Bikes are fun! and profitable

“All the ads at that time were ostensibly pushing condominiums. But of course they were really selling lifestyle, and with the lifestyle a revolution in what was desirable. By appropriating the fashion of the northwest outdoors, the [marketers] took cycling out of the alternative-lifestyle gutter into the mainstream traffic of contemporary living.” Gordon Price, former Vancouver city councillor, on a condo ad starring bicyclists

More earth day tips

This press release from the City of Chicago features a laughable picture of Mayor Daley but also has some very reasonable, effective tips on conserving natural resources. Kudos to the city for being (once again) forthright about the need to promote transportation alternatives — now, if only they were a little more publicly willing to speak up for transit, walking, and cycling in their times of need.

Shocking polls!

No, not Bush’s record low approval ratings, but this tidbit: “Forty-six percent of Pakistanis approve of anti-American suicide bombings (we’re almost as unpopular there as Israel is; just 47 percent approve of attacks on the Jewish state) and only 36 percent disapprove… In the two Arab countries surveyed, absolute majorities — 74 percent in Morocco and 86 percent in Jordan — approve of attacks.

“Not coincidentally, majorities in all four Muslim countries believe that Iraqis will be worse off in post-Hussein Iraq, that the United States does not truly want to promote democracy, and that the war on terrorism is insincere. If we’re so insincere, what do they think the war on terror is really about? Majorities believe we want ‘to control Mideast oil’ and ‘to dominate the world.'” Yglesias in the Prospect

Sure, worldwide antipathy towards the US soared as Bush began his campaign of belligerence. However, the big difference between merely disliking the US and applauding its attack has been crossed for many in the Arab world. At this rate, how on earth can anyone claim that “we are winning the war on terrorism”?

Blue skies ahead

James K. Galbraith makes a compelling case for “natural capitalism” as an economic strategy for the new, new Democrats. Deficit reduction to bring down interest rates (a la Rubinomics) won’t solve today’s economic problem — namely, businesses awash in overcapacity, government retrenching domestically to overextend itself overseas, and consumers propping up the whole deal by maxing out every last source of credit (particularly their home equity. Meanwhile, the indicators don’t look good; we can’t count on foreign capital to keep us afloat forever.

Instead, we need new drivers of economic growth and job creation, and this time a little more durable than building fiber optic lines so that Tuvaluans can buy kitty litter online.

We need, in short, a patient strategy for social investment — to meet pressing national objectives while creating jobs, recognizing that success will take determination, time, and money.

What objectives? The foremost candidate is sustainable energy security. Reducing our exposure to the world oil economy is a vast public challenge. It would move us toward compact cities, new transport systems, and renewable energy sources, as well as toward much more conservation and efficiency in the use of oil. That is the sort of national effort that would bring good jobs in quantity to the next generation, leaving our children and grandchildren better prepared to live well — and in peace.

How to pay for it? Of course we must repeal George W. Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthy. We should also forthrightly consider tax incentives to reward efficient energy use and to penalize waste. But for a project of national reconstruction and investment, much of the necessary funds can, and properly should be, borrowed. Policy should do what is necessary to restore jobs. Full employment, sustainable development, and national security are proper goals for policy. Deficit reduction, as such, is not. Public debt to enrich the wealthy is one thing. Debt to rebuild the country is something else again. If we have to go that route, we should do it and not look back.

Meanwhile, the right way to display fiscal discipline would be to separate capital from current expenditures in the budget, leaving the former free from any cap.

Indeed, such a forward-thinking initiative wouldn’t just increase productivity, reduce our environmental burden, and generate short- and long-term jobs; it could also save governments the tremendous sums that currently go to subsidize our petroleum habit.

On another front, I recently found the Apollo Alliance — a coalition of environmental and labor groups that is starting to make the broader case for clean-energy economic growth. The Apollo Project is an appropriately optimistic metaphor, but other examples of capital investments (the Interstates, the Marshall Plan) paying off many times over abound in the postwar period.

What’s even more exciting about many clean-energy solutions is that many substitute human capital for natural capital as an input — that is, the goods require fewer natural resources but more labor to produce. For instance, building houses in cities is inherently more of a challenge than building them in the suburbs, requiring more and better skilled labor. Some may view that as inefficient, but I would rather spend my money on people than on consuming nonrenewable resources. Best yet, jobs in sectors like transportation and construction can’t be offshored.

Getting into town

Note to self: when directing people to Michigan Avenue hotels from O’Hare, tell them to take the Blue Line to Division, not Chicago. There are always cabs at the Nelson Algren fountain (and man, do they ever spook me on my ride into work!), but much more rarely cabs at Chicago. Plus, the difference in distance is minimal.

The only constant is change

Chinatown, Los Angeles, in the mid-1960s. My mother, her hair elaborately piled atop her head, buys tofu at a corner grocery on Sunset Boulevard in Chinatown. Around the corner on Spring Street, my father restocks the shelves at his uncle’s wholesale store, dawdling to read Descartes essays from behind horn-rimmed glasses; she has yet to stumble across the store. (A few years later, the fictional Evelyn Mulwray would slump onto her pink Packard’s horn in front of the store.)

Forty years before this moment, the corner store sold tomato paste and cream to an Italian neighborhood. Forty years after this moment, that block of Spring is a parking lot and weekend Vietnamese garment market in the shadow of Gold Line trains ferrying revelers from downtown LA to Pasadena (not the other way ’round); the corner store puts guavas out onto the sidewalk of César Chavez Avenue; statuesque models, chattering in German, spill out from gallery openings and into the alley behind Chung King Road.

My parents have settled in behind a fragrant magnolia in Southern suburbia, and I in a deeply contested neighborhood — at times predominantly German, Polish, Puerto Rican, crime-ridden, bohemian, hip, and now yuppie, all within living memory and all still very much in evidence. Sure, the usual narrative of neighborhood change is written from a middle-class point of view, with its capitalist, WASPy, and heteronormative biases. But cities and societies change, and all of us, even those of us trusted with little power by said society, are complicit in this process.

Sure, we might ultimately want a fairer, more democratic, and more visionary process guiding said change, but apathy seems to get the better of most of us. The few who do act often default to obstructionism — an ultimately untenable stance, since I think we can all agree that the status quo is, well, unsustainable. Very few dare to dream about the future; even though government has a vested interest in looking ahead (to meet its obligations to provide for future generations), it typically does little to stimulate such discussions. Far easier for elected officials to look no further than the next election, of course.

Before my mother followed the dreams of ’60s America and drove out to California, she lived in Boston’s Chinatown, which, like the Italian North End, gained some sense of seclusion in the shadows of the Central Artery. (Before that, and I still struggle to wrap my head around the thought — but she has the boxes of tiny paper umbrellas to prove it — she slung tiki drinks and moo shoo pork for taciturn Yankees from behind a bar in Plymouth.) Now that the wraps are finally coming off the latest massive investment in downtown Boston, the easiest to reclaim edges — notably the reaches closest to the Common, now occupied by the likes of the Ritz-Carlton — have launched the neighborhood’s inevitable annexation to the hungry central business district. Chinatown in New York is famously durable (mostly because of an unstoppable flow of migration from the most populous nation in history), but the “East End” and Gallery Place have subsumed Washington’s postage-stamp Chinatown underneath huge entertainment venues for Washingtonians long starved of any real urban experiences. Meanwhile, I recently caught myself looking longingly at a row of lovely new modern rowhouses in Chinatown — what a view! what a price! and so close to up and coming Pilsen!

Colson Whitehead reminds us that none of us really “owns” the neighborhood or the city; we just rent from the next generation.

Listen to me, with my “back in the day” and “can’t throw a rock without hitting a bistro.” As if putting in eleven years in this borough makes me an old hand. The longtime residents—longer-time residents—know I’m just another one of the displaced Manhattan chumps. Everybody is someone’s newcomer, someone else’s gentrifier. I gave somebody the boot out of an apartment in Brooklyn a while back, and recently someone else gave me the boot. What do I know about Brooklyn? I know it’s part of New York City, and that means that every inch of it is constantly screaming, “Move, get out the way!” Bike messenger, delivery truck, sports stadium coming through. Honk honk. It’s a white neighborhood, it’s a black neighborhood, it’s an immigrant neighborhood, it’s a subplot on a sitcom about yuppies. It’s a working-class neighborhood, then it’s not. It’s changing so fast you shouldn’t bother unpacking, and you might as well blame water for being wet.

In the end, the same energy that draws us here, binds us to this place, is alternately creative and destructive, razing here, renovating there, and it’s all we can do to adapt.

Neighborhoods change; their changes reflect the way our societies change. That’s neither bad nor good, happy nor sad; it just is. The best we can do is to go along for the ride, make sure everyone prospers, and create great neighborhoods for everyone — both today and tomorrow.

Foolishly high downtown rents sink theatre

“The theater is drowning in debt, thanks in part to expensive rent in the Loop theater district. Noble Fool didn�t say how much money it owes.” And so Crain’s reports that the Noble Fool, a token attempt to bring off-Loop comedy onto the ballyhooed “Randolph Street Theatre District,” has gone dark. The economies of small scale, and especially not the economies of small scale theatre (read: no economies), just couldn’t pay for a brand-new space in a high-rent district, regardless of the city subsidies that went into the space.

In some sense, if the Loop were more residential, that would bode well for tenants like Noble Fool: not only would there be a larger home market and a larger base of nighttime entertainment options (as it is, it’s not fun to be stuck in the Loop at 10pm; there’s nowhere to eat!), but the presence of residential (instead of office) would imply somewhat lower property values.