The Castle

This is another great city shot I ran across in my wanderings of the urban web. Industrial zones make a powerful impact on the psyche. If you doubt me, go visit Cleveland at night and check out ISG's tower of flame. It spits out easily 10 feet of flame at the top of a smokestack all night long. That thing is captivating, I tell you.

Anyway, I'm always struck when I encounter images of huge factory complexes in action. Perhaps it's just that I'm too accustomed to living in a service-sector America. Once upon a time, this country was covered in such districts. It was perfectly ordinary to see smokestacks, flickering lights and fires at night, and listen to the abrasive clanging of industrial equipment. I grew up in suburban America, and now live in a city not particularly dominated by heavy industry.

Will service-sector America ever become once again manufacturing-sector America? It's doubtful. The only major external force that would drive manufacturing back within our borders is a rising cost of transportation. Certainly, fuel costs are way up in the past ten years, but as far as I can tell that just means we'll import from Mexico instead of China.

Signs of Growth

I ran across this image while perusing for urban enthusiast sites. It does a great job at showing both the beauty and ugliness of the industrial landscape.

I named this entry "Signs of Growth" because it helps us see the evolution of economic indicators of wealth. In the foreground is a young tree (leafless, unfortunately). This is the symbol of growth and wealth in pre-modern civilization. Wealth came from the earth; trees supply the raw material for shelter. Plants supply the raw material for food.

In the background, we see a host of container-moving cranes at a port. Cranes are the sign of economic progress. They signal the exchange of goods, the creation and exchange of wealth.

It's also striking that both trees and cranes bear a certain visual similarity, at least in this photo. They are both skeletal structures that reach out and away.

Rail Transit

A commenter on MinnPost wrot e recently about the practical problems that rail transit from Minneapolis to Chicago presents. He specifically lays out a convincing argument for why air travel to Chicago is more effeicient than rail travel. I thought it would be handy to review the numbers a bit and consider what level of performance (both in price, and speed) passenger rail needs to compete effectively with air transit.

Let's start by reviewing the numbers for weekend air travel between Minneapolis and Chicago.

Price: Tickets are as cheap as about $100 round-trip these days. Then you might have to park your car at MSP during your trip ($14/day * 2 days = $28). Then you have to take the train from O'Hare or Midway to the city ($2). That leaves us with a total cost of between $102 and $130.

Time: A flight to Chicago is about an hour. You'll need to get to the airport about 45 minutes in advance. Also, you'll need to get to the airport somehow (let's say maybe 15 minutes if you live in the Metro area). Lastly, you'll need to get from O'Hare or Midway to the city (maybe 20 more minutes). That leaves us with a total of 2 hours 20 minutes.

So, that means that passenger rail to Chicago has to compete with a roughly $116 round trip price and a 140 minute travel time (across 408 miles). To match the travel time, the train will have to travel at least 177 mph. Now that is indeed a fast train. Bullet trains in Japan can perform this well. Most of the estimates I've seen for bullet trains in the US peg the reasonable train speed more around 150 mph. The would give us a travel time of 2 hours 42 minutes (22 more minutes than air travel).

I guess the question, then, is this: Can a 150 mph bullet train exist at at or below that $116 round-trip price point? I don't know. It would take a heck of a subsidy to make that happen. It will take clearly billions of public investment to lay the rail lines themselves. How do you feel about a 1-cent sales tax increase for the next 20 years to cover it?

High Speed Rail transit to Chicago

<img src="http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/chi-rrt-RedLine-trn-Dan-Ryan-Sox-35th-stn-54252-19930722-cameo_Peter-Ehrlich.jpg"/>

<p>
A commenter on MinnPost <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/steveberg/2008/02/06/800/bells_transit_plan_is_superb_except_somebody_forgot_to_include_money#comment_960">wrot
recently</a> about the practical problems that rail transit from Minneapolis to Chicago presents. He specifically lays out a convincing argument for why air travel to Chicago is more effeicient than rail travel. I thought it would be handy to review the numbers a bit and consider what level of performance (both in price, and speed) passenger rail needs to compete effectively with air transit.

<p>
Let's start by reviewing the numbers for weekend air travel between Minneapolis and Chicago.

<p>
Price: Tickets are as cheap as about $100 round-trip these days. Then you might have to park your car at MSP during your trip ($14/day * 2 days = $28). Then you have to take the train from O'Hare or Midway to the city ($2). That leaves us with a total cost of between $102 and $130.

<p>
Time: A flight to Chicago is about an hour. You'll need to get to the airport about 45 minutes in advance. Also, you'll need to get to the airport somehow (let's say maybe 15 minutes if you live in the Metro area). Lastly, you'll need to get from O'Hare or Midway to the city (maybe 20 more minutes). That leaves us with a total of 2 hours 20 minutes.

<p>
So, that means that passenger rail to Chicago has to compete with a roughly $116 round trip price and a 140 minute travel time (across 408 miles). To match the travel time, the train will have to travel at least 177 mph. Now that is indeed a fast train. Bullet trains in Japan can perform this well. Most of the estimates I've seen for bullet trains in the US peg the reasonable train speed more around 150 mph. The would give us a travel time of 2 hours 42 minutes (22 more minutes than air travel).

<p>
I guess the question, then, is this: Can a 150 mph bullet train exist at at or below that $116 round-trip price point? I don't know. It would take a heck of a subsidy to make that happen. It will take clearly billions of public investment to lay the rail lines themselves. How do you feel about a 1-cent sales tax increase for the next 20 years to cover it?

Kinship Networks, Mobility, and Metropolitan Economies

<img src="http://alboe.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/mobility-scooter-roma-shoprider-cordoba-class-3.jpg"/>

<p>
I got into a conversation tonight about (guess what!) urban economies. We were talking a bit about our careers and cities. I asked her: "Would you ever leave Minneapolis?" And to my great surprise, she answered quite quickly: "Yes!"

<p>
This response surprises me not because I'm a Minniephile (as I have well established in this blog by now). Rather, it surprises me because most people don't move away from cities once they have settled in. The vast majority of people--in this country anyway--stick close to home.

<p>
It's striking how often people end up living out their adult family lives in the region where they were raised. Kids move away to college. Most of the time, they go to the gigantic state university in their home state. Occasionally they go to Ivy League schools in the Northeast. Somehow, they always end up meeting their eventual spouses at school; those spouses often hail from the same region. These college kids graduate, marry, move around the country for a bit, and yet almost always settle back in the city closest to their hometown.

<p>
Kinship networks are strong. They are more than strong. They pull deeply at the soul of every human. People are born into families, churches, and social networks. They may seek education elsewhere. They may even live for a time in our cities, regions, and countries. But when they marry and produce children, they move home. The rhythms of their hometown run deep inside their blood.

<p>
Why does this matter from an urban studies perspective? It matters because metropolitan economic planning must take this into account. Cities are lucky in this respect. Cities can count on residents, in general, not wanting to leave. As long as cities provide a variety of lifestyle configurations and economic opportunity, cities will thrive in the long run. A city that follows this advice may not become vastly wealthy, certainly. But as long as young people feel that there is true economic opportunity "back home", they will return and they will continue to plant roots there.

Vacant Homes

<img src="http://media2.askthebuilder.com/askthebuilder.com/artman212/uploads/1/656.jpg"/>

<p>
I just read in today's (6 Feb 2008) WSJ that the home vacancy rate in Cleveland has hit 10%. Wow. Ten percent, people. That's a lot of empty homes.
<p>
To be fair, this is not just a reflection of the mortgage crisis. Cleveland has been losing population fairly steadily, anyway, due mostly to economic factors. Between depopulation and a foreclosure bonanza precipitated by crummy lending practices, they've got one out of every ten homes vacant. Rokakis (the county treasurer) remarks in the article that, even if the city were able to make improvements on those homes, it is unlikely they could find buyers.
<p>
So what's to be done? Cleveland, like a lot of cities, has a real problem on its hands. Vacant homes drive down property values of neighboring homes. They're a great place for vagrants / criminals / teenagers to hang out and get into trouble. Theft of copper pipe from vacant homes is also apparently a time-honored hobby these days. Weeds grow over lawns, presently a public safety hazard. It's a nightmare.
<p>
Cities respond, quite reasonably, by taking possession of these homes and either turning them over to responsible tenants (NPOs, for instance) and, when that isn't possible, demolishing them. Who knows? Maybe in 50 years there will be a bunch of urban prairie lots in the middle of former industrial cities.

Beating the Blight of Surface Lots!

Surface lots are the bane of urban downtowns. They are both a visual blight (who wants to look at giant sea of cars?), an economic blight (ROI per square foot is low compared to business-based usage), and a lifestyle blight (what kind of urban life is possible when you have parking lots scattered everywhere?).

Surface lots persist, however, because they usually make money for their owners. Parking is usually in strong demand in city centers, and Minneapolis is no exception. Owners of parking lots gladly charge monthly rates and make decent money on their investment. From their point of view, this is a great business to be in.

(On a side note: This is/was an issue back in Cleveland as well. There was a very interesting proposal to change property taxation rules so that taxes are based on potential property value rather than real property value. That is, normally you're simply taxed on the value of your real estate. Instead, you would be taxed on the potential profitability of your real estate. Since downtown land--because it can house office buildigns--is so much more potentially profitable, you have to pay higher taxes. This encourages owners of surface lots to develop their land!)

Anyway, moving on. Downtown Journal reports that Minneapolis is seeking to develop a surface lots at South 2nd St and 4th Ave South. This is the giant lot immediately south of the RiverWest condo building. It is quite a sizable lot, I assure you. This could be a great opportunity to put in more housing and ground-level retail. The city will require any new development to have at least 200 parking spaces, of course. At any rate, I'm optimistic. Downtown growth is a good sign!

Tapering Building Heights

I got into a conversation about riverfront condo development recently. My companion observed how frustrating it is that wherever there's a river or a lake in a city, there's always some super tall residential highrise right next to it, obstructing views of the water from anyone not wealthy enough to buy into the building. Fair enough, it's a bit of a problem. If you do want to buy a condo with a lake (or river) view, you can only ensure you'll keep your view if you buy immediately adjacent to the lake. If you don't want to buy a condo but are a resident and would like to be able to see the lake once in awhile, you're also out of luck.

What about requiring that buildings have decreasing height as they approach a body of water? If planning commissions made such a requirement, developers could build highrises of ever-increasing height as they moved farther away from the water. In the long run, more units could be built with water views, thus increasing property value and returns to city coffers.

Seeing History in the Street

I took a guest out on a brief tour of my neighborhood. Brief, because negative wind chills don't exactly make for pleasant strolls. Anywho, out on the Stone Arch Bridge I showed her the vista of St Anthony Main, which as you well know (since all my readers are students of Minneapolis history) is home to a number of older industrial buildings. Tucked among them are a few recent condo highrises, of course. (Not to mention the University of Minnesota steam plant which, any day now, will itself become a developer's new condo project. Imagine living in one of the giant turrets!).

My guest remarked how cool it is to be able to see history alive in the streets of a city. I couldn't agree more. Buildings, and roads, are arguably the longest-lasting physical creations we humans put on our planet. To see flour mills that date back over a hundred years is to feel connected to history. Those buildings are both signifiers of original use, as well as living beings themselves. They have adapted their use over time. Some lay long-abandoned, and are eventually torn down. Others become useful in residential form. The Stone Arch Bridge itself used to carry freight rail across the Mississippi. Now it carries families with kids and pets on sunny days. Occasionally it carries police cruisers and ambulances when newer bridges collapse into the river. The built environment reflects both original intent and ongoing, ever-changing uses. We see our own history and our own evolution as a community in this space.

Where are the middle class highrises?

The Minneapolis housing stock is a curious beast. I've spent the past year reviewing the offerings of the condo market. I've found that there's an astonishing quantity of "luxury" condos and a so-so quantity of "non-luxury" condos. Where are the middle class highrises? Are there really so few people who want the advantages of non-single-family-home living but don't want: (1) Granite countertops (2) Viking ranges (3) Concierge services (4) Bamboo floors (5) High-end fixtures?

I'm really baffled by this. Surely there's enough latent demand in this market for condos around $220k (the median housing price in America). Or is there just so much single-family-home stock in this market that no one would consider an alternative?

Bizarre Condo Taglines

In this sagging housing market, condo are particularly hard to move. I'm sure we all know how much the condo market has plunged in the Twin Cities. Speculation in the past few years led to the construction of quite a number of condo buildings. Not only did developers overestimate the total demand for condo units, they also overestimated the degree of luxury that condo buyers were in a position to pay for. The net result of this is a number of canceled projects, condo buildings being converted to rentals (check out Le Parisien flats by the Wedge), and returned deposits for buildings that never went up.

Condos are still available, however. I love the taglines marketers have invented to move these units. Check out Olin Crossings, for instance. Their motto is: "Where intimate & urban collide". What in the world does that mean? I get really cozy with the homeless panhandlers? The noise of traffic nearby comfortably settles in my living room? Maybe, by "collide" they mean that my bedroom is actually loaded into a catapult and shot directly into the IDS Center? I imagine that's possible.

Look, I'm not naive about this. I'm well aware of the image that the marketers are trying to create. They're doing battle with the long-held (at least, post-WWII-held) notion that "urban = bad". Somehow, they reason, if they put the word "intimate" next to "urban" they can re-brand "urban" to have positive connotations. I'm an urbanist, so it's not a hard sell for me. I'm not sure, however, if this kind of tactic really works for home buyers. It smacks of pre-housing-crash class warfare, in which all new city housing was "luxury" and the demographic of interest was empty-nest baby boomers looking for 2nd homes. In this market, how about a tagline based on value and quality?

What is your time worth?

The average one-way commute in America is 24 minutes (21 minutes here in Minneapolis). I value my time highly; consequently I chose to live in a central location so that my commute remains low (12 minutes one way). I'm continually astounded by how much time my fellow Americans are willing to spend in their cars. Many of my coworkers have commutes in excess of 45 minutes one-way. When asked why they choose to locate so far from the metro center, I hear the same refrain again and again: you get more housing for your money. One guy justified the difference in housing cost this way: "The money I save on the house buys a lot of gas". In his mind, it's simply a question of dollars expended, not time wasted. How much time is reasonable to spend in a car in a given day? I find it difficult to fathom that this is such a high priority for people. Can anyone explain this to me?

The Dream Transit System

With visions of light rail (Yay! Central Corridor!) dancing in my mind, I'm reminded of the many conversations I've had at work regarding transit. Many of my coworkers are similarly pro-transit, and the biggest complaint I've heard (and share) is that light rail connecting downtown St Paul and downtown Minneapolis is simply not good enough. We want a full-scale, metro-wide, underground subway system of the 1st class. We've been to cities with top shelf transit systems: New York City, Chicago, Paris, Taipei, etc. We've seen how transformative those systems can be for their host cities.

Sadly, of course, systems like that cost a fortune. The Central Corridor alone is probably going to run $850 million. A complete metro-wide subway system? I imagine we're looking into the tens of billions...

However, it's fun to speculate! If you had to pick, where would you put stations? There are a lot of obvious contenders: a few in Uptown, both banks of UMN campus, downtowns, intersections like Lex/Univ, Snelling/Univ, pretty much every campus in the area, and so on.

So what would it take to make this happen? Anyone got a spare billion?

The Dream Transit System

With visions of light rail (Yay! Central Corridor!) dancing in my mind, I'm reminded of the many conversations I've had at work regarding transit. Many of my coworkers are similarly pro-transit, and the biggest complaint I've heard (and share) is that light rail connecting downtown St Paul and downtown Minneapolis is simply not good enough. We want a full-scale, metro-wide, underground subway system of the 1st class. We've been to cities with top shelf transit systems: New York City, Chicago, Paris, Taipei, etc. We've seen how transformative those systems can be for their host cities.

Sadly, of course, systems like that cost a fortune. The Central Corridor alone is probably going to run $850 million. A complete metro-wide subway system? I imagine we're looking into the tens of billions...

However, it's fun to speculate! If you had to pick, where would you put stations? There are a lot of obvious contenders: a few in Uptown, both banks of UMN campus, downtowns, intersections like Lex/Univ, Snelling/Univ, pretty much every campus in the area, and so on.

So what would it take to make this happen? Anyone got a spare billion?

The Bridge is Coming...

The I-35W bridge is coming along nicely. At night, the brighter-than-a-dwarf-star spotlights cast their welcome glow on the subzero construction site. I suppose the lights and the construction noise might be seen as a hassle. To my mind, they're the sound of progress: the bridge is coming back!

Will they really finish it by the end of the year?