How Important is being High Growth to You

[15895]

This can be a continuous topic on urban issues. 
 

Growing up in Charlotte, before Twitter made information easier to share, etc., one thing I really believed was lower cost areas, lower taxes was key to growth & growth meant more urbanity; more density, more urban developments, more mass transit & that the fastest growing cities would be up there with the largest US cities. I was happy to be in a fast growing city because It’s fun to live in a booming city. 
 

As time goes on, I find myself having almost opposite views of that and I’m curious to peoples thoughts on how important to urbanity and things urban nerds care about is it to be high growth? Particularly curious of what you guys think because I assume most here (and especially folks from Texas) are so big on “growth.” 

In general, I’m going to break cities between NY, Boston, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, Philly, Minneapolis, Denver and a few others (“Blue State Cities”) vs. Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, etc (“Red state cities”). 
 

In my daily life, I generally hear gloating from multiple sources of everyone fleeing the blue state cities. From all sorts of people. And there can be some stats  that appear that way. Though I’ve always thought that was a little skewed like San Francisco is so dense and has tiny city limits, I don’t think years it’s had “weak” growth or loss of citizens is meaningful unless the metropolitan area was rapidly losing population and ignoring the pandemic (because I think that data is flawed), these blue state metropolitan areas generally grew (NYC for example eclipsing every city and metro in raw population gains.) Blue State COVID recovery is lagging by like 8 months. Some metrics you can see where blue state cities have reverted ahead of red state cities (such as mass transit, air traffic, GDP etc).

But let’s assume in general Blue State cities in the last couple decades and considering the next couple of decades - blue state cities had weak to no growth and that the red state cities have had crazy explosive growth. 
 

It doesn’t seem like that much higher growth has translated to more urbanity. Nor more mass transit. And although citizens from those areas massively hype up some of their skyscraper growth, it still sort of seems like peanuts compared to blue state cities. Not only does it seem like red state cities have less urban development, the quality seems to be night & day. 
 

Census numbers came out (which it should be noted blue state cities had literal Covid lockdowns as late as 1Q22) so the growth of blue state and red state cities is more stark on paper than ever.
 

So obviously people mention how blue state cities are dying. And it’s hard not to notice, and I’ll use DC since I know our numbers best and it requires less research for me, that when someone from Dallas TX mentioned blue state cities are dying and people are fleeing. This metropolitan area with millions more people has less weekday mass transit ridership than Sunday DC Metro Rail alone and when you  all the transit agencies, it has a fraction of ridership. This is true across the board for blue Vs. Red state cities. 
 

Then you look at future growth of mass transit. Blue state cities are building a ton of rail, and not only that, it’s being built for the most part, right. Underground, good connections, high quality, etc. Then you see red state cities, they struggle to build 8 miles of light rail over decades and even at that, corners are cut so much it kills ridership. It usually follows old rail lines (charlottes lucky with its old rail corridor) but it’s just not good. Dallas & Houston… they built a lot of rail and infrastructure, but so cheaply, ridership isn’t significant. 
 

There’s other metrics too that aren’t as published that shows red state cities and metros heavily skewed towards single family homes (the one exception being Austin, TX) and blue state cities are building more Multifamily than single family. Urban development and stuff is eclipsing the red state counter parts. When it comes to bike lanes, sidewalk widenings, when it comes to transit expansion, etc. the blue state cities are mopping the floor with red state cities. 1,000 foot buildings built arent even mentioned yet it’s national news for decades that Nashville and Miami are getting one. 
 

Not only that, the quality is starkly different mostly. You have these giant parking decks that aren’t pleasant at the street level and the areas of urban areas doesn’t seem to have expanded much in the red state cities IMO. Charlotte still seems pretty much the same to me as a pedestrian as it did like. 15 years ago despite the growth. There’s some improvement. But not really to me. Legacy Union doesn’t feel any different than Charlotte Observer building did. Some of the SouthEnd developments didn’t change the experience of SouthEnd much. Sure, there’s some new skyscrapers but i has just as much fun with the Food Truck Rallies and Common Market, etc. But it’s not really expanded around the urban core where some neighborhoods feel more urban etc. 

Then, I, living In a metro people have been “fleeing” for a couple years now apparently. The urban growth in Charlotte doesn’t seem much more significant than the MD suburb cores. It’s a lot less than the area. But to be fair, it’s a larger metro. Looking at say Texas, their urban growth doesn’t seem as impressive either compare to some of their smaller counter parts or equal counter parts. But their growth *blows* the blue state cities out of the water. 

The below is some post pandemic development in Bethesda MD. Lots of great towers and tons of retail came with them as have most of the cores with movie theaters, grocery stores, retail. Lots of bike infrastructure, you can see construction fencing for the new 20+ mile Light Rail that connects some suburban cores etc. check all the boxes for the urban core. The purple line will connect seemlessly with metro rail and the stations will cost a fortune. But ridership is exponentially higher with a good connection. Multiple this growth around the region and how other blue state cities are growing. 

 

This is NOT to say blue state cities are doing better or anything. At all… it’s not a competition, one isn’t better than the other, etc. 

I really just want to hear opposing view points to challenge my thought process, honestly. Because you don’t want a dying city. But the “best places to do business” “fastest growing cities” “lower cost” etc just doesn’t translate to urban growth. I almost think higher taxes to go towards libraries, greenways, mass transit etc at the expense of even higher growth is almost better for urban growth? 
 

And in context of Charlotte, it makes me wonder, what if there’s a better way of growth? That makes the urban core even better? Obviously the state F-ed Charlotte over. But is it worth worrying about growth if taxes went up and went towards say sidewalk widenings throughout the core, to more community assets throughout the core? Does it matter if people leave Meck for say Lincoln if that means the inner core grows more sustainably and walkability expands throughout the core? If design standards were higher and developers were forced to yeah build more expensive buildings? Maybe it’d be to pricey for some but if the demand is there… they’d either have to build and make less or build and make nothing? Why do red state cities build less Multifamily housing yet at the same time they claim if they were to build at certain standard, none could be built? 

I also think a slower growing core could be a financial boon for an overall metropolitan area. If an urban core becomes more walkable, enjoyable overall, more companies want to be there, people over the metro visit, etc. I also don’t see poverty, savings,  etc correlating with being higher growth. 

Anyway, I’m curious what people’s thoughts are?

I think Texas is like. The poster child of high growth, business friendly etc. and no slam or disrespect, but I don’t look at Houston and Dallas as places that I want my community to resemble. I don’t look at Houston or Dallas as places like “man, one day, when Charlotte has over 7 million people, it could look like Houston or Dallas!”

Also want to note I don’t think being an older Vs. “Newer” city is a real thing. I think it all comes down to policy. There’s just not the investment or tax revenue to transform that population growth in Charlotte, or Texas, to invest in urban city infrastructure.

One reason I really like Jason Thomas is I like the things he writes about. I’ve seen people admonish them dude but I’m like. I think we need a lot more Jason Thomas’s in Charlotte. We need more residents who demand better. I think there’s some thought process “if we demand better, we lose the growth.” Maybe lose some growth? I doubt it. But should that matter? Say adios to people who want a single family home cheaply, raise taxes and build more parks, burry power lines, etc , build infill housing that houses 4+ families, in our neglected inner core neighborhoods etc. Is that a bad thing? 
 

Anyway, if anyone even read 1/3 of that xD I’m curious others thoughts. 

 

[15895]

& since I posted a novel. Just wanted to reply to my own post that I am a huge Jason Thomas fan. I really enjoy reading his takes on Charlotte. 
 

Also I think the voters of Charlotte - myself included - should’ve had Jennifer Robert’s back. I think she was super progressive and it just wasn’t the right moment for that. I voted against her and I wish I would’ve voted for her. 
 

There’s also the conundrum. Would Charlotte have remained a stagnant small city without pursuing the policies it has and be less walkable or be less urban Vs. My liberal fantasy world of just tax and spend? That also always factored into my thought process as a Charlottean and a former voter. & same for larger high tax areas. Will certain policies just lead to a total collapse. It’s tricky. There’s obviously some median but even then, who knows. 

Edited April 1, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[CLT2014]

1 hour ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Also want to note I don’t think being an older Vs. “Newer” city is a real thing. I think it all comes down to policy. There’s just not the investment or tax revenue to transform that population growth in Charlotte, or Texas, to invest in urban city infrastructure.

While there is a divide between Blue vs Red state cities... there is also a variance of Sun Belt vs Non-Sun Belt. Sun Belt cities that grew up in the auto era like Los Angeles, San Diego, Albuquerque, et. that are in blue states, but join their red state counterparts in being sprawling, car dependent, and culturally value single family homes, et. Essentially NOTHING in the Sun Belt is particularly urban, whether in liberal California or a red state. The entire Sun Belt struggles with mass transit being a primary means of transportation. And despite high taxes and the power of being the second largest city in the country, Los Angeles is still catching up and constantly cutting corners because it cost a ton of money to build a public transit system from scratch to cover a sprawling county of 10 million people. The investment is a more dense metro would mean LA would have near comprehensive public transit... but due to sprawl it barely scratches the surface of where people need to go.

The ironic thing is liberal Los Angeles looks more like Houston (from an urbanity perspective) than it does like its neighbor to the north, San Francisco. San Diego is more like Tampa. et.

And finally, even within the San Francisco Bay Area itself, there is a dramatic difference between the density in areas like San Francisco and Oakland ("old") that are walkable and the suburban sprawl in San Jose and Silicon Valley ("new") that is pretty much car dependent. Despite California being very blue... budget issues, cost cutting, and project management issues result in situations like California's High Speed Rail project largely being a failure and taking decades to built a shortened line from Modesto to Bakersfield), while Florida (a red state) has high speed rail active years before CA. 

While I do think that blue-state cities have more support from their states and are more ambitious, they've historically been less sprawling from the get-go, so their projects pack more of a punch and they are undoing less sins of the 1950s onward.

Edited April 1, 2023 by CLT2014

[kermit]

No easy answers here. Growth is THE thing that makes free market economies healthy (including at the urban level). To borrow a phrase, "if you don't grow you die." But at the same time, growth has unequal benefits, if you don't own real estate, growth mostly sucks for you. If you do own real estate then decline mostly sucks for you.

But there are different varieties of growth:

• Charlotte / Austin / Columbus type growth: Steady, strong increases in population (more than employment) which gradually lifts real estate prices -- this ends up pricing out the workforce and creating exaggerated sprawl. Less job sprawl than some other Sunbelt cities like other Texas metros, Phoenix, Atlanta.  Residents live in fear that increasing cost of living will kill growth (and their real estate appreciation if they own rather than rent)
• Chapel Hill / Asheville type growth: Residents pull up the drawbridge with exclusionary zoning, population growth becomes impossible. But its a nice place to live so the affluent are drawn in. This ends up pricing out everyone other than residents of the student ghetto and the superwealthy (plus a good bit of sprawl since all of the workforce must live in Alamance and Chatham counties). No one lives in fear of growth stopping since they don't want it in the first place.
• Atlanta and Dallas growth: Steady long term growth enabled by a crap-ton of job-sprawl, so the workforce is generally able to find affordable housing in the outer burbs. While the cities remain vaguely affordable, But they live under the constant threat that all this will come crashing down around unlivable congestion (they make themselves un-urban) or increased gas prices. No one lives in fear of growth stopping since residents believe that infinite sprawl will solve any problem that develops.
• Chicago type growth: The metro as a whole has been treading water / leaning towards decline. But its the Southside that is shrinking rapidly and hollowing out like Detroit. The Northside has been adding people and becoming significantly more like Minneapolis but with better transit and oceanfront property.  No one lives in fear of growth stopping since its so well camouflaged.
• Pittsburgh type growth: No population growth but job quality has substantially improved. This creates an across the board income growth while housing costs remain flat. No one wants population growth to return and houses are just a place to live, not a retirement account.
• Detroit and Cleveland type decline: Losing jobs, losing people and losing income. There certainly nice pockets in these cities (Tremont!), but there is little evidence that they will ever find a way to sustain an infrastructure built for 4-5 times as many residents. These places are donors of people and capital to the rapidly growing cities of the Sunbelt -- there are no signs of that reversing. 

Its also important to keep in mind that metro-scale growth is (for the most part) a zero-sum game. For a metro to grow, some other place must decline. Most folks in the Sunbelt have the luxury of ignoring the declining places since they have historically been in the Rustbelt. That said, much of Charlotte and Raleigh's growth comes at the expense of rural NC counties and that rural decline is biting urban NC in the ass right now thanks to state-level politics.

There is lots of talk of sustainability these days. No one really knows what that means given our rate of technological change. But the basic laws of physics say it will always be incredibly inefficient to use a two ton metal box to move a 150lb person three miles so they can get french fries.  If the bill for climate change ever comes due, the cities that relied on sprawl to accommodate growth are going to become the Detroits, Youngstowns and Clevelands of the late 2000s. In a similar context, if economic inequality continues to get worse, the pull up the drawbridge cities are going to be pretty miserable "when the revolution comes."

This life-long southerner is looking at Chicago and Pittsburgh real estate for my golden years. I would get LOTS more house, much better transit and urbanism, but the property taxes are making me gasp. But as Charlotte continues to slow-roll any kind of community investment,  I am increasingly starting to believe this is a 'get what you pay for' situation.

Population growth: Charlotte (blue), Pittsburgh (brown)

Income change (as % of US income). Charlotte (blue), Pittsburgh (brown) Source: bea.gov

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by kermit

[15895]

30 minutes ago, CLT2014 said:

While there is a divide between Blue vs Red state cities... there is also a variance of Sun Belt vs Non-Sun Belt. Sun Belt cities that grew up in the auto era like Los Angeles, San Diego, Albuquerque, et. that are in blue states, but join their red state counterparts in being sprawling, car dependent, and culturally value single family homes, et. Essentially NOTHING in the Sun Belt is particularly urban, whether in liberal California or a red state. The entire Sun Belt struggles with mass transit being a primary means of transportation. And despite high taxes and the power of being the second largest city in the country, Los Angeles is still catching up and constantly cutting corners because it cost a ton of money to build a public transit system from scratch to cover a sprawling county of 10 million people. The investment is a more dense metro would mean LA would have near comprehensive public transit... but due to sprawl it barely scratches the surface of where people need to go.

The ironic thing is liberal Los Angeles looks more like Houston (from an urbanity perspective) than it does like its neighbor to the north, San Francisco. San Diego is more like Tampa. et.

And finally, even within the San Francisco Bay Area itself, there is a dramatic difference between the density in areas like San Francisco and Oakland ("old") that are walkable and the suburban sprawl in San Jose and Silicon Valley ("new") that is pretty much car dependent. 

While I do think that blue-state cities have more support from their states and are more ambitious, they've historically been less sprawling from the get-go, so their projects pack more of a punch and they are undoing less sins of the 1950s onward.

Agreed on LA. I like LA a lot, especially the beach towns, but as far as urbanity, I don’t think people in LA have a more urban life-style than say people in Charlotte or Dallas. (Obviously you know. To scale and the matter of beaches). 
 

Id even say one could enjoy Charlotte more carless than LA. But I haven’t lived in LA so maybe living there is different but as a tourist who tried to go carless and hated it & ended up renting a car, being carless for me in LA is not my thing. I love LA - I just don’t like it without a car. I don’t see metro expansion changing that anytime soon (but I don’t think that’s a reason not to built it. It should be built for the future anyway). I know LA people could point to statistics showing its pockets of density rival nearly any other city but. Still - not for me to be carless. Charlotte leans a little on the “enjoyable” side of being able to visit & live carless whereas LA isn’t. 
 

There definitely is a lot of asterisks of blue vs. red state cities. From a Charlotte POV, I guess I just resent the tea party wave right at the time of redistricting at a time of backlash & hysteria to Obama at a time when technology was able to really hardcore gerrymander in majorities with precision… Like there’s things Charlotte wants to do, would do, etc but Tim Moore & Art Pope, etc like. Shut it down and a decade later it’s still feels like we have to kiss the ring just to eat cake… but NC is doing so well, how could one convince them to change any positions? and it seems insurmountable (due to gerrymandering) for Dems to have a trifecta anytime soon. Not that Dems are better but it’d be nice to give it a whirl for 4 years, haha.