It is hard to have a rational dialogue on all important human settlement pattern issues when persistent commenters keep dumping rotten Red Herrings and irrelevant confusion on the thread.
Last year we published a column titled “Antidotes,” 9 May 2005 but that anti-virus has not helped as documented by posts to CAUSE AND EFFECT, HOODWINKED and VIRUS ALERT.
Let us look closely at the second comment posted on VIRUS ALERT. The comment cites a “Brookings Institute” (sic) study. The work was supported by The Brookings Institution and can be found on their web site but is a 1999 study by the Urban Institute. The report was written for a specific audience with a specific goal in mind. It is based on data (Bureau of Labor Statistics and a one year snapshot from D&B) that has since been proven not to provide reliable or comprehensive place-of-employment information.
There is useful information in the report but the study mixed up “inner suburbs” with “inside the Beltway.” Since Fairfax, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties fall inside and outside the Beltway and are considered to be “outer suburbs” the some of the numbers make little sense.
This is a common problem with MSM coverage of job location data. Data confusion is exacerbated by the macro aggregation of data into large geographic areas (Counties). In some cases this distortion appears to be intentional for reasons noted below. S/PI relies on small scale data aggregated into radial bands which is how the private sector views spacial (sic) information.
The Red Herring post takes the outdated report and somehow finds a basis for stating that “as of 1998 two thirds (66.66%) of the jobs were located outside the Beltway.” In fact, based on much better data in 2000 close to 70% of the jobs were inside R=10 which is approximately at the Beltway. Over 90% of the jobs were within R=20. Further, future projections in 2002 have these ratios changing little over the next 25 years. We summarize all this in “Where the Jobs Are,” 24 May 2004.
Of course there are new jobs in R=20 to R=30 and the percentage of change seems high but that is because there were few jobs there in 2000. Between 2000 and 2025 the most jobs were projected to be added inside R=10 and almost all within R=20. Citing “declines” in the Federal District is a Red, Red Herring.
“Ok” you say, that was way back in 2004, what is happening right now in 2006? Here is a paraphrase of an e-mail sent by S/PI last week on the topic of future jobs locations in the Virginia Subregion:
“The 1 February 2006 VA Newswire item on Morgan Franklin caught my eye: “… the Herndon Location is simply too far outside the Beltway (aka, R=10) to offer convenience …” A general job boom suggesting a major Subregion shift to eastern Loudoun and western Prince William is a pipedream, a gross myth.
“Those who want to be where the action is in the National Capital Subregion find that R=20 + “is simply too far out…” Those that are looking for cheap space and those who think they are big enough fish to live in a remote pond do not achieve the critical mass needed to establish a freestanding subregional market.
“AOL may have survived if it could have attracted smarter folks to West Nowhere. There was a brain drain when AOL left Tysons Corner (within R=10) and moved to R=25. They also hatched an ill conceived scheme to make real estate speculation a profit center using their own office demand as the “market.”
“It was a sign of World Com’s core-rot that management ever thought the remote site up the road from Wal*Mar-in-the-Weeds which they acquired via the UUNet acquisition was a viable place to have a major employment facility.
“AOL and World Com / UUNet were / are the only really big non-Dulles-related, non-residential service and / or non-subsidized job generators outside the R=20 in the northern part of the R=20 to R=30 radius band. As Morgan Franklin noted in their press release, Herndon (which is inside R=20) is “too far out.”
Of course there are new jobs in West Prince William (the southern part of R=20 to R=30 radius band) but not many that are not subsidized by Prince William / GMU.
If one consults a map that portrays the value per square foot of employment space (published on a regular basis in the WaPo Business Section) they will see where the market wants to go. The amazing thing is that in spite of all the subsidies, that is where most of the jobs are in fact: Within R=10. See “Where the Jobs Are” 24 May 2004, “The Commuting Problem” 17 January 2005 and “Antidotes,” 5 September 2005 as well as the data in “Five Critical Realities That Shape the Future.”
If one doubts our portrayal of trends in subregional job location, or thinks that in spite of (or because of) the highest rents in the Subregion that jobs are fleeing the Federal District take a look at last Monday’s (13 February 2006) WaPo Business section. There is new / under construction / planned in NoMa (North of Massachusetts in the Federal District) almost exactly 1/2 as much office space as there has been constructed in Tysons Corner over the last 36 years.
Why has this area not been developed before? Municipal controls, no METRO station until the New York Ave Red Line station opened but mainly it is because of dog-in-the-manger land speculation. See our blog “ON TAKINGS AND OVERARCHING SOLUTIONS.”
Then there is the largely vacant and underutilized South Capitol Corridor plan which is much more that just the Stadium site and adjacent area. As I recall the NCPC Year 2050 Plan documents there is capacity for 136 million sq ft of new space there within existing height limitations. If one third was office space that would make it almost twice the size of Tysons Corner and with a balance of J / H / S / R / A.
Where the job market wants to go is inside, not outside and there are vast amounts of land waiting to be redeveloped. That is where we need to evolve Balanced Communities.
The Balanced Community that could evolve in the South Capital area would have the pattern and density (aka, human settlement pattern) that the market documents is in the most demand in contemporary urban agglomerations and New Urban Regions.
Back to the question of job location. S/PI’s analysis of job location is based on up to date, complete and comprehensive data published in May 2002 by the Council of Governments. “Where The Jobs Are,” 24 May 2004 provides all the details, sources and background on job locations as of that date. It also includes information on the level and location of projected employment.
The facts are not really in question. The data in “Where the Jobs Are” has been published for four years and no one has challenged it. Graphics and data are included in a PowerPoint that is on the new The Shape of the Future CD which will be available at Bacons Rebellion soon.
As Jim Bacon likes to ask: If those are the facts why is there so much confusion?
The answer lies in understanding who besides those who want to develop land in the Countryside and the Loudoun and Prince William County “economic development interests” have a stake in confusing the issue of job location?
Apparently this group includes the MSM business interests because they parrot the land speculator / developer line on the “news” pages and in editorials in spite of the fact that the data in the Business Section tells a different story.
Another question is why do the inner jurisdictions were the jobs are (Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax) do not take action to make sure the facts are clear to everyone? The only reason we can discern is that if it was general knowledge what a huge imbalance of jobs existed, the pressure would rise to balance those jobs with housing and services in those jurisdictions. They are very content to have the misunderstands exist.
This misconception has the indirect impact of forcing houses to the fringes. Therein lies a root cause of the shelter crisis and the mobility and access crisis.
Now back to the Red Herring Post:
After citing the “Brookings Institute” study, the remainder of the second comment posted on VIRUS ALERT contains statements and conclusions with no more basis in fact. Some of which Jim challenged in a later comment. (We return to this in a moment.)
This brings up the question of what to do with Red Herring posts.
The most common advice is to just ignore them because no one bothers to read them and if they did they would find out they are unfounded. The post about the “Brookings Institute” study was wrong (VIRUS ALERT), the TAMU reference (as well as Bob Cervero’s quote) was wrong (HOODWINKED) and as someone e-mailed “When you do not know what you are taking about it is hard to know if someone you are trying to discredit changed topics” (CAUSE AND EFFECT).
There is a larger problem and that is highlighted by the supporting comments from other readers that the poster added to his Red Herring comment on VIRUS ALERT. These Red Herring posters support conventional wisdom and thus “Business-As-Usual.” There is no doubt this how these folks “feel” given what they understand of the dynamics of human settlement pattern and given that they do not have to pay (yet) for the location decisions that create dysfunctional human settlement patterns.
In a democracy with a market economy the only path to Funamental Change is citizens making better decisions in the voting booth and in the market place.
In addition, there is a compounding problem in the context of blogging. This particular poster got “atta boys” from other bloggers in the “any enemy of my enemy is a friend” tactic of political discourse. This makes creating citizen understanding ever more difficult.
This raises the question of whether Blogs are a contributor of beneficial Fundamental Change or just reinforce “Business-As-Usual.”
EMR
