Yesterday and Tomorrow
SAN FRANCISCO, August 2003--This past month I had the opportunity to explore two American cities I had not previously been to. Both had pleasant surprises in store. In each I also saw potential for creating a more lively, dense, and enjoyable urban community. More, the cities, when compared, can demonstrate a need for a federal program to provide incentives for people to live where living is practical.
The first city I visited was Milwaukee. I had not known much about Milwaukee before my visit, other than that it had torn down a portion of a freeway, had a heritage rich in beer brewing, and was the site of an architecturally impressive Art Museum.
The first thing that struck me about Milwaukee was the river, drawbridges, and walkways that make it resemble a mini-Chicago. The downtown is dense, and there are sufficient local shops and some of the best food I've had in recent memory. The German heritage is more apparent here than in any other city I have visited. The German restaurant Maders (www.maders.com) can't go without mention and recommendation--a must stop on any Milwaukee visit.
My suburban parents had arrived in a more urban fashion than I, by train from Central Pennsylvania. (I flew from San Francisco to Madison and drove to Milwaukee.) The Amtrak train, which connects to Chicago with some frequency, arrived on time. (While Amtrak trains to Chicago are frequent, there is no commuter service to Chicago--and Amtrak's cost makes commuting prohibitive.)
I was also disappointed to learn there was no light-rail or fixed transit in Milwaukee. One local explained to me that "They have been talking about it for years, but things are very localized, and everyone around Milwaukee hates Milwaukee"--making funding politically hard to allocate.
I didn't get to see the new Art Museum, but did catch an interview with the new director on the local NPR station. He described many of Milwaukee's benefits and said that locals might not appreciate all they have there.
As in many cities in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, Milwaukee's population has been on the steady decline. I did notice a significant amount of Latino immigrants outside the hotel I stayed at, a possible sign that there is movement in the population. Milwaukee can certainly handle more residents. There is assuredly much more infrastructure and housing stock than can be used. There is also enough water and natural resources to allow for years of population growth.
The second city I visited was Salt Lake City. I didn't have high expectations, but was surprised by a downtown with many stores, a pretty good light rail system, and busy streets. I didn't plan to stay near light rail, but it seemed to be available to access most anything I wanted to see. The food was not so good, and locals have this in common with Pittsburghers--an inferiority complex about their city that leads to frequent apologies to visitors.
There have been recent progressive developments in Salt Lake City, including a shopping plaza and condo development with access to light rail. There are also two beautiful train stations, though trains no longer serve them--passengers arrive and depart at a shed a few blocks away. (Milwaukee's train station was demolished).
There are still a lot of parcels to fill in before downtown Salt Lake City could be considered a healthy urban environment. It is clear, however, that it is well on the way to becoming one. While what good Milwaukee had was largely a holdover from the city of a century ago, what Salt Lake City had it had recently built.
It is apparent, however, that Salt Lake City, like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, cannot support continual growth. Water is scarce, and any green space is the result of intense irrigation.
The tale of Salt Lake City and Milwaukee is a tale of desert cities people are moving to, but which can't support them, and a tale of cities where infrastructure and resources are adequate and available, but continue to decline.
It is in the interest of the country to encourage growth where growth is sustainable. Growth is not sustainable in desert regions. There would be inherent political uproar at the federal level in encouraging growth in one region over another, but perhaps there could be more creative solutions. Imagine taking all the abandoned or city-owned properties in Detroit, Milwaukee, and other places and offering them in some kind of "homestead act" program to new residents--or through setting up a incubator fund to entice newcomers with business loans.
It also wouldn't hurt if Milwaukee had built light rail lines and residential-commercial developments as can be found in Salt Lake City. If it's a lively, energetic and convenient city and a good place to live, new residents won't be so hard to come by.
Eric Miller is editor of The New Colonist.
Go to A Word from Richard Risemberg