The favored quarter, illustrated

Development

by David Alpert • February 14, 2008 2:00 pm

The Option of Urbanism talks about the "favored quarter", the pattern in almost every city's suburban development where most of the wealthy white people settled in certain parts of the region, leading to mall developers and employers wanting to locate there, leading to more highways there, making property values rise and more wealthy white people, malls, and jobs locating there.

Meanwhile, less wealthy and/or minority people could only afford to live in other parts of the region, forcing them to endure longer commutes to work. More driving meant paying more gas taxes, which were used to finance more freeways usually in the favored quarter.

In effect, Leinberger argues, the poor are subsidizing the rich in the economics of sprawl. This is part of what Michael Replogle of Environmental Defense was saying at the New Partners conference when he told the audience that using revenue from congestion-priced roads to fund more lanes and more highways exacerbates inequality, while using the revenue to create transit reduces inequality.

In his review of The Option of Urbanism, Rob Goodspeed links to some great maps of income distribution around cities that illustrates the "favored quarter" quite starkly. All of these cities have clear wedges of wealth (red), and often just as clear wedges of poverty (blue).

2 comments — Share	— tags: Christopher Leinberger, economics, favored quarter, maps, sprawl

Did you take economics? (May 21, 2010)
The un-favored quarter: urbanism's next frontier (Oct 22, 2008)
Audio interview with Christopher Leinberger (Feb 14, 2008)
New Partners: Congestion pricing and transportation finance (Feb 8, 2008)
Greater How? (Feb 5, 2008)

Comments

At least based on the above maps, I'm not seeing this theory at all. Yes, there are clearly favored quarters -- that part is correct. But it doesn't appear that there's really a significant difference in highway construction to/toward favored quarters vis-a-vis other parts of a metro area. Look at the maps of LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and Dallas in particular here. There are a lot of highways heading to the blue areas; if anything, that's where the highways are going.

Just based on these maps -- granted, a small and incomplete sample -- it would appear that the roads aren't the issue.

But the jobs might be. If the suburban office parks and edge cities end up in the favored quarters, then yes, those people end up with reduced commute times -- and they actually need *fewer* highways, not more. And this only makes sense: if you live in Beverly Hills and work in Century City, or if you live in McLean and work in Tysons Corner, then you don't need a highway. But you definitely don't need a subway line, either.

by Tristan on Feb 18, 2008 10:54 pm

You're right that highway building isn't all in the favored quarter, or actually the reverse. Leinberger cites some examples of it, like in Chicago where the people from the poorer southeastern suburbs drive on a toll road whose revenue primarily goes to infrastructure including highway building in the favored northwestern area. Thus, "the poor pay for the infrastructure of the rich". But yes, I think the edge cities point is a better one.

Leinberger also discusses how "locally undesirable land uses" (LULUs) get placed in the nonfavored quarters, such as airports, prisons, or dumps.

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2008 4:17 pm