NewGeography.com blogs

Our colleague and frequent NewGeography contributor Wendell Cox of Demographia.com recently released the latest edition of his World Urban Areas and Population Projections publication.

This 5th comprehensive edition includes:

Ranking of the largest world urban areas (over 2,000,000 population).
Population, urban land area and density estimates for all 763 identified urban areas with more than 500,000 population, comprising 49 percent of the world urban population.
Population, urban land area and density estimates for 1,370 urban areas of all sizes, comprising 53 percent of the world urban population.
Population projections for the world’s largest urban areas in 2025 & 2030 (over 2,000,000 population).
Summary of United Nations world population projections and summary by gross domestic product, purchasing power parity (from 4th Edition)
Charts on urban density and prosperity (from 2nd Edition)
Documentation

Check it out.

The suburbs, generally a haven for luxury SUVs, regimented lawn sprinkling, and keep-up-with-the-Jones purchases, are not often considered the front-runner in environmentally friendly living.

However, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s 2007 Consumption Atlas published controversial research that suggested that “dense inner-city zones unleash more greenhouse emissions than car-loving fringe suburbs.” Suddenly, car use is not the prime factor in measuring efficient living, nor can incomes tell the whole story. ()

While it has been generally accepted that high human consumption is worse for the planet than lower consumption, the study’s main controversy is the fact that the ACF gave the problem a specific geography.

The quote:

Rural and regional areas tend to have noticeably lower levels of consumption . . . Higher incomes in the inner cities are associated with higher levels of consumption across the board.

The ACF has not only pointed their finger at their main supporters (inner-city professionals) but have also invited comments from a variety of sources. The Australian study questions the data used in the past to measure where the worst violators are located.

American consultant Wendell Cox—long an advocate of suburban development—found that the data suggested that “lower GHG emissions were associated with long distance from the (urban) core, detached housing, more automobile use and lower population density.”

A team from Queensland’s Griffith University Urban Research Program drew an altogether different conclusion that put simply is, “correlation does not establish causality.”

GHG emissions are a function of overall consumption and consumption based on low-density housing “doesn’t figure prominently in the composition of aggregate consumption.”

Urban sprawl cannot be used as an argument or attempt to point fingers at the Hummer drivers. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions will require a commitment by city dwellers and suburbanites alike if we are to alter our future carbon footprint.

While the study itself has prompted much discussion and debate, if the object is to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, singling out suburbia might not be the first order of business. Spurious data and indeterminate causality make for an argument destined to fail for the lack of a supportable conclusion – unless we wish to overturn logic entirely, which some seem determined to do in furtherance of their long-held anti-suburban agenda.

The success of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Partnership Program depends on getting private investors interested in buying junk bonds off the banks’ balance sheets. Now it seems that at least one hedge fund is giving the plan “two thumbs-down.”

The New York Post is reporting that Bridgewater Associates, one of the few that might qualify for Treasury’s program, decided that “the numbers just don't add up.” Besides being a bad investment, the fund’s founder raised questions about conflicts of interest – something we find surprising. Hedge fund managers are supposed to be those free-wheeling, unregulated, we’ll-buy-anything investors – always willing to take a risk and suffer the consequences of the market outcomes.

Bridgewater’s concern is that Geithner’s junk bond plan includes hiring asset managers – who will also be investors. There are clear conflicts of interest because these managers will "have both the government and the investors to please and because they will get their fees regardless of how these investments turn out," wrote Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio. Imagine, a hedge fund worried about collusion among asset managers? Maybe it takes one to know one?

The real question is why Geithner would set up a program putting US taxpayer money in the hands of unregulated hedge funds and then go to Europe a few days later and blame the global financial crisis (at least in part) on hedge funds and their lack of regulation? Dalio is right: it just doesn’t add up.

The financial services sector (finance, insurance, real estate, management) lies at the heart of the economic crisis and recession. This is the sector that doubled in its share of the labor force over the last 30 years, creating vast but uneven wealth. It is instructive to see which American cities are most culpable in these excesses.

New York dominates, as it has for centuries, especially if we include neighboring Fairfield county, CT (Bridgeport, Stamford, Greenwich), based on its very high share (20 %) of resident employees in finance. This does not include the very high share of incomes that financial services represents in the New York area, as discussed in our recent report on the city’s middle class.

But Washington, DC has by far the highest share; there are also high shares in neighboring Baltimore and Richmond. These figures illustrate the rising relative power of center of government in the contemporary political economy. Los Angeles is roughly equivalent, but with a slightly lower share than New York. Chicago, the economic capital of the interior, tops off the big four centers of control.

The next tier of five major regional capitals, all also Federal Reserve cities, are Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco, with Boston and San Francisco among places with the highest shares in finance. They are followed by four regional capitals on the path to financial stardom – if you can use that term today – including Miami, Houston and Seattle and Phoenix, as well as another federal reserve city, Minneapolis.

Several major metropolitan areas are far less important in finance than in earlier times. These include the Rust Belt cities of Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. These, in turn, are being challenged by the growing smaller metro areas and regional capitals of Denver, Portland, San Diego, Sacramento and Tampa-St. Petersburg.

Finally smaller, often growing metropolises with high shares in finance include, most obviously Charlotte, but also Austin, Columbus, Madison, Raleigh, Des Moines and Olympia, WA, all state capitals and/or university towns. But the highest shares, after Bridgeport are located smaller areas in Florida, Palm Coast and Fort Walton Beach.

The national conversation in the wake of President Obama's introduction of a mortgage relief plan has centered on "fairness" and the conditions to qualify for a mortgage modification. This misses the point. The effects of "innovative" mortgage products were felt far more broadly than the relationship between a single buyer (responsible or not) and his particular mortgage broker (despicable or not). To illustrate the point, meet Mrs. Conservative And Responsible Mortgage Neighbor ("Carmen" for short).

In 2003, Carmen bid on a home and took a 30 year fixed mortgage with 20 percent down.

Fast forward to today. Carmen has enjoyed her home and made all of her payments to the bank on time. Unfortunately, her home has dropped in value to the point where it is now significantly underwater . Her investment portfolio has fared just as poorly, losing 40 percent of its value in the last 18 months. All the while, her mortgage obligation has slowly amortized lower.

If Carmen were to turn to her investments to pay off the loan today, she would come up short. Worldwide deflation has resulted in every asset in our little vignette having fallen by 40 percent. Carmen's debt burden, however, remains the same,, struck in yesterday's dollars.

How does the current mortgage relief plan – which certainly excludes all of the Carmens out there -- make sense? The short answer is that it doesn't. It is neither fair nor effective. It lacks boldness, universality and an understanding of the problem.

A far better answer to the problem is one time across-the-board principal reductions to all primary residence mortgages originated in the last ten years. Such a plan avoids the piecemeal approach of subjective formulae and doesn't make personal bankruptcy a precondition to the reduction of principal. It acknowledges that the nation's housing stock was overvalued because of unintelligent home buyers, products that have been discredited, fairly widespread fraud and inexcusable encouragement by naive government officials. Following the principal reduction, each loan can be re-amortized over its remaining life, resulting in the stimulus of a reduced monthly payment for every American homeowner.