Marathon Therapy--For Me, for the City

I am not the only person who runs as a form of therapy. In fact, it's a common enough motivation that it inspires t-shirts. I was always a runner as a kid, but I slowed down a lot after the police academy because, well, the police academy will make you sick to death of running. I would run two or three miles on a treadmill as a warm-up to weight training and because doctors say you should have 20-30 minutes of cardio a day (or has that gone up now?) but that was about it for ten years. Then, in October, we put our house on the market and I turned into a basket case. I wasn't sleeping, I had ridiculous anxiety, I was not eating well. I'm a bit high-strung anyway, and the stress of buying and selling houses, packing, and moving sent me over the edge, despite the fact that the whole process went remarkably smoothly. I was actually to the point where I thought it might be time to seek professional help. Instead, I went running. And I kept running.

As my distances began to get longer and my times faster, I began to think I might like to train for the half-marathon. After all, the twentieth anniversary of the Murrah Bombing would be coming, so the Memorial Marathon seemed like a natural fit for my first timed distance run. So I began to take it seriously. Until two months ago, I wasn't sure I'd make it. I kept getting sick over the winter with stuff my kids were bringing home, so my training was falling off. But when it warmed up and I got up to eleven miles, I signed up. A couple months later, the Half Marathon medal hangs in my closet, the 13.1 sticker is on my rear windshield, and  like many newly initiated distance runners, I'm hooked.

The Memorial Marathon was especially meaningful for me because the Memorial Half is a running tour of the neighborhoods where I've spent most of my career. I love these old neighborhoods: the tall buildings and shadowy streets of downtown, the stately approach toward the capital building, the handsome old houses of Mesta Park, Heritage Hills, and Crown Heights. Throughout the run, I got the sense that I was doing something I would never forget in places I love to remember. The whole run was very touching and meaningful for me.

I would be remiss to neglect the stated purpose of the Marathon itself: a fund raiser to support the OKC National Memorial, and an event explicitly dedicated to the memory of those lost in the Murrah Bombing. I have been reluctant to write about the events of April 19, 1995 for a number of reasons. For one thing, I am suspicious of the common "where were you when you found out," kinds of conversations. I understand the importance of public memory and take seriously the realness of public grief, but I also fear the temptation of making the event about myself, when so many, some that I know well, were effected much more personally than I. For another thing, with months of buildup by local media outlets, I fear exploitation of the event and its victims. I don't want to be simply adding to the noise, noise that a great many people, including some that I love very much, are trying as hard as they can to avoid. For some people, the notion that "We Will Never Forget" is not a well-meaning promise, but a horrifying curse.

Nevertheless, the event was a large part of my motivation to run. In 1995, my father was a crime scene detective on the Oklahoma City Police Department, and my step-father, who I lived with, was an Oklahoma City Firefighter. Both of them are strong, courageous, and empathic men, and both were caught up in the Hell of that month. My step-father spent nearly a month digging through the rubble of the bombed out building, and my father spent that same time assigned to the Medical Examiner's Office processing the bodies of the victims. Unsurprisingly, the event had a singular impact on them and on our family in ways that are, frankly, no one's business.

My dad's were and are exceptional men. They both went into their respective professions for all the right reasons. They are brave and caring, and what they experienced in that month hurt them, probably more deeply that I actually understand (they both hold their cards pretty close). I have always felt a debt to them for spending a month in a place they would not allow me to even go see. For this reason, I saw the run as a way to honor them. When training was tough, when my body was breaking down, or I felt sick, I pushed on by telling myself, "they spent a month in Hell; I can spend a few hours running." It's an empty ovation, I'm sure. A run that many people do for fun cannot really repay for the sacrifices made by any of those who were forced to sacrifice in 1995 and in the years since, but it's all I can really do: to endure in order to honor their endurance.

Beyond this, (and I didn't really think about this until during the run) it became a way to reclaim the month and the sight. April is no longer the month, and NW 5th and Harvey is no longer the place that tried to destroy my fathers and my family. It's the time and place where I accomplished something really difficult and important. In a way that is admittedly imperfect and which may or may not be lasting, at least in my own psyche, I've taken back my family. At the very least, I've reclaimed the month of April.

This notion occurred to me as a ran up Lincoln Blvd, with the field of flags in front of the capital on one side, and hand-written posters with the names of victims on the other. The Marathon itself hangs signs on light posts with the names on all 168 victims along the course, but far more touching are the hand-written signs that people along the course hold. Friends and family of victims participate as spectators, make home-made signs, hand out medals at the finish line, serve as board members, and run the race. In fact, the whole city is involved in the race. Spectators line the entire 26 mile course, stand in front of their houses handing out food and drinks to runners, and cheer for people they don't know. Neighborhood associations decorate their neighborhoods and line the streets in ridiculous costumes. Two local T.V. stations preempt programming to carry the race on live television. This communal effort speaks to the meaning of the Memorial Marathon for this city. The city was injured, horrified, and changed forever in April of 1995. But through the Marathon, we've taken back that time and place. We've reclaimed it for ourselves and for our community. Downtown in April is no longer a place of defeat, fear, and injury. Instead, it's a place of celebration, strength, endurance, and triumph.

Silent City

As an admitted OKC homer (that phrase is part of my Twitter profile description), I am proud of our city. I brag about how far it's come, how sneaky-cool it is, how it's headed in the right direction, and so on. But I'm also careful to remember that we have a long way to go, both in policy and in the culture of our city. I'm careful to accept our "city on the rise" rhetoric because I think that nothing will hinder our progress like buying too much into our own hype. There is a danger that we may become unreflective. It is in this spirit that I write this sort of "State of the Urban City."

Recently, we hosted a Korean student who needed a place to stay in the week before the dorms opened. This was his first time in the U.S. so being good hosts, we were eager to show him around as much as we could. Park, our guest, is from Seoul, South Korea, one of the great mega-cities of the world. It's home to ten million people and center of a metropolis of twenty-five million. But it's also in the midst of a transitional period between traditional Asian culture and a more westernized one. Korean young people increasingly emulate American culture. For this reason, among others I'm sure, Park was very eager to learn and we were very eager to teach. As usual, I ended up learning more than I taught.

On Park's first full day here, we took him downtown in the late afternoon. It was the tail end of a chilly workday with the Thunder on the road. It was in the last few days of December. People were ice skating at the Myriad Gardens and snow sledding at the ballpark. A family was taking family photos in the Devon Tower atrium, hispanic students rode through Bricktown on Spokies bikes and people stood in a sizable line inside Starbucks. All in all, not a bad day. By Oklahoma City standards.

On the other hand, other than these few pockets of activity, not much else was going on. The Winter Shoppes had all closed but the temporary structures were still there. Ironically, these added to the feeling that nothing was going on. After all, what says "there's nothing here" better than structures where there is supposed to be something that is no longer there. Also, though it was the end of the workday, no one hung around to walk downtown or visit pubs to unwind from the day. Nobody was walking to nearby apartments or transit stops. Instead, and despite the huge growth of the downtown housing market, most people still got into their cars and drove back to their homes in the suburbs.

We walked all over downtown. We crossed streets with ease, went into the underground when we wanted to warm up (it was also empty), bought shirts at the Thunder Shop, stood in line for $4 coffee at Starbucks, took pictures from the top of the Bricktown parking garage and in the atrium of Devon Tower. As we were walking back to the car, Park said something in his broken English that brought into perspective just how far we've come (15 years ago, I would not have brought him downtown) but also how far we have to go. It was this:

"This city is very silence."

I remember that, in college, international students from Albania who I worked a catering job with had been very disappointed in our picturesque but small college town in north-central Arkansas. They said that they had been expecting New York City. They thought all American cities would be like films of New York. I don't know whether or not Park had similar ideas when coming here, or if, more likely, he was simply comparing our city to his own. But his statement felt like a critique, or at least a counterpoint to our own rhetoric that we have come into our own as a big city. Certainly, silence is not what I want for or from our downtown.

A few days later, on New Year's Day, we took him to Qual Springs Mall. It was a totally different scene. It turns out, New Year's Day is a big shopping day (who knew). The stores and hallways were packed with people, the music was lively, people ate in the food court, and waited in line for movies at AMC. At one store, long tables of women's shoes were on sale, and the crowds had gathered to rifle through them, bumping into each other, spilling boxes onto the floor, arguing with each other and so on. We ran into people we knew at least three times, snacked, and window shopped. In other words, all the stuff that should happen on the street in healthy urban neighborhoods.

The message here, at least to me, is that with all our improvements, the centers of our lives are still out in the outskirts, where we park in huge parking lots and walk in the climate controlled, high-overhead, false urbanity of the shopping mall. One may argue that it was the cold weather than kept people from downtown, and it's not fair that I'm using a December day to critique our city. But urbanists love to point out that the number of months outdoor cafes are open in Stockholm is twelve, and the liveliest time of year in many cold German cities is Christmas, whose outdoor holiday markets are famously competitive. This may indeed be a factor here in OKC, but pedestrian cities with long winters know how to do winter.

The lesson here is that Oklahoma City is still, in large part, an event city. Downtown is lively in the hours before a Thunder home game. Midtown and SOSA is flooded on an H&8th night. However, we don't yet have a city that is organically vibrant, un-planned cool, naturally urban. We may be "on the rise," but we haven't yet risen.

Territorial Homes for Regular People

When OKC residents think of historic houses, we think of the beautiful old mansions of Heritage Hills, or the only-slightly more modest homes in neighboring Mesta Park. We think of the Overholser Mansion, built in 1903 and regarded as Oklahoma's first mansion.

But this is a working-class town, built first as a railroad depot, then as an industrial and commercial center to support the people brought to the Territory by the Land-Run, and finally as an oil town with dozens of wells actually inside city limits (and, for that matter, on the grounds of our capitol building).

For most of us, the lifestyles of these working-class people is a bit of a mystery--not one many of us have even thought about. In fact, someone informed me the other day that the first settlers to OKC after the Land Run lived in "mud huts," by which he seemed to mean the sod houses of the homesteaders. A student of Oklahoma history, however, will know that people were building permanent wood and brick structures remarkably quickly, as this photo supposedly taken four days after the land run shows. After all, we were a rail yard, which means that we had easy access to the pre-cut wood that defined the National Folk Style home.

Most of these first houses, built very quickly, were intermingled with the businesses and industries along the railroad tracks, and are of course gone, long since replaced by skyscrapers and warehouses. But just southwest of downtown, a few very early, modest homes remain.

The largest concentration of these early homes is not in Heritage Hills, but in the neglected little neighborhood between the old I-40 and the river, and between Shields and Wheeler Park. The oldest I found on my own hunt through this neighborhood was this one on SW 5th street, built in 1901:

But when researching for this post, Kate Singleton's "Intensive Level Survey of Downtown," led me to this house on a different street which was built in 1900. This may well be the oldest extant home in Oklahoma City (if there's one older, I hope someone will let me know).

Photo: Oklahoma County Assessor

The intrepid OKC-phile who is not afraid to wonder into the 600-700 blocks of SW 5th through about SW 8th will find dozens of houses built between 1905 and 1910 (plus a few built as late at the 30's and 40's). These are the homes that saw Oklahoma Territory become the State of Oklahoma.

These houses aren't particularly dignified. Most of them are hopelessly run down, and none of them appear on the National Register of Historic places. According to Singleton's survey, few, if any of them would even be eligible. They are working-class homes and have been added on to or altered often, usually as cheaply as possible by residents who had neither the resources to nor the interest in preserving the historical value of these houses.

In fact, most people in general would not be particularly interested in preserving these houses. Tiny, wood-sided houses just don't feel very historic to us. Even Paul Revere's home in Boston became a tenement and a series of shops before a descendant of Revere bought it to save it from being demolished. Houses like these may be historical, but they are not valuable.

In fact, these houses survived this long probably through an accident of twentieth-century urban planning. Cheap houses were built in this area initially because, early in the city's history, the land along the river was prone to flooding. This meant that land value here was low, so small, affordable, working-class houses were built here. They remained here likely because of Old Interstate-40. Wedged between the Crosstown Bridge and the river, this area became no-man's land, at least for the kind of people who are able to tear down old things to build new ones. Nestled safely between the formidable (and ugly) boundaries of I-40 and the North Canadian, the city's periodic attempts at urban renewal always skipped over these blocks. Thus, the fact that this land had no value meant that it was left alone. Had these historic homes been worth anything, they would be gone.

Now, however, I-40 has moved, and has been set below grade with a handsome pedestrian bridge traversing it. Money is being spent on the Core to Shore projects and we're about to put in a really nice downtown park right next door to this neighborhood.

This means that the land where these old homes sit is about to become very valuable. Several houses have already been demolished to make way for the park, and once it is done, developers will rush to acquire the land that borders the park in order to build luxury apartments and condos. These modest nuggets of territorial history will be gone--gone the way of the real Deep Deuce. So go see these houses now while you still can. But take your safety precautions.

Street Ceiling: The Aesthetic of Overhead Cables

I'll open this post with this disclaimer: this is the second post in a row that I've written in response to articles by the Gazette's Ben Felder. I don't intend to let this become a Felder response blog, but he refuses to stop writing about things I care about, so I'll indulge this once more.

This week, it's the modern streetcar project, one of the two MAPS 3 projects I actually want. As the project begins to move into the more specific design phase, the city and streetcar subcommittee must now begin exploring and deciding between wired vs. wireless systems. A wireless system would be more expensive and may push back the completion date (which would add even more expense), but some business owners don't want overhead wires, presumedly because they find them unattractive. So the city must balance both economic and aesthetic concerns. Here, I will make my argument for a wired system which will rest, perhaps surprisingly, on the second concern rather than the first.

Perhaps I'm a but eccentric, but I happen to like the aesthetic of overhead wires. Maybe it's just that I associate streetcars and other wired rail systems with my favorite cities. In particular, I think of Boston's Back Bay, where the famous Green Line comes above ground to serve Northeastern University, the Boston MFA, and Fenway Park. North of Boston, in Cambridge, the busses have moved to hybrid electric motors and are served by overhead lines.  These are my family's old stomping grounds, where I spent many vacations visiting family. Lights rail systems and overhead lines are part of the fabric of a place that holds cherished memories for me.

Electric busses in Cambridge, MA. Photo: Wikipedia

So maybe my love of overhead lines is simple nostalgia. But I think there is a more academic explanation as well, one that I think people without my own summer vacation experiences can appreciate. Urbanist author James Howard Kuntsler explains the importance of good urban design in creating "outdoor rooms" to provide a sense of enclosure. For Kunstler, the appropriate height of buildings, the presence of mature street trees, and controlling the width of streets (to be in proper scale with the height of the buildings) are all important in creating this sense of a large outdoor room.

There are obvious physical reasons for this type of design. Good urban design provides shade and ready protection from the elements, not to mentions passing cars and the fear of street crime. But there are also important psychological qualities to good urban design. A well enclosed (but still porous) streetscape provides a sense of security in the same way that a familiar room or building might.

For Kuntsler, buildings built to the sidewalk, street trees, and narrow streets provide this sense of enclosure, of outdoor rooms, by surrounding a pedestrian with walls with the trees acting as a vaulted ceiling. For me, the overhead cables of a streetcar line provide another kind of ceiling, one less cathedral-like to be sure, but a comforting one nonetheless.

Perhaps this is part of why the spaces where I have the clearest memories of overhead cables are quieter urban neighborhoods like Boston's back bay, Cambridge MA, Midtown Memphis, and sections of San Francisco.

Overhead lines and row houses in San Francisco.

If the tall spaces of a downtown financial district are a city's cathedrals, these surrounding urban neighborhoods with their shorter rooflines and overhead cables are the city's living rooms, the cozy spaces where enculturated locals live.

These neighborhoods, because they have the feeling of a comfortable family room (as opposed to the towering intimidation of a business district full of skyscrapers, or the desert-like wide expanses of a suburban arterial street) provide a kind of stickiness. There is a reason transit stops attract urban housing and small business. Certainly, easy access to mass transit is part of it, but it is also the case that these places are usually the most pleasant to hang out in. I imagine how pleasant it would be to sit in front of Coffee Slingers, protected from traffic by the street parking, and comfortably enclosed by the walls of brick buildings built to the curb curbline and the ceiling of streetcar lines. It's easy to stick to a place like this. So bring on the cables. I, for one, look forward to having this OKC back:

Photo: ACOG Blog

Compulsive Progress and the Death of Stage Center

I remember passing by Stage Center when I was a kid and thinking that it was an industrial building with its suspended condenser units and grain elevator looking staircases.  When I got old enough to know what the building actually was, this knowledge made me feel like a real OKC insider. As I grew up, I began to think of the building as the centerpiece of the Arts Festival (the one time of year I was really around the building back then). I understood that the design of the building was meant to be artistic long before I knew that in fact all architecture was. I thought of Stage Center as a building that was also a sculpture--as art that housed art.

When Carpenter Square moved out of Stage Center after flooding a couple of years ago, I desperately hoped they would move back in. Even after the theatre moved into its new building, I held out hope that it would eventually return "home." I naively thought that some benefactor would eventually bankroll a project to renovate the building and move Carpenter Square back in. This hope faded as Stage Center began to deteriorate. The water features were drained, transient camps grew up in the center of the building only to be torn down by the city then rebuilt again, the walkways were boarded up, then boarded up again with taller boards.

Now the building is set to be demolished to make way for a new skyscraper. When the Stage Center comes down, it will be the newest victim of Oklahoma City's compulsive habit of tearing down its own history to make way for Progress. 

Any long time resident of OKC will be familiar with this habit. As David Pettyjohn told Ben Felder for in the Gazette, "there is this perception that preservation impedes progress."

In 2010, I wrote a short graduate paper (actually designed to be a sample paper for a freshman assignment) in which I performed a rhetorical analysis of this MAPS 3 advertisement:

I argued that the ad operates by exploiting what I called OKC's "fear of devolution," or a fear that any slowing of forward "momentum" amounted to going backward. In fact, the MAPS 3 ad above actually makes this claim when it shows us a dreary 1994 photo of California Ave as the narrator says that, "we can go back to the way things were, or we can build our city and create jobs without raising taxes" as if a failure to pass MAPS 3 would have meant draining the canal, replacing it with a pock marked street and vacant warehouses, and once again buying lawn mowers for the North Canadian.

When I was researching for that 2010 project, I was surprised to find that this rhetorical move has been a hallmark of political ads in OKC for many years. As far back as the "Yes 'Em All" ad campaign for a bond issue in 1968, ads in OKC have relied on this fear of devolution. The "Yes 'Em All" sold us on four lane roads (and the bond issue to build them) by claiming that "we're at a crossroads. We can stop, or we can go forward."

It's incredible how often this message reappears in OKC's discourse of growth. Since I wrote that paper, I've continued to see it in some form with surprising regularity. Even the fundraising ads for the still incomplete American Indian Cultural Center rely on this thread. 

There's an odd pathology in this discourse, one that has been present since at least 1968, and which has had extraordinary impact on the infrastructure and urban planning of Oklahoma City since the [failed] urban renewal projects of the 1970s.

Interestingly, despite the expensive and crippling failure of 1970s style urban renewal, both policy makers and voters in Oklahoma City continue to insist that the only route to progress (whatever that means) is through the continual construction of new things. It's as if we are so convinced that we, as I have often heard of our state, "have no history" that we believe our only option is to be the next up-and-coming city. If we can't attract people with our rich history, the way a city like Boston might, we'll have to attract them with our sparkling newness. In this pursuit, we have consistently denied our own very interesting and decidedly rich, albeit compact, history and subsequently torn it down.

We are, then, stuck in this odd recursive process: we fear that we have no "history" to rely on, so we must build new things to attract people. In building new things, we tear down all our old things. In tearing down our old things, we prevent anything from becoming storied. Because we have nothing storied, we fear that we have no history. Da Capo al infinitum.

Bizarre old Stage Center is the latest victim of this process which, by all signs, will likely continue. And so goodbye Stage Center. May you find architectural heaven and there be with the Biltmore Hotel,   the Criterion Theater, the Hales Building, and so many others.

Alternative Other Cities: San Francisco's Mission District Murals

In the heart of San Francisco's Mission District, between Valencia and Mission lies Clarion Alley, a sketchy service alley fronted by the sides of buildings and fences. Yet it's one of the most visited places in the neighborhood by locals and tourists alike. This is because Clarion Alley is one of a number of alleys in the Mission that are lined with mural art.

The semi-legal art of the alley is of varying quality. Some of it is obviously very purposefully inspired by the mural art movement of Diego Rivera, some of it is more akin to the well done graffiti of urban taggers. Most of it is highly political or social in nature. It's the kind of stuff that in more conservative cities would be totally unacceptable. It's freeform, tacky, occasionally offensive, and always critical of the status quo. It's also beautiful, daring, and incredibly popular.

The alley is loosely and organically organized like an outdoor gallery. Artists claim space, marking the area of wall or fence or asphalt that they intend to use, begin chalk outlines of their work, and inscribe (also in chalk) the apparently uniform statement "Mural in progress. Please respect." And, for the most part, people do. There are clearly some rivalries and grudges between artists occasionally at play, since a couple of these in-progress murals have been tagged with "cop lover," an obviously pejorative title in this context. But otherwise, it is a very democratic and open space, where artists work and others respect it. No one is paying for ad space, or being invited by a curator. Instead, artists contribute what they will on whatever space happens to come available.

A panel on the west end of the alley (which has, unlike the murals, been tagged prolifically) explains the purpose of the alley in both English and Spanish.

Inspired by Balmy Alley [another alley in the Mission] and determined to build more autonomy, a group of us got together, spoke to our neighbors, went to City Hall and Clarion Alley began its journey as a place that wants to be free. A place where culture and dignity speak louder than the rules of private property.

Embedded in such a statement is the understanding that the buildings and fences that line the alley may be private property, but they are public space. Thus, this is where local urban artists carry on a pubic discussion in a rather subversive aesthetic style.

As I looked over these murals, and took the time to consider their aesthetic quality and their messages, I couldn't help but to mourn the loss of the now gone "Legal Wall" in Oklahoma City's Automobile Alley district. Most people in OKC likely never even knew about it. It was well hidden in an unnamed service alley running between NW 10th and Park, just east of Broadway.

My understanding of the history of the Legal Wall is a bit apocryphal, a mixture of what I've heard from police detectives and street artists. It started, supposedly, when the building owner of the corner building at 10th and Broadway, apparently out of philosophical conviction,  agreed to allow some graffiti artists to work on the back of his building. The art soon spread to the other building that lined this alley, the other building owners either deciding to go along with it, or just not seeing the point of complaining.

A panorama of OKC's "Legal Wall"

When the building changed hands, the city quickly and quietly covered the graffiti up before the new owner took possession of the building. Where the bright colors, strange graphics, and curious text used to be, there are now only walls painted a brick red color. The artists, most of whom considered themselves serious and law abiding (though some where not) and a few of whom in fact had gallery shows at other location have respected the new owners, so the walls remain the drab false brick color.

Curiously, not long after the art on these walls was covered, the front of the very beautiful former Oklahoman building a few blocks away was tagged with South Town Barrio gang graffiti. Although one did not cause the other, for me, the incident highlighted was was tragic about the end of the Legal Wall.

The graffiti in the alley, artistic and in its own way subversive, may have been cluttered and tacky, and it certainly didn't represent the canonized aesthetic that conservative cities like OKC are willing to call "art," but it gave the alley a sense of place.  While the Legal Wall was there, there was the feeling that people cared about this place. Artists were coming to work on their pieces, interested hipsters were coming to look at the work, high school seniors were coming to use the cool, gritty urban setting as a backdrop for their senior pictures, and so on. The wall turned an empty and neglected alley into a pubic space with a life.

Our Legal Wall certainly wasn't as developed as the thriving mural scene in San Francisco's Mission district. In the Mission, the murals are rather sophisticated--portraits of people and landscapes, rather than the text based train-car graffiti of the Legal Wall. The Mission murals, furthermore, are a mature, living, visual political conversation, unquestionably of a public nature. The legal wall was amateurish and immature by those standards. But what the Legal Wall shared with the Mission murals was an important assumption about public space. The open source, democratic space of graffiti art supports a sense of co-ownership over the public space it inhabits.  The artists own it because they do their work there. The viewer owns it because he comes and goes to look at something he admires or just finds curious. High school seniors come to get the feeling that they are street savvy city kids, and have the pictures to prove it. Once the legal wall was gone, however, the co-owners of the space were gone, replaced by the distant, faceless owner of the building--a person of whose existence we have no real concept of.

So the STB gang graffiti incident, to me, became a picture if what happens when the people who feel a sense of ownership of a place, the people who have some reason to care about it and thus who watch over it, leave.

A Caution to Urbanists: The Ethics of Gentrification

Each year, the FBI publishes (in several steps) comprehensive data from its UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting) reports. Media outlets gather the data and scramble to publish stories in which they produced rankings based on violent crime. Readers then eagerly look for their own cities on these notorious Top 10 lists. This year's lists (which use 2012 statistics) are showing an interesting reverse trend in which large cities, long regarded by suburbanites as dangerous, crowded, and dirty, are falling off the top lists. Perineal top seed Detroit has fallen to number 6 in violent crime per capita. Other usual superstars like Memphis, Atlanta (26th), and Washington DC (now 46th!) have fallen out of these lists entirely.

Over the past several years, these cities have been replaced on violent crime lists by old industrial hubs and suburban (but poor) cities on the outskirts of major cities. Memphis is gone, but West Memphis, AR is now number 4. Detroit is gone, but it's been replaced by Inkster, Flint, and Saginaw. Saint Louis remains on the top ten list, but number one on the list is East Saint Louis, IL (a horrifyingly polluted and poor city featured in Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities).

To those of us who grew up thinking about the suburbs as the upper-middle class, clean, safe havens defined by manicured lawns, pizza places, parks, and high school sports, this trend may seem strange. These are the images that the suburb brings to mind in the US, but in other countries, this is not the case. In large French cities, the banlieues (outskirts or suburbs) have long been the home of poor people in subsidized housing--the home also of crime, gangs, and political turmoil. They are more like what we here the in US would think of as the inner city--poor, under-served, and racially segregated. Such an arrangement, which seems a kind of reverse urban arrangement to us in the US, exists for easily traceable reasons. Large cities in France (and other parts of Europe) are old, beautiful, gentrified, highly walkable (which ensures a lot of people are always out, with their eyes on things), and well used. People want to be there, and people want to live there. This means that property values in the city are very high. As a result, undesirables in these cities, rather than being abandoned by white flight, have instead been pushed to the outskirts. In these cities, where there is high incentive to attract and keep tourists, public housing and social service agencies are built away from the core of the city--away from where tourists might see that Paris or Lyon have problems too.

In the US, on the other hand, the post-war industrial boom (namely in the automotive industry), cheap (heavily subsidized) gasoline, fear of the polluted industrial city, and good-old fashioned American spirit of expansion led to the opposite. People who could afford to fled the cities into the new suburbs, leaving behind the poor, undereducated, and minorities in the inner cities. When they left, they took all their resources (especially in terms of taxable property value) with them.

The result, in both countries, has been that large cities are highly segregated. Though the spacial arrangement is flipped, both countries have large cities divided into geographic areas whose residents know very little of the people in the other area. In both countries, this division is clearly drawn along lines that are class and race oriented. Here in the US, all respectable middle class children are taught that you are to stay away from a certain "side of town." Likewise, kids who live on that "side of town" discern quickly that they are not welcome on our side. What results from this geographical and social arrangement is a situation in which people in the inner city (in our case) are made to believe that the resources available to the affluent are not available to them, and the affluent, even if they are well meaning people, are not often acquainted with the plight of people living in the inner city. So people in the inner city live in squalor, while people in the suburbs live in affluence. The affluent especially are trained to see this as the natural way of things. It is, I would argue, a highly unethical arrangement. And it is, in part, perpetuated by geography.

The good news is that influential, affluent educated people are moving back to the city in droves. The New Urbanists celebrate the fact that late Gen-Xers (like me), Millennials, and even aging baby boomers are packing up their advanced degrees and moving back into the cities. Those of us in this group desire walkable neighborhoods, mass transit options, shorter commutes, more night life and many other things that come with living in a rich urban environment. This is great news for a lot of reasons. But it also comes with a danger.

I am admittedly a novice (I'm a rhetorician who fell into New Urbanism through a love of the city and through researching rhetorics of space), but I sense a bit of a divide in the literature of New Urbanism. Architects and city planners, like Jeff Speck, often address the benefits of urbanism in terms of economics and conservation. Their focus tends to be the benefits of density, walkability/bike-ability, and mass transit options. To academics and authors, like Jane Jacobs and James Howard Kunstler (New-Urbanist doomsday profit), social ethics are more central. Kunstler talks at length (citing Jacobs often) about the potential for urban living to bring people closer together in space, thus forcing them into awareness of one another. For him, the mixed use, mixed income nature of naturally urban environments is a road to cure for many of the social ills brought about by the segregated communities indicative of sprawl. Though Kunstler is at times, I think, a bit reductive in his attitudes toward the poor (he believes a major benefit of mixed income housing is that the poor will learn how to behave by watching the affluent--an assertion that carries some problematic assumptions), he nevertheless understands that the way that we live in built space has important social-ethical dimensions.

I don't intend to suggest that urban planners and architects aren't interested in these concerns (many of them no doubt are), but their professions seem to make these concerns secondary in their writing. Further, since these are the writers who have the ears of public officials (and perhaps because public officials tend to listen to parts of things they like), it is possible for the economic progress promised by urbanism to become center stage in public discussion while the ethical dimensions of geographical space remain invisible.

This can very well lead to an inappropriate form of gentrification. As we invest in our rich urban environments (which we should and must do), it is possible to lose sight of the importance of mixed use, mixed income neighborhoods. It is possible that in our enthusiasm to attract well educated, relatively affluent people back into our urban cores, we may also drive others out. One of my few critiques of Jeff Speck's Walkable City (a current intellectual man-crush of mine) is his somewhat unqualified assertion that our downtowns should be the focus of our efforts because "downtown is the only part of the city that belongs to everybody (260). This certainly can be true, and should be, but it isn't necessarily true. As long as we keep social/geographical arrangements ethical, Speck's argument is unassailable: if we can't fix an entire city (we never can) we should start with the parts of city that benefit the most people. However, the work of Mike Davis in Fortress Los Angeles (and some of my own graduate research) suggests the ways in which space can and sometimes is effectually shut off from undesirable people. Davis's article is an extreme (but real-life) example of the ways in which it is possible to build a section of city for ourselves, then literally wall other people out.

As we move back into the city, we demand better schools, better security, and better housing. These are all good things and can, if done correctly, better the lives of both us and the people who already live in these areas. But they can also take the form of charter schools that can remove our kids from traditionally underserved inner city schools, police harassment of the homeless or addicted roaming the streets, and skyrocketing property values that drive out those who had lived there.

In other words, it's possible that our arrival can in fact make things much worse for other people. It's possible that, rather than bringing people closer together both in space and sentiment, we will instead just drive others out to make room for ourselves. It is possible for us to fail at changing the unethical arrangement of urban sprawl, but instead to simply to flip-flop it. If this happens, we have gone in the wrong direction, ethically, because we will have moved the poor out into the suburbs where the lack of viable public transportation and density of social services further isolates them. This may, I suspect, be part of what we are seeing in the crime statistics cited above. The popularity of urban living is creating a kind of reverse white-flight.

So, my charge here is that as we continue advocate for urbanism, we make a purposeful effort to keep the conversation balanced so that our city leaders see not only the economic benefits of urbanism, but the ethical dimensions as well. As we pressure them to allocate resources to attract the educated, we must also pressure them to stay attuned to the needs of those already living in the urban areas into which we are trying to move. We do this by making sure that they understand that part of what makes urban living attractive to us is the diversity of the city. In order to maintain a level of diversity, it will be important that housing options remain diverse, that schools serve privileged and underprivileged students equally, and that our downtown truly does, as Speck suggests, belong to everyone.