New York, New York, a helluva town.
The rents are up, but the crime rate is down.
The food is better than ever, and the culturalscene is vibrant. Truly, it’s a golden agefor the town I recently moved to — if youcan afford the housing. But more and morepeople can’t.
And it’s not just New York. The dayswhen dystopian images of urban declinewere pervasive in popular culture —remember the movie “Escape from NewYork”? — are long past. The story formany of our iconic cities is, instead, one ofgentrification, a process that’s obvious tothe naked eye, and increasingly visible inthe data.
Specifically, urban America reached aninflection point around 15 years ago: afterdecades of decline, central cities begangetting richer, more educated, and, yes,whiter. Today our urban cores are providingever more amenities, but largely to a veryaffluent minority.
But why is this happening? And is thereany way to spread the benefits of our urbanrenaissance more widely?Let’s star t by admit ting that oneimportant factor has surely been thedramatic decline in crime rates. For thoseof us who remember the 1970s, New Yorkin 2015 is so safe it’s surreal. And thetruth is that nobody really knows why thathappened.
But there have been other drivers of thechange: above all, the national-level surgein inequality.
It’s a familiar fact (even if the usualsuspects still deny it) that the concentrationof income in the hands of a small minorityhas soared over the past 35 years. Thisconcent ration is even higher in bigmetropolitan areas like New York, becausethose areas are both where high-skill, highpayindustries tend to locate, and where thevery affluent often want to live. In general,this high-income elite gets what it wants,and what it has wanted, since 2000, hasbeen to live near the center of big cities.
Still, why do high-income Americansnow want to live in inner cities, as opposedto in sprawling suburban estates? Here weneed to pay attention to the changing livesof the affluent — in particular, their workhabits.
To get a sense of how it used to be, letme quote from a classic 1955 Fortunearticle titled “How Top Executives Live.”According to that article, the typicalexecutive “gets up early — about 7 a.m..
— eats a large breakfast, and rushes to hisoffice by train or auto. It is not unusual forhim, after spending from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m.
in his office, to hurry home, eat dinner,and crawl into bed with a briefcase fullof homework.” Well, by the standards oftoday’s business elite, that’s actually a veryrelaxed lifestyle.
And as several recent papers haveargued, the modern high earner, withhis or her long hours — and, more oftenthan not, a working partner rather than astay-at-home wife — is willing to pay alot more than the executives of yore for acentral location that cuts commuting time.
Hence gentrification. And this is a processthat feeds on itself: as more high earnersmove into urban centers, these centersbegin offering amenities: — restaurants,shopping, entertainment — that make themeven more attractive.
We’re not just talking about the superrichhere, or even the 1 percent. At a guess, wemight be talking about the top 10 percent.
And for these people, it’s a happy story.
But what about all the people, surely alarge majority, who are being priced out ofAmerica’s urban revival? Does it have to bethat way?The answer, surely, is no, at least not tothe extent we’re seeing now. Rising demandfor urban living by the elite could be metlargely by increasing supply. There’s stillroom to build, even in New York, especiallyupward. Yet while there is something of abuilding boom in the city, it’s far smallerthan the soaring prices warrant, mainlybecause land use restrictions are in the way.
And this is part of a broader nationalstory. As Jason Furman, the chairman ofthe White House Council of EconomicAdvisers, recently pointed out, nationalhousing prices have risen much faster thanconstruction costs since the 1990s, andland-use restrictions are the most likelyculprit. Yes, this is an issue on which youdon’t have to be a conservative to believethat we have too much regulation.
The good news is that this is an issueover which local governments have a lotof influence. New York City can’t do muchif anything about soaring inequality ofincomes, but it could do a lot to increase thesupply of housing, and thereby ensure thatthe inward migration of the elite doesn’tdrive out everyone else. And its currentmayor understands that.
But will that understanding lead to anyaction? That’s a subject I’ll have to returnto another day. For now, let’s just say thatin this age of gentrification, housing policyhas become much more important thanmost people realize.
<
PAUL KRUGMAN>
댓글 안에 당신의 성숙함도 담아 주세요.
'오늘의 한마디'는 기사에 대하여 자신의 생각을 말하고 남의 생각을 들으며 서로 다양한 의견을 나누는 공간입니다. 그러나 간혹 불건전한 내용을 올리시는 분들이 계셔서 건전한 인터넷문화 정착을 위해 아래와 같은 운영원칙을 적용합니다.
자체 모니터링을 통해 아래에 해당하는 내용이 포함된 댓글이 발견되면 예고없이 삭제 조치를 하겠습니다.
불건전한 댓글을 올리거나, 이름에 비속어 및 상대방의 불쾌감을 주는 단어를 사용, 유명인 또는 특정 일반인을 사칭하는 경우 이용에 대한 차단 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 차단될 경우, 일주일간 댓글을 달수 없게 됩니다.
명예훼손, 개인정보 유출, 욕설 등 법률에 위반되는 댓글은 관계 법령에 의거 민형사상 처벌을 받을 수 있으니 이용에 주의를 부탁드립니다.
Close
x