Location, location
The place to be right now, it seems, is good old Heartland, USA. Urban planning expert Joel Kotkin calls the middle of the country a “zone of sanity” in an article on newgeography. I found it by way of NPR’s Planet Money blog.
Kotkin says:
People and companies in the zone feel the recession, but they are not, to date, in anything like the tailspin seen in places like the upper Great Lakes auto-manufacturing zone, the Sunbelt boom towns or, increasingly, the finance-dependent Northeast…
Unless there is a massive shift in conditions, the zone should see a return to prosperity earlier than places bogged down with excess foreclosures, shuttering industries, soaring taxes and ever-tightening regulation.
Kotkin focuses on the likely center of this sanity zone — Kansas City. He points out that home prices and employment have fallen at much saner rates than on the coasts and in the boom towns. Slow and steady, she goes.
Still, Kotkin notes that Kansas City has some big dreams, like a light rail line and a huge entertainment complex, despite being budget-strapped like everybody else. Kotkin says KC would do well not to emulate the mistakes of boom cities with their “forced,” largely unsuccessful developments.
Instead, KC should keep in mind why it’s been gaining population while other cities have been losing it. It’s just a nice, calm place to live. I was just there last month, and I have to say, the thought of moving there did cross my mind.
Redbud posted this comment to my blog entry on economic media coverage last week:
It’s nice in Kansas! Winter wheat fields are bright green, the oil patch is busy, gas and food are inexpensive, and hard work and saving for bad weather remain in style. Our banks and housing are wonderful, compared to the stories we hear from the east coast. Around here, we pick on the media for not reporting enough local school sports.
Sounds like a zone of sanity to me.
- Mar 31, 2009 11:25 AM — Scott Jagow
- 5 comments
About Scott Jagow and Scratch Pad
Latest Posts
- Chart of the Day
- Airplanes going nowhere
- Morning Reading
- Deep thoughts, by Chuck Lorre
- I want you back
- The bottled water scam
- Morning Reading
- Pin the tail on the lobbyist
- Tied up in knots
- Damned if you do
- Morning Reading
- From totally chic to totally geek
- Crackberry overtime
- Swimming with sharks
- Wine, women and the economy
sponsor
Scott's favorite spots
- 24/7 Wall Street
- BailoutSleuth
- The Big Picture
- Businessweek/Michael Mandel
- Cafehayek
- Calculated Risk
- Carpe Diem
- Clusterstock
- Crossing Wall Street
- DealBook
- Dealbreaker
- Econlog
- Economist
- Economist's View
- Felix Salmon
- Footnoted
- FT Alphaville
- Greg Mankiw
- Growthology
- Infectious Greed
- Knowledge Problem
- LittleSis
- Marginal Revolution
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- The Money Blogs
- Naked Capitalism
- Paul Krugman
- Planet Money
- Real Clear Markets
- Seeking Alpha
- Silicon Alley Insider
- Sramana Mitra
- True/Slant
- Unemploymentality
- WSJ/Marketbeat
Sponsor
Comments (5)
March 31, 2009 7:10 PM PT
Just keep in mind that there is Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
March 31, 2009 7:52 PM PT
Gary, I went to both cities last month, and Lawrence, Kansas as well. I’ll tell you what - that stretch between Kansas City, KS and Lawrence is a whole lotta nothin’. And I loved driving it. In LA, it’s pretty hard to find a whole lotta nothin’.
Lawrence is a fine town. I hit the Free State Brewery, where besides drinking excellent beers, I learned a lot about the history of the area from the locals. Fascinating.
But as far as KC goes, we both know the reference is to Kansas City, Missouri, which is much bigger. No disrespect to Kansas City, KS, which I enjoyed visiting as well.
March 31, 2009 9:21 PM PT
Glad you visited and enjoyed both Kansas Cities, Scott. I grew up in the center of Missouri, made lots of weekend trips to Kansas City, MO (or Mo. in those days), and even a few all the way to Lawrence. Gotta say, there was even more nothing between KC, KS and Lawrence in those days than there is now.
Anyway, I just want to make it clear there are two Kansas Cities in the Union, because an awful lot of people have no idea. Can’t do any harm, seems to me.
March 31, 2009 7:33 PM PT
They want light rail? Yes it is nice. Yes, it is the most stately way to get around. However, I have ridden many electric buses in a number of cities. They are faster, more flexible when it comes to interacting with traffic, and they cost about 1% of what light rail costs on a per-mile basis. On a similar note, I would like a Tesla car. But since I can’t afford one, I drive an old 4 cylinder jalopy that can get 30 miles to the gallon on the freeway. Look at San Francisco: they built light rail only on routes that needed so much flex-capacity that it warranted the cost. Vancouver has one central line of rapid transit and everything else is electric bus serviced or diesel bus serviced. Another thing about light rail is that when the route approaches a hill, the planner$ mu$t build a tunnel.
March 31, 2009 7:57 PM PT
Charlie, light rail is the temptress of many a city. Everyone loves it. But it’s so damn expensive. If you have the right kind of density and can keep the light rail “light,” as in minimal, it can be wonderful. Portland, Oregon comes to mind. But light rail for the hip factor, for the urban coolness, just doesn’t work in many places. It winds up being a tourist trolley.