| BlueSky Business Aviation News | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| . | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Which reminds me. Nowhere can I find a word that means "study of cities." We have anthropology, the study of man; sociology, the study of society; biology, the study of living things, but nothing that describes the study of cities. So, I'm going to create one: 'polisology'. From the Greek word for city--polis, and the usual -ology "study of" suffix. I feel better already. So, the idea of aerotropolis is a cutting edge idea in polisology. It seems to be a natural evolution of man's natural instinct to live in urban areas (this whole suburban perversion is an evolutionary cul de sac whose time is nearing an well deserved end) where it takes less energy to survive, not just in ancient times, but even today where the average city dweller uses 40% less energy than their suburban counterparts. That's an enormous number, by the way. Cities are also vast concentrations of wealth, both cultural and financial. Wealth is generally thought of as money, as is capital (but that isn't their real definition economically speaking). Money is just bookkeeping, a tokenizing of economic trades. I know, I know some people worship gold as the wellspring of all economic value, but they don't understand how an economy works. The economic impact of aerotropoli Banks serve a purpose in an economy. They amass and, in theory, efficiently allocate capital, often referred to as "scarce capital" for technical reasons (it really isn't all that scarce, unless you happen to need some). The bankers are supposed to have the best interests of everyone at heart; they are supposed to deal fairly and openly with everyone. This is called the duty of fiduciary care, and has been around for centuries. Wikipedia defines it thusly: “In a fiduciary relation one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably reposes confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter.” The entire real estate bubble was, and is, the single biggest breach of fiduciary duty by bankers the world has every seen. But, as soon as all of us toiling minions make our billionaires whole again, economic normality will undoubtedly resume. Evolution of the city Economies that do not grow--even if they continue to produce exactly what they have always produced--lose to economies that do grow. I.e., holding still is the same as losing ground because the goal posts move. In that sense, economic growth resembles a race except that there is no finish line, or the evolution of life on our planet, where we plateau at "climax grasslands" and "climax forests" for a bit until the balance shifts and everything races to cope. This kind of evolution is reflected in cities anchored by harbors and river crossings, then by canals, then by railroads, then by highways, and now by airports. Each "climax" form is a kind of plateau that matures and then something changes and a new climax form comes into being. What was a magnificent achievement of the late 18th century "canal mania" is later dwarfed by the 19th century's mania for railroads, which, in turn, was dwarfed by the 20th century's mania for highways. Those cities whose economies depend mostly on canals are still doing well by the standards of the 17th century, but they have been surpassed by the cities that grew with railroads, which were surpassed by those who added the highways, which were surpassed by those who added airports. And we are now at the beginning of the age when airports and air travel dominate our economies, not just supplement them. City as economy Cities are simply the brick and mortar manifestation of an economy. There is no city without an economy and very little economy without a city. It's called fly-over country for a reason. This is not to disrespect those who prefer a rural or agricultural lifestyle; I like it myself. But it is a recognition that with density comes connection and connection brings opportunity and opportunity is the source of wealth. There is no wealth without opportunity and no opportunity without connection. That connection is the whole raison d'etre for cities in general, but for aerotropoli in particular, it is the conscious desire to travel by air to connect with other people in other countries for the purpose of what Robert Wright calls non-zero sum-ness. A little bit of game theory Let me explain that briefly. 'Zero sum' and 'non-zero sum' are concepts from game theory. Sporting contests are examples of zero sum systems. There is a winner and a loser; their outcomes add to zero. One must lose before the other can win. It is an adversarial relationship; each participant's result is inversely correlated with that of the other participant. As Wright points out in his TED talks [“Robert Wright On Optimism” ] and [“Robert Wright: The evolution of compassion” ] non-zero sum systems have results that are positively correlated with that of the other participants. Sticking with the sports example, when we play a team sport, we are playing a non-zero sum game with our teammates; that is, if one person on the team wins, everyone on the team wins. If we engage in an economic transaction, both sides benefit (barring the sort of criminal malfeasance we see in the banking fiasco). This correlated outcome--if you win, I win; if you lose, I lose--is the core of the idea; this is what people mean when they label something as a “win-win” or “lose-lose” situation. In non-zero sum systems, we have to work with other people rather than against them. We have to redefine "enemy" to exclude the people with whom we share a positive future benefit. The more non-zero sum systems in which we participate, the more our own future well being is directly associated with the well being of others. This is a stabilizing influence in the global society. Stable is good in this context. Implications about our future economy Globalism is real. It is happening right now and has been for decades and will continue for the foreseeable future and the aerotropolis moves it forward. As Noam Chomsky points out, the word 'globalism' is now used to refer to a particular version of international economic integration, one that favors enormous, sprawling amoral corporations. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It can actually be quite beneficial. There are issues, of course, as there are with everything. There is nothing that is an unalloyed good; even oxygen at sufficient partial pressure is a poison. As with every new something, the goodness or badness of it depends on how people use it. Granted, our corporate executive class haven't exactly made a name for themselves through good works around the world, but some are trying, or at least say they are trying, which is an improvement over the Gordon Gecko-esque stuff I usually see. Economic broadband Remember when politicians in Washington referred to the world wide web as "The Information Superhighway?" (Remember Alaska Senator Ted Steven's "It's a series of tubes" speech?) They were and are right to be concerned about universal access to the net (and net neutrality is important). And they should be concerned about universal access to the global economy. The aerotropolis is like an on-ramp to the global economic superhighway, to coin a profoundly awkward phrase. It is like your ISP; it provides access. As with the net, there is no requirement to participate in the global economy, but there are benefits to be had. Connection = daytripping The aerotropolis is about connecting to the rest of the world. If we are to connect to the global economy, we must fly to other countries; otherwise, it's just a connection to the domestic economy. International is key. Non-stop flights are the airline equivalent of broadband; non-stop flights under four hours are fiber optic cables to your desktop. We want to depart by 8AM, arrive before noon, sort things out over lunch, catch the 2PM flight back and be home before dinner. It's called “daytripping.” This is important. This is why the New Songdo aerotropolis exists, to provide a departure point for daytrippers into China. If a non-stop is the airline equivalent of broadband, then having to fly from an outstation to a hub before leaving the country is like dial-up. Having to drive to the next city that has an airport is like smoke signals. Not that there is anything wrong with smoke signaling. With that in mind, we can tell already who is likely to stagnate. If your city doesn't have international flights; if your airport isn't a hub; if your city is an outlying location--a Peoria, a Savannah, a Spokane, you are not directly connected to the global economy, nor are you likely to be. And without that connection, the local economy is unlikely to grow as fast as those that are, thereby losing ground. Can everyone have an aerotropolis? If we can agree that an aerotropolis is the key to connecting to the global economy, and we also agree that this is probably a Good Thing™, then we have to ask, can everyone have an aerotropolis? Most airports have no hope of becoming aerotropoli. They don't have the land, they don't have the international connections, they aren't a hub, they don't have a regional market that can participate effectively at the global level. There are a lot of ways to fail, but the most common, I think, is lack of political will to create a new airport far enough away from the city to allow for expansion while shutting down and redeveloping the existing airport. Denver did it, but Chicago can't. Seattle can't (their logical alternative is to condemn Vashon Island and use it as an off-shore airport to service the region, but the lawyers who live on Vashon will die before that happens). So, the answer to that question is no, we cannot all have an aerotropolis. If you need one, or if your firm needs one, the logical thing to do is to move to where one already exists, like Dulles or DFW or move to where one is currently being built, like Detroit. You might keep in mind that over half of all income earned in the US is earned in just 22 metropolitan areas, and not all of those are aerotropoli. Should everyone have an aerotropolis? Perhaps a more interesting question is should we all have an aerotropolis? I will suggest no, that there are places here in the US and elsewhere in the world, where international connections are neither needed nor wanted. People in some places prefer to live just outside of the mainstream, just off of the beaten path, and there should be good places for them, too, just as there should still be small agricultural towns. Frankly, I can't summon any sympathy for suburbs, but I suppose some people like those, too. No accounting for taste but, we should all practice tolerance. One of the aspects of Dr. Paul Romer's Charter Cities concept is that it must be done without coercion. We cannot and should not force everyone into the same square hole. There ought to be and must be a range of options available to people in terms of education, employment, and places to live. It is only fair. The aerotropolis isn't for everyone. What happens to cities that don't? The next question, obviously, is what will happen to cities without an aerotropolis? Short answer? I don't know. From my readings, there appear to be a wide range of options ranging from the decades long devastation of the US Rust Belt cities to down-sizing and revitalization like Kansas City. Interestingly, Kansas City has an excellent international airport and even has an international trade zone, but it does not have an aerotropolis. The biggest single missing piece With all of my readings on the subject, there is one huge piece of the aerotropolis puzzle that is missing. The role of government. Where are all the smart people who used to be in government? Where are the Fiorello La Guardias? Where are the Franklin Roosevelts? Where are the visionaries who could see the future needs of their constituents and forge the necessary political alliances to get things done? This is something I do not see here in the US. I see it in other places in the world, including the Middle East. But not here. This is a problem. In conversation, I argue that our best and brightest, those whose education, abilities, and backgrounds enabled them to operate at this level were taken into the corporate world, leaving us with a generation of politicians who think that the smart way to handle a budget negotiation is to default on the national debt and shut down our entire government. They think it's a brilliant idea to completely disassemble what little social safety net we have here. These guys are the C students we didn't hire. We need better leaders in the political world. Yes, we on the private side need good leaders, too, but if those on the other side of the table can't function appropriately, we can't do our jobs either. We need smart political leaders. We need political leaders who understand complex situations and can work with others to achieve great things; we are in a non-zero sum relationship with our government. Contrary to the stuff I see on the TV, we need government (that seems obvious—otherwise there would be a steady stream of businesses moving to Somalia), and we need smart government, which means smart politicians. I hope we find some soon; clearly, we can't depend on the bankers. Terry Drinkard is currently consulting on an aviation start-up. His interests and desire are being involved in cool developments around airplanes and in the aviation industry. Usually working as a contract heavy structures engineer, he has held positions with Boeing and Gulfstream Aerospace and has years of experience in the MRO world. Terry’s areas of specialty are aircraft design, development, manufacturing, maintenance, and modification; lean manufacturing; Six-sigma; worker-directed teams; project management; organization development and start-ups. Terry welcomes your comments, questions or feedback. You may contact him via terry.drinkard@blueskynews.aero Other recent articles by Terry Drinkard:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
