Archive for July 7, 2009

What all cities share with Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

The events on the fringes of the Chinese empire this week might sound confusing and exotic.  But their roots are actually quite familiar.

The clashes between Uyghurs (WEE-GARs, a turkik-speaking, Islamic people living in the Chinese state) and the Han Chinese in Urumqi and Kashgar this week presented the ugly side of the ongoing ethnic or cultural evolution that occurs in cities.  

Cities are not static in their economies or ethnic make-up.  They evolve and change as new people and ideas and goods flow through.

This region was not always part of “China.”  It was once a heart of the Silk Routes — a network of pathways that, off-and-on, for about 3000 years allowed for trade between myriad central Asian peoples and Europeans as well as Africans.  Ethnic mixing and migrations were and are a part of that history.  Besides Han and Uyghurs, this region is home to Russians, Tajiks (with striking blond hair and green eyes), the Kyrgyz, and others whose ancestors came to trade, escape, or simply seek opportunity.

More recently, resource-based economic development has resulted in millions of Han Chinese moving to the region, creating a tension with those whose ancestors arrived earlier. With closer linguistic, political and cultural connections to the seats of power, the Han often have the better personal and business networks that allows for higher prosperity in many cases.  (Although some would argue a more sinister plan here — as in Tibet — on the part of the Chinese State, I’ve decided to use “Occam’s Razor” and summarize only what can be observed.)

In any city, individuals, families and cultures from different backgrounds coming together naturally creates tension — sometimes this is good. The edge allows for the creativity that is making cities the economic engines of the 21st century.  But the tension can also result in feelings of being threatened.  Unfortunately, not everyone thrives as cities change and evolve.

Think about the LA Riots in 1992; the arrival of Korean immigrants to a traditionally African-American neighbourhood contributed to the tensions that boiled over.

In France and Germany, which have seen tremendous immigration over the last decades, perceptions of ethnic and economic exclusion have contributed to violent conflict.

Fortunately, in many urban areas around the world, residents have become reasonably adept at getting along and more accepting of each others differences.  Economic prosperity undoubtedly helps.  Indeed, a key challenge for urban leaders in the 21st century may be to ensure that the cultural evolution that naturally occurs in cities and in neighbourhoods serves as a positive force, rather than a negative, destructive one.

Postscript FYI: Much of this came to me while researching schools for my son.  I noticed the history of our neighbourhood school.  It opened 98 years ago serving a population of primarily German and British decent, perhaps with a few Japanese students as well.  By the 1950s the vast majority of students were of Italian origin.  Today, 60% are of East Asian(or partial East Asian) decent although fewer than 30% have English as a Second Language.  My area has gone from a series of Salish settlements, to a British outpost, to a European melting pot, to an Asia-Pacific and global place all in 100 years.  That’s a lot of change to absorb — and yet it happened relatively peacefully.

Between rental and ownership: new forms of home tenure coming?

America’s crisis of real estate values and negative home equity has many urban theorists wondering whether home ownership is bad for the economy and bad for many individuals and families.

Richard Florida is one of them:

Two American dreams – of homeownership and of unfettered economic mobility – may be in conflict, as homeownership, especially in downturns like today, impedes mobility and makes it harder for individuals to move to work and the labor market on the whole to adjust….My hunch is it’s time for new hybrid forms of housing tenure which mix the benefits of ownership with the flexibility of renting.

So what might we see in the future?  Here are a few ideas, but I want to hear your thoughts as well.

First, lets assume that future cities will see more use of “multi-family”dwellings.  That is duplexes, townhomes and apartments.  These often smaller homes allow for higher density and lower energy use.  This opens up options.

Idea #1: Renting with a long-term lease of three, five or even 10 years.   In this scenario, homes would be rented in the way office space is today: by the square foot, not by the number of rooms.  And, as part of the lease the tenant and landlord would agree on an allowance for “improvements” or building out the space into the desired apartment/townhome.  The costs of creating the tenant’s ideal space would be rolled into the monthly lease costs.

So, you lease 1000 square feet, and can decide if you want one, two, or three bedrooms, and how big a kitchen compared to other spaces, and one bathroom, or two.  You could also decide on features: tile or linoleum; laminate or hard wood; granite counters or not (and how big).   All choices would affect the monthly rent (for example, having tile instead of lino might be a difference of $6/month).  There would, of course, be a cost of breaking the lease — because of the expense the landlord incurred upfront — and only people with good credit ratings and “tenant” ratings would be able to participate in this type of arrangement.

There may also be the option to expand.  Suppose a couple rents 600 s.f. for a one bedroom place, has a child and plans another so now wants 1000 square feet.  If another adjacent unit became available 400 square feet could be carved from that, allowing for two more bedrooms and a larger living space.  This again, is just like how office space lease works.  Certainly, some architectural planning would be required — buildings that could accommodate this style of tenure would need to be purpose built to handle it.

While some people rent because they need flexibility to move on a month’s notice, most don’t.  Many people know they want to stay put for a certain number of years: for example, the five years while the children are enrolled in a good, nearby school;  or, the first 5 years of a child’s life, before school becomes an issue;  or, the five years between empty-nest statsus and retirement.

In all cases, a longer lease term in return for a custom space might be a welcome option.

#2 – a new style of strata ownership What if you bought a share of a building, rather than an individual unit (a little bit like how some housing co-operatives work).  For example, purchase a 2% share of the building in which you live.  Perhaps a professional apartment-owner-manager organization would own 51% of the building and rent out suites to non-owners as well as owners and provide top quality amenities and services.

One advantage to the purchasor is that even if you need to move for your job, you might have an option to retain ownership of the building allowing you to wait for a better market in a recession and in the meantime reap the benefits of rental income from ownership without the hassle of renting any suite yourself.  So other residents could own a share, a rule on the length of time one can be an absentee owner might have to exist.

An advantage for the community is that having owners as well as renters helps to create a sense of ownership in the broader area — of being a stakeholder.

Owners in the building would have priority as suites became available if they wanted a larger or smaller place or a different view.Under this scenario there might be a “rent to own” option as well.

#3 – what are your ideas? 

Where to move

Occasionally readers send e-mails asking for my thoughts on which city they should move to during the recession and recovery era.  This is a difficult question to answer — it depends on your age, stage in life, job skills, etc.

But, as a general rule, the economy will do better in faster growing cities.  More people moving in means a greater demand for housing, household items, groceries and clothes as well as for schools, hospitals and other services.

The CSM has published a list of the fastest growing US cities in percentage terms:

  1. New Orleans
  2. Round Rock, TX (part of Austin Metro Area)
  3. Cary, NC (just west of Raleigh)
  4. Gilbert, AZ (Phoenix Suburb)
  5. McKinney, TX (north edge Dallas-FW Metro Area)
  6. Roseville, CA
  7. Irvine, CA
  8. Raleigh, NC
  9. Killeen, TX (near Austin)
  10. Fort Worth, TX

These cities grew the most during year one of the recession (2007 to 2008), in percentage terms.  Many are smaller cities attached to larger metro areas — perhaps one of their strengths. They can offer some advantages of smaller city living, without the disadvantages of fewer employment opportunities.  As the CSM article stressed:

But nearly all the chart-toppers share specific traits. Good public schools, partnerships between businesses and universities, entrepreneurship, low crime rates, and cultural outlets such as museums and minor-league ballparks…

In addition to these, a smaller urban area beside a large one offers infrastructure, educational institutions, and often a wide variety of employers from government to military to education to major corporations — and everything in between.

So, if you’re on the move, give some thought to the metro areas of Dallas-FW, Austin and Raleigh and see whether these cities or their suburbs and satellite cities might provide opportunity now and in the future.