arrivals.

[jd3189]

Mercy, this article was just what I was thinking of in the SF homeless thread. It's the only way in my humble and educated opinion thus far. If certain cities and metros decide not to grow and become cheaper, it's best if people are redirected to greener pastures. The US is big enough for that.

[tablemtn]

One factor is that public schools in a place like Boise are significantly better in middle-class areas than public schools in a place like Los Angeles. States like California have frankly failed to maintain their urban schools to first-world standards, which forces parents to leave the system if they can't afford to live in areas zoned for the handful of exceptions.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise: Urbanists hoped for greater density and transit. Instead people are fleeing to midsize metros.
Coner Sen
April 18, 2018
Bloomberg View
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...e-urban-future

Makes sense to me. America has always been about moving on to greener pastures when the existing opportunities were insufficient. There's lots of potential Boises out there. In Colorado, Fort Collins and Greeley are in the category too, as is Colorado Springs. Booming, mid-sized cities with lots of jobs, good life style, great schools, high standard of living.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

One factor is that public schools in a place like Boise are significantly better in middle-class areas than public schools in a place like Los Angeles. States like California have frankly failed to maintain their urban schools to first-world standards, which forces parents to leave the system if they can't afford to live in areas zoned for the handful of exceptions.

That's kind of bullshit though. The schools in a place like LA are probably 80% low income with a majority hispanic and a lot of ESL. Boise schools are white and middle class, so they appear "better" because the student body is well to do.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

That's kind of bullshit though. The schools in a place like LA are probably 80% low income with a majority hispanic and a lot of ESL. Boise schools are white and middle class, so they appear "better" because the student body is well to do.

exactly. confusion of cause and effect here, to a degree. of course, all kids are entitled to a good education, no matter how poor, and the quality of urban schools is a gating factor to families living in cities.

but, it's not as straightforward as noted above.

our daughter goes to an "urban" public school in san francisco, and it's an excellent, well ranked school. the student body is diverse. it's not a bad school because it's in a dense urban neighborhood - it's a good school because most of the parents care, the school district cares (if somewhat ineptly) and enough of the parents can afford to prop up some extra programs that the city "can't" afford...

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by mthd

exactly. confusion of cause and effect here, to a degree. of course, all kids are entitled to a good education, no matter how poor, and the quality of urban schools is a gating factor to families living in cities.

but, it's not as straightforward as noted above.

our daughter goes to an "urban" public school in san francisco, and it's an excellent, well ranked school. the student body is diverse. it's not a bad school because it's in a dense urban neighborhood - it's a good school because most of the parents care, the school district cares (if somewhat ineptly) and enough of the parents can afford to prop up some extra programs that the city "can't" afford...

Same here, my kids go to Chicago Public Schools. Our school sounds very similar. It's very diverse with 40% low income kids, though that is shrinking as the neighborhood gets more and more expensive as the school is viewed better and better, people with money now move to the neighborhood for the school. The school used to be 90% low income. When comparing demographics, our kids school is the same or better then the vast majority of the "good" suburban schools in the metro area now.

The principal and the teachers haven't changed, the building is the same. The difference is the student body and parents.

[dubu]

If this was China there would be a new city built for Californians in South east Oregon or Idaho. Or something. The only new city in the US is Las Vegas, I'm not sure if you can count that as a real city. When there's no water, sea level rises, too many fires or a earthquake. Where will they go?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

It's very diverse with 40% low income kids, though that is shrinking as the neighborhood gets more and more expensive as the school is viewed better and better, people with money now move to the neighborhood for the school.

hey now, i resemble that remark.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

That's kind of bullshit though. The schools in a place like LA are probably 80% low income with a majority hispanic and a lot of ESL. Boise schools are white and middle class, so they appear "better" because the student body is well to do.

It seems to me you are simply "explaining" why it's easier for Boise to provide "better" schools, on average, than say urban Los Angeles. Although you say "bullshit", you haven't actually offered any facts to challenge the claim made by the original poster.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

It seems to me you are simply "explaining" why it's easier for Boise to provide "better" schools, on average, than say urban Los Angeles. Although you say "bullshit", you haven't actually offered any facts to challenge the claim made by the original poster.

Schools are primarily a reflection of the student body. Is that better?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

hey now, i resemble that remark.

HA!

[tablemtn]

The specific causes of school failure aren't very relevant to a parent - the schools are either acceptable, or not. If they aren't, that makes it more appealing to relocate to an area where the schools ARE acceptable. Fundamentally, it comes down to a binary choice (enroll vs. not enroll).

[llamaorama]

This is Yogi Berra "nobody goes there its too crowded" logic.

Urban centers are more desirable than they have been in decades if you look at the extraordinary prices people are willing to pay for rent and homes in them. However most people can't afford that so they look elsewhere. Boise is not competing with Manhattan or penninsular San Francisco, is it competing with Parsippany or Tracy. Someone who couldn't afford to live a comfortable life near the center of a major top tier coastal city would indeed be more satisfied with certain lower tier cities that are attractive in their own way versus living in banal suburbs of the big metro. But that doesn't mean the big city is somehow degenerate or a bad place.
Small cities have also upped their game in the urbanism category too. You could live closer to Boise's downtown than Seattle's on a middle class income.

Secondly, Boise isn't representative of all small cities. It's a state capitol, college, and tech economy in a scenic "outdoorsy" region. It never had the type of economy to bring in a lot of poor people. It was always really white so it never had white flight on the scale of bigger places. Austin used to be Boise's size decades ago, look at now. Why isn't Spokane doing as well as Boise? It's a few hundred miles away, it's about the same size, same racial demographics and culture. But it's not a thriving city.

Small cities also includes places like Racine and Pine Bluff which aren't in great shape.

Also what does the title imply? "Why invest in cities?" You mean, because people live in them and pay taxes and want to bring out the best in the place they call home? Or are you saying some transient elite should decide what places deserve investment, decide what kind of lifestyles people should live, etc?

One factor is that public schools in a place like Boise are significantly better in middle-class areas than public schools in a place like Los Angeles. States like California have frankly failed to maintain their urban schools to first-world standards, which forces parents to leave the system if they can't afford to live in areas zoned for the handful of exceptions.

You won't find good schools in most small cities, so this is a bad argument.

Most small cities are like big cities. Same problems but without the benefits and strengths of being big.

Makes sense to me. America has always been about moving on to greener pastures when the existing opportunities were insufficient. There's lots of potential Boises out there. In Colorado, Fort Collins and Greeley are in the category too, as is Colorado Springs. Booming, mid-sized cities with lots of jobs, good life style, great schools, high standard of living.

I think Colorado Springs kind of screwed the pooch. I won't live somewhere that is run by anti-tax weirdos who turned off all the streetlights, you can see mountains in all Front Range cities. Albuquerque also had a lot of potential but took a dive over the last couple of decades.

You city can't be a eds/meds/tech/government white collar city full of subaru driver types if you don't have a large university, successful companies, human capital, good government, etc. Most of the west has pretty mountain vistas but a lot of it is sketchy and poor.

[dubu]

Isn't it kinda messed up to have a kid go to a really hard school then when they get out computers can do what people used to do better. That's like 20 years wasted from your youth.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by dubu

Isn't it kinda messed up to have a kid go to a really hard school then when they get out computers can do what people used to do better. That's like 20 years wasted from your youth.

People will still need to understand what computers are doing. It won't be as important that Mary be able to solve derivatives or do linear regression by hand before her senior year of high school, but she'll have to understand those concepts. A lot of people think STEM fields are totally safe because of the value they hold now, but they're probably among the first jobs to be fully automated.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

It seems to me you are simply "explaining" why it's easier for Boise to provide "better" schools, on average, than say urban Los Angeles. Although you say "bullshit", you haven't actually offered any facts to challenge the claim made by the original poster.

In case it wasn't made explicit enough, Boise schools are (almost certainly) not better than LA schools.

The #1 thing that matters in terms of school output is the input - not of the teachers, but of the type of students who attend there. There is absolutely no magic bullet to get low income black and brown students to close the performance gap with higher income white and Asian students. If it someone had the formula, it would be widely published and copied across the country. The closest thing to an exception are merit-based magnets which also attempt to balance racial demographics a bit. And these don't really count, because they're pre-selecting the smartest groups of poor low-income black and Latino kids, rather than having a representative sample.

Unless you claim that a school is demonstrably better because it has less blacks and Latinos (e.g., you're racist and don't want your kids being around children of those backgrounds) you're making a choice in education based upon false precepts.

FWIW, my my (white) eight-year-old daughter goes to a mostly black magnet school There are big gaps in performance between most of the black and most of the white students. It sucks, but my daughter is white and doing fine. She just finished reading all of the Harry Potter books in like two months, she gets all A's, etc. She's sometimes a bit frustrated that the teachers have to go so slowly to help some of the kids catch up, but she learns a lot at home as well, and we're trying to get her into the gifted program (she's just on the bubble - a few more report cards with all A's and she should get in). I went to a well-regarded suburban school, and was often bored at how easy things seemed as well. And I know from my general reading on the subject that while in some cases "school quality" can provide temporary boosts or setbacks to learning, by adulthood it really does all even out, with only family background contributing to your terminal education level and adult income - nothing related to where you go to school. So I live in the city, in a neighborhood I enjoy, and don't sweat my kid's education too much. I'm glad she's growing up with lots of black friends.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In case it wasn't made explicit enough, Boise schools are (almost certainly) not better than LA schools.

The #1 thing that matters in terms of school output is the input - not of the teachers, but of the type of students who attend there. There is absolutely no magic bullet to get low income black and brown students to close the performance gap with higher income white and Asian students. If it someone had the formula, it would be widely published and copied across the country. The closest thing to an exception are merit-based magnets which also attempt to balance racial demographics a bit. And these don't really count, because they're pre-selecting the smartest groups of poor low-income black and Latino kids, rather than having a representative sample.

Unless you claim that a school is demonstrably better because it has less blacks and Latinos (e.g., you're racist and don't want your kids being around children of those backgrounds) you're making a choice in education based upon false precepts.

FWIW, my my (white) eight-year-old daughter goes to a mostly black magnet school There are big gaps in performance between most of the black and most of the white students. It sucks, but my daughter is white and doing fine. She just finished reading all of the Harry Potter books in like two months, she gets all A's, etc. She's sometimes a bit frustrated that the teachers have to go so slowly to help some of the kids catch up, but she learns a lot at home as well, and we're trying to get her into the gifted program (she's just on the bubble - a few more report cards with all A's and she should get in). I went to a well-regarded suburban school, and was often bored at how easy things seemed as well. And I know from my general reading on the subject that while in some cases "school quality" can provide temporary boosts or setbacks to learning, by adulthood it really does all even out, with only family background contributing to your terminal education level and adult income - nothing related to where you go to school. So I live in the city, in a neighborhood I enjoy, and don't sweat my kid's education too much. I'm glad she's growing up with lots of black friends.

This.

Also, at least in Illinois public schools, if you compare black and hispanic students in CPS to the "good" suburban public schools, CPS actually does a better job educating the kids.

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Schools are primarily a reflection of the parents of the student body. Is that better?

Fixed.