The Defense Welfare State II

The civilian + military payroll pumps over $1B into the local economy. So the the geographic location of concentrations of the workforce will also be concentrations of prosperity

We can't map the off-base military with the information available at the census website, but we can, roughly, map out civilian workers by mapping "government workers" as a thematic map from American Factfinder. This would include non-military workers, too.

The map below illustrates the concentration around Wright-Patterson (red oval), but not so much around the VA (red circle). Various surrounding communties show for reference.
Taking a close-up of the eastern Greene County concentration, the census tract making up Wright Field (and the military housing on Airway Road) has 35.5% government workers, followed by census tract along Kitridge Road and Bellfontaine Pike, at 31.7% (which also has a lot of city of Dayton workers). Interestingly enough Yellow Srings has 25.2% government workers.
One can pretty clearly see the concentration of workers in Beavercreek and the countryside east and north of Fairborn. This is the payroll that is helpint to support the Fairfield Commons retail center and perhaps even the real estate expansion in the area.

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Employment Growth in Greene County

An assumption is that the PS&T sector is being supported by billion-dollar defense procurements. One can perhaps indirectly see this by the growth in sector employment in Greene County. One doesn't need a map to know this is not happening east of Xenia, that this growth is concentrated in eastern Greene County.

And one can also assume relatively high renumeration, at least for the managers and owners of PS&T establishments. This is confirmed by using the Brookings Institution Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) website, which provides reports for the number of returns filed for various income categories.

This detailed data goes back to 2000 and ends at 2006, so one has seven years of data points. Graphing out the top four income categories on can see how Beavercreek is becoming more and more affluent, with increasing growth in the very top income category. Returns for the >$100K category increased by over 1,100 between 2000 and 2006., and somewhat less robust growth in the $75K to $99K group.

Perhaps an indication of how defense spending is helping to establish an affluent society in eastern Greene County, particularly if discretionary spending is moslty within the county.

Veterans Benefits

Mapping out the veterans as a % of the population; there's a lot more and they overlap the government workers somewhat. It is possible to be a veteran and also a government worker.


In this case the close up shows percentages by tract. One can see parts of Fairborn, Huber Heights, New Carlisle, Medway, Enon, Beavercreek, and especially the southern part of Riverside as the big concentrations. Probably not unexpected: Yellow Springs has a lower % the than surrounding exurban area.

But the largest, 44.7%, is the tract that has the VA, the old Soldiers Home.

Veterans benefits are largely payments to veterans with service-connected disabilities, in other words either war casualites or injured on-duty. One can see an upward trend turing the Iraq-Afghanistan War years, with a big jump in 2007.

The "other" category are mostly other types of payments, mostly survivors benefits, but also a category for non-service connected disabilities.
There is also a small collection of programs tha provide other types of benefits or services, like money to modify houses for disabled veterans (accessibility for the disabled), modfication of cars and vehicles so disabled veterans can drive, educational aid, vocational training, and similar things.

Although veterans benefits are fairly small in the grand scheme of local defense-related spending, the money is still pretty large, topping $100M in recent years.

The Defense Welfare State: In It's Own Place

Mapping out the distribution of veterans and especially government workers its pretty clear that the Defense Welfare State is pretty much concentrated east of Dayton, mostly in Greene County. One can infer this is also the case with technical professionals working in nominally private sector firms doing a lot of defense contracting.

Studying the government worker map its pretty clear that there very low percentages in the hip urban areas frequently mentioned in the local blogosphere: South Park, Oregon, Downtown, the UD area. The one somewhat equivilant suburban area, Yellow Springs, is by far more popular than urban Dayton. The downtown number might be changing as this census data predates the big loft/apartment boom in the center city.

Government employment outside of Eastern Greene County is concentrated in the Salem Avenue Corridor, and these might be government workers for Dayton as well as for the VA and base. But it does indicate that perhaps defense employment and might be providing a floor to neighborhood economies in predominantly black areas within Dayton.

Yet the strong suburban orientation in government work, coupled with the veterans' geography, sort of indicate a figure in the carpet, a world that really is it's own place, economically and sociologically. Perhaps not as connected to Dayton as one would like to think.

The Defense Welfare State

Like in that Starship Troopers movie, service guarantees citizenship....in the Defense Welfare State.

The concept of the welfare state is foreign in the use, and the term is a pejorative. Since Daytonlogy has a social-democratic metapolitcs, the welfare state is, at this blog, a positive. A way of providing social insurance against the vagaries of the economy.

In our area defense spending provides both social insurance to military, civilians, and veterans, (via Wright-Patterson AFB and the Veterans Administration complex on Gettysburg Avenue), but is signifigant enough to provide a "floor" to the local economy, mitigating disruptions caused by the business cycle and the decline in manufacturing.

The Consolidated Federal Funds Report shows defense related spending for 2007 (and past years to 1993) as around 26% of spending. But it fails to account for civilian retirement, veterans benefits, and and other smaller programs. Adding these, called here "Defense +", one comes up with 33% of all Federal spending in the metropolitan area.





Drilling down into that 33%, one can see procurements account for a full 40% of defense spending. This includes procuring services from the R&D and IT contractors out on I-675 in Greene County as well as the more mundane things like construction contracts and supplies. Another 33% is for military and civilian payroll.

In raw numbers, for 2007, there was $3B in defense spending in the metro area.



The following is not adjusted for inflation, but one can see some patterns, with more growth during the Bush years due, perhaps, to the post 9-11 war on terror (peaking at $3.2B), and stagnation and decline in spending during the Clinton era.

Opening up the "other category" are two programs that dont fit well in the other broad groups. Impact Aid is aid to local school districts because they have to teach the additional students from military families (the impact of having a military installation in or near a school district).

AVFEA is apparently an education program for military members.

Defense procurement probably has a great indirect, difficult-to-measure impact on the area, as the economic impact is the purchase of goods and services, showing up in the economy as wages and salaries for the staff of defense contractors of various sorts, as well as purchase of supplies and equipment by these contractors. Again one can see the plateau in the Clinton era, and a jump in the Bush years.
There are two programs that appear in the funds report for research, here aggregated into a R&D grants category. Presumably these are going to contractors or universities. One can note a big jump in this category after Mike Turner entered Congress. Perhaps one is seeing some earmark activity here? In any case it's a noticeable jump.


A closer look at the payroll line. During the 1990s the Defense Electronic Supply Center (DESC)(AKA Gentile Air Force Station) was closed via BRAC. This, along with Clinton-era cuts, contributed to a noticeable dip in payroll, enough to offset the masking effects of cost-of-living (COLA) adjustments for the remainder of the workforce.

Then a consistent ramp-up during the Bush era, probably showing the effects of inflation and COLAs as the Federal workforce in the metro area was not increasing during this time.

Fortunately the cuts in the 1990s happened during "good times" of relatively high employment in the metro area.

Since funds report provides this annual payroll number, we can compare it with other economic sectors in the Dayton region, using the County Business Patterns data for the Dayton MSA. The most recent year for County Business Patterns is 2006, so lets use that year.

The civilian + military payroll shown here in blue, next to other categories (including non-defense payroll).

Manufacturing is contributes the most payroll, followed by health care and social services. Then comes the Professional, Scientific, and Technical (or PS&T) category. The defense payroll is the fourth. And, adding the non-defense Federal category, the total Federal payroll almost equals the PS&T category. An impressive demonstration of the Federal role in the economy, just by payroll.

And something to keep in mind if the Manufacturing sector was in rapid decline starting in 2007, as Federal payroll would be a category insulated from the vagaries of the economy. Also note that Federal spending--defense + nondefense-- is, along with Manufacturing, the one sector that is probably brining in the most money from outside the region (in the Feds case via taxes).

An example of this is the PS&T sector. Adding defense on top of it and one equals Manufacturing as the largest aggregate payroll sector in the region (and may well be surpassing it by now).

A key point here is the $1.4B in procurements and $10M in R&D grants could be driving some portion of the Professional, Scientific, & Technical category via the miltary contracting for engineering, consulting, scientific and IT services. It would be a challenge to measure this with any degree of accuracy based on public sources.

Next, a look some possible geographical impacts and veterans benefits spending.

The Arcade Has Finally Been Sold

The Badger State boys actually did come up with the $600K + bucks to pay for the Arcade, in the face of an undertow of local skepticsm. Some good discussion on this at DMM Forum (or you could pop a blood vessel by getting angry at the inane negativity at the DDN readers comments).

Berg and Sturtz ended up forming the "Wisconsin Financial Freinds of the Arcade" to raise money from freinds and associates up in Plymouth, (which is sort of a suburb of of Sheboygan), as well as contributing their own money to the cause, beyond the $1,000 down payment.

For all the talk about "Dayton Originals" and "keeping it local" , this is a 100% out-of-town effort. There was hope that Bob Schiffler would be the angel, but he backed out as it didn't work out for him, for whatever reason. And let's see what he does with the old Moraine Embassy and 25 S Main buildings; already a full plate. Instead two small-time renovators from rural Wisconsin made the sole bid, paid the down payment, and actually came up with the balance of the back taxes.

Berg and Sturtz may yet bring the Arcade complex back to life. It's an audacious move considering the national and local economy, especially risky real estate deals. But they just might do it.

The dicey part is what happens if and when the restoration is done and the doors are open.

There is a lot of nostalgia around the Arcade, people remembering the old days and wishing it were so again. Well, to make it so they have to use the building.

If people are opening a business or professional practice or already own one they need to consider locating in the Arcade. And if people are going on a shopping trip they need to go shopping at the Arcade (assuming there will be shops again). If they want to buy a condo or rent an apartment they need to consider the Arcade. The building just wont be economically viable if there is no income coming in from tenants.

Berg and Sturtz might be brining money in from Wisconsin but they aren't going to be bringing in tenants. That's something for the greater Dayton community to provide. And its up to us to patronize those tenants, too.

Newfields Cluster Housing and a Suburban Road Not Traveled

This final Newfields post will look at some of the housing and ponder a bit on this suburban road not traveled.

The village center was at the southern edge of the development area, connected to some of the first housing via a path, either for walking or cycling. The path passes through common-use open fields defined by forests and preserved tree lines along old fences. The following marked-up aeriel illustrates these features:



The original housing illustrates both the mixing of single- and multi-family units and the concept of cluster housing.

Cluster Housing & Open Space

Cluster housing was another suburban innovation coming out of the 1960s in reaction to the uniform sprawling plats of the postwar era, with their chain link fenced back yards and lack of parkland. The concept was to cluster the houses closer together, freeing up land for common open space, which could be left wild or developed for recreation



Illustrating the concept: Settlers’ Point was a cluster housing development of the early 1970s in exurban Oldham County, KY, outside of Louisville. One can see the housing clusters arranged around landscaped cul-de-sacs, with the adjacent common open space. As one can see Newfields followed very similar concept, with even more generous open space.



The difference being that Newfields was apparently to have a connecting pathway system and was planned to have those mixed-used village centers.

So lets follow that path, from the village center into the first housing cluster.

Looking back over the lake at the village center.



….and then encountering the multi-family housing, perhaps townhouse condominiums. The exteriors are done up in a rustic style using wood siding, but with nice big windows and accent landscaping. This condo development was at the entrance to the housing cluster. Apparently each housing cluster would have this mix of multi- and single-family units, so a mix of age groups and lifestyles and perhaps incomes in each little neighborhood.



The path curves past these into the common open space (presumably to be maintained by the New Community Authority) and passes the backs of the housing clusters.



The original houses here made use of the change in grade, overlooking the open space with big windows and a mix of wood and brick materials in a no-fuss modern design. The side facing the street would probably appear as split levels or a one story ranch. The little wing-wall on the lower floor patio gives a bit of privacy.

The path curves along the edge of the green space, housing nestled into the landscaping, and in the background, and a line of mature trees defining the space in the background.



Finally the paths curves between the houses via a common open space between the backyards


This is a very convincing approach to improving suburbia…if one is a landscape architect. The relentless uniformity and repetition of a typical suburban plat would be avoided, and houses would either open onto green space, almost like living in a farm pasture or big park, or be very close to it via the path system.

Some other Newfields housing. Different types of single family houses...


…and apartments and condominiums, one set at the edge of a forest.

Much of it in the woodsy-shedsy early-mid 1970s style, fairly restrained architecture compared to the suburban bloat and "revivalist" design references of today. A modernist rustic aesthetic would be quite appropriate for an innovative community designed around generous open space.

The Suburban Road Not Travelled.

One can imagine the rest of the property developed like this, accommodating 30,000 people via a landscape plan that would fairly successfully merge housing of various densities, business, and retail into a matrix of landscaped highways, greenways, fields, forests, and creek valleys.






Newfields would be a true green suburb, similar in intent to Milton Keynes, the “city as forest”
(or in this case city as "Midwest rural landscape") . Although designed around the car, the nature of the planning implies some degree of walkability or bikeability via the pathway system and mixed use of offices, shopping, and recreation in the village centers, as well as mixed incomes and lifestyles in the housing areas.

As such Newfields seems an interesting counterexample to New Urbanism, demonstrating that certain intentions of that movement can be achieved within the modernist paradigm, sans the somewhat ersatz and nostalgic trademark aesthetic.

About the only nostalgia in Newfields was the stated intention to preserve some of the old farmsteads, with their great bank barns. These remnants of the Midwest cultural landscape would be preseved as focal points for the various new developments, either as community centers or as businessess. In this case as a doctors office.



No More Experiments?

Newfields was the last suburban experiment in Dayton until the Village of North Clayton (which seems to be developing very slowly).

Though not really experiments perhaps golf course communities could be following some of the concepts here, with houses arranged around open space; fairways, tees, and greens. The bike and walking paths become golf cart paths. But these are cold coffee compared to the ambitious and greenway concept illustrated at Newfields.

The only local development to incorporate an open space system of greenways (vs. a golf course) is Stonehill Village in Beavercreek, being developed by the Nutters of Nutter Center fame.



This development on the other side of town from Newfields might make good on the promise of an improved form of suburbia.

Newfields Survivals: Village 1 and Village Center

In the previous post it was said things were actually built at Newfields. In fact enough was built to get a feel for what the new town might have been like.

The maps showing the HUD sell-off parcels show some of this, with “Development Area 2” having some things built

What was built was:

9 single family homes

1 duplex

12 condominiums & townhouse units

12 apartment units

...and a commercial building, community center, and swimming pool.

(funny to see a double there. It’s still standing, too).

A close –up of Development Area 2, showing how multifamily was sort of mixed in with single family, and the start of the village center. This was to be “Village 1”, the schematic design discussed in previous posts.


An aerial from 2000. Again with some of the original features labeled. What wasn’t shown on the HUD map are some aborted development areas, were curbs and roads where laid out and parking was even installed in some cases.






One can also see there’s some later development, so apparently HUD did interest some developers to come in and do conventional housing.

Village Center Planning and Buildings

The centerpiece of the design was to be a village center arranged around a small lake or pond. It’s unclear who the designer was. The Newfields book says TAC, Walter Gropius’ old firm out of the Boston area , was to be design consultant for the first village center. It’s not known if they actually did any work. But someone did design this and do some site planning. (As an aside TAC did do work in the Dayton area, designing a modern house in Centerville in the 1950s).

An office building, community center, and pool were built, and extensive parking lots laid out. Additional development was apparently to go in north, perhaps townhouses or apartments.



This village center was actually served by RTA at first, but the line was terminated probably when the development went into foreclosure.

This aerial illustrates the aborted development next to the village center, and how the community center and office building related to the lakefront


The extensive open space and cut-off walkway/patio system indicated more things might have been planned. Absent a site or development plan one can only speculate. In this case perhaps the walkways would have been extended to the outer parking lot, and would have been flanked by maybe shopping and apartments and townhouses.



The office building is unusual as it doesn’t privilege the parking lot façade. For a spec office building, it is very open to the common-use public space, like the circular gathering space (maybe intended for things like craft fairs or community events of various types), and opens onto the lake with lots of windows.




To the rear, or parking lot side, are the angular geometries of late modernism, with long sloping walls of metal roof material, punctured by band windows. The building steps back following the angle of the parking lot. The design actually minimizes the bulk of the building., yet also giving a sort of futuristic look.

Angular form in the 1970s also symbolized “solar” and “ecology” (there was a ‘green movement” back then, too), so maybe a play with that symbolism, too.


Its unclear if the red vinyl siding is original. This was the corporate HQ of MotoPhoto which had red as its corporate color. The next door community center was more restrained. This design had a similar angular form, but done up in gray wood siding, giving it a more rustic and weathered feeling. Maybe that was the original color and material.

Unfortunately the sloped walls of the community center were perhaps a good invitation for kids to try to climb them to the roof, so chain link fences were installed.

The village center was a radical design concept for the Dayton region, especially if retail was going to be built. The concept was to turn away from the parking lots (orienting things to the lake), which is never done is commercial or retail construction.

Not to mention integrating offices, retail, a community center and maybe housing in a fairly tight development, instead of spreading functions out in large, separate zoning blocks. We are close to the ideas of New Urbanism here, but far away from New Urbanisms nostalgic aesthetics.

Newfields Innovations, Failure, and Denoument

Newfields had one lasting contribution to suburban planning in Ohio, but is also a good case study of a beautiful theory ambushed by reality; a suburban experiment that failed.

Dual Developers and New Community Authority

Title VII new communities were intended to be demonstration projects and had to incorporate development and planning innovations to be eligible for HUD assistance (HUD administered Title VII).

One of the innovations that helped sell the Newfields application to HUD was the Dual Developer Concept.

The ideas was that Newfields would be developed jointly by private sector for-profit developers and a non-profit quango, called the New Community Authority, or NCA. The NCA would be responsible for developing & operating the open space and community support features (including preschool) and have some involvement with the town center. The NCA was, perhaps, as the convener of the design think tank that would do the detailed planning as the community grew.

The NCA was structured so it could be expanded as new areas were developed. The board of directors originally had private developer representation (but not a majority of the board). As the new community became populated it would eventually move to full resident representation. As the NCA had bonding authority and was responsible for some infrastructure development and maintenance it would generate revenue via an "income charge" on the residents, perhaps akin to a local income tax.



The NCA remains a lasting contribution of Newfields, as the enabling legislation remains on the books in amended form as Title 3 Chapter 349 of the Ohio Revised Code. The NCA is being used for modern developments like New Albany near Columbus, San Mar Gale near Oregonia and the Big Darby plan for the open country west of Columbus.

Newfields Politics

Why a NCA? Apparently Huber thought of incorporating but as this was so close to Trotwood Trotwood could have prohibited annexation. And Dayton would not sign-off on the Federal A95 review unless it could annex the new town. And Trotwood and Dayton where already at loggerheads over annexation as Trotwood had outmaneuvered Dayton in the 1960s for the annexation of the Salem Mall.

So a compromise had to be brokered.

Trotwood would get to annex phase I, Dayton would get to annex the panhandle and the "town center" area. The part of the new town out in Perry Township was left for future decisions. The sweet part of this deal for Dayton is that it would have an opportunity to annex what could have been a new "edge city" as well as industrial land.






The book on Newfields also implies some monetary payoffs by Huber to certain Dayton political leaders (such as the father the current Dayton mayor) were needed to tamp down political opposition from the city.

Dayton did start to annex westward as the new town went under development, which is why the city limits encompass that farmland south and east of Trotwood.

Causes of Failure

Newfields was built on very shaky financial and market projections. As early as 1972 some internal financial projections were showing that the economic model was unsound.

And assumptions on capture rate of new housing proved to be very rosy. As was noted Huber chose this area over Bellbrook as land was cheaper due to slower growth. Perhaps things would have been different if the area had expressway connections or was more desirable to the local real estate market.

The big postwar Huber success, Huber Heights, was in an underdeveloped, stagnant suburban area. The Hubers pretty much made that area boom. So expectations would have been similar for Newfields, assuming ongoing growth. But that was not the case as Dayton region stopped growing in 1970, entering an era of prolonged population stagnation and economic structural adjustment.

There was also the issue of the “housing project” character of Newfields.

The intention of Newfields was to have a mix of density and socioeconomic groups, and was developed with Federal assistance. This would have been a radical concept in the context of the conservative suburban real estate market of that era, possibly contributing to racial steering into the Trotwood area in the 1970s, due the local real estate community perhaps abandoning the area as suitable housing for whites. And the developer, Don Huber, had a history with partnering with black developers in urban renewal projects prior to Newfields. Was the thinking that Don Huber was going to develop a big Madden Hills instead of a new Huber Heights?

In short, maybe Newfields was unmarketable in the context of the Dayton regions racially and economically segregated housing market?

The Boaz Allen & Hamilton Evaluation & The Basic Flaw

An evaluation of the entire Title VII program by accountants Boaz, Allen, and Hamilton for HUD pretty much confirms some basic flaws in the entire program in finance, program design and management, and developer assumptions.

B,A, & H don’t say this but the fundamental demographic assumption underpinning Title VII was proven false; that urban areas would continued to grow during the 1970s due to rural depopulation and internal metropolitan area population growth. Instead internal population growth leveled off and rural out migration ceased. And, in 1970, no one forecast the economic disruption of the oil price shock of 1973-74, with the subsquent recession and inflation.

The B,A, & H study contains this sensitivity analyses for Newfields, showing negative cash flow for the duration of the project if some fundamental economic assumptions changed, which is what happened during the 1970s.




Timeline & Endgame

There where also conflicts between the first project manager and Huber, leading to the resignations of the both general manager and NCA manager.

Things did happen in Newfields. About $20,000,000 was spent on land acquisition, development, and management/consultant cots.

1972

Enabling legislation enacted for the New Community Authority.

1973

The New Community Authority was created, a new general manager hired, a revised master plan developed, ground breaking in September, and HUD project agreement in November. Dayton begins to annex the Panhandle. Newfields name and logo by Chermayeff.

1974

Revenue bonds floated for commercial building in the community center, construction of the first lake, recreation center, and housing units. Title VII program suspended by HUD in October, general manager fired and some staff suspended.

1975

Additional layoffs, NCA informs HUD the project is not viable, Newfields defaults on interest payments (picked up by HUD per agreement), Huber closes out his construction company for Newfields. (Don Huber remains in business in Dayton today, though, recently developing land in Beavercreek)

1976

NCA director resigns, HUD finds project not economically viable, accelerates principle and interest payments on bonds

1978

Foreclosure action by HUD and negotiated solution proposed.

What was proposed was that the property be disposed of three ways. Winters Bank (today’s JPMorgan Chase), which had loaned money to the defunct NCA, and HUD would self off the panhandle property and split the proceeds. HUD would sell the westernmost part of the property to the State of Ohio, which would convert the vacant land to a state park. HUD would sell the phase I property as three development areas. So, interesting to see here that the State of Ohio ends up holding part of the bag via its agreement to take some empty land off the hands of the Feds.

On the map...the Ohio state park in green, HUD/Winters sales and split in gray, and the remaining development areas sold off by HUD in red.



It's not known if the HUD/Winters Bank land ever was sold. It seems to be still for sale based on signs on the property.

1979

Sycamore State Park dedicated, November 1979. So it will be 40 years this fall.

All that’s left of the bulk of Newfields land are the empty farmlands and the wooded Wolf Creek valley of Sycamore State Park




And the aborted development in the HUD sell-off areas. The Newfields name was abandoned; Newfields Boulevard (the main road through the area) was renamed Sycamore Boulevard

And Newfield went down the local memory hole. What was to be a suburb of +/- 30,000, perhaps the most ambitous suburban developement of the 1970s, is totally forgotten (or there is a polite silence about it).

Yes, things were actually built here, and Daytonlogy will investigate this area as taste of what could have been, and as Dayton's only example of another 1960s-era suburban experiment, cluster housing.

Sources:

There are various publications on the Title VII program, both government and non-government. Some of these (like the Booze/Allen evaluation) specfically mention Newfields.

For Newfields itself:

The downtown library History Room has the original and final EIS, the two applications, and supporting info that was sent to HUD, as well as the new town newsletter.

There is also a book: The Politics of New Town Planning, The Newfields Ohio Story, by Fredrick Steiner, published by Ohio University press. 227 pages. The book is perhaps a bit one -sided as it tells the story from the perspective of Gerwin Rohrback, who was the first project manager or director, not so much from Huber, who declined to be interviewed. Rohrback was trained as a landscape architect at Harvard along with McHarg, but went into urban planning.