A large draw to the suburbs, however, is the idea of home ownership. More than 55% of Californians own the property they reside in, while less than half rents (despite these numbers growing steadily closer to one another, soon to tread the 50% mark). The desire to own property is something that is ingrained in all Americans from a very early age. This ideology was only exploited in the early years of our nation’s existence when land grants were used to incentivize people to populate the frontier. After all, our national slogan, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” was originally “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Land.”
But cities do not limit people to only being tenants. Rather, the high-rise contains an inherent safety net that suburbs can never obtain. If a tract of homes built in a suburb does not sell, or cannot be bought (as is the unfortunate case seen all over the more remote inland parts of the state right now) those properties essentially die, and remain useless and without value often for years on end. However, if a high-rise condominium is built and units fail to sell, they can always be rented out. High rises never fall entirely vacant, but instead serve as a beneficial and essential hub for fueling the economy of a city through the harboring of the city’s inhabitants.
However, the physical structure of a city does not guarantee its success. Just because the high rise contains potential for economic and social prosperity, it does not promise such an outcome. After all, urban sprawl happened for a reason, right? If cities succeed in drawing people in, which undoubtedly leads to an influx of business and job opportunity, they are then faced with the new challenge of retaining those two entities. Fortunately, cities only need to focus on appeasing their population, as businesses will remain if people remain. The unfortunate news is that this task is not easy, as demonstrated by numerous failures to retain people’s interest in the past (as can be seen in the housing history of St Louis and south side of Chicago during the 1950s).
A recent study by the Tenth Federal Reserve District (representing Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and parts of New Mexico and Missouri) showed that migrants to cities seek something more than simple economic prosperity. Cities need to retain a population with more than promises of good weather and job security. They need to provide adequate education, ensure a population’s safety by keeping crime rates low and stimulate people’s desire for culture and arts by establishing and maintaining performing arts companies and centralized entertainment facilities. At the end of day, cities need to turn themselves into fun and attractive presences (see Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, South-central Orange County and every other successful city).
California is in the very fortunate position of capitalizing on this idea of the growing and successful city. California is the world’s eighth largest economy, the nation’s biggest agricultural producer, has a highly educated adult population, the world’s best universities, extraordinary diversity in restaurants and population, a very diverse and sought-after geography and the world-famous “California Weather.” Combine those elements with the fact that our state boasts seductively low property tax rates and now near irresistible housing prices (due to the massacre we went through when the housing bubble imploded), and California becomes a very attractive and considerable choice for migrants from any state in the nation.
As people begin this reverse-exodus back to the cities, resulting in a return of jobs and economic wealth, an influx in immigration and a rise of property value, California may find itself in a very positive position, with the capability to not only lift its citizens up and out of their own individual debt crises, but perhaps even push the entire state towards its own solvency.
Cities, and the prosperity they can bring through housing and jobs, may provide the fuel California’s been looking for to propel itself out of this quicksand it’s been neck high in for the past few decades.
I’ve only recently happened upon your site (through patrick.net) and have been thinking about your article “The Plight of California to be Solved by… Cities?”. I agree, with one possible caveat: The high-rise. There is much debate on the value of high-rise structures when they exceed more than a few stories in height. Ongoing maintenance costs rise substantially with each additional floor and similar housing projects in the past (most notably the 60’s and 70’s) have been a failure in regards to social cohesion. It is believed by some researchers that an urban “community” cannot be sustained when housing structures exceed a certain height, usually around 5 floors. This is because the layout (height) of the building all but prohibits social interaction. And, if the city does not plan proper infrastructure (shopping, etc) into a development, the situation is compounded because there is no area to encourage congregation and tenants/owners are forced to get into their cars and leave the building entirely to attend to their needs. The lack of social interaction (such as neighbors looking out for each other) also requires more security – which leads to even less interaction. This sort of situation is already apparent in newer high-rise developments targeted (apparently) at singles and empty-nesters. The lack of amenities for children inevitably encourages a move to the suburbs for young couples wishing to start a family. And once the empty-nesters move into care homes, there may not be enough younger people to take their place in the high-rises. This is already happening in major cities where high-rise condos are often purchased by wealthier individuals who rarely live in them, gradually turning fancy new developments into ghost towns.
Otherwise, I also remain convinced that the cities – properly planned and managed – are the future. But we will need to solve the situation for young families before that can happen. You may want to look into this further.