Yoni Appelbaum

She saw the diversity of their populations, of their uses, the way that people mixed together as being not as the progressives had it, something that needed to be corrected with rational planning, but as a strength that needed to be recognized and rescued and reinforced. And she stood tall against that.

She saw the diversity of their populations, of their uses, the way that people mixed together as being not as the progressives had it, something that needed to be corrected with rational planning, but as a strength that needed to be recognized and rescued and reinforced. And she stood tall against that.

urban renewal, against the notion that the way to save cities was to knock them flat and to rebuild them with all the uses very carefully segregated out, and wrote this brilliant book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, that laid out these principles. And she saved her own neighborhood from urban renewal. and became in the process sort of the patron saint of urbanism.

urban renewal, against the notion that the way to save cities was to knock them flat and to rebuild them with all the uses very carefully segregated out, and wrote this brilliant book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, that laid out these principles. And she saved her own neighborhood from urban renewal. and became in the process sort of the patron saint of urbanism.

The notion that people should be able to choose their own communities instead of being stuck where they happen to be born is America's most profound contribution to the world. The fact that it is now endangered is not just a problem for housing markets. It is a lethal threat to the entire American project.

The notion that people should be able to choose their own communities instead of being stuck where they happen to be born is America's most profound contribution to the world. The fact that it is now endangered is not just a problem for housing markets. It is a lethal threat to the entire American project.

And her great lesson that she took from all of these experiences was that you needed to empower individuals with a deep appreciation of urban life, with the tools to stop governments, And that was the gospel that she preached. And in many ways, it was necessary at that moment at the peak of urban renewal.

And her great lesson that she took from all of these experiences was that you needed to empower individuals with a deep appreciation of urban life, with the tools to stop governments, And that was the gospel that she preached. And in many ways, it was necessary at that moment at the peak of urban renewal.

But what she didn't understand at the time, maybe couldn't have understood at the time, was that she was going to create problems that were even worse than the problems that she was trying to prevent.

But what she didn't understand at the time, maybe couldn't have understood at the time, was that she was going to create problems that were even worse than the problems that she was trying to prevent.

She moves into 555 Hudson Street.

She moves into 555 Hudson Street.

No, it mostly wasn't. She and her husband are two working professionals in Manhattan who are able to pay all cash for a townhouse on this block that is mostly filled with immigrant families. And it's changing at the time. She's not alone in coming in in that way. But it's mostly been a neighborhood of immigrants, the children of immigrants. It's got tons of street front retail.

No, it mostly wasn't. She and her husband are two working professionals in Manhattan who are able to pay all cash for a townhouse on this block that is mostly filled with immigrant families. And it's changing at the time. She's not alone in coming in in that way. But it's mostly been a neighborhood of immigrants, the children of immigrants. It's got tons of street front retail.

And she writes about this beautifully, which activates the street front. The eyes on the street keep them safe during the day. She writes about the intricate ballet of the sidewalk as people dodge around each other and people each pursuing their own tasks are able to live in harmony in concert. She writes about this block absolutely beautifully, even as she is killing all of it.

And she writes about this beautifully, which activates the street front. The eyes on the street keep them safe during the day. She writes about the intricate ballet of the sidewalk as people dodge around each other and people each pursuing their own tasks are able to live in harmony in concert. She writes about this block absolutely beautifully, even as she is killing all of it.

You know, I tracked down the family that was in that building before she bought it. It was a man named Rudolf Heckler. Two of his adult children and his wife were working in a candy store on the ground floor. So they were renting candy. living above the shop that they operated. And that shop was everything that Jacob says makes cities great.

You know, I tracked down the family that was in that building before she bought it. It was a man named Rudolf Heckler. Two of his adult children and his wife were working in a candy store on the ground floor. So they were renting candy. living above the shop that they operated. And that shop was everything that Jacob says makes cities great.

It was a place where you could go and drop your keys if you're going to be out for a while, and your kid could come pick them up and let themselves into the house. It was a place where you could just stop and talk to your neighbors. It was the kind of thing that Jacob's praised, but when she buys the building, she renovates it. She tears out the storefront, she turns it into a single-family home.

It was a place where you could go and drop your keys if you're going to be out for a while, and your kid could come pick them up and let themselves into the house. It was a place where you could just stop and talk to your neighbors. It was the kind of thing that Jacob's praised, but when she buys the building, she renovates it. She tears out the storefront, she turns it into a single-family home.

She rips off the facade of this historic building and replaces it with modern metal sash windows. She so thoroughly alters the appearance, presents a blank front to the street where before there had been a lively storefront, that when they eventually, at her urging, historically landmark the block, they find that the building that she lives in has no historic value whatsoever.

She rips off the facade of this historic building and replaces it with modern metal sash windows. She so thoroughly alters the appearance, presents a blank front to the street where before there had been a lively storefront, that when they eventually, at her urging, historically landmark the block, they find that the building that she lives in has no historic value whatsoever.

And so here you have somebody who has written this ode to the way people are living around her. but buys a building within it and changes it to suit her own family's need, which was a reasonable thing, I should say, for her to do under the circumstances. But then landmarks the block, which prevents people from building new buildings in the way that that block had always had.

And so here you have somebody who has written this ode to the way people are living around her. but buys a building within it and changes it to suit her own family's need, which was a reasonable thing, I should say, for her to do under the circumstances. But then landmarks the block, which prevents people from building new buildings in the way that that block had always had.

So there's a couple of buildings right next to hers that have been torn down and turned into a six-story apartment building before she moves in. But her changes make it so that nobody can do that again. And if you're not building new buildings to accommodate growth, what you're going to have in response to mounting demand is rising prices.

So there's a couple of buildings right next to hers that have been torn down and turned into a six-story apartment building before she moves in. But her changes make it so that nobody can do that again. And if you're not building new buildings to accommodate growth, what you're going to have in response to mounting demand is rising prices.

It is the thing that defines the American project because it was the first thing that anyone who got a year from Europe noticed. People would come to the United States and gawk. They saw this as either our greatest asset or our great national character flaw.

It is the thing that defines the American project because it was the first thing that anyone who got a year from Europe noticed. People would come to the United States and gawk. They saw this as either our greatest asset or our great national character flaw.

Yeah, the counterfactual is that her neighborhood and other urban neighborhoods throughout the country continue to do what they had done right up until about 1970, which is that they evolve. Sometimes the buildings get taller, sometimes they get shorter. You know, I lived in a neighborhood once that had seen lots of buildings have their top stories shorn off when demand had fallen.

Yeah, the counterfactual is that her neighborhood and other urban neighborhoods throughout the country continue to do what they had done right up until about 1970, which is that they evolve. Sometimes the buildings get taller, sometimes they get shorter. You know, I lived in a neighborhood once that had seen lots of buildings have their top stories shorn off when demand had fallen.

cities morphed, they changed. And yes, in response to mounting demand, you would have had to build up. You have to make space for people to live in cities if you want to continue to attract new generations and give them the kinds of opportunities that previous generations have had. But she did not want that. And in fact, almost nobody ever wants that, which is a real challenge.

cities morphed, they changed. And yes, in response to mounting demand, you would have had to build up. You have to make space for people to live in cities if you want to continue to attract new generations and give them the kinds of opportunities that previous generations have had. But she did not want that. And in fact, almost nobody ever wants that, which is a real challenge.

Well, let's go back to the beginning of the 19th century when we get this legal change which says you can just move someplace and establish residence. The reason that states make that change is because they are looking around at communities and they see that communities individually –

Well, let's go back to the beginning of the 19th century when we get this legal change which says you can just move someplace and establish residence. The reason that states make that change is because they are looking around at communities and they see that communities individually –

are walling themselves off to new arrivals, even though collectively it is in the interest of the individual states and the United States to let people move around. They take that right away from communities. They recognize that if you let communities govern themselves, they will always wall themselves off. Change is really hard. It is uncomfortable.

are walling themselves off to new arrivals, even though collectively it is in the interest of the individual states and the United States to let people move around. They take that right away from communities. They recognize that if you let communities govern themselves, they will always wall themselves off. Change is really hard. It is uncomfortable.

Even if a lot of changes leave you better off while you're going through them, you may not welcome them. And if you give communities the power to say, we're going to pick and choose what we allow, we're going to pick and choose who can live here, then those communities will almost always exercise that power in exclusionary ways.

Even if a lot of changes leave you better off while you're going through them, you may not welcome them. And if you give communities the power to say, we're going to pick and choose what we allow, we're going to pick and choose who can live here, then those communities will almost always exercise that power in exclusionary ways.

And this is even worse, the communities that exercise it most effectively. will be the ones that are filled with people with the time and the money and the resources and the education to do that. And so you'll separate out your population by race, by income. That's what happens. That's what was happening in the United States when we opened ourselves up to mobility. And we reversed that.

And this is even worse, the communities that exercise it most effectively. will be the ones that are filled with people with the time and the money and the resources and the education to do that. And so you'll separate out your population by race, by income. That's what happens. That's what was happening in the United States when we opened ourselves up to mobility. And we reversed that.

And for a long stretch, we were this remarkable place where people could move where they wanted.

And for a long stretch, we were this remarkable place where people could move where they wanted.

But they were amazed at how often Americans moved, and they were particularly amazed that the Americans who were moving were not moving out of desperation, that Americans tended to be doing okay in one place and to still want something more for themselves, want something better for their children, and to move someplace else in pursuit of it.

But they were amazed at how often Americans moved, and they were particularly amazed that the Americans who were moving were not moving out of desperation, that Americans tended to be doing okay in one place and to still want something more for themselves, want something better for their children, and to move someplace else in pursuit of it.

And as we've switched that and given the tools back to local communities to make these decisions, the communities are behaving the way that local communities have always behaved, which is with a strong aversion to change and a disinclination to allow the interests of people who might move into the community to trump the interests of those who are already there.

And as we've switched that and given the tools back to local communities to make these decisions, the communities are behaving the way that local communities have always behaved, which is with a strong aversion to change and a disinclination to allow the interests of people who might move into the community to trump the interests of those who are already there.

It is, and it's led to a lot of uncomfortable conversations with friends. But when I look out at the country, what I see clearly is that the people who believe that government can make a difference in the world, the people who believe that through laws and collective action we can pursue democracy, public goods.

It is, and it's led to a lot of uncomfortable conversations with friends. But when I look out at the country, what I see clearly is that the people who believe that government can make a difference in the world, the people who believe that through laws and collective action we can pursue democracy, public goods.

They want government to do things like preserve history, protect the environment, help historically marginalized populations. Well, they create a set of tools to do this. They're inclined to see government use those tools.

They want government to do things like preserve history, protect the environment, help historically marginalized populations. Well, they create a set of tools to do this. They're inclined to see government use those tools.

And when invariably those tools get twisted against their original purposes and get used instead to reward affluence, it is the most progressive jurisdictions where this happens to the greatest extent.

And when invariably those tools get twisted against their original purposes and get used instead to reward affluence, it is the most progressive jurisdictions where this happens to the greatest extent.

I'll give you a statistic from California that blew my mind, which is that for every 10 points the liberal vote share goes up in a California city, the number of new housing permits it issues drops by 30%.

I'll give you a statistic from California that blew my mind, which is that for every 10 points the liberal vote share goes up in a California city, the number of new housing permits it issues drops by 30%.

Yeah, we talk a lot about an affordable housing crisis. What we've got is a mobility crisis, and the distinction is twofold. One, there's a lot of cheap housing in America. It's not in the places where most people want to live. Housing tends to get really, really cheap when all the jobs disappear. I would not recommend relocating large numbers of Americans to those communities.

Yeah, we talk a lot about an affordable housing crisis. What we've got is a mobility crisis, and the distinction is twofold. One, there's a lot of cheap housing in America. It's not in the places where most people want to live. Housing tends to get really, really cheap when all the jobs disappear. I would not recommend relocating large numbers of Americans to those communities.

Their prospects would be pretty bleak. You want the housing to be where the opportunities are rich. And so if all we're trying to do is make housing affordable without an eye on where that housing's located, on what kinds of opportunities it opens up, we're pursuing the wrong solutions. We also often, and this is the other side of it, create solutions, if we think of it as an affordable housing,

Their prospects would be pretty bleak. You want the housing to be where the opportunities are rich. And so if all we're trying to do is make housing affordable without an eye on where that housing's located, on what kinds of opportunities it opens up, we're pursuing the wrong solutions. We also often, and this is the other side of it, create solutions, if we think of it as an affordable housing,

problem. You can do something like build a lot of new public housing, but we've never in this country managed to build enough public housing to meet demand. Usually, if you manage to get in, it's like a winning lottery ticket. Why would you ever give that up? Which is to say that you are stuck in place.

problem. You can do something like build a lot of new public housing, but we've never in this country managed to build enough public housing to meet demand. Usually, if you manage to get in, it's like a winning lottery ticket. Why would you ever give that up? Which is to say that you are stuck in place.

You are tied to the place where you happen to be lucky enough to get the rent control department, to get the public housing unit, to get Your voucher accepted after months of fruitless searching. And then you're really disinclined to leave, even if staying in that place puts you and your family at all kinds of disadvantages.

You are tied to the place where you happen to be lucky enough to get the rent control department, to get the public housing unit, to get Your voucher accepted after months of fruitless searching. And then you're really disinclined to leave, even if staying in that place puts you and your family at all kinds of disadvantages.

And so if we have policy that's focused on allowing people to live where they want, rather than policy that's simply focused on affordability, we're likely to return not just the kind of social and economic dynamism that have made America a wonderful place to live, but we're also likely to return the sense of personal agency.

And so if we have policy that's focused on allowing people to live where they want, rather than policy that's simply focused on affordability, we're likely to return not just the kind of social and economic dynamism that have made America a wonderful place to live, but we're also likely to return the sense of personal agency.

Yeah, I'm talking about an attitude that Americans believed that they could change their destinies by changing their address, that they could move someplace new and do better than they were doing. And also, and this is the second half of the answer, Americans believed that they were not defined by the circumstances of their birth. That was the great gift that mobility gave us.

Yeah, I'm talking about an attitude that Americans believed that they could change their destinies by changing their address, that they could move someplace new and do better than they were doing. And also, and this is the second half of the answer, Americans believed that they were not defined by the circumstances of their birth. That was the great gift that mobility gave us.

You know, if you take a graph of when Americans joined a lot of clubs, the bowling alone graph, right, where Americans belonged to a lot of voluntary associations and where they didn't, and you match it against a graph of when Americans moved a lot and when they haven't, they line up really well and they line up in a surprising way. When we're moving a lot, we're much likelier.

You know, if you take a graph of when Americans joined a lot of clubs, the bowling alone graph, right, where Americans belonged to a lot of voluntary associations and where they didn't, and you match it against a graph of when Americans moved a lot and when they haven't, they line up really well and they line up in a surprising way. When we're moving a lot, we're much likelier.

to build really vibrant communities. When you leave someplace and start over, you're going to go to church on Sunday to try to find friends and build connections. Or if church is not for you, maybe you go to the local bar or maybe you join the PTA. It depends on the phase of life that you're in. But when people... relocate, they tend to be much more proactive in seeking out social connection.

to build really vibrant communities. When you leave someplace and start over, you're going to go to church on Sunday to try to find friends and build connections. Or if church is not for you, maybe you go to the local bar or maybe you join the PTA. It depends on the phase of life that you're in. But when people... relocate, they tend to be much more proactive in seeking out social connection.

Over the course of time, we fall into familiar ruts. We tend not to make as many new connections. We tend not to join as many new organizations. And people who have been resident for a long time in a place, they may list a lot more things that they belong to, but they're less likely to be attending them, and they're less likely to add new ones.

Over the course of time, we fall into familiar ruts. We tend not to make as many new connections. We tend not to join as many new organizations. And people who have been resident for a long time in a place, they may list a lot more things that they belong to, but they're less likely to be attending them, and they're less likely to add new ones.

The peak of American communal life comes during our peaks of mobility. When we're moving around a lot, we're creating really vibrant civil society that was the envy of the world. And over the last 50 years, as we've moved less and less and less, all of those things have atrophied. And there's one other side, too, which is it's not just about measuring the health of voluntary organizations.

The peak of American communal life comes during our peaks of mobility. When we're moving around a lot, we're creating really vibrant civil society that was the envy of the world. And over the last 50 years, as we've moved less and less and less, all of those things have atrophied. And there's one other side, too, which is it's not just about measuring the health of voluntary organizations.

If you're moving a lot... You're giving yourself a chance to define who you want to be, to build the connections that are important and meaningful to you as opposed to the ones that you've inherited. We know something about how that works psychologically. People who are trapped in inherited identities tend to become more cynical, more embittered, more disconnected over time.

If you're moving a lot... You're giving yourself a chance to define who you want to be, to build the connections that are important and meaningful to you as opposed to the ones that you've inherited. We know something about how that works psychologically. People who are trapped in inherited identities tend to become more cynical, more embittered, more disconnected over time.

People who have the chance to choose their identities tend to be more hopeful. They tend to see a growing pie that can be divided more ways, and therefore they're more welcoming of strangers and new arrivals. They tend to be more optimistic. And if you restore that dynamism, it doesn't mean that you've got to leave behind your inherited identities. It means that

People who have the chance to choose their identities tend to be more hopeful. They tend to see a growing pie that can be divided more ways, and therefore they're more welcoming of strangers and new arrivals. They tend to be more optimistic. And if you restore that dynamism, it doesn't mean that you've got to leave behind your inherited identities. It means that

committing to those inherited identities becomes a matter of active choice too. And so the United States traditionally was a country that was much more religious than the rest of the world because people could commit to those faiths that they were adopting or sticking with. Americans were expected to have a narrative of like, why do I go to church? It wasn't something which was really

committing to those inherited identities becomes a matter of active choice too. And so the United States traditionally was a country that was much more religious than the rest of the world because people could commit to those faiths that they were adopting or sticking with. Americans were expected to have a narrative of like, why do I go to church? It wasn't something which was really

comprehensible to somebody who came from a country where everybody had the same faith. You didn't have to ask yourself, why am I Muslim? Why am I Catholic? In America, you always did. And so our faith traditions tended to be particularly vibrant. So it's not some sort of assault on tradition. I'm not advocating that we dissolve our social ties and each new generation negotiate new ones.

comprehensible to somebody who came from a country where everybody had the same faith. You didn't have to ask yourself, why am I Muslim? Why am I Catholic? In America, you always did. And so our faith traditions tended to be particularly vibrant. So it's not some sort of assault on tradition. I'm not advocating that we dissolve our social ties and each new generation negotiate new ones.

I'm saying the thing that has made American traditions very vibrant, the thing that often made American immigrants more patriotic than the people in the lands they'd left behind, and American churchgoers more religious than they had been in the old world, was precisely the fact that they got to choose.

I'm saying the thing that has made American traditions very vibrant, the thing that often made American immigrants more patriotic than the people in the lands they'd left behind, and American churchgoers more religious than they had been in the old world, was precisely the fact that they got to choose.

And even committing to your old traditions and your inherited identities became a matter of active choice and something that was much more important to folks. And so you got the vibrancy both ways, both the new affiliations that you could create, the old traditions that you chose to double down on. But it all stemmed from individual agency.

And even committing to your old traditions and your inherited identities became a matter of active choice and something that was much more important to folks. And so you got the vibrancy both ways, both the new affiliations that you could create, the old traditions that you chose to double down on. But it all stemmed from individual agency.

You have to give people the chance to start over so that their decision to stay is equally meaningful. If you choose to stay, that's great. If you feel like you've got no choice, that's really terrible.

You have to give people the chance to start over so that their decision to stay is equally meaningful. If you choose to stay, that's great. If you feel like you've got no choice, that's really terrible.

Oh, it's a pleasure.

Oh, it's a pleasure.

And that had really profound implications that took me a while to unravel.

And that had really profound implications that took me a while to unravel.

Yeah, here's the thing about American individualism. We are individuals in the sense that we have the ability to construct our own identities, but we define ourselves by virtue of the communities that we choose to join. Throughout the world, communities tended to choose their members. Even in the early United States in the colonial era, if you tried to move in someplace, you could be warned out.

Yeah, here's the thing about American individualism. We are individuals in the sense that we have the ability to construct our own identities, but we define ourselves by virtue of the communities that we choose to join. Throughout the world, communities tended to choose their members. Even in the early United States in the colonial era, if you tried to move in someplace, you could be warned out.

The town had the right to say, hey, you may have bought property here. You may have leased a building. You may have a job. We don't want you here. And not surprisingly, you know, they disproportionately warned out the poor. They warned out minorities. Really, American communities for the first couple hundred years of European settlement were members-only clubs.

The town had the right to say, hey, you may have bought property here. You may have leased a building. You may have a job. We don't want you here. And not surprisingly, you know, they disproportionately warned out the poor. They warned out minorities. Really, American communities for the first couple hundred years of European settlement were members-only clubs.

And then in the early 19th century, there's a legal revolution. And instead of allowing communities to choose their members, we allow people to choose their communities. You could move someplace and say, I intend to live here. And that was enough to become a legal resident of that place.

And then in the early 19th century, there's a legal revolution. And instead of allowing communities to choose their members, we allow people to choose their communities. You could move someplace and say, I intend to live here. And that was enough to become a legal resident of that place.

In the 19th century, as best I can calculate it, probably one out of three Americans moved every year.

In the 19th century, as best I can calculate it, probably one out of three Americans moved every year.

Every year. In some cities, it might be half. In the 20th century, as late as 1970, it was one out of five. And the census in December told us we just set a new record, an all-time low. It's dropped over the last 50 years to one out of 13. It is the most profound social change to overcome America in the last half century.

Every year. In some cities, it might be half. In the 20th century, as late as 1970, it was one out of five. And the census in December told us we just set a new record, an all-time low. It's dropped over the last 50 years to one out of 13. It is the most profound social change to overcome America in the last half century.

You know, for a long time, that's exactly what historians thought, too. There was this guy, Stephen Thurnstrom, who set out to investigate this and thought what he had discovered in all this moving about happened. was what he called a floating proletariat, right? Here was evidence that in America, the American dream was chimerical. You couldn't actually attain it.

You know, for a long time, that's exactly what historians thought, too. There was this guy, Stephen Thurnstrom, who set out to investigate this and thought what he had discovered in all this moving about happened. was what he called a floating proletariat, right? Here was evidence that in America, the American dream was chimerical. You couldn't actually attain it.

There was this great mass of people just moving from one place to another to another. And several decades later, as we got better data mining tools, we were able to follow up on the floating proletariat and find out what happened to them. The people who had stayed in one place, Sternstrom saw, they were doing a little better than they had before.

There was this great mass of people just moving from one place to another to another. And several decades later, as we got better data mining tools, we were able to follow up on the floating proletariat and find out what happened to them. The people who had stayed in one place, Sternstrom saw, they were doing a little better than they had before.

But when we could track the people who had left, it turned out they were doing much better. That the people who relocate, even the ones at the bottom of the class structure, across every decade that historians can study, it's the case that the people who move do better economically. And this is really key. Their kids do better than the people who stayed where they were.

But when we could track the people who had left, it turned out they were doing much better. That the people who relocate, even the ones at the bottom of the class structure, across every decade that historians can study, it's the case that the people who move do better economically. And this is really key. Their kids do better than the people who stayed where they were.

You know, we've got these wonderful accounts of moving day from people who came over more or less just to see it. By law or by custom, in most cities and in most rural areas, all unwritten leases expired on the same day of the year. And this actually gave renters an enormous leg up in the world in most times and most places.

You know, we've got these wonderful accounts of moving day from people who came over more or less just to see it. By law or by custom, in most cities and in most rural areas, all unwritten leases expired on the same day of the year. And this actually gave renters an enormous leg up in the world in most times and most places.

because it meant that an enormous number of properties were potentially available to them. They could go back to their landlord and say, if you want me to stay for another year, you've got to fix the leaky sink. Or they could try someplace better, and they would all pile their possessions down at the curb first thing in the morning.

because it meant that an enormous number of properties were potentially available to them. They could go back to their landlord and say, if you want me to stay for another year, you've got to fix the leaky sink. Or they could try someplace better, and they would all pile their possessions down at the curb first thing in the morning.

They'd hire a cart to take them across town or down the lane, and... And then they would push past the family that was moving out of some other apartment or townhouse or home. As they were taking their stuff out, they'd be moving their stuff in. But between sunup and sundown, quarter, third, half of a city might relocate.

They'd hire a cart to take them across town or down the lane, and... And then they would push past the family that was moving out of some other apartment or townhouse or home. As they were taking their stuff out, they'd be moving their stuff in. But between sunup and sundown, quarter, third, half of a city might relocate.

And there are these descriptions of sort of the trash lining the gutters as things fell out of the carts or there wasn't room for it in the new apartment. And people would go scavenging through the gutters trying to find out of the trash their own treasures. It was... raucous and wild and respectable Americans always looked down on it.

And there are these descriptions of sort of the trash lining the gutters as things fell out of the carts or there wasn't room for it in the new apartment. And people would go scavenging through the gutters trying to find out of the trash their own treasures. It was... raucous and wild and respectable Americans always looked down on it.

And yet, for the people who participated in it, it was a way to have their home be kind of like an iPhone or a car. You keep the one you have for a year or two, and then you trade up for a newer model.

And yet, for the people who participated in it, it was a way to have their home be kind of like an iPhone or a car. You keep the one you have for a year or two, and then you trade up for a newer model.

Well, that's one thing that really upset the upper crust.

Well, that's one thing that really upset the upper crust.

The respectable Americans are those of longstanding stock who are trying very hard to impress the European cousins. And they are appalled at this defect of their national character, that people don't know their place. They don't know their station. They're always moving around looking for something better for themselves. And they write about it in those kinds of moralistic terms.

The respectable Americans are those of longstanding stock who are trying very hard to impress the European cousins. And they are appalled at this defect of their national character, that people don't know their place. They don't know their station. They're always moving around looking for something better for themselves. And they write about it in those kinds of moralistic terms.

But the people who are participating in it, it's very broad. I mean, when you're talking about half the city moving, what you're talking about is activity that's as much a middle class and upper middle class activity as it is a working class activity. As long as you are adding a good number of fresh new homes to the market every year,

But the people who are participating in it, it's very broad. I mean, when you're talking about half the city moving, what you're talking about is activity that's as much a middle class and upper middle class activity as it is a working class activity. As long as you are adding a good number of fresh new homes to the market every year,

Pretty much everybody who moved could move up because the wealthy were buying brand new homes that had just been erected. But they were vacating homes that were a few years older or apartments that they were moving out of. And those became available to the upper middle class. And you'd get a chain of moves. You can trace this.

Pretty much everybody who moved could move up because the wealthy were buying brand new homes that had just been erected. But they were vacating homes that were a few years older or apartments that they were moving out of. And those became available to the upper middle class. And you'd get a chain of moves. You can trace this.

A dozen, 15 moves, one family succeeding another, succeeding another, and everybody moving up to something a little bit better than they had the year before. And just like an iPhone or a car, they're chasing technological innovation. One year, You move into a new apartment, and it's got running water. And, you know, two years later, the water runs hot and cold, and it's a miracle, right?

A dozen, 15 moves, one family succeeding another, succeeding another, and everybody moving up to something a little bit better than they had the year before. And just like an iPhone or a car, they're chasing technological innovation. One year, You move into a new apartment, and it's got running water. And, you know, two years later, the water runs hot and cold, and it's a miracle, right?

So everybody is constantly moving up in the world as they constantly relocate.

So everybody is constantly moving up in the world as they constantly relocate.

Yeah. It's a sad story when you look closely at it. Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, is like no place that's ever existed before since it is so dense. People are living in tenements at a rate per acre, the way demographers measure this, that is multiples of any place in Manhattan today.

Yeah. It's a sad story when you look closely at it. Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, is like no place that's ever existed before since it is so dense. People are living in tenements at a rate per acre, the way demographers measure this, that is multiples of any place in Manhattan today.

Yeah, I think it's like 600 per acre. It's really, really, really high. There's no place in Manhattan today that's even a third as dense, even though the buildings are now much, much taller. So they're really squeezed in there, and reformers are appalled, and there are real problems with some of these units.

Yeah, I think it's like 600 per acre. It's really, really, really high. There's no place in Manhattan today that's even a third as dense, even though the buildings are now much, much taller. So they're really squeezed in there, and reformers are appalled, and there are real problems with some of these units.

But what they're really appalled about, it turns out, is less the housing conditions than the presence of so many immigrants with their foreign ways, foreign religion, foreign languages, weird foods, odd smells, right? They're looking at this, and they are not happy that this is invading their city. They're not subtle about it.

But what they're really appalled about, it turns out, is less the housing conditions than the presence of so many immigrants with their foreign ways, foreign religion, foreign languages, weird foods, odd smells, right? They're looking at this, and they are not happy that this is invading their city. They're not subtle about it.

They're quite clear that they think that apartments are themselves degrading. This is the original progressive era, and there's a tight intertwining between the reformers and government, and they move fluidly among them.

They're quite clear that they think that apartments are themselves degrading. This is the original progressive era, and there's a tight intertwining between the reformers and government, and they move fluidly among them.

Lawrence Wheeler is sort of Mr. Tenement Reform. He's the guy who will write most of the reports, will serve on the commissions, will move in as the first deputy commissioner of the tenement office when New York creates one. He is both a government official and a reformer, and that was pretty typical. They move fluidly among these jobs.

Lawrence Wheeler is sort of Mr. Tenement Reform. He's the guy who will write most of the reports, will serve on the commissions, will move in as the first deputy commissioner of the tenement office when New York creates one. He is both a government official and a reformer, and that was pretty typical. They move fluidly among these jobs.

And he is the guy who really goes on a crusade against tenements. And maybe the most remarkable moment in my research was stumbling across a speech he gave at a conference where somebody had asked, how do you keep apartments out of your city? And he says, well, you know, the problem is if you put it to a vote, you can't keep them out of your city because people actually like living in apartments.

And he is the guy who really goes on a crusade against tenements. And maybe the most remarkable moment in my research was stumbling across a speech he gave at a conference where somebody had asked, how do you keep apartments out of your city? And he says, well, you know, the problem is if you put it to a vote, you can't keep them out of your city because people actually like living in apartments.

They serve a useful function. So what you have to do is solve it the way I've done it in New York. You call it fire safety regulation. And you put a bunch of regulations on the apartments that makes them prohibitively expensive to build. But be careful not to put any fire safety regulations on single or two-family homes because that would make them too expensive.

They serve a useful function. So what you have to do is solve it the way I've done it in New York. You call it fire safety regulation. And you put a bunch of regulations on the apartments that makes them prohibitively expensive to build. But be careful not to put any fire safety regulations on single or two-family homes because that would make them too expensive.

And as long as you call it fire safety, you can get away with keeping the apartments and their residents out of your neighborhoods. And it's one of those moments where, you know, you just sort of gape at the page and you think, I can't believe he actually said it. I was worried maybe I was reading too much into some of the other things that he'd said.

And as long as you call it fire safety, you can get away with keeping the apartments and their residents out of your neighborhoods. And it's one of those moments where, you know, you just sort of gape at the page and you think, I can't believe he actually said it. I was worried maybe I was reading too much into some of the other things that he'd said.

But here he is straightforwardly saying that much of the regulatory project that he and other progressives pursued was purely pretextual. They were trying to find a whole set of rules that could make it too expensive for immigrants to move into their neighborhoods.

But here he is straightforwardly saying that much of the regulatory project that he and other progressives pursued was purely pretextual. They were trying to find a whole set of rules that could make it too expensive for immigrants to move into their neighborhoods.

The problem with building codes is that ultimately there are ways around them. People are developing new technologies. It's not enough to keep the apartments back. It's not enough to pen the immigrants into the Lower East Side. And there's a bigger problem, which is that the garment industry in New York is moving up Fifth Avenue. And on their lunch breaks, the Jewish garment workers are...

The problem with building codes is that ultimately there are ways around them. People are developing new technologies. It's not enough to keep the apartments back. It's not enough to pen the immigrants into the Lower East Side. And there's a bigger problem, which is that the garment industry in New York is moving up Fifth Avenue. And on their lunch breaks, the Jewish garment workers are...

getting some fresh air on the sidewalks. And this infuriates the owners of the wealthy department stores on Fifth Avenue who say, you're scaring off our wealthy customers. And they want to push them out. They try rounding them up and carting them off in police wagons. They try negotiating with the garment factory owners. But of course, these workers want to be out on the sidewalk.

getting some fresh air on the sidewalks. And this infuriates the owners of the wealthy department stores on Fifth Avenue who say, you're scaring off our wealthy customers. And they want to push them out. They try rounding them up and carting them off in police wagons. They try negotiating with the garment factory owners. But of course, these workers want to be out on the sidewalk.

It's their one chance for fresh air, and it's a public sidewalk. So there's a limit to what they can do. And they finally hit on a new solution, which is if you Change the law so that you can't build tall buildings near these department stores. Then you can push the garment factories back down toward the Lower East Side.

It's their one chance for fresh air, and it's a public sidewalk. So there's a limit to what they can do. And they finally hit on a new solution, which is if you Change the law so that you can't build tall buildings near these department stores. Then you can push the garment factories back down toward the Lower East Side.

You know, the thing about zoning, which is sort of the original sin of zoning, which is a tool invented on the West Coast to push the Chinese out of towns and then applied on the East Coast.

You know, the thing about zoning, which is sort of the original sin of zoning, which is a tool invented on the West Coast to push the Chinese out of towns and then applied on the East Coast.

It's a really painful story. And zoning ultimately is about saying there are always laws which said there are things that you can't do in crowded residential areas. But zoning was a set of tools which said some things are going to be okay on one side of the tracks and not okay on the other.

It's a really painful story. And zoning ultimately is about saying there are always laws which said there are things that you can't do in crowded residential areas. But zoning was a set of tools which said some things are going to be okay on one side of the tracks and not okay on the other.

And given that that was the approach from the beginning, it was always about separating populations into different spaces. And so New York adopts the first citywide zoning code. And at first, this is spreading from city to city. The New Deal will take it nationally.

And given that that was the approach from the beginning, it was always about separating populations into different spaces. And so New York adopts the first citywide zoning code. And at first, this is spreading from city to city. The New Deal will take it nationally.

Well, that's the brilliance of the zoning code. The courts have been striking down explicit racial segregation. But if you wrote your ordinance carefully enough and never mentioned race, you could segregate land by its use. You could figure out how to allow, in some parts of your city— only really expensive housing.

Well, that's the brilliance of the zoning code. The courts have been striking down explicit racial segregation. But if you wrote your ordinance carefully enough and never mentioned race, you could segregate land by its use. You could figure out how to allow, in some parts of your city— only really expensive housing.

Or in other parts of your city, you could put all of the jobs that a particular immigrant group tended to have.

Or in other parts of your city, you could put all of the jobs that a particular immigrant group tended to have.

That's the original zoning ordinance. We're going to push all the laundries back into Chinatown. And if you push the laundries into Chinatown, you're pushing their workers into Chinatown. So there were ways to effectively segregate, not foolproof, but effectively segregate your population without ever having to use any racial language in the ordinance.

That's the original zoning ordinance. We're going to push all the laundries back into Chinatown. And if you push the laundries into Chinatown, you're pushing their workers into Chinatown. So there were ways to effectively segregate, not foolproof, but effectively segregate your population without ever having to use any racial language in the ordinance.

And so it could stand up in court, but still segregate your population.

And so it could stand up in court, but still segregate your population.

Yeah, it's a little heartbreaking sometimes to look closely at your heroes and find out that the story you thought you knew is not the one that actually played out. Jane Jacobs was a woman who saw clearly what it was that made cities great at a time when almost nobody wanted to recognize that.

Yeah, it's a little heartbreaking sometimes to look closely at your heroes and find out that the story you thought you knew is not the one that actually played out. Jane Jacobs was a woman who saw clearly what it was that made cities great at a time when almost nobody wanted to recognize that.

She saw the diversity of their populations, of their uses, the way that people mixed together as being not as the progressives had it, something that needed to be corrected with rational planning, but as a strength that needed to be recognized and rescued and reinforced. And she stood tall against that.

urban renewal, against the notion that the way to save cities was to knock them flat and to rebuild them with all the uses very carefully segregated out, and wrote this brilliant book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, that laid out these principles. And she saved her own neighborhood from urban renewal. and became in the process sort of the patron saint of urbanism.

The notion that people should be able to choose their own communities instead of being stuck where they happen to be born is America's most profound contribution to the world. The fact that it is now endangered is not just a problem for housing markets. It is a lethal threat to the entire American project.

And her great lesson that she took from all of these experiences was that you needed to empower individuals with a deep appreciation of urban life, with the tools to stop governments, And that was the gospel that she preached. And in many ways, it was necessary at that moment at the peak of urban renewal.

But what she didn't understand at the time, maybe couldn't have understood at the time, was that she was going to create problems that were even worse than the problems that she was trying to prevent.

She moves into 555 Hudson Street.

No, it mostly wasn't. She and her husband are two working professionals in Manhattan who are able to pay all cash for a townhouse on this block that is mostly filled with immigrant families. And it's changing at the time. She's not alone in coming in in that way. But it's mostly been a neighborhood of immigrants, the children of immigrants. It's got tons of street front retail.

And she writes about this beautifully, which activates the street front. The eyes on the street keep them safe during the day. She writes about the intricate ballet of the sidewalk as people dodge around each other and people each pursuing their own tasks are able to live in harmony in concert. She writes about this block absolutely beautifully, even as she is killing all of it.

You know, I tracked down the family that was in that building before she bought it. It was a man named Rudolf Heckler. Two of his adult children and his wife were working in a candy store on the ground floor. So they were renting candy. living above the shop that they operated. And that shop was everything that Jacob says makes cities great.

It was a place where you could go and drop your keys if you're going to be out for a while, and your kid could come pick them up and let themselves into the house. It was a place where you could just stop and talk to your neighbors. It was the kind of thing that Jacob's praised, but when she buys the building, she renovates it. She tears out the storefront, she turns it into a single-family home.

She rips off the facade of this historic building and replaces it with modern metal sash windows. She so thoroughly alters the appearance, presents a blank front to the street where before there had been a lively storefront, that when they eventually, at her urging, historically landmark the block, they find that the building that she lives in has no historic value whatsoever.

And so here you have somebody who has written this ode to the way people are living around her. but buys a building within it and changes it to suit her own family's need, which was a reasonable thing, I should say, for her to do under the circumstances. But then landmarks the block, which prevents people from building new buildings in the way that that block had always had.

So there's a couple of buildings right next to hers that have been torn down and turned into a six-story apartment building before she moves in. But her changes make it so that nobody can do that again. And if you're not building new buildings to accommodate growth, what you're going to have in response to mounting demand is rising prices.

It is the thing that defines the American project because it was the first thing that anyone who got a year from Europe noticed. People would come to the United States and gawk. They saw this as either our greatest asset or our great national character flaw.

Yeah, the counterfactual is that her neighborhood and other urban neighborhoods throughout the country continue to do what they had done right up until about 1970, which is that they evolve. Sometimes the buildings get taller, sometimes they get shorter. You know, I lived in a neighborhood once that had seen lots of buildings have their top stories shorn off when demand had fallen.

cities morphed, they changed. And yes, in response to mounting demand, you would have had to build up. You have to make space for people to live in cities if you want to continue to attract new generations and give them the kinds of opportunities that previous generations have had. But she did not want that. And in fact, almost nobody ever wants that, which is a real challenge.

Well, let's go back to the beginning of the 19th century when we get this legal change which says you can just move someplace and establish residence. The reason that states make that change is because they are looking around at communities and they see that communities individually –

are walling themselves off to new arrivals, even though collectively it is in the interest of the individual states and the United States to let people move around. They take that right away from communities. They recognize that if you let communities govern themselves, they will always wall themselves off. Change is really hard. It is uncomfortable.

Even if a lot of changes leave you better off while you're going through them, you may not welcome them. And if you give communities the power to say, we're going to pick and choose what we allow, we're going to pick and choose who can live here, then those communities will almost always exercise that power in exclusionary ways.

And this is even worse, the communities that exercise it most effectively. will be the ones that are filled with people with the time and the money and the resources and the education to do that. And so you'll separate out your population by race, by income. That's what happens. That's what was happening in the United States when we opened ourselves up to mobility. And we reversed that.

And for a long stretch, we were this remarkable place where people could move where they wanted.

But they were amazed at how often Americans moved, and they were particularly amazed that the Americans who were moving were not moving out of desperation, that Americans tended to be doing okay in one place and to still want something more for themselves, want something better for their children, and to move someplace else in pursuit of it.

And as we've switched that and given the tools back to local communities to make these decisions, the communities are behaving the way that local communities have always behaved, which is with a strong aversion to change and a disinclination to allow the interests of people who might move into the community to trump the interests of those who are already there.

It is, and it's led to a lot of uncomfortable conversations with friends. But when I look out at the country, what I see clearly is that the people who believe that government can make a difference in the world, the people who believe that through laws and collective action we can pursue democracy, public goods.

They want government to do things like preserve history, protect the environment, help historically marginalized populations. Well, they create a set of tools to do this. They're inclined to see government use those tools.

And when invariably those tools get twisted against their original purposes and get used instead to reward affluence, it is the most progressive jurisdictions where this happens to the greatest extent.

I'll give you a statistic from California that blew my mind, which is that for every 10 points the liberal vote share goes up in a California city, the number of new housing permits it issues drops by 30%.

Yeah, we talk a lot about an affordable housing crisis. What we've got is a mobility crisis, and the distinction is twofold. One, there's a lot of cheap housing in America. It's not in the places where most people want to live. Housing tends to get really, really cheap when all the jobs disappear. I would not recommend relocating large numbers of Americans to those communities.

Their prospects would be pretty bleak. You want the housing to be where the opportunities are rich. And so if all we're trying to do is make housing affordable without an eye on where that housing's located, on what kinds of opportunities it opens up, we're pursuing the wrong solutions. We also often, and this is the other side of it, create solutions, if we think of it as an affordable housing,

problem. You can do something like build a lot of new public housing, but we've never in this country managed to build enough public housing to meet demand. Usually, if you manage to get in, it's like a winning lottery ticket. Why would you ever give that up? Which is to say that you are stuck in place.

You are tied to the place where you happen to be lucky enough to get the rent control department, to get the public housing unit, to get Your voucher accepted after months of fruitless searching. And then you're really disinclined to leave, even if staying in that place puts you and your family at all kinds of disadvantages.

And so if we have policy that's focused on allowing people to live where they want, rather than policy that's simply focused on affordability, we're likely to return not just the kind of social and economic dynamism that have made America a wonderful place to live, but we're also likely to return the sense of personal agency.

Yeah, I'm talking about an attitude that Americans believed that they could change their destinies by changing their address, that they could move someplace new and do better than they were doing. And also, and this is the second half of the answer, Americans believed that they were not defined by the circumstances of their birth. That was the great gift that mobility gave us.

You know, if you take a graph of when Americans joined a lot of clubs, the bowling alone graph, right, where Americans belonged to a lot of voluntary associations and where they didn't, and you match it against a graph of when Americans moved a lot and when they haven't, they line up really well and they line up in a surprising way. When we're moving a lot, we're much likelier.

to build really vibrant communities. When you leave someplace and start over, you're going to go to church on Sunday to try to find friends and build connections. Or if church is not for you, maybe you go to the local bar or maybe you join the PTA. It depends on the phase of life that you're in. But when people... relocate, they tend to be much more proactive in seeking out social connection.

Over the course of time, we fall into familiar ruts. We tend not to make as many new connections. We tend not to join as many new organizations. And people who have been resident for a long time in a place, they may list a lot more things that they belong to, but they're less likely to be attending them, and they're less likely to add new ones.

The peak of American communal life comes during our peaks of mobility. When we're moving around a lot, we're creating really vibrant civil society that was the envy of the world. And over the last 50 years, as we've moved less and less and less, all of those things have atrophied. And there's one other side, too, which is it's not just about measuring the health of voluntary organizations.

If you're moving a lot... You're giving yourself a chance to define who you want to be, to build the connections that are important and meaningful to you as opposed to the ones that you've inherited. We know something about how that works psychologically. People who are trapped in inherited identities tend to become more cynical, more embittered, more disconnected over time.

People who have the chance to choose their identities tend to be more hopeful. They tend to see a growing pie that can be divided more ways, and therefore they're more welcoming of strangers and new arrivals. They tend to be more optimistic. And if you restore that dynamism, it doesn't mean that you've got to leave behind your inherited identities. It means that

committing to those inherited identities becomes a matter of active choice too. And so the United States traditionally was a country that was much more religious than the rest of the world because people could commit to those faiths that they were adopting or sticking with. Americans were expected to have a narrative of like, why do I go to church? It wasn't something which was really

comprehensible to somebody who came from a country where everybody had the same faith. You didn't have to ask yourself, why am I Muslim? Why am I Catholic? In America, you always did. And so our faith traditions tended to be particularly vibrant. So it's not some sort of assault on tradition. I'm not advocating that we dissolve our social ties and each new generation negotiate new ones.

I'm saying the thing that has made American traditions very vibrant, the thing that often made American immigrants more patriotic than the people in the lands they'd left behind, and American churchgoers more religious than they had been in the old world, was precisely the fact that they got to choose.

And even committing to your old traditions and your inherited identities became a matter of active choice and something that was much more important to folks. And so you got the vibrancy both ways, both the new affiliations that you could create, the old traditions that you chose to double down on. But it all stemmed from individual agency.

You have to give people the chance to start over so that their decision to stay is equally meaningful. If you choose to stay, that's great. If you feel like you've got no choice, that's really terrible.

Oh, it's a pleasure.

And that had really profound implications that took me a while to unravel.

Yeah, here's the thing about American individualism. We are individuals in the sense that we have the ability to construct our own identities, but we define ourselves by virtue of the communities that we choose to join. Throughout the world, communities tended to choose their members. Even in the early United States in the colonial era, if you tried to move in someplace, you could be warned out.

The town had the right to say, hey, you may have bought property here. You may have leased a building. You may have a job. We don't want you here. And not surprisingly, you know, they disproportionately warned out the poor. They warned out minorities. Really, American communities for the first couple hundred years of European settlement were members-only clubs.

And then in the early 19th century, there's a legal revolution. And instead of allowing communities to choose their members, we allow people to choose their communities. You could move someplace and say, I intend to live here. And that was enough to become a legal resident of that place.

In the 19th century, as best I can calculate it, probably one out of three Americans moved every year.

Every year. In some cities, it might be half. In the 20th century, as late as 1970, it was one out of five. And the census in December told us we just set a new record, an all-time low. It's dropped over the last 50 years to one out of 13. It is the most profound social change to overcome America in the last half century.

You know, for a long time, that's exactly what historians thought, too. There was this guy, Stephen Thurnstrom, who set out to investigate this and thought what he had discovered in all this moving about happened. was what he called a floating proletariat, right? Here was evidence that in America, the American dream was chimerical. You couldn't actually attain it.

There was this great mass of people just moving from one place to another to another. And several decades later, as we got better data mining tools, we were able to follow up on the floating proletariat and find out what happened to them. The people who had stayed in one place, Sternstrom saw, they were doing a little better than they had before.

But when we could track the people who had left, it turned out they were doing much better. That the people who relocate, even the ones at the bottom of the class structure, across every decade that historians can study, it's the case that the people who move do better economically. And this is really key. Their kids do better than the people who stayed where they were.

You know, we've got these wonderful accounts of moving day from people who came over more or less just to see it. By law or by custom, in most cities and in most rural areas, all unwritten leases expired on the same day of the year. And this actually gave renters an enormous leg up in the world in most times and most places.

because it meant that an enormous number of properties were potentially available to them. They could go back to their landlord and say, if you want me to stay for another year, you've got to fix the leaky sink. Or they could try someplace better, and they would all pile their possessions down at the curb first thing in the morning.

They'd hire a cart to take them across town or down the lane, and... And then they would push past the family that was moving out of some other apartment or townhouse or home. As they were taking their stuff out, they'd be moving their stuff in. But between sunup and sundown, quarter, third, half of a city might relocate.

And there are these descriptions of sort of the trash lining the gutters as things fell out of the carts or there wasn't room for it in the new apartment. And people would go scavenging through the gutters trying to find out of the trash their own treasures. It was... raucous and wild and respectable Americans always looked down on it.

And yet, for the people who participated in it, it was a way to have their home be kind of like an iPhone or a car. You keep the one you have for a year or two, and then you trade up for a newer model.

Well, that's one thing that really upset the upper crust.

The respectable Americans are those of longstanding stock who are trying very hard to impress the European cousins. And they are appalled at this defect of their national character, that people don't know their place. They don't know their station. They're always moving around looking for something better for themselves. And they write about it in those kinds of moralistic terms.

But the people who are participating in it, it's very broad. I mean, when you're talking about half the city moving, what you're talking about is activity that's as much a middle class and upper middle class activity as it is a working class activity. As long as you are adding a good number of fresh new homes to the market every year,

Pretty much everybody who moved could move up because the wealthy were buying brand new homes that had just been erected. But they were vacating homes that were a few years older or apartments that they were moving out of. And those became available to the upper middle class. And you'd get a chain of moves. You can trace this.

A dozen, 15 moves, one family succeeding another, succeeding another, and everybody moving up to something a little bit better than they had the year before. And just like an iPhone or a car, they're chasing technological innovation. One year, You move into a new apartment, and it's got running water. And, you know, two years later, the water runs hot and cold, and it's a miracle, right?

So everybody is constantly moving up in the world as they constantly relocate.

Yeah. It's a sad story when you look closely at it. Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, is like no place that's ever existed before since it is so dense. People are living in tenements at a rate per acre, the way demographers measure this, that is multiples of any place in Manhattan today.

Yeah, I think it's like 600 per acre. It's really, really, really high. There's no place in Manhattan today that's even a third as dense, even though the buildings are now much, much taller. So they're really squeezed in there, and reformers are appalled, and there are real problems with some of these units.

But what they're really appalled about, it turns out, is less the housing conditions than the presence of so many immigrants with their foreign ways, foreign religion, foreign languages, weird foods, odd smells, right? They're looking at this, and they are not happy that this is invading their city. They're not subtle about it.

They're quite clear that they think that apartments are themselves degrading. This is the original progressive era, and there's a tight intertwining between the reformers and government, and they move fluidly among them.

Lawrence Wheeler is sort of Mr. Tenement Reform. He's the guy who will write most of the reports, will serve on the commissions, will move in as the first deputy commissioner of the tenement office when New York creates one. He is both a government official and a reformer, and that was pretty typical. They move fluidly among these jobs.

And he is the guy who really goes on a crusade against tenements. And maybe the most remarkable moment in my research was stumbling across a speech he gave at a conference where somebody had asked, how do you keep apartments out of your city? And he says, well, you know, the problem is if you put it to a vote, you can't keep them out of your city because people actually like living in apartments.

They serve a useful function. So what you have to do is solve it the way I've done it in New York. You call it fire safety regulation. And you put a bunch of regulations on the apartments that makes them prohibitively expensive to build. But be careful not to put any fire safety regulations on single or two-family homes because that would make them too expensive.

And as long as you call it fire safety, you can get away with keeping the apartments and their residents out of your neighborhoods. And it's one of those moments where, you know, you just sort of gape at the page and you think, I can't believe he actually said it. I was worried maybe I was reading too much into some of the other things that he'd said.

But here he is straightforwardly saying that much of the regulatory project that he and other progressives pursued was purely pretextual. They were trying to find a whole set of rules that could make it too expensive for immigrants to move into their neighborhoods.

The problem with building codes is that ultimately there are ways around them. People are developing new technologies. It's not enough to keep the apartments back. It's not enough to pen the immigrants into the Lower East Side. And there's a bigger problem, which is that the garment industry in New York is moving up Fifth Avenue. And on their lunch breaks, the Jewish garment workers are...

getting some fresh air on the sidewalks. And this infuriates the owners of the wealthy department stores on Fifth Avenue who say, you're scaring off our wealthy customers. And they want to push them out. They try rounding them up and carting them off in police wagons. They try negotiating with the garment factory owners. But of course, these workers want to be out on the sidewalk.

It's their one chance for fresh air, and it's a public sidewalk. So there's a limit to what they can do. And they finally hit on a new solution, which is if you Change the law so that you can't build tall buildings near these department stores. Then you can push the garment factories back down toward the Lower East Side.

You know, the thing about zoning, which is sort of the original sin of zoning, which is a tool invented on the West Coast to push the Chinese out of towns and then applied on the East Coast.

It's a really painful story. And zoning ultimately is about saying there are always laws which said there are things that you can't do in crowded residential areas. But zoning was a set of tools which said some things are going to be okay on one side of the tracks and not okay on the other.

And given that that was the approach from the beginning, it was always about separating populations into different spaces. And so New York adopts the first citywide zoning code. And at first, this is spreading from city to city. The New Deal will take it nationally.

Well, that's the brilliance of the zoning code. The courts have been striking down explicit racial segregation. But if you wrote your ordinance carefully enough and never mentioned race, you could segregate land by its use. You could figure out how to allow, in some parts of your city— only really expensive housing.

Or in other parts of your city, you could put all of the jobs that a particular immigrant group tended to have.

That's the original zoning ordinance. We're going to push all the laundries back into Chinatown. And if you push the laundries into Chinatown, you're pushing their workers into Chinatown. So there were ways to effectively segregate, not foolproof, but effectively segregate your population without ever having to use any racial language in the ordinance.

And so it could stand up in court, but still segregate your population.

Yeah, it's a little heartbreaking sometimes to look closely at your heroes and find out that the story you thought you knew is not the one that actually played out. Jane Jacobs was a woman who saw clearly what it was that made cities great at a time when almost nobody wanted to recognize that.