An argument for breaking up the spatial monopoly of the finance industry?

I’ve heard various arguments about how walkable cities are doing better than us bad sprawled cities in terms of foreclosures. But one of the things the TEA partiers say strikes me as having some merit: the spatial monopoly of power held in the northeast US. Old money families, new money power brokers, old money universities, and real seats of social and financial power.

I was reflecting this morning on the foreclosure maps I made last night, just to look around. Now, there are some troubles here with granularity, but still, one of the things that will occur to you if you read Michael Lewis’s the Big Short concerns just how little other regard the men (and I mean men) of the financial industry have. They could care less about the human consequences of their behavior because they’ll never face the consequences of it, and it’s all a game to them they just want to win. Money is only a way of keeping score. (Can’t you just play polo or something where you knock your own teeth in? Crimoney.) Anyway.

The spatial aspects make me wonder. What do you think?

If you think of New York City as the place which houses people who helped orchestrate the bubble, take a look at their consequences:

Bad, but not nearly as bad as Los Angeles. I know, I know, there are those folks talking about walkability has helped placed retain value, but I’m still less convinced it has to do walking than simple deep pockets. Isn’t it easier to come up with dodges and cheats to line your own pockets if your victims AREN’T your neighbors? Like those “fat and stupid Americans” that coastal US residents love to look down on?

Let’s look at Chicago:


And one region of the world where I have long contended their *local* growth machine has *no interest* in stopping US military engagement:

Before anybody gleefully concludes that this is God’s way of punishing suburbs, take a look at Portland:


And Boston;