The news that New York City has not grown as fast since 2000 as was expected has produced consternation and disbelief among a number of prominent New Yorkers, including Chuck Schumer, Marty Markowitz, and (of course) Mayor Bloomberg. The reaction is interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, it's clear that much of the sputtering is driven by a specific sort of New York City chauvinism: the idea that New York is the biggest, the best, and the most grand (if not grandiose), city in the country if not the world. That is to say, that New York City's identity rests on its larger-than-life characteristics.
There's something to this. Clearly, it's New York City's size and diversity that gives it many of its distinctive characteristics and which makes it a draw for people of all sorts from around the country and the world. But is the growth of New York City's population beyond its already large size necessarily a good thing?
There's a bunch of things to think about here. Granted, the Bloomberg administration's PlaNYC 2030 is an attempt, no matter how flawed, to at least grapple with population growth. But is there any evidence that the region's political elite can do what's necessary to maintain and create the infrastructure necessary to support growth in the future? The fate of ARC and the Second Avenue Subway would suggest not. Moreover, New York City, thanks to economic and financial crisis, along with the bipartisan national embrace of austerity and upward redistribution of wealth, is facing years of fiscal crisis. Without major new sources of revenue, it's not at all obvious how the city will be able to do anything other than watch its physical and social infrastructure rot--despite the (as of now, unmet) promises that the Bloomberg Way would set the city on the path to fiscal stability.
But what I want to highlight here is one simple juxtaposition. On the one hand, it is fairly well-established (pdfs in links) that city size is correlated with inequality: basically, the larger a city's population, the more likely it is that it will attract "global city" economic functions, which tend to bifurcate into very high and very low paying jobs.
On the other hand, as I have documented in earlier posts, the Bloomberg administration has vigorously pursued a development strategy that has exacerbated inequality in the city, by privileging the attraction and retention of high-end professionals and business executives. As perhaps is too obvious to even be worth saying, the Luxury City is an unequal city.
On the other hand, as I have documented in earlier posts, the Bloomberg administration has vigorously pursued a development strategy that has exacerbated inequality in the city, by privileging the attraction and retention of high-end professionals and business executives. As perhaps is too obvious to even be worth saying, the Luxury City is an unequal city.
Barring the unlikely event of a drastic shift in development policy, one that makes major strides towards ameliorating, if not reversing inequality, the bigger New York City that Chuck Schumer, Marty Markowitz, and Michael Bloomberg long to see will also be a less equal New York City.
14 comments:
Why is negative growth considered to be a bad thing? I think it's great.
Truth!!
this direction has been happening for a long time. wealthy people & those who do their laundry.
When most of the wealth is in the hands of a couple of percent of the population those with that wealth have so much that there is no incentive to take any chance or make any effort to invest to grow or improve a city ,a city that they are well above and apart from , and its economy . All that wealth is parked in secure investments with little risk and little tax obligation , it does little of nothing there .
If taking a chance is your thing why take it here investing in productive enterprise where returns aren't that great ? Take it overseas where the returns are significant , no matter that its often effectively what most of us would consider to be slave labor thats exploited to reap this considerable positive return.
Cities like New York don't work well and do not grow in good ways because the people are to a large extent distant from the descision making process .Their participation in all the countless little ways that make a great city and make it healthy with a healthy rate of growth is now only minimally manifest .These people are leaving or have already left .Cities are these people and they are organic forms that grow and support themselves . Capital investment is always necessary but such investment has to be made with the well being of the people and this organic form that is the city , in mind .
A simple minded set of government policies that encourage developement for the profits of the few with some public housing thrown in to house the servant class simply doesn't work .
This city costs too much and for no good reason .Thus it can only grow and demise in some nightmare form .
when you lose the middle class you lose everything. they have been pushed to lower class & poverty, no medical no jobs etc. american born long time citizens. look @the elderly. the 1980s was the turning point. ammesty law was introduced by carter. "let them ALL in, we'll pay for their housing & medical. think of all the low paying jobs, & how much the corporations benefit......" the 'politically correct' media blitz started so the citizens will be slowly brainwashed & ready. lets not forget "out sourcing" (closing of american factories), & recently the deliberate collapse of the world financial system- fast foward 30 yrs later: see what you got? you sheep voted in obama. see the bigger picture. this has been in play for a long time. a it would have been "almost" as bad w/the republicans, or exactly the same.
@Bob Arihood, brother you hit that nail right on the head.
This city costs too much and for no good reason .Thus it can only grow and demise in some nightmare form.
AMEN.
Well, I want to drop a line about drafting an economist to be the next Senator of New York in light of this discussion. http://catchthedogs.com/?p=191
THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH AND SO IS EVERYTHING ELSE.
Prof Brash, thanks for the "Inequality in Global-City Regions" article. The empirical evidence is clearly in that inequality is endemic to major cities and I like how the article brings up the global-city theory that ties the inequality with govt policies that are responding to global economic pressures. Because major cities are the prominent symbols of this rising inequality that has become chronic across the globe (see Rogoff http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff77/English), I think they have the potential to be at the forefront of policies that can effectively address the problems of inequality that hurt communities and polarize classes. I want to be hopeful in light of the grim data. The question is whether there are public officials out there courageous enough to take the lead on something so politically charged, but in desperate need of attention, and thus pioneer solutions to the urban problems of inequality that could be a model for other afflicted cities across the globe? Are there examples of efforts being made anywhere that have produced positive results?
Instead of focusing on bike paths, how do we get a dialogue going that engages all of the boroughs in order to stem the rise of increasing inequality in our own city? I’ve never done it, but I really admire the people who participate in their Community Board meetings (reading about the Greenpoint homeless shelter town meeting on New York Shitty’s blog was educational, as are posts on Blah Blog Blah and EV Grieve). Does it start with town hall-like meetings with our Community Boards and City Council members to then go up the chain to the borough presidents to finally the Mayor’s office? Your blog series is a call to be engaged, not defeated, as citizens.
Electoral “accountability moments” that you referred to in an earlier post seem to fall short these days, as they appear to have the effect of simply hitting the reset button, with little to no progress made in between. If the solutions won’t be found at the top, are there creative ways to nurture them and make them vocal from the ground up? (I’ve found that writing to one’s representative only generates a form letter response, and one borough president’s office erred by not even merging the letters and not bcc:ing everyone!). It matters since cities like NYC won’t get any smaller, regardless of the rate of growth, hence the urban problems of inequality won’t be eased. Thank you and sorry for hogging this post.
how does polarization lead to demise? demise of whom? as long as there is some housing for the servant class the others will be ok. this can last for a zillion years! study world history. this seems to be the major theme. & remember its bigger than you are. im a fatalist. also i dread socialism which is the backlash of all this.
Socialism is the knee-jerk straw man argument to the discussion of income inequality. Even the greats of capitalism whom I admire--Adam Smith and Joseph Schumpeter--could examine its flaws while upholding its merits. It's possible to think critically about capitalism and democracy and still be a staunch advocate of both, because even the social sciences evolve with new info and, hopefully, improve over time.
Inequality is inherent in all advanced capitalist cities, so New York City is not out-of-the-ordinary. It is always good to speak of the things one doesn't like about a city and unknowingly ignore all the things about the city that have improved since the "old days." A city has to change; Why don't you write a post on the things that have unquestionably gotten better in NYC? I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm simply stating that to be taken seriously you need to present a balanced picture, not a one-sided view that ignores all the "good" things.
Post a Comment