AntiRust

Cartoons: A Triumph of Suburban Virtue?

So my twin boys are a shade older than two-years, and they are starting to develop "favorites." One of them is Clifford the Big Red Dog. I have never seen an episode of the animated TV show, but my wife has. And the other day I heard her singing the theme song. I can't recall the words, but they tell the story of a city family that gets a dog... and then has to move because the dog gets too big and the family needs more space. And sure enough, here's the overarching narrative, as explained on Wikipedia:

Clifford was the runt of the litter, and was chosen by a city kid named Emily Elizabeth Howard as her birthday present. No one expected Clifford to grow, but Emily Elizabeth's love for her Saint Bernard (or Great Dane according to some sources) puppy changed Clifford dramatically. Before long, he was over 25 feet tall, forcing the Howard family to leave the city and move to the open spaces of Birdwell Island.

Ah, open spaces. The American Dream.

So what to make of this? Nothing, I suppose. But that never stopped me before.

I remember discussing other television shows in this regard a while back. I was having a hard time thinking of any popular sitcoms or dramas that portrayed city living in any other way than its current stereotypes. Cities are for criminals (any cop or hospital drama) or smarmy young professionals who haven't quite grown up yet. (Friends, How I Met Your Mother, etc.) Even the Huxtables lived out in Brooklyn... not in an apartment in a high-density neighborhood, but in a lovely brownstone. The family was constantly milling about in the backyard and shooting hoops in the driveway, which was always packed full of hilarious cars that the kids had procured in some fashion or another.

So now I am thinking about cartoons. And apart from the Jetsons (maybe), I am having a hard time thinking of any set in a city. There's Sesame Street, if you expand the idea out to "children's programs," but suburbia seems like the preferred backdrop by a long shot. The Simpsons. The Flintstones. Archie. Etc. Sure, there are a few set in cities, such as Super Friends and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but again, these reinforce the idea of cities as a place to fight crime.

Hmmm...

Vacant Buldings in Pittsburgh: Advantage, DeSantis

One of the constant complaints about downtown Pittsburgh--and one of the most frequent justifications for government intervention in downtown's revitalization--is the scourge of vacant buildings. They attract bums and crime and hookers and drugs!

That's true, I guess. So it might be a good thing that the National Vacant Properties Campaign held its annual confab in Pittsburgh this week. I didn't go. But I wonder if they discussed the fact that the owner of quite a few of those vacant buildings just so happens to be... The City of Pittsburgh. You know. The city that bought or seized the properties and then never got around to doing anything with them. Then complained that nobody was doing anything with them, and pointed to that as proof that further intervention was needed. Then passed them along to favored developers at a loss.

The argument against this kind of quackery is a tough one to make politically, as it removes a good deal of the power that city officials wield. But take a look at Mark DeSantis and his shiny new economic development proposals. What's number one on the list? (Emphasis added.)

First, DeSantis says the city government needs to get out of the real estate business. DeSantis proposes reforming the Urban Redevelopment Authority for the 21st century. This involves merging the city planning department and the URA and focusing on neighborhood and community development.

"We have the URA, but right now that does little more than serve as a real estate and relocation business for big companies. The URA should be driven by neighborhood and community planning, not by the interests and ambitions of private developers," said DeSantis.

I know where my vote's going.

Post-Gazette Versus the Tribune-Review: Who's the Nutjob Now?

I have no dog in the fight over Richard M. Scaife's divorce papers. The ethics--quite apart from the legality--of posting documents you know to have been sealed by the court seem a little off. But "journlistic ethics" belong in the same category as "military intelligence." It's a dirty business.

But everyone can play. I have no inside information at all. But I wonder if there are currently any reporters scouring divorce, birth and other documents related to the Block family or any of the editors at the Post-Gazette. The Post-Gazette has established that the owner of a newspaper is a public figure. So... I wouldn't be surprised to see this escalate. We'll see, though.

By the way, a main point of contention here is whether an unprofitable newspaper counts as a business or a hobby. Because only a nutjob like Scaife would dump $20 million a year down the drain to run a newspaper. Right?

Um... Here's the Post-Gazette reporting on it's own contract talks last December (emphasis added):

The Post-Gazette has more than 40 fewer newsroom employees than it did five years ago, including at least 15 jobs lost this year alone, said Post-Gazette columnist Brian O'Neill, speaking for the union at the rally.

Joe Molinero, president of the newspaper's 375-member Teamsters union, said that there would "definitely be some reductions" in jobs. "How we accomplish that we just don't know yet," he said.

A statement from the company noted that the Post-Gazette is headed for a $20 million operating loss in 2006.

SportsWorks, Light Rail and a $5 Million Question

I am sure everyone has heard that the Port Authority plans to buy SportsWorks (for $5 million) and demolish it. From the Post-Gazette:

It has long been known that the North Shore Connector project, which will extend light rail from Downtown across the Allegheny River, could force SportsWorks to move.

Discussions between Port Authority and the science center began in earnest roughly a year ago when the $435 million project became a reality.

Question (and maybe a simple one, but what the heck...): Does this announcement turn a $435 million project into a $440 million project? Or was the $5 million for this always in the budget?

If so, why didn't they announce this before? If it requires new money... That's more than a one percent increase. A few more of these and pretty soon we'll be talking real money.

The Urban Middle Class: Is this Any Way to Live?

People who are keen on city living often point to Manhattan's resurgence as proof that people really, really like Big Transit, Big Residential and other aspects of "urbanity." Which is undoubtedly true for millions upon millions of people.

But you have to take the good with the bad. And there is some bad. From today's New York Observer:

Census Bureau numbers out last week show a New York City that’s not surprising to anyone who’s undergone the arduous process of a New York apartment search: We live small, transiently and expensively; and it hasn’t changed much, even in this era of Wall Street bonus records and $50 million apartments at the Plaza and post-Giuliani gentrification.

Little wonder the solidly middle class are fleeing the city. Rather than sink over one-third of its monthly income into housing costs—whether through mortgages or rents—a household making between $40,000 and $60,000 a year generally exits the city, leaving the very wealthy and the working class behind to further stratify the Big Apple.

As always, it is terribly dangerous to use Manhattan as an example of anything. But that never stops anybody on either side of the debate.

UPDATE: Wow. The Observer is packed full this week. Here's an article about New York as an auto-friendly city:

Ms. Robinson is hardly alone in her secret suburban car lust these days. In fact, for all the talk of the evils of automobiles, she is in decidedly turbo-charged company. From Greenpoint to Red Hook, Inwood to Astoria—across all of the city’s young, lifestyle neighborhoods, really—New Yorkers of a certain breed and background have taken to toting their four-wheeled friends down to the city, dragging them through the streets like well-worn baby blankets. ...

“Oh, I hope New York’s not becoming L.A.-ified, because I moved to New York to get away from L.A.,” gasped Laura Allen, 24, a giggly SoCal native, right before she hopped into her boyfriend’s white Jeep Cherokee and turned its muscular tires onto the smoothness of Williamsburg’s North First Street.

New York, of course, has always been more of a car town than romantics like to admit. From the earliest days—or at least from as far back as anyone reading this paper can probably remember—Gothamites have used cars, improbably and impractically, as everything from performance pieces and getaway vehicles to status symbols, primal therapy props, bumper cars, mafia-mobiles, and avatars in the giant video game that is New York.

But there is something strange—or particularly strange—about the car culture that has taken root in certain swaths of the city in recent years, sprouting up alongside the former kids of suburbia as they have continued their march across Boerum Hill, the South Slope, Williamsburg, Astoria. As many of these drivers will admit, they wouldn’t keep a car if they lived in the parking-space tundra of Manhattan. But with their move to the boroughs—to the land of “far-flung” specialty stores, parking-space-lined streets, and the accelerated domesticity of brownstone life—they have realized that they can resurrect the customs of their pre-urban past.

And then there's this article exploring what Jane Jacobs would think about current developments in the city:

“How many middle-class families with children do you see being raised in the West Village today?” asked Christopher Klemek, a 33-year-old assistant professor of history, sitting at a table outside the White Horse Tavern on Hudson Street late last week.

Mr. Klemek has been pondering the question over the past several months as he put together an exhibition on Jane Jacobs, the onetime Village resident who became an urban prophet simply by gazing out her window a few doors away from the tavern. Actually, the question does not take much to ponder. Just use Jacobs’ primary method of research: look around.

“When Jacobs was here, this was a neighborhood which included old working-class tenants from old immigrant stock, new immigrant groups, particularly Puerto Ricans who were just coming into New York in large numbers, middle-class families like her own, some affluent residents, as well as bohemian counter-cultural figures,” Mr. Klemek continued. “This is not a neighborhood that can support that broad swath of social diversity any longer. There are a few people grandfathered in there with rent control, but not new arrivals.”

High-End or Low-End: What Does Pittsburgh Need? And Who Should Pay for It?

Here we go again with the downtown housing. A few days back, the Post-Gazette was reporting that medium-range housing is what really needs government assistance.

While housing has helped to boost the fortunes of the Downtown district, it has been out of the reach of many people because of the price.

At the same time, Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership research has found a "tremendous demand" for a middle range that includes young professional housing and work-force housing, said Patty Burk, vice president of housing and economic development.

... Part of the problem in providing more affordable housing in downtowns, here and elsewhere, is the high cost of construction, which leads developers to focus on the high end to turn a profit. Lower pricing typically requires some form of subsidy.

Well, of course lower-end housing needs assistance. So why isn't there more of this money available for the working-class housing Pittsburgh so desperately needs? Um... from today's Post-Gazette:

Thursday's grand opening of Bedford Springs Resort marks a milestone in its $120 million rehabilitation, capping more than two decades of monumental efforts to revive the Bedford County mountain retreat.

It also represents one of the largest projects in Pennsylvania to take advantage of a federal tax credit program that has spurred nearly $300 million of investment in Pittsburgh the past decade.

Examples include Downtown's Renaissance Pittsburgh Hotel, Heinz Lofts on the North Side and the Armstrong Cork Factory, a $60 million project with three luxury apartment buildings that opened in May in the Strip District.

Three luxury apartment buildings? I thought that developers recouped the cost on those by charging more rent? Huh.

Life Without Cars: Better?

Here's one that ought to piss some people off: An article applauding Fire Island--yeah, that Fire Island--for remaining (virtually) car-free lo these many years.

Check it out. Is that a better life?

And a question: If it is a better life, why don't more people live that way? The article makes it sound simple enough.

It wouldn't have to be a ferry. The linear nature of the island naturally brings to mind a rail line. Something like this could work in any suburban setting, if people had a mind to make it work and the equivalent of the freight boat was available for bulky deliveries.

Anybody looking forward to that?

Creative-Class Credibility: What Pittsburgh REALLY Needs...

... is for one of our whippersnappers to grow up and get famous. But not too famous. (Hipsters are touchy about such things.) Wait... What I mean is, check out this article from Slate. It's all about Portland, Oregon, and how all the indie bands are moving there. Why are they moving there? Glad you asked:

So what's luring them here? The rockers themselves have somewhat confusingly praised Portland as a city "entrenched in juvenilia" (Sleater-Kinney's Carrie Brownstein), a place with a sense of "calm longevity" (chief Decemberist Colin Meloy), and a home of "really great public transportation" (the Shins' Mercer, who, it's safe to assume, didn't come here for the bus routes). If there's any alluring indie mystique to Portland, it's most likely due to the late Elliott Smith, who attended high school on the west side of town and recorded his most-loved work here. (Mercer even owns Smith's old house.) Before Smith, Portland's primary musical contribution to the universe was the Kingsmen's "Louie Louie." But Smith, on albums like Roman Candle and Either/Or, sketched a virtual map of the city with his whispery voice, and he went so far as to adopt a local street name, Elliott Street, as his first name—his birth name was Steven. For fans like myself, Smith's music made Portland seem infinitely more romantic than it ever could be in real life. (Case in point: 45 consecutive days of rain = not actually romantic.)

But in the end, which is the cart and which is the horse? Check this out:

One could easily view the walrus mustache, short-shorts, and calf-high socks Malkmus was sporting last summer as evidence for such decadent, regal motivations—"I'm Stephen Malkmus, and I lengthen my shorts for no one"—but really, it's probably just proof that musicians like him moved to Portland for the same reason as the rest of us: It's easy to live here. In the words of a friend of mine who used to be the music editor at the local alt-weekly, Portland is like a resort community for indie rockers who spend half the year working themselves ragged on tour. You can venture into public dressed like a convicted sex offender or a homeless person, and no one looks at you askew. It's lush and green. Housing is affordable, especially compared with Seattle or San Francisco. The people are nice. The food is good. Creativity is the highest law. For young, hip Portlanders, financial success is a barista job that subsidizes your Romanian-space-folk band or your collages of cartoon unicorns.

So is creativity the law because all those other factors encouraged creative people? Or did creative people bring good food and cheap housing? Now I'm all confused again.

I would only add that, even though I haven't checked the numbers, I bet Pittsburgh is cheaper than Portland. Does that mean I should get some short-shorts and start painting unicorns? If so, I think I would rather live someplace a little less creative.

So... Which Kind of Housing Needs Government Assistance?

... Or, I guess the better question is, which kind doesn't?

From the Post-Gazette:

While housing has helped to boost the fortunes of the Downtown district, it has been out of the reach of many people because of the price.

At the same time, Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership research has found a "tremendous demand" for a middle range that includes young professional housing and work-force housing, said Patty Burk, vice president of housing and economic development.

... Part of the problem in providing more affordable housing in downtowns, here and elsewhere, is the high cost of construction, which leads developers to focus on the high end to turn a profit. Lower pricing typically requires some form of subsidy.

So. When the Piatts and PNC promise to build high-end condos, we need to open our wallets because the market just can't support those kinds of projects yet.

Unless someone proposes different projects like apartments for middle-class people. In which case apartments for middle-class people are the kinds of projects the markets can't support. And what downtown really needs is middle-class people, so those tax credits and other subsidies make sense.

Unless, of course, someone is proposing high-end condos. In which case what downtown needs is rich people.

Got it.

In the meantime, for a blast from the central-planning past, here's a glimpse at where we were seven years ago:

Can Downtown housing happen without help from the city?

"No, it is not possible," Keane said. "It can't be done."

Some developers have asked the city to be more aggressive in helping loft conversions.

Pittsburgh, though, has been slow to react.

"I share their frustration," Tom Cox, Mayor Tom Murphy's chief aide, said two years ago. "We wish we were further along, but we have been focusing on retail, and we probably have not been able to focus on housing in the way we should because we're trying to get other things done."

That Lazarus store ought to be paying dividends any day now. I take SkyBus there, personally.

I kid. I kid.

Selective Journalism: The Post-Gazette Is at It Again

Today's Post-Gazette reports on new developments in a proposed smoking ban:

Now, as lawmakers return to Harrisburg, a coalition of interested groups is trying a new tactic to get the Legislature to reach an agreement on legislation to ban smoking in workplaces, bars, restaurants and casinos.

"Interested groups," eh? What kind of interested groups? Well...

This week, advertisements, paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and calling for a statewide law banning smoking in the workplace, have started to run in newspapers and on radio stations across the state.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation? Who the hell are they? Surely the Post-Gazette asked around. Or maybe not. The paper doesn't offer any details about the group. But it's paying a kajillion dollars to influence legislation in Pennsylvania. Despite being located in New jersey. Hmmm...

Maybe it would be worth looking at the RWJF. To see what they do. To see the people with whom they are affiliated. Here are some details. Here are more. And more. And more.

Turns out that RWJF is one of the biggest and most powerful philanthropic organizations on the planet. It dumps gobs of cash on all sorts of things. Like alcohol control and tobacco control and trans-fat control. Sense a theme?

Perhaps even more important, as you might see from the links, RWJF has very close ties with Johnson & Johnson. The gargantuan pharmaceutical company. Which just so happens to produce and sell products such as Nicoderm and Nicoderm CQ. Both designed to help people... lose weight? Get over a fear of public speaking?

No. Nicoderm is designed to help people quit smoking.

Getting people to quit smoking is one of the stated goals of most campaigns to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

OK. So maybe that's muckraking. And maybe just because some people have a vested interest in some given legislation doesn't mean that's the only reason they support that legislation. And maybe the Post-Gazette holds a hard line on that position.

Or maybe not. Here's a news story from a few months back detailing a lawsuit several bar owners filed against a smoking ban. It goes into great detail about Big Tobacco, and how the evil forces of corporate America were funding the lawsuit. It was headlined: "Tobacco  company funding legal challenge to smoking ban." The Post-Gazette ran a follow-up editorial the next day:

Inevitably, a couple of establishments sued and, to the unwary, they may seem like sympathetic plaintiffs: Mitchell's Bar and Restaurant and the Smithfield Cafe, Downtown, where smokers have been welcome for years.

But, as it turns out, these redoubts of the common man have an uncommonly rich supporter: R.J. Reynolds. The Post-Gazette has been told that the huge tobacco company, which is based in Winston-Salem, N.C., is paying the legal bills for the restaurant owners.

There's nothing unusual about this. It is par for the course. In the Nov. 7 election in Ohio, R.J. Reynolds spent millions of dollars in unsuccessfully supporting Issue 4, a smokescreen referendum question that was meant to fool voters and sabotage a genuine anti-smoking initiative backed by the American Cancer Society among others.

It was further proof that Big Tobacco will stop at nothing to try to block legislation that sensibly limits the use of its noxious products in the interests of public health. When the lawsuit is heard in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court next week, the public needs to know that the sympathetic party is not the one backed by R.J. Reynolds.

So. If the Post-Gazette's editors get pissed off when hugely wealthy entities that have a financial interest in proposed legislation try to impact that legislation, we ought to be seeing an editorial blasting RWJF's ads tomorrow. Right?

Or is the indignation selectively applied?

Crappy. Journalism.

I have come to expect it from the editorial page. But I do hope that the news pages will at least take a look at RWJF's interests in future articles.