Greater Greater Washington

Development


The favored quarter, illustrated

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).

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

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 • linkreport

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 • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or