China, The U.S. and the Politics of High-Speed Rail

China's Passenger Dedicated High-Speed Rail Network

"Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products."

- U.S. President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010

For years the European passenger rail systems have been the envy of Americans who have gone abroad for travel, study or business in the continent. High-speed trains are not only a fast and efficient way to get from point A to point B, they also provide a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere for viewing the passing geography.

Europe isn't the only place that has well-developed high-speed trains. Japan is also reputed for its Shinkansen bullet train which has served the country for several decades. When the first high-speed line opened between the economic hubs of Tokyo and Osaka in 1964, it revolutionized the way the Japanese did business in their country. Now, 45 years later, Japan's East Asian neighbor, China, is raising the bar of passenger rail travel to a new level.

Like everything else in China, the country's high-speed train network is developing at unfathomable speed. Instead of building one line at a time, several lines are under construction simultaneously; including both national scale passenger-dedicated lines and more localized 'intercity' lines. Speeds for these new trains are designed to go anywhere from 250 km/h to 350 km/h (155 MPH - 217 MPH).

China's new CRH3 train, designed by Siemens

As if the new skyscrapers weren't enough, China's race to build the most modern, and sophisticated passenger rail system in the world is nothing short of amazing. And while China zooms past the United States regarding rail technology, many Americans are wondering why their country is being left behind in the dust. The answer lies in the substantially different political zeitgeists of the the two countries.

China is a quasi-'command economy' with strong control over national development by the central government in Beijing. This affords China the ability to construct extensive high-speed rail lines quickly without the nuisance of NIMBY-ism. Opposition regarding rights-of-way is highly discouraged and often ignored. Dissenting voices from both within China and outside its borders are quick to point out the negative social impacts that building new large-scale infrastructure can have - primarily on displacing residents who are 'in the way' of new development.

Yet, despite the elements of dissent, there is no question that the majority consensus within China is in favor of development - especially when it comes to the high-speed rail network. This is not only attributable to a strong shared sense of national pride, but also because most Chinese citizens perceive the real benefits of having access to such a network. As the country continues to grow economically, many young Chinese are moving from their hometowns seeking opportunities in the bigger cities - often miles away from where they grew up. Given that there is a cultural emphasis on the value of strong family ties, the psychological comfort that comes along with shrinking travel times (and a cheaper alternative to flying) is very welcome.

So what is going on with high-speed rail in the United States? How come we can't get anything built? Well the good news is that President Obama just the other day approved $8 billion in government grants to help develop high-speed rail across certain regions of the country. $8 billion may sound like a large sum but it pales in comparison to the $300 billion China is spending on their network. Despite this reality, Obama's approval of funds is good to get the ball rolling.

Proposed U.S. High-Speed Rail Corridors

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been a growing grassroots movement in the U.S. that is much in favor of seeing high-speed rail come to fruition. National organizations like the U.S. High Speed Rail Association and regional advocacy groups like the Midwest High Speed Rail Association and Californians For High Speed Rail have been instrumental in raising awareness about the many benefits of high-speed rail and swaying public opinion in favor of development. Unfortunately, there is also a strong opposition to the entire concept of an American high-speed rail network.

It would be nice to say that high-speed rail development is an aspiration in which everyone can agree on the benefits (creates jobs, helps the environment, enhances mobility, etc...) but the reality is that the issue is remarkably politically charged. There are many arguments against high-speed rail, most of which come from the libertarian and conservative realms of the political spectrum. The most frequent argument from this camp being that it is a 'waste of taxpayer dollars'.

The 'waste of taxpayers dollars' mantra is something that has been the battle cry of politicians on the right for as long as I can remember (I was born when Ronald Reagan was President). The 'waste of taxpayer dollars' argument not only applies to high-speed rail but to practically every other political issue ranging from health care to social welfare services. At this point, it is dead argument that has lost all of its credibility and is devoid of meaning.

The 'waste of taxpayer dollars' argument coupled with the selfish culture of 'Not In My Backyard' (NIMBY) is what has crippled the ability to develop large-scale infrastructure in recent years. Surely, the real estate boom from which we are now hungover saw a lot of construction activity but that was mostly relegated to the private sector development in housing. Libertarians (who I agree with on other issues) also use the argument that high-speed rail will not be profitable.

The obsession with privatization and religious devotion to the 'market' hampers libertarians' ability to see any large-scale public undertaking as anything other than 'greedy socialist' money squandering. Last week, Wendell Cox wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal that makes the same points regarding the waste of money that investment high-speed rail will be. Cox suggests that car and air travel will continue to suffice as the primary modes of transportation between American cities.

It is possible that high-speed rail will not be profitable initially given the high cost of construction. But there are potentially greater benefits to the broader economy that are not immediately apparent. For instance, if comprehensive high-speed rail can save money on transportation costs for individuals, there will be more money available to invest in other goods and services. Also, transportation nodes where high-speed trains make stops will be ripe for new real estate development. Finally, the added sense of intercity 'connectivity' make trading and doing business across regional boundaries more efficient.

There really is no reason that those on the right of the political spectrum, for who the idea of 'freedom' is so sacred, should be against developing high-speed rail. If anything, a high-speed rail system will enhance 'freedom' by giving Americans another alternative to intercity transport besides driving or flying. The cost of owning a car (including gas, maintenance, insurance, etc...) is prohibitively expensive and restricts personal savings. Airplanes are great for long distances, but the hassle of going through check-in and security for shorter flights could be avoided with high-speed rail.

This is not to suggest that we should forget about airport or road infrastructure. Referring back to China again - the country is making substantial investments in airports and roads in addition to passenger rail networks. China's love affair with the automobile is just in its infancy - and as incomes continue to rise more people will indefinitely purchase cars. Considered as status symbols by the Chinese 'Nouveau Riche', cars are more likely to be used primarily in the new sprawling cities on a leisurely basis rather than out of necessity such as is the case in the United States. For travel between cities and regions, most Chinese will opt for transportation by high-speed rail or airplane.

It's time for America to move forward. The partisan bickering of American politicians has devolved to a point where the government cannot get things done, nor do many citizens have faith that it can get things done. As President Obama alluded to in his State of the Union Address, the United States was at one point in time a top competitor. Being an American on the ground in China has opened my eyes to the reality that the U.S. is quickly falling behind in its ability to compete. The Chinese political ideology is offensive to many, but regardless of this fact, the country is grabbing hold on the future faster than most Americans are willing to acknowledge. If the U.S. wishes to remain competitive in the 21st Century, complacency needs to subside. Building high-speed rail would be a great start to ending this complacency.

Richard Florida Takes a Beating

Urban guru Richard Florida

The beginning of 2010 has not been nice to Richard Florida. Starting with an article in The American Prospect by Alec MacGillis earlier this month titled "The Ruse of the Creative Class", the web's urban commentators have been quick to jump on the Florida-bashing bandwagon. Following The American Prospect piece was an elaboration of Florida's flaws by Willy Staley for Next American City. Staley discusses how MacGillis's piece reminds him of The Simpsons episode where the fictional city of Springfield is sold on building a new monorail system by a swindler who then proceeds to skip town stealing the profits. In Staley's mind, Richard Florida is the high-paid swindler who fooled real cities and towns to bank on luring the 'Creative Class' (essentially a post-modern version of 'The Organization Man').

It is hard to imagine anyone paying attention to urban economics during the past decade and not recognizing the name Richard Florida. Florida, famous for his 2002 tome The Rise of the Creative Class, poses the thesis that for cities to be competitive in the 21st Century, they should possess the 'three Ts' of technology, talent and tolerance. His ideas for urban success center around the notion that places ought to focus on attracting knowledge workers (i.e. the 'Creative Class') by catering to their bohemian tastes.

Since garnering fame for his seminal book, Florida has toured the U.S. (and world) promoting his ideas. In the The American Prospect piece, MacGillis takes aim at Florida in what I consider to be an ad hominem attack by questioning the amount of money he earned through paid speaking and consulting gigs. Furthermore, MacGillis implies that Florida is a hypocrite because of a March 2009 article in The Atlantic where he says that some places are beyond recovery.

Staley for the most part agrees with MacGillis's characterization of Florida as a smooth-talking yet hollow evangelist. Joshua Leon, also for Next American City, jumps into the ring for round 3 and delivers a further blow to Florida by poking a hole in his argument for greater geographic mobility. Leon is correct in pointing out that a more mobile workforce is not necessarily good for fostering a sense of local community, nor do many people have the means to just pick up and move to another city where there might be better opportunities. I have made the same point before in regards to Florida's flawed notion of 'city as commodity'.

Yet, even as I have been critical of Richard Florida myself, I do think that his work is not without merit. On the contrary, Florida is very much an urbanist of his time. When I first read The Rise of the Creative Class I could not help but keep thinking back to the place where I grew up: Silicon Valley. Indeed, Florida references Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area quite a bit in his book and dedicates many pages discussing the rise in technological prominence of the region. He cites the Bay's culture of 'openness and tolerance' as one of the primary draws for ambitious entrepreneurs looking to explore new ideas.

Florida made this observation at a time when Silicon Valley had just finished going through the 'dot-com boom' of the late 1990's. And to be sure, it was the Creative Class that was in large part responsible for making the region an economic success story. It is no wonder that other cities and regions (especially ones in post-industrial decline) were quick to embrace Florida's ideas to help attract the much coveted 'creatives'.

Fast-forward to today - nearly 10 years later and in the midst in one of the worst recessions in a generation and we can see why Richard Florida is taking a beating now. The Silicon Valley ethos did not magically replicate itself all over the U.S. transforming every city with economic problems into a bustling technology hub. Furthermore, even the places held as information age paradigms have seen their fair share of suffering and may still face more trouble in the days ahead.

While artist districts, independently owned coffee shops and organic farmers markets are nice additions to any city, they are not nearly as important in attracting workers as the one thing that has brought people to cities for centuries: economic opportunity. One case in point is myself. After the opportunity for new architecture work shriveled up in the U.S. early last year, I hopped on a plane to Beijing. China is certainly not renown for its 'openness and tolerance' but they are building a lot of new buildings in their cities at the moment - and that is exactly why I am here. Strangely enough, as China has improved its economic situation in recent years, so have the creative industries begun to germinate.

The burgeoning creative sectors and opening up of China is worthy of several more blog posts but the point I am trying to make here is that the things Florida has been preaching are not 'magic bullets' for economic success. Rather, opportunity, as always, will come first and the amenities that are desired by the Creative Class will follow - it doesn't matter if it is the U.S.A. or China - human nature begs for opportunities that can improve life first.

Richard Florida is no dummy - although his emphasis on the importance of the Creative Class and their influence may have been overestimated, he is a keen observer of trends effecting city development. He is also responsible for engendering a broader interest in the city beyond planners and urban fanatics - which is a great thing. I agree with his notion that 'Mega-Regions' will take the lead in driving emerging economies in the coming years. Though the rise of the Creative Class might be over now, it will be interesting to see what Dr. Florida has in store for us in his upcoming book The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity.

Job Creativity

Kudos to the New York Times for producing an article about the plight of out-of-work architects. As the most e-mailed story a few days ago, journalist Kristina Shevory does a great job of highlighting the creativity of young unemployed designers. While I sometimes lament that architecture professionals are out-of-touch with the real world, this article goes onto show that when market forces come to bare hardship, young architects are able to flex their creative muscle well beyond the designing of buildings.

Newsweek on the 'Recession Generation'

Last year I wrote a NewGeography piece titled 'Milllennials' First Recession' about the impact of the economic crisis on the youngest demographic in the workforce. Being part of this group myself, the article was based more on empirical observation of my fellow peers rather than hard data. I noticed that while many of my friends across all sectors had lost their jobs, most people remained optimistic knowing that they still had long careers ahead. Some people moved back home to save money while others applied to graduate school and are now sitting comfortably in the halls of academia waiting for the economy to recover.

Perhaps most encouraging, some of my peers have been able to find full-time employment after being laid-off near the beginning of the recession. Though we are by no means in the midst of a full-on recovery yet, the fact that companies are beginning to open up again to young people is a good sign. Furthermore, the pervasive optimism (not blind, mind you) of Millennials means that the future might not look so dark after all.

Newsweek took the time recently to ponder the influence of the recession on Millennials' future spending habits in an article called 'The Recession Generation'. The writer of the piece, Rana Foroohar, compares this generation to that of those who came of age during the Great Depression. This comparison is meant to imply that as a result of the recession, Millennials are more likely to be savers rather than big-spenders like their Boomer or GenX counterparts.

While the comparison of today's Millennial generation to that of the Depression generation in terms of fiscal responsibility makes sense, that is where the similarity ends. It is important to note that global economic dynamics have changed drastically in the 70-80 years that separates these two periods. First off, it is unlikely that an event like World War II will occur to unite Millennials around a common goal and instill a sense of unified purpose. Secondly, the concept of life-long corporate loyalty, so important to the livelihood of my grandfather's generation, is dead and buried. Social institutions are unreliable and benefits like health insurance and retirement plans are no longer standard incentives offered by companies seeking to minimize overhead costs.

Although Millennials are faced with much more economic uncertainty, this may not be such a bad thing. Instead of building an identity around the corporate brand they work for, Millennials will (and already have been with tools like Facebook and Blogger) need to develop their own personal 'brand' as they gain experience in the working world.

The optimist in me views this recession period as part of the 'creative destruction' process, enabling young people to explore new opportunities that could potentially lead to innovation. Regardless of what happens in the future, the damage has already been done, yet the outlook for the days ahead need not be so dim.

Complexity Creep: A Warning from Kazys Varnelis

Since the Deconstructivist days of the bleak late 80's/early 90's ended, architectural theory has been in the doldrums. As usually happens during building booms, architectural critics get deliriously hung up on the flamboyant new structures going up around them and take little time for pondering deeper matters. It only makes sense that during this time of prolonged recession that architectural thinkers have the renewed space to reflect upon the philosophical questions of urbanism once again. As such, welcomed new voices are bound to emerge.

One of the most astute rising voices in architectural theory belongs to Columbia University professor Kazys Varnelis. In the most recent issue of the online urbanism journal, Triple Canopy, Varnelis has a discussion with the editors in a piece titled 'The Wrong Way Forward'. The title refers to the creeping complexity of bureaucratic networks and its adverse effect on urban development.

In particular, Varnelis mentions the problematic nature of the 'bottom-up' political approach to development that has evolved over time in the U.S. While well-intentioned, a number of small moves to monitor and regulate urban development has created an environment where building new and beneficial infrastructures in America's cities is next to impossible. This is in contrast to a place like China, where a 'top-down' approach is responsible for engendering the astounding urbanization we are witnessing today.

This is not to suggest that the U.S. should change from a democracy to a more authoritarian model-this would hardly be feasible. Instead, American cities should find ways to reduce the amount of bureaucratic red-tape involved in the development process. Ironically, this is already happening as the recession has forced municipalities to slash budgets and services due to decreased tax revenue.

Towards the end of the Triple Canopy discussion, Varnelis warns of the common trap of myopically searching for 'the next big thing and its close relative, the urge to find a quick fix'. This has been an affliction of the architecture and planning professions in recent years as they have blindly grabbed onto any trend (LEED certification, parametric/generative design, New Urbanism, etc...) that appears to be a panacea for all of society's ills.

Design professionals are generally deluded into thinking that their narrow ideas will have a significant impact on the built environment when in reality it is money, power and politics that ultimately determines what gets built. This reality is especially pronounced in bad economic times like now where there isn't even the money for designers to produce new work.

Instead, architects and planners would better serve both themselves and society by coming down from their technocratic ivory towers and engaging in a deeper understanding of the complexity that surrounds them. This may mean becoming more familiar with subjects other than design. Varnelis drives this point home when he concludes: 'Architecture has always been about much more than just designing buildings.'

Wither San Francisco

Stockton Street Tunnel

I hate to keep hammering on the precious 'City by the Bay', but please understand that I do it out of love. For many urbanists, there is usually one city, possibly one experienced during childhood, that remains close to heart and provides a lens through which to view other cities. For urban greats like Lewis Mumford and Jane Jacobs, that city was most obviously New York. In his book Invisible Cities, Italian writer Italo Calvino used Venice as the archetype for which a fictionalized Marco Polo describes the otherworldly cities he encountered during his travels. Being a native of the Bay Area, the cardinal influence on my early civic awareness is derived from none other than San Francisco. This is true so much so that back then we even referred to it just as 'The City'.

San Francisco continues to be an anomaly as it is the most famous city in a highly prosperous region (The Bay Area) where it is neither the most populous city nor the economic heart of the region. For a few decades now, the city's economy has been coasting on its 'post-card image' capital: beautiful scenery and charming Victorian architecture. Yet what has probably been most detrimental for San Francisco is its reputation as a bastion of liberal idealism.

The era of social progressivism has officially ended. What is left, especially in San Francisco, is nothing more than a farce-a postmodern bastardization of once noble ideals. The angry spirit of so-called 'progressives' (most often people who are not actually from San Francisco but move to the city so they can live what they think is a utopian 'urban' lifestyle) is embodied by a group of people who participate in events like the Critical Mass.

Critical Mass bikers taking over SF streets

I recall one beautiful October evening walking home from work down Market Street when the wave of Critical Mass bikers came rolling down the street, disregarding traffic laws and running through red lights. As I was crossing the street (legally, as I the pedestrian had the right of way at that moment), I was almost run over by about 10 rogue bikers. While I told them to please respect the pedestrian (hey I was being more 'green' than they were by walking...carbon was spewed into the atmosphere to manufacture those bikes), I got nothing more than a 'FUCK OFF' from one of the female riders.

This little personal anecdote is just one example of the entitled attitude that is pervasive in San Francisco. Much of the responsibility lies with the city's leaders, who have let this entitlement spirit spin out of control. Now, all my gripes have been affirmed by a recent story in SF Weekly titled 'The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S.' The authors, Benjamin Wachs and Joe Eskenazi really nail it with this one as they pick apart the complete dysfunction of the city at the government level. This is an excellent piece that is long over-due and one can only hope that this will be a wake-up call for everyone who cares about San Francisco's future.

Another item that has been circulating around the San Francisco blogosphere lately is the issue of street thugs in the Haight neighborhood. The issue was originally brought to attention last month by SF Chronicle writer C.W. Nevius who called out the thugs on being detrimental to quality-of-life in the area. Surely, anyone who has been down Haight Street in recent years has seen them: young and crusty wannabe pseudo-hippies with nothing better to do than to aggressively harass people just walking down the street.

Apparently, Nevius's story worked and now the issue is being addressed by the San Francisco Police Department. Much credit goes to the city's new Police Chief, George Gascón, who seems to be proactively bringing much-needed reform to the department. This is highly encouraging and I look forward to seeing more policies implemented that discourage harassment on San Francisco's streets.

Anyone reading this blog who does not know me personally might assume, based on what I have just written, that I am an ultra-conservative 'values' voter who would like nothing more than to see San Francisco fall into the Pacific Ocean. On the contrary, I am quite proud of the city's legacy of social justice. I take pride in San Francisco's influential role in the gay rights movement and being a place where diverse groups of immigrants have historically been able to establish communities and work their way up the socioeconomic ladder.

Yet what the city has become today is not acceptable. One should not have to worry about stepping on human feces when walking down the street or getting stabbed by a mentally-deranged person while riding on the Muni, San Francisco's public transportation system. These basic quality-of-life issues are often overlooked by the 'progressives' in City Hall, where money is often squandered on social services that do nothing to enhance livability for the typical resident. San Francisco is blessed to have the assets of natural beauty, architectural charm and a compelling historic narrative. It's time to stop taking these things for granted and respecting the city by making it livable once again.

Reflections on Starchitecture and its Implications on City Life

The Vdara Hotel & Spa at City Center by Rafael Viñoly Architecture

The end of the year is usually a time of reflection. Looking back, 2009 has been particularly difficult across all sectors given the continued lackadaisical state of the world economy. Although the root of the crisis lies with the questionable practices of the banking and finance industries, the physical manifestation of our troubles is most apparent in the built environment. From the abandoned exurban communities of foreclosed McMansions to half-built luxury skyscrapers in the central cities, our hungover neighborhoods tell the story of a wild credit party of yesteryear.

Just over a year ago, I wrote a piece for NewGeography about 'Architecture in an Age of Austerity'. My intention was to put a spotlight on the connection between built form and economic exuberance in our secular era. Certainly this is a connection made by the media when it mentions large-scale building projects that were planned and designed during the height of the boom only to finish construction during the free fall. Not only is this another reminder of the lagging pace of the design and construction industry, it also provides a glimpse into the recent past.

One such project worth mentioning is the Burj Dubai-the world's tallest skyscraper which is scheduled to open early in January. The design and execution of this building is no small feat-and regardless of the negative social implications, this tower is sure to inspire awe for many years to come. Yet, at a time when more of the general public is becoming concerned with issues like sustainability and allocation of financial resources, the Burj Dubai is bound to stir up controversy. No doubt this will be a pivot journalists use to wag their finger at economic exuberance.

Another project that provides a snapshot of the recent past is the newly opened 'City Center' complex in Las Vegas. Situated on a large super-block prominently on the Strip between the Bellagio and the Monte Carlo, City Center lacks the requisite Vegas-style theatrics of its neighbors. That is not to say City Center does not have a theme, though-it just happens that its theme is 'starchitecture'.

The roster of marquee level architects who contributed building designs to the project is quite impressive: Norman Foster, Rafael Viñoly, KPF, Cesar Pelli, Helmut Jahn, and Daniel Libeskind-not to mention an art installation by Maya Lin. From the view of a pure aesthetic critique, each of the buildings looks beautiful: sleek, modern, and tectonically sound. From the view of an urban critique, the implications of City Center are quite troubling.

Nate Berg, one of the editors at Planetizen, has written an overly sardonic piece criticizing City Center for its phony urbanism. While the approach of the article is not subtle, Berg's frustration with the new development is understandable.

For better or worse, we have reached a point in the history of urbanism where the concept of modern urban life is being used to market private mega-developments. This hijacks what was once sacred about the randomness of civic life and repackages it as a consumer good. Years from now, City Center may represent a turning point where cities have transformed to become mere simulacra of their former selves.