Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The Dayton Banana

Borrowing a concept used in EU regional/economic planning…the “blue banana”…and applying it to the new spatial order of suburban Dayton.

The Dayton Banana represents the arc or banana shape of new suburban population growth, retail development, and office/industrial/high-tech expansion at or beyond I-675. The Dayton Banana is the reordering of markets and economic activity in the region into a linear city, with concentrations at both ends.


The easy and central access to markets and a skilled and educated workforce, provision of large floor-plate office & industrial space, and plenty of free parking makes the Banana the optimal location for most types of enterprise.

Living near the Banana provides a variety of employment opportunities, reduced commuting time, and a convenient and wide choice in services, shopping, food and entertainment options.

Taste the bananan. I'ts unpeeled for you via this virtual tour.

7 comments:

Kevin said...

Bananaman, man.

Why Dayton will never be as bad as people dream it to be: WPAFB.

Greg Hunter said...

Sorry to say, but all of our eggs in the Military Industrial Complex is not something to be proud of in ole Dayton there kevin. Educate Yourself!

Kevin said...

I think Eisenhower was looking at the risk of the United States becoming a military state on the eve of the Cold War.

I'm under the impression that the area is trying to feed our private and scholastic establishments as the resources swell at WPAFB. And if the day comes that WPAFB starts to downsize, or even close, we'll have the residual benefits it left.

Jeffrey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeffrey said...

The economic activity at the south end of the banana is not DoD-related, so its a mixed thing. Also, IT elsewhere: R&R and Caresource ant TeraData is not Dod. So its a bigger picture.

But yeah, beware the "company town" syndrom, relying on the "big company' to dominate the economy: "Car Works"==>"The Cash"==>"Delco/Frigidaire"==>"WPAFB".

Better a smaller more diverse economy then a large one dominated by one or two companies or industrys.

Greg Hunter said...

Kevin - The US did become a military state. What he warned about occured. Double Dipping self fulfilling DOD personnel need war to build more; need bogeymen. What's so funny about peace love and understanding? Why not build quality products that help all people instead of arms to enrich the few?

Jeffrey said...

This discussion about the military industrial complex isn't really Daytonesque, but I will say this:

Eisenhower was warning about the undue influence of the military & defense contractors on politicians to do what is good for the military and defense contractors, not necessarily what is good for the national defense.

In short Eisenhower was warning about unwise porkbarrel spending as it applied to the military,not so much the US becoming a military state.

During Eisenhowers administration the Defense budget was pretty high and did have an impact on the postwar economy as it was about 10-15% of the GDP.

Subsequent to that the GDP has grown, but the defense budget has shrunk as a relative percentage of the GDP indicating it's not such a big player in the modern economy (though in actual dollars the budget is about the same as it was back then).


Also, at the end of Eisenhowers administration defense spending was a large slice of the annual federal budget, over 70%, and it's around 50% now.


So, in the context of the defense establishment being large vis a vis the private sector economy and federal budget one can see Eisenhowers' concern, hence his cautionary farewell address.