Weren’t almost all great cities located at harbors (or locations with access to a harbor) or on a navigable river prior to railroads? Not that these conditions were sufficient to determine which cities became great, but just that they were necessary. Prior to the invention of railroads, I think it would have been nearly impossible for Atlanta to become a huge city. That is to say, there is a reason why almost all major US cities prior to the US Civil War were on major waterways, and why so many canals were built linking different waterway systems.
"In most blue state cities, we know this happened at some point between the 1960s and 1980s. But why? And why did red state cities not follow this trajectory? Better understanding this transition is key to rolling back NIMBY hegemony."
In "Why Nothing Works," Marc Dunkelman describes two conflicting ideas in progressive politics, which he calls Hamiltonian (the need for big government to counterbalance big corporations and deliver public services) and Jeffersonian (suspicion and mistrust of power, whether private or public). Since the 1960s and 1970s, the balance has swung heavily to the Jeffersonian side, and its suspicion of power (including the power of the government) has been institutionalized in protracted public consultation and judicial review.
Jacob Anbinder describes the origins of anti-growth politics in Democratic cities: skepticism about the preceding period of rapid growth, historic preservation (aiming to stabilize declining neighbourhoods and increase their value), environmentalism, and again, Jeffersonian decentralization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaB0HAnkik
It'd be interesting to see a history of Republican thinking about growth during the same period of time - perhaps a history of Texas.
1) what happened starting in the 1960s blue cities was Civil Rights and soft on dysfunction/crime. You can still get cheap housing in the ghetto in the superstar cities, you just don’t want to live there
High real estate prices do the segregating people aren’t allowed to do explicitly. This is why you can never drive down prices, the high prices are the whole point.
Red states as run by law an order racists that don’t allow homeless encampments. I walk around Tampa and I’m not surrounded by human filth.
You got a few tough on crime Republican mayors in the 90s/00s in some blue cities but demographic changes have made them all one party now.
2) public sector unions, especially teachers unions, got way to fucking powerful in blue cities. 36k per kid per year in NYC and thier answer to a bad flu was “let’s just take two years off from work”.
TX and FL now have universal school vouchers.
This ties in with point #1. All real estate prices in the quality of local schools. Segregation is mainly about making sure disruptive kids aren’t in your kids school. Red states allow less disruption in school and vouchers decouple real estate from schools.
3) the sunbelt is still mostly doing “slap down a bunch of housing on an empty lot” building. Not Infill on expensive existing urban real estate. To do the same kind of development near super star cities you gotta go way out into the exurbs where commutes get too long. In Florida/tx you can still do it in the suburbs.
4) tx/fl have no income tax. They were poor until recently. They have to grow to survive.
Ca/ny can survive by taxing their rich like crazy. Sure a few move away each year and the pensions are a time bomb, but that’s way outside the kind of timeline of a typical politician.
I would think of these polities like a chain restaurant lifecycle. There is a growth phase were people are building up the brand equity and expanding new locations. Then it stagnates. Then everyone starts cutting corners and spending down the brand equity to make a quick buck. Blue cities are in a “spend down past capital accumulation” equilibrium.
Chicago actually seems pretty inevitable given that it straddles the boundaries of the Great Lakes and Mississippi watersheds. Otherwise, totally agree. They’re all engine builders
Loved the article!- in a parallel thought, Dubai’s first foray into commercial growth is tied to Deira and Bur Dubai in the 50s, but it wouldn’t have existed as it does today if not for the dredging of the Dubai Creek- the natural shallow waters for fishing was repurposed into a new harbour and port for commercial ships to come in, changing the course of the city.
Interesting stuff. I'll quibble with one small point: St. Louis was a major city for a century before the engineering and tools existed to tame the Mississippi. (Unless by "tame" you meant simply navigating on it.)
Yes, historic St. Louis was built on higher ground. The 1993 flood primarily affected recent suburban development in the Missouri River valley protected by a poorly maintained levee. Tornadoes have been a bigger problem, from the 1870s to a few weeks ago.
Interesting post and thank you for the "Cities: The First 6,000 Years" book recommendation! Are there any other books that you would recommend with regard to this essay's topic?
Weren’t almost all great cities located at harbors (or locations with access to a harbor) or on a navigable river prior to railroads? Not that these conditions were sufficient to determine which cities became great, but just that they were necessary. Prior to the invention of railroads, I think it would have been nearly impossible for Atlanta to become a huge city. That is to say, there is a reason why almost all major US cities prior to the US Civil War were on major waterways, and why so many canals were built linking different waterway systems.
"In most blue state cities, we know this happened at some point between the 1960s and 1980s. But why? And why did red state cities not follow this trajectory? Better understanding this transition is key to rolling back NIMBY hegemony."
In "Why Nothing Works," Marc Dunkelman describes two conflicting ideas in progressive politics, which he calls Hamiltonian (the need for big government to counterbalance big corporations and deliver public services) and Jeffersonian (suspicion and mistrust of power, whether private or public). Since the 1960s and 1970s, the balance has swung heavily to the Jeffersonian side, and its suspicion of power (including the power of the government) has been institutionalized in protracted public consultation and judicial review.
Jacob Anbinder describes the origins of anti-growth politics in Democratic cities: skepticism about the preceding period of rapid growth, historic preservation (aiming to stabilize declining neighbourhoods and increase their value), environmentalism, and again, Jeffersonian decentralization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaB0HAnkik
It'd be interesting to see a history of Republican thinking about growth during the same period of time - perhaps a history of Texas.
1) what happened starting in the 1960s blue cities was Civil Rights and soft on dysfunction/crime. You can still get cheap housing in the ghetto in the superstar cities, you just don’t want to live there
High real estate prices do the segregating people aren’t allowed to do explicitly. This is why you can never drive down prices, the high prices are the whole point.
Red states as run by law an order racists that don’t allow homeless encampments. I walk around Tampa and I’m not surrounded by human filth.
You got a few tough on crime Republican mayors in the 90s/00s in some blue cities but demographic changes have made them all one party now.
2) public sector unions, especially teachers unions, got way to fucking powerful in blue cities. 36k per kid per year in NYC and thier answer to a bad flu was “let’s just take two years off from work”.
TX and FL now have universal school vouchers.
This ties in with point #1. All real estate prices in the quality of local schools. Segregation is mainly about making sure disruptive kids aren’t in your kids school. Red states allow less disruption in school and vouchers decouple real estate from schools.
3) the sunbelt is still mostly doing “slap down a bunch of housing on an empty lot” building. Not Infill on expensive existing urban real estate. To do the same kind of development near super star cities you gotta go way out into the exurbs where commutes get too long. In Florida/tx you can still do it in the suburbs.
4) tx/fl have no income tax. They were poor until recently. They have to grow to survive.
Ca/ny can survive by taxing their rich like crazy. Sure a few move away each year and the pensions are a time bomb, but that’s way outside the kind of timeline of a typical politician.
I would think of these polities like a chain restaurant lifecycle. There is a growth phase were people are building up the brand equity and expanding new locations. Then it stagnates. Then everyone starts cutting corners and spending down the brand equity to make a quick buck. Blue cities are in a “spend down past capital accumulation” equilibrium.
Energy is life.
Chicago actually seems pretty inevitable given that it straddles the boundaries of the Great Lakes and Mississippi watersheds. Otherwise, totally agree. They’re all engine builders
Loved the article!- in a parallel thought, Dubai’s first foray into commercial growth is tied to Deira and Bur Dubai in the 50s, but it wouldn’t have existed as it does today if not for the dredging of the Dubai Creek- the natural shallow waters for fishing was repurposed into a new harbour and port for commercial ships to come in, changing the course of the city.
Interesting stuff. I'll quibble with one small point: St. Louis was a major city for a century before the engineering and tools existed to tame the Mississippi. (Unless by "tame" you meant simply navigating on it.)
Yes, historic St. Louis was built on higher ground. The 1993 flood primarily affected recent suburban development in the Missouri River valley protected by a poorly maintained levee. Tornadoes have been a bigger problem, from the 1870s to a few weeks ago.
Interesting post and thank you for the "Cities: The First 6,000 Years" book recommendation! Are there any other books that you would recommend with regard to this essay's topic?