From WSJ
U.S. violent-crime rates fell for the fourth consecutive year in 2010, as police agencies across the country reported significant decreases in murders, robberies and property crimes, the federal government said Monday.
Among violent crimes, robberies registered the biggest decline, down 10% in 2010 compared with 2009, while rapes decreased 5%. Murders fell 4.2% during the same period.
Property crimes fell for the eighth consecutive year, with motor-vehicle thefts decreasing 7.4% in 2010 from a year earlier and burglaries down 2% during the period.
Like driverless cars I think the significance of this is underrated. Cities display increasing returns to scale. That is, the more people you pack into one area the more productive they are.
The obvious question then is – why isn’t the world just one big city?
There are a couple of issues
- Provision of clean water
- Removal of waste materials
- Contagion
- Congestion
- Import of raw materials and food
- Weakening of Social Monitoring
The first two were solved with modern plumbing and were the secret to the first big booms in cities. The third was solved with antibiotics and vaccination and allowed cities to have a net native population growth.
It used to be that cities were so dangerous that they were a net population sink. You went to the city to get rich, catch consumption and die early.
The last three are still a problem. Subways help with congestion and driverless cars probably still will more. Nonetheless, the extent of the city is limiting in part by congestion.
Transportation costs are falling but the United States still has multiple cities in large part because different areas of the country are close to different important resource areas.
The last one – the weakness of social monitoring – is why cities are great for artists but young couples raising a family are more hesitant. The anonymity of the city means you can get away with more. That might mean an alternative life style. It might mean rape and murder.
However, with violent crime falling another barrier to urbanization is falling and an opportunity to reap the gains of agglomeration will present itself. I haven’t read Ryan’s book yet but my feeling has been that the future belongs to the New Urban Sunbelt.
The crime to density ratio has always been high here and as it falls that’s good news for sunny cities in the South.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ September 19th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Stephen Smith
Tying crime to the weakness of social monitoring seems like a bit of a stretch, considering most criminal issues in big cities are drug-related and happen in intensely insular neighborhoods. That is to say, everyone knows who shot that kid down the block – they just don’t want to tell the cops, because they know the gang the killer belongs to will kill them too if they do. Seems like this is actually an abundance of social monitoring!
Monday ~ September 19th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Lord
Global warming may slow the sunbelt.
Monday ~ September 19th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Sprizouse
I’m not sure why anyone would read Avent’s book when everything he says has been covered by a better economist, and in much more detail to boot. Seriously Karl, do yourself a favor and read Ed Glaeser’s Triumph of the City.
As for the congestion pricing… congestion pricing for drivers works wonders to limit the number of cars in any city, but the major reason our cities aren’t much much bigger is NIMBY-ism and the desire to protect “historic” neighborhoods. By not allowing new buildings to be built, (and to be built UP) we’re forcing people out into the suburbs and into the sunbelt.
Tuesday ~ September 20th, 2011 at 12:28 am
teageegeepea
The article American Murder Mystery suggested crime is being exported to suburbs and smaller cities. You can argue both ways on that. One perspective is that it better protects the value of (what should be) desirable urban locations. Another is that crime is now taking place without as much capital invested in crime abatement (such as the cameras that are filling up many cities) and whose social controls (“Towns Norm Better” as Hanson put it) are ineffective at dealing with many newcomers.
Tuesday ~ September 20th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
mn
The next 30 years will belong to the Sun Belt but in 60 years I believe you’ll see the cities like Detroit, Buffalo, Chicago, and St. Louis bounce back. Your model requires the continued access to oil, water, and affordable health care (non of which are a assured). It also requires extreme investments in infrastructure. I believe water and oil shortages combined with extreme droughts and flooding coasts will make the interior communities along major water ways once again the most desirable. Southern cities like Atlanta, Dallas, LA, Houston, Austin, and Phoenix will have a harder time adapting.
Also, falling consumer demand puts the New Urbanist model into question. New Urbanism requires consumption and a lot of it and fails to address ecological concerns. Future communities will most likely be more dense, with stronger local economies, centered around reliable water sources and a diverse transportation network. The New Urbanist model based on the colonial town will be a part of that but not as it’s being built today.
Of course we may get that technological bullet that saves the day for energy and water resources while mitigating global warming but it’s not a sure bet.
I love the diversity of your blog posts.
Tuesday ~ September 20th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Matt
Your post seems to presume that everyone wants to live in the city. How about people who prefer:
* Peace and quiet
* Nature
* Bigger homes
Even if all of your points are mitigated, there is still a sizable proportion who simply prefer the above to the attractions of a city.
Thursday ~ September 22nd, 2011 at 3:28 pm
সাতকাহন « Mukti
[...] Why don’t we all live in cities, yet? [...]
Monday ~ November 7th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Links for 2011-09-19 « Den's Random Ramblings of Rude Reality
[...] Crime and Growth on Modeled [...]