Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City

Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City by Bench Ansfield

Government and industry attempted to end redlining, but instead created a moral hazard that lead to apartment destruction. Special "high risk" insurance pools were available for landlords with few questions asked. If the apartment burned down, they could pocket the money and stop worrying about the headache of maintaining the building. Arsons were rarely investigated, and eve when they were it was assumed that the low-income tenants were behind them. (Though this did not stand up well in comparison to public housing where there were no arsons.) According to the author, the landlord would often hire arsonists to burn down the buildings.

The book ended with communities fighting back against arson and then gentrification. The author did identify the root cause of "unintended consequences" leading to destruction. However, they didn't quite draw it back far enough. Why was it more valuable to burn down buildings? Were there other regulations (such as rent control or tenants rights) that made the buildings less profitable? Did the end of redlining actually make things worse? If gentrification is bad, does that mean people want to live in slums? Should we let neighborhoods get better and worse?

The Death and Life of Great American Cities

The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs

Reading this book is so depressing. The author pointed out the flaws in the suburban planning more than a half century ago. And what has happened since then? Most of the US has been developed with the same bad planning. Central planning. Parking lots. Separation of concerns. Now there has finally been a little bit of observation that some of these things were bad. Why did it take so long? Why did we destroy actual communities earlier on? Now with phones and devices we are even more separated. Maybe that has been the final nudge that we need to realize that we want some community in our physical life.

Many times cities are "killed" rather than suffer natural deaths. Planners confuse "density" with "overcrowding". High density areas are often very successful, especially if people care. Neighbors will "self-police" to ensure everyone meets standards. People can also have a degree of anonymity in cities that they cannot in small towns. They can be private, yet still part of a tight-knit urban community.

The author criticizes the "garden city" and other movements that would likely be considered "new urbanism" today. Instead, she advocates pure urbanism. Keep big sidewalks for people to travel, play and spend their time. Let cities have many different concerns together. She spends some time looking at alternatives to public housing. Her position would look much more libertarian, with the government less involved than they are now. One key point is that people would still be able to live in the community once they earn too much to qualify. (Would this change incentives to hide income?) There seem to be some flaws, though she admits that it is a starting point and should be revised as needed. in some places, we do allow people to remain after earning more. There are attempts to have more "mixed income housing". However, the entire public housing system still suffers many of the same problems that the author identified in the the early 1960s. 

Americans Against the City: Anti-Urbanism in the Twentieth Century

Americans Against the City: Anti-Urbanism in the Twentieth Century by Steven Conn

Cities grew large in America as part of the industrial revolution. Dense groups of immigrants lived in substandard conditions in these crime and disease-ridden cities. This was abhorrent to earlier migrants who prized individuality and independence. Reformers attacked cities and their conditions. There was a great deal of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Zoning and code requirements helped clean up the bad conditions, but ended up spreading them out. Suburbs were inspired by small towns. Various movements attempted to create community in car-friendly environment. "Urban renewal" knocked down blocks of urban housing. 

Even cities that did not want to take money for urban renewal could use highway construction money to destroy less-desirable neighborhoods. The federal government paid 90% of the cost of interstate construction. However, states needed to significantly increase the amount they spent on highways to cover their 10%. These highways would bypass small towns, helping to bring chain stores to the periphery and hurting the downtown businesses. In the cities, the roadways would destroy inner-city neighborhoods, and also hurt the urban environment. 

Urban living has had a bit of a revival recently. There is a desire for community. However, there is also a desire for independence. Housing projects were a big failure. Will new approaches work better?

Science and the City: The Mechanics Behind the Metropolis

Science and the City: The Mechanics Behind the Metropolis by Laurie Winkless

How does a city get built? How does it work? There are many complex processes involved. This book explores a smattering of them, from how skyscrapers are built to how water systems are run. Even with ample coverage, it only touches the surface of everything involved. Only the top few layers of science are peeled off in the understanding. The book also looks at future innovation through rosey eyes. There are plenty of things that may help the city of the future. Will the come to fruition?

San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities

Liberal west coast cities like to act very compassionate towards  the homeless population. Unfortunately, these cities have also seen a steady increase in people living on the street along with a decreasing quality of life for all. There are a multitude of reasons given. Some see it as just a problem of lack of housing. Others point to mental health or drug use. Alas, solutions are hard to find.

The progressive mentality often is too focussed on trying for the best rather than making improvements. People are allowed to live in squalor because very nice housing is not available. Shelters are shunned as inferior to a nice apartment. While this is true, it is also true that shelters are much better than a spot on the street. The advocates pushing for the housing end up diverting funding from providing basic shelter for a many to the hopes of providing fancy shelter for a few. Similarly, limited psychiatric services are available. Mentally ill were removed from inpatient treatment and integrated into society - often on the streets. Huge amounts are then spent to provide for emergency services for them rather than provide a long term solution.

There is also a strong desire to see homeless as victims. They are seen as incapable of controller their situation. They may be left out due to racism, poverty or some other problem. Laws are seen as part of the police/prison complex and not enforced against them. They are allowed (and even encouraged) to engage in drug use. Generous public assistance is given without strings. People learn how the system works and how to get food, drugs and place to sleep. Many are on their way to die rather than get better. People from other locations seek out the "progressive" locations that will let them engage in their antisocial behavior.

Many progressive western cities have a case of "pathological altruism". There is heavy criticism against anything that takes away from the ability of the homeless to do whatever they want. This goes together with a western belief in extreme individualism. The "altruistic" can feel that they are helping because they put up a Black Lives Matter sign and support funding for homeless. At the same time, they will advocate for nimby positions against more housing near them. Even cleaning up "skid row" is seen as a negative form of gentrification.

Many cities provide huge amounts of homeless services. However, they don't require anybody to use it. Many homeless people would rather take advantage of the abundant vices than struggle to get their life in order. With a little push they would be willing to be helped, but that is not easy. Other countries, such as Netherlands and Portugal have decriminalized drug use but also limited their availability. They have built new housing and helped get people off the street. While the south may have a "prison-industrial complex", the west has a "homeless-industrial complex". In each case huge amounts of money are spent while people suffer and families are torn apart. 

New York, New York, New York: Four Decades of Success, Excess, and Transformation

New York has experienced some significant changes in the past four decades. In the 1970s, it was a basket case. The famous headline: "Ford to City: Drop Dead" says it all. I like to put a lot of the blame on the shenanigans of Robert Moses as he bulldozed the city to erect more freeways. However, that was just the beginning of the problems. New York had become a "workers paradise". Alas, this was created by dishing out abundant benefits and not expecting much work in return. (Hmmm... Does seem similar to what the US government is trying to do now.)

New York was a financial basket case. "Machine" mayors had doled out patronage and let infrastructure rot. This left the city in a bad condition. Crime was also escalating. Ed Koch ran to the right of the the establishment candidates and garnered great support, eventually getting Republican and Democratic endorsements. He tried to run a government that got things done without the heavy patronage system and wanted to restore some law and order. Alas, there were still crime issues. 

Koch was followed by David Dinkins, the first black mayor of New York. He was followed by tough-on-crime Republican Rudy Giuliani and then billionaire Republican Michael Bloomberg. Each of these mayors were "outside" the conventional establishment machine. During this time, city finances were brought back in order and crime was brought under control. The wealthy were tapped to helped out by funding things such as parks. Time Square was transformed into the tourist trap it is today and New York became a desirable place to live.

The book does not have much to say about Bill de Blasio. Though what is said is not all that positive. He seems to be a return to the old machine. New York had got itself out of the rut with nonconventional Mayors over the last four decades. Now the city has chosen to go back to the "machine".

Green Metropolis

Green Metropolis touts New York as a great environmental success story. In spite of many large structures, New Yorkers use far less energy per capita than residents of any other American city. In environmental discussions, much time and effort is spend on small programs, like LEED building standards and improving gas mileage. However, a far larger bang for the buck can be achieved simply by increasing density. The irony is that many people would love to live in these more dense cities, yet policies actively counteract these desires. Zoning regulations and car requirements make walk-ability difficult to achieve. Even attempts at "new urbanism" still keep car availability as primary focus.

This is a must read for any environmentalist. While "going back to nature" may make a person feel good, they are not doing much to help out the overall environment. Going back to the city is the true way to sustainability. Then those suburban tracts could be used for good viable farmland.

Reading this again in 2018 reminds me that things have not improved. Seattle has one of the few growing bus systems in the US. However, they have spent countless dollars to move cars a little faster on Mercer - at the expense of pedestrians. Getting "upzones" is a huge challenge. People love their single family homes. They would like to have the benefits of a city with everything close. But, they would also like easy access to cars and a large lawn. Cities are beneficial almost entirely because of the challenges. They are not easy, but it does make things better for everyone.