Urban Planning: Part Two

1920’s through New Deal

• First National Conference on City Planning was held in DC in 1909, influenced by ideas of Geddes

– Lacking consensus, instead of tackling problems like slums and community discord, worked on what has been called the “City Practical”, which focused on arranging land use and transport corridors for maximum economic benefit

• This was something that business got behind, because even though it was expensive, it would help long-run profitability

• Out of this also comes Mumford’s Regional Planning Association of America, to counteract the chaos of development where, unless something was done, we would get “more and more of worse and worse”

• It was the RPAA that influenced much New Deal policy, a time of great policy experimentation based on newly emerged social sciences

– Got the National Resources Committee, Civil Works Administration, Public Works Administration to provide frameworks and grants for urban infrastructure improvement

– Also Works Progress Administration, which constructed highways and parks; and Resettlement Administration which tried to make the Greenbelt cities

Fordist Planning (cont.)

• Federal Policy

– During this era, lots of grants in aid to states (although Dems wanted in spend on central cities; Republicans on suburbs and Sun Belt). These include

• Housing Act of 49, to clear blight

• Housing Act of 59, support comprehensive planning

• Federal Highway Act of 62, mandated transport planning; Urban Mass Transit Act of 1970 helped non-automobile vehicles

• Economic Opportunity Act of 64, supports neighborhood based groups to deliver services

• Head Start to get kids in school; Demonstration cities, both of which tried to end “poverty environments”

– As “rational” as planners tried to be, US has lots of pork-barrel politics that remade projects and the many layers of approval required to get a grant hurt innovation (because it had to be acceptable to wide-numbers of reviewers)

Fordist Planning (cont.)

• Evangelical Planners

– Starting out with the right intentions to make cities better places, came a generation of big planners in the US: Robert Moses (NYC), Edmund Bacon (Philly); Dave Loeks (Twin Cities); William Ryan Drew in Milwaukee

• They believed strongly in the power of (their) design and environment to change society, as well as rational quantitative social science

– They led a major expansion of the number of plans, and helped broaden the educational focus of the discipline beyond design to regional economics and civil engineering

• However, especially Moses, while initially admired for their technocratic breadth and zeal, came to be despised for the huge changes they could make in a neighborhood’s fortunes, their unwillingness to listen/compromise AND their focus solely on “rational” highways and infrastructure, ignoring the desires and habits of the actual citizens they were supposed to protect

– In emerging urban social and cultural geography of the 1970’s and 80’s, planners become enemy number 1 (even if planners are no longer quite like this)

Neo-Fordist Policy and Planning

• This was the era of Federal Government step-back from solving the problems of cities (even under Carter), to deregulate and make way for markets (which theoretically would make all better off)

– Thus privatization proceeded in cities in the 1980’s, and the era of civic entrepreneurialism, combined with this deregulation, saw unprecedented corruption in HUD, which lost some $4 billion in shady deals, and lots of speculation on land and development in the Savings and Loan collapse

• Also the property rights movement began to challenge regulation through both legislative and judicial channels, pecking away at civil, environmental and health rights

• Anti-government feeling penned in planners, who were attacked from the left for their inhumanity and from the right for interfering in markets

– So the profession loses all hopes of ever making plans again, and focuses mostly on routine activities (code enforcement, traffic/infrastructure management), with most big splashes made with an eye towards job creation (such as the failed effort to create urban enterprise zones)

• That is why Miami 21 is unusual, it is a pretty big rethink in an area where systemic thinking is lost to focus on a few special districts

• In cities, the emerging mantra becomes “mixed use” zoning, which allowed the creation of set piece downtown stadium/retail/office/condo/nightlife developments (but now is associated more with the pro-mass transit/walking crowd, who wants human scale, livable neighborhoods)

Neo-Fordist (cont.)

• In suburbs, it is cluster zoning, where some non-residential features are added/persevered (like historic structures or golf courses/nature trails) along with large housing tracts – a pairing called Planned Unit Development

– Although increasingly, mixed use in suburban downtowns and new urbanist subdivisions are gaining favor

• As part of economic development efforts, planners help feed the “heritage industry” to give “local distinctiveness” through local arts and architecture (thus making the city more attractive to young professionals), to the point of manufacturing it

– Few cities have charm like New Orleans or vibrancy like Austin, and there is no magic formula to replicate it

• One minor success seems to be that metropolitan regions are more likely to compete for investment as an internally coherent block than as cities vs. suburbs; this cuts down on some of the incentives being offered (although this just means the region as a whole and states do more of the lifting)

Planning for Healthy and Livable Cities

• Europe is far ahead on setting standards for such things

– Healthy Cities project since 1987, which seeks to end environmental injustice, social sustainability, community empowerment and thoughtful planning

– Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) set down some guidelines from which most states in Europe developed their own set of regulations

• Usually includes: pedestrianized downtown, restricting auto access, slowing traffic speeds, encouraging density, maintaining greenways/forests, bike paths and bike expressways, integrated rail/metro/tram/bus networks

– One of their innovations is cohousing, where there are apartments/townhomes clustered on a pedestrianized street and one common house, with a large room for weekly community meals and events, a day-care space for common child-care, game rooms, gyms, etc… (sort of like a condo spread out over a block with greater emphasis on community)

• Italy gave birth to very comprehensive CittaSlow movement, which not only has the usual green space, eco-building, pedestrian/transport friendly codes; but also a strong local identity component that removes advertising/noise/light pollution, encourages restaurants with local recipes, supports arts and crafts, and modern industry with distinctive character giving products (but only for cities with < 50,000 people)

• Only Portland (among large cities) in the US has set similar transport/bike, green space, anti-sprawl goals`

Planning for Healthy Cities (cont.)

• The major theory in the US (and at this point, it is mostly just a theory) to counteract sprawl is called Smart Growth

– It is specifically designed for suburban land use (as opposed to Europe’s more downtown focused policies), specifically raising quality of life in first-ring suburbs and setting a growth limit. Do so by:

• Preserving open space both interior to and on the fringe of urban areas

• Renovate & infill older suburbs to bring middle/upper income households back

• Cut down on cars with sticks (higher gasoline tax) and carrots (density around transit stops)

• Create mixed use pedestrian friendly zones

• Create community (easier said than done)

– Obviously environmentalists and older suburban mayors are for it; developers hate it because it ties their hands (Chamber of Commerce opposes it because they oppose anything that costs money)

• If implemented, though, it would likely drive up prices and hurt establish residents

Planning for Healthy Cities (cont.)

– In practice, Minneapolis/St. Paul has done this best, taking 7 counties and putting them into a Regional Development Framework, where land is divided between the metropolitan urban service area and Rural service area (meant to protect farms)

• In the MUSA, goals are

– Preserve urban core (which they have done, it is widely recognized as one of the US’s most livable central cities, despite the horrid winters)

– Only allowing new development as population demands and at a rate that services can expand successfully

– Announcing a development schedule, so anything new is planned/vetted.

• They also have metropolitan tax-base sharing, where after 1971, 40% of all new commercial/industrial property taxes increase go to a common pool, and are distributed to high population districts with a limited tax base

– Because most areas are well served, the whole city is more pleasant with less persistent poverty

– The key, of course, is the willingness to create a regional government and planning authority with teeth to overcome fragmentation

• Indianapolis, Lexington, and Louisville are examples where the country and city simply merged (though that pushes sprawl out of the county)

– Big lesson: In the past, in the US, we probably expected too much of planning; now, it seems we no longer believe big non-highway projects are possible (meaning too little faith)

Residential Kaleidoscope

This lecture…

• Classic arrangement of US vs. European suburbs, and the changes since the 1970’s

• Focus on urban social interaction and residential segregation

– The areas are physical distance, social distance and patterns of social interaction

• Usually it is called “residential mosaic” and is thought to determines things such as friendship, community distinction, and politics

– However, the authors dislike the metaphor, because a “mosaic” seems set in stone

• Though there is inertia, fragments rearrange, like a kaleidoscope

Terms

• Primary relationships are both those with “kin” who you are bound to and those with personal friends who you choose based on mutual interest and attraction

• Secondary relationships involve individuals who group together to achieve particular ends

• Can be expressive (where the relationship is about shared happiness or selflessness) and/or instrumental (where the end is key, such as work, politics, etc.)

• Social Distance – People’s attitude towards other groups’ similarity/dissimilarity to themselves

– Those with shorter social distances are people to form primary relationships with; greater distances lead to friends, neighbors, colleagues, fellow citizens, and at the far end, visitors and strangers

• Physical Distance – This is obvious as to what it means, but social distance and physical distance are often inter-related, since less socially distant people tend to cluster together, and accrue mutual benefit from even passing contact (such as friendliness, advice, reinforcement, etc.)

– This is especially important for the poor and elderly who have fewer transport choices

Terms (cont.)

• Thus, these type of things lead to clustering, and according to sociologist Gerald Suttles, this happens b/c

– Clustering minimizes conflict between groups

– Maximizes political voice

– Increases social control over direction of the group

• Using another word, it is about territoriality: the tendency for particular groups to attempt to establish some form of control dominance or exclusivity, using space as a focus and symbol for group membership and identity

– In fact, Suttles, argues that it was in response to the upheavals to the old order caused by industrialization, when you could no longer be sure of someone’s family or occupation by their looks, that place based identity becomes important

• It is less prominent than in the past, except perhaps for the super-rich and gangs

Foundations of Segregation

• Social Status

– Interpreted empirically it includes educational qualifications, occupation and income (in that order) – but of course, commonalities of value and culture play a role too

– Marx and Weber both theorized these in terms of social class, which for them was really economic class (and for them, owners vs. workers)

• The problem with class is 1) something like middle class or working class is quite heterogeneous 2) most people (especially the better off) are not aware that class exists until they have an experience that brings it home to them

– David Harvey named 4 aspects to class formation

• The division of labor that determines the formal class structure

• Institutional barriers to social mobility

• The system of authority

• Dominant consumption patterns of a time and place

Foundations of Segregation (cont.)

• Education is a key for social segregation for all sorts of reasons

– It determines your starting position in the division of labor

– Friendships usually happen within the same education level (once you control for ethnicity)

– Since schools are locally funded through property taxes in much of the US, parents try desperately to live in a “good” district, which drives up property values and thus school revenues (plus attracts highly educated parents, which leads to a smart school board and a better school)

• That is why Broward and Miami Dade fund from a county-wide pool, not a district level pool (this is good policy that many metros, like Cleveland, do not follow)

– It also helps that Miami Dade only has one true border county for the wealthy to hide in (most other metros have 4 to 8 border counties)

Foundations of Segregation (cont.)

• Interestingly, friendship and marriage studies show a strong distance/decay effect, with the majority in a 1 to 2 mile radius, which reinforces segregation by education

– In studies of non-commuter campuses, initial proximity in the dorm, often on the same floor (though not necessarily sharing a room) is the number one factor for who becomes friends (an effect frats/sororities mirror), with social activities and major coming in second and third

• Another interesting phenomenon is neighborhood effect, in which even adults, when they move into a new neighborhood, over time begin adopting their neighbors lifestyle preferences and even voting patterns

– The converse side of this is stereotyping, where in one group creates a “model” of the “typical” person from another group with which they do not regularly mix; a model based on incomplete information and, often, exaggeration (thus a perceived increase in social distance)

• Racism, sexism, and homophobia are some of the most insidious examples of this, but much of it is more benign – for example, think about what students from one high school think about their rival high school. Some stereotypes even put positive attributes onto the other group (although it is stereotyping nonetheless)

Foundations of Segregation (cont)

• Household

– Again, the rise of singles, married w/no-kids, gay/lesbian (both single and married), single parent and empty nester households means that there are more types of neighborhoods that people cluster in

• The elderly, for example, stay in their neighborhoods if they are poor or, if they have funds, either downsize or move to a retirement community (eventually moving in with children or nursing home care)

• The young (with their first job or while in school), like to be near entertainment

– Households tend to move as they mature, for example middle income households: start as singles or couple in apartment (when space matters very little); move into a small house around the time kids come along (as space becomes important); get bigger houses in a “good school” neighborhood as incomes increase (usually as partner returns to workforce after kids enter school) or move for jobs or b/c of divorce, finally settling around age 45; then become less interested in space as they get older and kids are gone

Ethnicity and Lifestyle

• Ethnicity is a term that covers any group that is primarily characterized by attributes of race, religion, nationality, or culture.

– The dominant group (culturally, though not necessarily numerically) is referred to as the charter group

• Ethnic groups are more segregated than socioeconomic status would predict

– But some groups are less segregated than others, depending upon their amount of assimilation, which includes both behavioral assimilation (acquiring the culture of charter group) and structural assimilation (entering the social and economic structure of the charter group)

• As groups assimilate, not only are they changed, but they change the charter culture as well

• Indian Americans, for example, one of least segregated ethnicities. Likely to be well-off economically, often lone family of their ethnicity in smaller towns

• Even if formal segregation laws get repealed, it can continue de facto

Ethnicity and Lifestyle

• Spatial segregation then depends on both

– External factors to the group, like prejudice from the charter group, institutional discrimination in housing, and structural effects of low socioeconomic status

– Desire for internal group cohesiveness

• This congregation fulfills several functions

– Defensive Functions: The creation of a heartland where the group feels safe from discrimination

– Support/Cultural Functions: Includes a landing place for new immigrants, centers of worship, community and welfare groups, and a separate ethnic economy for the group that allows entrepreneurs to rise

• There are different labels for these congregation sites: colonies (temporary landing zones), enclaves (where groups stay for several generations (at least in terms of business clustering)), and ghettos (also several generations old, but confinement there is due to external circumstances)

• Again though, segregation also depends on lifestyle, such as GLBT, singles, student, retiree, etc..

More segregation

• Europe has had a much harder time in recent decades incorporating immigrants than US/Canada.

– The original idea was for northern Europe to have people come only as “guest workers” (who would go home when not needed) to do low wage industrial and service work, without citizenship

• Pre EU, the guest workers came from Southern Europe, North Africa, Turkey, and former colonies

– The overwhelming majority of them ended up in cities, usually the largest ones

– After EU, all Europeans had right to look for work and obtain it in other EU countries – but the same was not necessarily true for non-Europeans (who more than doubled the amount of internal movers and in some countries like Germany, had no path to citizenship for them or their children)

• They moved into the inner-city areas, vacated as original inhabitants moved towards suburbs

– Since their primary interest was sending remittances back, they were looking for the cheapest possible housing

» Compared to the US, immigrants advanced very little up the socio-economic ladder (in West Germany in 1970, only 1% held non-menial jobs)

» They moved to suburban and downtown tenement areas, but also hostels and camps (the camps are almost all gone, though)

More segregation

• The most widely used measure of segregation is the index of dissimilarity

– What the formula ends up showing is what percentage of a group would have to move to other areas of a city, in order to have each district proportional to their total percentage of the population

• Let’s say New Zealanders made up 30% of the city as a whole: an index of 0 would mean that each sub-district of the city would be exactly 30% Kiwi, if the index was 100, that would mean there are one or more sub-districts which are 100% Kiwi, and all other districts are 0% Kiwi

• The measure has its limits, in that it is very sensitive to differences in parcel size and does not control for population size (thus, if you have a group with a very small population, it makes them appear wildly segregated)

– In the US, African Americans, Mexicans, and Vietnamese show the highest degree of segregation among ethnic groups (African Americans due to long histories of legal discrimination, the other two due to their relatively recent arrival in many areas)

• The index is the highest in the industrial Great Lakes/North East, where the great migration brought large numbers of African Americans to cities in eras of great discrimination (scores above 75)

• The index is lowest in fast growing cities in the South and West, without historically large ghettos – Las Vegas, Phoenix (the only good thing about Phoenix), Austin and Raleigh Durham (scores below 45)

• Good news is segregation is down everywhere in the US (especially due to the growing African American middle class), though discrimination is still present, especially in terms of steering done by real estate agents.

Chicago School: Urban Ecology

• Developed by Park, Burgess and McKenzie out of University of Chicago

• Park especially was impressed by the differences between neighborhoods, each “its own little world”

– From there, they chose the “ecological unit” metaphor, a particular mix of people that had come to dominate a particular niche in the urban fabric

• They went on to extend the biological metaphor, doing “natural histories” of groups, understanding the city as an arena where “natural” processes, such as competition for territory and dominance, play out

– It was a mix of an odd Darwinism with neo-classical economics

• So they went on to do painstaking case studies of many of these ecologies (which were “natural areas” in which a certain group was dominant), such as the upscale “Gold Coast” and its nearby slums, arguing that physical attributes (or “habitat”) plus the cultural characteristics of inhabitants gave neighborhoods their character

– They did recognize that these “natural areas” shifted over time due to changing power of various groups and desirability of certain areas, which led to “invasion” and “succession”

Chicago School (cont.)

• Burgress developed the concentric zone model of residential differentiation in Chicago in the 1920’s and 1930’s

– He identified 75 “natural areas” and put them into 5 ring-shaped zones

• The CBD where you see agglomeration

• The Zone of Transition, being invaded by factories and warehouses, where the cheapest housing is and new immigrants first land

– Here you have your Chinatown, Little Sicily, etc…

• Zone of Independent Workingman’s homes, where the second generation immigrants or well off immigrants lived (which was the first generation of suburbs)

• Zone of Better Residences, for the mostly assimilated middle class

• Commuter’s zone, these were bedroom communities for the richest in society

• Model was initially well liked, but turned out, it only works in a city with a single, strong core and a constant stream of immigrants

– But the strongest criticisms came from there neglect for culture and preference (in favor of only prices and lot size), that perhaps some old neighborhoods would have sentimental value to certain groups and be held onto despite changes in desirability or prices

Factoral Ecology

• Using factor analysis (beginning around 1970’s), a powerful form of multivariate statistics, geographers like Robert Murdie and other urban social scientists could take the wishy-washy metaphors of Chicago school and use large data sets to look for real patterns of segregation

• The patterns were as follows: three most important factors, in order, were socioeconomic status, family status/ lifecycle, and ethnicity

– Also, startlingly, across many cities, the broad pattern was that socio-economic status took a sectoral (wedge) shape, family status took a zonal (ring) shape, and ethnicity was a cluster

• Between these three cross patterns, could get areas of incredibly homogeneity

– However, since most of this work was done by geographers, the exact contours of sectors, zones and clusters were not just on a featureless plane, but were shaped by transport routes, topography, etc.

• The patterns have not been holding as closely since the late 1980’s as segregation gets less and new households types emerge and new migrant groups move in

– The patterns held relatively true in Canada, Australia and New Zealand; but don’t work in Europe where the cities have a long history and thus more inertia in land use (and stronger programs for public housing and urban planning in general)

European Patterns

• Again, because these cities are generally much older than US cities, with more public transport but fewer immigrants, the segregation patterns are different

– There are also big differences internal to Europe

• For example, Britain has a concentric zone pattern, where wealthier residents live out towards the exterior; in Mediterranean Europe, it is the reverse concentric zone pattern where the wealthy live at the center

• The sector wedge also has its usual impact – wealthy along major transport routes or monumental boulevards, the poorer along industrial land

– There is some gentrification of old middle class housing near prestige jobs (banking, law)

– Foreign immigrants have moved into many of the old industrial areas

• Older suburbs do not have garages – people depend more on transit. Most Post WWII suburbs do (which mean they keep a car, which is expensive since gas taxes and sales tax are higher in Europe).

• Most cities have a “greenbelt” for recreation and to act as a development boundary

– Beyond it are the surrounding villages, which become bedroom communities

– The airports, new factories, and R & D also tend to be beyond this green belt, so engineering professionals often congregate there

Recent Changes to Foundations of Segregation

• Since the 1970’s, the US has seen occupational polarization, where there are more high paying jobs, and more low paying jobs, but little in the middle

– Meaning the solidly “middle class” suburb is becoming rarer

– A lot of the low wage growth is in “flexible” work, which is either part-time, temporary or independent contract work, where there are not benefits and wages which get depressed

• This has also been disproportionally filled by women, many of whom are supporting children as a single parent

• Another big driver of change has been the baby boom generation, with its lost idealism, multitude of household type, and recent empty nest/retirement status (sometimes back to city centers, or at least transit rich places)

– There massive numbers help drive development priorities

• New immigrant groups, now largely from Latin America, Caribbean and Asia, are forming new concentrations, such as

– Mexicans in LA, San Diego, Houston, and Chicago

– Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Indians, Jamaicans and Chinese in NYC

– Cubans, Salvadorians, Nicaraguans and increasingly Venezuelans, Columbians, and Hondurans here in Miami

– Iranians in LA

– Filipinos and Chinese in San Fran

– But really, every significant US city has 2 or 3 big sender countries (or sub-regions of Mexico)

• Again, this shows the importance of chain migration

Asian Ethnoburbs

• Asians (a category encompassing SW Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia) live in central cities in much smaller numbers than Hispanics or African Americans

– In fact, many recent migrants from East and South Asia especially are highly educated and highly paid, they assimilate into the labor and housing market almost instantly

– But they are a smaller % nationally (only 5% of metro populations) – however on the West Coast and in Hawaii, their numbers range between 20% and 50%

• The million plus Asian populations are Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Indians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iranians, and Pakistanis

• These populations are often highly concentrated in a few cities

• So since 50% of Asians live in suburbs, the new term developed by geographer Wei Lei is ethnoburb

– These are multi-ethnic communities, where one minority has a sizable presence, but usually not a majority

– There are a large number of ethnic restaurants, caterers, bakers, money senders, grocers, fashion, funeral homes, and banquet halls, which make up an entrepreneurial ethnic economy

• Big ethnoburbs include San Gabriel Valley East of Los Angeles for Chinese, Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles for Iranians; Edison, New Jersey for Indians; north Minneapolis for the Hmong; Dearborn, Michigan for Arab Americans (especially Lebanese)

– The San Gabriel Valley, for example, was chosen because it had freeway access to China Town

• In Miami/Dade, what is the closest thing we have to an ethnoburb?

– North Miami Beach

More segregation numbers (To be Covered 11/18)

• Nuclear families went from 40% of all households in 1970 to 25% in 2000

– 30% of all households are now female headed (either single females or women with children)

• In terms of single parent households, obviously two sources: divorce in marriage with children or unwed mothers

– The later is particularly common in lower-income groups across the board, and among central city African American mothers in particular (65% of whom were never married)

» This, and stagnant wages for African American males since the 1970’s (who had depended heavily on manufacturing jobs), means that African American households trail white, non-Hispanic households $53,000 to $37,000

– Also, the number of single father households has increased 500% since 1970, though still only numbers 2 million

• Female headed households make up 50% of all households below poverty level, 1/6 of children grow up in poverty

More segregation numbers (cont.)

– As college enrollments have increased, some sections of central cities are being increasingly turned over to student housing, which is a major demographic change

• Milwaukee is a good example of this: it has both University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (the #2 state university in Wisconsin) and Marquette

– See also the University of Akron, which has gone from a commuter school on a small urban campus to basically the engine that has revitalized Akron’s downtown by taking it over

• Since 1973, with the end of Keynesianism, the gap between the bottom 1/5 and top 1/5 has widened insanely

– For example, from 1973-1988, the poorest 10% of Americans saw tax bills rise 20% while the richest 10% saw 20% declines

– From 1979 to 2000, the bottom 1/5 gained 9% on incomes; the top 20% gained 68%!

– The minimum wage in 1975 was $2.00 an hour, which is about $8 in today’s dollars (meaning that the recent hike has not even made things even, and the last decade or so, it has been even worse)

• Furthermore, unemployment benefits have been slashed (as have employment retraining money), Aid to Families with Dependent Children is down, and federal city aid is also way down

– The impacts of this are disproportionately felt in rural areas and inner-city ghettos

Postmodern Consumption and Material Culture

• Postmodern Consumption – As opposed to mass consumption of the Post WWII era, post-1973 consumption becomes about surface differentiation, counter-cultures (which remain consumer focused), and most especially, the cultivation of overall lifestyle aesthetics (so that you do not consume things individually, but in combination with other goods to reaffirm a lifestyle)

– This emerged from a generation that came of age in bad economy/high housing costs of 1970’s, and led to less saving, more borrowing, deferred parenthood, and a return of conspicuous consumption

– The pinnacle was 1980’s yuppie-ism, where income became a primary selector in social/marriage circles, and is was displayed through consumption of luxury goods

• Interestingly, the 1990’s saw a backlash (sometimes it is called the decade of “inconspicuous consumption”), where consumers were more value conscious (buying far fewer expensive clothes, less jewelry, and eating out at less expensive restaurants), but spending more on essentials like transportation (in the form of SUV’s), housing and health care

• The 2000’s, saw a non-quite-as conspicuous return to the 1980’s in terms of fashion and expensive restaurants, but most especially in home interiors

Postmodern Culture (cont.)

• Retail has seen growth of both high-end (Bloomingdale’s, Neiman Marcus) and low-end (Wal-Mart)

• So while there are now more market segments to match the diverse household types, all these segments are replicated across the entire country thanks to improved communication technologies (including more magazines, national home improvement retailers, home style programs like those on TLC and HGTV, and, of course, the internet)

– Thus, US regional distinctiveness in the built environment has largely vanished

• This is called the archipelago effect, in that there are similar islands in every urban area, and you can literally jump into the same type of neighborhood even if you move cross country

– For example, I have a cousin who works in technology sales who moved a few years ago from Cary, NC to Naperville, IL and he and his family live almost an identical life (both suburbs are semi-diverse but wealthy, near airports, with outstanding housing stock, superb schools and nice parks)