Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Brooks on Americans: Gloomy, Afraid, and Anti-Density

Posted by on Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:17 AM

In yesterday's column, David Brooks interpreted the recent Pew survey on how Americans feel about where they live. They, apparently, love sprawl.

The first thing they found is that even in dark times, Americans are still looking over the next horizon. Nearly half of those surveyed said they would rather live in a different type of community from the one they are living in at present.

Second, Americans still want to move outward. City dwellers are least happy with where they live, and cities are one of the least popular places to live. Only 52 percent of urbanites rate their communities "excellent" or "very good," compared with 68 percent of suburbanites and 71 percent of the people who live in rural America.

Third, Americans still want to go west. The researchers at Pew asked Americans what metro areas they would like to live in. Seven of the top 10 were in the West: Denver, San Diego, Seattle, San Francisco, Phoenix, Portland and Sacramento. The other three were in the South: Orlando, Tampa and San Antonio. Eastern cities were down the list and Midwestern cities were at the bottom.

Brooks then deduces that the absence of Chicago and New York on the list means that even the Americans who say they want to live in cities don't really want to live in cities—they want to live in car-y suburbs. (And rounds out the fantasy with a rhapsody about the garages of Denver and Seattle: "These are places where you can imagine yourself with a stuffed garage — filled with skis, kayaks, soccer equipment, hiking boots and boating equipment.")

San Francisco's Streetsblog calls bullshit:

In today's Times, the nation's most famous sprawl apologist cites a recent Pew study to argue his case... One could just as easily spin cherry-picked Pew data to argue against the Brooks point of view:

* Americans are all over the map in their views about their ideal community type: 30% say they would most like to live in a small town, 25% in a suburb, 23% in a city and 21% in a rural area.

See, most Americans would prefer to live in a city or small town. I could say that they hunger for walkability and "dense community," but I won't, because the Pew study is not a useful barometer of American preferences for urban form and transportation options.

The findings are a little baffling. Orlando? San Antonio? And Phoenix? What, exactly, do Americans like so much about these cities? Are they just feeling cold?

(And if you haven't read Salon's hit on Brooks for calling lobbyists "experts" and wearing beltway-blinders, "incapable of finding fault with political power," you might enjoy it.)

Photo from Rich Lem Flickr.

 

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
by all means, move to orlando, tasteless american hordes. don't move here.
Posted by Max Solomon on February 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM
2
David Brooks is an America-hating Republican.

Why do you bother listening to that combat-avoiding scum?
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM
3
Orlando? People live there on purpose? I assumed anyone who lived there either got forced there by the necessities of employment or had been born there. How does anyone STAND that climate? I was there for a week last summer, and I think it's an antechamber of Hell.
Posted by Geni on February 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM
4
Phoenix beat us to a working light rail system. 20 miles of beautiful, quiet, completely rideable light rail, with another 37 miles in the works. It costs $2.50 for an all-day pass, and transfering to and from the bus system is free and easy.

What, exactly, do Americans like so much about Seattle? Are they just hungry for endless transportation studies and earthquake-prone roadways?
Posted by Exile on February 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM
5
"Our research shows that metropolitan areas are the key to American prosperity, with the top 100 metro areas generating 75 percent of our gross domestic product."

From a NYTimes article on how metro areas were coming together and discussing projects so they could request more of the stimulus money.

Fuck the haters.
Posted by mAlissa on February 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM
6
I hate Brooks, but the results of this study aren't really that hard to believe. The majority of urban areas are not Cap Hill, the Lower East Side of Manhattan, or the gentrified neighborhoods of SF. Take a train from/to the NY airports to wherever in Manhattan you're vacationing. Or visit any city of any size between NY and Chicago. These places have a grit that hipsters love in theory, but try living in that blight for a while. Throw in shitty schools and it's not hard to believe that a majority of urban residents would like to flee.
Posted by still, DBrooks is a tool on February 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM
7
Oh Exile, how many miles of highways does Phoenix have?

Its easy when you can build onward and outward.

Seattle cares about zoning and the environment or something dumb like that.
Posted by Atlas on February 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM
8
San Antonio has more transit than we do.

Plus, as a bonus, it's my birthplace.
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM
9
It's easy to shift the sides around when you're trying to justify your prejudices. The "metropolitan areas" that mAlissa @5 cites ARE the places in the South and West that are experiencing massive growth. They are not in opposition to them.

Instead of asking people what they want and what they like, in which case they almost always lie, look at what they are actually DOING. They are moving south and west -- the north and east are dying on the vine, and have been for several decades.

You can laugh at Orlando, but it is BOOMING; 337,516 people in 1960 to 2,103,480 in 2008. They've added more than half a mil in the past decade. Las Vegas, NV; Orange County, CA; Raleigh, NC; Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas: this is where the growth is. And the suburbs of these places are growing fastest of all, so a lot of times when people say "LA" or "Dallas" or "Phoenix", they're actually talking about Irvine or Denton or Peoria.

The cities that are disappearing? Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Dayton, Philadelphia. Look for the surprises on this chart: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/us-…

Here in Seattle, we have a respectable modern economic growth engine in the city, but the real action is in the suburbs. This isn't new; it's been true since 1970. Seattle proper is growing, slightly, but as a proportion of its region it is shrinking rapidly.

The economy has put a damper on some of this action, but it's extremely unlikely to reverse it.
Posted by Fnarf on February 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
10
For perspective on the relative merits of these claims, the population of San Francisco dropped 4.6% from 2000 to 2006, one of the steepest drops in the country. Orlando? +14.5%.

Brooks is trying to make an ideological point here, but that doesn't mean that he's wrong. What we think of as "urban" places -- hardcore urban, "walkable", Capitol-Hill-ish, dense enough to realistically support frequent rail transit, for instance -- barely exist here in Seattle, or any of the other cities that are successful in this country.

If you don't understand that, you're doomed. It's one thing to support the construction of large apartment buildings and condos in dense developments, but it's quite another thing to believe, erroneously, that this kind of thing is winning the war. It's not, not by a long shot. While you are freaking out over the alleged ugliness of those four-packs in Ballard, hundreds of thousands of new single-family homes with garages and lawns are going up everywhere. They're a huge majority of new contruction right here in your area.
Posted by Fnarf on February 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
11
Downtown San Antonio is pretty fab. There are both large farmer's markets and an enclosed mercado for independent vendors. The riverwalk is lovely and was one of the earlier and most successful reclamations of a decayed urban waterway.
Posted by Inkweary on February 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM
12
Downtown San Antonio is lovely, but it has what, 15,000 residents? Out of a metro area of over two million? According to a 2006 study, "The population in downtown San Antonio for the past years has been
decreasing despite an increase in the city population as a whole." Like Seattle, the center gets a lot of press, but the real action is out on the beltway.

Seattle is currently about 15% of its Combined Statistical Area; in 1960 it was 35% or more. There are four million people who can realistically claim to live "in Seattle", but only a tiny percentage of them live in stereotypically "urban" environments. Been to Federal Way lately?
Posted by Fnarf on February 18, 2009 at 1:32 PM
13
When given a choice, most people simply don't like living cheek to jowl. Unless you want to take away that choice, as long as there is population growth there will be sprawl.
Posted by A reader on February 18, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy